(WASHINGTON) — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired two top deputies at the Department of Health and Human Services, ABC News has learned.
Heather Flick Melanson, Kennedy’s chief of staff, and Hannah Anderson, deputy chief of staff of policy, are departing, according to a department spokesperson and another person familiar with the decisions.
Neither Flick nor Anderson immediately responded to an ABC News request for comment.
No reason was given for the ousters. The person familiar with the situation told ABC that Kennedy “has every right to make personnel decisions.”
“Secretary Kennedy has made a leadership change within the Immediate Office of the Secretary,” according to a statement provided by an HHS spokesperson to ABC News. “Effective immediately, Matt Buckham will serve as Acting Chief of Staff.”
“Mr. Buckham currently serves as the Kennedy’s White House liaison at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he oversees the recruitment and onboarding of political appointees across the agency. He brings valuable experience in personnel strategy and organizational management to this new role,” the statement continued.
“Secretary Kennedy thanks the outgoing leadership for their service and looks forward to working closely with Mr. Buckham as the Department continues advancing its mission to Make America Healthy Again,” the statement concluded.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is praising an Internal Revenue Service’s court filing, which effectively clears the way for churches to endorse political candidates — a reversal of decades of legal precedent.
Yet half a dozen religious leaders told ABC News they didn’t foresee a large increase in political endorsements from their peers, despite last week’s IRS court filing. The filing said it would not revoke nonprofit status from two Texas churches, Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom, for doing so.
The filing formalizes for the first time a lack of enforcement of the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political candidates if they want to remain tax exempt. Both political parties have tested the line in trying to harness the power of the pulpit, with many Republicans wooing evangelical leaders while Democrats often try to curry favor with Black churches.
“God is once again welcomed back into our public square,” Trump said of the filing during a White House Faith Office summit on Monday.
The president has opposed the Johnson Amendment since his first term. He said he asked religious leaders for their endorsements while running in 2015, but came up against the barrier of the Johnson amendment.
“I said, ‘you have more power than anybody, but you’re not allowed to use your power.’ I said, ‘we’re going to get rid of that because people want to hear what you have to say more than anybody else,'” Trump said Monday. “You were even afraid to talk about it. But they’re not afraid any longer, and I think they appreciate it.”
Tax experts predict the filing could transform how money flows around elections, making houses of worship a way to avoid both taxes and transparency for campaign finances.
Ellen Aprill, a professor emerita of tax law at Loyola Marymount University Law School, said the filing could open the door to political campaigns channeling money through churches to take advantage of their tax-exempt status and lower application and reporting requirements.
Unlike other 501c3 organizations, churches are not required to file 990 forms disclosing financial information, leadership and activities. They also qualify automatically for tax exemption — while other nonprofits have to apply.
“One of my concerns, and others of us in this area, is this will encourage the creation of fraudulent churches who want to be able to get tax deductible money to engage in opposing or supporting candidates … so they don’t have to disclose any other campaign intervention activities,” Aprill said.
Many evangelical Christians viewed the filing as a win for free-speech rights.
Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the 14,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas, praised the filing and said he “personally thanked President Trump” for the outcome.
“This would have never happened without the strong leadership of our great President Donald Trump!” Jeffress wrote in an X post. “Government has NO BUSINESS regulating what is said in pulpits!”
Jeffress was on Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board during his first campaign and had expressed support for the president in the leadup to the 2024 election, which he said led the IRS to investigate his church. Jeffress’ church is distinct from First Baptist Church Waskom, the plaintiff in the case against the IRS.
Cary Gordon, senior pastor and president at Cornerstone Church in Sioux City, Iowa, said he thought “anyone with half a brain” could see that “the Johnson Amendment was unconstitutional.”
A longtime opponent of the amendment, Gordon has said since 2010 that he hopes the IRS would sue him for his political speech so that he could fight the agency in court. That year, Gordon led an effort organizing religious leaders across Iowa to oppose retention for three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who supported same-sex marriage. The IRS has not sued Gordon.
Gordon said although he thinks “hardly any pastors in the country will ever” endorse a candidate, the filing could allow religious leaders to address politics more directly.
