Tag: democratic lawmaker

Republicans reject complaint about Tulsi Gabbard as Democrats question time it took to see it

[ad_1]

The Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees have rejected a top-secret complaint from an anonymous government insider alleging that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard withheld classified information for political reasons.The responses this week from Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Rick Crawford mean the complaint is unlikely to proceed further, though Democratic lawmakers who also have seen the document said they continue to question why it took Gabbard’s office eight months to refer the complaint to Congress as required by law.Gabbard’s office has rejected any allegations of wrongdoing as well as criticism of the timeframe for the referral, saying the complaint included so many classified details that it necessitated an extensive legal and security review. Select lawmakers were able to view the complaint this week.Cotton wrote Thursday on X that he agreed with an earlier inspector general’s conclusion that the complaint did not appear to be credible. He said he believes the complaint was prompted by political opposition to Gabbard and the Trump administration.“To be frank, it seems like just another effort by the president’s critics in and out of government to undermine policies that they don’t like,” wrote the Arkansas Republican, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.When asked about the complaint, Cotton’s office referred to his social media post.Crawford, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, also of Arkansas, said he believes the complaint was an attempt to smear Gabbard’s reputation.Democrats are pushing for explanations about why it took Gabbard’s office months to refer the complaint to the required members of Congress. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the law requires such a report to be sent within 21 days.“The law is clear,” Warner said Thursday at the Capitol. “I think it was an effort to try to bury this whistleblower complaint.”Warner said he also still has questions about the details of the complaint, noting that it was heavily redacted.The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, said in a written statement that he will keep looking into the matter.In a memo sent to lawmakers this week, the intelligence community’s inspector general said the complaint also accused Gabbard’s office of general counsel of failing to report a potential crime to the Department of Justice. The memo, which contains redactions, does not offer further details of either allegation.Last June, then-inspector general Tamara Johnson found that the claim Gabbard distributed classified information along political lines did not appear to be credible, according to the current watchdog, Christopher Fox. Johnson was “unable to assess the apparent credibility” of the accusation about the general counsel’s office, Fox wrote in the memo.Fox said he would have deemed the complaint non-urgent, unlike the previous inspector general, but respected the decision of his predecessor and therefore sent it to lawmakers.Copies of the top-secret complaint were hand-delivered this week to the “Gang of Eight” — a group comprised of the House and Senate leaders from both parties as well as the four top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees.Andrew Bakaj, the attorney for the person who made the complaint, has said that while he cannot discuss the details of the report or the identity of its author, there is no justification for keeping it from Congress since last spring.A former CIA officer and now the chief legal counsel at Whistleblower Aid, Bakaj said he has heard significant redactions were made to the complaint before it was given to members of Congress.“Given the extensive redactions we understand exist, even in the version provided to the Gang of Eight, it seems unlikely anyone could reasonably and in a non-partisan manner reach the conclusions issued by Sen. Cotton,” Bakaj wrote in a statement to The Associated Press.Gabbard coordinates the work of the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies. She has recently drawn attention for another matter — appearing on site last week when the FBI served a search warrant on election offices in Georgia that are central to Trump’s disproven claims about fraud in the 2020 election.

WASHINGTON —

The Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees have rejected a top-secret complaint from an anonymous government insider alleging that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard withheld classified information for political reasons.

The responses this week from Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Rick Crawford mean the complaint is unlikely to proceed further, though Democratic lawmakers who also have seen the document said they continue to question why it took Gabbard’s office eight months to refer the complaint to Congress as required by law.

Gabbard’s office has rejected any allegations of wrongdoing as well as criticism of the timeframe for the referral, saying the complaint included so many classified details that it necessitated an extensive legal and security review. Select lawmakers were able to view the complaint this week.

Cotton wrote Thursday on X that he agreed with an earlier inspector general’s conclusion that the complaint did not appear to be credible. He said he believes the complaint was prompted by political opposition to Gabbard and the Trump administration.

“To be frank, it seems like just another effort by the president’s critics in and out of government to undermine policies that they don’t like,” wrote the Arkansas Republican, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

When asked about the complaint, Cotton’s office referred to his social media post.

Crawford, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, also of Arkansas, said he believes the complaint was an attempt to smear Gabbard’s reputation.

Democrats are pushing for explanations about why it took Gabbard’s office months to refer the complaint to the required members of Congress. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the law requires such a report to be sent within 21 days.

