Category: policy

GOP senator floats no confidence vote as Mayorkas defends border response

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and other officials were on the defensive Tuesday as Senate Republicans became more vocal about their efforts to back impeachment for the secretary.

Mayorkas’s appearance before the Senate Homeland Security Committee sparked the usual heated exchanges and personal attacks now common in such forums, but the GOP posture escalated as Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) pledged to soon introduce a vote of no confidence resolution for the secretary.

House efforts to launch an impeachment of Mayorkas have been simmering for some time, with GOP lawmakers arguing he has failed to successfully manage the border amid an uptick in migration. But an official inquiry has yet to be launched, and those efforts have recently taken a back seat to debt ceiling talks.

But Marshall on Tuesday suggested a need to buoy that process in the Senate, where it is expected to make little progress given the Democratic majority.

“I stand at the ready to receive articles of impeachment from the House and conduct an impeachment trial in this body,” Marshall said. “But in the meantime, I think the Senate must show our colleagues in the House that we've had enough of the failures from the Department of Homeland Security and believe that the Secretary is not fit to faithfully carry out the duties of his office.”

Mayorkas at one point attempted to respond, asking to take a point of personal privilege, but Marshall objected, saying, “I want you to answer my questions, not give me lectures.”

Mayorkas, given an opportunity by the next speaker, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), declined to respond. 

“I just want to take a moment to ask my colleagues here today to treat the secretary with the respect he deserves,” Carper said, noting Mayorkas’s integrity, work ethic and dedication to a complex job.

“I was raised — my guess is most of the folks in this committee were raised — to treat other people the way we want to be treated. I wouldn't treat anybody the way that I've seen you treated before in other committees and again here by at least one of our colleagues today.”

At other turns during the hearing, GOP lawmakers sought to hold Mayorkas personally responsible for various issues at the border.

"Do you not care? Do you not just have an ounce of human compassion for what your open border policy, the kind of human deprivation it is causing?” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said.

Mayorkas would later defend the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to stem migratory flows, pointing to a program that largely blocks nationals from Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba from seeking asylum but allows those with U.S. sponsors to apply to enter the U.S.

Various GOP lawmakers zeroed in on a recent New York Times article delving into the extent Biden administration officials were aware unaccompanied children were being trafficked into child labor.

The care of children who arrive at the border without their parents spans multiple agencies, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for vetting the sponsors who ultimately care for them.

At one point, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has also called for Mayorkas’s resignation, accused Mayorkas of “pressuring officials and agencies to skip the vetting process and get these kids out as soon as possible to sponsors who weren't vetted.”

The Times story does not reference Mayorkas and primarily focuses on the roles of HHS and high-ranking White House officials in the matter.

“Senator, I look forward to discussing this issue further because you are misstating the facts so terribly,” Mayorkas responded.

Mayorkas also shot back when Hawley accused him of letting thousands of children into the country to be exploited, pointing to a Trump-era policy of separating parents from their children.

“It is stunning to me, stunning, to hear you say that the prior administration reunited children with their parents,” Mayorkas said.

Mayorkas at another point said lawmakers, including Johnson, were “disparagingly mischaracterizes our commitment to address trafficking and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, including children."

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) offered a defense of Mayorkas and DHS, saying that senators must not forget the role of corporations hiring the migrant child labor outlined in the Times investigation.

"It is the employers breaking child labor laws,” Padilla said. “We should not misplace the blame here."

Mayorkas was one of several officials called before Congress on Tuesday to discuss immigration-related matters. 

HHS officials appeared before both the House’s Energy and Commerce and Oversight committees, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tae Johnson appeared before House appropriators.

Much of the discussion with Johnson surrounded the number of detention beds funded through the ICE budget, a figure that determines the extent the agency is able to house people in detention centers versus other means of supervision. President Biden’s budget cut detention capacity by about a quarter.

At various points during the hearing, Johnson said he would like to see funding for a greater number of beds than covered in the budget but acknowledged that the agency simply would not be able to detain all those who may be slated for deportation.

Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said that would undercut the administration’s ability to remove people from the country as their immigration cases work their way through the court system.

“If it's easier to remove people once they're in detention, and you've agreed with that, and I agree with that, but yet we have a budget which is actually shrinking detention beds. I find that counterproductive,” Guest said.

“As these additional cases work their way through the system, we're going to see those numbers grow exponentially. And it just doesn't seem to me that we either don't have the resources or we don't have the policies in place to enforce the law.”

Johnson said even when the agency has rapidly expanded the number of beds in the past “we filled those beds up in no time.”

“So I personally don't think there's a number of beds that you can actually buy that's going to solve this problem that we're seeing,” he said.

At another point, Johnson was asked about the agency’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit, which works to combat cartels and other transnational crime.

Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) pointed to reporting that HSI staff at one point proposed separating from ICE, arguing the agency’s reputation made it difficult to carry out their work.

Johnson said he opposes siphoning off the unit, but backs giving them “flexibility” to minimize their affiliation with ICE, saying efforts like removing the “ICE” part of their email address has proven helpful.

“One of the things we did this year was to give HSI the flexibility to use whatever branding they felt was necessary to increase cooperation in the communities. So in other words, if removing the ICE moniker completely and just using the HSI brand was going to result in greater cooperation, they had the flexibility to do so,” he said.

But Underwood said those moves failed to address the underlying problem.

“ICE has the responsibility to proactively and intentionally build trust in the communities that you serve,” she said.

“And so I think that this is an area where the agency definitely needs to do more.”

Nick Robertson contributed reporting

Updated: 2:28 p.m.

Do you feel better off than four years ago? Dems think so, GOP disagrees

Posted on (Updated by Jordain Carney

Republicans say they have a good argument to make when it comes to this classic election question: Are you better off than you were four years ago? 

Inflation is high, crime is up, stocks are flat or falling and immigration is out of control, GOP operatives say. 

But Democrats — and even some Republicans — argue emphatically that Americans in 2024 will feel they are much better off than they were four years ago, when the country was suffering through the pandemic in the final year of Donald Trump’s presidency.

They say many Americans will remember the Trump presidency as among the darkest times in U.S. history and point out his four years in office included two impeachments — the second over a riot at the Capitol.

“Good luck with that argument,” said Democratic strategist Christy Setzer. “Personally, I'd think voters remember the Trump years as a time of constant anxiety, chaos and cruelty — hence voting him out.”

To be sure, the are you better off argument has some pluses for the GOP. But it may also be a double-edged sword, inviting call-backs to Trump even as he is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination next year.  

