Trump Vowed to ‘Immediately’ Bring Down Egg Prices. His New Press Secretary Says Sudden Spike Is Biden’s Fault
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is aiming to prevent her boss from falling into the same trap as Biden, whose early presidency was infamously remembered as an expensive era for eggs
Rachel Raposas – January 31, 2025
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty; GettyWhite House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has been forced to address the sudden rise in egg prices
Donald Trump made a campaign promise to “immediately bring prices down” on his first day in office. Instead, egg prices have spiked.
During her first White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed former President Joe Biden for hurting the egg supply and driving up costs.
Egg prices are expected to continue rising due to a bird flu outbreak, which Biden’s Department of Agriculture tried controlling early on by euthanizing infected chickens.
Egg prices have risen in the short time since President Donald Trump took office — despite his campaign promise to “immediately bring prices down, starting on day one” — leading White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt to begin mounting her boss’s defense.
In her first official White House press briefing on Tuesday, Leavitt, 27, blamed former President Joe Biden for rising costs with “everything” across the country right now — including eggs, which have started to increase in price and demand due to bird flu outbreaks among chicken flocks.
“There’s a lot of reporting out there that’s putting the onus on this White House for the increased cost of eggs,” Leavitt said. “I’d like to point out to each and every one of you that in 2024 when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office — or upstairs in the residence sleeping, I’m not so sure — egg prices increased 65 percent in this country.”
CNN previously noted that, while inflation plagued a significant chunk of Biden’s presidency due to factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, wages in the United States had begun to outpace rising grocery prices in 2024. Any progress made on the cost of eggs was recently thwarted by the bird flu outbreak, which created supply issues and was not a direct fault of either president.
EyePress News/ShutterstockPresidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden debate on June 28, 2024
During the press conference, Leavitt claimed the spike in egg prices were due to the Biden administration’s “mass killing of more than 100 million chickens, which has led to a lack of chicken supply in this country, therefore a lack of egg supply, which is leading to the shortage.”
However, the “killings” are a standard practice for the Department of Agriculture — which the Trump administration is poised to continue — that’s intended to contain the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, or HPAI, colloquially known as the bird flu.
“There is no treatment for HPAI. The only way to stop the disease is to depopulate all affected and exposed poultry,” the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the Department of Agriculture, writes on its website.
If chickens are not euthanized, the virus can continue its rapid spread and drive up costs even higher by affecting larger groups.
“Not to be the bearer of bad news, but we’re in this for a while,” Emily Metz, president and CEO of the American Egg Board, previously told CNN of egg shortages. “Until we have time without a detection, unfortunately this very, very tight egg supply is going to continue.”
In the 2024 election, the cost of groceries, gas and other necessary goods was a large force behind how citizens voted — and two thirds of the people who cited basic goods cost as the most important issue for them voted for Trump.
However, many of the policy changes Trump has since began implementing — including a push for increased domestic oil production, decreased Biden-era climate change initiatives and unprecedented tariffs on imported goods — will have either no effect on prices or will affect them adversely, an expert told CNN.
Trump Decides Presser on D.C. Plane Crash Is Best Time for a Joke
Edith Olmsted – January 30, 2025
Donald Trump just will not take Wednesday night’s deadly aviation collision seriously.
While signing yet another batch of executive orders on Thursday, the president was asked whether he planned to visit the site of the deadly midair crash between a military helicopter and an American Airlines flight, which killed all 67 people on board the two aircraft.
“I have a plan to visit, not the site, because why don’t you tell me, what’s the site? The water?” Trump said. “You want me to go swimming?”
Trump followed up his flippant response by saying he planned to meet with some of the family members of those who had died in the crash.
The bodies of at least 28 people had been recovered from the Potomac River by Thursday evening, as recovery operations continued, according to the Associated Press.
Earlier on Thursday, Trump had suggested that the Biden administration’s diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring practices were to blame for the crash, specifically pointing to the Federal Aviation Administration’s practice of hiring people with “targeted disabilities.” The FAA published a report contradicting this outlandish and unserious claim, saying that staffing in the air traffic control tower was “not normal” on Wednesday night when the crash occurred.
It’s also worth noting that Trump went on television to speak about the crash hours before he had actually briefed on the incident. Meanwhile, National Transportation Safety Board member Todd Inman said Thursday it is too early to tell what exactly caused the crash.
Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis
Nicholas Riccardi – January 29, 2025
President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the 2025 House Republican Members Conference Dinner at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla., Monday, Jan. 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Just a little over a week into his second term, President Donald Trump took steps to maximize his power, sparking chaos and what critics contend is a constitutional crisis as he challenges the separation of powers that have defined American government for more than 200 years.
The new administration’s most provocative move came this week, as it announced it would temporarily halt federal payments to ensure they complied with Trump’s orders barring diversity programs. The technical-sounding directive had enormous immediate impact before it was blocked by a federal judge, potentially pulling trillions of dollars from police departments, domestic violence shelters, nutrition services and disaster relief programs that rely on federal grants. The administration on Wednesday rescinded the order.
Though the Republican administration denied Medicaid was affected, it acknowledged the online portal allowing states to file for reimbursement from the program was shut down for part of Tuesday in what it insisted was an error.
