Illustration by Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Thursday pulled President Donald Trump’s nomination of Dr. David Weldon to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, multiple sources told ABC News.
The withdrawal came just before Weldon was to appear for his confirmation hearing Thursday morning before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, where he was expected to be grilled on his past views questioning vaccine safety.
The development was first reported by Axios.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — A former Tennessee lawmaker who was once represented by White House Counsel David Warrington said he received a pardon from President Donald Trump after pleading guilty to an illegal campaign finance scheme in 2022.
The White House has not said anything publicly about former Sen. Brian Kelsey’s pardon, but sources familiar with the matter told ABC News that Trump signed the pardon paperwork on Tuesday.
The White House counsel’s office normally reviews presidential pardons, and it was not immediately clear if Warrington recused himself from his former client’s pardon.
Warrington was recused from the Kelsey matter and was not involved in any way, a White House official told ABC News.
Kelsey was two weeks into his 21-month prison sentence when he received the pardon. Bureau of Prisons records reflected that Kelsey was no longer in custody at FCI Ashland as of Tuesday.
According to federal prosecutors, Kelsey illegally funneled tens of thousands of dollars from his state campaign committee to a federal committee to fund his failed 2016 congressional campaign. He originally pleaded guilty to one felony before later withdrawing his plea while he was represented by Warrington.
“Defendant Brian Kelsey entered his plea agreement hastily with an unsure heart and confused mind,” Warrington wrote in a court filing, arguing Kelsey was confused when he decided to plead guilty after his father died and his wife gave birth to twins.
“The fog and sleep deprivation of taking care of his newborns while dealing with everything else in his life led to his confused mind. Once his mind began clearing, Mr. Kelsey acted quickly to seek to withdraw his plea,” he wrote.
But U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw denied the request, finding that Kelsey – who attended law school and practiced law – understood his actions when he initially pleaded guilty. The Supreme Court denied his request to hear his case on in the summer of 2024. He was eventually sentenced to 21 months in prison, though he was allowed to delay serving his sentence while his appeal played out.
Kelsey reported to his minimum-security prison on Feb. 24, spending about two weeks behind bars before Trump issued his pardon. “Praise the Lord most high! May God bless America, despite the prosecutorial sins it committed against me, President Trump, and others the past four years. And God bless Donald J. Trump for Making America Great Again!” Kelsey wrote on social media.
(WASHINGTON) — Calling it the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” the Environmental Protection Agency rolled out sweeping moves Wednesday aimed at walking back environmental protections and eliminating a host of climate change regulations, some decades in the making.
Taken together, the agency’s actions indicate a wholesale reorientation of the agency away from government support of renewable energy, carbon reduction programs and air, water and soil regulations while threatening to gut the government’s past scientific findings at the core of most climate regulations.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin rolled out over two dozen policy announcements, through a series of press releases and public statements. The list of proposed changes includes rolling back emission regulations on coal, oil and gas production and a promise to work across the federal agencies to reevaluate the government finding that determined that greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane, not only heat the planet but are a threat to public health.
“We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” Zeldin wrote in a statement on EPA’s website.
The backlash from the environmental community was swift.
“If they get their way, they will wreck our air, our water, burn down our homes, and hand future generations an unlivable climate. From moms in the 1970s who wanted their kids to be able to play outside without getting asthma to young people in the 2020s who went on hunger strike to force Congress to pass a climate bill, generations of Americans have fought and sacrificed for these regulations,” the youth-led climate advocacy group Sunrise Movement wrote in response.
“Corporate polluters are celebrating today because Trump’s EPA just handed them a free pass to spew unlimited climate pollution, consequences be damned. The Biden administration put the first-ever carbon limits on dirty coal and gas plants, cutting toxic air pollution, saving lives, and avoiding $270 billion in climate damages. Rolling back these protections is a direct attack on the communities that have been forced to breathe toxic air from polluting plants for decades,” climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action Senior Power Sector Policy Lead Charles Harper wrote in a statement.
