Trump’s track record of disaster misinformation as he casts blame over California wildfires
LaLee Ibssa – January 11, 2025
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Taken during the Jan. 6insurrection, the photo shows a solitary White man, his head pressed in prayer against a massive wooden cross, facing the domed US Capitol building. An American flag stands like a sentinel on a flagpole beside the Capitol under an ominously gray sky.
The photograph depicts a foot soldier in an insurgent religious movement trying to storm the halls of American power. What’s unsettling about the photo four years later is that much of the religious zeal that fed the insurrection is no longer outside the gates of power. Many of that movement’s followers are now on the inside, because theirChosen One, Donald Trump, returns this month to the Oval Office.
This is the scenario Americans could face in Trump’s second term. Under Trump, Christian nationalists will have unprecedentedaccess to the power of the federal government. Trump’s GOP has unified control of Congress. And a conservative supermajority, which has already blurred the line between separation of church and state in a series of decisions favoring Christian interests, controls the US Supreme Court.
Trump has not been shy about what comes next. He ran a presidential campaign that was infused with White Christian Nationalist imagery and rhetoric. He vowed in an October campaign speech to set up a task force to root out “anti-Christian bias” and restore preachers’ power in America while giving access to a group he calls “my beautiful Christians.”
“If I get in, you’re going to be using that power at a level that you’ve never used before,” Trump told an annual gathering of National Religious Broadcasters in Tennessee during a campaign stop earlier this year.
Trump won the support of about 8 in 10 White evangelical voters in November’s presidential election. Nearly two-thirds of White evangelical Protestants in the US described themselves as sympathizers or adherents to Christian nationalism in a February 2023 survey.
Scholars have called White Christian nationalism an “ImposterChristianity” whose adherents use religious language to cloak sexism and hostility to Black people and non-White immigrants in a quest to create a White Christian America.
So what might life look like over the next four years for Americans who don’t subscribe to this movement?
CNN asked that question of Kristin Kobes Du Mez, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on Christian nationalism. Du Mez is a historian and the author of the New York Times bestseller, “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.” Her book has become a go-to source for understanding Christian nationalism. It explains how the movement’s tentacles reach deep into American history and pop culture.
To many people, declaring America a Christian nation may seem harmless. And it’s important to distinguish Christian nationalists from patriotic Christians who have a more inclusive view of what America should be. But Du Mez says Christian nationalism is ultimately incompatible with American democracy.
“This is not a pluralist vision for all of American coming together or a vision for compromise,” says Du Mez, a history professor at Calvin University in Michigan and a fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion. “It is a vision for seizing power and using that power to usher in a ‘Christian America.’”
CNN recently spoke to Du Mez about this movement and what Americans might expect during Trump’s second term. Her comments were edited for brevity and clarity.
What will Trump’s victory do for the White Christian nationalist movement?
It will embolden and empower the White Christian nationalist movement. In all likelihood, it will institutionalize White Christian nationalism. It will transform our government, with the goal of transforming our society. It will likely place White Christian nationalists in positions of enormous political power. It could be transformative.
How would that institutionalization of White Christian nationalism look in ordinary people’s lives?
We can expect this Christian nationalist agenda to transform the public school system. One of the proposals with Christian nationalists is to eliminate the Department of Education, to look to the privatization of schooling, but also to transform the curriculum throughout public schools. The anti-CRT (critical race theory) and anti-woke agenda that we have seen played out on a smaller scale in certain states — that is what we should expect to see on a national scale.
Project 2025 (a conservative blueprint for the next Republican president, although Trump tried to distance himself from it during the 2024 campaign) is explicit about cracking down on woke ideology, eliminating certain terms from laws and federal regulations, terms like “gender equality” and “reproductive rights.” This anti-woke agenda is a key point of unity between White Christian nationalists and the broader MAGA movement.
Is there any potential for book bans?
Any book that could be perceived as pro-LGBTQ, for example, or to contain a harmful political agenda — those are the books likely to be targeted, and certainly removed from school curriculums and school libraries. But in terms of everyday lives, part of the agenda of Christian nationalists is a redefinition of human rights and of civil rights according to their understanding of God’s laws or natural law.
