‘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.
Los Angeles wildfires in photos: Multiple blazes rage across the city, leaving a path of destruction
Images from the ground show strong Santa Ana winds driving the blazes as firefighters try to battle the flames.
Yahoo News Photo Staff, Kate Murphy – January 9, 2025
Megan Mantia and her boyfriend Thomas return to Mantia’s fire-damaged home after the Eaton Fire swept through the area, Wednesday in Altadena, Calif. (Ethan Swope/AP)
Five wildfires fueled by ferocious winds were scorching thousands of acres in Southern California on Thursday. At least five people were reported dead in Los Angeles County and around 130,000 people are under evacuation orders.
According to the latest figures from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Palisades Fire has reached over 17,200; the Eaton Fire in the Pasadena area has covered 10,600 acres; the Hurst Fire, over 855 acres; the Lidia Fire, 348 acres; and the Sunset Fire, burning through the Hollywood Hills, is around 43 acres.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency on Tuesday after the Palisades Fire started that morning in the hills north of Malibu. Photos below show flames from the wildfires engulfing homes, residents evacuating and firefighters working to battle the blazes as strong Santa Ana winds complicate their efforts.
The sun is seen behind smoke above charred structures and vehicles after the passage of the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades, Calif., on Wednesday. (Agustin Paullier/AFP via Getty Images)A man walks past a fire-ravaged business after the Eaton Fire swept through Wednesday, in Altadena, Calif. (Ethan Swope/AP)A home burns during the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades, Calif., on Wednesday. (Agustin Paullier/AFP via Getty Images)Melted lawn chairs are seen near the remains of a burnt home after the passage of the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades, on Wednesday. (Agustin Paullier/AFP via Getty Images)A man walks in front of the burning Altadena Community Church, Wednesday, in the downtown Altadena section of Pasadena, Calif. (Chris Pizzello/AP)A person lowers a flag from the flagpole outside his burning cousin’s house as powerful winds fueling devastating wildfires in the Los Angeles area force people to evacuate, at the Eaton Fire in Altadena, Calif., Wednesday. (David Swanson/Reuters)MoreThe Palisades Fire burns in Los Angeles. (Eugene Garcia/AP)Fire-ravaged businesses are seen in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Jan. 8. (Eugene Garcia/AP)The Palisades Fire ravages a neighborhood amid high winds in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025. (Damian Dovarganes/AP)The Palisades Fire ravages a neighborhood amid high winds in the Pacific Palisades. (Damian Dovarganes/AP)The Palisades Fire ravages a neighborhood amid high winds in the Pacific Palisades. (Damian Dovarganes/AP)A vehicle and other structures are burned as the Palisades Fire ravages a neighborhood amid high winds in the Pacific Palisades. (Damian Dovarganes/AP)A statue and other structures are burned as the Palisades Fire ravages a neighborhood amid high winds in the Pacific Palisades. (Damian Dovarganes/AP)The Palisades Fire ravages a neighborhood amid high winds in the Pacific Palisades. (Damian Dovarganes/AP)
Scenes from Tuesday night
Fire personnel on Tuesday try to keep the Palisades Fire from destroying other nearby homes while a helicopter drops water on the area. (David Swanson/AFP via Getty Images)The Palisades Fire ravages an L.A. neighborhood amid high winds on Tuesday. (Ethan Swope/AP)Firefighters battling a blaze ripping through the Theatre Palisades amid a powerful windstorm on Tuesday. (Apu Gomes/Getty Images)A fire engulfs a structure on the west side of Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Ringo Chiu/Reuters)A fire truck races through a Los Angeles neighborhood on Tuesday. (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)Residents of a senior center in Altadena, Calif., are evacuated on Tuesday as the Eaton Fire approaches. (Ethan Swope/AP)Firefighters battle the Palisades Fire during a windstorm on the west side of Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Ringo Chiu/Reuters)A firefighter battles a fire as it burns a structure in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Ethan Swope/AP)A Christmas tree can be seen burning inside a residence in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles engulfed by flames on Tuesday. (Ethan Swope/AP)Firefighters battle a wildfire as it burns multiple structures in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Ethan Swope/AP)The Eaton Fire burns a residence on Wednesday in Altadena, Calif. (Ethan Swope/AP)Firefighters work to extinguish flames as the Eaton Fire burns a McDonald’s location in Pasadena, Calif., on Tuesday. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)A firefighter walks by a home engulfed by the Palisades Fire amid a powerful windstorm on Tuesday. (Apu Gomes/Getty Images)Flames from the Eaton Fire destroy a structure in Pasadena, Calif., on Tuesday. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)Fire crews battle the Palisades Fire as it spreads through multiple structures in a Los Angeles neighborhood on Tuesday. (Ethan Swope/AP)A structure in Pasadena, Calif., is swallowed up by flames from the Eaton Fire. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)A wildfire destroys a residence in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Ethan Swope/AP)
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
President Biden, Gov. Gavin Newsom, middle, and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla attend a briefing in Santa Monica on the L.A. County fires on Jan. 8, 2025. (Christina House/Los Angeles Times)
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.