“The law is clear,” Warner said Thursday at the Capitol. “I think it was an effort to try to bury this whistleblower complaint.”

Warner said he also still has questions about the details of the complaint, noting that it was heavily redacted.

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, said in a written statement that he will keep looking into the matter.

In a memo sent to lawmakers this week, the intelligence community’s inspector general said the complaint also accused Gabbard’s office of general counsel of failing to report a potential crime to the Department of Justice. The memo, which contains redactions, does not offer further details of either allegation.

Last June, then-inspector general Tamara Johnson found that the claim Gabbard distributed classified information along political lines did not appear to be credible, according to the current watchdog, Christopher Fox. Johnson was “unable to assess the apparent credibility” of the accusation about the general counsel’s office, Fox wrote in the memo.

Fox said he would have deemed the complaint non-urgent, unlike the previous inspector general, but respected the decision of his predecessor and therefore sent it to lawmakers.

Copies of the top-secret complaint were hand-delivered this week to the “Gang of Eight” — a group comprised of the House and Senate leaders from both parties as well as the four top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Andrew Bakaj, the attorney for the person who made the complaint, has said that while he cannot discuss the details of the report or the identity of its author, there is no justification for keeping it from Congress since last spring.

A former CIA officer and now the chief legal counsel at Whistleblower Aid, Bakaj said he has heard significant redactions were made to the complaint before it was given to members of Congress.

“Given the extensive redactions we understand exist, even in the version provided to the Gang of Eight, it seems unlikely anyone could reasonably and in a non-partisan manner reach the conclusions issued by Sen. Cotton,” Bakaj wrote in a statement to The Associated Press.

Gabbard coordinates the work of the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies. She has recently drawn attention for another matter — appearing on site last week when the FBI served a search warrant on election offices in Georgia that are central to Trump’s disproven claims about fraud in the 2020 election.

[ad_2]

Source link

February 5, 2026
‘Abolish ICE’ messaging is back. Is it any more likely this time?

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON — “Abolish ICE.”

Democratic lawmakers and candidates for office around the country increasingly are returning to the phrase, popularized during the first Trump administration, as they react to this administration’s forceful immigration enforcement tactics.

The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent this month in Minneapolis sparked immediate outrage among Democratic officials, who proposed a variety of oversight demands — including abolishing the agency — to rein in tactics they view as hostile and sometimes illegal.

Resurrecting the slogan is perhaps the riskiest approach. Republicans pounced on the opportunity to paint Democrats, especially those in vulnerable seats, as extremists.

An anti-ICE activist in an inflatable costume stands next to a person with a sign during a protest near Legacy Emanuel Hospital on Jan. 10 in Portland, Ore. The demonstration follows the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis as well as the shooting of two individuals in Portland on Jan. 8 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)

“If their response is to dust off ‘defund ICE,’ we’re happy to take that fight any day of the week,” said Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. The group has published dozens of press statements in recent weeks accusing Democrats of wanting to abolish ICE — even those who haven’t made direct statements using the phrase.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) amplified that message Wednesday, writing on social media that “When Democrats say they want to abolish or defund ICE, what they are really saying is they want to go back to the open borders policies of the Biden administration. The American people soundly rejected that idea in the 2024 election.”

The next day, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced the “Abolish ICE Act,” stating that Good’s killing “proved that ICE is out of control and beyond reform.” The bill would rescind the agency’s “unobligated” funding and redirect other assets to its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

Many Democrats calling for an outright elimination of ICE come from the party’s progressive wing. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a television interview the agency should be abolished because actions taken by its agents are “racist” and “rogue.” Jack Schlossberg, who is running for a House seat in New York, said that “if Trump’s ICE is shooting and kidnapping people, then abolish it.”

Other prominent progressives have stopped short of saying the agency should be dismantled.

A pair of protesters set up signs memorializing people who have been arrested by ICE, or have died in detention, at a rally in front of the Federal Building in Los Angeles on Friday.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Sen. Alex Padilla, (D-Calif.) who last year was forcefully handcuffed and removed from a news conference hosted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, joined a protest in Washington to demand justice for Good, saying “It’s time to get ICE and CBP out,” referring to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

“This is a moment where all of us have to be forceful to ensure that we are pushing back on what is an agency right now that is out of control,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said on social media. “We have to be loud and clear that ICE is not welcome in our communities.”

