BOSTON — Democratic Gov. Maura Healey vows to reduce energy costs, improve health care, build more housing, fix the state’s transportation system, and push back against the Trump administration’s divisive policies.
Settling into her fourth year in office and seeking another term in the November elections, Healey used her State of the Commonwealth address on Thursday to tout her accomplishments and outline her priorities for 2026 and beyond.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO, JPMorganChase, speaks during the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, U.S. December 6, 2025.
Jonathan Alcorn | Reuters
President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to sue JPMorgan Chase over allegedly “debanking” him following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
“I’ll be suing JPMorgan Chase over the next two weeks for incorrectly and inappropriately DEBANKING me after the January 6th Protest, a protest that turned out to be correct for those doing the protesting,” Trump said in a social media post. “The Election was RIGGED!”
“While we won’t get specific about a client, we don’t close accounts because of political beliefs,” said JPMorgan spokesperson Trish Wexler. “We appreciate that this Administration has moved to address political debanking and we support those efforts.”
In August, Trump signed an executive order requiring banks to ensure they are not refusing financial services to clients based on religious or political beliefs, a practice known as “debanking.”
Trump claimed without evidence in an August CNBC interview that he was personally discriminated against by banks. He said JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America refused to take his deposits following his first term in office.
At the time, JPMorgan said it does not close accounts for political reasons, while Bank of America said it doesn’t comment on client matters. BofA also said it would welcome clearer rules from regulators on how to conduct its activities.
Trump and his family have a history of railing against financial institutions for allegedly refusing to work with them on the basis of their political orientation.
“So, [my family] got into crypto, not because it was like, ‘hey, this is the next cool thing,’ we got into it out of necessity,” Trump Jr. told CNBC in an interview last June.
JPMorgan shares are down about 5% over the past week, even after the bank on Tuesday topped expectations for its fourth-quarter earnings and revenue. The shares, and others in the banking sector, fell in response to Trump’s demand to cap credit card rates at 10%, giving financial firms until Jan. 20 to comply.
Trump’s legal threat against JPMorgan comes as the president, in the same Truth Social post, denied a Journal report on Wednesday that said the president had offered JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon the position of Federal Reserve chairman months ago during a meeting at the White House.
Dimon took the proposition as a joke, according to the Journal report.
In his post, Trump denied the report, underscoring his reservations about Dimon and JPMorgan.
“This statement is totally untrue, there was never such an offer,” he wrote. “Why wouldn’t The Wall Street Journal call me to ask whether or not such an offer was made? I would have very quickly told them, “NO,” and that would have been the end of the story.”
JPMorgan’s Wexler said the “offer” reported by the Journal was a miscommunication. “I should have been more vigilant in correcting that word while attempting to dispute the WSJ’s anonymous sources,” she said.
The Journal did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside of normal business hours.
President Donald Trump on Thursday said the United States should have considered testing NATO by forcing member countries to respond to America’s southern border crisis.
Trump speculated in a post on Truth Social that the U.S. could have invoked Article 5 — the alliance’s collective defense clause that deems an attack on one member as an attack on all — thereby putting NATO “to the test.”
“Maybe we should have put NATO to the test: Invoked Article 5, and forced NATO to come here and protect our Southern Border from further Invasions of Illegal Immigrants, thus freeing up large numbers of Border Patrol Agents for other tasks,” he wrote.
The president’s comments came after he has recently questioned NATO’s commitment to aiding the U.S.
US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte attend the start of a NATO leaders summit in The Hague, Netherlands June 25, 2025. (Ludovic Marin/Pool via Reuters)
“We will always be there for NATO, even if they won’t be there for us,” the president wrote on social media earlier this month.
After meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Trump announced that he had the “framework of a future deal regarding Greenland.”
Trump wrote on Truth Social that if finalized, the deal “will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations.”
