Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman grilled at town hall about DOGE: ‘Where is this fraud?’
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Wyoming Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman tangled with a fiery town hall audience in her home state on Thursday night as she went back and forth with constituents over Elon Musk’s DOGE and cuts to federal spending.
At one point, Hageman sparred with a woman who said she was a retired military officer and Republican, who grilled the congresswoman over the evidence of alleged fraud that Musk and Republicans contend they have uncovered.
“Just to give you a little reference, I’m a retired military officer,” an unidentified woman said at one point in the town hall. “At 18, I rose my hand to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. … “And my question, having looked at Musk’s DOGE, you are a lawyer. Where is this fraud? Who? What company? What organization? What personnel are we going after right now?”
DOGE’s actions have come under fire, not only for recommending thousands of federal workers be fired, including many veterans but allegations, backed by President Donald Trump and the White House pertaining to what they say is massive fraud in government spending. The claims of fraud, which Trump outlined in his recent address to Congress, are not yet verifiable.
Hageman, fired back at the constituent, saying, “Oh my gosh, I’ll just start reading some of it. I’ll just start reading it right now, if you like me to. I’ll just focus on USAID spending right here.”
“I didn’t say spending, I said actual fraud,” the woman shouted back at Hageman.
“This is what it is,” Hageman retorted. “This is the spending associated with the fraud. This is the fraud. Spending is the fraud.”
“No, no, no,” the woman shouted back. “Go after specific companies or specific personnel that are committing fraud.”
“This is fraud. This is fraudulent spending,” said Hageman.
“No, it may be abusive spending, but it’s not fraud,” the woman replied.
“What I said was waste, fraud and abuse. Waste, fraud and abuse,” Hageman said back, before trying to give figures on USAID spending.
The same constituent then pressed Hageman over firings and whether or not they were actually making government more efficient: “Just because you’re firing somebody doesn’t mean that’s efficient because the job is still there. It still needs to be done,” she said.
“We will eliminate some of those jobs as well,” Hageman said. “Those jobs will be being eliminated. They don’t need to be done.”
At another point during the town hall, another woman pressed Hageman over what qualifies Musk to be making cuts to federal spending.
“You just described the cuts to the government right now as some kind of careful audit, but the cuts that DOGE has been making have been willy-nilly by someone who has never served in the government, has never run a nonprofit, who has 19-year-olds infiltrating computers and agencies and making decisions. So who is Musk accountable to? What qualifies him to be making these cuts? It’s not an audit,” she asked.
DOGE claims to have saved $115 billion but that full amount is unverifiable because there are only receipts for a portion of the claimed savings.
“As I said a moment ago, this is, it is an audit. It is the closest thing that we are ever going to get to zero-based budgeting in the federal government,” Hageman said.
“What I cannot understand, whether he is a billionaire, a millionaire, or someone who is, just as he says, tech support, all he is doing is going in and looking at every single agency and how the money is being spent. Do you think that you are entitled to know how your money is being spent?” she added.
(WASHINGTON) — Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy comes to the White House on Friday to ink a deal that would give the U.S. access to his country’s mineral resources — an agreement that President Donald Trump has cast a way to ensure American taxpayers get paid back for supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia.
“We’ll be digging. We’ll be dig, dig, digging. Dig, we must,” Trump said on Thursday, saying the U.S. would be “doing a substantial amount of work” in Ukraine “taking the rare earth, which we need in our country very badly.”
“It’ll be great for Ukraine,” he continued. “It’s like a huge economic development project. So, it’ll be good for both countries.”
Zelenskyy, meanwhile, has spoken about the deal in different terms — describing it as a means to an end: keeping U.S. backing.
If not the full-fledged military security guarantee he wants, Trump administration officials have said a U.S. economic investment on the ground in Ukraine could serve as a kind of barrier to a further Russian invasion.
“I will meet with President Trump,” the Ukrainian leader said on Wednesday. “For me, and for all of us in the world, it is crucial that America’s assistance is not stopped. Strength is essential on the path to peace.”
ABC News spoke to officials and analysts to break down what’s in the deal, and what the agreement could mean for Ukraine’s future and efforts to end the war after three grueling years.
What is — and isn’t — in the deal
Officials familiar with the negotiations say that under the terms of the deal, the U.S. and the Ukraine will work together to unearth deposits of valuable minerals and other natural Ukrainian resources.
