Cleanup workers search for contaminated sand and seaweed in front of drilling platforms and container ships about one week after an oil spill from an offshore oil platform on Oct. 9, 2021, in Huntington Beach, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

With just two weeks left in his presidency, Joe Biden will prohibit future oil and gas drilling off the entire East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the remaining portions of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea.

Biden will sign two memoranda Monday to permanently ban offshore drilling over more than 625 million acres of ocean to advance his commitment to conserve 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, a White House statement said.

The orders come at the request of bipartisan state and local leaders in coastal areas, Biden said, and reflect that the paltry fossil fuel resources in those areas would not be worth the risks of environmental, health and economic harms that could result from oil and gas exploration.

“In balancing the many uses and benefits of America’s ocean, it is clear to me that the relatively minimal fossil fuel potential in the areas I am withdrawing do not justify the environmental, public health, and economic risks that would come from new leasing and drilling,” Biden said in the statement.

President-elect Donald Trump, who will take office Jan. 20, criticized Biden throughout last year’s campaign for moves Trump said lowered the country’s energy production. A temporary freeze on oil and gas leases, rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline and other environmental measures taken by the Biden administration were part of what led to increased costs for consumers, Trump argued.

Economists have said that connection is dubious, but Trump is expected to pursue policies to expand oil and gas production.

‘I’ll unban it’

In a statement Monday morning, Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt strongly criticized Biden’s move. “This is a disgraceful decision designed to exact political revenge on the American people who gave President Trump a mandate to increase drilling and lower gas prices. Rest assured, Joe Biden will fail, and we will drill, baby, drill,” she said.

In a Monday morning radio interview, Trump pledged to roll back the move.

“It’s ridiculous,” he told host Hugh Hewitt. “I’ll unban it immediately. I will unban it. I have the right to unban it immediately.”

It’s unclear, however, if Trump would have the authority to undo Biden’s action on his own.

A similar issue played out in courts during Trump’s first term, but was eventually dismissed after he lost his 2020 reelection bid.

In April 2017, Trump issued an executive order to revoke offshore drilling restrictions his predecessor, President Barack Obama, had placed.

Environmental groups sued and a federal court in Alaska sided against the Trump administration, reasoning that the law governing offshore drilling, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, allows a president to withdraw areas from drilling but does not allow a president to revoke those withdrawals.

The Trump administration appealed in 2019, but the issue was resolved before an appeals decision when Biden took office and reinstituted the Obama withdrawals in 2021. The court dismissed the case as moot without ruling on the merits of presidential authority.

That means the precedent set at the district court level should remain for Trump’s second presidency, Seth Nelson, a spokesperson for the environmental group Evergreen Action, said Monday.

“This precedent suggests that President-elect Trump would face significant legal obstacles in attempting to reverse President Biden’s ban through executive order, requiring an act of Congress instead,” Nelson wrote in an email.

John Seibels, a spokesman for U.S. House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican, said Monday that reversing the ban would likely require Congress’ cooperation.

“It’s still early, but based on what we’ve seen, this will likely require work by congress to roll back this ban,” he wrote in an email.

In a Monday statement, Westerman said the House GOP majority would work with Trump to increase energy production, saying that Congress would use the legislative procedure known as budget reconciliation to reverse Biden energy policies.

“”While the federal deficit grows, President Biden’s decision to lock away 625 million acres of future energy potential undermines one of our nation’s greatest revenue streams—energy receipts, second only to income taxes,” Westerman said. “In the 119th Congress, we will use every tool, including reconciliation, to restore and unleash these revenues.”

‘We do not need to choose’

Biden, though, described offshore drilling in the vast areas he is protecting as detrimental to long-term U.S. economic health, in part by protecting fishing and tourism industries.

“We do not need to choose between protecting the environment and growing our economy, or between keeping our ocean healthy, our coastlines resilient, and the food they produce secure and keeping energy prices low,” Biden said. “Those are false choices. Protecting America’s coasts and ocean is the right thing to do, and will help communities and the economy to flourish for generations to come.”

The protections “have no expiration date, and prohibit all future oil and natural gas leasing in the areas withdrawn,” according to a fact sheet from the White House.

The orders protect 334 million acres of coast along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, stretching from the Maine-Canada border to the tip of Florida.

Nearly 250 million acres of Pacific coastline that is the habitat for “seals, sea lions, whales, fish, and countless seabirds” off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington will be protected. Governors of the three states had asked for the protections, according to the fact sheet. The last federal lease sale off the mainland West Coast was in 1984.

And 44 million acres of the Northern Bering Sea will be protected. The protections were sought by many Alaska Native communities, the White House said.

“This is an area where oil and gas development would pose severe dangers to coastal communities, and where the health of these waters is critically important to food security and to the culture of more than 70 coastal Tribes, including the Yup’ik, Cup’ik, and Inupiaq people who have relied on these resources for millennia,” the White House said.

President Joe Biden delivers remarks on Sunday, Dec. 29, 2024, in Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)

President Joe Biden announced early Friday he will block the sale of U.S. Steel to the Japanese company Nippon Steel, in one of the last acts of his presidency.

Biden had said that U.S. Steel should remain a domestically owned and operated company, so the order was not a surprise. The White House in December called for “serious scrutiny” of the $14.1 billion deal, which was under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an executive branch body.

“We need major U.S. companies representing the major share of US steelmaking capacity to keep leading the fight on behalf of America’s national interests,” Biden said in a Friday statement. “As a committee of national security and trade experts across the executive branch determined, this acquisition would place one of America’s largest steel producers under foreign control and create risk for our national security and our critical supply chains.

“So, that is why I am taking action to block this deal. It is my solemn responsibility as President to ensure that, now and long into the future, America has a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry that can continue to power our national sources of strength at home and abroad; and it is a fulfillment of that responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company. U.S. Steel will remain a proud American company – one that’s American-owned, American-operated, by American union steelworkers – the best in the world,” he said.

The sale, which was valued at $14.9 billion when accounting for assumption of debt, was opposed by the United Steelworkers International union, a powerful labor group that had continually urged Biden, who saw union workers as a key part of his political coalition, to keep U.S. Steel domestically owned. The union renewed that request in a Wednesday social media post.