“The issue is not, ‘oh no, they’re going to endorse someone.’ It’s really about free speech and being able to communicate on any issue someone might perceive as political in a sermon, which must be done because all of our problems are moral, all of our problems are theological,” he said.
Brad Sherman, a former Iowa state representative who founded Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa, and is now running for governor, said he thought the filing was “long overdue,” but he didn’t anticipate a surge in endorsements.
“There are other reasons why pastors and Christian leaders do not endorse candidates,” Sherman said, adding that some leaders may be wary of pushback from their congregations.
Regarding whether the filing would lead him to consider seeking endorsements from religious leaders during his own campaign, he said, “I haven’t really thought much about it yet, but yes, it may influence that to some degree.”
Reactions from leaders of Black churches were more mixed.
Rev. Thomas Bowen, who served in the Biden White House as a faith liaison and preaches in Black churches both in Ohio and D.C., said he was concerned the filing could risk turning churches into “campaign surrogates.”
“For me, the new ruling opens the doors to money that’s just not transparent, money that can be used for political influence,” Bowen said. “The fear that our sacred spaces will be at risk of becoming these stages for unchecked influence causes me to tell folk to tread carefully … Moral authority is sacred and it must never be sold for access.”
Unlike Bowen, Pastor Jamal Bryant said he approved of the filing. Bryant heads a congregation with more than 10,000 members at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Stonecrest, Georgia, which hosted Democratic nominee Kamala Harris when she visited the state during the 2024 presidential elections.
Bryant said he would “absolutely” consider explicitly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, including in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.
“There’s a whole lot on the line,” he said. “All of America is going to be leaning in with intentionality for the midterm election on who best will speak for the masses.”
(WASHINGTON) — After an earlier setback for the Trump administration when House Republicans failed to advance a key procedural vote on a package of legislation including three crypto measures, President Donald Trump said late Tuesday he has made a deal with Republican members of Congress to advance the legislation on Wednesday.
Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform that he met in the Oval Office with 11 of the 12 GOP members needed to pass the package.
“After a short discussion, they have all agreed to vote tomorrow morning in favor of the Rule,” Trump said. “Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was at the meeting via telephone, and looks forward to taking the Vote as early as possible.”
Trump did not provide specifics about the deal.
In a lengthy statement released later, Johnson thanked Trump for helping lock down the necessary votes to advance the crypto legislation.
“I’m thankful for President Trump getting involved tonight to ensure that we can pass the GENIUS Act tomorrow and agreeing again to help us advance additional crypto legislation in the coming days,” Johnson said, referencing the name of one of the bills.
Earlier Tuesday, a dozen House Republicans bucked Trump and Johnson to prevent the legislation from advancing on the floor — joining the entire Democratic caucus — and, at least temporarily, freezing activity in the House. The final tally was 196-223.
Johnson had said earlier that while he anticipated that there may be enough opposition to defeat the effort, he felt that it was “important” to try to advance the bills. Republicans have a narrow majority in the House — with 220 Republicans compared to 212 Democrats.
Johnson said that he would attempt to work with Republican holdouts to answer questions.
The speaker explained that conservatives who voted against the rule want the crypto bills — CLARITY, GENIUS and Anti CBDC Surveillance Act — combined into one big package, rather than take separate standalone votes on each measure.
“This is the legislative process. We have some members who really, really want to emphasize the House’s product,” Johnson said. “They want to, want to push that and merge them together. We’re trying to work with the White House and with our Senate partners on this. I think everybody is insistent that we’re going to do all three, but some of these guys insist that it needs to be all in one package.”
The intraparty rebellion comes after Trump strongly urged Republicans to vote in favor of advancing the crypto bills.
“The GENIUS Act is going to put our Great Nation lightyears ahead of China, Europe, and all others, who are trying endlessly to catch up, but they just can’t do it,” Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday. “Digital Assets are the FUTURE, and we are leading by a lot! Get the first Vote done this afternoon (ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD VOTE YES!).”
The no votes came from Reps. Andy Biggs, Tim Burchett, Michael Cloud, Andrew Clyde, Eli Crane, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Harris, Anna Paulina Luna, Scott Perry, Chip Roy, Keith Self and Victoria Spartz. Majority Leader Steve Scalise also changed his vote to “no” to preserve the capability to call the measure back up for another attempted vote.