California is grateful to @POTUS & his Administration's support fighting the LA wildfires.
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.
Trump’s pick for defense secretary bodes ill for military sexual assaults
Christopher Kilmartin and Ronald Levant – January 8, 2025
When it comes to preventing and responding to military sexual assaults, leadership matters a great deal. Thus, we are very concerned about the safety of our service women and men under President-elect Donald Trump and his nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.
Both men have sexual assault allegations against them, and in both cases, there is reliable evidence that corroborates these reports. Trump seems to be an especially egregious offender who is named in more than 20 reports. This is not a case of he said, she said; it is a case of he said, they said.
The U.S. military publishes reliable estimates of sexual assaults every two years based on those both officially reported and recorded by survey. And this is not a problem only for women in the ranks — many of the assault victims are men.
Tracking the numbers tells us about the possible role that the president, as commander-in-chief, has in the increase or decrease in incidents in which a soldier experiences intentional harm from someone who wears the same uniform and took the same vow to serve and protect.
In 2006, the military estimated that there were about 34,000 assaults. That number dropped steadily the next 10 years by more than half (14,900), and the reporting rate nearly tripled between 2012 and 2016, from 11% to 32%. Although nearly 15,000 assaults are still 15,000 too many, we were going in the right direction: fewer assaults, more reports.
Experts believe that victim advocacy is the main factor in the rise of reporting rates. And several things happened to prevent the problem in the first place: more vigorous enforcement and removal of offenders from the ranks, leadership training, both for senior officers and on down the chain of command, bystander intervention training for all members, and environmental interventions.
But then in 2020, the number increased by more than a third to 20,600. (Reporting rates held fairly steady at 30%.) And then came the worst news of all: the 2022 number was 36,000, with the reporting rate dropping to 23.6%.
While the military changed how it collected data for the 2022 report, it still showed a shocking number of assaults and several steps back in progress.
The sharp increases in 2020 and 2022 were data collected during the first Trump administration.
The 2024 number, the first under President Joe Biden and the latest data available, once again indicated progress: 29,061 estimated assaults, more than 6,000 fewer than in 2022, though still higher than it had been 14 years earlier. We know Biden prioritized reducing this number: At his direction, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered an independent commission to develop solutions to the crisis, including changes to the military justice system.
But now, we have a man found liable for sexual abuse at the head of the armed services again, and he has made matters even worse by nominating another man accused of sexual assault as second in command.
Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth meets Dec. 5, 2024, with Senator-elect Jim Banks, R-Indiana, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
A story about how much leadership matters: I (Kilmartin) was invited to San Antonio, Texas, in 2011 to do a training for Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month on three military bases.
At the first base, the general showed he was serious and passionate about reducing on-base violence by engaging in the training. At the second base, the “mandatory” training for 300 people resulted in only about 60 attendees. And at the third base, where attendance was voluntary, I presented to seven people.
Since leadership is so important, having a commander-in-chief from 2017-2021 who has been reported for sexual assault by more than 20 women could have been a critical factor in the 2022 increases. We fully expect that the 2024 numbers, the last under Biden, who has a long record of working to end gender-based violence, will again show a decrease.
The important lesson from the 2006-2016 progress is that we know what works, and so the task for the military is to redouble their efforts. Having two leaders with such callous disregard for others’ rights will surely make this work even more challenging than ever. Congressional pressure on Trump to nominate a defense secretary with a strong record on this critical issue would be a step in the right direction.