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said Democrats seeking to abolish ICE “want to go back to the open borders policies of the Biden administration.”

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Others have eyed negotiations over the yearly Homeland Security budget as a leverage point to incorporate their demands, such as requiring federal agents to remove their masks and to turn on their body-worn cameras when on duty, as well as calling for agents who commit crimes on the job to be prosecuted. Seventy House Democrats, including at least 13 from California, backed a measure to impeach Noem.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Diego), who serves on the House Committee on Appropriations, said his focus is not on eliminating the agency, which he believes has an “important responsibility” but has been led astray by Noem.

He said Noem should be held to account for her actions through congressional oversight hearings, not impeachment — at least not while Republicans would be in control of the proceedings, since he believes House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) would make a “mockery” of them.

“I am going to use the appropriations process,” Levin said, adding that he would “continue to focus on the guardrails, regardless of the rhetoric.”

Chuck Rocha, a Democratic political strategist, said Republicans seized on the abolitionist rhetoric as a scare tactic to distract from the rising cost of living, which remains another top voter concern.

“They hope to distract [voters] by saying, ‘Sure, we’re going to get better on the economy — but these Democrats are still crazy,’” he said.

Dozens of Angelenos and D.C.-area organizers, along with local activists, rally in front of the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on Friday. Democrats have for years struggled to put forward a unified vision on immigration — one of the top issues that won President Trump a return to the White House.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Democrats have for years struggled to put forward a unified vision on immigration — one of the top issues that won President Trump a return to the White House. Any deal to increase guardrails on Homeland Security faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Congress, leaving many proposals years away from the possibility of fruition. Even if Democrats manage to block the yearly funding bill, the agency still has tens of billions of dollars from Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Still, the roving raids, violent clashes with protesters and detentions and deaths of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike increased the urgency many lawmakers feel to do something.

Two centrist groups released memos last week written by former Homeland Security officials under the Biden administration urging Democrats to avoid the polarizing language and instead channel their outrage into specific reforms.

“Every call to abolish ICE risks squandering one of the clearest opportunities in years to secure meaningful reform of immigration enforcement — while handing Republicans exactly the fight they want,” wrote the authors of one memo, from the Washington-based think tank Third Way.

“Advocating for abolishing ICE is tantamount to advocating for stopping enforcement of all of our immigration laws in the interior of the United States — a policy position that is both wrong on the merits and at odds with the American public on the issue,” wrote Blas Nuñez-Neto, a senior policy fellow at the new think tank the Searchlight Institute who previously was assistant Homeland Security secretary.

Roughly 46% of Americans said they support the idea of abolishing ICE, while 43% are opposed, according to a YouGov/Economist poll released last week.

Sarah Pierce, a former policy analyst at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who co-wrote the Third Way memo, said future polls might show less support for abolishing the agency, particularly if the question is framed as a choice among options including reforms such as banning agents from wearing masks or requiring use of body cameras.

“There’s no doubt there will be further tragedies and with each, the effort to take an extreme position like abolishing ICE increases,” she said.

Laura Hernandez, executive director of Freedom for Immigrants, a California-based organization that advocates for the closure of detention centers, said the increase in lawmakers calling to abolish ICE is long overdue.

“We need lawmakers to use their power to stop militarized raids, to close detention centers and we need them to shut down ICE and CBP,” she said. “This violence that people are seeing on television is not new, it’s literally built into the DNA of DHS.”

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced the “Abolish ICE Act.”

(Paul Sancya / Associated Press)

Cinthya Martinez, a UC Santa Cruz professor who has studied the movement to abolish ICE, noted that it stems from the movement to abolish prisons. The abolition part, she said, is watered down by mainstream politicians even as some liken immigration agents to modern-day slave patrols.

Martinez said the goal is about more than simply getting rid of one agency or redirecting its duties to another. She pointed out that alongside ICE agents have been Border Patrol, FBI and ATF agents.

“A lot of folks forget that prison abolition is to completely abolish carceral systems. It comes from a Black tradition that says prison is a continuation of slavery,” she said.

But Peter Markowitz, a law professor and co-director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Cardozo School of Law, said the movement to abolish ICE around 2018 among mainstream politicians was always about having effective and humane immigration enforcement, not about having none.

“But it fizzled because it didn’t have an answer to the policy question that follows: If not ICE, then what?” he said. “I hope we’re in a different position today.”

