update - Dems facilitate deal to end shutdown
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
New: The Justice Department is preparing to issue a series of grand jury subpoenas as part of its investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan and the probes by the CIA and FBI into Russian interference in the 2016 election, MSNBC has learned. The investigation is being supervised by the U.S. Attorney in South Florida, Jason Quinones, in consultation with Justice Department senior staff in Washington, according to a source familiar with the matter and other information obtained by MSNBC.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Florida-based inquiry comes two years after a special counsel appointed by then Attorney General Bill Barr in the first Trump Administration concluded a lengthy and exhaustive investigation that found no criminal wrongdoing by Brennan or any other major figure connected with the Russian election interference matter.
A White House spokesman confirmed the existence of the grand jury investigation in August after Fox News reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the probe based on a criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The fact that subpoenas are being prepared has not previously been reported.
Among the topics of interest in the new investigation is the preparation of the 2017 intelligence assessment into Russian election interference. That also was investigated by Special Counsel John Durham, who found no wrongdoing.
Conservative Attorney Mike Davis, who advises the White House and the Justice Department, has been saying in recent weeks that a Florida grand jury will consider whether Obama and Biden officials engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate Donald Trump’s civil rights through the Russia investigations and the probes by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Trump was charged federally in two separate cases brought by Smith, both of which were dismissed when he became president. No evidence has surfaced publicly of wrongdoing in those probes or the Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller other than by an FBI lawyer in the Russia investigation who pleaded guilty in 2020 to falsifying a document related to surveillance of a Trump campaign aide.
But Trump and his allies—boosted by a Right-wing media echo-chamber—have for years claimed that the FBI and Justice Department conspired with Democrats to frame Trump. Brennan, and MSNBC national security contributor, has denied wrongdoing. He has separately been accused by the House Judiciary Committee of lying to Congress, an unsupported allegation he also disputes.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Florida-based inquiry comes two years after a special counsel appointed by then Attorney General Bill Barr in the first Trump Administration concluded a lengthy and exhaustive investigation that found no criminal wrongdoing by Brennan or any other major figure connected with the Russian election interference matter.
A White House spokesman confirmed the existence of the grand jury investigation in August after Fox News reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the probe based on a criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The fact that subpoenas are being prepared has not previously been reported.
Among the topics of interest in the new investigation is the preparation of the 2017 intelligence assessment into Russian election interference. That also was investigated by Special Counsel John Durham, who found no wrongdoing.
Conservative Attorney Mike Davis, who advises the White House and the Justice Department, has been saying in recent weeks that a Florida grand jury will consider whether Obama and Biden officials engaged in a massive conspiracy to violate Donald Trump’s civil rights through the Russia investigations and the probes by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Trump was charged federally in two separate cases brought by Smith, both of which were dismissed when he became president. No evidence has surfaced publicly of wrongdoing in those probes or the Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller other than by an FBI lawyer in the Russia investigation who pleaded guilty in 2020 to falsifying a document related to surveillance of a Trump campaign aide.
But Trump and his allies—boosted by a Right-wing media echo-chamber—have for years claimed that the FBI and Justice Department conspired with Democrats to frame Trump. Brennan, and MSNBC national security contributor, has denied wrongdoing. He has separately been accused by the House Judiciary Committee of lying to Congress, an unsupported allegation he also disputes.
Kash Patel’s Private Jet Problem Is Even Worse Than It Looks
This dude can’t stop flying to Nashville.
www.thebulwark.com
(Composite / Photos: GettyImages)
Kash Patel keeps taking a private jet to his girlfriend’s home city
FBI DIRECTOR KASH PATEL has had quite a week.
Facing criticism for taking a government jet to see his country-singer girlfriend perform at a wrestling match in Pennsylvania—then taking the jet to her home city of Nashville—he chose to fire a veteran FBI official in charge of the bureau’s planes. He then followed that by having the FBI instruct at least one flight-tracking website to stop sharing public data about his jet. And then, on Sunday, he took to X to lash out at his critics, claiming that his girlfriend Alexis Wilkins is a “country music sensation who has done more for this nation than most will in ten lifetimes.”
This was a lot. But, apparently, not enough to satiate the masses. Even right-wingers were taking shots at him, with podcaster Candace Owens declaring him “the most embarrassing human in the United States” and nicknaming him “Krashout Patel.”
And so Patel did what many men would do in a moment of great personal stress: He left town to lay low. On Friday, he flew to Fort Lauderdale, where his stay overlapped with the Great Gatsby–themed party hosted at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. (It’s not clear if Patel attended.) Then, having already been dinged for taking his government jet to visit his girlfriend in Nashville, Patel did it once more, with public flight data showing
Former Tenn. House Speaker Casada and former aide pardoned by Trump, Tennessee Journal reports
Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and ex-aide Cade Cothren were pardoned by President Trump after convictions in a state contracting kickback scheme, according to the Tennessee Journal.
www.newschannel5.com
Casada’s attorney, Ed Yarbrough, confirmed Thursday that Casada personally received a call from the president informing him of the pardon
“It is good news. I’m just grateful to the president and his trust and understanding of my innocence. I can now get on with my life,” Casada said in a text message previously reported by The Tennessee Journal.
Casada and Cothren were convicted last year of running a kickback and bribery scheme through a company called Phoenix Solutions, which prosecutors said was created to funnel taxpayer money to themselves.
Cothren secretly operated the company under the alias “Matthew Phoenix” after resigning in 2019 amid a racist and sexist texting scandal that also led to Casada’s fall from power.
Casada was sentenced to three years in prison and Cothren to two and a half. Former state Rep. Robin Smith, who cooperated with prosecutors and testified against them, received an eight-month sentence.
Casada reportedly said he does not know whether Trump is also considering a pardon for Smith. The White House has not issued a formal statement on the pardons, which mark one of the most high-profile acts of clemency of Trump’s second term.
Do you have more information about this story? You can email me at holly.lehren@newschannel5.com.
Letitia James calls mortgage fraud case against her vindictive and asks judge to dismiss it
WASHINGTON (AP) — New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss a mortgage fraud case against her, calling it a vindictive and politically motivated prosecution brought at the behest of a president who regards her as an enemy.
The motion, which had been expected, lays out a litany of comments from President Donald Trump designed to show the case was driven by personal animus that arose out of James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies in her capacity as state attorney general.
“This lawsuit, and AG James’ outspoken criticism of the President, triggered six years of targeted attacks. President Trump and his allies have used every insulting term in their vocabulary to deride AG James and call for criminal penalties in retaliation for the exercise of her rights and fulfillment of her statutory duties to fulfill her obligations as New York state’s attorney general,” lawyers for James wrote in urging that the case be dismissed.
The name-calling by Trump includes describing Trump as “crooked,” “scum,” “a monster,” and “criminal,” according to the filing.
The filing is similar to one from another of Trump’s perceived adversaries, James Comey, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress and who has said the case against him is similarly vindictive and inspired by the president's desire for retribution.