Changes to the rules and regulations announced Wednesday will still have to go through the federal regulatory process and will likely have to stand up to numerous court challenges from environmental groups. However, today’s flurry of actions makes good on the president’s campaign promises to gut many of the long-established rules and regulations initially created to protect our water, air, soil and human health.
Endangerment finding
One of the most significant announcements was that the EPA would engage in the”formal reconsideration” of the agency’s endangerment finding.
In 2009, the EPA issued an “endangerment finding” determining that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and others, pose a danger to public health and the environment. This ruling, prompted by the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, gave the EPA the legal authority to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This finding represents the legal underpinning for many regulations concerning greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions standards for vehicles, power plants and oil and gas production — all of which Zeldin said the agency would also reevaluate as it reconsiders the finding.
If the Trump Administration decides the endangerment finding is no longer applicable and that determination survives court challenges, 16 years’ worth of emissions regulations, including those enacted under President Biden, could be jeopardized.
Vehicle emissions standards
Zeldin also took aim at Biden-era vehicle standards, saying the EPA would terminate the tailpipe emissions regulations announced by the previous administration last year.
While the Trump Administration has repeatedly referred to these standards as an EV “mandate”, there was no such mandate put in place by the Biden administration.
The Biden Environmental Protection Agency implemented tailpipe emissions standards last March that established an average of allowed emissions across a vehicle manufacturer’s entire fleet of offered vehicles. The standards would have only impacted cars from model years 2027 to 2032 and allowed for a range of usable technologies, including fully electric cars, hybrids and improved internal combustion engines. These standards applied to light and medium-duty vehicles. A separate set of standards were released for heavy-duty vehicles.
As Zeldin’s EPA announced reconsideration of these standards, it released a statement saying, the regulations imposed, “$700 billion in regulatory and compliance costs,” alleging they took away, “Americans’ ability to choose a safe and affordable car for their family and increases the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver.”
Impacts on coal
Another of the policies being reconsidered is the “Clean Power Plan 2.0,” which targets emissions from coal and natural gas power plants.
At the time, the agency claimed the new regulations would represent a massive reduction in pollution and save hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and public health costs as it would force power plants to control 90% of their carbon pollution through methods like carbon capture and tightened the emissions standards for toxic metals like mercury that are released from coal-fired plants.
In one of many press releases sent on Wednesday, the EPA called the rules “overreaching” and “an attempt to shut down affordable and reliable electricity generation in the United States, raising prices for American families, and increasing the country’s reliance on foreign forms of energy.”
Social cost of carbon
Also among the 31 actions announced by the agency is a revisiting of the “social cost of carbon,” with Zeldin saying the previous administration used the metric to “advance their climate agenda in a way that imposed major costs.”
In 2010, the EPA under then-President Barack Obama released its first estimate for what it called the “social cost of carbon,” or SC-CO2. This metric meant to capture in dollars the long-term damage created by carbon dioxide emissions each year.
It estimated, in effect, the cost of damages related to climate change, including changes in agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from added flood risk, changes in energy costs and other considerations.
The Biden Administration later updated the estimate process to include consideration of additional factors, leading to an increase in the national SC-CO2. In December 2023, the Biden EPA updated the metric at a dramatically higher rate — $190 per ton of carbon, compared to the administration’s earlier estimate of $51 per ton.
“To Power the Great American Comeback, we are fully committed to removing regulations holding back the U.S.,” Zeldin said in the announcement.
(WASHINGTON) — Joe Murphy, whose position as a management and data analyst was eliminated when the Department of Education laid off nearly 50% of its workforce Tuesday evening, said on Wednesday that he and his colleagues are filled with a sense of “sadness” and “disbelief.”
“We got the sense that we were disposable in a certain sense, especially those of us in the data space,” he told ABC News.
According to Murphy, everyone he worked with directly had their positions terminated.
