(WASHINGTON) — The official portraits of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance were released Thursday by the Trump transition team.
“And they go hard,” a press release from the transition said about the portraits.
The statement added, “In just four days, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States and JD Vance as the 50th Vice President of the United States — and their official portraits are here.”
Trump and Vance will be sworn-in on Monday, Jan. 20.
President Joe Biden will be in attendance as his successor is sworn in, resuming a tradition of American democracy that Trump himself sidestepped in 2021.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos will also be in attendance.
(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration doesn’t plan to take action that forces TikTok to immediately go dark for U.S. users on Sunday, an administration official told ABC News.
TikTok could still proactively choose to shut itself down that day — a move intended to send a clear message to the 170 million people it says use the app each month about the wide-ranging impact of the ban.
But the Biden administration is now signaling it won’t enforce the law that goes into effect one day before the president leaves office.
“Our position on this has been clear: TikTok should continue to operate under American ownership. Given the timing of when it goes into effect over a holiday weekend a day before inauguration, it will be up to the next administration to implement,” a White House official told ABC News in a statement.
The way the law works, TikTok isn’t required to go dark on Jan. 19. It’s the app stores and internet hosting services that could be on the hook if they keep providing their services to TikTok. The law gives the Justice Department the power to pursue fines of up to $5,000 per user, an enormous potential liability given the app’s popularity.
So even if President Joe Biden — or President-elect Donald Trump — say they won’t enforce the ban, tech companies will still be liable as long as TikTok is owned by ByteDance. Apple, Google and Oracle have so far not responded to or declined to comment to ABC News about what they will do on Sunday.
And the reality is that both presidents have limited options to put the ban on hold.
The law states the president can grant a one-time extension delaying the ban for up to 90 days under three very specific conditions: TikTok must show it’s on a “path to executing” a divesture from its Chinese owner; there must be “evidence of significant progress” toward a sale; and that progress must be sealed with “relevant binding legal agreements.”
At this point, there is no sign that any of those conditions have been met.
A group of Democrats in the House and Senate introduced a bill on Tuesday that would have given TikTok’s parent company ByteDance an additional 270 days to sell or divest but Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited national security concerns in objecting to a request by sponsor Sen. Ed Markey for the Senate to unanimously approve the extension on Wednesday.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor on Thursday that it was “stunning” that Cotton blocked Markey’s effort.
“It’s clear that more time is needed,” Schumer said. “We will continue to work to find a responsible solution to keeping TikTok going, protect American livelihoods, and protect against Communist Chinese Communist Party surveillance, we must and can do all three.”
Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was part of a massive, $95 billion foreign aid package passed by Congress in April of last year.
Biden and some congressional leaders argued that the ultimatum against TikTok was necessary because of security concerns about ByteDance and its connections to the Chinese government.
Trump originally tried to ban TikTok in his first term, but has since reversed course, vowing during the 2024 presidential campaign to “save” the app. In a news conference in December, the president-elect said he had a “warm spot in my heart” for the app and gave it credit for helping him win over young voters.
Later in December, he asked the Supreme Court to delay the deadline so that he could work out a “negotiated resolution” that would save the app.
Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Chew at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida last month and he plans to attend Trump’s inauguration on Monday, sources told ABC News.
On Wednesday, Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump’s pick for national security adviser, told Fox News that Trump was looking for options to “preserve” TikTok.
Waltz was asked about a Washington Post report that Trump was considering an executive order to suspend enforcement of the law. Sources familiar with the discussions confirmed to ABC News that Trump’s team has been talking about a plan, including a possible executive order, to keep TikTok available.
“If the Supreme Court comes out with a ruling in favor of the law, President Trump has been very clear: Number one, TikTok is a great platform that many Americans use and has been great for his campaign and getting his message out. But number two, he’s going to protect their data,” Waltz said.
“He’s a deal maker,” Waltz added. “I don’t want to get ahead of our executive orders, but we’re going to create this space to put that deal in place.”
A majority of justices on the Supreme Court last week appeared inclined to uphold the law. During oral arguments, concerns about intelligence threats posed by China and potential future weaponization of the app seemed to override concerns about potential infringement on free speech rights.