In a Friday statement, USW President David McCall thanked Biden and said the union members had “no doubt that it’s the right move for our members and our national security.”

“We’re grateful for President Biden’s willingness to take bold action to maintain a strong domestic steel industry and for his lifelong commitment to American workers,” McCall said. “Moving forward, we’re confident that with responsible management, U.S. Steel will continue to support good jobs, healthy communities and robust national and economic security well into the future.”

U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel issued a joint statement that the companies were “dismayed” with the decision and vowed to “take all appropriate action to protect” their legal rights.

The transaction would have boosted the steel industry in the United States, thanks to billions of dollars the Japanese company had planned to put into U.S. facilities.

“Blocking this transaction means denying billions of committed investment to extend the life of U. S. Steel’s aging facilities and putting thousands of good-paying, family-sustaining union jobs at risk,” the joint statement said. “In short, we believe that President Biden has sacrificed the future of American steelworkers for his own political agenda.”

U.S. Steel and Nippon added that they had serious doubts about the process that led to CFIUS’ evaluation, calling it “deeply corrupted by politics” and “pre-determined.” 

In a separate blistering statement, U.S. Steel President and CEO David B. Burritt called the decision a “shameful and corrupt” deal with McCall, said it would hurt the company and its workers and vowed to “fight President Biden’s political corruption.”

Biden “gave a political payback to a union boss out of touch with his members while harming our company’s future, our workers, and our national security,” Burritt wrote. “He insulted Japan… and put American competitiveness at risk. The Chinese Communist Party leaders in Beijing are dancing in the streets.”

Biden did not meet with U.S. Steel leaders “to learn the facts,” Burritt continued.

“Our employees and communities deserve better. We needed a president who knows how to get the best deal for America and work hard to make it happen.”

Biden issued the order under the Defense Production Act, which allows the president to intervene in private industrial matters if national security is threatened. In his statement, he argued that retaining a strong steel industry was essential for national security.

A spending bill to be debated in Congress this week includes a provision to allow sales of a gasoline blend that includes up to 15% ethanol nationwide throughout the year. (Getty Images stock photo)

A spending bill U.S. House appropriators released Tuesday evening to keep the government open into next spring includes a provision to allow sales of a gasoline blend that includes up to 15% ethanol nationwide throughout the year.

After years of prohibiting the blend, known as E15, from being sold at gas stations during the summer months, the Environmental Protection Agency this year allowed year-round sales in eight Midwestern states. The provision in the stopgap funding bill would allow E15 sales in all states throughout the year.

The provision is a major win for corn producers and their allies in Congress from both parties. Supporters of ethanol, which is derived from corn, say it boosts U.S. production and lowers gas prices.

Sen. Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican who sponsored a bill to make the blend available all year, said the move was part of the GOP agenda to “unleash American energy.”

“My bill puts an end to years of patchwork regulations and uncertainty — year-round, nationwide E15 will now be a reality,” Fischer said. “This legislation also delivers on the mandate we received in November to unleash American energy. Not only will my bill lower gas prices and give consumers more choices, but it will also create new opportunity for American producers, who are especially hurting right now from lower prices.”

House Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey applauded inclusion of the measure, saying it would help reduce gas prices and bolster U.S. energy production.

“By allowing for a higher blend of ethanol in our gasoline, Americans can rely more on homegrown biofuels that save drivers money at the pump and help insulate Americans from dramatic global price fluctuations,” Pallone said in a statement.

U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., one of a handful of farm-state House Republicans pushing for the E15 provision, said in a statement, “Year around E-15 is the most important policy we can embrace for Midwestern farmers and ranchers. I was glad to advocate for this on the Agriculture Committee and to our Speaker, and glad to see it embraced. I also know our entire Nebraska delegation was pulling for this. It is a team win.”

At a U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last year, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska promoted E15 availability as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and lower prices.

The EPA issued a waiver in May 2022 to allow the blend to be available nationwide throughout the year, as President Joe Biden’s administration sought to tame gas prices.

The stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution, would keep the government funded at current levels through mid-March. It includes a few additional provisions, including funding to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland.

The House and Senate are expected to pass the catch-all measure before members depart for their holiday break on Friday. Biden is expected to sign the bill.

Nebraska Examiner reporter Aaron Sanderford and D.C. Bureau senior reporter Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby, accompanied by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, left, speaks during a news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Dec. 12, 2024, in Washington, D.C., during which they discussed drone sightings in New Jersey and other areas along the East Coast and other topics. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Members of Congress are among those calling for greater transparency from the federal government as a spate of reported drone sightings concentrated in New Jersey and New York has raised questions beyond the Northeast.

Reported sightings of drones, officially known as unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, have spiked since Nov. 18, when authorities received several reports of suspicious drone activity near critical infrastructure in New Jersey, according to an FBI official in the state who briefed reporters over the weekend.

The increased activity has worried some and led to calls from lawmakers for the federal agencies to provide more information on drone activity, even as security officials urged caution.

In a statement that described an “epidemic of non-stop drone sightings,” U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the federal government to deploy more drone-detection systems and to share information with local authorities.

“I want it deployed widely across New York and New Jersey to help give us concrete answers on what is going on, and from where,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said of a drone-detection system that the federal government uses. “What we need right now is data. The briefings I have had tell me there is no evidence that this is a government or foreign activity, and so, we have to answer the logical of question of: who?”

Schumer called on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to deploy the drone-detection system and said he would cosponsor a bill that would give local law enforcement more authority to respond to drone sightings.

Drones, like planes and other users of the national airspace, are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

“We still have very few answers on where some of these drones come from and who may be operating them,” Schumer said Monday on the Senate floor. “The people of New York and New Jersey have a lot of questions and haven’t gotten many answers. We know one thing, though. Local officials now don’t have the resources nor the authority to get to the bottom of what’s happening.”

On CBS’ Sunday morning news show “Face the Nation,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is a senior member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee with jurisdiction over the FAA, called for federal officials to brief U.S. senators.

“We need more transparency,” she said.

‘No evidence’ of threat, says DOD

U.S. Defense Department spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters Monday that there was “no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.”

Regardless, he said he wanted to take the public’s concerns seriously, but also offered further context.