And in this respect, there is no right to same-sex marriage, there is no right to abortion, or broader LGBTQ rights. Those don’t exist within their understanding of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. They read the Constitution through this Christian nationalist framework: God founded the nation, our founding documents reflect that and therefore they must be interpreted in light of God’s law, which in a sense, erases how we would normally understand constitutional rights and replaces them with essentially a Christian nationalist agenda.
Why are some Christian nationalists hostile to the Department of Education?
There’s a long history of opposition to the Department of Education within the Christian right, going back several decades. Schools are seen as a primary site of formation of children, and within this conservative Christian ideology there’s a very strong emphasis on the rights of the parent to shape the values and ideals of one’s children. When government steps in and takes on that role, they believe that it infringes on a parent’s God-given rights. They are extremely upset when these, quote unquote, government schools educate their children and teach them things that they do not believe in or that they would find harmful.
You could also trace this hostility back historically, and not coincidentally, to the kind of resistance to government schools that really welled up in the context of the civil rights movement and desegregation efforts. This was seen as the government intrusion into families and into communities.
With his victory, is Trump even more reveredin White Christian nationalist movement circles?
Absolutely. In every way, there is celebration in Christian nationalist spaces. The idea is widespread that Trump’s victory demonstrates a divine mandate that resonates with the framework that they have been using to explain and promote Trump dating back to 2016. He is somehow God’s anointed one. He is God’s chosen leader for this particularly fraught, historical political moment.
You saw that early on in 2016 with these prophecies that were coming from charismatic circles that no, he was not necessarily a Christian, but he was still God’s chosen one to save Christian America. The sense of his divine role certainly wasn’t dampened by the assassination attempt and his survival, which seemed miraculous to some. Trump leaned into that and said God had saved him because God had a divine purpose for him.
You once said that Christian nationalism and militant patriarchy go hand in hand. What does that mean?
Christian nationalism is the idea that America is a distinctly Christian nation. But there’s a whole set of descriptors that go along with this that we see over and over again. There’s this idea that we need to restore Christian America. What does that look like? It looks like privileging the quote unquote, traditional family, the patriarchal family structure. They believe that the way that God has designed human flourishing is to have a male patriarch, and then to have a submissive wife, one who submits to her husband’s authority, and one whose primary role is a mother and a homemaker. Any family structure that does not look like that is seen as undermining society.
You’ll hear the rhetoric that we need strong Godly men to step up to defend faith, family and nation. And so when you get inside Christian nationalist spaces, there is all kinds of militant rhetoric about manly strength, about Christian men who need to step up and take power, and assert their leadership because that is their God-ordained role.
Given that description, was there even a remote chance that White Christian nationalists would support Kamala Harris?
No. No White Christian nationalist would vote for Kamala Harris.
No matter what she did?
No. Just an absolute nonstarter. I mean, how many strikes does she have against her? She’s a woman, and a woman of color. Her gender would probably be disqualifying for most. But no — because she’s a woman of color, and frankly a Democrat.
Christian nationalism thrives on this us-versus-them mentality. This militancy is linked to always needing an enemy. And in Christian nationalism today, the enemies are internal. Historically the enemies of Christian America were secular humanists, feminists and then more recently Democrats and the woke. This language of an enemy within that caught some attention in the last week of the campaign, when Trump said those words that resonate deeply with Christian nationalists. That fuels the sense that we need warriors to fight to save your family and Christianity. And to save America, you’re going have to fight fellow Americans who are threatening those values.
In some ways, is Trump just as much of a transformational figure for White evangelicals as Billy Graham?
I think we can say yes. The reason I pause is because I don’t think people fully understand the significance and legacy of Billy Graham. But yes, Trump is transformational but only because of the kind of deep roots of Christian nationalism. If you go back to the 1960s and 1970s and listen to the rhetoric of evangelical and fundamentalist pastors, and listened to how they talked about race, and their mission to save Christian America — that goes back a half of a century.