“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent of TikTok is doing intelligence work?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked the company’s attorney.
-ABC News’ Rachel Scott and Mariam Khan contributed to this report
(HELENA, Mont.) — The Montana House of Representatives advanced a bill to ban transgender people from using public bathrooms that do not align with their sex assigned at birth, the first of this type of legislation to progress in the 2025 session.
It is one of 138 anti-LGBTQ bills in the U.S. tracked by the ACLU so far this year.
This comes after a bipartisan effort in December to reject a measure that would have banned state Rep. Zooey Zephyr — the first openly trans lawmaker in the state — from using the women’s bathroom at the state Capitol.
The new bill states that a “restroom, changing room, or sleeping quarters … that is designated for females or males may be used only by members of that sex.”
The bill seeks to define sex “based on the organization of the body parts and gametes for reproduction,” adding that the sexes are defined by “sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex chromosomes, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth” and not any other definition of gender.
The bill does not include a definition or classification for those born intersex, or people with ambiguous genitals, chromosomes, hormones or reproductive organs that are neither clearly male nor female at birth.
The bill does not state how it will be enforced or how those using such facilities will be checked. However, the bill does state that residents can sue for attorney fees and other costs if “another individual of the opposite sex” is using a single-sex facility.
When her colleagues declined to support a similar bathroom ban in 2024, Zephyr applauded the rejection: “I’m happy to see that this proposed ban failed and am grateful for my colleagues — particularly my republican colleagues — who recognized this as a distraction from the work we were elected to do,” she posted on social media platform X. “I’m ready to represent my constituents & look forward to working on behalf of Montana.”
Critics of bathroom bans say they create a false “fear” of transgender people. They argue transgender people aren’t inherently dangerous and are four times more likely to be victims of violence than cisgender people, according to recent studies.
In a past interview, Zephyr told ABC News that she believes anti-transgender rhetoric and legislation have been a distraction from the issues facing average Americans.
“Leave trans people alone, let us live our lives and let our representatives get back to trying to make our states better places for all of us,” Zephyr said.
ABC News reached out to Zephyr for comment on the measure Wednesday.
Zephyr did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment on the measure Thursday.
Those in support of the bill argue that restrictions on bathroom use enhance safety and privacy for women.
Montana Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, a Republican, said the bill “reflects the values and priorities of Montanans, protecting privacy, safeguarding dignity, and ensuring safety for women and children in vulnerable places.”
She continued, “This bill is not about exclusion or hate, it’s about common sense boundaries that have served our society for generations.”
One study in the Sexuality Research and Social Policy journal was unable to find evidence that trans-inclusive policies on restrooms, lockers and changing rooms increase safety risks or related crimes.
Transgender people – who are estimated to make up less than 1% of the adult population – have been the focus of conservative-sponsored legislation across the country.
Last year, restrictions on transgender participation in sports, bathroom use, gender marker changes, pronoun use in schools and gender-affirming care made up a majority of the record-breaking 533 anti-LGBTQ bills tracked by the ACLU in the 2024 legislative sessions nationwide.
Zephyr won her bid for reelection to the Montana House of Representatives after she was censured and barred from the House floor for almost two years for protesting a gender-affirming youth care ban in her state.
Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Thursday that he is replacing Marco Rubio in the Senate with the state’s attorney general, Ashley Moody.
“This is a time for action and a time for Washington D.C. to deliver results to the American people,” DeSantis said at a news conference near Orlando. “There are no more excuses for Republicans.”
Rubio, who has served in the Senate since 2010, has been tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to be secretary of state. Rubio was on Capitol Hill on Wednesday for his confirmation hearing, during which he was pressed on Trump’s foreign policy goals.
DeSantis’ pick will serve the remaining two years of Rubio’s term.
Moody, 49, was a federal prosecutor and circuit court judge before she was elected in 2018 to serve as Florida’s attorney general.
DeSantis praised her as someone who has “stood strong time and time again” on Republican priorities on the economy, immigration and more. He noted her actions against the Biden administration on border policy, specifically, as attorney general.