The drone industry is expanding, with more than 1 million hobbyist and commercial drones licensed by the FAA and 8,000 in use daily.

He likened the drone sightings, even those near military installations or other important sites, to drivers who may get lost and turn up in their cars at places they are not supposed to be, something he said happens regularly without incident.

“The point being is that flying drones is not illegal,” he said. “There are thousands of drones flown around the U.S. on a daily basis. So, as a result, it’s not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat.”

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, noted Monday that federal investigators had not found any malicious activity and urged residents to “calm down” about drone sightings.

Many recent reports of drones, noted by non-experts, turned out to be commercial planes flying regularly scheduled nighttime routes.

More than 5,000 tips

The New Jersey-based FBI official said that the vast majority of the more than 5,000 tips his office received in the past month related to unidentified objects in the night skies have not been “actionable.”

The official, who briefed reporters along with officials from other agencies on the condition their names not be used, said the FBI was working to identify the 100 or so tips that did warrant further investigation.

“I don’t want to cause alarm and panic, but you can’t ignore the sightings that have been there, and we are concerned about those just as much as anybody else is,” the FBI official said. “We’re doing our best to find the origin of that specific — of those drone activities. But I think there has been a slight overreaction.”

Federal wildland firefighters earn as little as $15 per hour, with entry level positions earning just less than $27,000 per year, according to Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, an advocacy group. (Photo by U.S. Forest Service)

The $20,000 salary increase for wildland firefighters in the 2021 infrastructure law could be coming to an end next week if Congress doesn’t act.

The infrastructure law included $600 million to boost salaries for the nearly 11,200 wildland firefighters for two years, giving the Interior Department or Forest Service employees a raise of either $20,000 each or 50% of their base salary.

Federal wildland firefighters earn as little as $15 per hour, with entry level positions earning just less than $27,000 per year, according to Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, an advocacy group. Those rates are well below those of some state employees in similar roles.

The problem is Congress provided the higher pay rate would expire with the rest of government spending, which is set for Dec. 20.

Lawmakers are likely to once again pass a continuing resolution prior to that deadline to keep the government open at current spending levels into the new year.

But because the firefighter pay boost was part of the infrastructure law instead of a yearly spending bill, it would require additional legislation to keep being paid out beyond Dec. 20.

Firefighters, their advocates and some members of Congress are now pushing to have the pay raise made permanent, as lawmakers enter the final days of this session of Congress.

Disaster bill

President Joe Biden asked for a disaster relief spending bill after hurricanes Helene and Milton to include $24 billion for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Biden called for the bill — which is expected to be attached to the continuing resolution — to include “statutory language to support permanent, comprehensive pay reform for Federal wildland firefighters.”

The disaster aid bill appears the best chance of addressing the issue this year.

And appropriators are looking at fixing the issue in their annual funding bills, even as work on those bills is likely to be paused as Congress instead looks to pass a stopgap measure past Dec. 20 to keep the government funded for the next few months.

A House proposal included in Republicans’ spending bill covering the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies would direct $330 million for a pay increase to replace the expiring infrastructure law salary increase. It would be a permanent pay fix.

Setting a baseline in an annual spending bill would help keep the salaries consistent and avoid the uncertainty that comes with the expiration of the one-time infrastructure law funding, supporters say.

“Rather than continuing temporary and uncertain Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) supplemental payments, the funding in this bill will permanently address Federal wildland firefighter pay and capacity,” the funding bill’s chief sponsor, Idaho Republican Mike Simpson, and Oregon Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer wrote in an August op-ed in the Idaho Statesman.

Simpson is the chair of the subcommittee responsible for writing the bill. Chavez-DeRemer, who represents a purple district in Central Oregon, lost her reelection bid this fall but won a nomination to join President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet as secretary of Labor.

The Musk-Ramaswamy cost-cutting drive

The effort comes amid an atmosphere favorable to funding cuts in Washington. Republicans, who will soon have unified control of Washington as Trump returns to the Oval Office, have blamed the inflation of the past four years on high government spending.

Trump has tasked entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy with looking at ways to reduce federal spending. The pair of wealthy Trump backers has estimated $2 trillion could be trimmed from the $6.75 trillion annual budget, though they have been vague about what exactly would be chopped.

The Musk-Ramaswamy organization, which has not been formally created but is dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, is not expected to be an official government entity. A Trump spokeswoman did not return a message seeking comment about whether wildland firefighter pay would be a target for funding cuts.

Finding the political will to increase spending for any purpose in such an environment could be challenging, though increasing the pay of wildland firefighters — who work to manage the increasingly severe and costly fires that particularly ravage the rural areas known as the wildland-urban interface — has support from across the political spectrum in Congress, including leading GOP members.

The House funding bill authored by Simpson that included the pay raise passed the House nearly along party lines.

In a video message to constituents this month, Simpson sounded broadly supportive of Musk and Ramaswamy’s mission, but indicated there were areas he would fight to avoid cuts. He did not explicitly mention firefighter pay.

“It will be an interesting debate,” Simpson said of the effort to identify funding cuts. “I don’t mind having outside eyes look at how Congress does their job and how the money is spent. It could be spent more efficiently and more effectively, thus saving the taxpayer money.”

He added he was “excited” to see recommendations from the pair.

“There will be some I suspect I disagree with and a lot of them I probably agree with,” he said. “So that will be a debate for Congress.”

Senate bill

The Senate, which generally requires a much more bipartisan approach than the House, has not passed the Simpson-authored bill that Democrats opposed because of its drastic cuts to the Interior Department and EPA.

But the Senate companion spending bill, sponsored by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley, who chairs the corresponding spending panel in the Senate, also includes a permanent raise for wildland firefighters, as well as funding for a firefighter health and wellness program and a fund for housing.

“This bill honors the courageous work our federal wildland firefighters do by establishing a permanent fix to prevent a devastating pay cut,” Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement after the committee passed the bill 28-1 in July.

A U.S. law that would force the Chinese parent company of social media giant TikTok to either sell the service or face a U.S. ban is constitutional, a panel of federal appeals judges ruled Friday. In this 2020 photo illustration, the TikTok app is displayed on an Apple iPhone.  (Photo Illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The law Congress passed this year to force the Chinese parent company of social media giant TikTok to either sell the service or face a U.S. ban is constitutional, a panel of federal appeals judges ruled Friday.

