U.S. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks during a press conference on the border on Thursday, Dec. 7, 2023. Also pictured, left to right, are Sens. John Thune of South Dakota, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham on Friday released the text of the budget resolution that will lay the groundwork for Republicans in Congress to overhaul border security, boost defense funding and address energy extraction — if the two chambers can broker a deal.

The South Carolina Republican announced earlier this week he would move ahead with the first steps in the Senate amid an ongoing stalemate in the House GOP over both process and policy.

House Republicans gathered at the White House for hours Thursday, searching for a way to unite over campaign promises they hope to pass in one large package, though Graham’s budget moves forward with a two-package plan. 

Graham’s decision to jump ahead of the House appeared to spur some motivation in that chamber, though the House has yet to release a budget resolution or announce consensus between the centrist and far-right members within its conference.

“To those who voted for and support real border security and a stronger defense in a troubled world, help is on the way,” Graham wrote in a statement. “This budget resolution jumpstarts a process that will give President Trump’s team the money they need to secure the border and deport criminals, and make America strong and more energy independent.”

Committee to meet next week

The Senate Budget Committee plans to mark up the 61-page budget resolution on Wednesday and Thursday. After that, it will likely go to the Senate floor for debate and a marathon all-night amendment voting session, and then head to the House.

The House and Senate must agree on a budget resolution before they can officially begin the reconciliation process, which allows lawmakers to pass legislation in the Senate without having to go through procedural votes that require the support of at least 60 senators. That means the legislation would not need the support of Democrats in the chamber controlled by Republicans 53-47.

The two chambers adopting separate budget resolutions would not meet the requirements, though they could go to conference to sort out their disagreements before holding floor votes again in each chamber on one final budget resolution.

The Senate budget resolution would provide reconciliation instructions to the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; Armed Services; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and Public Works; Finance; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Judiciary committees.

Where savings in spending would be made

The reconciliation instructions don’t provide much insight into how exactly each committee will draft its section of the reconciliation package, but the instructions do begin to clarify how much each committee will have to spend on its bill or to find in savings to help pay for the overall cost.

For example, the Senate Armed Services Committee is told to draft its piece of the package in a way that doesn’t increase the deficit by more than $150 billion, so that committee’s bill will likely cost about that much.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP, Committee appears to be one of the committees expected to provide some savings, since its reconciliation instructions call on the panel to reduce the deficit by at least $1 billion. That committee, led by Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, has a large jurisdiction including the Department of Health and Human Services and its programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.

The committees that will be able to spend money in the reconciliation package include Commerce, Science and Transportation with a price tag of $20 billion; Environment and Public Works with a topline of $1 billion; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with a funding level of $175 billion; and Judiciary with a spending allocation of $175 billion. 

The Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee is charged with finding at least $1 billion in savings; Energy and Natural Resources must draft a bill saving at least $1 billion; and Finance is asked to provide another $1 billion or more in cost-cutting. Finance, which is led by GOP Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, also holds jurisdiction over the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Those committees must draft and vote to send their pieces of the reconciliation package to the Senate Budget Committee before March 7.

Two-step approach

The instructions indicate Graham is moving forward with the two-step approach to reconciliation that Senate Republicans and even many House GOP lawmakers have been pushing for.

Their proposal for two packages — the first focused on border security, defense spending and energy policy and a second focused on taxes — is in contrast to Speaker Mike Johnson’s wishes.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, wants Congress to pass all of the GOP’s policy changes in one package.

An inability to agree on process would block any path forward for the policy changes, unless GOP leaders were to negotiate with Democrats. 

OMB nominee Russ Vought testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to confirm Russ Vought as director of the Office of Management and Budget, giving support to one of the architects of Project 2025 and someone who hopes to erode Congress’ control over government spending.

Vought, who worked as OMB director during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, was confirmed on a 53-47 party-line vote that followed Democrats keeping the chamber in session overnight to highlight their opposition.

Objections to Vought centered around his goal to give the president more authority over federal spending decisions, which Democrats said is a violation of the separation of powers in the Constitution. 

“Congress makes laws and appropriates funds, not the president,” New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan said. “At stake is not a legal technicality, at stake is our very notion of self-government, a notion that Mr. Vought appears to disdain.”

Hassan, a Democrat, referenced the Trump administration halting congressionally approved funding for grant and loan programs in late January as one example of OMB overreaching.

“The grant money was never the president’s to cut, freeze, or restore — it doesn’t belong to him or to Mr. Vought, it belongs to the American people,” Hassan said. 

She also pointed to the Government Accountability Office finding OMB “violated” a federal law known as the Impoundment Control Act when it withheld $214 million in security assistance for Ukraine during the first Trump administration.

“It was five years ago this week that this body debated President Trump’s attempt to illegally impound funds that were intended for Ukraine,” Hassan said, referring to the first of two impeachments. “An impoundment attempt that was supported and directed by Mr. Vought.”

Obscure office with big clout

The Office of Management and Budget, also called the White House budget office, is responsible for submitting the president’s annual budget request to Congress, but it also has sweeping authority over federal regulations and federal agencies.

Acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth caused considerable confusion in late January when he released a two-page memo calling for a halt to trillions in federal funding for grant and loan programs spread across departments and agencies.

The memo, which was later rescinded, led to two separate lawsuits and two federal judges issuing temporary restraining orders blocking the Trump administration from implementing the proposed funding freeze.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday that Vought is qualified to become OMB director, in part, because he has already been OMB director.

“There’s no question that he will be able to hit the ground running,” Thune said. “As director of OMB, Mr. Vought will have the chance to address two key economic issues — cutting burdensome government regulations and addressing excessive spending.”

Thune said the United States is on a “dangerous spending track” and that the government should find “ways to reign in our spending and to target government waste.”

“And I’m confident that Mr. Vought will help lead that charge,” Thune said.

Rapid confirmation for Trump nominees

Vought’s confirmation marked the 13th of Trump’s nominees to receive Senate confirmation in the three weeks that he’s been in the Oval Office.

“That’s roughly twice as fast as nominees were confirmed at the start of the two previous administrations,” Thune said. “The Senate will take up additional nominees next week and will maintain an aggressive pace to get the president’s full team in place as soon as possible.”

Senate-confirmed nominees include, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, Interior Secretary Douglas Burgum, Energy Secretary Christopher Wright, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Eric Turner.

‘Impoundment’ struggle

Vought has spent the past four years leading the Center for Renewing America, a think tank he launched following his tenure in the first Trump administration.

The organization has published repeatedly about the 1974 Impoundment Control Act and impoundment authority, arguing the president should be able to block funding Congress has approved.

The U.S. Constitution gives the legislative branch the so-called power of the purse, putting the authority over how federal dollars are spent in the hands of lawmakers.

Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act more than 50 years ago, after then-president Richard Nixon halted billions in funding the body had approved.

The law gives the president two ways to request that Congress rescind funding it already appropriated — sending a rescission request via a special message, which allows the president to hold onto the money for 45 days, or through a deferral sent through a special message.

“The President, OMB, or a department or agency head or employee may defer budget authority to provide for contingencies, effect savings, or as specifically provided by law,” according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. “No officer or employee of the United States may defer budget authority for any other purpose.”

During his confirmation hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Vought testified he believes the president holds the ability to impound funding approved by Congress. Vought has also said repeatedly he believes the 1974 law is unconstitutional.

“The president has run on the issue of impoundment and has reminded the country that 200 years of presidents have used this authority,” Vought said during the hearing. “And we’ll be developing our approach to this issue and strategy once his administration is in office.”

Democrats have sounded alarm bells over the president potentially holding impoundment authority, saying it would make it extremely difficult for lawmakers to negotiate bipartisan agreement on the dozen annual government funding bills.

The president simply ignoring parts of a spending agreement would lead to even more distrust and gridlock within Congress, Democrats say.

Project 2025

Vought also wrote part of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a 922-page document outlining the conservative organization’s goals for a second Trump administration.

In a 26-page chapter on the executive office of the president, Vought wrote the OMB director “must ensure the appointment of a General Counsel who is respected yet creative and fearless in his or her ability to challenge legal precedents that serve to protect the status quo.”

Vought wrote that Trump “should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government.”

“Anything short of that would constitute abject failure,” Vought contended.

Vought also wrote about the management aspect of OMB’s portfolio, pressing for political appointees to have more authority and influence than career staff.

“It is vital that the Director and his political staff, not the careerists, drive these offices in pursuit of the President’s actual priorities and not let them set their own agenda based on the wishes of the sprawling ‘good government’ management community in and outside of government,” Vought wrote. “Many Directors do not properly prioritize the management portfolio, leaving it to the Deputy for Management, but such neglect creates purposeless bureaucracy that impedes a President’s agenda—an ‘M Train to Nowhere.’”

President Joe Biden gives a pen to Bette Marafino, president of the Connecticut Chapter of the Alliance for Retired Americans, after he signed the Social Security Fairness Act during an event in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  At left are Sen.  Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.  The legislation expanded Social Security benefits for millions of retired Americans, including firefighters, police officers and teachers. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators from both political parties wrote to the acting Social Security commissioner on Thursday, expressing concern it might take the agency more than a year to implement an expansion to benefits that Congress approved last year.

“The Social Security Fairness Act restores full Social Security benefits for the millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants who are unfairly penalized by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO),” the group of 28 senators wrote. “We call for the immediate implementation of this legislation to provide prompt relief to the millions of Americans impacted by WEP and GPO.”

The senators then asked Commissioner Michelle King to provide Congress with “monthly updates and briefings” on how the agency was implementing the new law.

The one-page letter was signed by Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich, Colorado Democratic Sen. John Hickenlooper, Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, Maine independent Sen. Angus King, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján, Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, Nebraska Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, Nevada Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen, Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, Vermont Democratic Sen. Peter Welch and Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

No estimated timeframe

The Social Security Administration has a webpage with answers to several questions regarding the new law and how the agency is trying to implement the change in benefits.

The webpage says the agency “cannot yet provide an estimated timeframe for when we will adjust a person’s past or future benefits, but we will continue to provide updates on this webpage. We thank the public for its patience.”

The webpage also explains how people who have never filed for Social Security benefits due to the Windfall Elimination Provision or the Government Pension Offset can apply now that there is a new law.

A spokesperson for the Social Security Administration said the agency “received the letter and will respond directly to the requestors.” States Newsroom had asked for details about why the law’s implementation might take a year. 

Congress voted on a broadly bipartisan basis late last year to approve the bill making the change and then-President Joe Biden signed it into law in January.

The pension offset affects about 746,000 Americans while the windfall provision affects 2.1 million, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which includes maps showing which states have higher concentrations of people affected by the two former provisions. 

The U.S. Capitol covered in snow on Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Budget Committee plans to mark up a budget resolution next week, starting off the long and likely arduous reconciliation process the GOP hopes it can use to pass sweeping changes to border security and immigration policy.

Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, announced the markup on Wednesday, moving ahead of the House, which had hoped to move a budget resolution through committee this week.

“To those who believe that Republicans should fulfill their promises on border security, mass deportation of criminal illegal aliens: I agree,” Graham wrote in a statement.

“That is why the Senate Budget Committee will be moving forward next week to give the Trump Administration’s Border Czar, Tom Homan, the money he needs to finish the wall, hire ICE agents to deport criminal illegal immigrants, and create more detention beds so that we do not release more dangerous people into the country.”

Graham said the reconciliation bill “will be the most transformational border security bill in the history of our country.”

Budget blueprint

Congress’ budget resolution is a tax and spending blueprint that lays out lawmakers’ vision for the 10-year budget window. It doesn’t contain any actual federal spending.

The House and Senate must agree to adopt the same budget resolution before Congress formally unlocks the reconciliation process that will enable Republicans to enact their policies without Democratic support.

