Vivek Ramaswamy to leave DOGE and announce run for Ohio governor, sources say
Saul Loeb/AFP/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Republican businessman Vivek Ramaswamy is planning to leave his new appointment leading The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and announce a run for Ohio governor, according to two sources familiar with the planning.
Ramaswamy is expected to announce his run for governor early next week, the sources said.
President-elect Donald Trump had tapped Ramaswamy to lead the newly created DOGE alongside Elon Musk, with the goal of slashing back government spending.
(WASHINGTON) — Since becoming President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard’s rosy posture toward Moscow has prompted some Democratic critics to suggest that she could be “compromised,” or perhaps even a “Russian asset” — claims the ex-Hawaii representative and Army officer has forcefully denied.
But former advisers to Gabbard suggest that her views on Russia and its polarizing leader, Vladimir Putin, have been shaped not by some covert intelligence recruitment as far as they know — but instead by her unorthodox media consumption habits.
Three former aides said Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022, regularly read and shared articles from the Russian news site RT — formerly known as Russia Today — which the U.S. intelligence community characterized in 2017 as “the Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”
While it was not clear to those former staffers whether or when she stopped frequenting the site, one former aide said Gabbard continued to circulate articles from RT “long after” she was advised that the outlet was not a credible source of information.
Doug London, a retired 34-year veteran intelligence officer, said Gabbard’s alleged penchant to rely at least in part on outlets like RT to shape her view of the world reflects poorly on her suitability to fulfill the responsibilities of a director of national intelligence.
“That Gabbard’s views mirror Russia’s narrative and disinformation themes can but suggest naïveté, collusion, or politically opportunistic sycophancy to echo whatever she believes Trump wants to hear,” London said, adding, “none of which bodes well for the president’s principal intelligence adviser responsible for enabling the [U.S. intelligence community] to inform decision-making by telling it like it is.”
Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team, said in a statement to ABC News that “this is false and nothing but a few former, conveniently anonymous, disgruntled staffers.”
“Lt. Col. Gabbard’s views on foreign policy have been shaped by her military service and multiple deployments to war zones where she’s seen the cost of war and who ultimately pays the price,” Henning said.
‘The Russian playbook’
Former congressional and campaign advisers said it was unclear to what extent Gabbard’s views were shaped by what she read in RT — and they emphasized that she would consume news from a wide range of outlets, including left-wing and right-wing blogs.
But over the past decade, Gabbard’s views on Russian aggression in Europe have evolved in a particularly dramatic fashion.
In 2014, when Russian troops annexed Crimea, Gabbard — then a first-term Democratic U.S. representative from Hawaii — released a statement advocating for “meaningful American military assistance for Ukrainian forces” and for the U.S. to invoke “stiffer, more painful economic sanctions for Russia.”
“The consequences of standing idly by while Russia continues to degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine are clear,” she wrote at the time. “We have to act in a way that takes seriously the threat of Russian aggression against its peaceful, sovereign neighbor.”
By 2017, however, her tune had changed. In a lengthy memo to campaign staff laying out her views on foreign policy, a copy of which was obtained by ABC News, Gabbard blamed the U.S. and NATO for provoking Russian aggression and bemoaned the United States’ “hostility toward Putin.”
“There certainly isn’t any guarantee to Putin that we won’t try to overthrow Russia’s government,” she wrote in the memo from May 2017, titled “fodder for fundraising emails / social media.”
“In fact, I’m pretty sure there are American politicians who would love to do that,” she wrote.
She also condemned the very sanctions she had previously supported, writing that, “historically, the U.S. has always wanted Russia to be a poor country.”
“It’s a matter of respect,” she wrote. “The Russian people are a proud people and they don’t want the U.S. and our allies trying to control them and their government.”
Gabbard’s sentiment in the 2017 memo is “basically the Russian playbook,” said Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO during the Obama administration.
“It’s dangerous,” said Daalder. “That strain of thinking is not unique to Tulsi Gabbard, but it is certainly not where you would think a major figure in any administration would like to be, intellectually.”
By 2022, at the outset of the latest Russia-Ukraine conflict, Gabbard suggested on X that Russia’s invasion was justified by Ukraine’s potential bid to join NATO, “which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border” — a narrative perpetuated by Russian propaganda channels, including RT, and denounced by the U.S. and NATO as “false.”
Gabbard’s messaging has at times aligned so closely with Kremlin talking points that at least one commentator on Kremlin state media has referred to her as “Russia’s girlfriend.”
A ‘nefarious effort’
The U.S. government first called out RT as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Kremlin in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, three years after Gabbard was elected to Congress.
This past September, the State Department wrote that it had evidence that “RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities.” The U.S. also issued fresh sanctions against executives at RT, including its editor-in-chief, who the U.S. accused of engaging in a “nefarious effort to covertly recruit unwitting American influencers in support of their malign influence campaign.”