Luna, a Florida Republican, told ABC News that she is “pro-crypto,” but voted against the procedural vote because she continues to have concerns about creating a “backdoor” to a Central Bank Digital Currency — a worry echoed by Greene.
“I just voted NO on the Rule for the GENIUS Act because it does not include a ban on Central Bank Digital Currency and because Speaker Johnson did not allow us to submit amendments to the GENIUS Act,” Greene, R-Ga., posted on X. “Americans do not want a government-controlled Central Bank Digital Currency. Republicans have a duty to ban CBDC. President Trump included a ban on CBDC in his January 23rd executive order and Congress must also include the ban on CBDC in the GENIUS Act.”
The vote came during what the White House is calling “Crypto Week” and marks a rare instance when House Republicans have defied Trump’s direction.
Trump, who launched his own crypto meme coin earlier this year, recently said he is a “fan of crypto” and called it a “very powerful industry” that the U.S. has “dominated.”
“I’m president. And what I did do there is build an industry that’s very important,” Trump said last month. “If we didn’t have it, China would.”
Once a crypto skeptic, Trump and his family have fully immersed themselves in the cryptocurrency marketplace, developing not only the $TRUMP meme coin, but also a bitcoin mining firm, a stablecoin firm and a crypto reserve.
(WASHINGTON) — When financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was in the news for his arrest for sex trafficking and eventual death in 2019, Democrats distanced themselves from the onetime donor, disavowing his campaign contributions and condemning conservative conspiracy theories about his death.
Six years later, many Democrats and party leaders are leaning into the GOP infighting and far-right anger over the Trump administration’s handling of the case, raising the issue in press conferences, social media posts and on the floor of the House.
“The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as it relates to this whole sordid Jeffrey Epstein matter,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Monday. “Democrats didn’t put the Jeffrey Epstein thing into the public domain. This was a conspiracy that Donald Trump, Pam Bondi and these MAGA extremists have been fanning the flames of for the last several years and now the chickens are coming home to roost.”
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced an amendment to a cryptocurrency bill set for a House vote this week that would compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to “retain, preserve and compile” Epstein-related records and release them within 30 days.
Khanna’s measure failed on a 5-7 vote in the House Rules Committee, though Republican Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina voted with Democrats.
On the House floor Tuesday, Democrats raised the issue again, in an unsuccessful effort to force consideration of Khanna’s amendment to get all Republicans on the record.
Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, also introduced a resolution this week calling for the release of “all” unclassified records on Epstein.
Both Democrats told ABC News that the issue underscores the “us versus the elites” dynamic they believe has emerged in politics across America.
“It goes to the central question of our times: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the American people who feel that rich and powerful interests have their thumb on the scale and haven’t given them a fair shake? Or are you on the side of protecting the rich and powerful?” Khanna said.
Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., for weeks has led efforts demanding an explanation from the Justice Department about withholding the files.
“A lot of the people who believe all these conspiracy theories did so because they were told that they were accurate by the current FBI director [Kash Patel] and [FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino],” he said.
Before Trump’s election victory, both Patel and Bongino raised questions on conservative podcasts about the withholding of records. Since they have been in office, they have defended the administration’s handling of the situation.
“There could be two reasons for that. One is that it’s all made up for clicks and to make money, and that there’s no basis in fact or evidence, or there is some truth to it, and they’re trying to hide it,”Goldman added.
“People don’t like being misled and don’t like being promised things that are not delivered. And that’s true as it relates to the Epstein files and it’s true as it relates to all of Donald Trump’s campaign promises,” he said.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin has also raised the issue, telling The Bulwark that Democrats are “going to call [Trump] out” for not sharing more records.
The committee also created an X account, called “TrumpEpsteinBot,” to tweet about whether the administration has released the files.
Some Democrats believe the party should be focusing their messaging on the real-world impacts of Trump and Republicans’ policy and legislative agenda.
“This all causes divisions in the MAGA base, which serves Democrats well,” one Democratic operative told ABC News. “But beyond that, most voters are still going to vote based on their pocketbooks.”
A White House spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on Democrats’ attacks against the administration over the Epstein case.