Given that resonance, yes, he has been transformational with that promise to give Christians power. And there he means, of course, power to conservative, White evangelical types of Christians. That (promise) has excited his base and emboldened that faction. A few years ago, it might have been frowned upon in many Christian spaces to support somebody like Trump. Now, the tables have really turned. Now there’s no shame in embracing Trump. There has been a transformative effect. I see much unapologetically crude and belligerent language inside these spaces. This kind of militancy is no longer beneath the surface, and it is aimed at fellow Americans and at fellow Christians who do not toe the line.
What happens though to those White Christian evangelicals who don’t subscribe to Christian nationalism. Where do they go?
There are a lot of pressures to get on board with this Christian nationalist agenda. It doesn’t need to be overtly supported, but there’s enormous pressure not to object. A person who works in an evangelical media organization explained it to me this way. The memo is: You don’t have to support Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda — you just can’t speak against it, so you can keep your job. When I heard those words, I thought that exactly describes what I’m hearing from people and what I’m observing. So you can quietly hold onto your beliefs, but if you try to object to something that is part of this agenda, if you try to say, fellow Christians, should we be supporting a man like Trump? — that will get you into trouble.
If this movement gets everything it wants, what will this country look like?
There will be no meaningful religious liberty. There will be essentially a two-tier society between the quote unquote, real Americans—those who buy into this, or pretend to — and then the rest of Americans. If you’re a person of no faith or a Muslim or anybody deemed not a true Christian, you will have a place, but you will not have a voice. The laws will be rewritten across the board. Rights as we understand them will cease to exist and instead, we’ll have the framework of biblical law.
The idea will be that true freedom comes from following God’s laws. So freedom will be redefined. You are free to follow the laws that we set out for you as a woman, or someone who is same-sex attracted. True freedom comes from submitting to God’s law, and we will help you do that, and it will ultimately be good for you. In our education system, our American history will be made up. It will be ideological.
They want to erase the teaching of actual history to prop up a mythical understanding of what this country was founded to be to justify their radical transformation of the country. There will be no abortion rights, and there will be limited, if any, access to contraception. There will be harsh anti-immigration laws with exceptions for people who subscribe to this Christian nationalist vision or who are seen to fit within it, religiously, politically and perhaps ethnically.
There are potential mitigating factors: infighting or incompetence within Christian nationalist and MAGA circles, the role of the courts, resistance within government agencies and at the local and state levels. And of course, the extent to which various aspects of the Christian nationalist agenda align with Trump’s own priorities and with those of members of his inner circle, like Elon Musk.
What do you say to people who say you’re being alarmist and playing into doomsday scenarios? I mean, this isn’t “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
I would love to be wrong about this. The reason I’m saying these things is because I have been listening to what they (in this movement) have been saying and I have been reading what they have been writing for years. They have been writing these things and saying these things for decades. For a long time, they were a powerful strand in the broader evangelical world and within the Republican Party. But they were offset by a more secular and pro-business conservatism.
What we’ve seen now is that they’ve moved into a dominant position within the Republican Party. The MAGA brand is the Republican Party. These ideas are not new. What is new is that for the first time, they are really in a position to carry out these plans.
Do you think White Christian nationalists will someday regret this alliance with Trump?
No. It’s hard for me to envision why they would regret it, because what they most want is power — the power to achieve their ends. And he appears to be granting them that power. I suppose then there could be some regret, but that just seems so far-fetched at this point. They have seen their movement go mainstream, and now they have incredible access to power.
The move comes after an Atlanta-based federal appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for Smith report, though it did leave in place an injunction that means it can’t be made public until Sunday at the earliest. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had blocked Smith’s report from coming out in a ruling the Justice Department called “plainly erroneous” in its recent motion.
Cannon ruled that, if her decision was overturned, the report could come out three days later, meaning it could be released as soon as Sunday. But the Justice Department’s request on Friday asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to allow for the report’s immediate release.
Trump can also still appeal to the Supreme Court, a move that could further delay the Smith report with the clock ticking until Inauguration Day on Jan. 20. Trump has blasted the report as “fake” and the investigation a “witch hunt.” Trump’s nominees to lead the Justice Department include several members of his current and former personal legal teams.
Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers earlier this week that the Justice Department would release the first part of Smith’s investigation, which covers Trump’s alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election, but only “when permitted by the court to do so.”