“It's an invitation to run with Trump, whether or not he’s on the ticket,” said Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who opposes the former president. 

“It’s not a winning strategy for the Republican Party,” Del Percio added. “It’s looking backwards.”

Biden’s poll numbers have been underwater for months and a Gallup poll out this week showed that voters disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs, energy policy and the environment. When it comes to the key issue of the economy, only 32 percent of those surveyed approve of Biden’s performance.

A Real Clear Politics average of national polls this week showed just 28 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction. 

Republicans see Biden’s weaknesses as an opportunity to draw a contrast. They say they have a good argument to make that the country was on more solid footing before Biden took office.

“In just over two years, Biden has tanked the economy, opened up our borders, embarrassed America on the world stage, worsened a supply chain crisis, and stoked the coals of division in our country,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Emma Vaughn. “Americans are less safe, and their paychecks are worth less as a result of Biden’s reckless policies.

“Come 2024 voters will send him packing home to Delaware for good,” she said. 

Even Republicans who are desperate to see Biden lose next year are hesitant to talk about the Trump era and urged party operatives not to make the comparison. 

“I don’t think people really want to go back to the Trump years because they were so tumultuous,” said Republican strategist John Feehery.

He and other Republicans say there is a case to be made in pointing to Biden’s flaws — from inflation to the border — as a way to make the case that the country needs to move in a different direction. 

“He’s out of touch, barely cognizant and that’s why his poll numbers are so low,” Feehery said. “Not only is he from the past but his ideas are from the past. They need to make that connection to his view of the world.” 

One Republican strategist said the comparison between Biden and Trump is a good one to make “because at the end of the day, the biggest issue will be the rising cost of groceries and the inability to pay soaring bills.” 

“Even if things seemed not so great under Trump with all his shenanigans and bullshit, this election is going to be about the economy, period,” the strategist said. 

GOP candidates are taking issue with some of Trump’s positions.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to announce a bid for the presidency in the coming months, has sought to undermine Trump’s handling of COVID-19 and lockdowns during 2020. 

“You take a crisis situation like Covid, the good thing about it is that when you’re an elected executive, you have to make all kinds of decisions, you’ve got to steer that ship,” DeSantis said in January. “And the good thing is that people are able to render a judgment on that: whether they re-elect you or not.” 

But Democrats say they will win any argument that compares Biden’s tenure to Trump’s. Biden, they say, helped bring the nation back from a deadly pandemic and an economy that was quickly tanking as a result. 

They also tout the record job growth under Biden and highlight his legislative wins.

“If Republicans overall election strategy is to compare the Trump presidency to Biden, then who am I to stop them from handing Democrats the White House for another four years?” said Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau.

House Republicans pass bill to ban federal officials from pressuring tech platforms on content

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

House Republicans passed a bill on Thursday that seeks to ban federal officials from promoting censorship, a measure Republicans brought to the floor in response to what they say are efforts by the Biden administration to persuade social media companies to suppress certain information.

The measure, titled the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, passed in a party-line 219-206 vote.

The legislation specifically calls for prohibiting “federal employees from advocating for censorship of viewpoints in their official capacity,” which includes recommending that a third party should “take any action to censor speech.”

According to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the lead sponsor of the measure, the bill would expand limitations under the Hatch Act to prohibit federal employees from encouraging censorship on private sector internet platforms.

Republicans accuse Democrats of pressuring social media companies to suppress content — including about Hunter Biden and the origins of COVID-19. They also point to platforms limiting the reach of or adding fact checks to posts containing misinformation about the 2020 election and the coronavirus pandemic.

When introducing the measure in January, the bill’s sponsors — Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Comer — cited what they said were instances when federal officials in the Biden administration “used their positions, influence, and resources to police and censor ordinary Americans’ speech expressed on social media platforms.”

On the House floor Wednesday, Comer — who chairs the Oversight and Reform Committee — pointed to the group’s hearing last month when lawmakers “learned just how easy it was for the federal government to influence a private company to accomplish what it constitutionally cannot: limit the free exercise of speech.”

At one point during the hearing, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) asked Yoel Roth, the former global head of trust and safety at Twitter, how many tweets were flagged and removed at the behest of the Biden administration.

Roth denied the characterization of the question, telling lawmakers that “tweets were reported and Twitter independently evaluated them under its rules.”

The hearing also featured references to the “Twitter Files,” reports by journalists that include internal communications between company employees and outside actors. David Zweig, who released one of the “Twitter Files” installments, said internal files from the company that he reviewed “showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s pandemic content according to their wishes.”

“It is inappropriate and dangerous for the federal government to decide what lawful speech is allowed on a private sector platform,” Comer said during debate on Wednesday.

“My bill, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, makes this type of behavior an unlawful activity for federal officials to engage in — subjecting those who attempt to censor the lawful speech of Americans to disciplinary actions and monetary penalties,” he continued. “The federal government should not be able to decide what lawful speech is allowed — we have the First Amendment for a very good reason.”

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) argued that the bill was unnecessary because of protections provided under the First Amendment.

“This bill purports to protect free speech from government censorship. And I agree, it’s a great idea. It’s such a good idea, in fact, that the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution,”  Goldman said on the House floor Wednesday. “It’s called the First Amendment.”

“We don’t need a new bill to protect free speech because that is currently the law of the land. So we must ask ourselves: what is the point of this bill?” he added.

The congressman, who serves as lead counsel in former President Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, argued that the measure would allow malign actors to continue using social media “unfettered” or adverse reasons.

“H.R. 140 would effectively allow these and other foreign malign actors — who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into online propaganda — to create chaos, mistrust, hate and confusion for Americans, to continue using social media platforms unfettered to wreak havoc on our democratic institutions, including the integrity of our elections,” Goldman said.

“It would do so by undermining the only defense that we have against these operations, which is the ability of our national security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to warn social media platforms and the public about the deployment of counterfeit accounts, disinformation and cyber surveillance by malign actors,” he added.

Lawmakers approved a number of amendments to the bill, including one that would prohibit law enforcement officials from sharing information with social media companies unless it pertains to speech not protected by the First Amendment — such as obscenity, fraud or incitement to imminent lawless action.

The measure also exempts actions from federal employees meant for “exercising legitimate law enforcement functions directly related to activities to combat child pornography, human trafficking, or the illegal transporting of or transacting in controlled substances and safeguarding, or preventing, the unlawful dissemination of properly classified national security information.”