While the GOP controls both chambers of Congress, Senate rules require at least 60 lawmakers vote to limit debate on major bills. Republicans hold 53 seats at the moment, shy of the supermajority needed to move legislation through the regular process without Democratic buy-in.

The reconciliation process, which has strict rules in the Senate, allows the GOP to get around that 60-vote requirement as long as the various elements of the package address revenue or spending in a manner not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. Reconciliation bills also cannot change Social Security.

One bill or two?

Senate Republicans moving first on a budget resolution doesn’t guarantee the House will vote to adopt the same budget resolution, especially if it only contains reconciliation instructions to address border security and immigration policy.

House GOP leaders have pressed for months for Congress to move all of their policy goals, including those addressing tax and energy, through one reconciliation package.

Senate Republicans, including Graham, have said the party should write two separate reconciliation packages with the first focused on border security and the second addressing taxes.

While the House and Senate don’t need to work out all the policy details of the eventual reconciliation package in the budget resolution, they must agree which committees will get reconciliation instructions and what those instructions will say.

Vote-a-rama looms

Once the Senate Budget Committee votes its budget resolution to the Senate floor, GOP leaders will need to dedicate floor time to debating the resolution. But before the upper chamber can take a final vote on the budget resolution, senators will need to undertake the vote-a-rama; typically an all night marathon session, where senators from both parties put up dozens of amendments to the budget resolution.

Democrats will use the process to put senators facing challenging reelection prospects in 2026 on the record on policies that could cause them issues, either during a primary or a general election.

After that, the Senate’s budget resolution would go to the House, where GOP leaders could choose to adopt it, or to make changes, which would require it go back to the Senate

The House could also bring its own budget resolution up in its Budget Committee, bring that through the floor and then go to conference with the Senate.

That’s all before the House and Senate begin to debate the actual reconciliation bill with the actual policy changes in committees and on the floor.

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said last month he hopes the entire process will be wrapped up before the end of May.

House GOP leaders have an especially narrow margin to work within, holding just 218 seats at the moment, compared to Democrat’s 215 members. There are currently two vacancies that will be filled by special elections later this year.  

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump hold a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Netanyahu is the first foreign leader to visit Trump since his return to the White House last month. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s proposal to have the United States take over Gaza and potentially deploy American troops in the extremely volatile region failed to win over members of Congress, many of whom — including Republicans — said during interviews Wednesday they either won’t support it or need more details.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, which would need to supply the funding for the United States to take charge in Gaza, said she wasn’t inclined to support Trump’s proposal.

“I do not know the details of the president’s plan. It came out of the blue. It may be a negotiating tactic rather than a real plan,” Collins said. “But I do not see it as feasible based on the little that I know about it at this point, particularly if it’s going to involve the deployment of U.S. troops.”

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin rejected Trump’s idea and questioned if he would be able to deploy U.S. troops under an existing Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress approved following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That AUMF has been used by several presidencies to combat terrorism in multiple countries, not just Afghanistan.

“He got a very public rebuke from the Saudis in the middle of the night,” she said. “And you know, many of the people in the Gaza Strip were already refugees from 1948. So the idea that there’d be forced removal, not only is it a violation of international law, it’s just a completely unfeasible and immoral thing to do.”

Slotkin said she would have to see the details of when and how Trump would potentially send U.S. troops to Gaza, but said she didn’t expect the existing AUMFs would provide him the authority needed.

“I think there’s a difference between sending U.S. troops for a mission just to be there and then forcibly removing a population, which violates international law,” Slotkin said.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she didn’t believe the United States taking over Gaza would benefit the people who live there.

“I think they’ve seen enough turmoil in that region,” Murkowski said. “I don’t think that we need to contribute.”

Murkowski didn’t want to address whether Trump has the authority under an existing AUMF to deploy U.S. troops to Gaza or whether he’d need a new one from Congress.

“I don’t even want to speculate to that question, because I think that is quite frightening,” Murkowski said.

A role for U.S. troops?

North Dakota GOP Sen. John Hoeven said he would support the U.S. taking over Gaza in some capacity and the deployment of U.S. troops to the region, even if that means Congress needs to pass a new AUMF.

“If there’s a role there for U.S. troops, yes, I’m inclined to be supportive of that. We’d have to see the how and the particulars, but I’m very open to that. I think we do need to take strong action. I think that’s what President Trump is doing,” Hoeven said. “And if it would require an AUMF, I would certainly be open to that. So we have to see what role they play, make that decision. But yes, I’m supportive of strong action for a long-term fix here.”

Hoeven said it would be “jumping ahead” to speculate about U.S. casualties, should troops be deployed to Gaza.

“It’s a dangerous place, right? And we have the finest military, the best trained military in the world,” Hoeven said. “And this is a strategic ally for us. And we’re fighting a global war on terror, remember?”

Trump not committed to troops in Gaza ‘yet’

Trump announced his proposal during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday evening, saying the “U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too.”

“We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site,” Trump said. “Level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out. Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and the people of the area.”

Trump didn’t rule out placing American troops in Gaza, potentially bringing the United States into direct conflict with Hamas, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization that controls the area.

“If it’s necessary, we’ll do that,” Trump said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said more than once during a press briefing Wednesday that Trump hasn’t committed to placing U.S. troops in Gaza “yet.”

Leavitt also rejected the idea that America taking ownership of Gaza would lead the “United States to be entangled in conflicts abroad.”

“This is an out-of-the-box idea,” Leavitt said. “That’s who President Trump is, that’s why the American people elected him.”

Details to come

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said during a press conference Wednesday there will be “more details forthcoming” on Trump’s announcement that he wants the U.S. to assume control of Gaza. But Johnson seemed generally supportive of the idea.

“Here’s the problem, if you leave Gaza in its current form there’s always a risk of another October 7, there’s always a risk of proxies of Iran, all these terrorist organizations whose openly stated goal is to eliminate Israel as a state,” Johnson said. 

“So it just makes sense to make the neighborhood there safer. I think that’s logical. I think that follows common sense. I think people understand the necessity of it,” Johnson added. “And we’re going to stand with Israel as they work toward this goal and we’re going to stand with the president on his initiatives.”

Johnson said he plans to speak with Netanyahu, who is on an official trip to Washington, D.C., later this week about the proposal.

Johnson said Trump’s recommendation the U.S. take over Gaza, “was greeted by surprise by many, but cheer by, I think, people all around the world.”

“Why? Because that area is so dangerous,” Johnson said. “And he’s taking bold, decisive action to try to ensure the peace of that region.”

World leaders critical

Leaders from numerous countries as well as the United Nations have sharply criticized Trump’s pitch, with several saying a two-state solution is the best pathway forward for Palestinians and Israel.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “They (Palestinians) must be allowed home, they must be allowed to rebuild, and we should be with them in that rebuild on the way to a two-state solution.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said he expects Trump to release details on how exactly he wants the U.S. to take over Gaza, but said he would oppose any efforts to have Americans pay to rebuild the 140 square miles.

“There are two main issues with respect to Gaza,” Kennedy said. “Number one, who’s going to pay to rebuild it if we decide to rebuild it. And number two, who’s going to run the place.”

Kennedy said he does expect Congress would have some role to play if Trump were to try to claim Gaza as sovereign territory, but conceded he wasn’t sure what that role would be.

Kennedy seemed opposed to U.S. troops being deployed to Gaza, though he tried to brush aside questions about that as inconsequential hypotheticals.

“I don’t think any of us want to see American troops put in harm’s way, but you’re speculating,” Kennedy said.

Senators mull the concept

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said he believes Trump “was trying to paint a picture of a Gaza without Hamas, which I completely agree with.”

Tillis said a question about whether he would support U.S. troops on the ground in Gaza was “jumping way ahead.”

“You know that’s not even likely but it’s good clickbait,” Tillis said. 

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, ranking member on the State-Foreign Operations spending panel, said “anybody who thought when they voted for Donald Trump that they were getting someone oriented towards peace and against American empire is getting a rude awakening.”

“This guy wants to establish a United States colony in the Middle East, and that is deeply, deeply, dangerous,” he said.

Schatz gave a thumbs down in response to a question about whether he expects Congress would approve the trillions of dollars that would likely be needed to rebuild Gaza and cover the cost of a U.S. troop deployment throughout that area.

‘Trying to shake things up’

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman said he would describe Trump’s proposal for Gaza as “provocative,” though he said he believes the suggestion of the U.S. taking ownership of the region was about starting a conversation.

“To me, it’s about, I think, trying to shake things up and to acknowledge people have to start having an honest conversation about what’s going to be done about Gaza, because people can’t live in rubble and they don’t have, you know, utilities,” Fetterman said.

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt said her “concern is to make sure the innocent people of Gaza have an opportunity to thrive and so do the people of Israel.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said he has been focused on the confirmation process for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for Health and Human Services secretary, and hadn’t seen Trump’s comments about taking over Gaza.

“My brain has been so fried from everything,” Cassidy said. “Let me kind of digest everything that has happened since my process going through RFK.” 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman said he wasn’t familiar with Trump’s comments and couldn’t weigh in on whether he would support such a plan or not.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said “not now” when asked about Trump’s plan for Gaza. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies during his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. moved one step closer to becoming Health and Human Services secretary on Tuesday after a Senate committee favorably reported his nomination to the floor.

The Finance Committee’s 14-13 party-line vote doesn’t necessarily guarantee Kennedy will receive Senate confirmation, though it signals he does have the chance despite decades of spreading false information about vaccine safety.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who backed Kennedy in committee, said during a floor speech later Tuesday he had received hundreds of messages personally and thousands into his office expressing strong support from some and dismay from others about the prospect of Kennedy gaining Senate confirmation.

“The most notable opponents of Mr. Kennedy were pediatricians on the front lines of our children’s health, who regularly have to combat misinformation,” Cassidy said. “They are aware that children are now contracting diseases that they would not have contracted if the child was vaccinated.”

Cassidy, who worked as a physician for decades before becoming a senator, said Kennedy and the Trump administration have assured him they will protect “the public health benefit of vaccination.”

“Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed that he and I would have an unprecedentedly close, collaborative, working relationship if he is confirmed,” Cassidy said. “We will meet or speak multiple times a month.”

Pledges by Kennedy

Cassidy said Kennedy and the Trump administration committed that if confirmed, Kennedy would: 

• Work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not establish parallel systems;

• Maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on immunization practices recommendations without changes;

• Keep statements on the CDC’s website that state vaccines do not cause autism;

• Provide at least 30 days notice to the HELP Committee if HHS wants to make changes to any of the federal vaccine safety monitoring programs;

• Allow the HELP Committee chairman to choose a representative on any board or commission formed to review vaccine safety; and

• Appear before the HELP Committee on a quarterly basis if requested.

“If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority of the Senate committee with oversight of HHS to rebuff any attempt to remove the public’s access to life-saving vaccines without ironclad causational scientific evidence that can be accepted and defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress,” Cassidy said. “I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongly sow public fear about vaccines between confusing references of coincidence and anecdote.”

Cassidy said that if Kennedy is confirmed as HHS secretary by the full Senate, he expects Kennedy would support overhauls Cassidy has planned for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

“We also need to reform institutions, like FDA and NIH, and those, as has already been indicated, are my priorities as chairman of the HELP Committee. I look forward to his support in accomplishing this,” Cassidy said.

‘Manifestly unqualified’

Democrats raised their concerns about how Kennedy’s confirmation would impact the country’s public health system, just before the committee voted.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said that Kennedy is “manifestly unqualified for the job he seeks.”

“We need a serious person at the helm of the HHS, an agency responsible for the health of about half of all Americans,” Warnock said. “Mr. Kennedy appears more obsessed in chasing conspiracy theories than chasing solutions to lower health care costs for working families in Georgia and to make sure that we are protected.

“The last thing we need is a dilettante dabbling in conspiracy theories at HHS.”

