A man shouts at Rep. Chuck Edwards during a congressional town hall meeting on March 13, 2025 in Asheville, North Carolina/Sean Rayford/Getty Images
(ASHEVILLE, N.C.) — Republican Congressman Chuck Edwards, R-N.C., was confronted by angry constituents during a town hall meeting on Thursday night about President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s sweeping cuts across the government.
“How do you justify cuts to staff of the VA helping veterans, especially those with long term care needs,” asked one constituent who was met with a standing ovation from the raucous crowd in Asheville, North Carolina.
“So first of all, there have been no cuts to the staff at VA as of this point. Like him or not, Elon Musk has brought a lot of really smart people,” Edwards responded as he was met with a round of boos. Earlier this month, an internal VA memo indicated that the agency was preparing to lay off 80,000 from its workforce.
The interaction turned so contentious and hostile that Edwards had to be escorted out of the building.
“You don’t get to do this to us,” yelled another constituent.
Republican leadership has told their members to avoid in-person town halls like these after several members were grilled in their home districts.
Edwards, however, went against their advice on Thursday.
“”You see a lot of advice in Washington, D.C. from different folks saying, you know, ‘Republicans shouldn’t be out there doing town halls,’ and I’m thinking ‘why not?’ I love the people,” said Edwards.
The Trump administration is pushing forward with sweeping cuts with thousands of workers already having been laid off across the federal workforce – including Veteran Affairs, the IRS and the Department of Education.
Elon Musk split with the White House this week, suggesting that entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security could be on the chopping block next.
“The waste and fraud in entitlement spending, which is all of the, which is most of the federal spending is entitlements, so that’s like the big one to eliminate,” Musk said earlier this week.
Those words have left some voters very concerned, with Edwards taking the brunt end of the attacks Thursday night.
“What are you doing to ensure the protection of our Social Security benefits,” asked on constituent to a round of applause.
Replied Edwards: “I’m not going to vote to dissolve your Social Security. I’m not looking to disrupt Social Security at all.”
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday night that he plans to vote to keep the government open, signaling that there will almost certainly be enough Democratic votes to advance a House GOP funding bill before a shutdown deadline at the end of the day Friday.
In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer conceded a government shutdown is the worse outcome.
“While the Republican bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much much worse. For sure, the Republican bill is a terrible option,” he said. “It is not a clean CR” or continuing resolution, he said. “It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address far too many of this country’s needs, but I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power in a government shutdown is a far worse option.”
Schumer’s announcement amounted to a major break from House Democrats who voted nearly unanimously against the GOP funding bill earlier this week. Following Schumer’s remarks, top House Democrats released a joint statement reiterating that they remain “strongly opposed” to the GOP funding bill and say instead they support a four-week spending bill that would allow lawmakers to continue negotiating.
In his remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer argued Republicans are to blame for a “Hobson’s choice” that “brought us to the brink of disaster.”
“Unless Congress acts, the federal government will shut down tomorrow at midnight. I have said many times there are no winners in a government shutdown. But there are certainly victims: the most vulnerable Americans who rely on federal programs to feed their families to access medical care and to stay financially afloat,” Schumer said.
A decision to shut down the government would give President Donald Donald Trump and his senior adviser Elon Musk too much power to continue their federal worker cuts without discretion, he asserted.
“A shutdown would give Donald Trump and Elon musk carte blanche to destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now. Under as shutdown the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies programs an personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise they would ever be rehired,” Schumer said. “In short: a shut down would give Donald Trump Elon musk and DOGE the keys to the city state and country.”
Earlier Thursday, Schumer told his Democratic colleagues during a closed-door lunch that he would vote to clear a path for final passage of a House-GOP funding bill, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
That move would clear the way for Republicans to pass the bill with a simple majority.
Senate Democrats remained tight-lipped after huddling behind closed doors ahead of the fast-approaching government funding deadline.
“What happens in caucus, stays in caucus,” Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin said as she left the weekly lunch.
“Ask somebody else,” Democratic Sen. Cory Booker grumbled.
“I don’t have any comment,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Several Democrats have privately admitted they likely don’t have the votes to block a Republican proposal to keep the government funded through September, multiple sources told ABC News.
Tensions were on full display at the private meeting. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was yelling so loudly about the impact of a shutdown that reporters could hear her through the walls.
One Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity told ABC News, “We lost this two weeks ago … we should’ve been beating this drum for a month.”
At that point, only Democratic Sen. John Fetterman had publicly signaled he would vote to keep the government open.
Fetterman insisted that he won’t succumb to the posturing he sees from party leaders after he urged Republicans to keep government open in the past when Democrats controlled the upper chamber.
“Never, ever, ever, ever, ever shut the government down,” Fetterman told reporters at the Capitol on Thursday afternoon. “Democrat, Republican, independents, anyone. Never shut the government down. That’s one of our core responsibilities.”
Fetterman called the political pressure “spicy” — telling reporters that he’s remaining “consistent” in his principled belief not to vote for a shutdown.
Fetterman acknowledged that Republicans “are daring” Democrats to shut down the government, but the freshman Democrat worried that furloughed workers and people depending on federal services are the ones who are “really going to hurt.”
Now that Republicans cleared their bill through the House, Fetterman said he believes the battle is over.
Fetterman said the only time Democrats have leverage is if the Republicans need the votes in the House.
“The GOP delivered, and that effectively iced this out. And that forces us to say, ‘Are you going to shut the government down, or you are going to vote for a flawed CR?’ And now for me, I refuse to shut the government down.”
Schumer on Wednesday said Senate Democrats would not provide the votes needed for Republicans to advance the House-approved deal to fund the government through September. Instead, Schumer proposed a one-month stopgap measure to allow more time for appropriators to negotiate and complete full-year funding bills.
Republicans and the White House, meanwhile, are preemptively pointing the finger at Democrats if a shutdown ensues.
“If it closes, it’s purely on the Democrats,” President Donald Trump said as he took reporter questions while meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office on Thursday.
Trump was asked whether he’s step in to negotiate with Democrats and he said he would if Republicans requested it: “If they need me, I’m there 100%.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge temporarily paused the Trump administration’s “illegal” reductions in force and reinstated approximately 20,000 probationary government employees across 18 agencies who had been terminated.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar — an Obama appointee — concluded that the Trump administration failed to provide the legally required advanced notice before it tried to conduct “massive layoffs.” The judge also prohibited the Trump administration from conducting future mass firings without giving notice.
“When the federal government terminates large numbers of its employees, including those still on probation because they were recently hired or promoted, it must follow certain rules,” Bredar wrote.
The ruling applies to 18 of the federal agencies named as defendants in the case except for the Defense Department, the National Archives and the Office of Personnel Management.
The decision came in a case brought by 20 Democratic attorneys general who sued last week to block the firings and is separate from a California judge’s decision also dealing with probationary employees that was issued earlier Thursday.
Similar to the reasoning of the judge in the California case, Bredar wrote that he believes the government lied when it listed “performance” or other individualized reasons as justification for the layoffs.
“On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively,” he wrote. “It is simply not conceivable that the Government could have conducted individualized assessments of the relevant employees in the relevant timeframe.”
Bredar concluded that the states that sued are suffering irreparable harm by having to assist thousands of unemployed workers who were fired illegally.
“Lacking the notice to which they were entitled, the States weren’t ready for the impact of so many unemployed people,” he wrote. “They are still scrambling to catch up,” he wrote.
Bredar’s order will remain in place for two weeks, and he scheduled a hearing for March 26 to consider issuing a preliminary injunction, which is a longer-term measure.
Like the California case, Bredar did not rule that the Trump administration is not able to conduct mass firings; rather, the administration just needs to provide advanced notice when it conducts a reduction in force. While the order provides a reprieve for more than 20,000 government workers, the lifeline is temporary, even if the order is extended later this month.
The judge’s order came after a hearing Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Maryland.
The Democratic attorneys general argued that the Trump administration violated federal law with the firings by failing to give a required 60-day notice for a reduction in force, opting to pursue the terminations “suddenly and without any advance notice.”
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the states lack standing because they “cannot interject themselves into the employment relationship between the United States and government workers,” and that to grant the temporary restraining order would “circumvent” the administrative process for challenging the firings.
In separate earlier lawsuits, two other federal judges had declined to immediately block firings of federal employees or to reinstate them to their positions.
(WASHINGTON) — As Republicans brand the impending lapse in government funding the “Schumer Shutdown,” hundreds of thousands of federal workers are on edge as the Senate struggles to reach a deal ahead of Friday night’s looming deadline.