A second report – on Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents – wouldn’t be released so long as federal charges stand against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump’s personal body man and the property manager of his Mar-a-Lago resort and former co-defendants in the case, according to government lawyers. Cannon’s ruling on Tuesday blocked that report’s release because Nauta and De Oliveira said it could influence their own active criminal cases.
Garland tells Congress he will release part of Smith’s investigation
Trump’s election victory in November nullified the two federal indictments brought against him since sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, according to long-standingJustice Department policy. But Garland told Congress on Wednesday that releasing the first part of the report is lawful and “in furtherance of the public interest.”
If released, the report would reveal the evidence that led the Justice Department to charge Trump with election interference and mishandling of classified documents.
In a letter to Garland, Trump’s lawyers said the dropped charges were a “complete exoneration” of the president-elect. They called the release of Smith’s report “imprudent and unlawful” and said it would “perpetuate false and discredited accusations.”
Trump was indicted for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election through his false claims of voter fraud. He was also charged with obstruction of Congress in trying to block certifying Joe Biden’s victory when the Republican’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. The federal judge overseeing that case dismissed the charges at Smith’s request in November after Trump’s White House win.
Duckworth: Trump’s Pentagon pick has less experience than Applebee’s manager
Alexander Bolton – January 10, 2025
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says President-elect Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense is dangerously unqualified and has less management experience than someone running an Applebee’s restaurant.
“The manager of the average Applebee’s has probably managed more people than Pete Hegseth,” Duckworth said during a press call Friday, referring to Trump’s nominee to head the Pentagon.
Duckworth’s sharp criticism comes a few days before Hegseth is scheduled to testify at his Tuesday Senate confirmation hearing.
“Pete Hegseth’s nomination to serve as secretary of Defense is dangerous. Being secretary of Defense is a very serious job and putting someone as dangerously unqualified as Mr. Hegseth into that role is something that should scare all of us,” she told reporters, previewing the challenges Hegseth will face before the Armed Services panel next week.
The Democratic senator argued that Trump has tapped a “television personality” without sufficient experience to lead almost 3 million troops and civilian employees.
“I want to know what’s the largest budget he’s ever run. You’re talking about the Pentagon that has a budget of over $830 billion,” Duckworth said.
She said the largest organization that Hegseth appears to have led is an infantry platoon, “which at most is 40 guys.”
She also called him the “most unqualified nominee ever picked for this role.”
Duckworth held the press call to lay out her concerns about Trump’s nominee, insisting that her objections to Hegseth aren’t motivated by politics but by what his confirmation would mean for national security.
She complained that Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, will likely be the only Senate Democrat who will meet with Hegseth before his hearing.
“I have many questions for him, more questions than I can fit into the mere seven minutes each senator will be given during the hearing,” she said.
Duckworth also noted that rank-and-file Democrats on the Armed Services panel may not have a chance to fully review the FBI background check on the nominee, an investigation Democrats believe will be critical to assess a sexual assault allegation from 2017 and alleged mismanagement of Concerned Veterans for America (CVA), an advocacy group.
Hegseth has vigorously denied the assault allegation and dismissed claims of unprofessional conduct and mismanagement at CVA as smears.
“I don’t think I’ll be able to look at the FBI investigation before the hearing,” Duckworth said.
“I know that I and the other Senate Dems have requested access” to the FBI background report, she said.
“Before we broke for the holidays, the Republicans had indicated that we would be able to see them, but now it looks like they’re looking to just the ranking member and the chairman and the rest of us will not be able to see them,” she said of the results of the FBI’s investigation.
Russia is feeling the full impact of sanctions and the strain could force an end to the war this year, think tank says
Jennifer Sor – January 9, 2025
Russia’s economic pain will intensify this year, according to the Atlantic Council.
The think tank said Russia is feeling the full effects of sanctions after nearly three years of war.
Continued strain could cause Moscow to end the war in Ukraine this year, a note from the group said.
After almost three years of waging war in Ukraine, Russia is feeling the full impact of its economic punishment from the West — and it could prompt the Kremlin to end the war in Ukraine as soon as this year, a note from the Atlantic Council said this week.