Three key Trump figures intersect two Justice Department probes 

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Three key figures connected to former President Trump are at the intersection of two accelerating Justice Department probes seen as the most viable pathways for a prosecution of the former president.    

Special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing what began as two entirely separate cases: the mishandling of classified records at Mar-a-Lago and the effort to influence the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.      

Several Trump World figures straddle both events, providing prosecutors with what experts say is a potent opportunity to advance both investigations.      

Alex Cannon, Christina Bobb and Kash Patel played different roles in the two sagas, but each has been sought by the Justice Department in the documents dispute and has also been called in by the special House committee, now disbanded, that investigated the Jan. 6 riot.    

Cannon, a longtime Trump Organization employee, was pulled into campaign efforts to assess allegations of voter fraud and then served as a liaison for Trump with the National Archives as officials there pushed for the recovery of presidential records.  

Bobb, a lawyer for Trump’s 2024 campaign, aided in the Trump 2020 campaign’s post-election lawsuits. She later shifted to doing legal work for Trump that culminated in her signing a statement asserting classified records stored at Mar-a-Lago had been returned.   

Patel was chief of staff to the secretary of Defense as the Pentagon was grappling with Jan. 6. Trump also named Patel as one of his representatives to the National Archives upon leaving office, and he was later one of Trump’s chief surrogates in pushing claims that the former president declassified the records discovered in his Florida home.  

It’s unclear whether any of the trio faces significant legal exposure, but their unique positions could be valuable for Smith, who is racing forward with both cases. In recent weeks, Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, while securing another batch of materials from Mar-a-Lago.  

“Typically, you don't have two separate investigations and two separate sets of possible crimes to work with as you're negotiating. Smith does have that here,” said Norm Eisen, a counsel for Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment who has penned analyses of both cases.     

“For him, it's like a two-for-one sale. If he cuts a cooperation deal with some of these individuals, he can advance multiple cases at the same time,” Eisen added.     

Patel was granted immunity by a judge and compelled to answer questions in the Mar-a-Lago case after being previously subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and repeatedly pleading the Fifth. Bobb has also spoken with prosecutors in relation to the case and testified before a grand jury. And the Justice Department is seeking to speak to Cannon about his dealings with the National Archives, The New York Times reported. 

“I think that is a potential fruitful avenue for the Justice Department in these cases,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney under President Obama. “Their overlap in the two cases is very interesting, because you could use criminal exposure in one case to flip them in the other case.” 

Attorneys for Cannon and Bobb did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story, while a spokesperson for Patel declined to comment. The Trump campaign also did not respond to request for comment.  

To be clear, other figures also may have insight into the two probes, including Meadows and former deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin. Former White House attorney Eric Herschmann is also reported to have warned Trump about holding records at Mar-a-Lago.     

Still, the trove of transcripts released by the House Jan. 6 committee offers a window into three figures who, despite diverging paths, became central in the Mar-a-Lago probe. 

Bobb and Patel, who now serves on the board of Trump’s social media enterprise, remain deeply enmeshed with the former president.      

Cannon was most recently employed by Michael Best, a law firm that in December severed its ties with several Trump-connected attorneys, including Stefan Passantino, who represented former aides before the Jan. 6 panel. The firm also allowed contracts with Cannon and former Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark to lapse, Bloomberg News reported. 

The firm did not respond to a request for comment.   

Cannon, who was initially hired to work on contracts for the Trump Organization, expressed hesitation during interviews with the Jan. 6 panel about being pulled into working on fraud issues for the campaign as the pandemic brought hotel operations to a trickle.    

“I believe that the only reason I was asked to do this is because others didn't want to. I have no particular experience with election law or anything. I do vendor contracts,” he told the committee.     

When asked if he found that work undesirable, he responded, “I'm sitting here right now. Yes, it's undesirable.”      

The conversations show Cannon was tasked with evaluating a number of claims from “crazy people,” as he once described it, as well as other claims that dead people may have voted — something he was unable to verify given limitations in voter databases.  

He ultimately relayed those concerns to Pence, recounting to the committee in what would become a brief appearance in a hearing that “I was not personally finding anything sufficient to alter the results of the election.”      

It was a stance that caught the eye of former Trump adviser Peter Navarro.  

“Mr. Navarro accused me of being an agent of the deep state working … against the president. And I never took another phone call from Mr. Navarro,” Cannon said.     

Bobb, in contrast, made clear in her interview that she believed there was suspicious activity on Election Day that merited review.     

Once a reporter for the far-right One America News, Bobb had come to the network after working as an attorney, including during stints with the Marine Corps. She would later get a master of laws degree from Georgetown University, joining the Trump administration at the Department of Homeland Security after graduation.      

While working as a One America News employee, she volunteered her time to the Trump campaign immediately after the election. The arrangement was approved by the network, though the campaign required her to sign a nondisclosure agreement.     

“There was plenty of evidence to be concerned about fraud,” she said, even if the legal team wasn’t prepared to launch a case on the first day following the election. 

“I volunteered and I wanted to look into it because I was concerned about the integrity of my vote, of the country. I think that's why we all got involved. So I don't want you to take my statement and say, Christina Bobb said that in the beginning the legal team knew there was no fraud. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there was plenty of reason to believe there could be fraud.”

Bobb was present in the “war room” at the Willard Hotel on Jan. 6 and was listening in to Trump’s call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — a discussion she told the panel was “unremarkable.”    

The Jan. 6 committee transcripts indicate Cannon and Bobb had no interaction throughout the litigation process, with Bobb saying they did not connect until after President Biden was sworn in. Bobb told investigators she didn’t speak with Cannon until later, adding nothing more when investigators asked if it was on an unrelated matter.     

Bobb’s role with Trump on the Mar-a-Lago documents picked up where Cannon left off.     

In February 2022, Cannon declined Trump’s request to sign a statement indicating all classified material at Mar-a-Lago had been returned because he wasn’t sure the statement was true, according to reporting from The Washington Post.      

Bobb would join the team later, agreeing to sign a declaration given to the Justice Department in June attesting that all sensitive government documents had been returned — with the stipulation that her attestation was “based upon the information that has been provided to me.”     

“The contrast between the two as lawyers speaks volumes,” said Josh Stanton, an attorney with Perry Guha who contributed to a model prosecution memo for the Mar-a-Lago case.  

“Alex Cannon refus[es] to sign a certification that everything had been turned over where he wasn't able to do himself the diligent work to actually independently verify that, whereas Christina Bobb is in a position where she's told to sign the certification, and is told that that's correct, then just goes ahead and signs it anyway,” he said.  