‘Go wild’

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said that he believes Kennedy will “go wild” as HHS Secretary.

“I hope he goes wild and actually finds a way to reduce the cost of health care,” Tillis said. “I hope he goes wild and instead of having the discussions that we have had for the 10 years that I’ve been in the Senate of making Medicaid work and making people on Medicaid healthier, I hope he goes wild and figures out how to do it because the status quo has not achieved much in the way of gain.

“I hope he goes wild on food safety discussions so that we can actually approve our food safety supply.” 

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press as he prepares to depart the White House aboard Marine One on Jan. 24, 2025, in Washington, D.C.. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday, blocking the Trump administration from implementing a spending freeze on grant and loan programs that was outlined in a memo released last week, but has since been rescinded.   

Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia became the second federal judge to issue such an order, following a ruling Friday from Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island.

“Defendants’ actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a ‘bulwark of the Constitution’ by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds,” AliKhan wrote in the 30-page ruling.

“OMB ordered a nationwide freeze on pre-existing financial commitments without considering any of the specifics of the individual loans, grants, or funds,” she added. “It did not indicate when that freeze would end (if it was to end at all). And it attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it.”

AliKhan also denied a motion from a Department of Justice attorney to dismiss the case, rejecting the idea that OMB rescinding the memo truly ended the freeze.

“Destroying the paper trail of allegedly illegal activity means nothing if the activity persists,” she wrote.

AliKhan issued an administrative stay in the case last week, though that expired on Monday at 5 p.m. Eastern. The two cases are expected to play out in the weeks and months ahead.

Legal fight erupted after OMB memo

The lawsuit, National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget, was filed in late January by several organizations one day after OMB issued the memo announcing the spending freeze on grants and loans.

Kevin Friedl, one of the attorneys representing the organizations, said during a 90-minute hearing Monday that while OMB has rescinded the memo, there are still examples of organizations that are unable to access a payment portal or receive funding from that portal.

Department of Justice attorney Daniel Schwei argued that any funding still paused is likely on hold due to one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders and not the OMB memo that led to the lawsuit.

Schwei also said that DOJ believes individual federal departments and agencies have the “discretion” to halt federal spending that Congress has already approved.

Friedl said there were numerous examples of funding still frozen that didn’t appear connected to any of Trump’s executive orders. And he told the judge there was “no evidence” that the ongoing funding freeze is the result of independent discretion from agency leadership.

Leavitt social media post

Friedl referenced a social media post from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, where she wrote that revoking the OMB memo was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.”

“It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo,” Leavitt wrote. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.”

“The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented,” Leavitt added.

Friedl said during Monday’s court hearing that it was clear the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the OMB memo was meant to “get out from under” the administrative stay Judge AliKhan issued last week.

Schwei disagreed that Leavitt’s social media post showed the Trump administration was seeking to skirt the judge’s previous administrative stay.

Schwei urged Judge AliKhan not to issue a temporary restraining order, saying it would be duplicative, given the ruling from the Rhode Island federal judge. But, he said, that if she were to issue a temporary restraining order, it should be limited to the organizations that filed the lawsuit.

Those organizations include the American Public Health Association, Maine Street Alliance, National Council of Nonprofits and SAGE.

‘Power of the purse’ with legislators, judge says

Judge AliKhan didn’t appear to do that in her temporary restraining order.

AliKhan wrote that “(a)s evidenced by the White House Press Secretary’s statements, OMB and the various agencies it communicates with appear committed to restricting federal funding.”

“If Defendants retracted the memorandum in name only while continuing to execute its directives, it is far from ‘absolutely clear’ that the conduct is gone for good,” AliKhan wrote. “There is nothing stopping OMB from rewording, repackaging, or reissuing the substance of memorandum M-25-13 if the court were to dismiss this lawsuit.”

AliKhan rejected the Trump administration’s belief that it holds the ability to cancel spending approved by Congress, writing that its “actions appear to suffer from infirmities of a constitutional magnitude.”

“The appropriation of the government’s resources is reserved for Congress, not the Executive Branch. And a wealth of legal authority supports this fundamental separation of powers,” she wrote. “The legislature’s ‘power of the purse is the ultimate check on the . . . power of the Executive.’”

AliKhan also criticized how the Office of Management and Budget went about implementing its proposed spending freeze through a memo issued about 24 hours before the pause in grant and loan funding was set to start.

“If Defendants intend to conduct an exhaustive review of what programs should or should not be funded, such a review could be conducted without depriving millions of Americans access to vital resources,” AliKhan wrote.

The Trump administration, she wrote, could have taken “a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending,” but chose instead to “cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision.”

“To say that OMB ‘failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’ would be putting it mildly.”

The White House announced that tariffs on products from Mexico, Canada and China will begin Feb. 1. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump plans to implement tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China on Saturday, potentially starting off a trade war that would likely lead to price increases on groceries and numerous other products.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing Friday that Trump will place 25% tariffs on goods coming into the United States from Canada and Mexico, and a 10% tariff on imports from China. Tariffs are paid by businesses bringing goods into the United States from other countries and they often pass on the increase in costs to consumers.

“The tariffs are incoming tomorrow on Canada and the reason for that is because both Canada and Mexico have both allowed an unprecedented invasion of illegal fentanyl that is killing American citizens and also illegal immigrants into our country,” Leavitt said.

Trump hasn’t yet decided if he will later implement tariffs on the European Union, made up of 27 countries, according to Leavitt.

“I won’t get ahead of the president on tariffs when it comes to the European Union,” she said.

Trump said later Friday from the Oval Office that he wasn’t using the tariffs as a negotiating tool, but as a way to raise revenue for the federal government and bring attention to fentanyl flowing into the country.

“We’re not looking for a concession. We’ll just see what happens,” Trump said.

The new tariffs will be stacked on top of existing tariffs, he said.

Trump said he planned to add additional tariffs at some point on computer chips and “things associated with chips,” oil and gas, steel, aluminum, copper, pharmaceuticals and “all forms of medicine.”

Trump said he will likely implement the oil and gas tariffs on Feb. 18, but didn’t provide dates for the other tariffs.

Trump brushed aside a question about how tariffs would impact prices, saying he was elected to reduce inflation. He said he wasn’t concerned about the stock market’s reaction on Friday afternoon to the impending tariffs. 

Many economists, including those at conservative think tanks, like the American Enterprise Institute, have warned against broadly applying tariffs in this way.

Phil Gramm, former Republican chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and nonresident senior fellow at AEI, and Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration, wrote an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday urging Trump not to implement tariffs.

“Our united opposition to non-defense-related tariffs is based not on our faith in free trade but on evidence that tariffs are harmful to the economy,” they wrote.

“Protective tariffs distort domestic production by inducing domestic producers to commit labor and capital to produce goods and services that could have been acquired more cheaply on the international market,” Gramm and Summers wrote. “That labor and capital are in turn diverted from producing goods and services that couldn’t be acquired more cheaply internationally. In the process, productivity, wages and economic growth fall while prices rise. Tariffs and the retaliation they bring also poison our economic and security alliances.”

Leavitt said during the press briefing that only Trump could decide whether he would eventually lift or alter the tariffs, while brushing aside the potential impacts to the U.S. economy. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service writes on its website that Canada and Mexico “are the United States’ first and third largest suppliers of agricultural products (averaging $30.9 billion and $25.5 billion in 2017–21, respectively).

“Mexico supplied the United States with 31 percent of imported horticultural products including fruit, vegetables, and alcoholic beverages. Canada is also a source of horticultural products, as well as grains, and meats.”

The Office of the United States Trade Representative writes on its website that the U.S. imported $562.9 billion worth of goods from China during 2022.

U.S. agricultural exports to China, which could be impacted by retaliatory tariffs, totaled $36.4 billion during fiscal year 2022, according to the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. 

“U.S. exports have returned to trend growth experienced since the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in the last 2 years the United States has witnessed record export values to China for soybeans, corn, beef, chicken meat, tree nuts, and sorghum. Cotton exports to China have also rebounded, propelled by strong demand. All these products are major contributors to the U.S. farm economy.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's plan to suspend spending on grants and loans. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal district judge issued a temporary restraining order on Friday, blocking the Trump administration from moving forward with a proposed spending freeze on grants and loans.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island wrote in the 13-page ruling the administration’s “actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States.”

“Federal law specifies how the Executive should act if it believes that appropriations are inconsistent with the President’s priorities–it must ask Congress, not act unilaterally,” McConnell wrote. “The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the President may ask that Congress rescind appropriated funds. Here, there is no evidence that the Executive has followed the law by notifying Congress and thereby effectuating a potentially legally permitted so-called ‘pause.’”

The lawsuit, filed by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, stems from a two-page memo the Office of Management and Budget issued Monday evening.

The document called for a freeze on all federal grants and loans, leading to widespread confusion about how far reaching the halt could be and how long it would last.

While the memo said it wouldn’t impact Social Security or Medicare, it was silent on Medicaid and hundreds of other federal programs, including those that go to veterans, schools and food support programs.

A separate document from OMB listed thousands of programs that were subject to the original OMB memo.

District Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia issued a short-term administrative stay of OMB’s actions Tuesday, blocking the Trump administration from implementing the freeze. That ruling was in response to a separate lawsuit over the OMB memo filed by the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance. 

The following day, the Trump administration rescinded the OMB memo shortly before McConnell heard from the attorneys in the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on social media that rescinding the memo was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.”

“It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo,” Leavitt wrote. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.”

“The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented,” she added.

Her comments were noted in Judge McConnell’s temporary restraining order.

“Based on the Press Secretary’s unequivocal statement and the continued actions of Executive agencies, the Court finds that the policies in the OMB Directive that the States challenge here are still in full force and effect and thus the issues presented in the States’ TRO motion are not moot,” McConnell wrote.

An attorney for the U.S. Justice Department had argued during a virtual hearing before McConnell on Wednesday that the case was no longer necessary since OMB rescinded the original memo.

McConnell’s temporary restraining order will stay in place until he rules on an upcoming request from the Democratic state attorneys general for a preliminary injunction.

McConnell wrote in the temporary restraining order that the Trump administration’s assessment that it has a responsibility “to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities … is a constitutionally flawed statement.”

“The Executive Branch has a duty to align federal spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through congressional appropriations, not through ‘Presidential priorities,’” McConnell wrote.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to approve and direct federal spending in Article 1, Clause 9, Section 7. Lawmakers have used that over time to approve mandatory spending on programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as discretionary spending on the dozen annual appropriations bills.

Those measures fund the vast majority of federal departments and agencies, including Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development.

Those bills include hundreds of grant and loan programs, many of which were frozen by the original OMB memo, which McConnell wrote in his temporary restraining order would have significantly impacted states.

“The Executive Orders threaten the States’ ability to conduct essential activities and gave the States and others less than 24 hours’ notice of this arbitrary pause, preventing them from making other plans or strategizing how they would continue to function without these promised funds.” McConnell wrote.

Since Congress approved funding for those programs, McConnell wrote, “the Executive’s refusal to disburse them is contrary to congressional intent and directive and thus arbitrary and capricious.”

Democratic attorneys general who filed the lawsuit before McConnell are from New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services ,departs after testifying in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s opinions about vaccine safety, both past and present, appeared likely to lead at least a few Senate Republicans to vote against his nomination following a second confirmation hearing Thursday.

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said at the end of the three-hour hearing that he agrees with Kennedy that vaccines should be safe and effective, but that the two are far apart in how they went about their research.

“As someone who has discussed immunizations with thousands of people, I understand that mothers want reassurance that the vaccine their child is receiving is necessary, safe and effective. We agree on that point, the two of us,” Cassidy said. “But we’ve approached it differently. And I think I can say that I’ve approached it using the preponderance of evidence to reassure and you’ve approached using selected evidence to cast doubt.”