James is accused of lying on mortgage papers to get favorable loan terms when purchasing a modest house in Norfolk, Virginia, where she has family. She pleaded not guilty last month, and told reporters outside the courthouse that the Trump administration was using the justice system as a “tool of revenge.”
To bolster their claim of a vindictive prosecution, James' attorneys also assert that the Justice Department has singled her out for scrutiny “while ignoring apparent inconsistencies in the mortgage records of numerous other public officials.”
They say the activities that form the basis of the indictment match the conduct of other high-profile figures who have not been investigated or charged.
“The only meaningful difference between AG James and these individuals is that AG James is a Democratic Attorney General who spoke out against the President, while the others are his allies and cabinet members,” defense lawyers wrote.
Like Comey, she was charged in Virginia by a hastily appointed U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide without any prosecutorial experience who was named to the post by Trump after the administration effectively forced out the prosecutor who had overseen both investigations, Erik Siebert, but had not brought charges in either case.
After Siebert’s resignation, Trump, in an extraordinary social media post, urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute James and other political foes, noting that he had been impeached and indicted himself multiple times. Trump wrote the administration “can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” adding: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
James was first elected in 2018 as New York state’s top lawyer, after holding elected jobs in New York City. She is the first woman elected as the state’s attorney general.
James has been a frequent target of Trump’s ire, especially since she won a staggering judgment against the president and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.
Eric Tucker, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss a mortgage fraud case against her, calling it a vindictive and politically motivated prosecution brought at the behest of a president who regards her as an enemy.
The motion, which had been expected, lays out a litany of comments from President Donald Trump designed to show the case was driven by personal animus that arose out of James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies in her capacity as state attorney general.
“This lawsuit, and AG James’ outspoken criticism of the President, triggered six years of targeted attacks. President Trump and his allies have used every insulting term in their vocabulary to deride AG James and call for criminal penalties in retaliation for the exercise of her rights and fulfillment of her statutory duties to fulfill her obligations as New York state’s attorney general,” lawyers for James wrote in urging that the case be dismissed.
The name-calling by Trump includes describing Trump as “crooked,” “scum,” “a monster,” and “criminal,” according to the filing.
The filing is similar to one from another of Trump’s perceived adversaries, James Comey, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress and who has said the case against him is similarly vindictive and inspired by the president's desire for retribution.
James is accused of lying on mortgage papers to get favorable loan terms when purchasing a modest house in Norfolk, Virginia, where she has family. She pleaded not guilty last month, and told reporters outside the courthouse that the Trump administration was using the justice system as a “tool of revenge.”
To bolster their claim of a vindictive prosecution, James' attorneys also assert that the Justice Department has singled her out for scrutiny “while ignoring apparent inconsistencies in the mortgage records of numerous other public officials.”
They say the activities that form the basis of the indictment match the conduct of other high-profile figures who have not been investigated or charged.
“The only meaningful difference between AG James and these individuals is that AG James is a Democratic Attorney General who spoke out against the President, while the others are his allies and cabinet members,” defense lawyers wrote.
Like Comey, she was charged in Virginia by a hastily appointed U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide without any prosecutorial experience who was named to the post by Trump after the administration effectively forced out the prosecutor who had overseen both investigations, Erik Siebert, but had not brought charges in either case.
After Siebert’s resignation, Trump, in an extraordinary social media post, urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute James and other political foes, noting that he had been impeached and indicted himself multiple times. Trump wrote the administration “can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” adding: “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
James was first elected in 2018 as New York state’s top lawyer, after holding elected jobs in New York City. She is the first woman elected as the state’s attorney general.
James has been a frequent target of Trump’s ire, especially since she won a staggering judgment against the president and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.
Eric Tucker, The Associated Press
Legal expert pinpoints moment MAGA prosecutor lost case
Legal expert Lisa Rubin highlighted for a "Morning Joe" panel on MSNBC Friday the exact moment she thinks the Trump administration lost its case charging the infamous Washington, D.C. "sandwich thrower."
The case, which was watched around the country, concerned a protester, Sean Dunn, who pelted a Border Patrol officer with a Subway sandwich amid Trump's efforts to federalize law enforcement in D.C. And it came after the charges were already downgraded to a misdemeanor after U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro failed to win a felony indictment.
"Lisa, I've just been handed an important fact check," said anchor Jonathan Lemire. "Earlier I said he threw a ham sandwich. I've been corrected. It was a salami sandwich. We regret the error ... So just, I mean, this this case, because it's so preposterous in some ways, did gain a lot of national attention. But what lessons should we learn from it?"
"I think first and foremost, there is such a thing as overcharging, right?" said Rubin. "We always talk about the fact. And here I'm about to make a joke of my own that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. But in this case, the U.S. Attorney's office for the district of D.C. under Jeanine Pirro first tried to indict the guy for a felony, and they refused. They returned no true bill. Then they charged him with a misdemeanor. And now we have a jury willing to acquit him."
"And I think part of it here is that the crime with which he was charged necessitated that the jury find that the guy felt that he, the CBP officer here, the Border Patrol officer, would have felt that he was in danger of imminent bodily harm," said Rubin. "And though he testified that he felt the sandwich explode against his bulletproof vest, the greatest thing that the defense lawyer Sabrina Shroff did here was point to a picture of the sandwich on the sidewalk fully intact, at which point the officer had to clarify that yeah, there was some onion on the antenna of his radio, and he could still smell the mustard on him, but the sandwich did not, in fact, explode."
"That's when, you know, you know, that you've gone awry," Rubin then concluded.
Legal expert Lisa Rubin highlighted for a "Morning Joe" panel on MSNBC Friday the exact moment she thinks the Trump administration lost its case charging the infamous Washington, D.C. "sandwich thrower."
The case, which was watched around the country, concerned a protester, Sean Dunn, who pelted a Border Patrol officer with a Subway sandwich amid Trump's efforts to federalize law enforcement in D.C. And it came after the charges were already downgraded to a misdemeanor after U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro failed to win a felony indictment.
"Lisa, I've just been handed an important fact check," said anchor Jonathan Lemire. "Earlier I said he threw a ham sandwich. I've been corrected. It was a salami sandwich. We regret the error ... So just, I mean, this this case, because it's so preposterous in some ways, did gain a lot of national attention. But what lessons should we learn from it?"
"I think first and foremost, there is such a thing as overcharging, right?" said Rubin. "We always talk about the fact. And here I'm about to make a joke of my own that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. But in this case, the U.S. Attorney's office for the district of D.C. under Jeanine Pirro first tried to indict the guy for a felony, and they refused. They returned no true bill. Then they charged him with a misdemeanor. And now we have a jury willing to acquit him."