“Whether or not you could actually make out, say, criminal charges against Christina Bobb for signing that certification … it certainly puts her ethically, as a lawyer, in really hot water,” he added.     

Patel, who spoke to the Jan. 6 committee after being subpoenaed, began his deposition with an opening statement expressing frustration that the panel did not think he would be cooperative with its investigation.     

Patel later answered questions during a lengthy interview after noting privilege concerns, but investigators at times seemed baffled by details the former high-ranking Defense Department official could not remember. Patel struggled to recall specifics about some conversations with Trump and demurred when asked about reported plans near the end of the Trump presidency to install him as head of the CIA.    

“I know you guys try to think this is improbable, but I was in one of those positions for a two-year period of time, approximately, where I had many conversations with the president impacting things that I would only read about or watch in movies,” he said.      

“So, after a certain period of time, they tend to stack up and you just do the mission,” Patel added.     

Patel largely sidestepped questions on whether Trump should have done more to stop the chaos on Jan. 6, but spoke at length about the process for securing assistance from the National Guard and Trump’s approval for the use of as many as 20,000 troops that day.     

The committee panned Trump’s inaction as dereliction of duty, and Stanton said Patel’s comments could forecast a response should Trump or others face culpability for Jan. 6.  

“Some of the most powerful testimony in the hearings themselves was the sort of hours Trump seemed not to act. And so I think he's previewing what they're going to say, which is, ‘Oh, no, I actually did authorize 10,000 or 20,000 National Guard members to be able to respond,’” he said.

In the Mar-a-Lago probe, Patel repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment rights during his first appearance before a grand jury.     

“Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves,” Patel told Breitbart News in May.     

“The White House counsel failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings, but that doesn’t mean the information wasn’t declassified,” Patel said. “I was there with President Trump when he said ‘We are declassifying this information.'”     

Trump’s attorneys have not directly backed that claim, though it would not be a bulletproof defense should he face Espionage Act charges, as the law deals with those who mishandle “national defense information.”

The special counsel appears to be ratcheting up the probes in recent weeks, even seeking to pierce the attorney-client privilege of Evan Corcoran, one of Trump’s attorneys in the document dispute, arguing his legal advice may have been given in furtherance of a crime.

It’s a move observers say should give warning to other attorneys involved in the probe.     

“Any lawyer associated with Donald Trump is at great risk,” Eisen said. “I mean, he's like a neutron bomb for the legal profession.”  

Why Buttigieg is drawing so much GOP scorn

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is increasingly in the eye of the GOP storm in the aftermath of a train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, that spilled toxic chemicals.

The disaster, which came just a month after a series of embarrassing air travel issues that snarled plans for millions of Americans, is prompting renewed scrutiny of his tenure atop the department.

But Democrats charge those aren’t the only reasons Buttigieg has become the target of such ire.

“Before, if you got your flight delayed, you weren't like ‘oh that damn Elaine Chao,’” one Democratic operative said, referring to the Transportation secretary under former President Trump. “That's the downside that comes with being such a good public figure.”

Republicans, for their part, point to Buttigieg’s role as one of Biden’s top surrogates and his potential aspirations for higher office as central to their frustrations. They say he’s not paying enough attention to his current job when there are plenty of high-level issues on his plate.

And as an example, they blasted him this month for taking 10 days to make a statement about the crash in Ohio, which occurred Feb. 3, and are turning up the heat on Buttigieg and his department over what caused the derailment and the agency’s response.

“I understand that the secretary is politically ambitious, and he’d like to move to government housing in Washington right up the street, but he does have a job to do,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the ranking member on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, told reporters. “Maybe instead of focusing on gun control and denouncing freeways as racist, he should focus on addressing the enormous challenges we have on our railways, with multiple derailments where the secretary has been AWOL.”

Sens. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) sent a letter to Buttigieg on Wednesday raising questions about the department’s oversight of the U.S. rail system. 

And Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) floated impeaching Buttigieg over how he has handled the derailment.

"I hope he does resign, and if he doesn't, there's a long list of impeachment criteria,” Davidson told conservative outlet Real America’s Voice Thursday. “I never would have thought we'd see a point where we need to impeach a Secretary of Transportation, but daggon, how many failures have to happen on his watch before we call it?”

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has defended its overall response as it assists the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) investigation into the crash and the Environmental Protection Agency's handling of the fallout from the toxic chemicals that have ravaged the eastern Ohio town. 

In a statement, the department said its staff “were on the ground hours after the derailment” in support of NTSB’s probe. 

“It’s no surprise to see some playing politics with every crisis, even something as serious as the impacts of a global pandemic on our transportation systems or a train derailment,” a Department of Transportation spokesperson said in a statement. The spokesperson added that Buttigieg and the department is continuing to “focus on getting results” on a number of topics, including requirements for airlines to cover hotel and food expenses for stranded travelers and overseeing the implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure package. 

However, the issues with Buttigieg run deeper for Republicans. In addition to his political aspirations, multiple senators argued that his priorities at the department are out of place and that his level of outreach with committee members is far off from those of other cabinet members. 

“The thing they want more than anything else is competence, particularly in the midst of crisis. My sense is that he, like many others in the administration, are not the types of, sort of, hands on managers that you need at a time like that,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is also a member on Commerce Committee. “I think part of it too is just the efforts he makes. … Some members of the cabinet, particularly on the relevant committees, the committees of jurisdiction, do a really good job of outreach and I don’t get that from him.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another Commerce member, told The Hill that Buttigieg’s “philosophical push for everything to be climate and politically correct” is at the heart of the issues for GOP members. 

“We have practical matters we need to do like permitting and building new roads and having new constructions and he pretty much puts his foot down on a lot of that stuff,” Capito said. “He’s just not leading and I think that’s the frustration.”

The Transportation Department disputed criticisms from the two lawmakers, noting that Buttigieg has had more than 100 interactions with GOP members of Congress since taking on the role. 

The department added that it is “committed to building more resilient infrastructure,” including roads, bridges and evacuation routes “that can withstand extreme weather and climate events,” pointing to a program unveiled last year alongside Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) that would “help states and communities better prepare for and respond to extreme weather events.”

Buttigieg, 41, has been one of the most visible administration officials over the past two years. After a surprisingly strong but ultimately failed presidential bid, he was a vocal and often-seen proponent of Build Back Better and crisscrossed the country to tout the White House’s bipartisan infrastructure law.