Unlike the original proposal, this framework does not call for Kyiv to use the proceeds from the sale of those resources to pay the U.S. $500 billion — which the Trump administration previously characterized as “payback” for the roughly $183 billion spent in response to Russia’s invasion, according to the U.S. special inspector general in charge of overseeing Ukrainian aid.
Instead, the deal aims to create an investment fund for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction that will be jointly owned by both countries, they say, and that additional negotiations on the control of that fund and its operation will take place will take place after the initial deal is cemented.
Other factors will depend on the free market.
“The profitability of the fund is entirely dependent on the success of new investments in Ukraine’s resources,” said Gracelin Baskaran, the director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Meredith Schwartz, a research associate at the same program.
“Therefore, the response of private industry is key to the success of the fund and will determine how much value the United States ultimately derives,” they added.
But officials say the Ukrainians also made concessions. Officials say Kyiv initially wanted the terms of the deal to include concrete security guarantees for Ukraine — something the current framework lacks.
“However, the idea is that with joint U.S.-Ukraine investment in the nation’s resources, the United States will continue to have a stake in Ukraine’s security, stability, and lasting peace and therefore be incentivized to uphold and defend Ukrainian security,” Baskaran and Schwartz said.
If it proves successful, Baskaran and Schwartz say the U.S. may boost its mineral security — but that the results could take decades to come to fruition.
“Mining is a long-term effort — so the United States may not yield benefits for another 20 years,” they said.
Trump himself has acknowledged the uncertainty.
“You know, you dig and maybe things aren’t there like you think they’re there,” he said on Thursday.
A different tune from Trump
After repeatedly bashing Zelenskyy in recent days, Trump softened his tone on Thursday.
Asked if he still believed Zelenskyy was a dictator — an assertion he made just over a week ago — Trump answered, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” before brusquely moving on to the next questioner.
Later in the day, Trump also offered praise for Zelenskyy and Ukrainian fighters’ valor on the battlefield.
“We’ve given him a lot of equipment and a lot of money, but they have fought very bravely. No matter how you figure it, they have really fought,” he said. “Somebody has to use that equipment. And they have been very brave in that sense.”
Ukrainian officials who have been urging Zelenskyy to accept the mineral pact are likely to see this turnaround as proof positive for their main argument — that signing off on Trump’s deal will boost ties between the Trump administration and Kyiv, while drawing out negotiations would further sour the president’s view of Zelenskyy.
But whether any bonhomie will last is unclear.
“Critical mineral resource access is the latest arena for Trump to focus his transactional methods of diplomacy,” Baskaran and Schwartz argue. “But the viability of the deal remains to be seen as tensions continue to rise between the two world leaders.”
Trump is not known for his patience, and some U.S. officials anticipate slow-moving results from the agreement could leave Trump frustrated.
Or, if the two clash during their high-stakes White House meeting, the president could become embittered toward Zelenskyy again even sooner where Trump is likely to spotlight potential benefits the mineral agreement holds for the U.S. and the Ukrainian leader is likely to push for additional American security guarantees.
But the president shared only positive predictions on the eve of the meeting.
“I think we’re going to have a very good meeting,” he said. “We’re going to get along really well. Okay. We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him.”
John E. Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, argues the very fact that the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump is taking place is a good sign for Ukraine.
“Zelenskyy’s visit highlights how far he has come from two weeks back, when Trump spoke of seeing Putin as many as three times in the near future, or even last week, when senior Russian and US officials were meeting in Riyadh,” he said. “Yet now it is Zelenskyy, not Putin, in the Oval Office.”
The other negotiations
While much of the public focus has shifted toward negotiations over the mineral deal in recent weeks, talks ultimately aimed at ultimately ending the war in Ukraine have quietly continued on a separate track.
On Thursday, American and Russian officials met in Istanbul for more than 6 hours to discuss increasing staff at their respective embassies in Moscow and Washington — a move Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously said was essential for furthering potential areas cooperation between the countries, including resolving the war in Ukraine.
Officials from sides reported a favorable outcome from the meeting, and predict that an larger diplomatic footprint could create momentum for peace talks and a potential summit between Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As a chorus of European leaders have tried to encourage Trump to include American security guarantees for Ukraine to enforce a truce with Russia, the president has continued to say he trusts Putin to hold up his end of a deal.
“I’ve known him for a long time now,” Trump said. “I don’t believe he’s going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back. When we make a deal, I think the deal is going to hold.
But ahead of his meeting with the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, he added a potentially important caveat.
“You know, look, it’s, trust and verify, let’s call it that,” he said.