"And I think part of it here is that the crime with which he was charged necessitated that the jury find that the guy felt that he, the CBP officer here, the Border Patrol officer, would have felt that he was in danger of imminent bodily harm," said Rubin. "And though he testified that he felt the sandwich explode against his bulletproof vest, the greatest thing that the defense lawyer Sabrina Shroff did here was point to a picture of the sandwich on the sidewalk fully intact, at which point the officer had to clarify that yeah, there was some onion on the antenna of his radio, and he could still smell the mustard on him, but the sandwich did not, in fact, explode."
"That's when, you know, you know, that you've gone awry," Rubin then concluded.
Trump admin's partisan email gambit hit with court block
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from forcing federal workers to set their email auto-replies to messages blaming Democrats in Congress for the government shutdown.
From the outset of the shutdown weeks ago, multiple executive branch departments have directed employees who are out of the office due to the shutdown to put partisan political messages in their automatic responses.
For example, the Department of Health and Human Services ordered workers to set their auto-reply to, “Thank you for contacting me. On September 19, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution. Unfortunately, Democratic senators are blocking its passage in the Senate, which has led to a lapse in appropriations. Due to this lapse, I am currently in furlough status and unable to respond to emails. I will reply once government operations resume.”
The American Federation of Government Employees sued, arguing orders of this sort violate the First Amendment by compelling government employees to make a partisan political statement they may not agree with.
On Friday, Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, agreed.
"Nonpartisanship is the bedrock of the federal civil service; it ensures that career government employees serve the public, not the politicians," wrote Cooper. "But by commandeering its employees’ e-mail accounts to broadcast partisan messages, the Department chisels away at that foundation. Political officials are free to blame whomever they wish for the shutdown, but they cannot use rank-and-file civil servants as their unwilling spokespeople. The First Amendment stands in their way. The Department’s conduct therefore must cease."
This comes as the shutdown continues to drag on without an obvious end in sight. Senate Democrats put forward an offer to reopen the government contingent on a one-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies and a bipartisan commission for longer-term health care reform, but GOP lawmakers immediately rejected this.
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from forcing federal workers to set their email auto-replies to messages blaming Democrats in Congress for the government shutdown.
From the outset of the shutdown weeks ago, multiple executive branch departments have directed employees who are out of the office due to the shutdown to put partisan political messages in their automatic responses.
For example, the Department of Health and Human Services ordered workers to set their auto-reply to, “Thank you for contacting me. On September 19, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution. Unfortunately, Democratic senators are blocking its passage in the Senate, which has led to a lapse in appropriations. Due to this lapse, I am currently in furlough status and unable to respond to emails. I will reply once government operations resume.”
The American Federation of Government Employees sued, arguing orders of this sort violate the First Amendment by compelling government employees to make a partisan political statement they may not agree with.
On Friday, Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, agreed.
"Nonpartisanship is the bedrock of the federal civil service; it ensures that career government employees serve the public, not the politicians," wrote Cooper. "But by commandeering its employees’ e-mail accounts to broadcast partisan messages, the Department chisels away at that foundation. Political officials are free to blame whomever they wish for the shutdown, but they cannot use rank-and-file civil servants as their unwilling spokespeople. The First Amendment stands in their way. The Department’s conduct therefore must cease."
This comes as the shutdown continues to drag on without an obvious end in sight. Senate Democrats put forward an offer to reopen the government contingent on a one-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies and a bipartisan commission for longer-term health care reform, but GOP lawmakers immediately rejected this.
The dems sent Biden home when they realized he was senile.
Trump rants at America’s beef producers after failed Argentine deal
Donald Trump suddenly has a big beef with, well, Big Beef.
After days of being hammered over his failure to lower prices on everyday grocery staples — and just about an hour after being pressed on the matter while sitting next to Hungary’s strongman leader Viktor Orban in the White House — the president unleashed on U.S. meat producers Friday, accusing them of artificially inflating prices and saying he’s ordered a Justice Department probe into the beef industry.
Writing on Truth Social, Trump said he’d asked the Justice Department to “immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies” who he claimed “are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation.”
The president went on to claim that American ranchers were unfairly taking blame for the actions of what he called “Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply.”
“Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People. I am asking the DOJ to act expeditiously,” he added.
He subsequently claimed in a second post that something was “fishy” because “the price of Boxed Beef has gone up” even while cattle prices were stable or falling.
The president’s Friday afternoon rant came weeks after he floated — and quickly abandoned — a plan to have the government purchase Argentine beef in an effort to lower prices and also prop up the Argentine beef sector ahead of last month’s elections in the South American country.
“We would buy some beef from Argentina,” he told reporters during an October 20 media availability on Air Force One en route from Florida to Washington. “If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.”
US beef prices have been stubbornly high for a variety of reasons, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico because of a flesh-eating pest in cattle herds there, as well as tariffs Trump has placed on beef imports from Brazil to punish the Brazilian government for imprisoning his friend, ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, for having attempted a coup to remain in power after losing an election.
But the plan met with swift opposition from the American beef industry as well as Republican senators from cattle-producing states.
One senator, Deb Fisher of Nebraska, said in a statement at the time that the Argentine beef proposal “wasn’t the way” to address high prices.
“Right now, government intervention in the beef market will hurt our cattle ranchers. The U.S. has safe, reliable beef, and it is the one bright spot in our struggling ag economy. Nebraska’s ranchers cannot afford to have the rug pulled out from under them when they’re just getting ahead or simply breaking even,” she said.
Vice President JD Vance was subsequently “bombarded” with questions about President Donald Trump’s new beef deal with Argentina during a lunch with Republican senators last week, leading the VP to reportedly ask if any senators had “questions NOT about beef” at one point.
Trump’s outburst over high beef prices also follows devastating losses for his party’s candidates in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races at the hands of voters who expressed anger over his administration's failure to address rising prices contributing to an ever-higher cost of living in the U.S.
Citing New Jersey Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill and Virginia Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger’s laser-focused campaigns which centered on “affordability” just one year after voters cited higher prices as the reason for returning him to the White House in the 2024 presidential election, Trump complained that the Democrats’ focus on “affordability” was “a con job.”
“The Democrats are good at a few things, cheating on elections and conning people with facts that aren’t true,” said Trump, who then proceeded to rattle off a list of baseless assertions about the prices of this year’s Thanksgiving dinner staples and gasoline, the latter of which he falsely claimed is available to Americans at $2 per gallon.
“Prices are down under the Trump administration, and they're down substantially ... gasoline is way down, and the other big thing is ... inflation is way down ... we did a great job on groceries and affordability. The The only problem is the fake news. You people don't want to report it,” he said.
“The reason I don't want to talk about affordability is because everybody knows that it's far less expensive under Trump than it was under sleepy Joe Biden and the prices are way down.”
Donald Trump suddenly has a big beef with, well, Big Beef.
After days of being hammered over his failure to lower prices on everyday grocery staples — and just about an hour after being pressed on the matter while sitting next to Hungary’s strongman leader Viktor Orban in the White House — the president unleashed on U.S. meat producers Friday, accusing them of artificially inflating prices and saying he’s ordered a Justice Department probe into the beef industry.