The order from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals preserves the bipartisan law President Joe Biden signed in April forcing ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, to cease operations in the United States over concerns the platform’s data gathering could be obtained and used by the Chinese Communist Party.

TikTok, ByteDance and a handful of users sued the administration to block enforcement of the law, saying it violated the First Amendment right to free speech and other rights.

The panel on Friday rejected that argument, saying that although the short-form videos produced on the service constitute speech and the shuttering of U.S. operations would limit that speech, that was the result of the Chinese government’s “hybrid commercial threat to U.S. national security,” not the U.S. government’s actions.

“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” Senior Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote for the panel. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”

Ginsburg, who was appointed to the court by Republican President Ronald Reagan, and Neomi Rao, a Donald Trump appointee, formed the court’s main opinion. Chief Judge Sri Srinavasan, whom Democrat Barack Obama appointed, wrote a concurring opinion.

TikTok has the option to appeal Friday’s ruling to the full D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. The law is set to go into effect Jan. 19, the day before Trump — who has said he opposes the law even after trying his own TikTok ban during his first presidency — retakes office.

Free speech concerns

Those challenging the law are likely to appeal directly to the Supreme Court and to seek an emergency temporary stay, “given the urgency of the situation,” Jacob Huebert, who represents a plaintiff in the case, said in a Friday interview.

Huebert is the president of Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit that has litigated high-profile free-speech cases and is representing the libertarian news and commentary channel BASEDPolitics in the TikTok case, arguing that the law unconstitutionally restricts the channel’s reach to its intended audience of Gen Z users.

The government’s national security argument should not have overridden the First Amendment concerns, Huebert said.

“This national security justification that the court relied so heavily on isn’t enough,” he said.

The law would set a dangerous precedent that could be applied in the future to other social media, he added.

“It should trouble you regardless of what you think about TikTok or China in particular because it’s really a threat to Americans’ free speech rights online, across the board,” Huebert said.

Bill sponsors from both parties praise ruling

The bipartisan leaders of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, where the bill was introduced, cheered the decision Friday in a joint statement.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for the American people and TikTok users, and a loss for the Chinese Communist Party, which will no longer be able to exploit ByteDance’s control over TikTok to undermine our sovereignty, surveil our citizens, and threaten our national security,” Chairman John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican, wrote. “I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership.”

Ranking Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois said there is no solution other than a sale of TikTok.

“With today’s opinion, all three branches of government have reached the same conclusion: ByteDance is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, and TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance is a national security threat that cannot be mitigated through any other means than divestiture,” he said. “Every day that TikTok remains under the Chinese Communist Party’s control is a day that our security is at risk.”

The bill was introduced in March by then-Chair Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican who has since left Congress, and Krishnamoorthi.

It has dozens of co-sponsors from each party and passed the House 352-65. The Senate cleared the bill in April as part of a larger funding package.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.,  speaks during a news conference regarding the separation of immigrant children at the U.S. Capitol on July 10, 2018 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Edelman/Getty Images)

Raúl Grijalva, the top Democrat on the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, will not seek to remain in that position in the next Congress, he said in a written statement Monday.

The announcement from Grijalva, an Arizona progressive who has led Democrats on the committee overseeing environmental, public lands and tribal issues for a decade, paves the way for California’s Jared Huffman to take the ranking member role.

Meanwhile, in another major development among Democrats in the House, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said he would challenge Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York as ranking member on the powerful House Judiciary Committee.

“This is where we will wage our front-line defense of the freedoms and rights of the people, the integrity of the Department of Justice and the FBI, and the security of our most precious birthright possessions: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and democracy itself,” Raskin said in a “Dear Colleague” letter to lawmakers on Monday.  “I respectfully and humbly ask for your support for my candidacy.”

Grijalva to focus on recovery

Grijalva disclosed in April that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer. He returned to Congress last month. His Monday statement noted he would continue to focus on his recovery.

“After much thought, I have decided that it is the right moment to pass the torch as top Democrat” on the House Natural Resources Committee for the 119th Congress, he said. “I do not make this decision lightly, as being elected Ranking Member stands as the honor of my professional career. I will continue to focus on improving my health, strengthening my mobility, and serving my district in what is likely to be a time of unprecedented challenge for our community.”

Grijalva was reelected to the House in November. He plans to serve his full term as a rank-and-file member, a spokeswoman said.

In a statement, Huffman said if he is made ranking member, he would ask the House Democratic Caucus to give Grijalva the title of ranking member emeritus “in recognition of his distinguished career and the enduring importance of his leadership.”

Grijalva was first elected to the House in 2002. He became the Natural Resources Committee’s ranking Democrat in 2015.

Inflation Reduction Act

Grijalva chaired the committee while his party held the majority from 2019 to 2023.

The first half of his chairmanship was marked by investigations of the first Trump administration, including a criminal referral of former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.

The second half, which occurred during the first two years of the Biden administration amid unified Democratic control of Washington, saw the passage of the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed along party lines.

With hundreds of millions available in tax breaks for renewable energy projects, the law represented the largest federal investment in addressing climate change to date.

“I am so deeply proud of the progress that my colleagues and I have achieved in protecting our nation’s rich natural and cultural heritage, advancing justice for communities overburdened by pollution, elevating Indigenous voices and honoring tribal sovereignty, fighting for the decolonization of the U.S. territories, and securing a cleaner, safer climate and energy future for all Americans,” Grijalva said Monday.

Avoids race among Dems

Grijalva, who is also a chair emeritus of the Congressional Progressive Caucus after he co-chaired that group from 2009 to 2019, thanked “colleagues, tribal nations, and environmental organizations” who had supported him in his brief bid to fend off the challenge from Huffman.

Huffman, 60, said last month he would seek to unseat Grijalva, 76, a rarity among House Democrats, who do not use term limits for committee positions and normally strictly adhere to seniority.

Huffman is the top Democrat on the panel’s Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee. He is also a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

A statement from Huffman Monday was full of praise for the outgoing leader and said he would seek to work closely with him in the period of transition.