President Donald Trump suggested the U.S. should have tested NATO’s commitment by invoking Article 5 in response to the southern border crisis.(Ludovic MARIN / POOL / AFP)
Following the meeting, Trump said he would scrap a plan to impose tariffs on a group of NATO members who sent troops to Greenland amid the president’s efforts to acquire the island. Trump had asserted that those countries would be subjected to a 10% tariff on all goods beginning Feb. 1.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News this week, Rutte said Trump was “totally right” about needing to shore up security in the Arctic region, noting that the chance of Russia or China becoming a threat in that region was increasing.
Rutte applauded Trump’s leadership in getting NATO countries to pay more money for the alliance’s defenses.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte praised President Trump’s leadership on defense spending.(Denis Balibouse/Reuters)
“I would argue tonight with you on this program he was the one who brought a whole of Europe and Canada up to this famous 5%,” Rutte said, “which is crucial for us to equalize our spending, but also protect ourselves. And this is the framework which you see in his post that we will work on.”
NATO members were previously spending 2% of GDP on defense, but have now agreed to spend 5% of GDP on defense and national security infrastructure.
President Trump said Thursday that Canada is no longer invited to join his international Board of Peace, following days of tension between the president and the United States’ northern neighbor.
The president announced the move in a message to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Truth Social, saying the Board of Peace “is withdrawing its invitation to you regarding Canada’s joining, what will be, the most prestigious Board of Leaders ever assembled, at any time.”
CBS News has reached out to the White House and Global Affairs Canada for clarification.
The decision came after Mr. Trump formally launched the Board of Peace at an event early Thursday in Davos, Switzerland. The board’s official mandate is to help oversee the Gaza Strip under an Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal brokered by the Trump administration last year, though Mr. Trump has hinted at broader ambitions, and exactly how it will operate remains unclear.
Representatives from more than a dozen countries — not including Canada — appeared at a signing ceremony for the board’s charter.
Carney told reporters last week that he agreed “in principle” to join the Board of Peace, but he noted that key details on how the board would work and how it would fund Gaza’s reconstruction remained unsettled. He also called “unimpeded aid flows” to Gaza a “precondition for moving forward.”
His government also ruled out paying to get a seat on the board. A U.S. official previously told CBS News that countries can contribute $1 billion to become permanent members of the Board of Peace rather than having a three-year membership, though payment was not required as a condition of joining. Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne told reporters earlier this week that “Canada is not going to pay if we were to join the Board of Peace.”
It’s not clear why Mr. Trump rescinded Canada’s invitation. But the U.S. leader has exchanged harsh words with Carney in recent days, adding to a monthslong dispute between the two neighboring countries over trade and Mr. Trump’s tariffs.
In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday, Carney warned that the world is “in the midst of a rupture.” He pointed to the growing use of “tariffs as leverage,” the decline of international institutions and the risk that “[i]f great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.”
Carney didn’t name-check Mr. Trump, but the speech was widely interpreted in part as a response to Mr. Trump’s approach to foreign policy, which has drawn scrutiny in recent days due to his push for the U.S. to take over Greenland.
A day later, in his own speech in Davos, Mr. Trump lashed out at Carney, accusing him of showing ingratitude toward the U.S. despite getting “a lot of freebies from us.”
“I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful. But they should be grateful to us,” the president said at one point. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”
Carney fired back on Thursday, saying: “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian.”
The difference between administrative and judicial warrants – CBS News
Watch CBS News
CBS News has obtained a memo telling ICE agents that they can forcefully enter a home without a judicial warrant in certain instances. CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson joins with analysis.