If a deal is not reached by 11:59 p.m. on Friday, March 14, federal workers could get furloughed without pay, though many will still be required to show up to work. Federal contractors are not required to work but are also not guaranteed backpay for the duration of a shutdown.
While the House voted on Tuesday to avert a shutdown, the bill passed was a unilateral GOP-led bill, with no Democratic support. The bill would need 60 votes to pass in the Senate, but with no Democratic input in the bill, it is unclear if there are enough votes to surpass the filibuster threshold.
“Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort, but Republicans chose a partisan path drafting their continuing resolution without any input any input from congressional Democrats,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor on Wednesday.
Still, President Donald Trump placed blame on Democrats Thursday morning, saying, “If it closes, it’s purely on the Democrats.”
“If there’s a shutdown, even the Democrats admit it will be their fault,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “And I’m hearing a lot of Democrats are going to vote for it, and I hope they do.”
Democrats were tight-lipped after leaving their weekly caucus lunch Thursday afternoon.
The shutdown would be the 21st federal government shutdown in U.S. history.
The federal workforce has experienced massive cuts since President Donald Trump took office in January and tapped billionaire Elon Musk to slash agencies and employees via the Department of Government Efficiency, which has caused thousands of workers to be laid off already.
With recent DOGE cuts causing layoffs across the federal workforce and among government contractors, it is unclear exactly how many people could be affected.
In the absence of guidance from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, it is unclear what parts of the government would close in the event of a shutdown.
While the OMB has typically notified federal workers ahead of the funding deadline, it removed previous, Biden-era guidance on shutdown plans from its website. The last time the United States faced a government shutdown threat was in December 2024, but members of Congress passed a stopgap bill to fund the government through March 14.
An OMB spokesperson has not responded to ABC News’ request for comment.
The good news is that because the deadline falls on a weekend, Congress has a couple extra days to strike a deal before most federal workers would be expected back at their desks.
Given the shutdown would begin on a Saturday, many would not really feel the impacts of a shutdown until Monday — or even later, when the next payroll is disbursed.
Some ‘mandatory’ programs will continue
Because payments from Social Security and Medicare are considered “mandatory” spending, they will continue to reach mailboxes, although agencies warn services could slow down.
The U.S. Postal Service, which uses its own revenue stream, won’t be affected either.
How could the military be affected?
About 1.3 million active-duty service members would still be required to work — but without pay until a funding agreement is passed. Typically, half of the 700,000 civilians in the Department of Defense workforce would also be required to work without pay, though by law, all civilians will be paid retroactively.
Generally, military contractors are not required to work and lose paychecks for the duration of the shutdown. However, those who already have had their contracts paid out by the Pentagon would continue to be paid.
Airport wait times could slow
The Transportation Security Administration has not formally weighed in on a shutdown, but if funding does run out for an extended period, wait times at airports could be longer.
The shutdown would come as 173 million people in the U.S. are expected to fly in March and April as spring break travel ramps up and could lead to longer than usual wait times.
There could also be an impact on hiring air traffic controllers.
Impact on Washington, D.C., national parks, and other services
By next week, trash could be piling up along the National Mall outside the White House as janitors working under contract are let go from the hourly jobs.
The Smithsonian Institution’s museums could also be affected, though it has not released whether it will close its museums if the government shuts down. Ahead of a possible shutdown in December, the Smithsonian Institution said it would keep its 21 museums and the National Zoological Park open until funding ran out, which was days after a shutdown deadline.
Typically, the National Park Service will release guidance ahead of a government shutdown but has not as of Thursday. In the past, if there is a funding lapse, all national parks have closed, and visitors should expect some services to be unavailable starting Monday, March 17.
ABC News’ Molly Nagle, Luis Martinez and Ayesha Ali contributed to this report.
Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The White House has quietly directed the FBI to halt the background check process for dozens of President Donald Trump’s top staffers, and has transferred the process to the Pentagon, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
The directive came last month after agents tasked with completing the background investigations had conducted interviews with a handful of top White House aides — a standard part of the background check process.
White House officials took the unusual step of ordering a stop to the background check investigations after they deemed the process too intrusive, sources said.
The procedure typically involves extensive interviews as well as a review of financial records, foreign contacts, past employment, and any potential security risks.