Throughout the hearing, Cassidy and numerous other senators from both political parties asked Kennedy about previous statements he’s made, including a repeatedly debunked claim that certain vaccines lead to autism.

Kennedy, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to the hugely influential post of secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said that he would apologize and reassure Americans about the measles and Hepatitis B vaccines, if Cassidy could show him data establishing their safety.

Cassidy discussed the decades of safety data during the hearing and cited peer-reviewed studies, but Kennedy never backed away from his claims.

Kennedy repeated statements he made during his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on Wednesday, during his Thursday hearing, including that he just wanted to follow the science, though he added caveats.

“I am not going to go into HHS and impose my pre-ordained opinions on anybody at HHS,” Kennedy said. “I’m going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job and make sure that we have good science that’s evidence based, that’s replicable, where the raw data is published.”

The Autism Science Foundation writes on its website that Autism Spectrum Disorder is “a brain-based disorder that is characterized by social-communication challenges and restricted and repetitive behaviors, activities and interests.” The nonprofit, which funds research into the causes of autism, notes that “there are many genetic and environmental factors involved with autism.”

“These include both rare and common variants. About 15% of cases of autism can be linked to a specific gene mutation,” the organization says. “Some of the environmental factors that have been studied include medical conditions in parents, age, toxic chemicals, medications taken during pregnancy and before pregnancy, and diet and nutrition.”

Sanders: ‘Take on the insurance companies’

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member on the HELP Committee, said there were areas where he hoped Kennedy succeeded, including reducing obesity and reducing ultra processed foods. But he said that actually improving Americans’ overall health would require much more than that.

“I’m not quite sure how we can move to making America healthy again, unless we have the guts to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies that guarantee healthcare to all people,” Sanders said.

Other policy changes, like paid family and medical leave, are essential to ensuring that people can live healthy lives, he said.

“There are women today who are having babies, then they’re going to go back to work in a week or two because they have no guaranteed paid family and medical leave,” Sanders said. “How do you have a healthy country when women are forced to go back to work? When women and men get fired because they stay home taking care of their sick kids? That’s not making America healthy again.”

Sanders said it’s extremely difficult for people to find time to live healthy lives when they must work extremely long hours, making $13 or $14 an hour, only to still live in poverty.

Murkowski focuses on Native Americans’ health

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another centrist Republican who hasn’t publicly announced whether she’ll support Kennedy’s confirmation, questioned him about how he’d help improve health outcomes in Native American communities.

“When you look at our health statistics, whether it’s Alaska Natives or whether it is American Indians, our health statistics in this country … are not where they need to be,” Murkowski said. “And it’s in all categories. It’s infectious disease, it’s tuberculosis, it’s Hep C, it’s mental health, it’s depression, it’s substance use, it’s sexually transmitted diseases, it’s hypertension, stroke. It is so deep, and it is so challenging and it is so hard.”

Murkowski cited Kennedy’s prior comments where he said he’d triple the amount of federal spending to tribal communities.

Kennedy didn’t commit during the hearing to boosting funding for the Indian Health Service or other programs designed to support Indigenous communities, but said he did hope to hire someone from one of those communities at the assistant secretary level at HHS.

“I’d like to get him actually designated as an assistant secretary … to ensure that all of the decisions that we make in our agency are conscious of their impacts on the First Nations,” Kennedy said.

Murkowski also expressed concern about Kennedy’s statements on vaccine safety, saying that while some things need to be shaken up, there also has to be a “level of confidence” in public health programs.

“We have made some considerable gains in my state of Alaska with vaccinating the many people in very rural areas where one disease outbreak can wipe out an entire village,” Murkowski said. “We saw this in 1918 with the Spanish flu. And that’s why everyone was rattled to the core; villages were shut down entirely, entirely, during COVID because of the fear of transmission.”

Murkowski told Kennedy he was clearly an influencer with a platform he could use to greatly benefit people, if he chooses to.

“I’m asking you to focus on how you can use your position to provide for greater levels of confidence to the public when it comes to these life-saving areas,” Murkowski said.

Collins probes on vaccines

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a centrist who faces a challenging reelection bid next year, told Kennedy she agreed with him that the federal government needs to focus more time, energy and money addressing chronic diseases, like diabetes and Alzheimer’s.

“But it concerns me when I read a quote from you that says, ‘I’m going to say to NIH scientists, God bless you all. Thank you for your public service. We’re going to give infectious diseases a break for about eight years,’” Collins said. “Don’t we need to do both?”

Kennedy said he “absolutely” agreed that researchers should focus their attention on finding solutions to both forms of illness and disease, but argued enough money hasn’t gone to studying both.

Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, sought to remind Kennedy that the Constitution gives Congress the ability to spend federal money and direct where that money goes.

Collins mentioned a pediatric nurse in Maine who shared worries about the impact a decrease in childhood vaccinations could have on other children in their communities, especially those who cannot get vaccines because of illnesses or allergies.

“She raised the concern that if people are discouraged from getting their children vaccinated, we will lose the herd immunity in a classroom,” Collins said. “And that means that a child who may be immunosuppressed and cannot get a vaccine are at risk of being in a classroom with an unvaccinated child. And thus at risk of getting the infectious disease because we’ve lost the herd immunity.”

Kennedy said he believed that people have stopped trusting in the safety of vaccines, but pledged to bring in “good science” if confirmed by the Senate.

“I’m going to restore trust and that will restore vaccine uptake,” Kennedy said.

Hassan challenges Kennedy on autism

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan had one of the most pointed exchanges with Kennedy during the hearing, challenging the statements from some GOP senators who criticized Democrats for asking Kennedy certain questions regarding his past statements on vaccines. 

“Now, some of you are new to this committee and new to the Senate, so you may not know that I am the proud mother of a 36-year-old young man with severe cerebral palsy,” Hassan said. “And a day does not go by when I don’t think about, ‘What did I do when I was pregnant with him that might have caused the hydrocephalus that has so impacted his life?’

“So please do not suggest that anybody in this body of either political party doesn’t want to know what the cause of autism is,” she said, adding that many of her friends have children with autism.

“Mr. Kennedy, that first autism study rocked my world. And like every mother, I worried about whether, in fact, the vaccine had done something to my son,” Hassan said. “And you know what? It was a tiny study of about 12 kids. And over time, the scientific community studied and studied and studied and found that it was wrong. And the journal retracted the study because sometimes science is wrong. We make progress. We build on the work and we become more successful. And when you continue to sow doubt about settled science, it makes it impossible for us to move forward. So that’s what the problem is here.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies during his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s alternating views on vaccines, reproductive rights and public health issues were a central focus at his first confirmation hearing Wednesday, with Democratic senators expressing dismay at his nomination and Republicans signaling he’ll likely have their support.

Kennedy pledged to bring “radical transparency” to the Department of Health and Human Services if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, though he didn’t detail his plans for large-scale health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid during the nearly four-hour hearing.  

Kennedy repeatedly testified before the Finance Committee that he wants to reduce chronic illnesses throughout the country and let scientific research lead the way.

But Democratic senators were skeptical he would improve the country’s overall health outcomes if confirmed as HHS secretary, listing off several of his past claims not backed by research or medicine. 

“For a long time the nation has been locked in a divisive health care debate about who pays. When health care costs reach 20%, there are no good options, only bad ones,” Kennedy said. “Shifting the burden around between government and corporations and insurers and providers and families is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”

Kennedy said that if confirmed he would try to ensure federal spending on nutrition programs goes to “healthy foods” and bolster scrutiny of “chemical additives in our food supply.”

“We will remove financial conflicts of interest from our agencies. We will create an honest, unbiased, gold standard science at HHS, accountable to the president, to Congress and to the American people,” Kennedy added. “We will reverse the chronic disease epidemic and put the nation back on the road to good health.”

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders questioned how senators or Americans could trust what Kennedy said during the hearing, given his rapid change in opinion on vaccine safety and the government’s role in abortion access, compared to comments made just last year.

“Tell me why you think people should have confidence in your consistency and in your work, when you really made a major U-turn on an issue of that importance in such a short time?” Sanders said.

‘Conspiracy theories, quacks, charlatans’

Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, rebuked Kennedy for some of his prior comments on vaccine safety, saying he “embraced conspiracy theories, quacks, charlatans.”

“Mr. Kennedy has changed his views so often, it is nearly impossible to know where he stands on so many of the basic issues that impact Americans’ daily lives,” Wyden said.

Kennedy testified at several points during the hearing that he supports certain vaccines, including measles and polio, and science-backed research into medical treatments.

“I support vaccines. I support the childhood schedule. I will do that,” Kennedy said. “The only thing I want is good science and that’s it.”

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan said Americans should be proud that vaccines have largely eradicated deadly diseases within the United States, including polio and smallpox.

“I am extremely concerned that as secretary, you would be able to halt critical vaccine research and to exploit parents’ natural worries by advising them not to vaccinate their children,” Hassan said. “This will lead to more children getting sick and some will even die.

“Before the measles vaccine about 500 American children died a year from measles. This is too much of a risk for our country and there is no reason that any of us should believe that you have reversed the anti-vaccine views that you have promoted for 25 years.”

Abortion pill

Kennedy, who made several different statements about abortion access during his unsuccessful run for president, pledged during the hearing to implement President Donald Trump’s agenda on reproductive rights, whatever that might be.

Anti-abortion groups are advocating for the Trump administration to restrict access to medication abortion, a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone and misoprostol that’s approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration up to 10 weeks gestation. The FDA is housed within HHS.

“President Trump has asked me to study the safety of mifepristone,” Kennedy said. “He has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it. Whatever he does, I will implement those policies. I will work with this committee to make those policies make sense.”

The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000 and made several changes to prescribing guidelines in 2016.

Those changes included increasing the gestational limit from seven to 10 weeks and making dosage and timing changes for both pharmaceuticals. The updated guidelines allowed qualified health care providers with the ability to prescribe medications to do so with mifepristone, not just doctors. And the requirement for three in-person doctor’s office visits was removed.

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine filed briefs to the Supreme Court last year attesting to the safety and efficacy of mifepristone in a case that ultimately left access to medication abortion intact.

Kennedy also said during the hearing that he supports Trump’s policies on the Title X family planning grants program, including blocking federal funding from going to any organizations that perform or refer patients for abortions.

Federal law prevents taxpayer dollars from going to abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the pregnant patient.

Emergency medical treatment

Kennedy didn’t appear familiar with a federal law that ensures patients access to emergency health care regardless of insurance status.

The law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, was a point of strong disagreement between Republican-controlled states and the Biden administration after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. 

It is the subject of an ongoing case that made its way up to the Supreme Court before being sent back to the circuit court, which heard arguments in December.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto asked Kennedy a series of questions about protections under EMTALA during the hearing, starting with whether a woman experiencing a heart attack should receive care under that federal law regardless of her insurance status.

Kennedy said yes. But he said he didn’t know if the law would protect a woman experiencing life-threatening bleeding from an incomplete miscarriage whose doctor said she needed an abortion.

Kennedy struggled to answer another question from Cortez Masto about what authorities HHS has to enforce EMTALA at hospitals that receive Medicare funding, saying he thought he had budget power but nothing else.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, she said, “actually investigates complaints of EMTALA violations, as well as the Health and Human Services inspector general, who, by the way, was just recently fired by Donald Trump.”

“So you will be enforcing EMTALA laws, and it’s important that you understand their impact and don’t play politics with the patient presenting at the ER based on a position that this administration has taken,” Cortez Masto said.

Cassidy questions on Medicaid

Kennedy similarly struggled to answer questions from Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Medicare and Medicaid, in an exchange that could lead to significant hurdles for his confirmation if Cassidy does not support him.

Cassidy — a doctor and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which holds its confirmation hearing for Kennedy on Thursday — repeatedly asked Kennedy how he’d improve Medicaid.