The think tank pointed to the pressures building on Russia’s economy, primarily those stemming from Western sanctions. The sanctions packages over the last several years have included measures like cutting Russia off from SWIFT, the international financial communication system, as well as trade restrictions on several of Russia’s key exports, like oil and gas.
According to Mark Temnycky, a fellow at the think tank, those measures have had a definite impact on Russia’s economy, even after the Kremlin seemed to shrug off the initial volley of restrictions.
“Three years later, the picture looks different. The Russian economy is now beginning to see the full effects of international sanctions. If these trends continue, then the full impact of these financial punishments, combined with strong Ukrainian resistance to Russian forces, could at last put enough pressure on the Kremlin to end its war,” Temnycky said.
He pointed to various signs of economic strain in Russia, which suggested that the nation may not be able to continue its war effort for much longer.
Russia’s ruble, for one, has plunged more than 50% in value against the dollar and the euro — partly due to sanctions pressure on Russian institutions, according to an analysis from the Kyiv School of Economics. The ruble traded at around 102 against the dollar on Thursday, close to the lowest level since Russia first began its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Russia’s energy business also appears to be struggling after years of trade restrictions and dwindling oil prices. Russia’s total energy revenue tumbled by nearly a quarter in 2023, and the government expects oil and gas revenue to keep shrinking until 2027, according to a draft budget viewed by Bloomberg.
Russian inflation is also soaring, with consumer prices rising 9.5% year-over-year in the last week of December, according to the nation’s central bank.
Even Putin has acknowledged that Russia’s inflation rate was “alarming,” a rare admission from the Russian leader of the problems facing the country.
“Putin’s points on inflation were telling. The Russian leader seldom discusses problems pertaining to Russian society. Thus, the fact that he felt the need to acknowledge inflation as a serious issue suggests that something greater is afoot,” Temnycky said, adding that Russia appears to be on track to enter a recession in 2025.
Other economists have warned of more pain headed for Russia’s economy in the coming year. The nation could see a “significant strain” on its budget in 2025, with the economy at risk of falling into a period of Soviet-style stagnation, economic experts previously told BI.
“Putin and the Kremlin will have to determine how to try to address these financial woes,” Temycky added. “This suggests that 2025 will be a difficult year for Russians and the economy. Time will tell how significant these events will be.”
Elon Musk Sets His Sights on Toppling Another World Leader
Malcolm Ferguson – January 9, 2025
Elon has zeroed in on his next political target: U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The world’s richest man has been consulting with his right-wing allies to devise a strategy to oust the Labour Party’s Starmer before the next election, according to a report from the Financial Times Thursday.
Musk has been antagonizing Starmer on X for some time, but according to people familiar with the matter, he is now focused on finding a way to destabilize the Labour government and bolster other alternatives.
“His view is that Western civilisation itself is threatened,” one source told FT.
Musk has been rallying to free far-right, Islamaphobic hooligan Tommy Robinson from prison since the new year and thinks that all-out civil war is “inevitable” in the nation. He’s also been calling for a national investigation into the grooming and exploitation cases in the Midlands region of England. Musk blames Starmer, who was a director of public prosecutions at the time, for his oversight on the issue.
Musk’s attempted toppling of Starmer is another installment in his efforts to exert the same political influence he has in the United States in Europe. The billionaire has been singing the praises of Germany’s far-right, nativist Alternative for Germany, or AfD, Party. He published an op-ed in a German newspaper in which he wrote, “Portraying the AfD as far-right is clearly false, considering that Alice Weidel, the party’s leader, has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka! Does that sound like Hitler to you? Come on!” He has since been accused of election interference by the German government but has shown no signs of stopping. He is also scheduled to host AfD leader Alice Weidel live on X sometime before the German elections in February.
Meanwhile, Musk is also closing in on a massive telecommunications deal with Italy’s far-right government, entrenching himself in the Eurozone.
A tale of two presidents: How L.A. fires show the difference between Biden and Trump
Taryn Luna, Liam Dillon, Alex Wigglesworth – January 8, 2025
As communities across Los Angeles County burned Wednesday in a spate of wildfires, the crisis highlighted the stark difference between the incoming and outgoing presidents and their relationships with California.