Writing on Truth Social, Trump said he’d asked the Justice Department to “immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies” who he claimed “are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation.”
The president went on to claim that American ranchers were unfairly taking blame for the actions of what he called “Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply.”
“Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People. I am asking the DOJ to act expeditiously,” he added.
He subsequently claimed in a second post that something was “fishy” because “the price of Boxed Beef has gone up” even while cattle prices were stable or falling.
The president’s Friday afternoon rant came weeks after he floated — and quickly abandoned — a plan to have the government purchase Argentine beef in an effort to lower prices and also prop up the Argentine beef sector ahead of last month’s elections in the South American country.
“We would buy some beef from Argentina,” he told reporters during an October 20 media availability on Air Force One en route from Florida to Washington. “If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.”
US beef prices have been stubbornly high for a variety of reasons, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico because of a flesh-eating pest in cattle herds there, as well as tariffs Trump has placed on beef imports from Brazil to punish the Brazilian government for imprisoning his friend, ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, for having attempted a coup to remain in power after losing an election.
But the plan met with swift opposition from the American beef industry as well as Republican senators from cattle-producing states.
One senator, Deb Fisher of Nebraska, said in a statement at the time that the Argentine beef proposal “wasn’t the way” to address high prices.
“Right now, government intervention in the beef market will hurt our cattle ranchers. The U.S. has safe, reliable beef, and it is the one bright spot in our struggling ag economy. Nebraska’s ranchers cannot afford to have the rug pulled out from under them when they’re just getting ahead or simply breaking even,” she said.
Vice President JD Vance was subsequently “bombarded” with questions about President Donald Trump’s new beef deal with Argentina during a lunch with Republican senators last week, leading the VP to reportedly ask if any senators had “questions NOT about beef” at one point.
Trump’s outburst over high beef prices also follows devastating losses for his party’s candidates in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races at the hands of voters who expressed anger over his administration's failure to address rising prices contributing to an ever-higher cost of living in the U.S.
Citing New Jersey Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill and Virginia Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger’s laser-focused campaigns which centered on “affordability” just one year after voters cited higher prices as the reason for returning him to the White House in the 2024 presidential election, Trump complained that the Democrats’ focus on “affordability” was “a con job.”
“The Democrats are good at a few things, cheating on elections and conning people with facts that aren’t true,” said Trump, who then proceeded to rattle off a list of baseless assertions about the prices of this year’s Thanksgiving dinner staples and gasoline, the latter of which he falsely claimed is available to Americans at $2 per gallon.
“Prices are down under the Trump administration, and they're down substantially ... gasoline is way down, and the other big thing is ... inflation is way down ... we did a great job on groceries and affordability. The The only problem is the fake news. You people don't want to report it,” he said.
“The reason I don't want to talk about affordability is because everybody knows that it's far less expensive under Trump than it was under sleepy Joe Biden and the prices are way down.”
DOJ Miami Office Readies Conspiracy Probe Into Trump Enemies (2)
The South Florida US attorney’s office is recruiting prosecutors and restructuring its chain of command in preparation for a grand jury investigation expected to target former Justice Department officials and others involved in cases against President Donald Trump.
Judge rules Trump administration failed to meet legal requirements for deploying troops to Portland
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.
The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”
In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.
“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence," Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”
The Trump administration criticized the judge's ruling.
“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.
“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. "From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”
Democratic cities fight back
Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.
Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state's National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.
Immergut has called Trump's apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.
Demonstrations at ICE building peaked in June
Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.
The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”
Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.
R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.
Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.
The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.
___
Johnson reported from Seattle. Associated Press staff writer Michelle L. Price in Palm Beach, Florida, contributed to this report.
Claire Rush And Gene Johnson, The Associated Press
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.
The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”
In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.
“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence," Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”
The Trump administration criticized the judge's ruling.
“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.
“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. "From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”
Democratic cities fight back
Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.
Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state's National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.
Immergut has called Trump's apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.
Demonstrations at ICE building peaked in June
Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.
The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”
Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.
R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.
Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.
The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.
___
Johnson reported from Seattle. Associated Press staff writer Michelle L. Price in Palm Beach, Florida, contributed to this report.
Claire Rush And Gene Johnson, The Associated Press
Trump admin says it will make full SNAP payments hours after asking court to halt them
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) notified states that it would fulfill obligations to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in November, just hours after the Trump administration appealed a ruling requiring the payments to be made.
In a memo to state agencies on Friday, USDA's Food and Nutrition Service said it was "working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the November 6, 2025, order from the District Court of Rhode Island."
"Later today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor," the memo stated.
Earlier on Friday, the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court to pause a ruling from U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island that said the government must make full SNAP payments for November by Friday at 5 p.m.
“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said in his Thursday ruling. “Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable.”
The Trump administration previously claimed that partial SNAP payments would be made in November due to the government shutdown.
President Donald Trump later insisted that the benefits would only resume when "the Radical Left Democrats open up government."
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) notified states that it would fulfill obligations to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in November, just hours after the Trump administration appealed a ruling requiring the payments to be made.
In a memo to state agencies on Friday, USDA's Food and Nutrition Service said it was "working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the November 6, 2025, order from the District Court of Rhode Island."
"Later today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor," the memo stated.
Earlier on Friday, the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court to pause a ruling from U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island that said the government must make full SNAP payments for November by Friday at 5 p.m.
“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said in his Thursday ruling. “Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable.”
The Trump administration previously claimed that partial SNAP payments would be made in November due to the government shutdown.
President Donald Trump later insisted that the benefits would only resume when "the Radical Left Democrats open up government."
Trump accuses foreign-owned meat packers of inflating US beef prices and calls for investigation
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday accused foreign-owned meat packers of driving up the price of beef in the U.S. and asked the Department of Justice to open an investigation.
The Republican president announced the move on social media days after his party suffered losses in key elections in which the winning Democratic candidates focused relentlessly on the public’s concerns about the cost of living. But experts said it's unlikely that an investigation would result in lower prices at grocery stores, and a trade group representing meat packers said they're not to blame.
President Donald Trump speaks with reporters during a meeting with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)© The Associated Press
Trump did not present evidence for his claims, writing on social media that “I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation.”
FILE - Cattle graze on a ranch in Lufkin, Texas, April 18, 2023. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File)© The Associated Press
He said he was taking the action to help ranchers, who were recently angered by his suggestion that the U.S. would buy Argentine beef to bring down stubbornly high prices for American consumers.
“We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply,” Trump said.
Why beef prices have climbed
Beef prices have soared to record levels in part after drought and years of low prices led to the smallest U.S. herd size in decades. Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, a major beef exporter, have also curbed imports.
Meanwhile, demand for beef remains strong. Prices are high because consumers want to eat it, and they’re willing and able to pay for it, said Glynn Tonsor, who leads the Meat Demand Monitor at Kansas State University.