Kennedy listed off his criticisms of the program, before he said states should experiment with pilot programs and that the goals should be value-based care, transparency and accountability.

Kennedy said there were also many options through telemedicine and artificial intelligence before talking about AI nurses.

Kennedy, when asked by Cassidy about people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, said he thinks the answer to that is “that the programs are consolidated, that they’re integrated, and the care is integrated.”

But Kennedy, when pressed on how he would handle that, didn’t have an answer. He also got basic facts about Medicaid, including that costs are shared between the federal and state governments, incorrect.

“I’m not exactly sure, because I’m not in there,” Kennedy said. “I mean, it is difficult to integrate them, because Medicare is under fee-for-service and is paid for by employer taxes. Medicaid is fully paid for by the federal government, and it’s not fee-for-service. So I do not know the answer to that. I look forward to exploring options with you.”

Kennedy said in response to a question from Cassidy about the differences between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage that people have the choice “right now,” though he said he expects more people would like to be on Medicare Advantage if it wasn’t for the more expensive price.

COVID-19 claims

Another, potentially damaging exchange for Kennedy’s confirmation prospects, came when Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet asked a series of questions about previous statements Kennedy has made on various public health issues.

“Mr. Kennedy, did you say that COVID-19 was a genetically engineered bioweapon that targets Black and white people, but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people?” Bennet asked.

Kennedy responded that he “didn’t say it was deliberately targeted.”

Kennedy said he “probably” had made comments that Lyme disease was a military engineered bioweapon.

Kennedy said he wasn’t sure if he had written in one of his books that it is “undeniable that African AIDS is an entirely different disease from Western AIDS,” following a question from Bennet.

Kennedy, however, denied making statements that pesticides cause children to become transgender.

Bennet said he would have those prior Kennedy statements entered into the committee’s official record. 

President Donald Trump attends inauguration ceremonies in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A second federal judge appears ready to issue an order blocking the Trump administration from freezing funding on grant and loan programs, despite a move by the Office of Management and Budget to rescind a controversial memo Wednesday just before the hearing.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island opted not to issue his ruling during the virtual hearing, saying that he first wanted the Democratic attorneys general who filed the suit to suggest how such an order might be worded. He then wants to hear from the Justice Department lawyer arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration about the scope of that possible order.

McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said the state attorneys general had convinced him that the Trump administration was likely to continue with the funding halt detailed in the now-revoked OMB memo in some way, based on a social media post from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“That hasn’t changed based on comments by the president’s press secretary,” McConnell said. “And so I’m inclined to grant the restraining order, though I’m struggling with how it would be worded and what effect it would have.”

A ruling from McConnell would be the second order blocking the Trump administration from implementing a spending pause on certain grant and loan programs.

District Judge Loren L. AliKhan on Tuesday issued a short-term administrative stay preventing President Donald Trump’s administration from starting the spending freeze. She then set a hearing in that case, brought by organizations that receive federal funding, for Feb. 3.

The original memo, released Monday evening by the Office of Management and Budget, led to widespread confusion and frustration among organizations like Meals on Wheels and grantees that rely on funding from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, as well as members of Congress from both political parties.

Memo rescinded

The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget rescinded that memo Wednesday, though comments from Leavitt just afterward led to even more confusion just before the hearing began. 

Leavitt wrote in a social media post that OMB rescinding the memo was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.”

“It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo,” Leavitt wrote. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.”

“The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented,” she added.

Separately, Leavitt issued a written statement to reporters that seemed to suggest rescinding the OMB funding freeze memo was meant to get around AliKhan’s order.

“In light of the injunction, OMB has rescinded the memo to end any confusion on federal policy created by the court ruling and the dishonest media coverage,” Leavitt wrote in a statement. “The Executive Orders issued by the President on funding reviews remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented by all agencies and departments. This action should effectively end the court case and allow the government to focus on enforcing the President’s orders on controlling federal spending. In the coming weeks and months, more executive action will continue to end the egregious waste of federal funding.”

Appropriators praise withdrawal of memo

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, welcomed OMB’s action before Leavitt’s post and the hearing.

“I am pleased that OMB is rescinding the memo imposing sweeping pauses in federal programs,” Collins wrote in a statement. “While it is not unusual for incoming administrations to review federal programs and policies, this memo was overreaching and created unnecessary confusion and consternation.”

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., released a statement that the Trump administration reversal was the right decision. That was also before Leavitt weighed in.

“This is an important victory for the American people whose voices were heard after massive pressure from every corner of this country — real people made a difference by speaking out,” Murray wrote. “Still, the Trump administration — through a combination of sheer incompetence, cruel intentions, and a willful disregard of the law — caused real harm and chaos for millions over the span of the last 48 hours which is still ongoing.”

White House assurances

OMB’s decision to rescind the memo Wednesday followed the White House making public assurances Tuesday that the spending freeze wouldn’t impact Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and direct food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Two separate lawsuits seeking to block the OMB memo from taking effect on Tuesday evening at 5 p.m. were filed in federal district court.

The lawsuit filed by the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance led to federal District Court Judge AliKhan placing a temporary hold on the planned spending freeze until Feb. 3 at 5 p.m.

The second lawsuit, heard Wednesday, was filed by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

President Donald Trump addresses the 2025 Republican Issues Conference at the Trump National Doral Miami on Jan. 27, 2025 in Doral, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal district judge ruled Tuesday the Trump administration must wait until at least next week before it can move forward with pausing federal spending on trillions in grants and loans, though she emphasized the short-term administrative stay might not continue after a Feb. 3 hearing.

District Judge Loren L. AliKhan’s decision temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget from moving forward with plans to stop payments on multiple federal programs, which it announced late Monday.

The two-page memo from the Office of Management and Budget announcing the freeze led to significant confusion throughout the day Tuesday among members of Congress — including Republicans — about what programs were affected and frustration the White House appeared to be eroding lawmakers’ constitutional spending authority.

AliKhan’s ruling came less than 24 hours after news first broke of the Trump administration’s planned action.

AliKhan said after hearing arguments from an attorney for the organizations that filed the lawsuit earlier Tuesday and an attorney representing the federal government that “anything that was due to be paused as of 5 p.m. today to open funding on grants is stayed.”

AliKhan, who was appointed to the bench by former President Joe Biden, added that any funding impacted by separate executive orders is not covered by the temporary administrative stay she issued. She ordered for both sides in the case to file briefs to her later this week and scheduled a hearing for Feb. 3 at 11 a.m. Eastern.

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the organizations that filed the suit, said shortly afterward there are several steps ahead to fully block OMB’s actions.

“A lot more work to do in the courts … to ensure that this reckless action, or attempted action by OMB, can’t move forward in the long term,” Yentel said.

Confusion on Medicaid

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to downplay the impact of the spending freeze during her first-ever briefing, saying it wouldn’t apply to individual assistance programs, like Social Security or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or welfare benefits.

She was unable to answer questions about the effect on Medicaid benefits but a later White House memo claimed they would continue without interruption. Nonetheless, Democratic U.S. senators reported Medicaid portals in all 50 states were down on Tuesday.

Leavitt said the White House counsel’s office had signed off on the temporary spending pause and believed it was legal and constitutional, but she later told reporters she didn’t know the full scope of the impact and would have to circle back after the briefing ended.

“I have not seen the entire list because this memo was just sent out, so I will provide you all with updates as we receive them,” Leavitt said. 

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said in a brief interview she supports the Trump administration reviewing federal spending to look for ways to improve efficiency, but said the OMB’s action was too broad.

“This is far too sweeping and will have an adverse effect on the delivery of services and programs,” Collins said. “I do appreciate that the administration did not apply it to Social Security, Medicare, direct benefit programs. But nevertheless, it does have a large impact on the provision of services and programs.”

Collins said she had concerns about the Head Start program being listed among those that will have a spending freeze. 

“There are a lot of federal programs that appear to be swept up in this order, and I think the administration needs to be more selective and look at it one department at a time, for example,” Collins said. “But make sure important direct service programs are not affected.”

Multiple memos

The original OMB memo sent out late Monday evening appeared to apply to large swaths of federal financial assistance, including grants and loans, though a memo footnote said it should not be “construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.” It did not mention an exemption for Medicaid.

“Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again,” the OMB memo states.

A separate memo from OMB lists off the programs that will be paused temporarily while it reviews which federal spending it deems appropriate.

The list includes the Department of Agriculture’s tribal food sovereignty program, Head Start, the Veterans’ Affairs Department’s suicide prevention and legal services grants, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, or LIHEAP, program, and numerous sexual assault prevention programs within the Department of Justice.

A third document from OMB, sent to Capitol Hill, claimed that Medicaid would not be affected. However, some senators reported the Medicaid portal was inaccessible on Tuesday afternoon.

“In addition to Social Security and Medicare, already explicitly excluded in the guidance, mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP will continue without pause,” the OMB document states. “Funds for small businesses, farmers, Pell grants, Head Start, rental assistance, and other similar programs will not be paused. If agencies are concerned that these programs may implicate the President’s Executive Orders, they should consult OMB to begin to unwind these objectionable policies without a pause in the payments.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden posted on social media that his staff had “confirmed reports that Medicaid portals are down in all 50 states following last night’s federal funding freeze.”

“This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed,” Wyden wrote.

Yentel, of the groups that sued, said while Leavitt argued that the memo did not impact those in need of direct assistance, OMB did not define who counts as “direct assistance.”

She said during a briefing with reporters that the memo leaves “a lot of room to who defines direct assistance to Americans.” Yentel said she would consider one of the programs impacted, Head Start, as direct assistance.

Order prompts legal challenges

Numerous organizations — including the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance — filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday ahead of the temporary pause taking effect.

Democratic attorneys general were also preparing to file a lawsuit, challenging the legality of the temporary spending pause on grants and loans.

New York state Attorney General Letitia James said during a virtual press conference announcing the lawsuit that Trump had overstepped his presidential powers by instituting the temporary spending pause.

“This president has exceeded his authority, he has violated the Constitution and he has trampled on a co-equal branch of government,” James said.

She said Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit were not trying to be “adversarial” or seeking to block Trump’s agenda.

“This is a question of the Constitution and the rule of law. And all of us took an oath to obey the Constitution and to uphold it,” James said.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during the press briefing that the lawsuit wasn’t “about nibbling at the edges of the president’s authority.”

“We’re talking about ignoring the entirety of the United States Constitution,” Platkin said.

Attorneys general from New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia plan to file the lawsuit.

Appropriators protest

The top Democrats on the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations committees sent a letter to acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth, expressing alarm about how the stop in payments would affect people throughout the country and challenging the legality of the executive branch trying to overrule the legislative branch on spending decisions.

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote that the scope of the halt in funding, which was approved by Congress on a bipartisan basis, “is breathtaking, unprecedented, and will have devastating consequences across the country.”

“While we may have strong policy disagreements, we should all be united in upholding our nation’s laws and the Constitution,” DeLauro and Murray wrote.

“We will be relentless in our work with members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to protect Congress’s power of the purse,” they added. “The law is the law—and we demand you in your role as Acting OMB Director reverse course to ensure requirements enacted into law are faithfully met and the nation’s spending laws are implemented as intended.”

Power of the purse lies with Congress

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the so-called “power of the purse” by granting it the authority to approve federal spending. 

Congress has passed several laws regarding that constitutional authority, including the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which says that the president cannot simply refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated.

Trump’s pick for OMB Director, Russ Vought, has repeatedly called that law unconstitutional and said he believes the president does have the authority to simply ignore sections of spending law that have been passed by Congress and signed into law.

The Senate has yet to confirm Vought to the role of White House budget director, but is likely to do so in the weeks ahead.

Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, posted on social media that the OMB memo’s “vague and contradictory language makes it hard to know if funding is imperiled for public schools, community health centers, state and local law enforcement, veterans’ housing, health care through Medicaid, public services on tribal lands, etc.”