The White House instead decided to transfer the background check process for White House personnel to the Department of Defense for them to complete the checks, the sources said.
A former FBI official told ABC News the approach was “highly unusual.”
“If any of this is true, and if you apply it to whatever has been historically in the remit of the FBI, then it would be breaking that historic, long-standing precedent, and highly unusual,” a former FBI official told ABC News. “It would be highly unusual if that was taken away from the FBI now, for whatever reason, and given over to the DOD or another agency.”
Newly installed FBI Director Kash Patel told ABC News in a statement, “The FBI is relentlessly focused on our mission to rebuild trust, restore law and order and let good agents be good agents — and we have full confidence DOD can address any needs in the clearance process.”
Pentagon representatives referred questions on the matter to the White House.
The background check process was halted just days before Patel was confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 20, the sources said. The FBI is still conducting background investigations for positions requiring Senate confirmation, said the sources.
The Pentagon’s Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) carries out the bulk of background investigations for the federal government. The FBI carries out investigations for presidential appointees that require Senate confirmation as well as some other presidential appointees, including White House staff.
Historically, administrations have relied on the FBI background check process to ensure that the personnel they are hiring meet stringent ethical standards and don’t risk compromising national security.
“Background investigations for national security positions are conducted to gather information to determine whether you are reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the U.S.,” states the SF-86 form filled out by federal employees seeking security clearances and used for background investigations.
However Trump and many of his allies entered the White House with a bitter distrust of the bureau over what they argued was its “weaponization” through the prosecutions brought against him by former special counsel Jack Smith. His top political appointees in the opening month of the administration quickly moved to purge senior ranks of the FBI and DOJ from anyone tied to the Smith prosecutions and those they believed wouldn’t be politically loyal to Trump.
Among Trump’s first presidential actions was issuing a memorandum granting the highest level of security clearance to top White House officials who had not been fully vetted through the background check process.
That list of officials, while not publicly disclosed, included dozens of high-level White House staffers, according to sources familiar with the matter.
In that memorandum, Trump claimed there was a “backlog” in the security clearance process — an issue he blamed on President Joe Biden’s administration.
However, Trump’s transition team had refused for months to enter into an agreement with the Department of Justice under Biden to begin the background check process for individuals who would staff Trump’s incoming administration, which has contributed in part to the staffing issues they now face.
(WASHINGTON) — In a sneaky legislative maneuver tied into the effort to pass a funding bill and avert a government shutdown, House Republicans earlier this week successfully blocked Democrats from forcing votes and debate on President Donald Trump’s controversial tariffs.
It was a somewhat complicated move. But it worked — and demonstrated that Republicans are attempting to give cover to Trump and his implementation of sweeping tariffs on top U.S. trading partners that have roiled the stock market and stoked diplomatic tensions.
Had Democrats forced a vote and debate on the tariffs, it could have forced Republicans to go on the record on Trump’s tariff agenda — perhaps splitting with the president’s actions.
To tee up Speaker Mike Johnson’s temporary government funding bill, which the House passed Tuesday evening, the House first needed to pass what’s known as “a rule.” Buried inside the text of that rule was legislative language that prevents Democrats from forcing a potentially politically painful vote to end Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China.
How could Democrats compel a vote to end the tariffs?
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China by declaring illegal migration and fentanyl constituted a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act.
But, here’s the catch: under the NEA, Congress has the authority to move quickly to terminate that emergency declaration. Top House Democrats tried to do that last week.
But inside that rule, which passed along party lines and cleared the way for a vote on the House GOP’s stopgap funding bill, was a provision prohibiting lawmakers from forcing a vote to terminate the president’s border emergency and the resulting tariffs until at least January 2026.
The section reads, “Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.”
Democrats are blasting the move.
“Guess what they tucked into this rule, hoping nobody would notice? They slipped in a little clause letting them escape ever having to debate or vote on Trump’s tariffs. Isn’t that clever?” Rep. Jim McGovern, the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, said during floor debate Tuesday.
Congress could still approve a joint resolution to terminate the president’s national emergency. That would require the support of both rank-and-file GOP lawmakers and House Republican leadership, which is unlikely.
Democratic Rep. Don Beyer blasted the maneuver on “ABC News Live Prime with Linsey Davis” Tuesday.
Asked about the Republicans’ move and if Democrats have any way around it, Beyer said “not really,” calling it “tragic.”