Legal experts noted the president is explicitly forbidden from cutting off spending for programs that Congress has approved. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate money and requires the executive to pay it out. A 50-year-old law known as the Impoundment Control Act makes that explicit by prohibiting the president from halting payments on grants or other programs approved by Congress.
“The thing that prevents the president from being an absolute monarch is Congress controls the power of the purse strings,” said Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University, adding that even a temporary freeze violates the law. “It’s what guarantees there’s a check on the presidency.”
Democrats and other critics said the move was blatantly unconstitutional.
“What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States,” Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, said Tuesday.
While some Republicans were critical, most were supportive.
“I think he is testing the limits of his power, and I don’t think any of us are surprised by it,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican who is close with Trump.
At first blush, the Trump administration appeared to be following the correct procedures in identifying potential spending cuts, and the Impoundment Control Act outlines a procedure for how they could become permanent, said Rachel Snyderman, a former official at the Office of Management and Budget who is now at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Congress must eventually sign off on any cuts the administration wants to make, Snyderman said, though she noted that no president since Bill Clinton, a Democrat, has been successful in getting that done. Congress did not act on $14 billion in impoundment cuts Trump proposed during his prior term, she said.
“We have to see what the next steps are,” Snyderman said.
The attempt to halt grants came after Trump, who during the campaign pledged to be “a dictator on day one,” has taken a number of provocative moves to challenge legal constraints on his power. He fired the inspectors general of his Cabinet agencies without giving Congress the warning required by law, declared that there is an immigrant “invasion” despite low numbers of border crossings, is requiring loyalty pledges from new hires, challenged the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship and is moving career staff out of key positions at the Department of Justice to ensure his loyalists control investigations and prosecutions.
On Tuesday evening, the new administration made its latest move, trying to prune the federal workforce by offering pay until the end of September for those who agree to resign by the end of next week.
The Trump actions have all led to a cascade of court challenges contending he has overstepped his constitutional bounds. A federal judge in Seattle has already put on hold Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, calling it a blatant violation of the nation’s foundational legal document. On Tuesday, nonprofit groups persuaded a federal judge in Washington to put the administration’s spending freeze order on hold until a fuller hearing on Feb. 3.
Democratic attorneys general also rushed to court to block the order. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, a Democrat, said the swiftness of the court action against Trump’s spending freeze demonstrates the “carelessness” of the order.
“My hope is that the president, working with Congress, can identify whatever his priorities are and can work through the normal constitutional order that is well established that limits the power of Democratic and Republican presidents,” he said.
The grant freeze — administration officials described it as a “pause” — fit with a long-sought goal of some Trump allies, including his nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act. They contend the president, as the person in charge of distributing funds, should be able to have some control over how the money goes out.
Though there’s little doubt the new administration wanted a court fight over its power to control spending, experts agree that this was likely not the way they hoped to present it.
“This is a really sloppy way of doing this,” said Bill Galston, of the Brookings Institution, adding that he thought it was an administration error. “This is just classic Trump. He believes it’s better to be fast and sloppy than slow and precise.”
In her first press conference, Trump’s new press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Tuesday urged organizations that need the grants to call the administration and show how their operations are “in line with the president’s agenda.”
“It’s incumbent on this administration to make sure, again, that every penny is accounted for,” Leavitt said.
Republican lawmakers largely took the freeze in stride.
“This isn’t a huge surprise to me,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota during the House Republican retreat at one of the president’s Florida golf resorts. “Clearly, Donald Trump campaigned in no small part on the idea that the Biden administration was putting out a lot of money that was not consistent with Donald Trump’s values.”
But Democrats and others were furious at the move, which seemed designed to undercut congressional authority.
“If President Trump wants to change our nation’s laws, he has the right to ask Congress to change them,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said in a statement. “He does not have the right to violate the United States Constitution. He is not a king.”
Chafetz, of Georgetown University, said the lack of pushback from Republican members of Congress was especially alarming because the legislative branch is the one whose powers are most at risk in the latest power play.
Even if Trump loses the legal battle, Chafetz said, he and his followers might feel like they’ve won by pushing things to this extreme.
“Damaging the institutions they don’t like,” he said, “seems to be their whole theory of governance.”
Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Lisa Mascaro in Washington and Morgan Lee in Albuquerque, New Mexico, contributed to this report.
I Just Got Trump’s “Buyout” Offer at My Job. Let Me Tell You How That’s Going.
Denise Cana – January 29, 2025
The author is a federal civil servant who has been granted the use of a pen name to protect them and their family from reprisals.
The new Trump administration’s effort to both get a grip on and dismantle the federal workforce has also been a dystopian farce, climaxing Tuesday evening, after the Office of Personnel Management sent an email offering what the media has described as a “buyout” to all federal employees. This saga began shortly after Donald Trump took office, when someone asserting the authority of OPM began spamming federal workers with emails demanding a reply. In one breath, the message asked all employees to respond “Yes” to confirm that the system was working, but it also warned employees to be cautious about the contents of emails coming to them. Meanwhile, the note itself was flagged, for recipients with a government email account, as having come from an “[EXTERNAL]” source—and thus not necessarily one to be trusted.