Clifford D. May, founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues it’s imperative that the president is clear-eyed in his dealings with Putin.
“As President Trump attempts to negotiate a halt to Russia’s war against Ukraine, it’s not unreasonable for him to show respect for Mr. Putin (as he has been) if he believes that will make Mr. Putin more likely to agree to concessions,” he said.
“But it’s imperative that President Trump harbor no illusions about Mr. Putin – about his character, ambitions, ideology, and his abiding hatred for American greatness,” May added.
(ANNAPOLIS, Md.) — The Navy said it canceled a speaking engagement at its academy in Annapolis, Maryland, with popular podcaster and author Ryan Holiday because it wanted to steer clear of what it saw as political content aimed at young naval officers.
Holiday, who speaks frequently about the value of stoicism and has written several books, including “The Obstacle is the Way,” said he had planned to speak to the midshipmen about the “pursuit of wisdom.”
Holiday said he shared his briefing slides in advance with the Navy, which included a reference to the New York Times’ story about the U.S. Naval Academy’s recent decision to pull some 381 books from its library. The Navy asked him to omit the reference, and Holiday said he refused.
“The idea that there are topics that are off limits or that they can’t handle is absurd on its face,” Holiday told ABC News.
When asked why Holiday’s speech was canceled, the Navy said it opted to make a “schedule change that aligns with its mission of preparing midshipmen for careers of service to our country.”
“The Naval Academy is an apolitical institution,” it added. “It is focused on developing midshipmen morally, mentally and physically in order to cultivate honorable leaders, create a culture of excellence and prepare future officers for military service.”
Holiday said the Navy hadn’t given him guidance in advance of the speech and that he didn’t see his presentation as overtly political because he wasn’t telling the midshipmen how to vote. He said it shouldn’t have been a surprise to the Navy that he’d want to discuss current events.
“I assumed we had the basic … standards of academic independence,” Holiday said.
The Navy pulled the books after President Donald Trump ordered the military to stop “promoting, advancing, or otherwise inculcating the following un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist, and irrational theories.”
Included in the list of books removed from the academy library is “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou and “How to be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi.
A separate visit to the academy by filmmaker Ken Burns also was canceled recently, although the cancelation does not appear to be tied to a dispute over content. A spokesperson for Burns said the award-winning documentarian had planned to meet privately with faculty and staff later this month and now hopes to visit the school in October instead.
(WASHINGTON) — Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said in a message to staff on Friday that he’s “expanded” the scope of his investigation into the office’s handling of cases stemming from the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — and likened them to the government’s internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, according to an email obtained by ABC News.
Martin, whose nomination is still pending confirmation by the Senate, has dubbed his investigation the “1512 Project,” referring to the felony obstruction charge used against hundreds of Capitol attack defendants that was later narrowed by the Supreme Court.
“We have contacted lawyers, staff and judges about this — and sought their feedback,” Martin wrote in his email. “One called the bi-partisan rejection of the 1512 charge the ‘greatest failure of legal judgement since FDR and his Attorney General put American citizens of Japanese descent in prison camps — and seized their property.’ I agree and that’s why we continue to look at who ordered the 1512 and why. A lot to do.”
Fifteen of the 16 judges at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, including several Trump appointees, previously upheld the application of the 1512 charge for Jan. 6 defendants whose conduct, prosecutors argued, crossed the line beyond simple misdemeanor trespassing offenses.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, also joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in dissenting from the court’s majority opinion to say that the obstruction of an official proceeding charge was properly applied to describing Congress’ certification of the presidential election.
Martin further told staff in his email that he has “been asked to look into leaks that took place during the January 6th prosecutions,” which he claimed were “used by the media and partisans as misinformation.”
“It was bad all around. (One participant said she believed the media was in a frenzy for attention like during the OJ Simpson trial),” Martin said.
The email is just the latest in a series of controversial actions by Martin that has thrown one of the most important and high-profile U.S. attorney’s offices in the country into turmoil.
Martin, a “Stop the Steal” promoter who represented several defendants charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, has leveled numerous public threats to investigate Democratic lawmakers and sent menacing letters to critics of President Donald Trump.
Among those who have received letters from Martin in which he suggested their actions were under investigation by his office are Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va.
Earlier this week, ABC News confirmed Martin sent an informal letter to President Joe Biden’s younger brother James Biden, inquiring about the sweeping preemptive pardons he and his wife received in the waning hours of the Biden presidency.