The 56-year-old from Dumfries, Virginia, said he has spent almost 20 years in education data, previously working for the National Center for Education Statistics, in addition to serving as a contractor for a formula grant data collection space in the Education Department.
In the Department of Government Efficiency’s latest efforts to cut federal costs, some 1,315 Education Department employees were affected by the “reduction in force” notices, leaving 2,183, according to senior officials at the agency.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the job cuts on Wednesday, referring to them as “a promise made and a promise kept.”
“There is no reason that we should be spending more than most developed countries in the world. And our education system is failing,” she added. “The president wants to return education back to the states, empower those closest to the people to make these very important decisions for our children’s lives. And this is a first step in that process.”
Though Murphy said the terminations were expected, he said the experience has still been disconcerting.
“Nothing surprises me anymore, but it’s still kind of shocking and impactful,” he said.
“I do not know where I go forward from here … I am suddenly belched out into a job market that has been at the very same time, severely constricted and also completely flooded with people who have a similar skill set to mine. I’m 56 years old,” Murphy continued, adding that he has spend “more than a third of [his] entire life” in this line of work.
“Felt really weird to wake up this morning and be like, wow, what am I gonna do?” he said.
Murphy emphasized how the most important and rewarding aspect of his job, which falls under the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, was serving the nation’s children.
“It’s really for the kids, and what we do is for the kids. And so many of us feel that way,” he said, adding that he “wish[es] things went differently.”
“That’s the thing I have the greatest sense of pride in. I would think, you know, doing a good job and getting the data to the programs in the right timely fashion — good, accurate data, so that they can make decisions on behalf of, you know, 100,000 schools in this country and 18,000 districts and 50-something state education agencies,” he explained.
When asked if he believes children will continue to receive needed educational benefits and services, Murphy projected a bleak outlook and expressed his belief that “we’re politicizing the department of education and the education of our students.”
He also expressed concern over whether his work will even be able to continue.
“So, all that work that we did for the programs, I don’t know who’s going to do it now or be able to do it. The folks in the programs were already overwhelmed. They were so grateful to us for the work that we did for them in distilling down this massive amount of data to a few answers with groundwork that they laid together with us,” he said. “So, I don’t know where that’s going to get done.”
Murphy is a member of the American Federation of Government Employees union, which he says he joined only recently due to the change in administrations from Biden to Trump.
“When it seemed to be going south and everybody was taking over after the inauguration, I said, okay, well, I’m gonna go ahead and sign up,” he said, explaining how he was affected by the “last two months of being led by threats and intimidation.”
“I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that the federal government needed some improvements and some restructuring to some degree,” Murphy acknowledged. “But how you do it really matters, and you can’t just … the federal government is not a private business, and you can’t run it that way.”
U.S. President Donald Trump and White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk sit in a Tesla Model S on the South Lawn of the White House on March 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s controversial showcase of Tesla cars in front of the White House has set off alarms around Washington over what some see as an infomercial for the billionaire’s car company on high-profile government property.
Ethics experts ABC News spoke with are raising concerns that the Tuesday event could blur or even cross the lines of what’s considered proper conduct by elected officials.
“It could be reasonably assumed by some that the White House and the president’s endorsement is up for sale,” William F. Hall, an adjunct professor of political science at Webster University, said Wednesday.
The event happened hours after Trump posted he was going to buy a Tesla following the company’s mass protests and a major decline in stock value and sales across the world. When reporters asked Trump about the optics of the event, he didn’t deny that he was doing it to help Musk’s bottom line.
“I think he’s been treated very unfairly by a very small group of people. And I just want people to know that he can’t be penalized for being a patriot. And he’s a great patriot, and he’s also done an incredible job with Tesla,” he told reporters, adding that Musk hadn’t asked him for anything. Musk later thanked Trump on X.
Hall, who previously served in the Justice Department as a field director during the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, said it is not uncommon for presidents to lend support to American companies but that it’s usually done outside of the White House at other locations such as at a factory or an office space.