The Justice Department also indicted two RT employees in September for their alleged role in what the DOJ called a scheme to pay right-wing social media influencers nearly $10 million to “disseminate content deemed favorable to the Russian government.”
In the decade since Gabbard arrived in Washington, experts say she has regularly promoted views consistent with those espoused in RT and other Russian propaganda channels.
In its 2017 assessment, for example, the U.S. intelligence community wrote that RT “has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks” and “routinely gives [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States.”
Gabbard has long been an outspoken supporter of Assange, arguing in a June 2024 appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher” that “[Assange’s] prosecution, the charges against him, are one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press, that we’ve seen, and freedom of speech.”
In Congress, Gabbard also co-sponsored a resolution calling on the federal government to “drop all charges against Edward Snowden,” the former contractor for the National Security Agency who supplied WikiLeaks with secret documents in order to expose what he called “horrifying” U.S. government surveillance capabilities.
RT frequently reports glowingly on Snowden, who has for more than a decade lived under asylum in Russia.
‘Undeniable facts’
But it is Gabbard’s framing of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that has most galvanized her critics in the national security sphere.
In March 2022, Gabbard posted a video to Twitter — now X — sharing what she said were “undeniable facts” about U.S.-funded biolabs in the war-torn country, claiming that “even in the best of circumstances” they “could easily be compromised” — a debunked theory regularly promoted by RT and other Kremlin propaganda channels.
Experts say RT and other Russian state-controlled news agencies have frequently capitalized on Gabbard’s public comments to support the biolab conspiracy theory and other disinformation, recirculating clips in which she repeats the Kremlin propaganda as evidence backing the false claims — effectively engineering an echo-chamber to magnify their propaganda machine.
Even so, Brian O’Neill, a former senior intelligence official with experience in senior policymaker briefing, expressed confidence that career intelligence officials can support Gabbard with “a constant barrage of new information” that will help shape her understanding of emerging world events.
“New appointees in such roles always bring preconceptions, but like her predecessors, she will be subject to comprehensive briefings grounded in solid evidence provided by individuals of high integrity and expertise,” O’Neill said.
“That said,” O’Neill cautioned, “Trump’s well-documented hostility and skepticism toward the [intelligence community] will shape the environment she steps into. If she adopts a similar posture, there’s a risk she might deprioritize intelligence community input or dismiss inconvenient truths presented to her.”
ABC News’ Shannon Kingston contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — An internal Border Patrol memo obtained by ABC News indicates that the Department of Homeland Security could request up to 10,000 U.S. military troops to help with efforts along the United States-Mexico border.
Defense officials, however, said this week that they have not heard of this figure, but did say they expected that there could be additional requests for troops.
“This is just the start. This is an initial step, and we are anticipating many further missions,” a senior Defense official told reporters.
The White House yesterday announced that 1,500 troops would be sent to help with operations at the southern border. Those roles, according to sources, would be to help with processing and surveillance.
The Customs and Border Protection planning memo also says the agency could request military infrastructure and technology.
CBP “may” utilize military bases as holding facilities for those who are arrested by Customs and Border Protection. Defense officials said that DOD had not received any requests for that kind of assistance but would evaluate such requests.
The Navy may also help with enforcing and carrying out coastal border operations, according to the document.
Two U.S. officials told ABC News on Thursday afternoon that the first of 500 Marines bound for the border would be shipping out in the coming hours and Army units would be in transit later in the day. A good number of the Army troops will be military police, but they will not be carrying out law enforcement duties, according to other officials.
In addition, four military cargo planes are being positioned for use in deportation flights — a C-17 and C-130 in San Diego and another C-17 and C-130 at Fort Bliss, Texas. So far only the C-17 to Ft. Deportation flights cannot begin until the State Department arranges details, which could take some time.
The U.S. Northern Command said in a news release Thursday that it is “aggressively” bolstering security at the border. About 1,500 soldiers and Marines are “immediately” deploying to the region to augment the approximately nearly 2,500 service members already there supporting CBP’s mission at the border.
“In a matter of days, we will have nearly doubled the number of forces along the border, effectively implementing the President’s intent while planning and posturing for expanded efforts to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States,” said Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, commander of the Northern Command.
The exact number of personnel will fluctuate as units rotate personnel and as additional forces are tasked to deploy once planning efforts are finalized, Northern Command said. These forces will support enhanced detection and monitoring efforts and repair and emplace physical barriers, the release said.
-ABC News’ Matt Seyler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at combatting antisemitism calls on institutions of higher education to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff” concerning “antisemitism” on college campuses.
Some legal scholars say they’re concerned about what this could mean for free speech on college campuses following more than a year of tension between students, faculty and administrators, while other experts noted that past McCarthy-era cases on communist activity could foreshadow the action’s legal standing.