“For the past twelve years, Rep. Raul Grijalva has been my friend and ally on the Natural Resources Committee,” Huffman wrote. “Working alongside him, I’ve seen his grit, determination, and passion for protecting our nation’s treasured natural resources, and his iron-clad commitment to lifting up frontline and indigenous communities.  He has inspired me and countless others with his passion and the clarity of his values.”

“Future generations will benefit from all that he has fought for and accomplished during his remarkable career,” the statement continued. “Rep. Grijalva leaves big shoes to fill, and I will now dedicate myself to building on his legacy of principled and productive leadership as Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee.”

Grijalva’s statement did not name Huffman.

A spokesman for Chairman Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Raskin and Nadler

Raskin in his letter said he was announcing his challenge to Nadler, a longtime top member of the panel, with “respect and boundless admiration,” but also said the upcoming session of Congress would be crucial for the nation’s future and House Judiciary would play a major role.

“We face an administration that would essentially put the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 on steroids. They want to turn the Justice Department and FBI into weapons of not only mass immigrant roundup and deportation but political revenge and prosecution. They would collapse the system of separated powers into an all-powerful monarchical Executive, and convert America from being a defender of democracy and human rights to being an open collaborator with autocrats and authoritarian oppression,” wrote Raskin, a former professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law and a member of the Jan. 6 investigative committee in the 117th Congress.

“They want to align us with Putin’s Russia, Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, Xi’s China and Orban’s Hungary. In the 119th Congress, the Judiciary Committee will be the headquarters of Congressional opposition to authoritarianism and MAGA’s campaign to dismantle our Constitutional system and the rule of law as we know it. I hope to be at the center of this fight and—as someone who has battled cancer and chemotherapy—I can tell you that I will never, never surrender.”

Nadler told colleagues last month he would like to continue in his role as ranking member of the committee, Axios reported.

President-elect Donald Trump says on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on goods from China until those countries stop the flow of illegal drugs and migrants into the U.S. (Getty photo illustration by Olivier Le Moal)

President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement Monday that he would impose harsh tariffs on the United States’ closest trading partners will work against his pledge to bring down consumer prices, Democrats in Congress and economists are warning.

In a pair of posts to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Monday evening, Trump said on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on goods from China until those countries stopped the flow of illegal drugs and migrants into the U.S.

“Thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before,” Trump wrote. “On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders. This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”

While Trump has not always followed through on threats of stiff tariffs — generating doubts about how severe the next round will actually be — the executive branch does have wide latitude to impose the taxes on foreign goods without congressional approval, meaning it is likely Trump will act in some way.

“We are going to get several tariff threats via rage-posts over the next four years,” Brendan Duke, a senior director for economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said in an interview. “Unclear what exact levels on what exact countries he is going to pursue.”

What about inflation?

Tariffs are consistent with Trump’s preference for a protectionist trade policy, but may actively hurt in an area that was key to his election win over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris this month: taming inflation.

An analysis from the Center for American Progress said the tariffs Trump announced Monday would raise annual costs for the average U.S. family by $1,300.

Democratic members of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax and trade policy, estimated tariffs favored by Trump would increase consumer costs by up to $4,000 per year.

According to CBS News exit polling, 78% of voters said inflation was a moderate or severe hardship. Trump won voters who rated the economy as bad by 40 points over Harris.

Cars, ag and energy to be hardest-hit

About 15% of goods consumed in the United States are imported, Gary Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, an economics research center, said.

Adding across-the-board tariffs on those imports would contribute to consumers’ overall cost of living, even without considering related economic consequences.

“You’ve added to inflation, and that’s assuming that U.S. producers of similar products don’t jack up their prices,” he said. “But experience shows that if the economy is strong, they’ll do just that.”

The U.S. automotive sector, which is heavily integrated with Mexico and Canada with parts of a single vehicle produced in all three countries, could see “pretty startling” price increases, Hufbauer said.

Additionally, the U.S. imports Mexican fruits and vegetables and Canadian oil, complicating Trump’s campaign promise to bring down prices specifically of groceries and gas, Duke said.

“Americans have obviously been frustrated with the cost of food and the cost of gas,” he said. “Some parts of the United States are heavily reliant on Canadian oil, even though we’re a net exporter … So, one would expect price increases, especially in places like the Midwest that are heavily dependent on Canadian oil.”

Tariffs on Chinese goods would increase the costs of electronics, clothing and other consumer goods, Duke said.

Democratic legislation

Ways and Means Democrats, led by Washington’s Suzan DelBene and Virginia’s Don Beyer, and also joined by Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Terri Sewell of Alabama, Steven Horsford of Nevada, Dan Kildee of Michigan and four others, introduced a bill Tuesday to rein in the executive’s ability to implement tariffs, citing the added cost to American families.

“The American people have clearly and consistently said that costs are one of their top concerns,” DelBene said in a statement. “Imposing sweeping tariffs on imported goods would raise prices on consumer products by thousands of dollars a year according to estimates. Not only would widespread tariffs drive up costs at home and likely send our economy into recession, but they would damage our trade relationships with allies and likely lead to significant retaliation, hurting American workers, farmers, and businesses.”

Trump’s promises of dramatic tariffs go beyond the intent of the law that gave the president the power to enact tariffs, the Democrats said. Congress wanted a president to be able to quickly impose tariffs on hostile foreign countries, but did not intend “to allow a president to indiscriminately impose tariffs without Congress’ approval.”

Tariffs can be an important tool for conducting foreign policy, but the range Trump is proposing is 10 to 20 times beyond what even he did in his first term, Duke said.

He cautioned that the final form of new tariffs may not be exactly what Trump proposed Monday night, though they could be similar.

“He’s gonna do something on tariffs. I don’t know what. It’s probably not these exact levels on these exact countries,” he said. “But it rhymes with it.”

President-elect Donald Trump on stage with former first lady Melania Trump during an election event at the Palm Beach Convention Center early on Nov. 6, 2024 in West Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A New York state judge officially postponed President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing date Friday for the 34 felonies a jury convicted the former president of in May.

The order from Judge Juan Merchan indefinitely postponing a sentencing hearing that had been scheduled for next week was something of a formality after New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg said Tuesday he would not oppose Trump’s motion to suspend the criminal case during Trump’s upcoming term in the Oval Office.