And I’m not just referring to the week’s crisis over Greenland and the future of the NATO alliance, a crisis which began and (sort of) ended with many words being uttered by Trump about his “psychological” need to own the vast and strategically located Danish territory. Consider, for example, Trump’s “Board of Peace,” which he débuted before leaving Davos on Thursday morning. In Trump 1.0, perhaps this would have been no more than one of his Twitter controversies, in which he posted some crazy graphic of himself leading a rump group of world powers to overthrow the United Nations as the new permanent chairman of the global board of directors. In Trump 2.0, his alternate reality is not just a social-media post or the subject of an over-my-dead-body fight with his latest panicked national security adviser but an in-person photo op featuring the President, a real-life logo copied from the U.N.’s, and a random assortment of world leaders who were willing to buy a seat on Trump’s committee for a cool billion dollars. (Belarus and Qatar, yes; Britain, France, Germany, and every other major U.S. ally in Europe, no.) I highly recommend watching the fully live-streamed event, a show one might caption “Donald Trump and his pretend League of (Lesser) Superheroes, with himself as a bizarro Superman in charge of the world.”
My favorite moment was when—after bragging about how “everybody wants to be a part of” the board that every other major world leader, with the possible exception of the war-mongering pariah Vladimir Putin, refused to join—he claimed that the group he himself had dreamed up was some distinguished independent organization that had solicited his chairmanship. “I was very honored when they asked me to do it,” he said. For all I know, he believed it.
Perhaps just as revealing, when Trump reached the fulsome self-praise section of his speech, he explained that he was such an incredible peacemaker that he had even managed to end wars in places where he had not known they were happening. Imagine admitting this about yourself. Another quote from “The Magic Mountain” sprang to mind: “I know I am talking nonsense, but I’d rather go rambling on. . . .”
A decade into the Trump era, Americans are more or less used to this manic political performance art, proof, if we still needed it, that millions of our fellow-citizens are all right with having a clearly disturbed leader who cannot control what he says. (Although, to be fair, even some partisan Republicans are starting to worry that they could pay a serious price this fall for what the G.O.P. strategist Karl Rove, no fan of Trump’s, called Trump’s unnerving“rambling appearances” and “downward spiral” in his latest Wall Street Journal column, headlined “Is Trump Trying to Lose the Midterms?”)
But the stunned reaction of so many Europeans to a week living in the full-on Trump talk cycle ought to remind us that there’s something to be said for the plainer interpretation of Trump’s out-of-control behavior, even if years of intensive exposure in the U.S. have inured us to it.
“This is a wake-up call, a bigger one than we’ve ever had,” Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, said.
“The time has come to stand up against Trump,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark and secretary-general of NATO, said.
It was only a few days before his speech in Davos, on the eve of his visit to Switzerland, that Trump was revealed to have sent a text to the Prime Minister of Norway, complaining that, because Norway had denied him the Nobel Peace Prize, he was under no obligation to proceed peacefully in his desire to take over Greenland. The message, surely a first in diplomatic annals, began: “Dear Jonas, Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”
Lars-Christian Brask, a deputy speaker of the Danish parliament, no doubt spoke for many in Europe when he responded to this evidence of Trump’s “mad and erratic behavior” by asking on television whether the President was still capable of running the United States.
What struck me was how calm, reasonable, and puzzled Brask’s tone was as he said it. But it’s going to be a long three more years; there’s almost certainly going to be a lot of shouting before this is all over. How many polite ways, after all, are there to ask whether the President of the United States has lost his mind? ♦
Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw two criminal investigations into President Trump during the Biden administration, testified publicly for the first time at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Scott MacFarlane has details.
At least three women with close ties to the White House are pregnant, including second lady Usha Vance, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Katie Miller, who is married to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
The Vances announced Tuesday that they are expecting their fourth child in July. The couple share three children together: Ewan, Vivek and Mirabel.
“Usha and the baby are doing well, and we are all looking forward to welcoming him in late July,” the Vances wrote in a statement shared on social media.
The Vances announced that they are expecting their fourth child in July. The couple share three children together: Ewan, Vivek and Mirabel. (Kenny Holston/Pool via Reuters)
“During this exciting and hectic time, we are particularly grateful for the military doctors who take excellent care of our family and for the staff members who do so much to ensure that we can serve the country while enjoying a wonderful life with our children,” they said.