“She understands the gravity of the moment,” he said. “We may not have an opportunity like this in the near future. This is a once-in-a-decade, maybe even once-in-a-generation opportunity, and this current Congress is ultimately going to determine whether we do usher in that revival of the American experiment or is just going to be status quo, passing the buck and nothing ever changes.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not attend President-elect Donald Trump‘s inauguration, according to her spokesperson.
Pelosi notably attended Trump’s inauguration in 2017, when she was the House Democratic leader.
A spokesman did not disclose a reason why the California Democrat is skipping the high-profile event.
While she broke her hip on an international trip to Luxembourg late last year, Pelosi returned to the Capitol for both the first day of the new Congress as well as the count of the electoral votes on Jan. 6.
Attending 11 inaugurations so far, Pelosi has rubbed elbows with presidents at their inauguration dating back to her high school days when John F. Kennedy was sworn into office in 1961.
Pelosi has mostly maintained cordial relationships with Republican presidents, particularly George W. Bush despite their differences over the Iraq War and Afghanistan.
But the friction and public battles with Trump, including shouting matches in the Oval Office — have created headlines — such as when she pointed a finger at him in a White House photo opportunity or when she stood over his shoulder and ripped up a copy of his State of the Union remarks in 2020.
Pelosi’s criticism only amplified after the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Pelosi also grew enraged when Trump mocked the violent hammer attack against her husband, Paul Pelosi.
In turn, Trump labeled Pelosi at his 2024 campaign rallies as “an enemy from within.”
“She’s a crooked person. She’s a bad person, evil. She’s an evil, sick, crazy,” Trump said before appearing to mouth the word “b*tch” “Oh no. It starts with a B– but I won’t say it. I want to say it. I want to say it,” Trump said about Pelosi at his final campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.
US President Joe Biden delivers a Farewell Address to the Nation inside of the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on Wednesday, January 15, 2025. (Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden, in his farewell address, reflected on a decadeslong political career but also issued a stark warning to the nation as he prepares to cede power to President-elect Donald Trump.
Speaking from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, Biden said he was proud of what his administration accomplished as the country climbed out of the coronavirus pandemic and made investments in the economy, infrastructure, gun safety, climate change and more.
“In the past four years, our democracy has held strong and every day I’ve kept my commitment to be president for all Americans for one of the toughest periods in our nation’s history,” Biden said.
He commended Vice President Kamala Harris as a “great partner” as she sat nearby alongside second gentleman Doug Emhoff, first lady Jill Biden and Hunter Biden.
Biden listed several of his key legislative wins, including lowering prescription drug prices, expanding benefits for military veterans exposed to burn pits, investing in domestic manufacturing of semiconductor chips and more. The impact of those policies, he noted, may not be fully realized for years to come.
He also briefly highlighted the ceasefire and hostage release deal reached by Israel and Hamas earlier Wednesday, a foreign policy goal of Biden’s for more than a year that became reality just days before his departure.
He touted working with the incoming Trump administration to see through its implementation. “That’s how it should be, working together,” Biden said.
But Biden spent the majority of his remarks on something he said caused him great concern — what he said was the concentration of power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.
“Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead,” he said.
He spoke about the threat he said the wealthy posed to efforts to fight the dangers of climate change.
“Powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence, to eliminate the steps we’ve taken to tackle the climate crisis, to serve their own interest for power and profit,” he said. “We must not be bullied into sacrificing the future, the future of our children and our grandchildren, must keep pushing forward and push faster. There’s no time to waste.”
Biden also raised concerns about the rise of artificial intelligence, and the possibilities and dangers advancing technologies posed. He lamented the rise in misinformation online and what he described as a “crumbling” free press that he said were enabling abuses of power.
“In his farewell address, President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military industrial complex,” he said. “He warned us then about, and I quote, ‘the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power’ … six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.”
Biden pushed for reforming the tax code so that billionaires pay their “fair share” and for amending the Constitution to make clear that no president is immune from criminal liability — an apparent slight at Trump, who was previously under federal indictment for his behavior after the 2020 election and is set to be sworn into office in five days.
“A president’s powers is not unlimited. It’s not absolute and it shouldn’t be,” Biden said. “And in a democracy, there’s another danger to the concentration of power and wealth. It erodes the sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and division.”
“Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning,” he continued. “And people don’t feel like they have a fair shot. We have to stay engaged in the process.”
In closing, Biden reflected on his own rise as a kid from Scranton plagued by a stutter to the nation’s highest office — one that he sought repeatedly during his five decades in politics and is leaving reluctantly after withdrawing from the 2024 campaign amid Democrats’ doubts.
He described America’s promise as a “constant struggle.”
“A short distance between peril and possibility,” he said. “But what I believe is the America of our dreams is always closer than we think. And it’s up to us to make our dreams come true.”
Ultimately, Biden asserted, it will be up to the president, Congress, the courts and the American people to stand up to those with ill-intent.
“Now, it’s your turn to stand guard,” Biden said. “May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith. I love America, you love it, too.”
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee Pam Bondi vowed she would remove politics from the Department of Justice during the first day of her confirmation hearing, though her refusal to answer key questions about Trump’s 2020 election loss and his outspoken desire for retribution raised concerns about how she would execute her promise.
With a second day of her hearing set to resume on Thursday, Bondi is expected to glide through confirmation and take on the role of the country’s top law enforcement officer, tasked with implementing Trump’s longstanding desire to reshape the Department of Justice that brought two criminal cases against him before his election.
“The partisanship, the weaponization, will be gone. America will have one tier of justice for all,” Bondi said, vowing that, “There will never be an enemy’s list within the Department of Justice.”
While Bondi sought to reassure the Senate Judiciary Committee about her independence from Trump and desire to usher in a “new golden age” of the DOJ, her refusal to say that Trump lost the 2020 election, defense of her past statement that “prosecutors will be prosecuted,” and openness to investigate Special Counsel Jack Smith prompted skepticism from Democratic members of the committee.
If confirmed, Bondi would lead the DOJ with recently expanded power after the Supreme Court last year ruled that interactions between a president and attorney general are immune from prosecution.
“The fear and the concern we have is that the incoming president will use that loaded weapon, that immunity to commit crimes through the Department of Justice,” said Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff.
Here are five key takeaways from the first day of Bondi’s confirmation hearing:
Bondi vowed to keep politics out of prosecutions, but keeps the door open to investigating Jack Smith
Accusing President Joe Biden of coordinating political prosecutions, Bondi said that she would only bring cases based on “facts and law” and said she has not discussed starting investigations of Trump’s enemies with the president-elect.
“No one will be prosecuted, investigated because they are a political opponent. That’s what we’ve seen for the last four years in this administration. People will be prosecuted, based on the facts and the law,” Bondi said.
However, when pressed about Trump’s claim that special counsel Jack Smith should go to jail, Bondi declined to answer whether she would open an investigation into Smith before suggesting his conduct is “horrible.”
“Senator, what I’m hearing on the news is horrible. Do I know if he committed a crime? I have not looked at it,” said Bondi, who added that “it would be irresponsible … to make a commitment regarding anything.”
In his final report issued earlier this week, Smith denied Trump’s accusation that his work was in any way political — describing the accusation as “laughable” — and assuring Attorney General Merrick Garland that his work followed the “rule of law” and DOJ guidelines regarding political interference.
Bondi declined to answer key questions about Trump’s election denialism, vow to pardon Jan. 6 defendants
Bondi — who helped Trump spread distrust in the outcome of the 2020 election — notably declined to say that Trump lost the 2020 election, raising concerns from Democratic senators in light of Trump’s alleged use of the Department of Justice to illegally retain power after his defeat.
“Are you prepared to say today, under oath, without reservation, that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020?” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin asked.
“Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He was duly sworn in, and he is the president of the United States. There was a peaceful transition of power. President Trump left office and was overwhelmingly elected in 2024,” Bondi said, repeatedly refusing to offer a yes or no answer to the question.
Bondi also refused to condemn Trump’s baseless claim that “massive fraud” corrupted the 2020 election. When asked about Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which he asked him to “find” 11,780 votes, Bondi said she has not listened to the entirety of it, but suggested Trump’s comments were taken out of context.