“This confusion & apparent withholding of funding isn’t a political game – real state, local, & tribal governments, school districts, nonprofits, & private charities delivering services we all depend on, funded with taxpayer dollars, can’t function without resources and clarity,” Parrott wrote. “Congress has enacted legislation that requires the Executive Branch to fund public services, and the Trump Administration seems determined to subvert Congress, its hand-waving about following the law notwithstanding.”

Parrott worked at OMB as associate director of the Education, Income Maintenance, and Labor Division, during then-President Barack Obama’s second term.

Jenny Young, vice president of communications and chief of staff at Meals on Wheels America, said the OMB memo “could presumably halt service to millions of vulnerable seniors who have no other means of purchasing or preparing meals.”

“And the lack of clarity and uncertainty right now is creating chaos for local Meals on Wheels providers not knowing whether they’re going to be reimbursed for meals served today, tomorrow, who knows how long this could go on,” Young said. “Which unfortunately means seniors may panic not knowing where their next meals will come from. This adds insult to injury as these programs are already underfunded to begin with. Largely speaking, local providers don’t have the ability to absorb a blow like this, especially if it persists for any extended period of time.”

Young said the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which provides some of Meals on Wheels funding, is a grant program administered by the Administration on Aging.

Members of Congress react

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was talking with staff at OMB to “try to get more information on how this works.”

Graham said he wouldn’t delay a committee vote Thursday to send Vought’s nomination to the Senate floor.

“We need more information about this, but we also need a guy in charge,” Graham said.

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a senior appropriator and chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said during a brief interview that leadership at the VA was supposed to talk with OMB officials on Tuesday afternoon to figure out how exactly they were supposed to carry out the spending freeze for certain grant and loan programs.

“We’re trying to get additional information about what it means on grants,” Moran said. “I just came from a veterans’ hearing where that was the topic of conversation. And my understanding is the VA leadership is meeting with OMB to learn the details, and then I’ll have more of a response.”

Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, echoed similar remarks that she wanted more information on how much the memo impacted those federal programs.

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven, a senior appropriator, said he isn’t too concerned about the temporary pause to federal grant and loan programs.

“He’s taking a look at a lot of the spending as he should; reviewing it, finding out what makes sense and what doesn’t,” Hoeven said. “Just because it gets paused doesn’t mean it won’t get funded. And hopefully the ones that are funded are funded in a better way, more in line with our priorities.”

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said she wasn’t worried about the impact of the temporary pause to grants and loans at the Defense Department and VA.

“I think they will take a look at it, they will release the funds as they find it necessary,” Ernst said. “So I think there’s a big flurry in the press right now, but I think that President Trump is doing the right thing by scrutinizing our spending.”

‘Take a deep breath’

North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, an advocate for federal disaster aid, said he was skeptical that the freeze would immediately impact people in need of disaster relief.

“I can’t imagine that the president would knowingly cut off housing assistance for people displaced from their homes,” he said. “We need to get to the facts versus the fear.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said during a press conference that he expected additional information from the Trump administration about the pause.

“They’re providing additional clarity and guidance on that, and hopefully they will further clarify what exactly will be impacted,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s unusual for an administration to pause.”

Sen. James Risch of Idaho added: “This is a work in progress. Everybody take a deep breath, stay calm. Every one of these programs is gonna be looked at.”

Ariana Figueroa, Shauneen Miranda and Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, right, tours the downtown business district of Pacific Palisades as the Palisades Fire continued to burn on Jan. 8, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Governors and state legislatures may have to bolster their natural disaster response and recovery efforts in the coming years as President Donald Trump looks for ways to shift the federal government’s role onto states.

Trump, who proposed doing away with the Federal Emergency Management Agency altogether while on a tour of disaster scenes in North Carolina and California, has since established a 20-member committee via executive order to review the agency and propose ways to overhaul its work.

The fate of the National Flood Insurance Program, managed by FEMA and relied on by more than 4.7 million homeowners, will also be up in the air as the process gets underway.

“I think, frankly, FEMA is not good,” Trump said in North Carolina on his Jan. 24 visit. “I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go and — whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican governor, you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA.”

Trump said he planned to recommend that “FEMA go away and we pay directly — we pay a percentage to the state.”

“But the state should fix this,” Trump said. “If the state did this from the beginning, it would have been a lot better situation.”

‘Full-scale review’ for FEMA

Trump’s executive order states that “Americans deserve an immediate, effective, and impartial response to and recovery from disasters.”

“FEMA therefore requires a full-scale review, by individuals highly experienced at effective disaster response and recovery, who shall recommend to the President improvements or structural changes to promote the national interest and enable national resilience,” the executive order says.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will co-chair the 20-member group. The White House did not respond to a question as to when Trump would name the other members.

The council is supposed to release a report later this year comparing FEMA’s response to various natural disasters with how the state affected by the emergency responded. The report is also expected to include how states responded to natural disasters before then-President Jimmy Carter signed in executive order in 1979 establishing FEMA.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a press conference Monday that he supports reviewing how FEMA operates, but he stopped short of eliminating the agency.

“In my experience, it is very often the case that local workers, people who are working through FEMA, do a pretty good job,” Johnson said. “But often, it’s the leadership at the top that can affect the outcome of how a disaster is handled.”

Johnson said no department or agency should be considered out of bounds for evaluation as Trump looks to “make the government more efficient and effective” and Republican lawmakers look for ways “to limit the size and scope of government.”

“FEMA has been a partner, but they probably could be a better partner,” Johnson said.

Let states run response

Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday that Trump’s preferred approach would be to let states run their own emergency response and be reimbursed with federal dollars.

“FEMA is frustrating at times,” Graham told reporters in Columbia, S.C. “I’d like to make it easier to help people with disaster relief.”

Graham expects anything that comes out of the study to land somewhere in the middle — not completely eliminating the federal agency but cutting through some of the red tape.

“If you want to look at FEMA, reshape FEMA, to make it more effective, count me in,” Graham said.

Congress appropriated $25.3 billion for FEMA in the last full-year spending bill for the agency, which was $72.9 million less than its previous funding level and $267.7 million less than then-President Joe Biden’s budget request, according to a House GOP summary.

Lawmakers provided an additional $29 billion for FEMA’s disaster relief fund in an emergency spending bill that Congress approved in late December.

Democratic Governors Association national press secretary Devon Cruz wrote in a statement the GOP was “floating dangerous ideas.”

“When natural disasters hit, Democratic governors have been a leading example of putting politics aside, and helping families rebuild and recover,” Cruz wrote. “Now, Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans are shamelessly politicizing disaster aid, and floating dangerous ideas that would make it harder to help families rebuild their homes, schools, and communities. This is just the latest example of the growing contrast between Republican-led dysfunction in D.C. and Democratic governors getting real results in their states every day.”

The National Governors Association declined to comment on how the potential changes would affect states and their budgets. The National Conference of State Legislatures and Republican Governors Association did not respond to requests for comment.

Billions in federal dollars sent to states

FEMA has an interactive state-by-state breakdown of how much the federal government has spent on natural disaster response and recovery since 2017, though it doesn’t include the emergency funding for COVID-19.

The webpage shows how much FEMA has spent to help each state or territory recover from emergencies, as well as how much the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Transportation have spent.

The webpage shows the departments and agencies have allocated about $250 billion on the natural disasters covered in the data, with significant amounts going to red states that backed Trump in the presidential election and are predominantly represented by GOP lawmakers in Congress.

Speaker Johnson’s home state of Louisiana, for example, has been allocated $19.3 billion in funding, with $11.5 billion of that from FEMA.

South Dakota, home to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, has been allocated nearly $400 million from the federal government, with FEMA accounting for $275.6 million of that total. 

Florida, which has borne the brunt of several hurricanes and tropical storms during the years covered, was allocated $29.5 billion in federal disaster assistance, with $19 billion of that from FEMA.

South Carolina Daily Gazette senior reporter Jessica Holdman contributed to this report.  

Brooke Rollins, President Donald Trump's nominee to be agriculture secretary, speaks during her Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee confirmation hearing on Jan. 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture said during her confirmation hearing Thursday that she has “a lot to learn” about highly pathogenic avian influenza or bird flu, the virus that’s wreaking havoc on the country’s poultry industry and dairy farms.

The outbreak has affected more than 136 million poultry flocks and nearly 1,000 dairy herds, and infected 67 humans, with one person dying so far. Public health experts continue to assess the risk of infection to the general public as low, but are closely monitoring bird flu’s spread among farm workers and livestock as well as domestic cats and other mammals.

The four-hour hearing showed Brooke Rollins likely has the support to secure Senate confirmation, though members from both political parties raised concerns about the decline in family farms, hollowing out of rural America, speed with which USDA delivers disaster aid to farmers and future of nutrition programs.

Tariffs and trade

Rollins also received numerous questions from both Democrats and Republicans about Trump’s plan to raise tariffs on imports, likely leading to retaliatory tariffs on American exports and negative repercussions for farmers and food prices. 

“Regarding the president’s tariff agenda, I think it probably comes as no surprise to anyone sitting in this room that he believes it is a very important tool in his toolkit to continue or bring America back to the forefront of the world and to ensure that we have a thriving economy,” Rollins said. “But just as he did and we did in the first administration, he also understands the potential devastating impact to our farmers and our ranchers.”

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin raised concerns about what happened during Trump’s first administration after he placed tariffs on allied nations as well as China. She urged Rollins to make sure Trump understands that would likely happen again, if he does place steep tariffs on other countries.

“President Trump announced 25% tariffs on Chinese products — batteries, TVs, medical devices,” Slotkin said. “China retaliated and put 25% tariffs on soybeans, fruits, pork and some other items. Then we got into a trade war; we started adding more things to the list, they already started adding more things to the list. It went on and on and on and back and forth.

“Suddenly our farmers across the country are screaming bloody murder, because … no one wanted to buy our stuff because it had a 25% tariff. We felt that very acutely.”

The prior Trump administration then pulled billions out of the Commodity Credit Corporation to aid farmers who were harmed by the retaliatory tariffs, she said. 

“That emergency fund is the same fund that helps us with things like avian flu that we’re now dealing with all over the country,” Slotkin said.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said he hoped the country won’t go down the same path it has before with respect to tariffs and trade wars.

“It seems to me that trade has sort of become a word for a lot of Americans that implies exportation of jobs,” McConnell said. “In Kentucky, we think of trade as exportation of products and it’s an extremely important part of what we do.”

Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet told Rollins that he is “sympathetic to some of the trade policies that President Trump is trying to advocate for.”

“But agriculture’s already in a tough spot … and we don’t want it to be in a tougher spot as a result of what happens here,” Bennet said.

He then asked Rollins if she believed her responsibility as secretary of agriculture would be “to go into the Oval Office and say, ‘You haven’t thought through the unintended consequences that are going to flow to American agriculture if you pursue these trade policies.’”

Rollins said her role, if confirmed, would be “to defend, to honor, to elevate our entire agriculture community in the Oval Office, around the table, through the interagency process. And to ensure that every decision that is made in the coming four years has that front of mind as those decisions are being made.”

Bird flu

Rollins was less secure in telling senators how she should handle the ongoing bird flu, or H5N1, outbreak.

Poultry farmers and the USDA have had to deal with the virus in domestic flocks for years, but it didn’t begin infecting dairy herds until about a year ago.

The spillover into another section of American agriculture and the uptick in farmers catching the virus led to a multi-agency response from the federal government that included the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and USDA.

“There is a lot that I have to learn on this. And if confirmed, this will be, as I mentioned in my opening statement, one of the very top priorities,” Rollins said, referencing her previous comments about getting a “handle on the state of animal disease outbreaks.”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who had asked Rollins what her plan was for curbing the spread of bird flu, then questioned her about a new requirement that prevents some public health officials from external communications.