The Vances have been married since 2014, and met while they were students at Yale Law School.
Leavitt announced Dec. 26, 2025, that she and her husband Nick were expecting their second child, who is due in May. Leavitt and her husband welcomed their first child, Niko, in July 2024.
Karoline Leavitt and her husband, Nick, are expecting a baby girl in May 2026.(Karoline Leavitt)
“My husband and I are thrilled to grow our family and can’t wait to watch our son become a big brother,” Leavitt told Fox News Digital. “My heart is overflowing with gratitude to God for the blessing of motherhood, which I truly believe is the closest thing to Heaven on Earth.”
Leavitt told Fox News Digital in December 2025 that she is “extremely grateful to President Trump and our amazing Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for their support, and for fostering a pro-family environment in the White House.”
“Nearly all of my West Wing colleagues have babies and young children, so we all really support one another as we tackle raising our families while working for the greatest president ever,” Leavitt said.
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, and his wife, Katie Miller, an aide for DOGE, attend the White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday, April 21, 2025.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Leavitt is the first press secretary to be pregnant, and is remaining press secretary, according to a senior White House official.
Likewise, Katie Miller, a conservative podcast host, and Stephen Miller shared a joint Instagram post Dec. 31, 2025, celebrating the new year and depicting Katie holding her baby bump. The couple shares three children: Mackenzie, Jackson and Hudson.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu skipped attendance at the 2026 World Economic Forum and Trump’s Board of Peace meeting at Davos. Why? He knew he wouldn’t make it past the airport.
The World Economic Forum held its 56th annual meeting from Jan. 19 to Jan. 23, 2026, at Davos, Switzerland. The five-day summit saw nearly 3,000 global leaders from over 130 countries, but not Benjamin Netanyahu. One would think he skipped it because of scheduling conflicts, domestic crises, or a sudden case of being too busy. But fear of arrest for alleged war crimes is not usually the reason that pops up in our minds. And yet, that is precisely why Netanyahu did not attend the meeting.
According to The New Arab, Netanyahu was concerned that he could be arrested under the International Criminal Court arrest warrant. The ICC issued warrant against him in Nov. 2024, over alleged war crimes in Gaza. And Switzerland is a signatory to the Rome Statute, meaning it is legally obligated to cooperate with ICC warrants. So, in Netanyahu’s place, Israeli President Isaac Herzog attended the forum.
Herzog used the platform to denounce the ICC warrants as “politically motivated” on Tuesday. It was diplomacy by proxy. He urged the ICC to end what he called “illegitimate sanctions” against Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. Herzog argued that the measures are preventing senior Israeli ministers from participating in global forums.
“It is unacceptable that shameful international politics – repeatedly weaponized against the State of Israel – are being used by international legal forums to prevent senior Israelis in the only democracy in the Middle East from attending the World Economic Forum summit in Davos.” (via The Jerusalem Post)
Herzog also insisted that Israel’s leaders and decision makers should be “welcomed everywhere, on every stage.” He claimed that Israel is “defending the entire free world against the Iranian regime’s empire of evil.” In that context, Herzog labeled the ICC warrants an outright “reward for terror.”
“Preventing Netanyahu, or, for that matter, former defense minister Gallant, from attending a global forum aiming to shape the future of the Middle East by such legal means is a reward for terror.”
Netanyahu also couldn’t join Trump’s Board of Peace meeting at Davos
A charter signing ceremony for Trump’s Board of Peace took place in Davos on Thursday, Jan. 22. Netanyahu, again, was not there. So Netanyahu accepted a seat on a peace board in theory, but he could not safely attend the physical signing of that board. And that is because of his actions that go against peace. And it’s not stone-pelting or something. He is charged with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. How very ironic. The contradiction just wrote itself.
Commentator Stephen A. Smith tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom for disparaging President Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, this week.