Then, Tuesday night, federal workers were sent an email announcing a “fork in the road.” Again, the message was flagged by government servers as “[EXTERNAL].” This email, much of which was copied and pasted from a similar message sent to Twitter employees after Elon Musk—Trump’s pick to lead his effort to overhaul the civil service, otherwise known as the Department of Government Efficiency—took over that company, proclaims that the federal workforce will be undergoing significant changes. Anyone who didn’t want to participate in this new vision was invited to reply “Resign” to the flagged-as-external email address and collect six months’ salary, without having to perform any additional work, while they looked for a new job. The details of this offer are confusing, conflict with later OPM “FAQs” about the program, and seem to run afoul of long-standing legal caps on severance packages.
Welcome to government by chatbot.
This latest buyout directive is evocative of A.I. gobbledygook, beyond evidently being a copy-and-paste job from Musk’s Twitter exploits. When technologists assess a new A.I. language tool, the go-to metric is generally not the accuracy of its product, or even the consistency of its answers. It is engagement. Substance is pushed aside in pursuit of simply keeping human eyeballs trained on its messages for as long as possible. Once considered a proxy for content’s ability to be “valuable” or “worthwhile,” attention itself has become the commodity we’re after: looks, likes, clicks, play next episode. Unfortunately, one of the easiest ways to engage people is to enrage them.
Like a chatbot in training, the Musk-Miller-Trump administration is not a principled political entity concerned with substance, consistency, or competence. In the administration’s executive order regarding TikTok, for instance, the president endeavored to grant rights to private companies in one paragraph (the DOJ “shall take no action to enforce the Act or impose any penalties against any entity for any noncompliance with the Act”), while specifically disclaiming the gift to TikTok in another (“this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States”). This was a presidential pinky-swear with his fingers crossed.
Even before Tuesday’s email, the original, outside-the-government Department of Government Efficiency project spearheaded by Musk immediately ran afoul of regulations protecting against corruption that keep our democracy from slipping into an oligarchy. When the administration pivoted to bring the project inside the government, meanwhile, it immediately ran afoul of safeguards against citizen surveillance and privacy protections that keep our democracy from slipping into an autocracy.
Which brings us back to the buyout. Putting aside Musk’s failed promises to Twitter employees who had hoped for a similar buyout, the vision of the federal workforce announced in the email is no more sensible than the TikTok executive order, no more effective at considering governmental protections than the early DOGE efforts. One “pillar” of this supposed new federal workforce presumes the flexible assignment and reassignment of anyone who works for the federal government to whatever task, agency, or group the president wants, whenever he wants. In other words, it assumes that the president can usurp the priority-setting prerogatives exclusive to Congress when it sets its budgets and directs funds toward or away from various mandates.
In another pillar, the vision asserts the president’s right to reclassify federal works to at-will employees. But to do that, he should have to pass new regulations, legislation that would require planning, process, public comment, and (likely) judicial review. And to skip that process, he’d have to revoke the Administrative Procedure Act, a move that should require an act of Congress and (likely) judicial review.
If that sounds like a lot of red tape worth cutting through, think of it this way: If the president can do what this memo suggests he can do to federal workers, then he can do pretty much anything to pretty much anyone at pretty much any time. He can change substantive law on a whim—banking codes, safety regs, union protections, taxes.
These are not the actions of a thoughtful, careful, or competent government. It is not the one envisioned by our founders or present throughout the first nearly two and a half centuries of the American experiment. This is the empty chatter of a bot trained on revenge fantasy scripts that lacks a fourth grader’s understanding of the branches of government and separation of powers.
Trump’s First Big Fiasco Triggers Stephen Miller’s Rage—Take Note Dems
Greg Sargent – January 29, 2025
Admitting failure is anathema to the authoritarian leader, who is perpetually in danger of being diminished only by those who are resentful of his glory—which is why White House adviser Stephen Miller is frantically searching for scapegoats to blame for the unfolding disaster around President Donald Trump’s massive freeze on federal spending. “Welcome to the first dumb media hoax of 2025,” Miller angrily tweeted on Tuesday night. “Leftwing media outright lied, and some people fell for the hoax.”
What Miller is actually angry about is that the media covered this fiasco aggressively and fairly. Miller insists that the press glossed over the funding pause’s supposed exemption for “aid and benefit programs.” But this is rank misdirection: The funding freeze, which is likely illegal, was indeed confusingly drafted and recklessly rolled out. This is in part what prompted the national outcry over the huge swath of programs that it threatened, Medicaid benefits included—and the media coverage that angered Miller.
All of which carries a lesson for Democrats: This is what it looks like when the opposition stirs and uses its power in a unified way to make a lot of what you might call sheer political noise. That can help set the media agenda, throw Trump and his allies on the defensive, and deliver defeats to Trump that deflate his cultish aura of invincibility.
“This has been a red-alert moment for weeks—but now no one can deny it,” Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who has argued for an emergency footing against Trump, told me. “For my colleagues that didn’t want to cry wolf, the wolf is literally chomping at our leg right now.”
Until this crisis, the Democratic opposition has mostly been relatively tentative and divided. Democrats were not sufficiently quick, forceful, or unified in denouncing Trump’s illegal purge of inspectors general and his deranged threat to prosecute state officials who don’t comply with mass deportations. Internal party debates suggest that many Democrats believe that Trump’s 2024 victory shows voters don’t care about the dire threat he poses to democracy and constitutional governance, or that defending them against Trump must be reducible to “kitchen table” appeals.