Tonsor said the ownership mix in the meat packing industry has not changed significantly in the past four years.
Concentration in the meat packing business has been a longtime concern for farmers and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Four major meatpacking companies dominate the beef market in the United States.
There’s no evidence to back up claims that the big packers have undue market power and use it to drive up beef prices, said Derrell Peel, an agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University.
“The packing industry in this country has been investigated and researched for 50 years, and it’s been an issue for over a hundred years, at least, for some producers,” Peel said, expressing skepticism that consumers or producers will benefit from the investigation Trump announced.
“If the outcome is to break up the big packers, the outcome will be higher beef prices for consumers, and lower cattle prices for producers,” Peel said.
Meat packers say they're getting pinched by high prices
Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin said Friday that he and fellow Republican senators Cindy-Hyde-Smith of Mississippi and Tim Sheehy of Montana visited the White House earlier in the day to speak with Trump about recent volatility in the beef market. Mullin said Trump agreed to have the Justice Department look at the issue.
Mullin blamed meat processors, saying that “we’re seeing the same exact game play again out” as a 2019 lawsuit against large meatpackers for violating antitrust laws.
JBS, which is based in Brazil, is the largest U.S. beef producer and its second-largest producer of poultry and pork. Half of its annual revenue comes from the U.S., where it has more than 72,000 employees.
The company has faced price-fixing charges before. In 2022, JBS agreed to a $52.5 million settlement with grocery stores and wholesalers who accused JBS, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods and other companies of working together to suppress the number of cattle being slaughtered in order to drive up beef prices.
JBS did not admit wrongdoing as part of that settlement. Messages seeking comment were left Friday with JBS USA.
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., last week called on the administration to renew an investigation into meat packers that was opened in Trump's first term. Cramer's office said he has pushed for such a probe since March 2020.
The Meat Institute, a trade group that represents JBS and other meat producers, said its industry is being pinched by the price of cattle, despite record prices for U.S. beef.
“For more than a year, beef packers have been operating at a loss due to a tight cattle supply and strong demand,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a statement. “The beef industry is heavily regulated, and market transactions are transparent. The government’s own data from USDA confirms that the beef packing sector is experiencing catastrophic losses and experts predict this will continue into 2026.”
Trump’s accusations have renewed a bipartisan presidential fight against rising food prices.
Then-President Joe Biden talked with independent farmers and ranchers about initiatives to reduce food prices by increasing competition within the meat industry. And then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who Trump defeated in winning reelection last year, used her campaign to vow to crack down on food producers and major supermarkets’ “ price gouging.”
____
Karnowski reported from Minneapolis. Associated Press writers Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit, Josh Funk in Omaha, Nebraska, and Stephen Groves in Washington contributed to this report.
Darlene Superville And Steve Karnowski, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday accused foreign-owned meat packers of driving up the price of beef in the U.S. and asked the Department of Justice to open an investigation.
The Republican president announced the move on social media days after his party suffered losses in key elections in which the winning Democratic candidates focused relentlessly on the public’s concerns about the cost of living. But experts said it's unlikely that an investigation would result in lower prices at grocery stores, and a trade group representing meat packers said they're not to blame.
President Donald Trump speaks with reporters during a meeting with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)© The Associated Press
Trump did not present evidence for his claims, writing on social media that “I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation.”
FILE - Cattle graze on a ranch in Lufkin, Texas, April 18, 2023. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File)© The Associated Press
He said he was taking the action to help ranchers, who were recently angered by his suggestion that the U.S. would buy Argentine beef to bring down stubbornly high prices for American consumers.
“We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply,” Trump said.
Why beef prices have climbed
Beef prices have soared to record levels in part after drought and years of low prices led to the smallest U.S. herd size in decades. Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, a major beef exporter, have also curbed imports.
Meanwhile, demand for beef remains strong. Prices are high because consumers want to eat it, and they’re willing and able to pay for it, said Glynn Tonsor, who leads the Meat Demand Monitor at Kansas State University.
Tonsor said the ownership mix in the meat packing industry has not changed significantly in the past four years.
Concentration in the meat packing business has been a longtime concern for farmers and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Four major meatpacking companies dominate the beef market in the United States.
There’s no evidence to back up claims that the big packers have undue market power and use it to drive up beef prices, said Derrell Peel, an agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University.
“The packing industry in this country has been investigated and researched for 50 years, and it’s been an issue for over a hundred years, at least, for some producers,” Peel said, expressing skepticism that consumers or producers will benefit from the investigation Trump announced.
“If the outcome is to break up the big packers, the outcome will be higher beef prices for consumers, and lower cattle prices for producers,” Peel said.
Meat packers say they're getting pinched by high prices
Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin said Friday that he and fellow Republican senators Cindy-Hyde-Smith of Mississippi and Tim Sheehy of Montana visited the White House earlier in the day to speak with Trump about recent volatility in the beef market. Mullin said Trump agreed to have the Justice Department look at the issue.
Mullin blamed meat processors, saying that “we’re seeing the same exact game play again out” as a 2019 lawsuit against large meatpackers for violating antitrust laws.
JBS, which is based in Brazil, is the largest U.S. beef producer and its second-largest producer of poultry and pork. Half of its annual revenue comes from the U.S., where it has more than 72,000 employees.
The company has faced price-fixing charges before. In 2022, JBS agreed to a $52.5 million settlement with grocery stores and wholesalers who accused JBS, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods and other companies of working together to suppress the number of cattle being slaughtered in order to drive up beef prices.
JBS did not admit wrongdoing as part of that settlement. Messages seeking comment were left Friday with JBS USA.
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., last week called on the administration to renew an investigation into meat packers that was opened in Trump's first term. Cramer's office said he has pushed for such a probe since March 2020.
The Meat Institute, a trade group that represents JBS and other meat producers, said its industry is being pinched by the price of cattle, despite record prices for U.S. beef.
“For more than a year, beef packers have been operating at a loss due to a tight cattle supply and strong demand,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a statement. “The beef industry is heavily regulated, and market transactions are transparent. The government’s own data from USDA confirms that the beef packing sector is experiencing catastrophic losses and experts predict this will continue into 2026.”
Trump’s accusations have renewed a bipartisan presidential fight against rising food prices.
Then-President Joe Biden talked with independent farmers and ranchers about initiatives to reduce food prices by increasing competition within the meat industry. And then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who Trump defeated in winning reelection last year, used her campaign to vow to crack down on food producers and major supermarkets’ “ price gouging.”
____
Karnowski reported from Minneapolis. Associated Press writers Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit, Josh Funk in Omaha, Nebraska, and Stephen Groves in Washington contributed to this report.
Darlene Superville And Steve Karnowski, The Associated Press
Trump budget chief wields obscure tools to sow turmoil in public health
When President Donald Trump posted a satirical music video on social media in early October depicting his budget director, Russell Vought, as the Grim Reaper lording over Democrats in Congress, public health workers recognized a kernel of truth.