“As the elected leader of our nation, I think it would not be at all difficult for the average American who might have viewed that to reasonably interpret that he was endorsing this product,” he said.
Delaney Marsco, Director of Ethics for the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit legal group, told ABC News that ethics laws primarily focus on executive employees serving under the president but not on the president himself.
She said that was because lawmakers who wrote those rules did not anticipate any president disregarding longstanding standards of what’s expected and acceptable.
“One of the things we have relied on in ethics norms are the norms about what is right. President Trump doesn’t abide by those norms,” she said.
Marsco added that Musk’s vaguely-defined role as a presidential adviser, as well as his being the CEO of tech companies that do business with the government, also raised serious concerns given Tuesday’s event. She noted she expected that Musk’s behavior wasn’t being questioned just on the political front.
“I’m sure shareholders are concerned about this line being blurred, and it’s equally confusing for the public,” she said.
Tesla’s stock dived over the last couple of weeks but saw a slight increase after Trump checked out Musk’s vehicles at the White House. Hall noted that Tesla and Musk have been on the receiving end of protests due to his actions and words since he got more involved with Trump.
The president claimed he was going to write a check for one of the cars full price and provide it for the White House staff, however, it was not clear as of Wednesday evening if that actually happened.
The ethics experts warned that the move may set an unprecedented standard for future presidents, one that diminishes the objectivity of the executive branch.
“The federal government isn’t in the business of endorsing products to buy. The federal government is supposed to be making policy decisions that better the lives of the American public not making endorsements of the president’s friends or the president’s donors,” Marso said.
Marsco added that there is nothing stopping Trump or future presidents from making these unethical decisions, however, those ethics laws governing the executive branch can be strengthened by lawmakers, especially if there is outcry from the public.
“When you start talking about ethics some people don’t understand the ethic laws and what they entail … but the public isn’t stupid,” she said. “They know what a conflict of interest is and what the government is supposed to do for them. The public knows this is not the right use of the office of a president, to endorse a product that is a friend and a major political donor.”`
(SILVER SPRING, Md.) — The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is preparing to lay off more than 1,000 workers as part of the Trump administration’s mandate for agencies to prepare “reductions in force,” according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
The cuts are fueling concerns that NOAA’s ability to deliver lifesaving services, such as weather forecasting, storm warnings, climate monitoring and fishery oversight, will be hampered. The concerns are especially acute as hurricane and disaster season looms.
NOAA was “already significantly understaffed, so this is devastating. This is beyond a s—show,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Ca., the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, said in an interview with ABC News. “It means we’re going to be less safe. It means there will be all sorts of collateral damage.”
A person familiar with staffing levels at NOAA told ABC News that the agency is already down about 2,000 people since January as a result of the first round of the Trump administration’s cuts, the “Fork in the Road” offer and regular retirements. In January, this source said, staffing was at about 12,000 employees, which is described as average. With an additional 1,000 cuts looming, the agency would be down 25% since the start of the year.
“There is no way to absorb cuts of this magnitude without cutting into these core missions,” Huffman said. “This is not about efficiency and it’s certainly not about waste, fraud and abuse. This is taking programs that people depend on to save lives and emasculating them.”
NOAA’s reduction in force plan is currently in the Department of Commerce and is due to be delivered to the Office of Management and Budget this week, sources familiar said. It’s unclear when exactly the resulting cuts will be announced, but sources said it could be as early as Friday.
“NOAA was required to submit their cut plan today, and they were asked to eliminate entire functions, not just individual personnel. The number of terminations is more than 1,000, and that is on top of the probationary folks who’ve already been let go,” Huffman said. “Our ability to forecast flood conditions and tornadoes is reduced, and in a matter of days, it’s going to be significantly reduced, as we head into fire season, which is almost all year round now in the West.
“Our ability to forecast red flag weather conditions for wildfires is significantly reduced,” he added. “Literally, the people that run these systems are being terminated. The people that run these offices where these programs do this critical work are being terminated.”