But the funding-freeze fiasco should illustrate that this reading is highly insufficient. An understanding of the moment shaped around the idea that voters are mostly reachable only via economic concerns—however important—fails to provide guidance on how to convey to voters why things like this extraordinary Trumpian power grab actually matter.
Democrats need to think through ways to act collectively, to utilize something akin to a party-wide strategy, precisely because this sort of collective, concerted action has the capacity to alert voters in a different kind of way. It can put them on edge, signaling to them that something is deeply amiss in the threat Trump is posing to the rule of law and constitutional order.
Generally speaking, some Democrats have several objections to this kind of approach. One is that voters don’t care about anything that doesn’t directly impact them and that warnings about the Trump threat make them look unfocused on people’s material concerns. Another is that if Democrats do this too often, voters will stop believing there’s real cause for alarm.
The funding-freeze fiasco got around the first objection for Democrats because it did have vast material implications, potentially harming millions of people. But Democrats shouldn’t take the wrong lesson from this. A big reason this became a huge story was also that it represented a wildly audacious grab for quasi-dictatorial power. Democratic alarms about this dimension of the story surely helped prompt wall-to-wall coverage. Democrats can learn from that.
Faiz Shakir, a progressive dark-horse candidate for Democratic National Committee chair, suggests another way around the first objection—that Democrats can seize on Trump’s abuses of power in a way that does appeal to the working class. The party, he argues, can enlist elected officials and influencers with working-class credibility to explain that those abuses should matter, not just to working-class voters’ bottom lines but, critically, because his degenerate public conduct should disgust them as well. He says Democrats can argue: “The way he is acting is a betrayal of working-class values and your working-class interests.”
Shakir also suggests an intriguing way for the party to act in concert. As chair, he’d aggressively encourage as many elected officials as possible to use the video-recording studio at the DNC in moments like these, getting them to record short takes on why voters should care about them, then push the content out on social media.*
Shakir said he sees a model in Murphy, who regularly serves up short, hyper-timely videos that use phrases like “Let me tell you why this matters.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1884297054136021224
The goal, Shakir said, would be to provide Democrats with research and recording infrastructure enabling elected officials to find their own voices and flood information spaces with civic knowledge. This also would give Democrats who want to stick to a “kitchen table” approach a way to shape their own warnings around that.
Minnesota Democratic Party Chair Ken Martin, a leading DNC chair candidate, agrees that speed and unity are paramount. “We can’t be waiting several days to organize a response to each of these things from Trump—we have to move quick,” Martin said, adding that the “larger party apparatus” should all be “singing from the same sheet of music.”
The second objection to a concerted approach—that it risks a “cry wolf” effect—is also seriously flawed. It’s already clear some Democrats are using this to avoid hard fights, for instance in hints about “working with” Elon Musk or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who each pose serious threats to bedrock ideals of public service. Also, if Democrats bestow bipartisan legitimacy on Trumpian moves like appointing those two walking civic basket cases, it complicates sounding the alarm in even more grave situations.
“It is hard for us to argue that our democracy is falling if we’re helping to confirm all of his nominees,” Murphy told me.
Taking too much of an à la carte approach to Trump’s abuses of power also risks squandering leverage. Democratic strategist Jesse Lee notes that the party’s lawmakers could consider a unified, future-oriented approach to abuses like the funding freeze. “The fight is real and here,” Lee said, arguing that Democrats can “make it clear” to GOP leaders that “they will get no Dem votes bailing them out while this power grab is in place.” (On Wednesday, the Trump administration rescinded the funding pause, strengthening the case for an aggressive opposition.)
Nobody denies that the Democratic Party is a big, sprawling, highly varied organism with elected officials facing a huge spectrum of different political imperatives. Of course there will be variation in how they approach each Trumpian abuse. But as Brian Beutler puts it, the answer to this cannot be to “lodge passing complaints about Trump’s abuses of power, but turn every conversation back to the cost of groceries.” This incoherently implies that the abuses themselves are not serious on their own terms.
How to corral Democrats who don’t want to sound warnings in particular situations is not easy to solve. But some of the ideas above are a start. And regardless, at a minimum, we need clearer signs that party leaders, at the highest levels, are seriously thinking through how to act concertedly in ways that clearly signal to voters that we’re in a civic emergency, and will argue to wayward Democrats that this is in their interests as well.
“People will not take us seriously if we don’t do our jobs every day like we’re in the middle of a constitutional crisis,” Murphy told me. “Today, everybody understands that he’s trying to seize power for corrupt purposes. But tomorrow, we have to start acting with purpose to stop what he’s doing.” If you doubt the efficacy of this, Stephen Miller’s anger confirms it as clearly as anyone could want.
* This article is about a breaking news story and has been updated. It has also been edited to include mention of the DNC’s existing recording studio.
Democratic attorneys general prep for role as last line of defense in Trump era
Ben Botkin – November 18, 2024
Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, on stage at the annual Oregon Leadership Summit in Portland on Dec. 11, 2023.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways
Then-Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, on stage at the annual Oregon Leadership Summit in Portland on Dec. 11, 2023. Rayfield, elected Oregon attorney general, will be one of 23 Democratic attorneys general during the next Trump administration. (Michael Romanos/Oregon Capital Chronicle)
After Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017, Democratic attorneys general in the U.S. quickly started conference calls every Tuesday morning to strategize and map out legal steps.