He also drew public condemnation last year from right-wing pundits — though not from lawmakers — for taking paternity leave to care for the newborn twins he welcomed with his husband.

Among cabinet members, Buttigieg is one of the precious few who is considered a potential White House candidate in the coming years. Democrats far and away believe that is the main genesis for the attacks from Republicans and argue that he is an invaluable member of the administration.

The intense criticism led the White House to weigh in on Thursday. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that Biden has “absolute confidence” in the secretary who has turned out to be one of the White House’s most trusted voices in defense of administration policy. 

A number of Commerce Committee Democrats have also dismissed attacks against him. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the panel’s chairwoman, said that the criticisms are intense because some consider him “the future of our party.” Others pointed to his key voice in the administration. 

“He’s smart and he knows the English language very well, so he represents himself very well under pressure. … He’s pretty damn good, I’m always impressed,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) told The Hill. “The issues with the flights and all that stuff — he’s secretary of Transportation. He’s going to get some shit, that’s the way it is.”

Buttigieg’s political stature coupled with the fact that the areas he oversees — infrastructure and air travel, for example — affect Americans daily creates a perfect storm for attacks by the GOP. 

The derailment in Ohio has also led to some strange political bedfellows as Republicans are not the only ones criticizing the former South Bend, Ind., mayor. 

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee joined the chorus on Wednesday, hitting him for not reinstituting Obama-era safety regulations that were nixed during Trump’s presidency, saying that he has “done nothing in two years to reinstate them.” 

Some, however, have held off. When asked if Buttigieg shared any of the blame for the crash in East Palestine, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters, “Was he driving the train?”

Finger-pointing flies from lawmakers over Ohio train derailment and spill

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

Lawmakers are doling out blame and demanding answers on the train derailment in Ohio.

Legislators from both parties are expressing frustration and asking for more to be done, though Republicans in particular have put Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg directly in the hot seat. 

“Secretary Buttigieg is nowhere to be found on this issue. It really is a remarkable thing that he hasn't gone to East Palestine to see what happened there,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Fox Business this week. “He hasn't come to Congress to explain what happened. For whatever reason, the Secretary seems to fill his days with politics. I know he has aspirations, but he actually has a day job.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) floated impeaching Buttigieg over how he has handled the derailment.

"I hope he does resign, and if he doesn't, there's a long list of impeachment criteria,” Davidson told conservative outlet Real America’s Voice Thursday. “I never would have thought we'd see a point where we need to impeach a Secretary of Transportation, but daggon, how many failures have to happen on his watch before we call it?"

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this week that the White House has “absolute confidence” in Buttigieg.

The derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, Ohio, on Feb. 3 released chemicals, including toxic vinyl chloride, into the surrounding community, prompting a temporary evacuation. 

State and federal authorities have said that the area’s air and water are now safe, but residents remain fearful and concerned. 

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are questioning Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) about why it isn’t providing emergency assistance. 

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who represents East Palestine, led a letter signed by the entire Ohio congressional delegation urging FEMA to provide assistance.

Johnson also told The Hill in a written statement that there may be room for congressional or administrative action once investigations on the issue are complete. 

 “Congress and the administration must take a close look at the findings to determine what policies to modify and/or implement to better prevent anything like this from happening again,” he said. 

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has called on Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) to declare an emergency, though DeWine’s office has said that it was told by FEMA that it was not eligible for assistance. 

A FEMA official told reporters Friday that the agency “continues to have ongoing conversations with the governor’s office” on the state’s support needs. Administration officials also emphasized a commitment from Norfolk Southern to pay for cleanup and other costs.

Beyond the issue of FEMA, Republicans have sent mixed messages on water quality.

The state has said testing indicated that municipal water in East Palestine is safe, but DeWine has also told residents to drink bottled water out of an “abundance of caution.”

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) has also said that he would drink bottled water; He posted a video on Thursday showing what appeared to be chemicals in a creek, saying there were “dead worms and dead fish all throughout this water.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, traveled to East Palestine and posted a video of himself drinking water that he said came from its taps — saying that he was helping the mayor of East Palestine get the word out that the tap water is safe to drink. 

“What's clear is there is a lot of work to do. I thank the first responders and personnel on site for all their efforts thus far. I will work in a bipartisan effort to ensure our freight rail system is as safe as possible and prevent tragedies like this from occurring again,” Nehls said in a statement.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), too, has criticized the administration’s timeliness. 

“It is unacceptable that it took nearly two weeks for a senior Administration official to show up,” he said in a statement on EPA Administrator Michael Regan’s visit to the area. 

DeWine, for this part, called on Congress to take action if it is true that the railroad was not required to notify the state about the chemicals on the train because they were not considered high hazardous materials, Fox 19 reported.

Vance supported the call for labeling the materials as hazardous, though he said that the responsibility lies not only with Congress but also with the Transportation Department. 

“I don’t want to let Congress off the hook here because Congress can legislate a solution to this problem and that’s exactly what I'm going to try to do. We should have some legislation coming out here to that effect in the next few days, but look, the Department of Transportation can act on this issue too. This is a regulatory problem and a legal problem,” he told reporters this past week. 

How a Bush-era law requiring border ‘perfection’ stands at center of GOP impeachment case  

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

A budding GOP impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is relying on a 2006 law that says operational control of the border means the prevention “of all unlawful entries” to the United States — a standard seen as impossible to meet.  

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed during a failed Bush-era effort to move a comprehensive immigration reform bill. In the fallout, House Republicans rushed to show they were taking action on border security, requiring the installation of intermittent fencing along the southern border.  

Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Gregory Payan/AP Images for NFL)

But a provision of the law defining operational control is now at the center of the new House GOP majority’s effort to impeach Mayorkas, who is accused of lying to Congress when he’s said the border is secure.  

“Secretary Mayorkas does not think that the border is open. He thinks that he has operational control, although the Secure Fence Act of 2006 clearly defines what operational control of a border is, and that means that no contraband or individual can come into the country illegally,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, a conservative Republican from Arizona and one of two members who have formally introduced articles of impeachment against Mayorkas. 

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“And yet, under his watch, Secretary Mayorkas has allowed in approximately 5 million illegal aliens coming through, and that doesn’t include got-aways,” added Biggs.

Republicans argue that Mayorkas has been ineffective in managing what they see as a crisis, as record numbers of migrants attempt to cross the southern border. It’s a failure they contend is a violation of his oath of office. 

“He has taken an oath, a constitutional oath, to obey the laws of the United States and protect us,” said Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who this year filed the first articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.   

Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jess Rapfogel)

“In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed which requires the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to maintain the operational control of the southern border. He has clearly not done that,” Fallon said.  

Democrats and other critics of the GOP case argue that the differences between Republicans and Mayorkas are largely policy issues that don’t rise to the level of impeachment. 

“Impeachment covers treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not typically envisioned as covering policy disputes, or disagreements on policy, which seems like what these are,” said Dave Rapallo, a Georgetown Law professor who also worked with Democrats on the impeachment of former President Trump. 

He and others argue that the 2006 law lays out an impossible standard — but includes clear language that gives the secretary the discretion to determine how to meet it. 

“Congress has delegated to the secretary of Homeland Security the decision to determine what is 'necessary and appropriate.' And that's what the department is doing. There may be a difference of opinion about whether that happens with walls or other mechanisms to prevent unlawful entry,” Rapallo said. “But if the standard is that not one migrant can get into the United States, that’s a standard no secretary of Homeland Security would ever meet.” 

Doris Meissner, who ran the Immigration and Naturalization Service under former President Clinton and how heads the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said the standard "isn't something that we ask of any other law enforcement regime."

Previous Homeland Security secretaries, Democrats and Republicans, have not been removed over the standard highlighted by Biggs and Fallon.  

“The assumption with having law enforcement at all, is that there are laws and there will be a degree to which laws are broken, and law enforcement, and law enforcement systems, and structures are in place to keep them to a minimum and to create accountability if they do happen," said Meissner. 

Biggs himself acknowledged the standard that no one or thing can enter the country illegally for the DHS secretary to not be impeached is a high one. But he argues Mayorkas still deserves to be impeached because of how he has handled border security.  

“While that particular statute requires perfection, which we all recognize is an impossible task, the American public still trusts him to do his very best to secure operational control of the border. He necessarily has the ‘public trust,’ and as a Cabinet secretary, he is a public man,” he wrote in an op-ed shortly after introducing his resolution. 

“The case against Alejandro Mayorkas … does not necessarily turn on whether Mayorkas has actually committed a statutorily defined black-letter crime. It is whether he has committed a ‘high crime’ as that term is understood under the U.S. Constitution.” 

The fencing bill was passed after two competing comprehensive immigration reform bills moved through the House and Senate in 2005. 

The House version, led by former Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), was a security-focused immigration crackdown; the Senate version led by former Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) paired border security and guest worker provisions with a broad legalization program for undocumented immigrants. 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jan. 29, 2008 (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

To no one's surprise, the House and Senate were unable to find a middle ground in conference, and the two bills failed in the lead-up to the 2006 midterm elections. 

“There really was a strong feeling, in the Senate in particular, that people had to go home with something to show for immigration, in order to be running their campaigns, and having some kind of a message to take back to their constituents,” said Meissner.  

“So they passed this act quite hurriedly in October of 2006, right on the cusp of the elections. It just had this sort of sweeping mandate, which really hadn't been tested or vetted with the executive branch,” she added. 

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), one of the co-sponsors of the 2006 border bill, described the legislation as tasking the Homeland Security secretary to determine where to put fencing. 

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

“It was our intention to put a fence not everywhere but where it made sense to put the fence on the border, you know, [in] more populated areas to have the infrastructure in place to stop illegal crossings,” he said, noting along with specific mileage of fencing, “we gave discretion to the secretary to use his or her judgment as to where to put it.” 

McCaul, a stern Mayorkas critic who has directly admonished the secretary in hearings, has likewise criticized members of his party for rushing a process he said should be handled by committees of jurisdiction who can investigate and build a strong case for impeachment.  

“You can make the case to the American people without having to do it overnight. We criticized the Democrats for impeaching Trump in one day. ... We shouldn't make that same mistake,” he told The Hill. 

Mayorkas and his department are now gearing up for a fight.  

The department initially declined to assign specific staff to deal with impeachment, but on Friday confirmed it had hired an outside law firm to aid in any eventual impeachment hearings. 

It’s also shifted tone in its public statements on impeachment developments, attacking the credibility of the resolutions directly. 

“Instead of pointing fingers and trying to score political points, the Members of Congress recklessly and baselessly pursuing impeachment should work on legislative solutions for our broken immigration system,” DHS said last week when Biggs’s resolution was introduced.  

Republicans have rolled out other arguments for impeachment, including one that mirrors a recent lawsuit from a number of GOP-led states challenging a program that allows 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela to be “paroled” into the country each month, while quickly expelling to Mexico an equal number of migrants from those countries who show up at the border. 

The resolution deems the current use of parole an abuse, calling it a way to "'legally’ admit aliens.” 

Biggs and other Republicans are also basing their impeachment case on a broader claim — dismissed as a conspiracy theory by Democrats — that the Biden administration is intentionally loosening border controls. 

“First of all, when we look at that intentionality, this is done intentionally,” Biggs told reporters last week. “This is not negligence, it is not by accident. It is not incompetence, and how do we know that? Well, just like we look at a culpable mental state, like intentionality or knowledge, we look at a totality of circumstances." 

Biggs said the evidence of intention is in Mayorkas ending a series of Trump-era border policies, a move that many Republicans believe is the direct cause of increased migration in the Western Hemisphere, presumably knowing his policies would result in increased border crossings. 

But whether Republican leadership decides to forward any impeachment resolution, the process could face a substantial roadblock in the Democratic-controlled upper chamber. 

“A majority of the House could just decide to impeach the secretary based on whatever it puts in its resolution,” Rapallo said. “But that's highly unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate.” 

GOP divided in rush to impeach Mayorkas

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Tensions are rising in the GOP House over how to tackle a topic many back enthusiastically: impeaching Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Republicans are largely unified in opposition to the secretary, but while some want to go full bore right away, others see fast-track impeachment as a mistake, warning that it's important to build their case before the public.

“We made the argument that impeachment was rushed — the second impeachment — and I think that's not who we are as a party,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a former prosecutor, in reference to the second impeachment of former President Trump.

McCaul said it's the committees of jurisdiction that should be leading the inquiry.

“We need to have hearings on this and we need to gather evidence and facts and, look, do I think the guy has done a terrible job? Yes,“ McCaul said. “Do I think he's been derelict in his responsibilities? Yes. But we need to get all this together, and do it in a methodical way.”

In some corners, Republicans are lining up at the chance to impeach Mayorkas.

After Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) filed articles of impeachment against the secretary this week, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) quickly pledged his own resolution while suggesting he was the one who had actually taken the impeachment action first.