Between the already announced and looming cuts, plus the funding battle that could reduce the agency’s budget, a source familiar said NOAA “could be at a breaking point,” adding that amid all the talks of reducing costs, taxpayers only pay 6 cents per day for all of the services provided by the agency.
“More importantly, the services provided by NOAA wouldn’t be as robust or functional — or maybe even exist at all,” the source said.
(WASHINGTON) — Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that Senate Democrats will not provide the votes to pass the House-approved deal to fund the government, heightening the alert for a potential government shutdown at the end of the week.
If a deal isn’t struck to bring over some Democratic support, the government will shut down at the end of the day Friday.
Two days is a long time on Capitol Hill, so there is still plenty of time for a deal to emerge, but Schumer’s statement certainly heats up shutdown fears.
Schumer pointed the finger at Republicans for leaving Democrats out of the funding negotiations.
“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,” Schumer said on the floor Wednesday.
Unlike in the House, where Republicans can act unilaterally to pass legislation, the Senate needs Democrats to pass a funding bill.
At least 60 votes are needed for a funding bill to clear key procedural votes, called cloture votes, which means at least seven Democrats would be needed to pass any funding bill through the Senate.
Schumer made clear on Wednesday that right now, Democrats won’t provide those votes.
“Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the House CR,” Schumer said.
For several days, Democrats have been grappling behind the scenes about whether to furnish the requisite votes to pass the funding bill approved by House Republicans Tuesday. On the one hand, many Democrats say this bill gives President Donald Trump and Elon Musk unilateral power to continue slashing the federal government. On the other, some Democrats understand that a decision to vote against the bill could likely force an undesirable government shut down.
After days of closed-door meetings and tight-lipped interaction with the press, Schumer said Democrats will instead advocate for a 30-day clean stopgap bill meant to buy more time for appropriators to complete full-year funding bills.
“Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass,” Schumer said.
Just because that’s what Democrats want, doesn’t mean it’s a vote Democrats will get.
They are the minority in the Senate, and they do not have control over what bills are brought to the Senate floor for a vote. There’s nothing that Democrats can do to force a vote in the Senate on a 30-day clean stopgap measure, but they may be able to wheel and deal with Republicans to get a vote on it.
With Schumer saying that Democrats are not ready to proceed, the Democrats hold the cards. If they do not furnish the votes to clear this procedural hurdle and get on to the bill, things could be at a stand still, and a shut down could be on the horizon.
Meanwhile, House Democrats are urging their Senate colleagues to vote no on the funding bill they almost unanimously opposed when it passed through the House on Tuesday evening.
“House Democrats are very clear. We’re asking Senate Democrats to vote ‘no’ on this continuing resolution, which is not clean, and it makes cuts across the board,” said Vice Chair Ted Lieu, flanked by five other members of House leadership at a press conference at the Issues Conference at the Lansdowne Resort. Lieu’s comments came before Schumer pushed for a 30-day clean stopgap bill.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that conversations are “continuing” with Schumer all the way down to rank-and-file Democratic members about keeping the Democratic caucus united against the bill.
“The House Democratic position is crystal clear as evidenced by the strong vote of opposition that we took yesterday on the House floor opposing the Trump-Musk-Johnson reckless Republican spending bill,” Jeffries said.
Late Wednesday, Democratic House leaders called on House Republicans to return from recess to Washington to “immediately” take up a short-term measure that would fund the government through April 11.
ABC News’ Isabella Murray contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Environmental Protection Agency staff members across the country have been told by supervisors they are prohibited from communicating with grantee partners they are supposed to supervise and monitor, according to multiple sources inside the EPA and others working directly with the agency.
And without notice, many nonprofit organizations and other EPA grant recipients have found themselves frozen out of accessing their federal funds without notice or explanation.
“I have never experienced anything like this,” said Melissa Bosworth, who runs a small nonprofit organization based out of Denver that had been administering an EPA award approved by Congress last May for tribal, school and local municipalities in the mountain west.