ABC News’ John Parkinson, Lauren Peller and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to “come forward and explain” the Trump administration’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein files.
In an interview with podcaster Benny Johnson, the speaker urged Bondi to further clarify her past comment about reviewing Epstein’s alleged “client list.”
“Pam Bondi, I don’t know when she originally made the statement. I think she was talking about documents, as I understood, that they were on her desk. I don’t know that she was specific about a list or whatever, but she needs to come forward and explain that to everybody,” Johnson said.
“I like Pam. I mean, I think she’s done a good job. We need the DOJ focusing on the major priorities,” Johnson said during the interview.
Bondi came under fire over her comments to Fox News in February when asked about Epstein’s alleged “client list.” She told the outlet at the time, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”
After the Justice Department and FBI last week stated they found no evidence the deceased financier kept a “client list” of associates whom he blackmailed or conspired with to victimize dozens of women, Bondi said her comments to Fox News were simply referring to a “file” on Epstein.
That explanation, though, has done little to quell outrage from MAGA supporters on the administration’s handling of Epstein.
Johnson also weighed in on growing calls from Republican lawmakers to have Epstein’s convicted associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, testify before Congress.
“I’m for transparency. We’re intellectually consistent in this” Johnson said when asked about Maxwell potentially testifying before Congress.
Johnson said while he is not “privy to facts” and “this isn’t my lane,” he also said “we need to put it out there.”
“We’ll see what happens. I do trust the president. I know his heart and head is in the right place. I don’t question that at all. I am convinced they are going to sort this out,” the speaker said.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett told ABC News he is “not happy” with how Bondi has handled the Epstein matter. Like Johnson, he called on Bondi to explain her past comments on the “client list.”
“You know, I know it’s the 1,000-pound gorilla in the room, but I’m not happy. Nobody’s happy about it. Nobody knows what’s going on,” Burchett said.
Later in a letter sent Tuesday, Burchett called on House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer to invite Maxwell to testify in a public hearing.
“Should Ms. Maxwell refuse the invitation, I encourage you to use subpoena powers,” Burchett wrote in the letter, saying the American people have “questions” about the Epstein case. “It is well beyond time those questions are answered,” he said.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said the Epstein files should be made public and directly called for Maxwell to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“I think all this stuff ought to be public. I mean, I think all of the all the documents, should all be public,” Hawley said. “I think we’d all ought to be out in the open. I’m a big fan of declassifying– I think this isn’t technically classified. It’s just, you know, close hold for prosecution, but I think we ought to put it all out there.”
“I think it’s reasonable for the American people to ask who he [Epstein] sex trafficked these young women to — if anybody besides himself,” added Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy. “And if there were others involved, why haven’t they been prosecuted? That’s a perfectly understandable question, and I think the Justice Department is going to have to answer it.”
Late Tuesday afternoon, Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie said he plans to pursue a procedural gambit to trigger a House vote on legislation that would force the release of the “complete” Epstein files.
Massie plans to offer a discharge petition, which requires 218 signatures and allows the majority of the chamber to circumvent GOP leaders. There would only be floor action if the resolution receives enough support. A waiting period of seven legislative days kicks off once the petition has enough signatures, so this could become a headache for GOP leaders after August recess.
“We all deserve to know what’s in the Epstein files, who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes. Americans were promised justice and transparency. We’re introducing a discharge petition to force a vote in the US House of Representatives on releasing the COMPLETE files,” Massie said in a post on X.
GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, also speaking to the podcaster Benny Johnson in a separate interview, said she would support creating a special counsel to investigate the Epstein matter.
“There has to be a special investigation into this if we aren’t going to be provided information,” she said.
Boebert also had a suggestion for who should lead the probe.
“Matt Gaetz as a special counsel? Absolutely,” she said. Gaetz, a former GOP congressman from Florida, was once the subject of a multiyear federal sex-trafficking investigation. Gaetz had long denied any wrongdoing and the probe ended with no charges against Gaetz.
Meanwhile, Democrats in the House on Tuesday tried to force a vote and debate on California Rep. Ro Khanna’s amendment that would have demanded the release of all the Epstein files. Their effort failed by just one vote after a nearly 45-minute vote.