[ad_2]

Andrea Castillo, Ana Ceballos

Source link

January 18, 2026
Top military lawyer told chairman that officers should retire if faced with an unlawful order

[ad_1]

How should a military commander respond if they determine they have received an unlawful order?Request to retire — and refrain from resigning in protest, which could be seen as a political act, or picking a fight to get fired.That was the previously unreported guidance that Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar, the top lawyer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave to the country’s top general, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, in November, according to sources familiar with the discussion.Related video above: US military strikes on drug boats in Latin America spark legal concernsCaine had just seen a video that included six Democratic lawmakers publicly urging U.S. troops to disobey illegal orders. He asked Widmar, according to the sources, what the latest guidance was on how to determine whether an order was lawful and how a commander should reply if it is not.Widmar responded that they should consult with their legal adviser if they’re unsure, the sources said. But ultimately, if they determine that an order is illegal, they should consider requesting retirement.The guidance sheds new light on how top military officials are thinking about an issue that has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, as lawmakers and legal experts have repeatedly questioned the legality of the U.S. military’s counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean — including intense scrutiny of a “double-tap” strike that deliberately killed survivors on Sept. 2.Caine is not in the chain of command. But he is closely involved in operations, including those in SOUTHCOM, and is often tasked with presenting military options to the president—more so than Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CNN has reported.The Joint Staff declined to comment for this story.Several senior officers who reportedly expressed concerns about the boat strikes, including former U.S. Southern Command commander Adm. Alvin Holsey and Lt. Gen. Joe McGee, the former director for Strategy, Plans, and Policy on the Joint Staff, have retired early in recent months.Widmar’s advice to Caine was meant to help inform the chairman’s discussions with senior military officials should the issue come up, the sources said. The Democrats’ video had become headline news, enraging Hegseth and sparking debates across the country.A separate official familiar with military legal advice said that it is not uncommon for lawyers to urge servicemembers to consider leaving the force if they believe they’re being asked to do something they are personally uncomfortable with, but it’s typically handled on a case-by-case basis and tailored to the facts of the situation.Other current and former U.S. officials, however, including those who have served as military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, stressed that broadly encouraging servicemembers to quietly retire — if they’re eligible — rather than voice dissent in the face of a potentially illegal order risks perpetuating a culture of silence and lack of accountability.”A commissioned officer has every right to say, ‘this is wrong,’ and shouldn’t be expected to quietly and silently walk away just because they’re given a free pass to do so,” said a former senior defense official who left the Pentagon earlier this year.More than a dozen senior officers have either been fired or retired early since Trump took office in January, an unusually high rate of turnover. In a speech before hundreds of general and flag officers in September, Hegseth directed officers to “do the honorable thing and resign” if they didn’t agree with his vision for the department.But disagreeing with the direction of the military is different than viewing an order as illegal, legal experts said.Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former JAG lawyer, said that the guidance, as described by CNN, appears to “misunderstand what a servicemember is supposed to do in the face of an unlawful order: disobey it if confident that the order is unlawful and attempt to persuade the order-giver to stop or modify it have failed, and report it through the chain of command.”Maurer added that “if the guidance does not explicitly advise servicemembers that they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the guidance is not a legitimate statement of professional military ethics and the law.”Widmar advised that an order may be unlawful if it is “patently illegal,” or something an ordinary person would recognize instinctively as a violation of domestic or international law, the sources said — the My Lai massacre in Vietnam is an oft-used example. But the guidance he provided was that an unlawful order should be met with retirement, if possible, and did not note that servicemembers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the sources said.”It’s a very safe recommendation in this current political environment,” said the former senior defense official. “But that doesn’t make it the right or ethical one.”Experts on civil-military relations have previously pointed to retirement as a reasonable option for officers who object to a particular policy, while noting that it comes with its own costs.In a September article that has been discussed amongst the Joint Staff and other senior military officials, Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University, and Heidi Urben, a former Army intelligence officer and current associate director of Georgetown University’s security studies program, wrote that “quiet quitting,” or opting for retirement “allows officers with professionally grounded objections to leave without posing a direct challenge to civilian control.”But while officers shouldn’t resign in protest or pick fights, they argued, they should “speak up” and “show moral courage” when the military’s professional values and ideals are at risk.And they should be willing to be fired for it. “Complete silence can be corrosive to good order and discipline and signal to the force that the military’s professional values and norms are expendable,” they wrote.Maurer, the former Army officer, said the advice to retire in the face of an unlawful order also functions to “keep that person silent in perpetuity, because as a retiree he or she remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes a broad range of conduct and speech that would be constitutionally protected for regular civilians.”Those constraints have been apparent as the Pentagon has launched an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and one of the Democratic lawmakers seen in the video encouraging troops to disobey unlawful orders, which prompted Caine to seek legal advice.As questions continue to swirl around the legality of the boat strike campaign, Widmar also advised Caine that Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority to authorize lethal force to protect the nation, unless hostilities rise to the level of a full-blown war, in which case Congressional approval is required, the sources said.Whether the president’s orders are legal to begin with, Widmar advised according to the sources, is a question only the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel can answer, due to the executive order Trump issued in February that says the president and the attorney general’s “opinions on questions of law are controlling” on all executive branch employees — to include U.S. troops.The Office of Legal Counsel determined in September that it is legal for Trump to order strikes on suspected drug boats because they pose an imminent threat to the United States, CNN has reported.Since Sept. 2, the U.S. military has killed at least 99 people across dozens of strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, arguing that those targeted were “narcoterrorists” who pose a direct threat to the United States. The Trump administration has also not provided public evidence of the presence of narcotics on the boats struck, nor their affiliation with drug cartels.Lawmakers have said that Pentagon officials have acknowledged in private briefings not knowing the identities of everyone on board a vessel before striking it; instead, military officials only need to confirm that the individuals are affiliated with a cartel or criminal organization to target them.Some members of Congress, legal experts and human rights groups have argued that potential drug traffickers are civilians who should not be summarily killed but arrested —something the Coast Guard did routinely, and continues to do in the eastern Pacific, when encountering a suspected drug trafficking vessel.CNN’s Haley Britzky contributed to this report.