Christopher Kilmartin is a Fredericksburg, Virginia, author, trainer and activist in preventing violence in schools, the military, and the workplace internationally. His latest book is “The Fictions that Shape Men’s Lives” from Routledge.
Ronald Levant is a former president of the American Psychological Association and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Akron. His latest book is “The Problem with Men: Insights on Overcoming a Traumatic Childhood from a World-Renowned Psychologist” from Koehler Books Publishing.
Adam Kinzinger Says 1 Trump Nominee Is The Most Concerning: ‘A Huge Problem’
Marco Margaritoff – January 7, 2025
Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) shared some unvarnished thoughts Monday on the people President-elect Donald Trump has announced he plans to nominate to key positions in his upcoming administration — and said one of them in particular is most concerning for U.S. democracy.
Trump’s picks include MAGA loyalist Kash Patel to run the FBI, former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his secretary of defense and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) — a former Democrat who joined the Republican Party in 2024 — as leader of national intelligence.
When asked on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” whom he has the strongest opinion on, Kinzinger stated bluntly: “I mean, for the country, Kash Patel, because I think once you weaponize Justice or the FBI, that’s a huge problem. … There’s really no oversight.”
Patel served in the first Trump administration and, in his 2023 book “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy,” ominously ranked Trump’s “deep state” enemies — and vowed at the time to “come after” them.
Kinzinger told Colbert that Hegseth is the second-most-troubling pick, as the Defense Department “is the largest corporation in the world.” Hegseth, a military veteran turned television pundit, defended the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol on Fox News at the time.
“There’s people that put their lives on the line,” Kinzinger said Monday about the Defense Department, “and Pete served honorably in the military, but by the way, anywhere in D.C. there’s probably 50,000 people as or better qualified than Pete Hegseth to run the DOD.”
Kinzinger, a frequent Trump critic and one of only 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him over his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, shared similar thoughts on Gabbard — who previously criticized Trump as “corrupt” but has since joined the fold.
Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger named (from left) Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard as his biggest concerns among President-elect Donald Trump’s administration picks. Left: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images; Center: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press; Right: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
“I knew her,” Kinzinger told Colbert. “And I was friends with her up until the day she visited [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad who, thank God, is out of power now, and did his dirty work.”
Forces for the recently deposed president were accused of using sarin gas to kill 1,400 people in 2013. Gabbard — who shared “Russian talking points” in support of Assad, Kinzinger noted — previously urged Congress not to endorse potential U.S. regime change operations in the country, alleging the U.S. was covertly “supporting” as much.
Kinzinger had only one word to share about former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), whom Trump had announced as his attorney general pick despite a federal investigation and a congressional ethics probe into allegations he had sexual relations with a minor. Gaetz immediately resigned from his congressional seat in anticipation of the role but later withdrew himself from consideration for the position when it appeared he would not have the support needed for confirmation.
When Colbert noted there was applause in the House chamber Friday as the acting House clerk announced Gaetz wouldn’t be taking his seat in the new Congress, Kinzinger said simply: “Fantastic.”
Democrats dial up pressure on Hegseth as confirmation battle nears
Missy Ryan and Abigail Hauslohner – January 7, 2025
The record of Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Pentagon, should disqualify him for such a pivotal national security role, a Democratic senator told the former Fox News personality in an expansive letter that illustrates the party’s breadth of concern with one of the president-elect’s most controversial Cabinet picks ahead of his confirmation hearing next week.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, outlined 10 areas of concern in her letter, posing more than 70 questions for Hegseth in what appears to be a preview of Democrats’ approach when they interrogate his qualifications, past conduct and beliefs. The letter highlights allegations of heavy drinking and sexual misconduct, remarks suggesting female military personnel should play a more limited role, his past skepticism about the need for U.S. troops to comply with laws of war, and accusations of financial mismanagement arising from the veterans’ organizations he once led.
Hegseth has vehemently denied claims of wrongdoing.
“I am deeply concerned by the many ways in which your behavior and rhetoric indicates that you are unfit to lead the Department of Defense,” Warren said in the letter. “Your confirmation as Secretary of Defense would be detrimental to our national security and disrespect a diverse array of service members who are willing to sacrifice for our country.”