“I will note that just yesterday the administration announced they will halt external public health communications from the CDC on these avian flu (and) animal diseases,” Klobuchar said. “These important announcements have helped keep producers up to date with the latest information on disease spread, health of workers. And while I know that wasn’t under the USDA, I just urge you to talk to them about that. We’re concerned.”

Effect of mass deportations on ag

Rollins was pressed during the hearing about how sweeping deportations might impact the agriculture industry and food supplies throughout the country. Senators also asked how she planned to keep the pipeline that moves food from farms to people’s tables from collapsing if mass deportations are carried out.

“President Trump ran and was overwhelmingly elected on the priority of border security and mass deportation,” Rollins said. “He and his team are, I’m assuming, currently putting in place the plans to begin that process. Of course, first with those who have committed criminal offenses once they have been here.”

Rollins said she planned to work with Labor Secretary nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer, if she is confirmed, on issues related to the agriculture workforce.

Rollins testified she wants to make changes to the H2A visa for temporary agricultural workers, though she didn’t detail what those changes might entail. 

California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff asked Rollins whether a potential sudden drop-off in agricultural workers due to mass deportations might lead to higher food prices “in sharp contrast with what the president said he wanted to do.”

Rollins said while that was a hypothetical, it was one that “we do need to be thinking through.”

“And I think it’s a very fair point,” Rollins said. “The president has made food inflation and the cost of food one of his top priorities. I have worked alongside him. I have been part of his team for many years now. I believe in his vision and his commitment to America and to his promises. And in so doing, I believe that we will be able to find in our toolkit what we need to do to solve for any hypothetical issues that end up turning out to be real moving forward over the coming months and years.”

Rollins was the director of the Domestic Policy Council during Trump’s first administration before going on to become the president and chief executive officer of the America First Policy Institute think tank.

Trump announced Rollins as his pick for agriculture secretary in November, writing that she “has a practitioner’s experience, along with deep Policy credentials in both Nonprofit and Government leadership at the State and National levels.”

Rural development

During the hearing, Rollins also addressed the needs of rural communities, including housing, child care and food assistance, during a detailed exchange with Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith.

“I sometimes think that people forget that the rural development side of the USDA is really important,” Smith said. “And I will be honest, I’m fearful that the work done there — those efforts not being well understood — could become the target for budget-cutting.

“I also know that American farmers and ranchers really trust the USDA on those issues. They don’t want to see those programs farmed out to other agencies, where we all are worried that they would just get less attention.”

Rollins said that if confirmed, she would be excited “to put forward a vision and build a program around revivifying, restoring and bringing back rural America.”

Smith also asked about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, saying that nutrition programs, many of which are administered by USDA, are “foundational for healthy Americans.”

“In Minnesota, rural communities have the highest food insecurity in the whole state,” Smith said. “And in this country, 9 out of 10 (counties) with the highest food insecurity rates are rural.”

Rollins testified that she does believe in work requirements, though she conceded she didn’t have extensive knowledge of the SNAP.

“I don’t fully understand, but plan to get more in the weeds on this, if confirmed,” Rollins said. “And working with all of you to make sure that your concerns are part of that education process for me.”

Smith took the opportunity to note that SNAP does have work requirements, but that there are exceptions if people “are taking care of a child or an incapacitated person,” or if “they are participating in an alcohol or drug treatment program,” or if they are “already working under some other programs.”

U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat, speaks during a press conference inside the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025. Also pictured is Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., left, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats blocked legislation Wednesday that would have established penalties for health care professionals who don’t provide medical care for infants born following an attempted abortion, arguing the bill would have kept parents from making decisions about care for newborns delivered early following a fatal fetal diagnosis.

Republicans said the issue should lend itself to common ground between the two political parties, citing a “loophole” in federal law that could potentially permit health care providers to allow an infant to die, instead of using medical interventions.

The 52-47 procedural vote needed the support of at least 60 senators to advance under the chamber’s legislative filibuster rules, but no Democrats voted to move the bill toward final passage. Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty didn’t cast a vote.

The vote marked the first time this year Republicans, who now control both the House and Senate, brought up an abortion bill for debate. The vote took place on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973, but was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, who sponsored the eight-page bill, said debate on the legislation was “not just an academic issue,” but one with real-world implications.

“It’s rare, but the question is, what do we do in those situations? How do we track this? How do we engage on it?,” he said.

When an abortion results in a live child, Lankford said, “the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the child to die on the table by exposure because it is against American law in every single state to take the life of a child. But if everybody just steps back and watches the child die that’s okay.”

Lankford cited the story of Melissa Ohden, a woman he says lived following an attempted abortion because a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, or NICU, nurse noticed her crying and breathing in a pile of medical waste, before rushing her to the emergency department for medical care. Ohden is founder and CEO of the Abortion Survivors Network.

“It was years later that she learned her adopted mom had adopted her because her birth mom literally didn’t know she still existed. Her birth mom was never told that the abortion, quote unquote, didn’t work,” he said.  

‘Killing a baby is illegal in every single state’

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during a floor speech Tuesday the bill was a “sham” and a “disgrace,” before noting that “killing a baby is illegal in every single state.”

“In fact, we passed a law in 2002 that made that crystal clear. I would know because I was here. It passed unanimously,” Murray said. “Doctors already have a legal obligation to provide appropriate medical care to any infant born in this country.”

The legislation, she said, would have created “a new government mandate that would override the best judgment of grieving families who find out their fetus has a fatal condition.”

“And it would create new, medically unnecessary barriers for doctors and patients, at a time when doctors already have their hands tied when it comes to providing basic reproductive health care,” Murray said.

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said during a press conference on Wednesday ahead of the vote she wasn’t concerned about Republicans using the vote against vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2026.

“I have run now in seven statewide races in New Hampshire and in every single one of those races, I have been attacked by Republicans for my support for allowing women to make their own decisions,” Shaheen said.

“It’s not a decision that I should make as a senator, that the court should make, that the men who are in the Senate should make,” she added. “It’s a decision for women and their families. And for those people who don’t understand that, they are on the wrong side of morality on this one.”

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters are the two most vulnerable Democrats up for election in 2026, both representing states President Donald Trump won in November’s presidential election.

Details of Senate legislation

Lankford’s bill would have required medical providers “to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

The bill adds that anyone who “intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child” would be charged with “intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.”

It is already illegal to kill children, or adults, under federal law as well as state laws.

The House voted 217-204 to approve its own version of the bill, sponsored by Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner and co-sponsored by 159 GOP lawmakers, on Thursday. But without Democratic backing in the Senate, the bill won’t make it to Trump’s desk.

Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar was the sole Democrat to vote for the bill, while Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas., voted “present.”

Wagner’s House bill appeared extremely similar to the Senate version, though the two weren’t marked as “related bills” on Wednesday in the congressional database.

The House approved a version of the bill two years ago following a mostly party-line 220-210 vote, with Cuellar voting for the bill and Gonzalez voting “present” then as well.

The bill didn’t come up for a vote in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time.

Congress approved a similarly named, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, more than two decades ago, with broadly bipartisan support.

Groups weigh in

Dr. Stella M. Dantas, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in a statement sent to States Newsroom that the “offensively named legislation does not reflect the reality of abortion later in pregnancy, harms families who receive devastating diagnoses and restricts their ability to choose the path of medical care that is right for them.”

“This legislation is not evidence-based,” Dantas wrote. “Its impacts fall with crushing weight on families trying to access reproductive care in devastating circumstances and limits how clinicians are able to provide care.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists writes on a webpage about the differences between abortion and perinatal palliative care that “the idea of ‘abortions’ being performed after delivery of a fetus is” misinformation and that “no such procedure exists.”

Perinatal palliative care, ACOG explains, “encompasses a coordinated care strategy that centers on maximizing quality of life and comfort for newborns who have life-limiting conditions in early infancy.”

“When providing perinatal palliative care, obstetrician–gynecologists’ chief aim is to alleviate the newborn’s suffering and honor the values of the patients involved—namely, the newborn’s parent or parents,” the website states. “Ultimately, the parent or parents, in consultation with their physician, decide which course of perinatal palliative care to pursue.”

Eighteen medical organizations — including ACOG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the American Academy of Nursing and the American Academy of Pediatrics — sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers not to pass the bill.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser released a written statement that the 2024 election showed Americans “have clearly rejected the extreme pro-abortion agenda.”

“We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to that baby fighting for his or her life, whether in a hospital or an abortion center, whether that little one is deemed ‘wanted’ or not,” Dannenfelser wrote. “These children must not be discarded like trash. With a new administration in Washington and new majorities in the Senate and House, there has never been a better or more urgent time to protect the life of every newborn equally.”

A SBA webpage about the legislation notes that while the 2002 law was “a step in the right direction,” it didn’t include any “enforcement mechanisms.”

“Federal law and 31 states do not adequately protect the lives of infants born alive after botched abortions (state and federal laws are not necessarily redundant, either),” the webpage states.

Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote in a statement to States Newsroom the bill “misrepresents the reality of care later in pregnancy and seeks to criminalize and intimidate health care providers, despite existing laws that already ensure appropriate medical care is provided.”

“By perpetuating disinformation and stigma, this bill undermines reproductive autonomy and paves the way for political interference in deeply personal and painful decisions, particularly for families facing tragic situations such as fatal fetal diagnoses,” Bernstein wrote.

The Guttmacher Institute, she wrote, “strongly opposes this bill, as it disregards the complexities of people’s lives, attempts to criminalize providers, and perpetuates misinformation about abortion care.”

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and wife Melania Trump arrive at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., walks in back of them.  (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republican congressional leaders huddled with President Donald Trump on Tuesday in search of a clear path forward to make sweeping changes to the country’s border security, energy policy and tax code, though they remained stuck on a question they’ve been mulling for weeks.

Republicans secured unified control of government by promising voters they’d pass new laws addressing major policy areas, but aren’t yet aligned over whether to bundle all the various changes together in an omnibus measure, or to pass them in two separate packages.

GOP leaders also still need to determine where far-right members and centrists overlap in dozens of areas, since votes from nearly every Republican in Congress will be necessary to get any bill to Trump’s desk.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after arriving back at the Capitol that negotiators had yet to reach consensus on how to package their policy proposal. It was Trump’s second day in office and the first gathering of top Republicans at the White House with him.

“Well, I think that discussion is always predicated on what we can get done and we’re obviously all interested in getting to the same destination,” Thune said.

The South Dakota Republican said in addition to working out agreement amongst themselves on reconciliation, GOP leaders need to figure out how to fund the government ahead of a March 14 deadline and how to address the country’s debt limit prior to a default date that’s expected to take place later this year.

Both of those issues will require Republicans to reach agreement with Democrats to avoid a partial government shutdown starting less than 100 days into Trump’s presidency, or a first-ever default on the country’s debt, which would likely trigger a global financial crisis.

“So there’s a lot to do and part of it is just figuring out how to stage it and what’s the best way to get all those results,” Thune said, adding with a bit of a laugh that there are a lot of “great theories” about how to get it all done this year.

“But, you know, it’s always different when you have to translate that into practice,” he said, previewing the complicated and rocky path that accompanies writing campaign promises into law.

Trump said during a press conference at the White House after the meeting that he believed the House, Senate and White House had “pretty much” figured out a strategy.

“I think we have a good situation now,” Trump said.

Tricky process

Republicans are planning to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass their border security, energy and tax proposals without needing Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

The process requires every part of the package to impact federal revenue or spending in a way that is not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian.

That could cause some challenges for the committees tasked with drafting various sections of the package in the months ahead, especially on immigration policy, which might not have the price tags that typically go along with the reconciliation process.