How should a military commander respond if they determine they have received an unlawful order?

Request to retire — and refrain from resigning in protest, which could be seen as a political act, or picking a fight to get fired.

That was the previously unreported guidance that Brig. Gen. Eric Widmar, the top lawyer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave to the country’s top general, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, in November, according to sources familiar with the discussion.

Related video above: US military strikes on drug boats in Latin America spark legal concerns

Caine had just seen a video that included six Democratic lawmakers publicly urging U.S. troops to disobey illegal orders. He asked Widmar, according to the sources, what the latest guidance was on how to determine whether an order was lawful and how a commander should reply if it is not.

Widmar responded that they should consult with their legal adviser if they’re unsure, the sources said. But ultimately, if they determine that an order is illegal, they should consider requesting retirement.

The guidance sheds new light on how top military officials are thinking about an issue that has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, as lawmakers and legal experts have repeatedly questioned the legality of the U.S. military’s counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean — including intense scrutiny of a “double-tap” strike that deliberately killed survivors on Sept. 2.

Caine is not in the chain of command. But he is closely involved in operations, including those in SOUTHCOM, and is often tasked with presenting military options to the president—more so than Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CNN has reported.

The Joint Staff declined to comment for this story.

Several senior officers who reportedly expressed concerns about the boat strikes, including former U.S. Southern Command commander Adm. Alvin Holsey and Lt. Gen. Joe McGee, the former director for Strategy, Plans, and Policy on the Joint Staff, have retired early in recent months.

Widmar’s advice to Caine was meant to help inform the chairman’s discussions with senior military officials should the issue come up, the sources said. The Democrats’ video had become headline news, enraging Hegseth and sparking debates across the country.

A separate official familiar with military legal advice said that it is not uncommon for lawyers to urge servicemembers to consider leaving the force if they believe they’re being asked to do something they are personally uncomfortable with, but it’s typically handled on a case-by-case basis and tailored to the facts of the situation.

Other current and former U.S. officials, however, including those who have served as military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, stressed that broadly encouraging servicemembers to quietly retire — if they’re eligible — rather than voice dissent in the face of a potentially illegal order risks perpetuating a culture of silence and lack of accountability.

“A commissioned officer has every right to say, ‘this is wrong,’ and shouldn’t be expected to quietly and silently walk away just because they’re given a free pass to do so,” said a former senior defense official who left the Pentagon earlier this year.