Within weeks, that quickly turned into legal action, when Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched a lawsuit challenging Trump’s travel ban that barred most people from predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S., even if they had valid visas. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum joined the lawsuit, which led to a court action that blocked Trump’s executive order within about a week of its passage.
As Trump prepares for a new term in office, 23 Democratic attorneys general will be a watchdog against any Trump-led initiatives that they believe are unconstitutional, illegal or both. The landscape has changed: Rosenblum is retiring from the role and former Oregon House Speaker Dan Rayfield will become the next attorney general. Ferguson was elected governor of Washington. The two are the last Democratic attorneys general who were in office when Trump started his first term.
In the second Trump term, attorneys general now have a four-year history of court actions that their predecessors took on wide-ranging issues like immigration, health care and the environment. And they often prevailed in court, an outcome that highlights the remarkable power that attorneys general have, through the court system, to unravel executive orders and directives from the most powerful elected leader in the world.
“We kind of have a track record and a set of expectations of how he has operated in the past,” Rayfield said in an interview with the Capital Chronicle. “The attorneys general are just a check and balance on that power. When he oversteps and pursues, whether it’s discriminatory or unlawful policies, you are that backstop for that.”
Oregon worked closely with Washington and other states during the first Trump term, as Democratic attorneys general collaborated. Ferguson sued the first Trump administration nearly 100 times, losing only three times, the Washington State Standard reported. Oregon joined many of those cases, as did other states.
Among the cases, all with more than a dozen states participating: Oregon sued in 2017, when Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency head delayed a designation of what regions of the country met new ground-level ozone pollution standards. In 2018, Oregon sued to block the federal government from asking people about their citizenship status during the 2020 census. Oregon also joined a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s immigration policy of separating children from families that crossed the border of Mexico without documentation.
During that first Trump administration, there were a lot of things that just came out of the blue. So you have to be ready under those scenarios.
– Oregon Attorney General-elect Dan Rayfield
Rayfield said the legal fight for states to set stricter emissions controls for vehicles than federal standards — opposed by Republican attorneys general — is an example of an issue where he would fight for Oregon’s right to do so.
Another key issue is reproductive health and preserving access to care, including the abortion medication mifepristone, Rayfield said.
Attorneys general also serve as a watchdog of federal actions regardless of whether a member of their party is president. For example, Rosenblum and other attorneys general have sued the federal Food & Drug Administration during the Biden administration for its restrictions on mifepristone.
Rayfield said he understands the fears about what impact a Trump administration will have on immigration. It’s one issue among many that he’ll keep tabs on with his Oregon Department of Justice attorneys.
“Those concerns are very real and scary in those communities,” he said. “But what I’d like to do is be able to see where Trump begins to move in that direction, and then see how that unfolds.”
At the same time, Rayfield said his role as attorney general is not simply to be a foil to Trump. The role exists regardless of who the president is, he said.
“You have to be firing on all cylinders,” he said.
That’s because the attorney general does much more than decide when to sue the federal government. Oregon’s attorney general leads the Oregon Department of Justice, which has nearly 1,500 workers statewide and an annual budget of about $406 million. The attorney general defends state agencies from lawsuits and advocates on behalf of residents in areas like consumer protection, help with collecting child support and raising public awareness about scammers.
Yet Rayfield said it’s important to be ready for the unexpected.
“During that first Trump administration, there were a lot of things that just came out of the blue,” he said. “So you have to be ready under those scenarios. I think it is a state of really knowing what our values are here in Oregon, and then being ready to partner with other attorneys general to make sure that we’re upholding those values. Because it is a team effort in kind of being that last line of defense.”
It was a lot of tweets. We weren’t really used to a president that personally tweeted, so we had a lot of clues from that and, of course, the executive orders themselves.
– Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum speaks about House Bill 2005, which bans undetectable firearms, on Monday, Aug. 21, 2023, at a ceremonial bill signing. Rosenblum, who is retiring, co-chaired a national group of Democratic attorneys general during the first Trump term. (Ben Botkin/Oregon Capital Chronicle)More
Rosenblum reflects
For Rosenblum, the early days of monitoring the Trump administration in 2017 quickly showed the need for organization. Rosenblum, who served as co-chair of the Democratic Attorneys General Association during the Trump administration, helped lead those early efforts.
The organization hired a staffer to help track policy changes coming from the White House. And of course, Trump’s prolific tweets — before the social media company now known as X banned him — offered hints about what was ahead. Current owner Elon Musk, a Trump supporter who the president-elect named as head of a quasi-governmental “Department of Government Efficiency,” restored Trump’s account in 2022, but Trump continues to primarily use his own social media company, Truth Social.
“It was a lot of tweets,” Rosenblum said. “We weren’t really used to a president that personally tweeted, so we had a lot of clues from that and, of course, the executive orders themselves.”
The group realized that to preserve resources, they needed to work together and coordinate on cases.
“We realized that, ideally, in order to conserve resources and also to address issues that were not specific to our states, but that were harming our own constituents in terms of their rights and their freedoms, that we needed to really step it up and work together,” Rosenblum said. “So we did that on pretty much everything that came our way.”