On Wednesday’s episode of Smith’s “Straight Shooter” podcast, the host asserted that while he has no problem with Newsom criticizing Trump while on American soil, slamming the president in a foreign country is a completely different story.
“I have no problem with Gavin Newsom being candid and open about his feelings about our president on United States soil. To go over to another country, Switzerland, to go over there and to be in the presence of other European leaders, speaking against the President of the United States — I’m not down with that,” Smith asserted.
Stephen A. Smith slammed Gov. Gavin Newsom for disparaging President Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland this week.(Paras Griffin/Getty Images; Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu)
Smith questioned why Newsom was in Switzerland “speaking negatively about the President of the United States” before playing a clip of the governor criticizing Trump.
The “Straight Shooter” host reiterated that he felt it was unacceptable for an elected U.S. official to come out in opposition to the president while speaking to foreign leaders outside the country.
“Say whatever you want here, as a governor from the opposite side of the aisle of a state in the United States, on American soil — fine. But I’m one of those people: when we go somewhere else, it’s America first,” Smith said.
While acknowledging that his argument may sound “very simplistic” to some, he argued that “some things are worthy of being simple.”
“I understand you trolling Trump. I understand that you’re aiming to run for the presidency in 2028, but we got problems here in the United States,” he contended. “And don’t tell me they don’t exist in California.”
Smith then pointed to issues impacting California like sanctuary status and affordability.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 20, 2026.(Fabrice Coffrini / AFP via Getty Images)
“I’ll be damned if affordability ain’t at the top of the list in the state of California! It’s expensive as hell! And a lot of it has happened on Gavin Newsom’s watch,” he railed.
Although critical of Newsom, Smith conceded that he likes the governor “as a person” and believes that the “number one impediment to his governing ability is his heart because he truly cares, and he wants to do right by everybody.”
He added that while he won’t call Newsom out of his name like others do, his decision to disparage Trump in front of the rest of the world was unacceptable.
“You going overseas to do that — that don’t cut the mustard. Can’t do that. I mean, you can, but it’s not good,” he argued. “I got a lot of problems with Donald Trump and a lot of problems with the decisions that he made. I’m not going on foreign soil to do it. I’m not going on a world stage to do it about him.”
Host Stephen A. Smith in conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at a SiriusXM town hall event at SiriusXM Studio on Nov. 19, 2025, in Washington, D.C.(Paul Morigi/Getty Images for SiriusXM)
Smith also pointed out that Newsom had been invited onto the show on “numerous occasions” but never accepted the invitation, calling out the governor for declining to do so.
“What the hell you running from me for? I just want to ask questions. I want to give you an opportunity to answer to the people of California and to the American people if you’re going to be a presidential candidate in 2028. Gavin Newsom not appearing on this show doesn’t stop me from talking about him and his record,” he said. “I don’t know all about his record. He does. And he has the platform here anytime he wants to make sure that the record is set straight.”
Fox News Digital has reached out to Newsom for comment, but did not immediately hear back.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the World Economic Forum (WEF) on January 21, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
On Tuesday, Newsom slammed foreign world leaders for “rolling over” when confronted by Trump, declaring he should have brought “kneepads” for foreign dignitaries attending the WEF.
“People are rolling over. I should have brought a bunch of kneepads for all the world leaders,” Newsom told reporters at the event. “It’s just pathetic.”
President Trump led a signing ceremony for the founding charter of his “Board of Peace” on Thursday in Davos, Switzerland, as questions lingered over the body’s operations and scope months after it was announced as part of the administration’s peace planfor Gaza.
The president hinted Thursday at wider ambitions for the board, beyond the war-torn Palestinian territory, and said repeatedly that the board would work with the United Nations, though he offered little detail.
“I think we can spread out to other things as we succeed with Gaza,” Mr. Trump said. “Once the board is formed we can do pretty much whatever we want to do … and we’re going to do it in conjunction with the United Nations.”
The board’s formation has faced headwinds from U.S. allies, many of which have yet to commit to participation.