The Trump transition team declined to comment on Warren’s letter. Hegseth is due to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 14.
Spanning 33 pages, the missive resurfaces statements and alleged incidents reported by the news media in the weeks following Trump’s selection of the 44-year-old – a former Army National Guard member, Princeton University graduate and longtime Fox News host – to lead the Pentagon. Several news outlets have published reports scrutinizing Hegseth’s background, including revelations that he made derisive comments about Muslims and current military leaders, and an incident in which he was investigated, but not charged, in an alleged sexual assault.
Warren’s letter also coincides with growing concern among Democrats about the incoming Trump administration’s decision to spurn steps traditionally involved in the selection, vetting and approval process for high-level government officials.
Hegseth’s confirmation hearing will provide an early test of how congressional Republicans, in particular, intend to size up their preferences against those of their president. While Hegseth’s record has stirred doubts among some in the GOP, Trump has lobbied forcefully for his confirmation.
And while some Republicans have praised Hegseth – who wasn’t widely seen as a contender for high office until Trump announced his pick days after the election – others, including Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), have not publicly declared how they will vote, though both said they had productive meetings with Hegseth last month. Ernst is a member of the Armed Services Committee and a sexual assault survivor. Collins is a prominent moderate within the GOP.
To proceed for a vote on the Senate floor, Hegseth must secure the support of a majority of the Republican-led Armed Services Committee. Committee Democrats are widely expected to oppose him.
If confirmed, Hegseth, who as a Fox News host successfully lobbied Trump for lenient treatment of service members convicted of war crimes, is expected to focus on cultural and personnel issues at the Pentagon, which he has said is insufficiently focused on combat and is dominated by “woke” generals.
In her letter, Warren told Hegseth to be ready to respond to questions, and she asked that he first reply in writing by Jan. 10. Separately, a group of Democratic senators, including Warren, Tim Kaine (Virginia), Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) and Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), sent a letter to Trump’s designated chief of staff last month focused on Hegseth’s record on women.
Critics have assailed Trump for tapping Hegseth before he completed key aspects of the vetting process, which for Senate-confirmed positions usually includes an FBI background check. While the FBI typically delivers the results of a nominee’s classified background check to the relevant oversight committee about a week ahead of a confirmation hearing, that hadn’t happened in Hegseth’s case as of Tuesday, said a Senate aide familiar with the process, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the vetting process.
Upon receiving the results of an FBI background check, the committee chair and ranking minority-party member – in this case, Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) and Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) – have the discretion to share it with other lawmakers, aides said. Senators in both parties, including some like Collins who do not sit on the committee, have expressed interest in seeing the FBI’s findings. It is unclear if Wicker and Reed will make the FBI report more widely available.
Senate aides also said Hegseth had declined to hold meetings with committee Democrats in the lead-up to next week’s hearing, a development they called a disturbing break with tradition. Reed, the committee’s top Democrat, is expected to meet with Hegseth later this week.
The aides said Hegseth, through intermediaries, offered Democrats opportunities to meet with him only after his confirmation hearing.
“It’s obviously really concerning, and very unusual to not be taking those meetings,” one Senate aide said. “It’s disrespectful to the process.”
A Trump transition official disputed that claim, saying Hegseth and his team reached out to nearly all Democratic committee members well before the end-of-year holidays but received no agreements to meet in December. The aide identified one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pennsylvania), who had met with Hegseth but is not a member of the Armed Services Committee.
“Despite a poor response rate and multiple communications attacking the nominee before these Senators have even met with him (and going outside standard hearing procedures to make these requests), Mr. Hegseth is doing his level best to meet with as many Democrat Senators as he can before and after his hearing,” the Trump transition official said via email.
So you can imagine my delight when my hero, President-elect Trump, gave a news conference Tuesday and strongly addressed those crucial subjects, along with other things that matter deeply to REAL AMERICANS like me, including shower water pressure and making Canada part of the United States.
I voted for Trump for 1 reason: American invasion of Greenland
President-elect Donald Trump makes remarks at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., on Jan. 7, 2025.