That helped keep costs down during the four-year Trump term, and Rosenblum said her office never needed to hire outside legal counsel to handle the cases. It also helped to have help from states with better-staffed offices, including Washington, California, New York and Illinois, she said.
The weekly conference calls continued, even after Trump exited office and during the Biden administration. Rosenblum said they were a good way to communicate and collaborate on potential national lawsuits and other issues.
Rosenblum said she expects the office will have a smooth transition through Rayfield. Like Rayfield, she said the role of watchdogging the federal government does not replace an attorney general’s role in pocketbook issues like consumer protection.
“You definitely don’t stop doing your daily bread and butter work of what being attorney general is, and that’s really important to the people of Oregon,” Rosenblum said.
Trump’s track record of disaster misinformation as he casts blame over California wildfires
LaLee Ibssa – January 11, 2025
Trump’s track record of disaster misinformation as he casts blame over California wildfires
As deadly wildfires burn through Southern California, President-elect Donald Trump has spent the week attacking Democratic officials and continuing a pattern of spreading misinformation about natural disasters.
“I think that Gavin is largely incompetent, and I think the mayor is largely incompetent, and probably both of them are just stone-cold incompetent,” Trump said of California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday night while hosting Republican governors at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
Since the fires broke out, Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and President Joe Biden have faced criticism over a lack of preparedness, budget cuts to the fire department and a lack of water to fight the fires. Trump has pointed fingers at all three, spreading false claims about California’s water policy and federal assistance.
For example, Trump blamed Biden as he falsely claimed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had “no money” to help California despite Congress recently passing a disaster relief supplemental totaling $29 billion.
PHOTO: President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Republican governors at Mar-a-Lago, Jan. 9, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla. (Evan Vucci/AP)
The president-elect also pushed exaggerated claims as he accused Newsom of refusing to sign a “water restoration declaration,” saying he instead diverted water resources in order to protect the endangered Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta’s smelt fish.
“He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn’t work!), but didn’t care about the people of California,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
While there are regulations that limit the amount of water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect the species, the governor’s office said there was no such declaration, calling the accusation “pure fiction.”
Newsom said he has not heard from Trump since the fires broke out, but the president-elect’s rhetoric isn’t helping.
“I don’t know what he’s referring to when he talks about the Delta smelt in reservoirs. The reservoirs are completely full, the state reservoirs here in Southern California,” he said. “That mis- and disinformation I don’t think advantages or aids any of us,” Newsom said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Newsom said that Trump has not called him since the fires, or since the elections. When asked whether Newsom was worried that aid would be held back, Newsom said he was. He added that he hopes he can have the “same relationship and that same spirit” with Trump as he did with Biden.
“Well, I mean, he’s done it in Utah. He’s done it in Michigan, did it in Puerto Rico. He did it to California back before I was even governor in 2018, until he found out folks in Orange County voted for him and then he decided to give the money. So he’s been at this for years and years and years. It transcends the states, including, by the way, Georgia he threatened similarly. So that’s his style. And we take it seriously to the extent that in the past it’s taken a little bit more time,” Newsom said on NBC.
Biden and other emergency officials have also rejected Trump’s claims, maintaining the fire was caused by fierce winds and extremely dry conditions and that the initial water shortage occurred due to power being shut off in order to avoid sparking additional fires.
Still, Trump has long pushed these claims, suggesting while on the campaign trail that he’d withhold aid for California if Newsom didn’t reinstate Trump’s policies.
PHOTO: The devastation of the Palisades Fire is seen in the early morning in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, Jan. 10, 2025. (John Locher/AP)
Trump’s administration in his first term signed a memorandum that redirected millions of gallons of water to farmers living in the Central Valley and Southern California, pumping it out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
“The water coming here is dead. And Gavin Newsom is going to sign those papers, and if he doesn’t sign those papers, we won’t give him money to put out all his fires, and we don’t give him the money to put out his fires. He’s got problems,” Trump said at a press conference at his Los Angeles golf course in September.
After a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans at the Capitol on Wednesday, Trump continued to criticize Newsom’s handling of the wildfires while ultimately asserting that the two would need to work together.
“So, what’s happened is a tragedy, and the governor has not done a good job,” Trump told ABC News’ Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott.
“With that being said, I got along well with him — when he was governor, we worked together very well, and we would work together,” Trump said. “I guess it looks like we’re going to be the one having to rebuild it.”
It isn’t the first time Trump has gone after emergency officials in the wake of disasters. When hurricanes caused devastation in parts of Georgia and North Carolina last year, Trump quickly pivoted his campaign schedule to focus on those areas.
During those visits, Trump repeatedly spread misinformation about FEMA’s response, incorrectly casting blame on federal officials in the Biden administration and falsely claiming that the administration had drained funds from FEMA to house illegal migrants.
“They got hit with a very bad hurricane, especially North Carolina and parts of Georgia. But North Carolina really got hit. I’ll tell you what, those people should never vote for a Democrat, because they held back aid,” Trump claimed in an October interview.
Local and federal officials warned Trump about how his politically motivated rhetoric could be causing harm as the areas hit attempted to rebuild; however, the president-elect often refused to backtrack.
While visiting Asheville, North Carolina, Trump refused to address threats of violence against FEMA workers, instead saying, “I think you have to let people know how they’re doing. If they were doing a great job, I think we should say that, too, because I think they should be rewarded. But if they’re not doing — does that mean that if they’re doing a poor job, we’re supposed to not say it?”