Trump’s attorneys and prosecutors jointly asked for a delay on Nov. 12 as Bragg’s office determined how and if they would proceed following Trump’s election victory, which created an unprecedented situation for the court as Trump became the first convict to win a presidential election.

Legal experts have held for decades that a sitting president cannot face criminal prosecution.

In a statement Friday afternoon, Trump campaign communications director Steven Cheung asserted the election result this month showed voters rejected the criminal charges against Trump.

“President Trump won a landslide victory as the American People have issued a mandate to return him to office and dispose of all remnants of the Witch Hunt cases,” Cheun wrote. “All of the sham lawfare attacks against President Trump are now destroyed and we are focused on Making America Great Again.”

Merchan also granted the Trump defense team’s request to file a motion to dismiss the charges altogether. He set a Dec. 2 deadline for Trump’s brief arguing to dismiss the case, with prosecutors’ response due a week later on Dec. 9. Bragg said Tuesday he would fight Trump’s attempt to dismiss the entire case.

A jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records by paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels to conceal an alleged tryst. Trump sought to keep disclosure of the affair, which he denies took place, from voters during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Each of the 34 convictions is punishable by up to four years in state prison.

The case was the only one of four prosecutions against Trump to reach the trial stage in the nearly four years since he left the White House.

U.S. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith is winding down the two federal cases against the president-elect, consistent with longstanding department policy not to prosecute sitting presidents. Smith is reportedly planning to resign before Trump takes office.

President-elect Donald Trump speaks at a House Republican Conference meeting at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill on Nov. 13, 2024 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Allison Robbert-Pool/Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump ordered congressional Republicans on Wednesday to block a broadly popular bill to protect press freedoms, likely ending any chance of the U.S. Senate clearing the legislation.

The measure would limit federal law enforcement surveillance of journalists and the government’s ability to force disclosure of journalists’ sources, codifying regulations the Department of Justice has put in place under President Joe Biden.

The House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved it last year and it passed the House by voice vote in January.

“REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, in all capital letters on Wednesday, linking to a PBS segment about the measure.

Substantial floor time is generally required in the Senate to bypass the process that allows a single member to hold up the chamber’s business. With Democrats prioritizing confirmation of Biden’s judicial nominees before they lose their majority in January, it is unlikely they would bring a vote on the measure without the unanimous consent of all 100 senators.

Trump’s influence within the Senate Republican Conference makes reaching unanimous consent exceedingly unlikely.

The bill’s House sponsor, California Republican Kevin Kiley, accepted the bill’s defeat in a statement Thursday.

“Based on the feedback we’ve received from Senators and President Trump, it’s clear we have work to do to achieve consensus on this issue,” he said. “I’m looking forward to working with the new Administration on a great many areas of common ground as we begin a new era of American prosperity.”

A Kiley spokesperson declined to provide further details about senators’ feedback on the measure. A spokesperson for U.S. Senate Judiciary ranking Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In the House, 19 members from both parties, including Republicans Barry Moore of Alabama, Darrell Issa of California, Russell Fry of South Carolina and Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Democrats Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Ted Lieu of California and Rashida Tlaib and Dan Kildee of Michigan, signed on as cosponsors.

Protection for local journalists

Jon Schleuss, the president of The NewsGuild-CWA, a national journalists’ union that has supported the bill, noted in a Thursday statement it would protect news sources across the political spectrum.

“Americans would not know about the corruption of former Democratic Senator Bob Menendez or former Republican Representative George Santos without the hard work of local journalists holding power to account,” he said. “All of us depend on journalism, especially local journalism, to shine a light and protect Americans from threats, both foreign and domestic. The PRESS Act protects all voices: news sources, whistleblowers and the journalists they talk to from media outlets across the spectrum.”

In a Thursday statement to States Newsroom, Gabe Rottman, policy director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the bill a “reasonable and common-sense measure” that enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

“Its passage would put an end to actions the Justice Department has taken under past administrations of both parties to target reporters’ confidential communications when investigating and prosecuting disclosures of government information,” he wrote. “We urge Congress to recognize that there is still a need for a legislative remedy here.”

Press advocacy groups have expressed worries about Trump’s return to the White House, citing a record in his first term that included surveillance of and legal threats against journalists and news organizations.

Seeking retribution

In the closing days of the presidential race, Trump fantasized aloud about reporters being shot.

Press freedom groups also worry that Trump’s promises to use the federal bureaucracy to seek retribution against perceived enemies would extend to journalists.

“In his second term, Trump will make good on these anti-press threats to try to destroy any news outlet, journalist, or whistleblower who criticizes or opposes him,” Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote in a Nov. 6 blog post.

Stern added that Trump would “almost certainly repeal” the protections against surveillance the Department of Justice had put in place during President Joe Biden’s term.

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday he would tap Linda McMahon as Education secretary in his second administration. In this photo, McMahon, at the time the head of the Small Business Administration, speaks during a rally with GOP lawmakers at the U.S. Capitol Nov. 28, 2017 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday night he plans to nominate Linda McMahon, the co-chair of his transition team, to lead the Education Department in his second administration.

“We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and Linda will spearhead that effort,” Trump said in a statement, referring to his pledge during this campaign to abolish the Department of Education.

McMahon, a decades-long executive with World Wrestling Entertainment and the head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first presidency, has served on the Connecticut Board of Education. The statement said she has also served as a member of the Board of Trustees at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, for two stints totaling over 16 years.

She twice ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut and has been a major fundraiser for Republicans, including Trump.

McMahon led the SBA from 2017 to 2019 and took a position with a Trump political action committee ahead of his 2020 reelection bid. She later became chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank.

McMahon and her husband, Vince McMahon, the founder and longtime leader of WWE, grew the professional wrestling company into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. A recent lawsuit also alleges that WWE and Vince McMahon failed to stop the sexual abuse of underage “Ring Boys,” Axios recently reported. Linda McMahon is a co-defendant in the suit.

Trump’s Education secretary in his first term was Betsy DeVos, another wealthy donor. DeVos resigned from the administration on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol.

In a statement, National Education Association President Becky Pringle said McMahon is unqualified for the post.