Vought has exerted extraordinary control over government spending this year, usurping congressional decisions on how the nation’s money is used. His push for more layoffs during the government shutdown is only the latest blow, following months of firings, canceled grants, and withheld funds.
By cutting and freezing public health funds, in particular, the Trump administration has already begun to undercut efforts to provide medical care, outbreak response, housing assistance, and research across the U.S., according to health officials, nonprofit directors, and federal agency staffers interviewed by KFF Health News.
Since most federal funds for public health flow to states, Vought is rivaling the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his ability to upend government-led efforts to keep Americans healthy. In Texas, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds to stem a measles outbreak weren’t available until after the crisis had subsided and two children had died. A project to protect Alabamans from raw sewage and hookworm was abandoned. People with HIV have had to delay medical care as clinics scale back hours. Time-dependent surveys on HIV and maternal mortality were halted. Food banks have canceled events. Tobacco prevention programs lapsed. Initiatives to protect older adults at risk of falling have been harried.
No matter what budget Congress ultimately passes for next year, the Trump administration may continue to thwart financial support for such programs in ways that will harm people’s health. “The White House has shown that they are willing to unilaterally exert control over funding,” said Gillian Metzger, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University.
“This is a huge deal,” she added, “because the power of the purse is central to Congress’ ability to shape and direct policy.”
Before he was appointed to lead the White House’s Office of Management and Budget this year, Vought outlined budgetary strategies the executive branch could deploy to wrest power from Congress and federal agencies in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative blueprint.
Vought’s tactics unfolded this year, often below the radar. They include abrupt grant cancellations, extraordinary constraints on how funds can be spent, and excessive layers of review, agency officials say, at every step in the grantmaking process. Getting money out the door has been further complicated by layoffs that have gutted offices overseeing grants on chronic disease prevention, HIV, maternal mortality, and more.
Government employees have described these tactics to members of Congress, said Abigail Tighe, executive director of the National Public Health Coalition, a group that includes current and former staffers at the CDC and HHS. “We want Congress to act, because this is preventing states and communities from doing critical public health work to keep our country safe,” she said. “If they don’t have capacity, we all collectively suffer.”
Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees have pushed for transparency, but the extent to which money Congress appropriated for public health in 2024 and 2025 has gone unspent because of the administration’s disruptions is not yet known. “This is a sophisticated strategy to cause money to lapse and then say, ‘If they can’t spend it, they don’t need it,’” said Robert Gordon, a public policy specialist at Georgetown University and a former assistant finance secretary at HHS.
“No one thought this was possible or legal, but that is what’s happening,” he said.
Details on how the administration has subverted health spending have received little attention because many changes have been made quietly — and people who rely on federal funds fear retribution. The Trump administration has defunded and threatened federal offices that hold the government accountable and fired whistleblowers. It has abruptly revoked funds for local governments and organizations.
Vought and spokespeople at the White House and the OMB did not respond to queries from KFF Health News. However, Vought described his intentions in a Sept. 3 speech. He said that federal agencies and Congress had gained more power over spending since the 1970s and that their control became “woke and weaponized” under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
“Thankfully, President Trump won,” he said. “And we have now been embarked on deconstructing this administrative state.”
Many Parts, Many Malfunctions
Like a car, the federal budget process has many components that can break down. Through the OMB and its partner, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, the administration has intervened at various junctures. “There are so many ways in which money is not operating in the way it is supposed to operate,” said Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, and a former OMB adviser.
Typically, Congress passes a budget that appropriates money for the next fiscal year to federal agencies. For many public health programs, ranging from housing assistance to cancer screening, agencies then post open calls online for states, local governments, and organizations to apply for funding. Agency experts select winners and send notices of awards — or notices of ongoing funding to groups that previously won multiyear awards.
Next, the OMB, which administers the federal budget, activates money for agencies, like a bank activates a credit card, so that grantees can spend and get reimbursed rapidly. Auditors keep an eye on spending, but the government has in the past limited interruptions so that programs run smoothly.
Early on, the Trump administration canceled billions of dollars in awards granted in 2024 and early 2025 for research and global health. In March, it clawed back $11.4 billion in covid-era funds that Congress had earmarked for health departments that were using the money for disease surveillance, vaccinations, and more.
Although some funds have been restored because of lawsuits, the Supreme Court has allowed other cuts by the administration to stand while the cases move through the courts.
Beyond these “shotgun” cancellations, the administration has taken a quieter, “in-the-weeds, slowing, cutting, conditioning” approach that’s frozen funds for public health, said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor specializing in health policy at Emory University.
By August, the CDC’s center for HIV and tuberculosis prevention had doled out $167 million less than the historical average, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank focused on reducing inequality. The CDC’s funding for chronic disease prevention lagged by $259 million, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program had underspent by $105 million, and funds for mental health at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration were more than $860 million behind what was expected.
An unknown amount of Congress’ 2025 funding for research and public health has yet to be awarded and will probably lapse this year, said Joe Carlile, an author of the center’s analysis and an associate OMB director during the Biden administration. The obstructions appear to be concentrated in areas where the White House proposed cutting the federal budget next year. “The administration may be executing their 2026 budget request through administrative controls,” Carlile said.
“This is boring but crazy-high stakes,” he added. “A one-branch veto of spending neuters the power of the purse in the Constitution that Madison said was the fundamental check on the executive branch.”
Incremental Chaos
A key tactic Vought described in Project 2025 occurs when the OMB activates funds for agencies in installments, called apportionments. Vought wrote that “apportioned funding” could “ensure consistency with the President’s agenda.”
Under Vought, the OMB shrank the size of apportionments, HHS and CDC staffers said. It’s illegal for agencies to let grantees withdraw money before the total amount is in the metaphorical bank, so that delayed agencies’ ability to greenlight spending.
The OMB and DOGE also placed conditions on apportionments through memos, footnotes, and spoken directives telling agencies to ensure that spending “aligns with Administration priorities,” according to reports and HHS employees who said that notices of funding opportunities and awards required excessive layers of sign-off. The CDC and other agencies circulated lists of priorities that reflect White House stances, including those targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; immigration; and transgender rights. Public health efforts have been especially caught up in red tape, since many focus on populations bearing an unequal burden of death, disease, and injury.
Groups that rely on federal funds have largely been unaware of the reasons grants were held up, but they’ve fielded what they viewed as unsettling queries. For example, Kathy Garner, the head of a Mississippi nonprofit, said officials asked her to defend the exclusion of men from a program to shelter women who experienced domestic violence.
Delays were made worse by uncertainty. Grantees said they’ve been unable to reach program officers because tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off. Agency officials said firings slow funding further.
“Everyone’s inbox is full of letters from grant recipients asking, ‘How do we proceed?’” one high-ranking CDC official told KFF Health News, which granted agency officials anonymity because of their fears of retaliation. “We just say, ‘Please wait.’”