Even while in office, Trump received pushback at times for peddling misinformation.
PHOTO: Donald Trump, listens to a question as he visits Chez What Furniture Store which was damaged during Hurricane Helene on September 30, 2024 in Valdosta, Georgia. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)More
In 2019, Trump claimed that Alabama was in the path of Hurricane Dorian, causing the National Weather Service to issue a public service announcement refuting Trump’s claims. Then, that same year, when senators first failed to pass disaster relief aid to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico, Trump blamed local leaders as he spread false claims, saying repeatedly that Puerto Rico had received “more money than has ever been gotten for a hurricane before.”
“The people of Puerto Rico are GREAT, but the politicians are incompetent or corrupt,” Trump posted at the time.
Republican governors came to Trump’s defense on Thursday night, touting his leadership skills as president during disasters.
“You could criticize the president-elect, but I think you also have to hold these other people accountable,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told reporters at Mar-a-Lago.
“I worked well with Biden during his time at natural disasters, but I work well with Donald Trump, so I’m very confident as a state that knows we face these that a Trump administration is going to be very strong and is going to be there for the people, regardless of party,” DeSantis added.
Despite Trump’s harsh words, Los Angeles officials say they haven’t heard from the president-elect directly but have been in touch with members of his team and they expect Trump to visit the area after sending him an invitation on Saturday.
Gov. Gavin Newsom slams Trump’s disinformation about California wildfires
Alexandra Marquez – January 12, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted President-elect Donald Trump’s response to the California wildfires in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” recorded Saturday, saying, “Mis- and disinformation I don’t think advantages or aids any of us.”
Newsom appeared to be referring to Trump’s posts on Truth Social blasting Newsom, President Joe Biden and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass since the fires broke out Tuesday.
In one post, the president-elect baselessly claimed Newsom had blocked a measure that would have allowed water to flow from Northern California to Southern California.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, right, tours the downtown business district of Pacific Palisades as the Palisades Fire continues to burn in Los Angeles on Wednesday.
“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump wrote, using an insulting nickname for Newsom.Advertisement
In that post, Trump added that Newsom “wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn’t work!)” and “he is the blame for this.”
“Responding to Donald Trump’s insults, we would spend another month,” Newsom told NBC News’ Jacob Soboroff. “I’m very familiar with them. Every elected official that he disagrees with is very familiar with them.”
He added that Trump was “somehow connecting the delta smelt to this fire, which is inexcusable because it’s inaccurate. Also, incomprehensible to anyone that understands water policy in the state.”
In another post, Trump wrote, “NO WATER IN THE FIRE HYDRANTS, NO MONEY IN FEMA. THIS IS WHAT JOE BIDEN IS LEAVING ME. THANKS JOE!” and appeared to falsely claim, as he did last year in the aftermath of several hurricanes, that money had been drained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.
At least 16 people have died in devastating wildfires across the greater Los Angeles area.
On Friday, Newsom wrote a letter to Trump inviting him to come to his state and tour the destruction.
“I invite you to come to California again — to meet with the Americans affected by these fires, see the devastation firsthand, and join me and others in thanking the heroic firefighters and first responders who are putting their lives on the line,” the governor wrote.
Newsom told Soboroff on Saturday that he had not received a response to the letter.
He added that he’s worried the president-elect may make good on his threats to withhold disaster aid from the state after his inauguration.
“He’s done it in Utah. He’s done it in Michigan, did it in Puerto Rico. He did it to California back before I was even governor, in 2018,” Newsom said.
“So he’s been at this for years and years and years. It transcends the states, including, by the way, Georgia he threatened similarly. So that’s his style. And we take it seriously to the extent that in the past it’s taken a little bit more time [to get federal aid],” the governor added.
Trump’s pick to lead EPA was paid tens of thousands to write op-eds criticizing climate policies and ESG
Bryan Metzger – January 12, 2025
Scroll back up to restore default view.
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, made $186,000 from paid op-eds and speeches.
Some of those op-eds criticized climate policies and ESG.
The former NY congressman also made $45,475 from gambling at casinos.
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, President-elect Donald Trump’snominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, has made millions of dollars in recent years from consulting, speaking fees, and paid op-eds, according to a financial disclosure made public on Saturday.
That includes tens of thousands of dollars to write about environmental and climate change-related topics. In one instance, Zeldin was paid $25,000 for an op-ed in which he likened environmental, social, and governance investing, or ESG, to the practices of disgraced cryptocurrency entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried.
A staunchly pro-Trump Republican first elected to Congress in 2014, Zeldin left office after mounting an unsuccessful bid for governor of New York in 2022. As retiring lawmakers in both parties often do, Zeldin cashed in, establishing a consulting firm to advise corporate clients while enmeshing himself in the well-funded world of conservative political advocacy.
It’s paid off. According to the disclosure document, which covers Zeldin’s major financial activities since the beginning of 2023, the ex-congressman has made a total of $775,000 in salary income and between $1 million and $5 million in dividends from his main firm, Zeldin Consulting.
He’s also received $144,999 from America First Works, a pro-Trump nonprofit where he has a board seat, along with $65,500 from paid speeches and $15,000 from an entity called “Plymouth Union Public Research.”