Nonprofit leaders from across the country with EPA grants and contracts describe weeks of a communication blackout. Bosworth said her local contacts at the EPA’s Region 8 office stopped responding within days of President Donald Trump’s inauguration. She and her partnering organization, Montana State University, noted they reached out repeatedly to their local point of contact but got no response.
ABC News reached out to the EPA’s Region 8 office for comment.
Then, at the end of February, she received formal notice that her grant had been terminated. The purpose of the grant was to help cities, tribes and schools in rural Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas gain access to federal funding for projects focused on clean drinking water, disaster preparedness, emissions reduction and food security.
The termination notice, reviewed by ABC News, suggested her contract might have been canceled because of the president’s executive order to shutdown diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
“It was about helping fight disparities on behalf of small cities and rural schools,” she said. “So often it is the big universities and big institutions that have the expertise to get funds. I worry the disparity for rural America, tribes and the smallest communities will get worse.”
Bosworth has a son with autism, and her business partner gave birth last month to a baby with severe medical challenges. They both have now been laid off.
“We thought there was a good chance they would try to terminate our contracts, but without any actual communication, we did not have anything formal to fight against,” Bosworth told ABC News. “We did not know what was real, if we could spend money or how to ask questions. I wonder if the ambiguity was part of the strategy.”
While the communication blackout appeared to be sweeping in multiple regional offices and consequential for grant recipients, it did not seem to apply to all EPA staff nationwide.
Even before receiving the termination notice, Bosworth said she struggled to access her EPA grant. She and dozens of other nonprofit leaders from California to Tennessee said they have been frozen out of the government payment system off and on, without explanation or notice.
In an EPA regional office in Philadelphia, staff members described being told in meetings with EPA political appointees based in Washington, D.C., that they are still not permitted to process new awards or even communicate with grant award recipients as late as last week. The edict came despite recent court rulings blocking the administration’s proposed federal funding freeze.
And when local EPA staffers pressed their regional bosses about the communications blackout, those bosses told them to comply because they did not want to risk doing anything to jeopardize their jobs, according to multiple sources.
As part of his work advising agencies to reduce spending and cut staff, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency have promised transparency and increased oversight over how taxpayer dollars are going out the door. Experts who work in grant management as well as former EPA officials argue the lack of communication will result in the opposite — less transparency and no oversight.
“The preponderance of evidence is that many program officers are under some kind of gag order, making it nearly impossible for them to do their jobs,” one former EPA official under the Biden administration told ABC News. “If you care about abuse in federal spending, this makes no sense and is absurdly hypocritical.”
Typically, EPA staff works closely with nonprofit organizations and local government partners who have been awarded grants, conducting oversight and answering and asking questions about how the government money is being spent.
Rebecca Kaduru, president at Institute for Sustainable Communities, based in Nashville, said she has lost access to the payment system at least once a week for the last month. Her organization had two EPA grants until last month, when one was terminated.
The effective gag order has left nonprofit leaders, local governments and tribes stunned and unsure about how to move forward in spending the EPA grants they were awarded.
Kaduru explained the strain of chaos of the last few months.
“Do I fire staff because I can’t pay payroll? But if I do, I am not compliant with the grant that says I have to have staff and keep our website,” she said on the phone. “It is very high risk for nonprofits.”
On Monday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency had decided to terminate over 400 contracts with nonprofit organizations around the country.
“Working hand-in-hand with DOGE to rein in wasteful federal spending, EPA has saved more than $2 billion in taxpayer money,” Zeldin wrote in a statement. “It is our commitment at EPA to be exceptional stewards of tax dollars.”
The EPA did not respond to questions about which contracts exactly were canceled or why, but it appeared environmental justice and community change grants were hit particularly hard in this week’s cuts.
Over 100 organizations received community change grants last year, totaling more than $1.6 billion, as part of environmental justice work funded through the bipartisan Infrastructure Reduction Act in 2022. The grants focus on helping low-income, disadvantaged and often rural communities fight air and water pollution, create green spaces and invest in renewable energy and disaster preparation.