House Judiciary Democrats penned a letter to committee chairman Jim Jordan on Tuesday demanding a hearing with Trump administration officials from the DOJ and FBI on the Epstein files.
Jordan, though, publicly expressed unwavering support
“I have total confidence in President Tump and his team,” Jordan told ABC News when asked if he had any questions regarding the Epstein case or if Bondi mishandled the situation.
Pima County Supervisor Adelita Grijalva joined concerned citizens of SE Arizona in front of Tucson’s Federal Building to protest an open pit copper mining project that would destroy the Santa Rita Mountains, May 3, 2025. Deja Foxx attends the Prada Fall/Winter 2024 Womenswear fashion show during Milan Fashion Week Fall/Winter 2024 – 2025, Feb. 22, 2024, in Milan.
(WASHINGTON) — A special election primary in Arizona’s 7th District on Tuesday was the latest flare-up of the Democratic Party’s clashes over age and experience as candidates vie to replace the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva.
Grijalva, who served as the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, died earlier this year from complications with cancer treatments. His daughter, former Pima County Supervisor Adelita Grijalva, ran to fill his seat and is the projected winner, according to the Associated Press.
She faced challenges from five other candidates, two of the most prominent being Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old progressive activist, and former state Rep. Daniel Hernandez.
With 65% of the vote counted according to the AP’s estimate as of 11:19 p.m. EST, Grijalva lead with 62% of the vote, followed by Deja Foxx with 20.6%.
If elected, Foxx would have been the first Gen Z woman to serve in Congress.
“Adelita’s victory tonight isn’t just a win for families in Southern Arizona. It’s a win for all those who believe in a government that works for everyday people,” said Maurice Mitchell, National Director of the Working Families Party.
In the heavily blue district, the winner of the primary will likely have a glide path in November. Progressive groups and lawmakers have largely thrown their support behind Grijalva, 54, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Emilys List. She also boasts endorsements from both of Arizona’s two senators.
Grijalva is campaigning on protecting Medicaid, promoting affordable housing, and defending southern Arizona’s economy against the Trump administration. She has highlighted her father’s legacy of championing environmental justice and her advocacy for public education while serving on the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board as issues she will continue to fight for in Congress.
“I’m not running on my last name, it just is my last name. So my dad left really big shoes to fill, but I stand on my own two feet in my more than two decades of public service to Arizona, and I’m proud to be supported by leaders and organizations that are leading the progressive movement,” she told ABC News.
“I think Adelita’s record, energy and commitment to fight for working class people speaks for itself,” Joe Dinkin, the deputy director of the Working Families Party, told ABC News. “We were supportive of her father, too, but our support for Adelita has nothing to do with that. It has to do with her.”
Foxx, who worked on Kamala Harris’ presidential primary campaign in 2020, says she is the only “change candidate” in the race and the sole “break from the status quo” that could help push Democrats into favorable approval ratings.
With 250,000 followers on Instagram and nearly 400,000 on TikTok, Foxx has utilized social media to promote herself as a young, working class candidate, highlighting her own experience relying on programs like SNAP, Section 8 housing, and Medicaid and her advocacy for reproductive rights.
“It seems obvious to someone like me that as the Democratic Party faces approval ratings in the 20 percents that they should be embracing new messengers,” Foxx told ABC News.
Thom Reilly, a professor of public affairs at Arizona State University, says there’s little policy daylight between Grijalva and Foxx.
“I also think the national dialogue has kind of factored into this race,” Reilly explained. He pointed to the deaths of three Democratic lawmakers, including Grijalva, while in office this year and the recent win by Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral primary as sparking renewed debates over age in party leadership.
While the Gen-Z and progressive flanks of the party came together in support of Mamdani last month, fissures within the cohort have emerged in Arizona. Foxx is backed by Leaders We Deserve, a political action committee that boosts young progressive candidates whose co-founder David Hogg clashed with Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin earlier this year over the group’s support of primarying “asleep at the wheel” incumbents. Hogg was a DNC vice chair, but left his post last month in the midst of turmoil over leadership elections.
Foxx has also been endorsed by the progressive advocacy group Gen-Z for Change. The organization’s Executive Director Cheyenne Hunt, who ran in a primary for a House seat in California last year, emphasized that the Arizona race was a key opportunity to uplift young leaders in the party.