The main thrust of the executive order’s purpose: “Jewish students have faced an unrelenting barrage of discrimination; denial of access to campus common areas and facilities, including libraries and classrooms; and intimidation, harassment, and physical threats and assault,” the order reads.
The fact sheet released by the White House on the new executive action threatens to “deport” college students in the United States on student visas and other “resident aliens” who expressed “pro-Hamas” or “pro-jihadist” views to “combat antisemitism on college campuses and in communities across the nation.” It calls for immediate action to be taken by the Department of Justice to “quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.”
“It provides like a signaling mechanism and an alibi for university administrators who … want to crack down on Palestinian activism, and now they can point to this executive order and use the government as a further pretext for their actions, even though they’re under no legal obligation to do what the executive order says,” said Darryl Li, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago, in an interview with ABC News.
He added that in his legal opinion, “They’re not under a legal obligation to spy on their students and to report their students to the government. They need not, and they should not, cooperate with this executive order.”
However, past Supreme Court cases — particularly during the McCarthy era and the Cold War — found it is within Congress’ power to deport a legal noncitizen resident for their views, advocacy or membership in a political group if it’s in the interest of national security, Nadine Strossen, a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told ABC News.
These limitations also impact noncitizens attempting to enter the country, Strossen noted.
“There was this distinction; it’s one thing to say, government may not prosecute you, you may not be subject to civil penalties, but you may still be subject to deportation because of this doctrine that Congress has what’s called plenary power, pretty much unchecked power, with respect to matters concerning who is able to be present in this country and not present in this country,” said Strossen.
On Oct. 7, 2023, the Palestinian terror group Hamas attacked Israel, killing roughly 1,200 people, and around 250 others were taken hostage, according to the Israeli government.
Israel then began its monthslong retaliation on the Gaza Strip, killing more than 47,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry.
The United States and the United Nations have not officially declared Israeli action to be a genocide. However, a UN Special Committee report found that Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza were consistent with genocidal tactics.
Protests and around-the-clock encampments concerning the war erupted at colleges and universities around the country.
Pro-Palestinian protesters called for an end to what they called an Israeli “genocide” against Palestinians and criticized the Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian territories. Pro-Israel protesters called for a return of the hostages or were in support of the Israeli effort against Hamas.
Colleges were thrust into the spotlight as they reckoned with charges of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and anti-Israeli, anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian sentiment amid the campus clashes.
Title IV, a law that bans discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any institution or program that receives federal funding from the U.S. Department of Education, became the center of dozens of investigations across the country.
Students and professors, many of whom were advocating for a ceasefire or pushing for an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, were subsequently arrested at universities and protests across the country. Some were suspended or expelled from their universities, others were arrested for trespassing or disturbing the peace, though many charges were later dropped.
Student protesters critical of the Israeli government’s military actions in Gaza continue to face accusations of antisemitism. But many of the student groups behind the protests – including Jewish activists – have said that individuals making inflammatory remarks do not represent their groups or their values concerning the war in Gaza.
Other Jewish or pro-Israel students around the country have spoken out about the pressures they too have faced, including renewed concerns about safety and acts of hate as law enforcement noted a spike in antisemitic incidents.
Trump’s executive order calls on higher education institutions to familiarize themselves with 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) — which defines “inadmissible” non-citizens for their relationship to alleged “terrorist activities.”
FIRE released a statement against Trump’s executive order, arguing that college campuses are intended to be places of learning and debate over a wide range of issues: “Advocates of ideological deportation today should not be surprised to see it used against ideas they support in the future.”
“This openness, albeit unpleasant or controversial at times, is a defining strength of American higher education,” an online statement read. “It’s one of the features attractive to students traveling from abroad who may hope to take part in the speech protections Americans have worked so hard to preserve. These are protections that they may very well be denied in their home countries.”
International students, or staff members with visas, are in a vulnerable situation because of their status, legal experts say.
“The potential loss of the visa is something that, of course, is devastating to international students. And if your visa is revoked on sort of security or terrorism grounds, it’s kind of like a lifelong — you’re basically banned from the United States for life, even if you have family who are U.S. citizens who live in the United States,” said Radhika Sainath, a senior staff attorney at Palestine Legal, who has advised hundreds of free speech or censorship cases concerning pro-Palestinian supporters.
Legal experts argue the order’s vague language is strategic to smear pro-Palestinian support — though the order doesn’t explicitly state concerns over support for “Palestinians” — which has long been painted as inherently antisemitic or terroristic.
“This is McCarthyist. It’s authoritarian,” said Sainath. “Students are really feeling the breadth already. Before Trump came in — from their own universities — students have been evicted from student housing and been homeless for minor, minor rule violations. They’ve been suspended, they’ve been expelled, they’ve lost scholarships, they’ve lost financial aid. The harm is really, really great, and many of these students are first-generation students. They are low-income students, and it can be quite harmful to be punished again for speaking out against a genocide.”