“I was the first Member of Congress to introduce impeachment articles against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in 2021,” Biggs wrote on Twitter. “I will reintroduce these articles with even more justification very soon.”

Balancing the different interests will be another challenge for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who has signaled he supports a deliberate approach.

“House Republicans will investigate every order, every action. And every failure will determine whether we can begin impeachment inquiry,” he said in November, during a trip to the border.

Twenty lawmakers have signed on to Fallon’s resolution. While he said he doesn't want to preclude any investigation, Fallon wants to prompt his colleagues to start them immediately. 

“I think it's of vital import to get the ball rolling immediately. Because this is an emergency. This is break glass. This is something that we can't just sit around any longer and say, ‘Well, we'll do it in a month, we'll take it up in four months.’ Let's take it up right now,” he told The Hill.

Building a case for Mayorkas’s impeachment may not be as easy as some of his critics think.

For example, Fallon argues that Mayorkas lied to Congress in two different appearances, when saying both that the Biden administration has maintained operational control of the border and that the border is secure. 

Both points are largely a matter of opinion; impeachment statutes are typically reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Impeachment is a very serious topic, and it's one where the facts need to lead you to the results, not have a predetermined decision,” said Rep. Tony Gonzales (R), who represents the Texas district with the longest shared border with Mexico.

Homeland Security officials, so far, have not assigned staff to deal with potential impeachment inquiries.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people.  The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system," said Marsha Espinosa, a spokesperson for DHS.

“Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which they have not updated in over 40 years,” she added.

Ultimately, Republicans who support impeachment and those who oppose it will have to make their case to McCarthy and his leadership team, who will weigh the costs and benefits of spending political capital on a historic measure with scant chances in the Senate.

Impeaching Mayorkas in the House would require a majority vote. In the Senate, a two-thirds majority would be necessary to win a conviction — a high bar.

Only one Cabinet member has been impeached in history — former President Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, who was accused of taking kickbacks from a contractor he appointed to run the trader post in Fort Sill, Okla. Belknap resigned before facing an almost-certain Senate conviction, a fate that's unlikely to play out with Mayorkas.

Other Republicans who spoke with The Hill stressed the need to go through the proper oversight channels, rather than leap into impeachment.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), whose panel would be among those with jurisdiction over Mayorkas’s impeachment, was animated when he spoke about the opportunity to remove the DHS chief, pushing their own coming investigation.

“We're going to hold him accountable. That's what we're going to do. We're going to have hearings and dig into what I would say is dereliction of duty,” he said.

“All I can speak about is what we're going to do in the committee and that is a five-phased approach of tackling the fight.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said the GOP needed to handle the matter in “the appropriate way.”

“I've been very public about my belief that he has violated his oath, that he has undermined our ability to defend our country,” he said.

“But I'm on the House Judiciary Committee in the majority now and so I'm going to talk to [Chair] Jim [Jordan] (R-Ohio) and talk to people on that committee to make sure that we're going through this and looking at it in the appropriate way.” 

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who was initially by McCarthy’s side for the November border trip as he stressed an eventual inquiry, has signed onto Fallon’s resolution as a co-sponsor, saying he believes Cabinet secretaries can be impeached over their policies.

“People argue about this legally, you can impeach a president because you just don't like his policies. In theory that could be considered a high crime or misdemeanor according to the current legal analysis,” he said.

“I just decided I agree with Fallon. That's basically as simple as I can put it.”

Texas Republican files articles of impeachment against Mayorkas

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

A Texas Republican has filed articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, wasting little time in the new Congress to act on a GOP priority leadership has said would come after thorough investigation.

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) filed the paperwork for the resolution on Jan. 3, the first day of the 118th Congress, though with delays in securing a House Speaker, the document was officially filed late Monday.

The resolution claims Mayorkas “engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with his duties,” complaining that he has failed to maintain operational control over the border.

The resolution comes amid a busy week in the Biden administration. President Biden visited the border over the weekend for the first time since taking office, pledging to deliver more resources to the officers who patrol the region.

And Mayorkas is in Mexico this week, meeting with officials there on a variety of issues, including the shared migration agreement rolled out by the Biden administration last week.

Mayorkas is also due to discuss coordination on transnational crime with Mexican authorities.

Fallon’s resolution won’t move without further action from GOP leadership, but it would otherwise jump-start a process House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has treaded carefully on.

“House Republicans will investigate every order, every action and every failure will determine whether we can begin impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said at a press conference in El Paso, Texas, in November.

Still, impeachment charges against Mayorkas were all but certain under Republican control of the House, as the DHS secretary has been a constant foil for the party during the Biden administration.

Republicans claim that under Biden, the DHS has dismantled the border security apparatus built under former President Trump, leading to border chaos.

The primary basis for the articles of impeachment is the claim that Mayorkas lied to Congress — a case they back by pointing to two instances in which the secretary told lawmakers he believed the Southern border was under control.

“His willful actions erode our immigration system, undermine border patrol morale, and imperil American national security. He must be removed from office,” Fallon said in a release.

DHS said Tuesday that Mayorkas has no plans to resign and argued that the grounds for impeachment pointed to by the GOP were both inaccurate and failed to meet the standards to qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people. The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Marsha Espinosa said in a statement.

“Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which they have not updated in over 40 years.”

Most border and immigration analysts agree that increased migration due to security, economic and governance conditions in the Western Hemisphere is the primary reason for the high number of migrants encountered at the border.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, left, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas speak before a meeting with President Joe Biden and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador at the National Palace in Mexico City, Mexico, Monday, Jan. 9, 2023. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

And Mayorkas has taken flak both from the right and the left, as the DHS has maintained many of the Trump administration's border policies, which immigrant advocates say violate human rights.

Still, Republicans see the border as a winning issue for them, and Mayorkas is the Biden administration's face on that issue.

Mayorkas, the first Latino to ever hold that post, has often butted heads with congressional Republicans at oversight hearings.

In April, Mayorkas clashed with Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, including a notable exchange with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) over the agency's record on deportations from the interior of the country.

That combative exchange could set the tone for impeachment proceedings.

The potential for a political circus is concerning for Republicans fresh off a nationally televised Speaker's race that highlighted divisions in the party.

Some Republicans have expressed reservations about going after Mayorkas without careful study. 

“You’ve got to build a case. You need the facts, evidence before you indict,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas).

“Has he been derelict in his responsibilities? I think so,” he added.

—Updated at 5:15 p.m.