More than a dozen senior officers have either been fired or retired early since Trump took office in January, an unusually high rate of turnover. In a speech before hundreds of general and flag officers in September, Hegseth directed officers to “do the honorable thing and resign” if they didn’t agree with his vision for the department.

But disagreeing with the direction of the military is different than viewing an order as illegal, legal experts said.

Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former JAG lawyer, said that the guidance, as described by CNN, appears to “misunderstand what a servicemember is supposed to do in the face of an unlawful order: disobey it if confident that the order is unlawful and attempt to persuade the order-giver to stop or modify it have failed, and report it through the chain of command.”

Maurer added that “if the guidance does not explicitly advise servicemembers that they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the guidance is not a legitimate statement of professional military ethics and the law.”

Widmar advised that an order may be unlawful if it is “patently illegal,” or something an ordinary person would recognize instinctively as a violation of domestic or international law, the sources said — the My Lai massacre in Vietnam is an oft-used example. But the guidance he provided was that an unlawful order should be met with retirement, if possible, and did not note that servicemembers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the sources said.

“It’s a very safe recommendation in this current political environment,” said the former senior defense official. “But that doesn’t make it the right or ethical one.”

Experts on civil-military relations have previously pointed to retirement as a reasonable option for officers who object to a particular policy, while noting that it comes with its own costs.

In a September article that has been discussed amongst the Joint Staff and other senior military officials, Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University, and Heidi Urben, a former Army intelligence officer and current associate director of Georgetown University’s security studies program, wrote that “quiet quitting,” or opting for retirement “allows officers with professionally grounded objections to leave without posing a direct challenge to civilian control.”

But while officers shouldn’t resign in protest or pick fights, they argued, they should “speak up” and “show moral courage” when the military’s professional values and ideals are at risk.

And they should be willing to be fired for it. “Complete silence can be corrosive to good order and discipline and signal to the force that the military’s professional values and norms are expendable,” they wrote.

Maurer, the former Army officer, said the advice to retire in the face of an unlawful order also functions to “keep that person silent in perpetuity, because as a retiree he or she remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes a broad range of conduct and speech that would be constitutionally protected for regular civilians.”

Those constraints have been apparent as the Pentagon has launched an investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and one of the Democratic lawmakers seen in the video encouraging troops to disobey unlawful orders, which prompted Caine to seek legal advice.

As questions continue to swirl around the legality of the boat strike campaign, Widmar also advised Caine that Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority to authorize lethal force to protect the nation, unless hostilities rise to the level of a full-blown war, in which case Congressional approval is required, the sources said.

Whether the president’s orders are legal to begin with, Widmar advised according to the sources, is a question only the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel can answer, due to the executive order Trump issued in February that says the president and the attorney general’s “opinions on questions of law are controlling” on all executive branch employees — to include U.S. troops.

The Office of Legal Counsel determined in September that it is legal for Trump to order strikes on suspected drug boats because they pose an imminent threat to the United States, CNN has reported.

Since Sept. 2, the U.S. military has killed at least 99 people across dozens of strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, arguing that those targeted were “narcoterrorists” who pose a direct threat to the United States. The Trump administration has also not provided public evidence of the presence of narcotics on the boats struck, nor their affiliation with drug cartels.

Lawmakers have said that Pentagon officials have acknowledged in private briefings not knowing the identities of everyone on board a vessel before striking it; instead, military officials only need to confirm that the individuals are affiliated with a cartel or criminal organization to target them.

Some members of Congress, legal experts and human rights groups have argued that potential drug traffickers are civilians who should not be summarily killed but arrested —something the Coast Guard did routinely, and continues to do in the eastern Pacific, when encountering a suspected drug trafficking vessel.

CNN’s Haley Britzky contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

December 20, 2025
FBI investigates video urging US troops to defy illegal orders

[ad_1]

A video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” has led to the FBI requesting interviews with the Democratic lawmakers involved, indicating an investigation may be underway. The lawmakers did not mention specific reasons for their comments in the clip, but it comes after the Trump administration ordered the military to blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, accusing them of smuggling drugs into the U.S., and the deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities.All six of the Democratic lawmakers in the video have served in the military or intelligence community.In the video, lawmakers said they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our Constitution.” The Pentagon said Monday it was reviewing Senator Mark Kelly, who is in the video, for violating military law. President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said it is “punishable by death.”Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of six Democrats in the video, told reporters Tuesday this is a scare tactic by the president. The FBI declined to comment, but Director Kash Patel described the situation in an interview as an “ongoing matter.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

WASHINGTON —

A video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” has led to the FBI requesting interviews with the Democratic lawmakers involved, indicating an investigation may be underway.