He also got lucky — literally — winning a combined $45,475 in the last two years from gambling at the Golden Nugget, Venetian, and Atlantis casinos.
“All nominees and appointees will comply with the ethical obligations of their respective agencies,” Trump-Vance Transition Spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement.
Zeldin did not respond to a request for comment.
$120,500 for writing op-eds
The ex-congressman’s disclosure reveals a variety of income streams, including substantial speaking fees from GOP organizations in Florida and California, a Long Island synagogue, and a Turning Point USA event in Michigan in June. In multiple instances, Zeldin was paid over $10,000 for a single appearance.
He also disclosed a combined $26,775 in payments from Fox News and Nexstar Media Group for “use of media studio.”
The document lists payments from several public relations firms for paid op-eds, listing the news outlet and the date of publication. The titles of those opinion pieces are not listed, but Business Insider identified several that matched the publication and date included in the disclosure.
Among the most notable were a series of paid op-eds on climate issues — Zeldin could soon lead the agency responsible for the federal government’s environmental policies.
In an op-ed for Real Clear Policy published in March 2023 entitled “How Congress Can Stop the Next FTX,” Zeldin called on Congress to investigate ESG practices and the nonprofit watchdog Better Markets, arguing that companies may use ESG to avoid regulatory scrutiny in the same manner that Bankman-Fried used political contributions to curry favor with Washington.
The disclosure indicates that Zeldin was paid $25,000 to write that op-ed. He also appears to have made an additional $10,000 for another Newsday op-ed in August about ESG and $3,000 for a Fox News op-ed in July that criticized New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s climate policies and called on her to lift the state’s fracking ban.
Zeldin was also paid to write about other topics, including $10,000 for a New York Post op-ed criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris’ housing policy proposals, $10,000 for a Washington Times op-ed calling on regulators to crack down on China-linked financial platforms, and $15,000 for a Washington Examiner op-ed accusing the Biden administration of targeting Republican-run states via Medicaid regulations.
In some cases, Zeldin was paid even when the articles never saw the light of day. His disclosures list two op-eds that were never published, for which he received $10,000 and $30,000.
In total, Zeldin reported $120,500 in op-ed payments. The original clients who made those payments are unclear, and Zeldin and the Trump-Vance transition did not respond to a question about the original sources.
As with other nominees, Zeldin has agreed to divest himself from his consulting business if he’s confirmed as the next EPA administrator, according to his ethics agreement. His confirmation hearing is set for Thursday, January 16.
‘Apocalyptic’: ghastly remains of Malibu come into focus
Andrew Marszal – January 10, 2025
Multi-million dollar mansions in Malibu have vanished entirely, seemingly swept into the Pacific ocean by the force of the Palisades Fire (JOSH EDELSON)JOSH EDELSON/AFP/AFPMore
Flying south through smoky skies down the famous Malibu coast, at first the burnt-out mansions are the exception — solitary wrecks, smoldering away between rows of intact, gleaming beachfront villas.
But draw closer to Pacific Palisades, the ground zero of Los Angeles’s devastating fires, and those small scorched ruins become sporadic clusters, and then endless rows of charred, crumpled homes.
From the air, the extent of the devastation wrought by the Palisades Fire on these two neighborhoods is starting to come into focus: whole streets in ruins, the remains of once-fabulous houses now nothing but ash and memories.
Access to this area of utter devastation has been largely closed to the public and even to evacuated residents since the fire began Tuesday.
The biggest among multiple blazes covering Los Angeles, the inferno has now ripped through over 19,000 acres (7,700 hectares) of Pacific Palisades and Malibu.
A preliminary estimate of destroyed structures was “in the thousands,” city fire chief Kristin Crowley told Thursday’s conference.
There have been at least two separate reports of human remains found in this fire alone, though officials have yet to confirm the fatal toll.
“It is safe to say that the Palisades Fire is one of the most destructive natural disasters in the history of Los Angeles,” said Crowley.
For AFP reporters surveying the scenes from a helicopter Thursday, it was hard to argue with that view.
On some of these highly coveted Malibu oceanfront plots, beloved by celebrities, skeletal frames of buildings indicated the lavish scale of what has been destroyed.
Other multi-million dollar mansions have vanished entirely, seemingly swept into the Pacific Ocean by the force of the Palisades Fire.
And looming above Malibu, a thin sliver of luxurious waterfront property, is Pacific Palisades itself — an affluent plateau of expensive real estate, now deserted.
Not the entire hilltop is blackened. Several grand homes stand unscathed. Some streets have been spared entirely.
But toward the southern end of the Palisades, grids of roads that were until Tuesday lined with stunning homes now resemble makeshift cemeteries.
Where row upon row of family homes once stood, all that remain are occasional chimneys, blackened tree stumps and charred timber.
At a press conference on Thursday, Los Angeles district attorney Nathan Hochman described walking through Pacific Palisades to the remains of his sister’s home as “apocalyptic.”
“Not since the 1990s when Los Angeles was hit with the fires, the flood, the earthquake and the riots, have I seen such disaster occur here in our city,” he said.
“This is crazy,” agreed Albert Azouz, a helicopter pilot who has flown these skies for almost a decade, observing the destruction from above on Thursday.