Five things to know ahead of the Jan. 6 committee’s crucial week

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is heading into a crucial week as it prepares to hold its final presentation, release a highly anticipated report outlining findings from the panel’s year-plus probe and vote on criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.

The votes on criminal referrals are expected during Monday’s business meeting, marking a significant step for the panel, which has said one of its goals is to prevent what happened on Jan. 6 from happening again.

The week’s closely watched events are the culmination of the committee’s sprawling investigation, which began months after last year’s deadly riot and has consisted of almost a dozen hearings, testimony from more than 1,000 witnesses and millions of documents.

Here are five things to look for as the committee kicks off a pivotal week:

Committee to vote on referrals Monday

Sunrise at the U.S. Capitol, Monday, Dec. 19, 2022, as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol prepares to hold its final meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington.

The committee will vote on criminal referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) during its final business meeting on Monday.

Multiple outlets reported on Friday that the committee will vote on urging the DOJ to pursue at least three charges against former President Trump, including obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress, insurrection and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The referrals will be closely watched inside and outside Washington, but they are also largely symbolic. The DOJ is not obligated to consider recommendations from congressional committees and is in the midst of conducting its own investigation into Jan. 6.

Criminal referrals likely won’t be the only ones the panel considers. 

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the committee, previously said the panel was considering “five or six categories” for referrals. The committee has highlighted behavior that would be under the purview of the Justice Department, House Ethics Committee and professional organizations, such as bar associations.

“We’re focused on key players and we’re focused on key players where there is sufficient evidence or abundant evidence that they committed crimes, and we’re focused on crimes that go right to the heart of the Constitutional order such that the Congress can’t remain silent,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the committee, told reporters last week.

Raskin suggested earlier this month that the five Republican lawmakers who ignored subpoenas from the committee — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Reps. Scott Perry (Pa.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Mo Brooks (Ala.) — could be referred to the Ethics Committee.

On Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, told CNN's "State of the Union" that the committee has considered censure and ethics referrals.

Asked last week if he or any of his GOP colleagues are concerned about being referred for criminal contempt for ignoring subpoenas, McCarthy told reporters “no, not at all, we did nothing wrong.” 

The committee could also be mulling referrals to bar associations as a rebuke to the lawyers who assisted Trump in his quest to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Panel to release full report on Wednesday

Representatives sit on the dais as the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol holds a hearing at the Capitol in Washington, July 12, 2022.

The committee is set to release its report, which will be comprised of eight chapters outlining the findings of the panel’s months-long investigation, on Wednesday.

Those chapters, according to Politico, will closely correspond with the evidence presented at its nine public hearings this year. The committee will also provide an executive summary.

After Monday's business meeting, the panel is expected to release certain materials, including an executive summary of the report, details on referrals, and additional information about witnesses who have appeared before the committee, according to a select committee aide.

But on Wednesday, the public will get access to the full report, including “attachments and some other things,” according to Thompson. The public may have to wait longer, however, to sift through transcripts of witness interviews.

Committee to release legislative recommendations

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) speaks during a House Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, October 13, 2022 to focus on former President Trump’s efforts to remain in power following his 2020 election defeat.

Monday’s business meeting will also feature some legislative recommendations, Thompson told reporters, which are core part of the Jan. 6 committee’s purpose.

“A lot of our work is also focused on recommendations, legislatively what needs to be done to prevent coups, insurrections, political violence and electoral sabotage in the future,” Raskin, who is a constitutional law expert, said in the Capitol last week.

“And in some sense that’s the heart of it because we think there is a clear, continuing, present danger to democracy today,” he added.

The House has already passed one legislative proposal crafted by members of the committee — the Presidential Election Reform Act, which clarifies the vice president’s role in certifying elections and significantly increases the number of lawmakers needed to object to the certification of a state’s electors.

But Raskin told reporters that the measure was “a very minimal first step.”

In September, he laid out a laundry list of areas the committee wanted to address following its investigation.

“We want to strengthen and fortify the electoral system and the right to vote. We want to do what we can to secure the situation of election workers and keep them safe from violence. We want to solidify the states in their determination that private armed militias not operate in the name of the state. You know, we don’t have any kind of federal law or policy about private armed militias,” the Maryland Democrat said.

It remains to be seen what the scope of the final recommendations will be. And they will be released just as Republicans take control of the House, leaving no time for the Democratic majority to pursue legislation.

Asked last week if there is any regret that the recommendations are coming at such a late stage, Raskin told reporters “I hope that they will have an impact on the thinking of Congress going forward.”

DOJ will finally get committee’s report Wednesday

The Department of Justice logo is seen at their headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, August 5, 2021 prior to a press conference regarding a civil rights matter.

The DOJ has spent months requesting evidence from the panel as it conducts its own investigation and on Wednesday it will finally get its hands on the committee’s final report.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had said the department would like to view the transcripts and other materials “so that we can use it in the ordinary course of our investigations.”

In June, the DOJ wrote in a court filing that the committee’s refusal to share information was making its work more difficult.

“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” a letter in the filing read.

“Accordingly, we renew our request that the Select Committee provide us with copies of the transcripts of all the interviews it has conducted to date,” it added.

But Thompson told reporters last month that the DOJ would have to wait until the final report was published to view evidence the committee collected throughout its year-and-a-half investigation. 

The DOJ will finally get its wish on Wednesday, when the committee’s report is made available to the public — including those who work in the agency.

Cheney, Kinzinger to have final moments in the spotlight

Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.)

Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) are seen during a House Jan. 6 committee hearing on Thursday, July 21, 2022 to focus on former President Trump’s actions during the insurrection.

Monday’s business meeting will also mark a swan song of sorts for Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), who are departing Congress at the end of this month after breaking from the Republican Party and denouncing Trump.

Cheney, one of two Republicans serving on the panel, is leaving the House after losing reelection over the summer, in part because of her participation on the Jan. 6 committee.

She has emerged as an outspoken critic of Trump, using her prominent position as vice chair of the committee to lay out the case that the former president was responsible for what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

It is a main reason why she lost reelection last year to Wyoming lawyer Harriet Hageman, who Trump handpicked to challenge Cheney after she voted for his impeachment and joined the Jan. 6 committee.

Kinzinger has also become a top GOP critic of Trump, though he opted out of running for reelection this year.

Despite their departures, the GOP duo has continued in their crusades against Trump, criticizing him for recent comments he made regarding the Constitution and for dining with noted white supremacist Nick Fuentes.

But Monday’s meeting will likely be the last time they can make the case against Trump with the audience and platform that come with being a member of Congress.