The lawmakers did not mention specific reasons for their comments in the clip, but it comes after the Trump administration ordered the military to blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, accusing them of smuggling drugs into the U.S., and the deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities.

All six of the Democratic lawmakers in the video have served in the military or intelligence community.

In the video, lawmakers said they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our Constitution.”

The Pentagon said Monday it was reviewing Senator Mark Kelly, who is in the video, for violating military law. President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said it is “punishable by death.”

Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of six Democrats in the video, told reporters Tuesday this is a scare tactic by the president.

The FBI declined to comment, but Director Kash Patel described the situation in an interview as an “ongoing matter.”

Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

[ad_2]

Source link

November 26, 2025
Trump calls Democrats ‘traitors’ for urging military to ‘refuse illegal orders’

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday said he believed Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged active service members to “refuse illegal orders” amounted to seditious behavior, which he said should be punishable by death.

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump said in a social media post.

Trump went on to amplify more than a dozen social media posts from other people, who in reaction to Trump’s post called for the Democrats to be arrested, charged and in one instance hanged. Trump then continued: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The president’s remarks were in reaction to a joint video released by six Democrat lawmakers in which they urged military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”

The Democratic lawmakers who released the video — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Sen. Alyssa Slotkin, Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Deluzio, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow — served in the military or as intelligence officers.

They did not specify which orders they were referring to. But they said the Trump administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professional against American citizens” and that threats to the Constitution were coming “from right here at home.”

The video, which was posted on Tuesday, quickly drew criticism from Republicans, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who characterized it as “Stage 4 [Trump Derangement Syndrome].” But Trump, who first reacted to the video on Thursday, saw the video as more than partisan speech.

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” Trump said in another post.

When asked Thursday if the president wanted to execute members of Congress, as suggested in one of his social media posts, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said “no.”

But, Leavitt said, the president does want to see them be “held accountable.”

“That is a very, very dangerous message and it is perhaps punishable by law,” Leavitt said. “I’ll leave that to the Department of justice and the Department of War to decide.”

What the law says

Under a federal law known as “seditious conspiracy,” it is a crime for two or more individuals to “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States” or to “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force.

A seditious conspiracy charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Federal courts and legal scholars have long emphasized that seditious conspiracy charges apply only to coordinated efforts to use force against the government, rather than political dissent.

The last time federal prosecutors pursued seditious conspiracy charges was in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges for plotting to prevent by force the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden.

Among the convicted individuals was former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, whose 22-year sentence was the stiffest of any of the Jan. 6 rioters. Trump pardoned him earlier this year.

Hours after the president’s posts, the six Democratic lawmakers issued a joint statement, calling on Americans to “unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence.”

“What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” the lawmakers said in a statement posted to X. “Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders.”

Democratic leaders in Washington and across the country denounced Trump’s post.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement with other Democratic leaders that Trump’s comments were “disgusting and dangerous death threats against members of Congress.” They added that they had been in contact with U.S. Capitol Police to ensure the safety of the Democrat lawmakers and their families.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to the posts by saying Trump “is sick in the head” for calling for the death of Democratic lawmakers.

[ad_2]

Ana Ceballos

Source link

November 20, 2025
Gov. Newsom issues executive order aimed at lowering electric bills

[ad_1]

With Californians angry about their skyrocketing electric bills, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order on Wednesday aimed at giving them some relief.

The governor’s order directs the state Public Utilities and Energy commissions to find ways to try to lower power bills in the future, or at the minimum to stop them from rising so quickly.

Among the actions he asks for is a closer review of how utilities are spending money to stop transmission lines from sparking wildfires. State officials say those wildfire mitigation costs now make up about 13% of customers’ monthly electric bills.

“We’re taking action to address rising electricity costs and save consumers money on their bills,” Newsom said. “California is proving that we can address affordability concerns as we continue our world-leading efforts to combat the climate crisis.”

The governor issued the executive order days before Tuesday’s election, in which kitchen-table economics is a top concern.

California now has the second-highest electric rates in the country after Hawaii. Residential customer bills have risen by as much as 110% in the last decade.