“During his first term, Donald Trump appointed Betsy DeVos to undermine and ultimately privatize public schools through vouchers,” Pringle said. “Now, he and Linda McMahon are back at it with their extreme Project 2025 proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, steal resources for our most vulnerable students, increase class sizes, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle class families, take away special education services for disabled students, and put student civil rights protections at risk. ”

FEMA Disaster Survivor Assistance Team members conduct outreach to provide local and FEMA resources to Charlotte County residents in Punta Gorda, Florida, on Oct. 22, 2024. (Photo courtesy of FEMA)

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell told two U.S. House panels Tuesday that there is no evidence that an order to deny emergency relief to Donald Trump supporters went beyond a single rogue employee — though Criswell said she welcomed a robust investigation to confirm that.

A long line of Republicans denounced the action of a low-level agency supervisor working in Florida following Hurricane Milton. The supervisor told her team to avoid canvassing houses that displayed support for Trump, at the time the Republican nominee in the 2024 election and now the president-elect.

Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee with oversight of FEMA and the House Oversight and Accountability Committee were largely congenial toward Criswell. They thanked her for terminating the employee while still questioning if a larger culture of political targeting plagued the agency.

Criswell repeatedly told the panels the incident appeared to be isolated. She added that the agency was conducting an internal investigation to determine if any other employees were involved.

The fired employee, Marn’i Washington, was not named during the morning’s Transportation and Infrastructure hearing but has openly discussed the matter with news media. Members of the Oversight Committee did name Washington during the afternoon hearing.

“The actions of this employee are unacceptable, and it is not indicative of the culture of FEMA, and I do not believe that there is a widespread cultural problem,” Criswell said at the Transportation and Infrastructure hearing. “I have directed ongoing investigations, working with the (Homeland Security inspector general), working with the Office of the Special Counsel, and if we find any other acts of similar behavior, we will take appropriate disciplinary measures.”

Criswell said the employee directed about 11 subordinates to skip houses with Trump signs. About 20 homes in Florida were passed over, she said.

Larger problem?

Pressed by Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee Chair Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, Criswell said she would request an inspector general investigation.

Perry and other GOP members said they would continue to probe allegations from Washington that her directions to avoid canvassing homes with Trump signs were part of a larger directive within the agency.

“If that is the case, more people at FEMA must be held accountable,” Perry said.

At the afternoon hearing of the Oversight Committee, Chair James Comer of Kentucky said a politicized civil service workforce was a problem throughout the federal bureaucracy.

“While today’s hearing will focus on FEMA, the issue at hand is part of a larger problem: the urgent need to hold the unelected, unaccountable federal workforce accountable to the American people and to the duly elected president of the United States,” he said. “In his first term, President Trump faced not only open insubordination from federal employees who refused to help implement his policies, but also subtler practices intended to thwart elements of his agenda.”

While the internal FEMA investigation is ongoing, Criswell could say only that she had “seen no evidence that this was anything beyond one person’s specific instructions to her team.”

She added that investigators had questioned “other personnel” in the employee’s chain of command and had found “no information at this point that there was anything beyond her direction to her employees to skip and bypass a home.”

She told House Oversight member Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, that she would comply with any requests for information or agency communications the committee requested.

Republicans on both panels praised Criswell’s handling of the immediate situation.

“I think you did your job, and I think you did it well,” Minnesota Republican Pete Stauber told Criswell. “You terminated that employee who weaponized the federal government as quickly as you can. And I think we need to do more of that.”

Democrats warn of misinformation

Democrats on both panels also denounced Washington’s actions, while warning that misinformation has made FEMA workers’ jobs more difficult.

Nevada’s Dina Titus, the ranking Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure panel, said she was “very upset” to learn about the incident.

“I condemn the employee’s decision,” she said. “That should never be the case and Administrator Criswell immediately did the right thing when she learned about this incident, by firing the employee and referring the case to the Office of Special Counsel.”

Washington has defended her action partially by saying the agency has a policy to avoid confrontations when canvassing in the wake of a disaster.

Oversight ranking Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland called the judgment “a bad mistake, legally and constitutionally, which violated the core mission of FEMA and every federal agency to work on behalf of all Americans.”

“It’s plainly wrong and divisive to use a presidential campaign lawn sign as a proxy for someone’s dangerousness,” he said.

Democrats on both panels decried an environment of misinformation that could foment hostility toward federal aid workers.

“I was disgusted with the ridiculous rumors that were floating around cautioning people that government was going to bulldoze over their communities, seize their homes and divert disaster aid to other programs,” Titus said.

Raskin said FEMA aid workers encountered “a cloud of propaganda and lies concocted to erode public trust in FEMA.”

“Because of this disinformation, many victims of hurricanes have rejected federal assistance, and others have even harassed and threatened FEMA workers,” he said.

Trump retribution

New Jersey’s Jeff Van Drew, a Republican member of Transportation and Infrastructure, told Democrats to be wary about FEMA aid being denied to opponents of a presidential administration.

“People on the other side of the aisle should know: If it happened to us, it could happen to them,” he said.

Democrats noted that Trump had threatened to withhold FEMA aid based on political affiliation during his first term.

Rep. Maxwell Frost, a Florida Democrat, criticized “hypocrisy” from Republicans on the Oversight panel who denounced political targeting of Trump supporters without acknowledging Trump reportedly had to be convinced to send aid to disaster-struck areas he thought were heavily Democratic. 

President-elect Donald Trump said Monday he would nominate former Congressman Sean Duffy as Transportation secretary. In this photo, Duffy and his wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, speak onstage during the 2023 FOX Nation Patriot Awards at The Grand Ole Opry on Nov. 16, 2023 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Photo by Terry Wyatt/Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump will nominate former U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin Republican, to be the next secretary of Transportation, Trump said in a statement Monday evening.

Duffy, who earned praise from both parties during his House tenure for helping to pass legislation funding a bridge connecting Wisconsin and Minnesota, won five elections to the U.S. House but resigned his seat in 2019 to care for a daughter born with a heart condition and Down syndrome.

Duffy appeared on MTV’s “The Real World” before running for Congress. He met his wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, on the show.

After leaving Congress, Duffy returned to TV, appearing as a commentator on CNN, a contributor for Fox News and later a co-host on Fox Business.