Bondi also declined to comment about Trump’s vow to pardon the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, during his first day in office, telling the committee she would defer to Trump and declining to weigh in on the proposed pardons because she has not read every defendants’ case file.
“Senator, I have not seen any of those files. Of course, if confirmed and if asked to advise the president, I will look at each and every file. But let me be very clear in speaking to you, I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer in this country,” Bondi answered.
Bondi avoided answering if she would disobey an unlawful order from Trump
When pressed by Democratic Sen. Chris Coons about dropping a criminal case if someone in the White House directed her to, Bondi declined to entertain the hypothetical.
“What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the attorney general, will be to the Constitution and the United States of America, and the most important oath, part of that oath that I will take are the last four words, ‘So help me God.’”
Bondi at one point answered “of course” when asked if she would be willing to resign if asked to do something improper.
“Senator, I wouldn’t work at a law firm, I wouldn’t be a prosecutor, I wouldn’t be attorney general if anyone asked me to do something improper and I felt I had to carry that out,” Bondi said.
Schiff, who had multiple heated exchanges with Bondi, expressed skepticism that she could avoid confrontation with Trump, considering his past attorneys general.
“You may say that you believe that conflict will never come, but every day, week, month and year of the first Trump administration demonstrated that conflict will come. Jeff Sessions may not have believed it would come to him. It came to him. Bill Barr may not have believed it would come to him. It came to him. It came to everyone,” Schiff said. “It will come to you and what you do in that moment will define your attorney generalship.”
Bondi vowed to reform the DOJ but provided few specifics of her plans
Bondi told senators that she aspired to “restore confidence and integrity” in the DOJ after what she called a weaponization of the justice system to target Trump. She vowed that if confirmed, she would answer to the people of the U.S., not the president.
“My oath would be to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The people of America would be my client,” Bondi said.
While her vow to remove politics from the DOJ were cheered on by Senate Republicans, Bondi offered few details about how she would implement her plan across the department’s 115,000 employees. Bondi attempted to defend her 2023 statement that “prosecutors will be prosecuted,” telling the Committee that she would only bring cases against “bad” prosecutors.
Bondi appears poised to be confirmed by the Senate, as attention turns to Kash Patel
While Senate Democrats raised concerns about Bondi’s refusal to acknowledge Trump’s 2020 loss and lack of commitments, her confirmation appears all but assured.
“I know how to count and I know how to read tea leaves. It seems to me you’re very, very, very, very likely to be confirmed, and certainly look forward to working with you and your office,” said Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla towards the end of the hearing.
After the hearing on Wednesday, a few Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee avoided saying exactly how they’d vote on Bondi’s confirmation, though Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the “odds are in her favor.:
“I would say the odds are in her favor with the majority of the Senate floor. I don’t know if a single Republican is going against her. We’re still going to ask the tough questions today and tomorrow,” Durbin said.
With Bondi unlikely to face a serious challenge to her confirmation, Senate Democrats instead turned their attention to Trump’s pick to run the FBI, Kash Patel. Bondi said she looks forward to working with Patel — calling him the “right person” for the job and defending his qualifications — and denying the idea that either she or Patel would maintain a list of enemies or break the law.
“What I can sit here and tell you is Mister Patel, if he works with running the FBI — if he is confirmed, and if I am confirmed, he will follow the law if I am the attorney general of the United States of America, and I don’t believe he would do anything otherwise,” Bondi said.
(WASHINGTON) — Chris Wright, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be secretary of the Department of Energy, laid out his key priorities, including restoring “energy dominance,” increasing technological innovation and cutting regulatory red tape, during a nearly three-hour confirmation hearing on Wednesday.
“I see three immediate tasks where I will focus my attention if I get the privilege of being confirmed. The first is to unleash American energy at home and abroad to restore our energy dominance,” Wright said. “Second, we must lead the world in innovation and technology breakthroughs.”
“Third, we must build things in America again and remove barriers to progress,” he added. “Federal policies today make it too easy to stop projects and very hard, hard to start and complete projects.”
Wright, currently the CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy, has long been a proponent of expanding domestic oil and gas production and has been openly critical of policies aimed at curbing the impacts of climate change.