“When we don’t have a Gen Z woman in Congress yet, that’s a fundamental problem,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — In a crippling setback for the Trump administration, House Republicans failed to advance a key procedural vote on a package of legislation including three crypto measures — a top priority for President Donald Trump.
A dozen House Republicans bucked Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson to prevent the legislation from advancing on the floor — joining the entire Democratic caucus — and, at least temporarily, freezing activity in the House. The final tally was 196-223.
Johnson said that while he anticipated that there may be enough opposition to defeat the effort, he felt that it was “important” to try to advance the bills. Republicans have a narrow majority in the House — with 220 Republicans compared to 212 Democrats.
Johnson said that he will attempt to work with Republican holdouts to answer questions — though no more votes are planned in the House on Tuesday.
The speaker explained that conservatives who voted against the rule want the crypto bills — CLARITY, GENIUS and Anti CBDC Surveillance Act — combined into one big package, rather than take separate standalone votes on each measure.
“This is the legislative process. We have some members who really, really want to emphasize the House’s product,” Johnson said. “They want to, want to push that and merge them together. We’re trying to work with the White House and with our Senate partners on this. I think everybody is insistent that we’re going to do all three, but some of these guys insist that it needs to be all in one package.”
The intraparty rebellion comes after Trump strongly urged Republicans to vote in favor of advancing the crypto bills.
“The GENIUS Act is going to put our Great Nation lightyears ahead of China, Europe, and all others, who are trying endlessly to catch up, but they just can’t do it,” Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday. “Digital Assets are the FUTURE, and we are leading by a lot! Get the first Vote done this afternoon (ALL REPUBLICANS SHOULD VOTE YES!).”
The no votes came from Reps. Andy Biggs, Tim Burchett, Michael Cloud, Andrew Clyde, Eli Crane, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Harris, Anna Paulina Luna, Scott Perry, Chip Roy, Keith Self and Victoria Spartz. Majority Leader Steve Scalise also changed his vote to “no” to preserve the capability to call the measure back up for another attempted vote.
Luna, a Florida Republican, told ABC News that she is “pro-crypto,” but voted against the procedural vote because she continues to have concerns about creating a “backdoor” to a Central Bank Digital Currency — a worry echoed by Greene.
“I just voted NO on the Rule for the GENIUS Act because it does not include a ban on Central Bank Digital Currency and because Speaker Johnson did not allow us to submit amendments to the GENIUS Act,” Greene, R-Ga., posted on X. “Americans do not want a government-controlled Central Bank Digital Currency. Republicans have a duty to ban CBDC. President Trump included a ban on CBDC in his January 23rd executive order and Congress must also include the ban on CBDC in the GENIUS Act.”
The vote came during what the White House is calling “Crypto Week” and marks a rare instance when House Republicans have defied Trump’s direction.
(WASHINGTON) — Mike Waltz, former national security adviser who left his position in May in the wake of the Signal chat controversy in March, faced questions Tuesday from Democratic senators over the episode in his confirmation hearing for his nomination as United Nations ambassador.
Waltz insisted, as White House officials have since the incident, that no classified information was shared in a group chat that he inadvertently invited a journalist to that discussed details of a strike against Houthi rebels in Yemen. And he suggested the use of Signal was not only appropriate — but actually prudent, given the guidance he was following.
“That engagement was driven by and recommended by the Cyber Security Infrastructure Security Agency, by the Biden administration … the use of signal is not only as an encrypted app. It’s not only authorized. It was recommended in Biden’s, the Biden era, CISA guidance,” he told Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.
“We followed the recommendation — almost the demand to use end-to-end encryption — but there was no classified information shared,” he told Coons.
Coons said he “was hoping to hear from you that you had some sense of regret over sharing what was very sensitive, timely information about a military strike on a commercially available app that’s not, as we both know, the appropriate way to share such critical information.”
“Senator, I think where we have a fundamental disagreement is there was no classified information on that, on that chat,” Waltz replied.
But Sen. Tim Kaine,D-Va., pointed out that investigations at the Pentagon by the Inspector General and the Air Force have not reached a conclusion on the question — although Kaine didn’t suggest Waltz himself shared classified information.