On Tuesday, Zeldin also sent an internal memo to all regional administrators saying that the agency planned to eliminate all environmental justice positions and offices immediately.
“With this action, EPA is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit all Americans,” the memo, which ABC News reviewed, said.
Many nonprofit leaders who received termination notices in the last few weeks expressed frustration that they were not given the chance to explain their work and said the savings, in their view, were overblown. The news comes as agency leaders were also told to draft plans with a deadline of this week for further staffing reductions.
In terms of savings, in a recent post, Zeldin claimed he saved taxpayers over $12 million by canceling the contract with Kaduru’s organization, for example. However, in actuality, it was an $8 million grant, with over half of it already spent.
Speaking to a joint session of Congress last week, Trump said his administration wants to focus on pollutants, saying, “Our goal is to get toxins out of our environment, poisons out of our food supply and keep our children healthy and strong.”
Both current career EPA staff as well as nonprofit partners said the cuts and the closure of environmental justice offices will make this work harder.
“I think it is a shame they are not looking into what we do — asking what we actually do,” Kaduru said. “It is a shame because those environmental justice programs in particular are really are good programs, and I think there is an unfortunate misunderstanding about what environmental justice [is].”
(WASHINGTON) — The deadline has quietly passed on Attorney General Pam Bondi delivering a report to President Donald Trump on whether any leftover Biden administration policies infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms. It came just days after Democratic leaders sent her a letter suggesting there is “plainly no need for any new plan of action.”
Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 7 after making campaign promises to gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) that “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.”
The president instructed Bondi to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies” and determine if any of them violate the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation,” Trump’s executive order reads. “Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”
The 30-day mark for Bondi to report back to Trump through his domestic policy director would have been this past Sunday.
Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law, told ABC News the broadly written executive order “signals to me that this isn’t a top priority” for the Trump administration.
“Obviously, if there were things that were on the administration’s radar as possibly violating the Second Amendment or violating the rights of gun owners in some way, they could have started to roll those back right away and wouldn’t have needed to take this intermediate step of issuing a directive to the Attorney General to figure out what those were,” Willinger said. “That suggests that there’s nothing out there that the administration viewed as so pressing that they have to get rid of it right away.”
‘Perfectly consistent with the 2nd Amendment’
After Trump signed the executive order, NRA Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin released a statement praising the president’s move.
“Promises made to law-abiding gun owners are being kept by President Donald J. Trump,” Hamlin said. “NRA members were instrumental, turning out in record numbers to secure his victory, and he is proving worthy of their votes, faith and confidence in his first days in office.”
John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, also released a statement, saying, “After a long four years, law-abiding gun owners no longer have to worry about being the target of an anti-gun radical administration. NRA looks forward to the advances and restoration of our rights that will come from President Trump’s respect for the Constitution.”
It is unclear whether or not Bondi met the deadline on delivering the report — nothing had been publicly released as of Wednesday. When ABC News asked this week about the Bondi’s pending plan of action, Department of Justice officials said they would check but had no immediate information on the report’s status. The White House also did not respond to ABC News’ inquiry about Bondi’s pending report.
Earlier this month, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Georgia, ranking member of the House subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, sent Bondi a letter.
“We are determined to protect our communities against lethal gun crime in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” they wrote.
The letter said that if Bondi carried out her examination “objectively and in good faith” she’ll find that actions taken by the previous administration to fight gun violence are “perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.”
“There is plainly no need for any new plan of action to, in the words of the executive order, ‘protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,'” the letter said.
In his executive order, Trump instructed Bondi that in addition to reviewing all presidential actions taken on gun control from January 2021 to January 2025, he wanted her to review rules about firearms and federal firearm licensing implemented by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
Trump specifically asked Bondi to review the ATF’s “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” — also called the “zero tolerance policy” — implemented in 2021 under Biden and former Attorney General Merrick Garland to identify federal firearms dealers who violate the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Under the policy, firearms dealers had their licenses revoked for willfully transferring firearms to prohibited people, failing to conduct the required background checks, falsifying records and failing to respond to a gun trace request. The policy prompted several lawsuits from gun dealers who argued their licenses were revoked over minor clerical errors.