In his testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Wright expressed support for a range of energy technologies, saying during an exchange with Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, “I am for improving all energy technologies that can better human lives and reduce emissions. They go together.”
He particularly emphasized the roles of commercial nuclear energy, liquefied natural gas and geothermal energy in his envisioned expansion of domestic energy production.
Natural gas accounts for about a third of domestic energy, according to the DOE. For domestic use, it is typically delivered as a gas — its super-chilled liquefied form LNG has become a major U.S. export. The United States is already the world’s largest LNG exporter. The incoming Trump administration has said it will undo the Biden administration’s pause on new export facility approvals and expand LNG exports further.
Nuclear power currently provides about 20% of U.S. domestic electricity production, according to the DOE.
Geothermal energy is heat energy harnessed from reservoirs, either existing or man-made, within the earth’s crust. It is considered a renewable energy source but only accounted for 0.4% of U.S. energy in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“Energy is the essential agent of change that enables everything that we do, everything,” Wright said Wednesday. “A low energy society is poor. A highly energized society can bring health, wealth and opportunity for all.”
“The stated mission of the company that I founded, Liberty Energy, is to better human lives through energy,” he added. “Liberty works directly in oil, natural gas, next-generation geothermal and has partnerships in next-generation nuclear energy and new battery technology.”
Wright’s stated energy priorities represent a shift from the Biden administration’s focus on clean energy manufacturing, particularly wind and solar energy, and reflect what Republicans have called an “all-of-the-above energy policy” that includes increased production of oil and gas products.
The anticipated policy shift has caused concerns in climate advocacy circles. Those concerns emerged in the hearing room as 10 protesters from youth-led climate advocacy organization Sunrise Movement were arrested after disrupting the hearing, the group told ABC News.
Wright acknowledged the protesters, saying, “You have to understand that there isn’t dirty energy and clean energy. All energies are different, and they all have different trade-offs. Different people have different weights or valuations of trade-offs. Different geographies or locations have climates more favorable to this energy versus that energy. So it’s a complicated dialog, which means it’s not easy to get people to share this broader perspective on it. I think we’re seeing a little bit of that in passionate, well-meaning, wonderful people that have been sitting in the hearing room today.”
The shift is being celebrated by Republicans, including Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Mike Lee, R-Utah, who said during the hearing that Wright’s nomination “really couldn’t be coming at a more urgent time,” heavily criticizing the Biden administration’s energy policies.
“On his very first day in office, President Biden halted new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, effectively cutting off access to resources that could have powered our economy and benefited the lives of ordinary Americans,” Lee added. “Over the past four years, the same administration has dismantled domestic energy production, canceled leases and weaponized regulations to discourage investment in pipelines and critical energy infrastructure.”
Some Democrats on the committee questioned Wright’s views around climate change, including whether it contributes to disasters like the wildfires in Los Angeles — a connection he stopped short of making, though he did call climate change “a real and global phenomenon.”
In shifting the focus of the DOE away from environmental impacts and toward increased production, Wright said the aim is to reduce costs for the public.
“Ten percent of Americans got a disconnection notice to their utilities in the last 12 months,” Wright said. “More than 20% of Americans report struggles paying their bills — whether it’s paying their energy bills, whether it’s filling their car with gas or heating their home or paying their electricity bill. So, this is important. It’s not just important for national security and industry and all that — it’s important for the quality of life of every American.”
“Energy is the infrastructure of life,” he added. “It’s what makes everything possible.”
(WASHINGTON) — Concern over dangers to children from increasingly easy access to hardcore pornography online dominated U.S. Supreme Court arguments on Wednesday in a high-profile dispute over a growing number of state laws requiring adult websites to verify the age of users.
The justices heard an appeal from an adult entertainment industry trade group challenging a 2023 Texas mandate that sites with more than a third of content containing “sexual material harmful to minors” must receive electronic proof that a patron is 18 or older.
In all, 18 other states have similar age-verification measures as a means to limit access by minors.
Allowing the Texas measure to stand, industry attorney Derek Shaffer told the justices, “could open the door to an emerging wave of regulations that imperil free speech online.” Many members of the court seemed inclined to support the law nonetheless.