Time was critical as a measles outbreak surged in West Texas early this year. The state asked for federal funding for the response in March, but it didn’t arrive until May, after the outbreak had largely faded in Texas, according to an investigation by KFF Health News. Apportionment control was a key reason, CDC staffers said.
In July, 81 HIV organizations sent a letter to Kennedy. “With every day of delayed FY2025 funding release, the delivery of essential HIV services is compromised,” said the letter, which was reviewed by KFF Health News. Because of delays and uncertainty, it said, HIV clinics had laid off case managers and reduced clinician hours, closed sites, and pared down hotlines that patients call with urgent questions. The funds arrived about a month later, but HIV providers remain shaken.
Lauren Richey, medical director at University Medical Center’s HIV clinic in New Orleans, backed out of hiring a sorely needed dentist she had recruited. “I was afraid to tell someone to move across the country for a job when I wasn’t sure if or when we’d get the funding for their salary,” she said. “The wait is now three to four months for dental services, when it was usually a couple of weeks at most.”
Tamachia Davenport, program director at the St. John AIDS outreach ministry in New Orleans, said that “a lot of us are having to rob Peter to pay Paul.”
When the group didn’t get CDC funds it expected this summer, Davenport had to decide between cutting staff or supplies. Concerned her top employees would take jobs elsewhere, she stopped buying the condoms they distribute throughout the city to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections.
Louisiana already has one of the highest rates of HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea in the country. Condoms cost far less than treating these diseases. For a person infected by HIV at age 35, such costs exceed $326,000.
Groups focused on cancer, diabetes, and heart disease also report lasting repercussions from delays, as well as ongoing fears that they will happen again. Louisiana State University’s Healthy Aging Research Center canceled some of its workshops to train health workers on caring for people with dementia. “There may be fewer people who have this very specific expertise next year in Louisiana and Mississippi,” said Scott Wilks, the director of the center. “That’s on top of the big shortage we have already.”
Nationwide surveys tallying maternal and infant mortality froze for about five months because of funding delays, causing an irrecoverable gap in data that had been collected continuously since 1987, CDC officials say.
“We are seeing the administration get their way with or without an approved budget,” one said. “It’s such a terrible shame to play with people’s health this way.”
DOGE also inserted itself into grant reimbursements this year, stalling the rapid turnaround that public health groups typically expect to cover salaries, rent, and other monthly costs outlined in budgets that have already been approved. In what’s now labeled Departmental Efficiency Review, itemized expenses must be regularly justified by multiple government officials, according to documents reviewed by KFF Health News.
DOGE posted on its website expense reports covering about a month’s span from April to May. Nearly 230 of the individual expenses filed to federal agencies during that period are for $1 or less. Other entries break down monthly salaries for individual employees and petty costs for postage or monthly subscriptions.
“Public funds deserve scrutiny, but this is different from audit practices I’ve been a part of,” Carlile said.
DOGE also stalled calls for applications for 2025 funding — and some calls never appeared as the fiscal year came to a close on Sept. 30. Among them are programs for groups that provide housing assistance. People will be evicted when these organizations run out of money left over from 2024, said Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Other solicitations came out months behind schedule, leaving groups with a few weeks to put together complicated applications for multimillion-dollar awards, including for Alzheimer’s care, addiction recovery, senior support, and chronic disease management.
“They’ve set projects up to fail,” one HHS official said.
When President Donald Trump posted a satirical music video on social media in early October depicting his budget director, Russell Vought, as the Grim Reaper lording over Democrats in Congress, public health workers recognized a kernel of truth.
Vought has exerted extraordinary control over government spending this year, usurping congressional decisions on how the nation’s money is used. His push for more layoffs during the government shutdown is only the latest blow, following months of firings, canceled grants, and withheld funds.
By cutting and freezing public health funds, in particular, the Trump administration has already begun to undercut efforts to provide medical care, outbreak response, housing assistance, and research across the U.S., according to health officials, nonprofit directors, and federal agency staffers interviewed by KFF Health News.
Since most federal funds for public health flow to states, Vought is rivaling the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his ability to upend government-led efforts to keep Americans healthy. In Texas, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds to stem a measles outbreak weren’t available until after the crisis had subsided and two children had died. A project to protect Alabamans from raw sewage and hookworm was abandoned. People with HIV have had to delay medical care as clinics scale back hours. Time-dependent surveys on HIV and maternal mortality were halted. Food banks have canceled events. Tobacco prevention programs lapsed. Initiatives to protect older adults at risk of falling have been harried.
No matter what budget Congress ultimately passes for next year, the Trump administration may continue to thwart financial support for such programs in ways that will harm people’s health. “The White House has shown that they are willing to unilaterally exert control over funding,” said Gillian Metzger, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University.
“This is a huge deal,” she added, “because the power of the purse is central to Congress’ ability to shape and direct policy.”
Before he was appointed to lead the White House’s Office of Management and Budget this year, Vought outlined budgetary strategies the executive branch could deploy to wrest power from Congress and federal agencies in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative blueprint.
Vought’s tactics unfolded this year, often below the radar. They include abrupt grant cancellations, extraordinary constraints on how funds can be spent, and excessive layers of review, agency officials say, at every step in the grantmaking process. Getting money out the door has been further complicated by layoffs that have gutted offices overseeing grants on chronic disease prevention, HIV, maternal mortality, and more.
Government employees have described these tactics to members of Congress, said Abigail Tighe, executive director of the National Public Health Coalition, a group that includes current and former staffers at the CDC and HHS. “We want Congress to act, because this is preventing states and communities from doing critical public health work to keep our country safe,” she said. “If they don’t have capacity, we all collectively suffer.”
Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees have pushed for transparency, but the extent to which money Congress appropriated for public health in 2024 and 2025 has gone unspent because of the administration’s disruptions is not yet known. “This is a sophisticated strategy to cause money to lapse and then say, ‘If they can’t spend it, they don’t need it,’” said Robert Gordon, a public policy specialist at Georgetown University and a former assistant finance secretary at HHS.
“No one thought this was possible or legal, but that is what’s happening,” he said.
Details on how the administration has subverted health spending have received little attention because many changes have been made quietly — and people who rely on federal funds fear retribution. The Trump administration has defunded and threatened federal offices that hold the government accountable and fired whistleblowers. It has abruptly revoked funds for local governments and organizations.
Vought and spokespeople at the White House and the OMB did not respond to queries from KFF Health News. However, Vought described his intentions in a Sept. 3 speech. He said that federal agencies and Congress had gained more power over spending since the 1970s and that their control became “woke and weaponized” under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
“Thankfully, President Trump won,” he said. “And we have now been embarked on deconstructing this administrative state.”
Many Parts, Many Malfunctions
Like a car, the federal budget process has many components that can break down. Through the OMB and its partner, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, the administration has intervened at various junctures. “There are so many ways in which money is not operating in the way it is supposed to operate,” said Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, and a former OMB adviser.