President Biden stood next to Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, at a fire station in Santa Monica and pledged to provide full federal support to the state.
“We’re prepared to do anything and everything for as long as it takes to contain these fires,” Biden said.
Hours earlier, Republican President-elect Donald Trump, just days away from being sworn in on Jan. 20, blamed “Newscum and his Los Angeles crew” for the unfolding calamity.
In a post on his social media site, Truth Social, Trump said the Democratic governor “refused to sign a water restoration declaration,” which he alleged would have allowed millions of gallons of rain and snowmelt to flow south to the areas on fire.
“Now the ultimate price is being paid,” Trump wrote. “I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA!”
The morning missive from the president-elect, as communities burned and thousands of people fled their homes, echoed his prior threats to withhold wildfire funding if Newsom declined to go along with Trump’s water policy for California. Water experts have said, however, that Trump’s water proposals probably will encounter substantial obstacles, and that his claims attempting to link water deliveries to the firefighting response were inaccurate.
Though Newsom praised Trump during his first term for approving federal disaster funding for wildfires, the governor has since said he had to “kiss the ring” to convince Trump to help.
Newsom has commended Biden for not playing political games during disasters.
“It’s impossible for me to express the level of appreciation and cooperation we’ve received from the White House and this administration,” Newsom said in Santa Monica on Wednesday.
Presidents have wide discretion when it comes to disaster aid, which could be in jeopardy in the future if Trump follows through with his threats after his inauguration.
California and other states receive most federal wildfire aid through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including direct payments and services to homeowners and renters whose properties were damaged, and public assistance for things such as search-and-rescue teams, debris removal and infrastructure repair.
States need to show that an incident is of such a severity and magnitude that a response is beyond the state’s capability in order to qualify. The governor must request, and the president must declare, a major disaster and then approve any aid the governor requests.
FEMA decides whether a federal disaster declaration is warranted and issues a recommendation to the president. In the past, presidents have followed that recommendation, but there’s nothing in the law that requires them to do so.
Trump initially refused to approve federal aid to California for wildfires in 2018 until a National Security Council staffer showed him that Orange County had a dense concentration of voters who supported him, according to Politico.
State Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat who lives and grew up in Santa Monica, attended Wednesday’s briefing with the president and governor. Allen said it was obvious from Newsom’s remarks since the fires began that the governor was worried about federal support for disasters under the Trump administration. Allen said Biden’s response was remarkably quick and thorough. But he said he couldn’t imagine that Trump would ignore Californians in any time of need.
“I have every expectation that the new administration will assist fellow Americans in moments of vulnerability,” Allen said. “That’s what every White House has done, whether Democrat or Republican, throughout history. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t continue to provide the same level of assistance and service that previous presidents have.”
Despite Trump’s feisty rhetoric, he did travel to California as president to survey fire damage and meet with Newsom. Trump toured Paradise in 2018 in the aftermath of the state’s deadliest wildfire. And he met with Newsom in Sacramento after a spate of wildfires in 2020.
Newsom and Trump traded blows on social media, in the news media and in the courts during the president-elect’s first term, but remained cordial in texts, calls and even in person. But that relationship appears to have soured during Biden’s presidency.
Newsom has said Trump did not return a call he made in November to congratulate the incoming president on winning the election. An aide to Newsom said the two men have still not spoken.
The president-elect continued to blame Newsom on Truth Social for the blazes on Wednesday: “As of this moment, Gavin Newscum and his Los Angeles crew have contained exactly ZERO percent of the fire. It is burning at levels that even surpass last night. This is not government.”
Trump also took shots at Biden.
“NO WATER IN THE FIRE HYDRANTS, NO MONEY IN FEMA,” he posted. “THIS IS WHAT JOE BIDEN IS LEAVING ME. THANKS JOE!”
Peter Gleick, a hydroclimatologist and senior fellow of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said Trump’s comments attempting to link California water policy with the water-supply problems facing firefighters in Southern California were “blatantly false, irresponsible and politically self-serving.”