While all states have long made it illegal for brick-and-mortar sellers of pornography to serve underage buyers, the industry alleges Texas’ online verification law uniquely threatens individual privacy and data security for millions of adults who otherwise have a First Amendment right to view the material.
The law requires users to provide digital ID, government-issued ID or other commercially reasonable verification methods, such as a facial scan or credit card transaction data.
“You should have confidentiality that is legally assured,” said Shaffer.
A federal district court sided with the industry and blocked the law; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that it served a legitimate government interest notwithstanding any imposition on the rights of adult consumers.
“Age verification today is simple, safe, and common, including non-identifying means,” said Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson.
Many of the justices seemed eager to find a way to allow the Texas law to remain in force in the interest of protecting children, but also to clarify the strong constitutional protection for free speech that prevents states from excessively infringing on free speech rights.
“Technological access to pornography, obviously, has exploded, right?” observed Chief Justice John Roberts. “It was very difficult for 15-year-olds to get access to the type of things that are available with a push of a button today. And the nature of the pornography, I think, has also changed.”
Roberts implied that the court may need to revisit its precedents that have offered sweeping protection to adult content creators and the adults who consume the material.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a mother of seven, said she knew firsthand how pernicious the dangers of online pornography have become.
“Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content-filtering for all those different 25 devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with,” Barrett said. “I think that the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content-filtering isn’t working.”
Justice Brett Kavanagh, a father of two teenage daughters, pressed Shaffer over the harms that he suggested states must be able to protect against.
“Do you dispute the societal problems that are created both short term and long term from the rampant access to pornography for children?” Kavanaugh asked.
“That is a complicated question that I don’t know that I can speak to definitively,” Shaffer replied.
Justice Samuel Alito bluntly expressed skepticism of the industry’s claim that less-restrictive alternatives exist to protect kids online, such as parental controls and content-filtering software.
“Come on, be real,” Alito chided Shaffer. “There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work.”
Several justices, while vocally supportive in principle of the need to prevent children from viewing porn, voiced concern that the means states like Texas were using put too much burden on the content creators and adult consumers.
“It’s not clear to me that just the fact that we have new technology is running in favor of allowing this law to stand as is,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a mother of two teenage girls.
“We appreciate the state’s interest in protecting children,” Jackson told Nielson, “but we’re not going to let the state, you know, impose, like, a thousand things that would make it really, really hard for adults when there are other alternatives to protect children.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed that sentiment: “Assuming we agree with you, and I think most people do, that kids are to be protected, how much of a burden is permissible on adults’ First Amendment rights?” he asked Nielson.
“One of the important parts of modern age verification technology is that you can do it without identification at all,” the Texas attorney replied. “In other words, there’s no ID or anything like that. It’s just a face scan.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the rights of adults to engage in free speech — and free consumption of sexually explicit content — needed guarantees.
“This law … says you can’t retain this information. The other side in its brief argues that that doesn’t mean you can’t sell it or give it away,” she pointed out to Neilson.
“I don’t know if that’s even technologically possible,” he replied.
The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, pits a growing nationwide effort to strengthen protections for minors online against a booming multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industry.
“More people watch porn and view porn each year than vote and read the newspaper,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran Supreme Court litigator with Williams & Connolly LLP.
A 2016 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that up to 70% of men and 40% of women have consumed pornography within the past year in the U.S.
American teenagers have reported similar levels of exposure to pornography a number of studies conducted over the past three years show. Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
Twenty years ago in a remarkably similar case — Ashcroft v. ACLU — the high court struck down federal legislation that would have required age verification to view sexually explicit material. The decision instead put the onus on parents and technology companies to utilize less burdensome content-filtering software.
The court could choose to rethink that decision and other precedents on these issues, or return the case to a lower court for further consideration under a clarification of existing law.
A decision is expected in the case by the end of June.
(WASHINGTON) — Concern over dangers to children from increasingly easy access to hardcore pornography online dominated U.S. Supreme Court arguments on Wednesday in a high-profile dispute over a growing number of state laws requiring adult websites to verify the age of users.
The justices heard an appeal from an adult entertainment industry trade group challenging a 2023 Texas mandate that sites with more than a third of content containing “sexual material harmful to minors” must receive electronic proof that a patron is 18 or older.