Refusing to rule out using the military to take control of Greenland, Trump, who I voted for because I knew he would keep us out of wars, said: “Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes. … People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it. But if they do, they should give it up.”
YES! I was predominantly a one-issue voter, and that issue was the exorbitant cost of seal meat. By threatening our ally Denmark and using military force if necessary, the Trump administration can proudly claim Greenland as a U.S. territory, dramatically lowering the cost of seal meat for American consumers like myself. That will allow me and my fellow MAGA supporters to affordably make Suaasat, a Greenlandic soup, AS IS OUR RIGHT AS AMERICANS!
Some voters were concerned about egg prices. TRUE PATRIOTS were concerned about seal-meat prices.
And Trump is on the case.
I am very worried about the name ‘Gulf of Mexico’
The soon-to-be president also announced a change that has been talked about for years in the rural diners I frequent with my fellow forgotten American men and women.
“We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America,” Trump said. “Gulf of America – what a beautiful name.”
President-elect Donald Trump announces the Gulf of Mexico will get a new name: the Gulf of America.
SO BEAUTIFUL! And also, so directly impactful on the quality of my day-to-day life.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to miss work because I was feeling down about having to give Mexico credit for that 218,0000-square-mile, semienclosed oceanic basin that I know was BUILT BY AMERICANS.
America for sure owns the Gulf of AMERICA, people!
As Trump said Tuesday: “We’re going to change, because we do most of the work there, and it’s ours.”
Finally, a president who hates windmills as much as I do
The greatest president in history, speaking from his Mar-a-Lago resort, went on to bless us with this: “We’re going to try and have a policy where no windmills are being built.”
Praise the Lord! I know some in the MAGA community are more concerned about the economy, immigration and making life terrible for transgender people, but many of us picked Trump again because we abso-freakin’-lutely despise windmills.
See Don Quixote’s La Mancha
They are distracting and can easily be mistaken for giants, leading innocent Americans to tilt at them like the late, great Don Quixote used to do. (Hopefully, Trump will also soon announce that Don Quixote will be renamed “Don America.”)
MAGA voters wanted a president unafraid of Big Shower
Trump also addressed America’s shower-water-pressure crisis, saying: “When you buy a faucet, no water comes out because they want to preserve, even in areas that have so much water you don’t know what to do, it’s called rain, it comes down from heaven. … No water comes out of the shower. It goes drip, drip, drip.”
Finally, we will have a president with the meteorological knowledge to identify that rain correctly comes from heaven. This is clearly the man best suited to handle America’s nuclear codes.
Sure, Canadians will welcome us taking control of their country
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don’t have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
Biden administration finalizes rule to strike medical debt from credit reports
Rob Wile – January 7, 2025
The Biden administration says people who previously had medical debt on their credit reports could see their credit scores rise by an average of 20 points.
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
U.S. consumers will no longer have medical debt appear on their credit reports under a new rule the Biden administration finalized Tuesday.
The change, which administration officials had proposed over the summer and is set to take effect in March, means some $49 billion in medical bills will be struck from the credit reports of about 15 million Americans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said lenders would also be prohibited from using medical information in their lending decisions.
“People who get sick shouldn’t have their financial future upended,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement. “The CFPB’s final rule will close a special carveout that has allowed debt collectors to abuse the credit reporting system to coerce people into paying medical bills they may not even owe.”
About 1 in 12 adults in the U.S. had medical debt as of 2021, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit group that researches health policy issues. The CFPB determined that a medical bill on a person’s credit report was a poor predictor of whether they would repay a loan yet contributed to thousands of denied mortgage applications.
The agency expects the rule will lead to the approval of some 22,000 additional mortgages every year, and that Americans with medical debt on their credit reports could see their credit scores rise by an average of 20 points.
The three major U.S. credit bureaus already announced in 2023 that previously paid medical debts, or any medical debts under $500, would no longer appear on credit reports.
The move comes as Biden administration officials race to safeguard aspects of their work weeks before President-elect Donald Trump retakes office. The White House on Monday, for example, announced a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling along most of the U.S. coastline. When it comes to consumer finance, advocates are preparing for an expected rollback of certain safeguards imposed in the last four years by the CFPB, a high-profile target of some GOP lawmakers and Trump allies including Elon Musk.