Democrats, for example, tried to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour in a coronavirus relief bill they moved through the reconciliation process in 2021. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled its impact on the federal budget was “merely incidental,” leading Democrats to remove that provision from the larger bill.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, ranking member on the Budget Committee at the time, released a written statement in February 2021 praising the parliamentarian’s ruling on the minimum wage language.

“Very pleased the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that a minimum wage increase is an inappropriate policy change in reconciliation,” Graham wrote at the time. “This decision reinforces reconciliation cannot be used as a vehicle to pass major legislative change — by either party — on a simple majority vote. This decision will, over time, reinforce the traditions of the Senate.”

Budget resolution

Republicans need to be on the same page about one rather than two reconciliation bills and generally about how to change U.S. law before they can officially begin the reconciliation process.

The House and Senate must vote to approve a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions before they can unlock the reconciliation process. That will require leaders to at least have some outline of what they plan to do, how much they expect it will cost and which committees hold jurisdiction over those policy areas.

House Republican leaders hope to vote on that budget resolution in February, draft the legislation in March, hold a floor vote in that chamber in early April and work out any disagreements with the Senate before late May, at which point they hope to send the entire package to Trump.

Ashley Murray and Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

Donald Trump at his inauguration ceremony in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Trump took office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump took the presidential oath of office for the second time Monday during an inauguration ceremony inside the U.S. Capitol rotunda.

The swearing-in marked the culmination of a four-year journey for Trump, whom many Republicans distanced themselves from following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, but nonetheless supported during his third campaign for the White House. Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance of Ohio, was sworn in as vice president.

“Many people thought it was impossible for me to stage such a historic political comeback,” Trump said during his inaugural address following the swearing-in. “But as you see today, here I am — the American people have spoken.”

Trump spent much of his speech detailing the executive orders he plans to sign later Monday addressing immigration, energy and more.

“With these actions we will begin the complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense,” he said.

He pledged to declare a national emergency at the southern border, which drew a standing ovation from the audience in the rotunda. He said all illegal entry into the United States would be “immediately halted” and vowed to begin the process of deporting “millions and millions” of undocumented immigrants.

“As commander in chief, I have no higher responsibility than to defend our country from threats and invasions, and that is exactly what I am going to do,” Trump said.

Trump defeated the Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in November’s general election, after receiving 312 Electoral College votes to her 226.

He also won the popular vote with 77.3 million votes, 49.9%, compared to Harris’ 75 million, 48.4%. Harris attended the inaugural ceremony with her husband, Doug Emhoff.

The inauguration was supposed to take place outside the Capitol building on the terrace overlooking the National Mall, but Trump announced Friday he wanted it moved indoors amid polar temperatures.

It was the first time since former President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration the ceremony was held in the rotunda. Looking on along with top government officials was a trio of billionaires — Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Some of the guests and supporters who couldn’t fit inside the rotunda watched on large screens inside the Capitol Visitor Center or at the Capital One Arena in downtown Washington, D.C. 

Trump later in the afternoon was expected to return to the arena, where he rallied with supporters on Sunday, for the traditional inaugural parade that was moved inside.

‘The envy of every nation’

Trump’s first speech of the day, in the Capitol rotunda, focused extensively on his vision for the country, in which he sharply criticized the current condition of the United States while former President Joe Biden listened.

“The Golden Age of America begins right now,” Trump said, vowing to “put America first” during his next four years in the White House.

“From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world,” he said, noting that the United States “will be the envy of every nation, and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer.”

The president, who said he wants to be a “peacemaker” and a “unifier,” pointed to the hostage and ceasefire deal made between Israel and Hamas last week.

Trump said he would declare a “national energy emergency” later Monday and reiterated his “drill, baby, drill” approach when it comes to oil and gas production.

He also called for an “External Revenue Service” that would collect “all tariffs, duties and revenues.”

Trump said he would sign an executive order to “immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”

He said he wants to create a “color-blind” and “merit-based” society and said “it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

He also echoed his pledge to take control of the Panama Canal, to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” as well as to revert Alaska’s Mount Denali back to “Mount McKinley.”

Back to campaign rhetoric

Trump bid farewell to Biden and former first lady Jill Biden after the rotunda ceremony, before they departed on a helicopter. The Bidens were scheduled to travel to California as they began their life after the White House.

Trump then gave a freewheeling, 35-minute speech in the Capitol Visitor Center’s Emancipation Hall, which event organizers used as an overflow room to accommodate governors, lawmakers’ spouses, the diplomatic corps and others who couldn’t fit inside the rotunda.

“I just want to say you’re a younger, far more beautiful audience than I just spoke to and I want to keep it off the record,” he said, later adding he gave them the “A+ treatment.”

Trump’s second speech was more reminiscent of his campaign rallies than the official speech he gave during the rotunda ceremony. He reiterated false claims he’s made about his 2020 election loss to Biden and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that was spurred on by those false statements.

“I was going to talk about that. They said, ‘Please, don’t bring that up right now. You can bring it up tomorrow.’ I said how about now,” Trump said. “We’re giving you a little more information than we gave upstairs.”

Trump said he didn’t want to make his first speech “complicated,” he wanted to make it “beautiful and “unifying.”

“Then, when they said we have a group of people who are serious Trump fans, I said ‘This is the time to tell those stories,’” he said.

Trump also spoke at length about border security and immigration during his second speech, saying it has become a problem during Biden’s term as president.

“I think it probably was the number one issue for me back in 2015, 2016,” Trump said. “This border is much worse. We fixed the border. It was totally fixed. There was nothing to talk about.”

Flags at full staff

Trump signed several documents in the President’s Room by the U.S. Senate chamber Monday afternoon, including a proclamation that the U.S. flag be flown at full staff for this inauguration and all future inauguration days. 

Then-President Biden ordered U.S. flags to be flown at half staff until Jan. 28, the customary 30-day period, to commemorate former President Jimmy Carter, who died in December. 

Last week, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana ordered the flags at the U.S. Capitol to be flown at full staff on Inauguration Day. Some Republican-led states followed suit.

Senate moves on Trump nominees

The Senate began confirming Trump’s Cabinet nominees later Monday, taking a 99-0 vote to make former Florida Sen. Marco Rubio the secretary of state.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he plans to confirm other nominees as soon as possible, with a vote expected later this week on John Ratcliffe to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

“Our priority here in the Senate for the next few weeks is getting President Trump’s nominees confirmed, so that he has the team that he needs in place to deliver,” Thune said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, supported Rubio during the floor vote after detailing how he and others in the party will approach their advice and consent responsibility for Trump’s second term.

“We will neither rubber-stamp nominees we feel are grossly unqualified nor will we reflexively oppose nominees that deserve serious consideration,” Schumer said.

The Senate began holding hearings last week on several of Trump’s picks, including hedge fund manager Scott Bessent for Treasury secretary, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to run the Justice Department, former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum for Interior secretary, former Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth to run the Pentagon, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for Homeland Security secretary, former Texas state legislator Eric Scott Turner for Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary, and former White House budget director Russ Vought to run the Office of Management and Budget once again. 

Hearings are scheduled this week for several other nominees. 

In this 2020 photo illustration, the TikTok app is displayed on an Apple iPhone. (Photo Illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump said Sunday he will sign an executive order as soon as he takes office that would delay a law that banned the popular social media app TikTok unless its parent company sells it.

“I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark!” Trump said on his TruthSocial account. “ I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday had left the law in place, and on Saturday night, TikTok went dark for U.S. users. The Associated Press reported that Google and Apple removed the app from their digital stores to comply with the law. But by midday Sunday, TikTok was again functioning.

Trump said in his post he wants to explore how to keep TikTok viable in the United States.

“I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.  By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up.  Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok.  With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions,” he wrote.

“Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.”

The bipartisan law enacted last year required ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, to sell the platform by Sunday or face exclusion from U.S.-based app stores.

TikTok fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing First Amendment rights, but did not prevail. 

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the court wrote in its ruling. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”

Action left to Trump

The 27-page court ruling created a bit of a dilemma for Trump, who now supports TikTok staying on Americans’ cell phones despite wanting to ban it during his first administration.

Trump wrote Friday in a post on his social media site, Truth Social, that he would address the issue once he takes office.

“I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China. The call was a very good one for both China and the U.S.A,” Trump wrote. “It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately. We discussed balancing Trade, Fentanyl, TikTok, and many other subjects. President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!”

Trump issued an executive order in 2020 to ban the video platform unless it broke from ByteDance, but reversed his position last year.

Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, cited “pending litigation” and declined to directly answer a question about whether she would direct the Justice Department to enforce the TikTok ban during her confirmation hearing Wednesday.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is expected to attend Trump’s inauguration Monday, according to a source familiar with the planning.

Chew will not be the only tech executive sitting nearby as Trump takes the oath of office. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, are expected to be in attendance. Both donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural.

Chew posted a video on social media Friday after the Supreme Court ruling was released thanking Trump “for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States.”

“This is a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship,” he said. “As we’ve said, TikTok is a place where people can create communities, discover new interests and express themselves, including over 7 million American businesses.”

The director of national intelligence released a report in February 2024 stating that “TikTok accounts run by a (People’s Republic of China) propaganda arm reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterm election cycle in 2022.”

Bipartisan backing for law

The law requiring TikTok’s parent company to sell the app or lose access to the American social media market received bipartisan support in the House last year, following a 352-65 vote in March. The measure cleared Congress as part of a larger supplemental package a month later.

President Joe Biden signed it into law. However, he said he will not enforce it, leaving the incoming Trump administration to decide what to do.

“President Biden’s position on TikTok has been clear for months, including since Congress sent a bill in overwhelming, bipartisan fashion to the President’s desk: TikTok should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identified by Congress in developing this law,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote in a statement.

“Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday.”

Congress and the Biden administration pointed to warnings from national security officials about ByteDance’s ties to China’s government as the top reason to force its parent company to sell the app.

TikTok maintains that it is majority owned by global investors, including the Susquehanna International Group and Blackrock, though roughly 20% remains in the hands of its Chinese founders.

Democratic senators made an eleventh-hour pitch on Wednesday to extend ByteDance’s deadline to divest from TikTok, but Republicans blocked the effort. 

The U.S. Capitol under a blanket of snow on Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump announced Friday he will move his inauguration inside the U.S. Capitol building, instead of holding it on the terrace overlooking the National Mall, citing weather forecasts for frigid temperatures.

The inauguration was scheduled to begin around 11:30 a.m. Eastern on Monday, but it wasn’t immediately clear if that would change to accommodate an indoor ceremony.

“The weather forecast for Washington, D.C., with the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows,” Trump wrote in a social media post. “There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!).”

Trump wrote that the ceremony, which will include speeches and his official oath of office, will be held in the Capitol rotunda.

“The various Dignitaries and Guests will be brought into the Capitol,” Trump wrote. “This will be a very beautiful experience for all, and especially for the large TV audience!”

A spokesperson for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies released a statement saying the panel “will honor the request of the President-elect and his Presidential Inaugural Committee to move the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies inside the U.S. Capitol to the Rotunda.”

Former Republican President Ronald Reagan was the first, and so far the only, president to hold his inauguration in the rotunda.

The Architect of the Capitol notes on a webpage about former inaugurations that for the Reagan inauguration, the Bible “was placed on a marble-topped table that was built for the second inaugural of Abraham Lincoln. The table was constructed with an iron baluster cast for the Capitol dome in the 1860’s.”

Trump wrote in his social media post that supporters who travel to Washington, D.C., could attend a live viewing inside the Capital One Arena, which is downtown. It will also be the site of a Trump rally on Sunday.

“We will open Capital One Arena on Monday for LIVE viewing of this Historic event, and to host the Presidential Parade,” Trump wrote. “I will join the crowd at Capital One, after my Swearing In.”

The Capital One Arena has 20,000 seats, according to its website. That is far fewer people than could stand on the hundreds of acres that make up the National Mall.