Typically, Congress passes a budget that appropriates money for the next fiscal year to federal agencies. For many public health programs, ranging from housing assistance to cancer screening, agencies then post open calls online for states, local governments, and organizations to apply for funding. Agency experts select winners and send notices of awards — or notices of ongoing funding to groups that previously won multiyear awards.
Next, the OMB, which administers the federal budget, activates money for agencies, like a bank activates a credit card, so that grantees can spend and get reimbursed rapidly. Auditors keep an eye on spending, but the government has in the past limited interruptions so that programs run smoothly.
Early on, the Trump administration canceled billions of dollars in awards granted in 2024 and early 2025 for research and global health. In March, it clawed back $11.4 billion in covid-era funds that Congress had earmarked for health departments that were using the money for disease surveillance, vaccinations, and more.
Although some funds have been restored because of lawsuits, the Supreme Court has allowed other cuts by the administration to stand while the cases move through the courts.
Beyond these “shotgun” cancellations, the administration has taken a quieter, “in-the-weeds, slowing, cutting, conditioning” approach that’s frozen funds for public health, said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor specializing in health policy at Emory University.
By August, the CDC’s center for HIV and tuberculosis prevention had doled out $167 million less than the historical average, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank focused on reducing inequality. The CDC’s funding for chronic disease prevention lagged by $259 million, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program had underspent by $105 million, and funds for mental health at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration were more than $860 million behind what was expected.
An unknown amount of Congress’ 2025 funding for research and public health has yet to be awarded and will probably lapse this year, said Joe Carlile, an author of the center’s analysis and an associate OMB director during the Biden administration. The obstructions appear to be concentrated in areas where the White House proposed cutting the federal budget next year. “The administration may be executing their 2026 budget request through administrative controls,” Carlile said.
“This is boring but crazy-high stakes,” he added. “A one-branch veto of spending neuters the power of the purse in the Constitution that Madison said was the fundamental check on the executive branch.”
Incremental Chaos
A key tactic Vought described in Project 2025 occurs when the OMB activates funds for agencies in installments, called apportionments. Vought wrote that “apportioned funding” could “ensure consistency with the President’s agenda.”
Under Vought, the OMB shrank the size of apportionments, HHS and CDC staffers said. It’s illegal for agencies to let grantees withdraw money before the total amount is in the metaphorical bank, so that delayed agencies’ ability to greenlight spending.
The OMB and DOGE also placed conditions on apportionments through memos, footnotes, and spoken directives telling agencies to ensure that spending “aligns with Administration priorities,” according to reports and HHS employees who said that notices of funding opportunities and awards required excessive layers of sign-off. The CDC and other agencies circulated lists of priorities that reflect White House stances, including those targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; immigration; and transgender rights. Public health efforts have been especially caught up in red tape, since many focus on populations bearing an unequal burden of death, disease, and injury.
Groups that rely on federal funds have largely been unaware of the reasons grants were held up, but they’ve fielded what they viewed as unsettling queries. For example, Kathy Garner, the head of a Mississippi nonprofit, said officials asked her to defend the exclusion of men from a program to shelter women who experienced domestic violence.
Delays were made worse by uncertainty. Grantees said they’ve been unable to reach program officers because tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off. Agency officials said firings slow funding further.
“Everyone’s inbox is full of letters from grant recipients asking, ‘How do we proceed?’” one high-ranking CDC official told KFF Health News, which granted agency officials anonymity because of their fears of retaliation. “We just say, ‘Please wait.’”
Time was critical as a measles outbreak surged in West Texas early this year. The state asked for federal funding for the response in March, but it didn’t arrive until May, after the outbreak had largely faded in Texas, according to an investigation by KFF Health News. Apportionment control was a key reason, CDC staffers said.
In July, 81 HIV organizations sent a letter to Kennedy. “With every day of delayed FY2025 funding release, the delivery of essential HIV services is compromised,” said the letter, which was reviewed by KFF Health News. Because of delays and uncertainty, it said, HIV clinics had laid off case managers and reduced clinician hours, closed sites, and pared down hotlines that patients call with urgent questions. The funds arrived about a month later, but HIV providers remain shaken.
Lauren Richey, medical director at University Medical Center’s HIV clinic in New Orleans, backed out of hiring a sorely needed dentist she had recruited. “I was afraid to tell someone to move across the country for a job when I wasn’t sure if or when we’d get the funding for their salary,” she said. “The wait is now three to four months for dental services, when it was usually a couple of weeks at most.”
Tamachia Davenport, program director at the St. John AIDS outreach ministry in New Orleans, said that “a lot of us are having to rob Peter to pay Paul.”
When the group didn’t get CDC funds it expected this summer, Davenport had to decide between cutting staff or supplies. Concerned her top employees would take jobs elsewhere, she stopped buying the condoms they distribute throughout the city to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections.
Louisiana already has one of the highest rates of HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea in the country. Condoms cost far less than treating these diseases. For a person infected by HIV at age 35, such costs exceed $326,000.
Groups focused on cancer, diabetes, and heart disease also report lasting repercussions from delays, as well as ongoing fears that they will happen again. Louisiana State University’s Healthy Aging Research Center canceled some of its workshops to train health workers on caring for people with dementia. “There may be fewer people who have this very specific expertise next year in Louisiana and Mississippi,” said Scott Wilks, the director of the center. “That’s on top of the big shortage we have already.”
Nationwide surveys tallying maternal and infant mortality froze for about five months because of funding delays, causing an irrecoverable gap in data that had been collected continuously since 1987, CDC officials say.
“We are seeing the administration get their way with or without an approved budget,” one said. “It’s such a terrible shame to play with people’s health this way.”
DOGE also inserted itself into grant reimbursements this year, stalling the rapid turnaround that public health groups typically expect to cover salaries, rent, and other monthly costs outlined in budgets that have already been approved. In what’s now labeled Departmental Efficiency Review, itemized expenses must be regularly justified by multiple government officials, according to documents reviewed by KFF Health News.
DOGE posted on its website expense reports covering about a month’s span from April to May. Nearly 230 of the individual expenses filed to federal agencies during that period are for $1 or less. Other entries break down monthly salaries for individual employees and petty costs for postage or monthly subscriptions.
“Public funds deserve scrutiny, but this is different from audit practices I’ve been a part of,” Carlile said.
DOGE also stalled calls for applications for 2025 funding — and some calls never appeared as the fiscal year came to a close on Sept. 30. Among them are programs for groups that provide housing assistance. People will be evicted when these organizations run out of money left over from 2024, said Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Other solicitations came out months behind schedule, leaving groups with a few weeks to put together complicated applications for multimillion-dollar awards, including for Alzheimer’s care, addiction recovery, senior support, and chronic disease management.
“They’ve set projects up to fail,” one HHS official said.