“I shouldn’t and can’t comment on ongoing investigations” at the Pentagon, Waltz said.
“The fact of the matter is,” Kaine said, “there are two investigations going on at the Pentagon precisely to determine in an objective and independent way whether classified information was shared, [or] at a minimum … attack plans with sensitive military information that shouldn’t have been shared.
Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, introduced Waltz before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and touted his experience.
“He is a seasoned policy mind, a skilled negotiator with a track record of diligently pursuing American interests unapologetically and with the appropriate amount of caution and attention to detail that those things deserve,” Lee said.
Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott said Waltz would “exceed expectations” in the role at the United Nations.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the committee, focused her opening remarks on criticism of the Trump administration’s cuts to the U.S. diplomatic budget.
“President Trump has said that the U.N. must return to its core mission of peace and security, but the administration is also proposing to slash U.S. contributions to the U.N. and eliminate the entire U.N. peacekeeping budget, increasing the likelihood that American soldiers will be sent into combat zones, and making China the largest U.N. peacekeeping and financial contributor,” Shaheen said, noting that at the same time, China was ramping up its investments in the U.N.
“Mr. Waltz, I urge you to take this threat seriously,” she added.
Waltz came under intense scrutiny in March for inadvertently inviting The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal chat with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and other top national security officials discussing details of the strike on the Houthis.
President Donald Trump nominated Waltz to the U.N. post at the same time he announced Secretary of State Marco Rubio would take over the national security adviser on an interim basis.
Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., pressed Waltz on remaining on the White House payroll despite no longer serving as national security adviser.
“Can you confirm for us whether you have been receiving a salary from the White House since being let go from the NSA?” Rosen asked.
“Thank you, Senator. I was not fired. The president never said that, nor did the vice president. I was kept on as an adviser, transitioning a number of important — a number of important activities, and now hope to be confirmed,” Waltz responded, calling reports of his dismissal “fake news.”
“You know, fake news can’t be the answer to everything,” Rosen retorted.
Before taking the role as national security adviser, Waltz served three terms in Congress representing Florida’s 6th Congressional District and sat on the Intelligence, Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. He was the first Green Beret to be elected to Congress.
During the presidential campaign, he was a key Trump surrogate on defense and foreign policy.
Before running for elected office, Waltz served in various national security policy roles in the George W. Bush administration in the Pentagon and White House. He retired as a colonel after serving 27 years in the Army and the National Guard.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Will Steakin, Mary Bruce, Hannah Demissie and Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — While the U.S. Department of Education cannot be dissolved completely under the law, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to lift an injunction against the Trump administration’s efforts to gut the agency took the first step in that direction — a move that could ripple to students around the country.
The Supreme Court’s decision, for now, allows the Trump administration to fire hundreds of employees who had been on paid administrative leave for months to officially be let go. The layoffs are supposed to take effect in August, according to internal Education Department emails obtained by ABC News, right as many of the nation’s schools return for a new school year.
The ruling allows the massive reduction in force to deliver on President Donald Trump’s mission to reduce fraud, waste, abuse and spending within the federal government — and return education power and decisions back to the states.
But what does this mean for America’s students?
Former Department of Education employees and education advocates told ABC News that they worry this ruling could harm the most vulnerable children in the country.
“This isn’t just about jobs,” former teacher and Department of Education liaison Dani Pierce told ABC News in a statement, adding “it’s about abandoning the people and programs that protect students’ rights, support educators and ensure equity in schools across the country.”
The Education Department, the smallest cabinet-level agency, was put in place to safeguard disadvantaged students, aiding them with financial support and civil protections, advocates say. By reducing the size and scope of the agency — now leaving it with about half of its staff — experts and advocates tell ABC News that disadvantaged students are at risk.
“The U.S. Supreme Court have dealt a devastating blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of left-leaning Democracy Forward — a public education advocacy nonprofit — said in a statement to ABC News. “We will aggressively pursue every legal option as this case proceeds to ensure that all children in this country have access to the public education they deserve.”
The department’s main responsibilities of administering the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio and assisting low-income and disabled youth will likely be impacted the most, Education Department sources tell ABC News.