“Once again, Trump has ignored existing law and the Constitution with all the tariffs he’s been announcing in recent weeks,” Beyer said. “He inherited on Jan. 20 the strongest economy this country has ever had. And we are rapidly heading towards recession right now just because of the extraordinary uncertainty in business decisions and capital investment and hiring decisions.”
(WASHINGTON) — As early as Friday, President Donald Trump is expected to invoke the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime law that allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation — as part of the efforts to carry out mass deportations, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The Department of Defense is not expected to have a role in the invoking of the authority, which could be used to deport some migrants without a hearing
There have been discussions inside the administration about invoking the act, multiple sources said.
Trump had previously said on the campaign trail that he planned to invoke the act.
The act hasn’t been used since World War II, when it was used to detain Japanese Americans.
During World War II, the Alien Enemies Act was partially used to justify the internment of Japanese immigrants who had not become U.S. citizens. The broader internment of Japanese-Americans was carried out under executive orders signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and not the Alien Enemies Act since the law does not apply to U.S. citizens.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary employees fired last month from a half dozen federal agencies.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to reinstate employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior and the Department of Treasury.
He also prohibited the Office of Personnel Management from issuing any guidance about whether employees can be terminated.
Alsup, a Clinton appointee, also ordered the immediate discovery and deposition of Office of Personnel Management senior adviser Noah Peters, who is aligned with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
The judge slammed the attorney representing the Trump Justice Department for refusing to make OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell available for cross examination and for withdrawing his sworn declaration, which the judge called a “sham.”
“The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge’s ability to get at the truth of what happened here, and then set forth sham declarations,” he said. “That’s not the way it works in the U.S. District Court.”
Lawyers representing a group of unions and interest groups asked Alsup to immediately reinstate thousands of probationary government employees who had been terminated allegedly at the direction of Ezell.
“There is a mountain of evidence before the court that OPM directed it. OPM’s actions were unlawful. The plaintiffs have standing, and there is a irreparable harm that is occurring every minute, and it is snowballing,” Danielle Leonard, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said.
Alsup suggested there might be a “need” for an injunction ordering the reinstatement of the employees based on the government’s recent conduct.
“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so, because, you know, cross examination would reveal the truth. This is the U.S. District Court,” he said. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”
If the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the federal government, they need to follow the process established in federal law, Alsup said.
“The words that I give you today should not be taken as some kind of wild and crazy judge in San Francisco has said that the administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” he said.
“The reason that OPM wanted to put this ‘based on performance’ was, at least in my judgment, a gimmick to avoid their Reduction in Force Act because the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance,” Alsup said, adding that the employees terminated for “performance” can’t even get unemployment insurance.
The judge also criticized the government for submitting a declaration from Ezell he believed to be false, then withdrew it and made Ezell unavailable for testimony.
“You withdrew his declaration rather than do that. Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me. I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years. And I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases — sham documents,” he said.
While the judge originally suggested the avenue to contest the firings could be administrative, he noted that the Trump administration is attempting to “decimate” and “cannibalize” the Merit Systems Protection Board by firing its head and special counsel Hampton Dellinger.
“I got misled on something that was no jurisdiction,” Alsup said.
The judge also ordered discovery “to get it at the truth because the government is saying one thing, and you’re saying another.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration reinstate thousands of probationary employees who were fired last month from a half dozen federal agencies.
U.S. District Judge Charles Alsup ordered the Trump administration to reinstate employees at the Veterans Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Treasury.
He also prohibited the Office of Personnel Management from issuing any guidance about whether employees can be terminated.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(LANSING, Mich.) — Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg announced Thursday morning that he will not run for U.S. Senate or governor in the state of Michigan, potentially clearing the way to possibly mount a run for president in 2028.
“I care deeply about who Michigan will elect as Governor and send to the U.S. Senate next year, but I have decided against competing in either race,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “I remain enthusiastic about helping candidates who share our values – and who understand that in this moment, leadership means not only opposing today’s cruel chaos, but also presenting a vision of a better alternative.”
Buttigieg’s announcement comes as Democrats grapple both with being locked out of power in Washington and the prospect of defending multiple key Senate seats in the 2026 midterms.
Buttigieg was expected to potentially announce a run for the seat being vacated by incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, who announced in January that he would not run for reelection.