In just the past three years, bills for customers of the three biggest for-profit utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric — have increased by 20% to 50%. Those most recent rate increases were reviewed and approved by Newsom appointees at the state public utilities commission.

The executive order is just one of Newsom’s recent moves aimed at reducing soaring energy costs. In August, he and Democratic lawmakers released a suite of energy-related bills just days before the legislative session ended. That same month the governor ordered lawmakers to return to Sacramento for a special session to debate a bill that would require oil refineries to increase gasoline reserves in an attempt to prevent price spikes at the pump.

The governor’s staff say Newsom is committed to the state’s ambitious climate goals, which include having 100% clean electricity by 2045. But he has become concerned as electric rates have risen to cover the cost of the state’s fast construction of solar farms and other renewable power, they say.

Newsom’s executive order asks his administration to look for “underperforming or underutilized programs” that are paid for by electric customers that could be ended. It says any unused money in those programs should be returned to customers.

In addition, the order asks the state’s Air Resources Board to determine how the California Climate Credit could be increased. Most Californians’ get the credit twice a year on their electric and gas bills. The credit is funded by the state’s cap-and-trade program, which attempts to reduce harmful emissions.

The order also directs the state Public Utilities Commission to pursue all federal funding opportunities that could reduce electric costs.

An early plan by Newsom’s office for the executive order that was reviewed by The Times asked the public utilities commission to look into alternative ways of financing the building of electrical lines and other infrastructure. Currently, building infrastructure is a key way for utilities to boost their profits because they bill the cost back to ratepayers over many years, tacking on annual interest that is typically 10.5%.

Consumer groups say that lowering this rate could result in significant savings for customers.

The governor’s executive order released Wednesday didn’t include that provision. His staff said the directive to find other ways of financing infrastructure wasn’t included in the executive order because it would require legislative statutes to be changed.

In August, Newsom backed away from an earlier plan he had to lower the infrastructure interest rate after criticism from the big utilities and electrical workers’ union, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee.

[ad_2]

Melody Petersen

Source link

October 30, 2024
Newsom signs formal apology for California’s role in slavery

[ad_1]

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a formal apology for California’s role in slavery and legacy of racism against Black people as part of a series of reparations bills he approved Thursday.

“The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” Newsom said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past — and making amends for the harms caused.”

Though California banned slavery in its 1849 Constitution, the state had no laws that made it a crime to keep someone enslaved or require that they be freed, which allowed slavery to continue. A disproportionate representation of white Southerners with pro-slavery views also held office in the Legislature, state court system and in its congressional delegation.

Assembly Bill 3089, which requires the state to issue a formal apology, also mandates that the California install a plaque memorializing the apology in the state Capitol. Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who introduced the bill, called it a “monumental achievement.”

“Healing can only begin with an apology,” Jones-Sawyer said in a statement. “The State of California acknowledges its past actions and is taking this bold step to correct them, recognizing its role in hindering the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for Black individuals through racially motivated punitive laws.”

Despite the bill signings, advocates for reparations have criticized the governor and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on its “first in the nation” effort to study, propose and adopt remedies to atone for slavery that began in 2020.

After a state task force spent two years developing recommendations for the Legislature, the California Legislative Black Caucus announced a package of priority bills in January focused largely on enacting policy changes in education, healthcare and criminal justice, while omitting cash payments in light of the state’s financial troubles.

Advocates for reparations have criticized Newsom and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on the issue.

(Laurel Rosenhall / Los Angeles Times)

Newsom also signed bills to provide new oversight of book bans in California prisons, require that grocery stores and pharmacies give written notice at least 45 days before closing, expand a state law prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyle to include youth sports and to try to increase and track participation in career training education among Black and low-income students, among other legislation.

But the governor took heat when the Legislature refused to take up other bills for a vote that would have created a California American Freedmen Affairs Agency and established a Fund for Reparations and Reparative Justice to pay for and carry out reparations policies approved by lawmakers.

A day before signing the legislation issuing a formal apology, Newsom vetoed two other reparations bills. One sought to begin the process of reversing racially motivated land and property seizures under the Freedman Affairs agency that lawmakers declined to approve. The other would have expanded Medi-Cal coverage, pending federal approval, to include benefits for medically supported food and nutrition.

“This bill would result in significant and ongoing general fund costs for the Medi-Cal program that are not included in the budget,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement.

[ad_2]

Taryn Luna

Source link

September 26, 2024