In all, 18 other states have similar age-verification measures as a means to limit access by minors.
Allowing the Texas measure to stand, industry attorney Derek Shaffer told the justices, “could open the door to an emerging wave of regulations that imperil free speech online.” Many members of the court seemed inclined to support the law nonetheless.
While all states have long made it illegal for brick-and-mortar sellers of pornography to serve underage buyers, the industry alleges Texas’ online verification law uniquely threatens individual privacy and data security for millions of adults who otherwise have a First Amendment right to view the material.
The law requires users to provide digital ID, government-issued ID or other commercially reasonable verification methods, such as a facial scan or credit card transaction data.
“You should have confidentiality that is legally assured,” said Shaffer.
A federal district court sided with the industry and blocked the law; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that it served a legitimate government interest notwithstanding any imposition on the rights of adult consumers.
“Age verification today is simple, safe, and common, including non-identifying means,” said Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson.
Many of the justices seemed eager to find a way to allow the Texas law to remain in force in the interest of protecting children, but also to clarify the strong constitutional protection for free speech that prevents states from excessively infringing on free speech rights.
“Technological access to pornography, obviously, has exploded, right?” observed Chief Justice John Roberts. “It was very difficult for 15-year-olds to get access to the type of things that are available with a push of a button today. And the nature of the pornography, I think, has also changed.”
Roberts implied that the court may need to revisit its precedents that have offered sweeping protection to adult content creators and the adults who consume the material.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a mother of seven, said she knew firsthand how pernicious the dangers of online pornography have become.
“Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content-filtering for all those different 25 devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with,” Barrett said. “I think that the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content-filtering isn’t working.”
Justice Brett Kavanagh, a father of two teenage daughters, pressed Shaffer over the harms that he suggested states must be able to protect against.
“Do you dispute the societal problems that are created both short term and long term from the rampant access to pornography for children?” Kavanaugh asked.
“That is a complicated question that I don’t know that I can speak to definitively,” Shaffer replied.
Justice Samuel Alito bluntly expressed skepticism of the industry’s claim that less-restrictive alternatives exist to protect kids online, such as parental controls and content-filtering software.
“Come on, be real,” Alito chided Shaffer. “There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work.”
Several justices, while vocally supportive in principle of the need to prevent children from viewing porn, voiced concern that the means states like Texas were using put too much burden on the content creators and adult consumers.
“It’s not clear to me that just the fact that we have new technology is running in favor of allowing this law to stand as is,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a mother of two teenage girls.
“We appreciate the state’s interest in protecting children,” Jackson told Nielson, “but we’re not going to let the state, you know, impose, like, a thousand things that would make it really, really hard for adults when there are other alternatives to protect children.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed that sentiment: “Assuming we agree with you, and I think most people do, that kids are to be protected, how much of a burden is permissible on adults’ First Amendment rights?” he asked Nielson.
“One of the important parts of modern age verification technology is that you can do it without identification at all,” the Texas attorney replied. “In other words, there’s no ID or anything like that. It’s just a face scan.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the rights of adults to engage in free speech — and free consumption of sexually explicit content — needed guarantees.
“This law … says you can’t retain this information. The other side in its brief argues that that doesn’t mean you can’t sell it or give it away,” she pointed out to Neilson.
“I don’t know if that’s even technologically possible,” he replied.
The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, pits a growing nationwide effort to strengthen protections for minors online against a booming multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industry.
“More people watch porn and view porn each year than vote and read the newspaper,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran Supreme Court litigator with Williams & Connolly LLP.
A 2016 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that up to 70% of men and 40% of women have consumed pornography within the past year in the U.S.
American teenagers have reported similar levels of exposure to pornography a number of studies conducted over the past three years show. Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
Twenty years ago in a remarkably similar case — Ashcroft v. ACLU — the high court struck down federal legislation that would have required age verification to view sexually explicit material. The decision instead put the onus on parents and technology companies to utilize less burdensome content-filtering software.
The court could choose to rethink that decision and other precedents on these issues, or return the case to a lower court for further consideration under a clarification of existing law.
A decision is expected in the case by the end of June.