Rachel Gittleman, a management and program analyst formerly of the Education Department’s Ombudsman Office, told ABC News that her position was a backstop for the Federal Student Aid (FSA) office. After Monday’s ruling, Gittleman warned student loan borrowers may not receive the same support.
“I think it makes repayment of student loans even harder than it already was,” she said. “It makes these systems, the federal student loan system, which is already a largely dysfunctional and broken system to begin with — I think it makes those harms even greater.”
However, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the department will help employees impacted by the cuts find new jobs and rehome different statutory functions of the agency, including student loans to treasury and funding for students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services. McMahon has also said that no statutory funding the agency administers will be cut.
The Supreme Court’s decision was welcome news to many in the education community.
Tiffany Justice, chair of the Parental Rights Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, has been a leading voice in the conservative movement to bolster the Trump administration’s argument.
Justice called the ruling “fantastic news” that is putting parents back into the driver’s seat of education decisions.
“Can’t wait for @EDSecMcMahon to be able to unleash the full power of reform on the bloated, inefficient, bureaucracy at @usedgov,” Justice said in a post on X on Monday.
Neal McCluskey, an education analyst at libertarian think tank Cato Institute, is also a staunch supporter of abolishing the agency. He took a victory lap on Monday.
“There is nothing unconstitutional about the executive branch trying to execute the law with fewer people,” McCluskey wrote in a statement to ABC News. “The administration should certainly work to eliminate the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education, but if it had wanted to do that unilaterally, it would have fired everyone.”
Meanwhile, conservative education leaders such as Wyoming State Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder have long said that the federal government should not have a role in education.
She told ABC News that underserved student services can be transferred to other departments and stressed that in Wyoming their priorities “are the same as President Trump’s priorities.”
“I do not see a place for the U.S. Department of Education to exist now,” Degenfelder said in an interview with ABC News.
“Our founding fathers designed our country, our government, in a way that states would have the ultimate authority when it comes to education.”
WASHINGTON — Mike Waltz, the former national security adviser who left his position in May in the wake of the Signal chat controversy in March, will face a confirmation hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill for his nomination as United Nations ambassador.
Waltz came under intense scrutiny in March for inadvertently adding a journalist to a Signal chat with top Trump officials discussing a U.S. military strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen.
President Donald Trump nominated Waltz to the U.N. post at the same time he announced Secretary of State Marco Rubio would take over Waltz’s post on an interim basis.
Trump defended Waltz in public, telling NBC News the day after details came to light in an article by The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg that Waltz “has learned a lesson and is a good man.”
Waltz later told Fox News that “I take full responsibility. I built the group.”
Waltz is likely to face some uncomfortable questions from Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a member of the committee, told CBS News in May after Trump announced the shuffle that Waltz’s confirmation hearing would be “brutal.”
In an interview with “ABC News Live,” Goldberg said he received a message request on Signal from Waltz, or someone “who’s purporting to be Mike Waltz” in March. Goldberg said he accepted the request and several days later he was added to a group that included Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, with Waltz apparently creating the chat.
Goldberg told ABC News a “long conversation” occurred between the group chat members on March 14, discussing “whether or not they should or shouldn’t take action in Yemen.”
The next day, he said he received a text in the chain from someone claiming to be Hegseth, or “somebody identified as Pete,” providing what Goldberg characterized as a war plan. The message included a “sequencing of events related to an upcoming attack on Yemen.”
Hegseth, Waltz and other White House officials denied the group had shared “war plans” in the chat but Pentagon acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins announced he was starting an investigation into Hegseth’s use of Signal during the Yemen attack. A U.S. official confirmed to ABC News that the IG was looking into a second Signal chat in which Hegseth shared timing for the attack with his wife, brother and attorney.
Before taking the role as national security adviser, Waltz served three terms in Congress representing Florida’s 6th Congressional District and sat on the Intelligence, Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. He was the first Green Beret to be elected to Congress.
During the presidential campaign, he was a key Trump surrogate on defense and foreign policy.
Before running for elected office, Waltz served in various national security policy roles in the George W. Bush administration in the Pentagon and White House. He retired as a colonel after serving 27 years in the Army and the National Guard.