A former member of the House Financial Services Committee, he also led the financial services practice at the Republican-leaning lobbying firm BGR Group.

In the written statement from the presidential transition, Trump highlighted Duffy’s years in Congress.

“Sean will use his experience and the relationships he has built over many years in Congress to maintain and rebuild our Nation’s Infrastructure, and fulfill our Mission of ushering in The Golden Age of Travel, focusing on Safety, Efficiency, and Innovation,” Trump wrote. “Importantly, he will greatly elevate the Travel Experience for all Americans!”

Trump and Duffy appear to enjoy a warm relationship, with the former president encouraging Duffy to run for Wisconsin governor in 2022, bypassing the front-runner for the GOP nomination, former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch.

DOT portfolio

Congress passed, and President Joe Biden signed, a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law in 2021. That law authorizes highway and transit programs through the end of September 2026.

The law increased several sources of transportation funding, including some grant programs that are awarded at the secretary’s discretion.

If confirmed, Duffy would also oversee the Federal Aviation Administration, which is monitoring Boeing after a series of safety mishaps involving the manufacturer’s jets.

New standards for rail safety, following a disastrous derailment last year of a train carrying hazardous materials near East Palestine, Ohio, and autonomous vehicles could also be on the next secretary’s agenda.

Trump’s Transportation secretary in his first term was Elaine Chao, who was the Labor secretary under former President George W. Bush. Chao, who is married to outgoing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, announced her resignation from the administration on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Trump’s record on transportation during his first term was marked by a series of false starts on a massive infrastructure package that never materialized. Some inside the administration sought to boost private-sector involvement in infrastructure, while others favored more direct federal spending.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum on Friday was tapped by President-elect Donald Trump as both Interior secretary and head of a new National Energy Council. In this photo Burgum, center, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., right, and Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., left, watch as Trump walks towards the courtroom for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 14, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement Friday afternoon that his pick for Interior secretary, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, would also coordinate a new council on energy policy is a sign the incoming administration will make energy production a core part of its domestic policy.

Few details of the new National Energy Council were available Friday, as activists and lawmakers processed the surprise 4 p.m. Eastern announcement. But the move likely reflects a focus by Trump and his next administration on energy production, including fossil fuels.

“They’re signaling ahead of time that this is one of their priority areas,” Frank Maisano, a senior principal at the energy-focused law and lobbyist firm Bracewell LLP, said in an interview.

Burgum “will be joining my Administration as both Secretary of the Interior and, as Chairman of the newly formed, and very important, National Energy Council, which will consist of all Departments and Agencies involved in the permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation, of ALL forms of American Energy,” a written statement from Trump said.

“This Council will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation.”

Trump said the council’s objective to increase U.S. energy supply would benefit the domestic economy and allies overseas and help power “A.I. superiority.”

“The National Energy Council will foster an unprecedented level of coordination among federal agencies to advance American energy,” Burgum said in a written statement. “By establishing U.S. energy dominance, we can jumpstart our economy, drive down costs for consumers and generate billions in revenue to help reduce our deficit.”

It was unclear what the role of the Department of Energy would be in such an arrangement. The current secretary in the Biden administration is Jennifer Granholm, a former governor of Michigan.

‘Drill, drill, drill’

Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump frequently pledged to expand oil and gas production. The issue was one of two he told Fox News host Sean Hannity he would seek to address as a “dictator” on the first day of his administration.

Trump told Hannity during an Iowa appearance in December that he would not be a dictator, “except for day one. I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”

Comments like that foreshadowed something like a new council to oversee energy policy, said Lisa Frank, executive director of the advocacy group Environment America.

“President Trump has been very clear that one of his top priorities is to ‘drill, baby, drill,’” Frank said. “I’m not surprised. It was such an important part of his campaign, and it is the case that energy decisions are made by all sorts of different agencies in different ways, and that can be kind of a difficult thing to manage if you’re trying to drive an agenda.”

Under outgoing President Joe Biden, the administration promoted an “all-of-government approach” to climate change, with several departments and agencies across the federal bureaucracy tasked with addressing the issue. White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi was tasked with coordinating a consistent climate approach across the executive branch.

Burgum’s role could be similar, though the aim likely will be much different. 

“This is similar to what the previous administration did, but the previous administration focused on climate,” Maisano said. “It’s just energy instead of climate.”

Another key difference is that Burgum will also be tasked with running an entire, separate Cabinet-level department with a nearly $18 billion annual budget.

Balancing the priorities of the Interior Department — which includes public lands management, protecting endangered species, maintaining national parks and overseeing tribal relations — with an initiative to vastly expand fossil-fuel production could be difficult, Frank said.

“The really tough decisions about balancing those two agendas will lie, to some extent, with Secretary Burgum, if he’s confirmed,” she said. “Do we want more drilling at our national parks? Do we want it on our families’ ranches? Do we want it where you want your kids to hunt? Do we want fracking near the best trout streams? Those are going to be very difficult questions for both him and the American public.”

All of the above

Burgum is seen across the political spectrum as favoring an all-of-the-above approach to energy, meaning he wants to expand both fossil-fuel and sustainable-energy sources. Environmental groups see his record on climate as mixed.

His state ranks ninth in wind-energy production, Frank said, but also last in reducing carbon emissions over the last two decades.

“He’s familiar with all aspects of energy, because as governor of an all-of-the-above energy state, he has to be,” Maisano said.

Some Democrats and left-leaning groups voiced immediate opposition to the selection of Burgum. The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee Democrats sent a series of tweets Friday dubbing the governor “Big Oil Burgum” over ties to the oil and gas industry.

But others were more tempered in their reaction to Burgum’s selection as Interior chief than some of Trump’s other picks for Cabinet positions.

Patrick Donnelly, the Great Basin director for the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, tweeted Thursday evening that it did not seem likely the Trump administration would roll back expansion of renewable energy.

Trump’s first term saw an expansion of clean-energy projects, Donnelly wrote. Burgum is “not a climate denier” who doesn’t have a record of stifling renewable energy, he added.

“Burgum sucks but he’s not a complete lunatic that I’m aware of,” Donnelly said in an earlier tweet. “Could have been worse.”