Raskin and McBath claimed that in the three years since the policy was implemented, about 0.3% of the nation’s roughly 130,000 federal gun dealers had their licenses revoked.
“Through this policy, ATF has enforced the Gun Control Act as passed by Congress and had revoked the licenses of a tiny fraction of gun dealers who willfully violated the law,” Raskin and McBath said in their letter to Bondi. “The ATF’s enhanced regulatory policy has not prevented a single American who may lawfully possess a firearm from exercising his or her Second Amendment rights.”
The ATF reported that in fiscal year 2023, the agency found 1,531 violations after conducting 8,689 firearm compliance inspections. The inspections, according to the ATF, prompted 667 warning letters and 170 revocations.
“Law-abiding gun dealers remain in business throughout the country. In fact, there remain more gun dealers than there are locations of Starbucks, McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Burger King, Subway, and Chick-fil-A combined,” Raskin and McBath said in their letter.
The Democratic lawmakers asked Bondi to respond to their letter by the end of the business day on Monday, explaining what standards she will use to determine if policies taken by the Biden administration violate the Second Amendment and how she will ensure her plan of action “does not increase the risk of violent crime, including gun deaths.”
Majority of Americans favor stronger gun laws
A Pew Research Center poll released in July 2024 found that 61% of respondents agreed that it is too easy to legally obtain a gun and 58% favored stricter gun laws.
“We know that the vast majority of Americans — including gun owners and Trump voters — support basic safety laws that crack down on crime and keep all communities safe. These policies are in no way inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” Kris Brown, president of the gun-safety advocacy group Brady United, said in a statement after Trump signed the executive order.
Brown noted that policies under Biden included expanding background checks for gun buyers and “cracking down on rogue gun traffickers.”
“They must be continued if this President actually wants to achieve any of his campaign promises around reducing crime, cracking down on drug traffickers, and reducing the flow of trafficked weapons across the southern border,” Brown said.
In the aftermath of the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, that claimed the lives of 19 children and two teachers, Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major piece of federal gun reform to clear both chambers in 30 years.
The law enhanced background checks for gun buyers under the age of 21 by giving authorities up to 10 business days to review the juvenile and mental health records of young gun purchasers, and made it unlawful for someone to purchase a gun for someone who would fail a background check. This legislation closed the so-called “boyfriend loophole” preventing individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing a gun.
The law included $750 million to help states implement “red flag” laws to remove firearms from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, as well as other violence prevention programs. It also provided funding for a variety of programs aimed at shoring up the nation’s mental health apparatus and securing schools.
Willinger told ABC News that “short of asking Congress to appeal it,” there is little the Trump administration can do about the law.
“It’s possible that the administration could do stuff to hold up that money,” Willinger said. “I don’t know what wiggle room they have to do that.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Wednesday entered an emergency order barring the Trump administration from implementing major parts of its executive order that sought to target the law firm Perkins Coie over its representation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
District Judge Beryl Howell, ruling from the bench, found that attorneys for Perkins Coie had met the bar for her to enter a temporary restraining order — determining they would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if provisions of the order targeting the law firm’s work with government contractors as well as restrictions on their attorney’s access to government buildings were implemented.
In an extraordinary hearing in which the Justice Department put forward Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, to present its arguments, Howell repeatedly questioned the logic and legality surrounding the order — which she said had extraordinary breadth and whose language was unlike any other order she’d ever read.
“Regardless of whether the President dislikes the firm’s clients … issuing an executive order targeting the firm based on the President’s dislike of the political positions of the firm’s clients, or the firm’s litigation positions is retaliatory and runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protection,” Howell said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