“There is no water shortage in Southern California — the state’s reservoirs are all at, or above, levels normally expected for this time of year. The problem with water supply for the fires is entirely the result of the massive immediate demands for firefighting water, broken or damaged pipes and pumps, and homeowners leaving hoses and sprinklers running in hopes of saving property.”
Staff writer Ian James contributed to this report.
Political warfare: Why the House accusations against Liz Cheney are baseless and wrong
Bruce Green, opinion contributor – January 8, 2025
In recent years, public officials of both parties have accused law enforcement authorities of “weaponizing” criminal law, particularly against political opponents. Now, Republicans in the House of Representatives have shown that it is not only the criminal law that can be illegitimately weaponized — the rules of professional conduct for lawyers can serve as an additional weapon.
Many public officials, as lawyers, are subject to rules that are adopted by state courts and enforced by disciplinary arms of the state courts, which have the power to suspend or disbar lawyers who engage in professional misconduct. In its December 2024 Interim Report on the Failures and Politicization of the January 6th Select Committee, the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight illustrated how professional conduct rules can be illegitimately weaponized against lawyers serving in public office.
The subcommittee’s ostensible purposes were to investigate the security failures at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and to review the work of the January 6 Select Committee, the prior House committee appointed by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to investigate the events of January 6. But the subcommittee’s interim report is largely a hatchet job on Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the Republican member of the House who sacrificed her political career by breaking ranks to support President Trump’s impeachment and serve as vice chair of the January 6 Select Committee.
The interim report takes the position that, because Cheney is a lawyer, she engaged in professional misconduct in her work as a member of the January 6 Select Committee. In particular, the report accuses Cheney of breaking the rules for lawyers in her interactions with a witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, who had served as an assistant to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff.
The accusations of professional misconduct are frankly ludicrous.
For example, the report condemns Cheney for taking a call from Hutchinson at a time when Hutchinson was represented by counsel. The report cites a D.C. Bar rule that provides: “During the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter.” The interim report quotes part of the rule but omits the crucial first phrase, “During the course of representing a client.” Any first-year law student could tell you that this rule did not apply to Cheney because she was not acting as a lawyer representing a client — rather, she was acting as a legislator participating in a legislative investigation. She had as much leeway to speak with witnesses as any nonlawyer member of Congress.
The House subcommittee’s interim report also accuses Cheney of improperly influencing Hutchinson to replace her first lawyer. As evidence, it relies on excerpts from books by both Cheney and Hutchinson. Taken together, these excerpts recount that, after testifying three times before the January 6 Select Committee, Cassidy was unhappy with her lawyer. She called Cheney to say that she was considering representing herself, but Cheney encouraged her to consult another lawyer to obtain independent advice. Hutchinson asked for a recommendation, and Cheney later called back with a list of attorneys at multiple firms. Hutchinson concludes her account: “I could not find the words to tell [Ms. Cheney] that the committee was giving me one of the greatest gifts I could have received: hope.”
The interim report portrays this as evidence that Cheney improperly influenced a witness’s testimony. But Cheney’s conduct, as described in both books, was entirely proper, whether in her role as a lawyer or as a member of Congress. Even in the course of representing a client in litigation — which was not Cheney’s role — a lawyer may encourage a witness to retain a lawyer and may give a witness a list of lawyers who may be available. That is a far cry from witness tampering.
The central premise of the report is that, in retrospect, some of the more incendiary portions of Hutchinson’s testimony were false — whether or not deliberately so. It blames Cheney and other members of the Select Committee for failing to do “due diligence” to verify Hutchinson’s testimony before presenting it. But, again, the professional rules governing lawyers do not apply to lawyers in Congress conducting a legislative investigation. And even if these rules generally did apply, they would not have required Cheney, as a lawyer, to verify the accuracy of a witness’s testimony.
Ironically, the interim report accuses the Select Committee of weaponizing the professional conduct rules by unjustifiably instigating an ethics complaint against Hutchinson’s first lawyer. But the report then opts to play tit for tat. It is high time for both sides to lay down their weapons, reserving accusations of criminal and professional misconduct for situations where they are justified, rather than using baseless accusations for rhetorical effect.
Bruce Green is a professor at Fordham Law School, where he directs the Stein Center for Law & Ethics.