Here’s what to know.
When was the Board of Peace created and why?
The Board of Peace was first announced in September as a key component of the Trump administration’s 20-point plan for long-term peace in Gaza and the broader Middle East. It was described in that plan as “a new international transitional body” that would “set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program … and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza.”
“This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment,” it said.
The White House said in a statement last week that the Board of Peace would play an essential role in fulfilling all 20 points of the peace plan, “providing strategic oversight, mobilizing international resources, and ensuring accountability as Gaza transitions from conflict to peace and development.”
Who is leading the Board of Peace and overseeing it?
The Board of Peace is chaired by President Trump, who can hold that position until he resigns from it, according to a U.S. official.
According to the White House, the Board of Peace has an appointed “founding Executive Board” comprised of:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio
U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff
President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner
Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair
Billionaire financier Marc Rowan
World Bank Group president Ajay Banga
National security adviser Robert Gabriel
The White House says a separate group called the “Gaza Executive Board” will “help support effective governance and the delivery of best-in-class services that advance peace, stability, and prosperity for the people of Gaza.” That group is comprised of:
U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff
President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner
Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan
Ali Al-Thawadi, strategic affairs minister in Qatari prime minister’s office
Egyptian intelligence chief General Hassan Rashad
Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair
Billionaire financier Marc Rowan
UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy
Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov
Israeli businessman Yakir Gabay
Sigrid Kaag, Dutch former deputy prime minister and ex-UN envoy
Senior advisers to the board who are tasked with leading day-to-day operations are listed as:
Aryeh Lightstone
Josh Gruenbaum
Who is invited to the Board of Peace?
CBS News confirmed that more than 50 countries were invited to join as of Jan. 21.
Among them is Russia, despite its continued assault on Ukraine and the Trump administration’s statement that the country poses such a threat to national security that the U.S. must acquire Greenland to counter it.
Mr. Trump said he sent an invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said his country was still consulting with Russia’s “strategic partners” before making a decision on whether to commit to the peace board, The Associated Press reported Thursday.
Belarus, which has provided material support to Russia during its invasion of Ukraine, was also invited and its president, Aleksandr Lukashenko, accepted.
It isn’t clear what criteria the White House is using to decide which countries are being invited to join.
Who has joined the Board of Peace and who has declined?
The White House shared a list of participants ahead of the charter signing ceremony on Thursday, saying that in addition to the U.S., the following nations were taking part:
Bahrain
Morocco
Argentina
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bulgaria
Egypt
Hungary
Indonesia
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kosovo
Mongolia
Pakistan
Paraguay
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Belgium, however, said Thursday it had not signed the charter.
“This announcement is incorrect,” Maxime Prévot, deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, said. “We wish for a common and coordinated European response. As many European countries, we have reservations to the proposal.”
Israel and Canada were among the nations that previously announced they were accepting Mr. Trump’s invitation to join, although they did not appear on the White House list on Thursday.
None of the U.S.’ European allies had signed onto the board as of Thursday, with many voicing concern over Mr. Trump’s invitations to Putin and Lukashenko.
Britain declined to sign onto the peace board for now, U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said.
“We won’t be one of the signatories today,” Cooper told the BBC Thursday. “Because this is about a legal treaty that raises much broader issues, and we do also have concerns about President Putin being part of something which is talking about peace, when we have still not seen any signs from Putin that there will be a commitment to peace in Ukraine.”
Norway and Sweden said Wednesday they were holding off, at least for now, due to concerns about the terms for joining.
A source familiar with the matter told CBS News earlier this week that France intended to decline due to concerns that the Board of Peace charter goes beyond the framework of Gaza and raises major issues, particularly regarding respect for the principles and structure of the United Nations.
In response, Mr. Trump said Monday night he would impose 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne if they did not join the Board of Peace. The White House has not responded to several inquiries as to whether or not the president was joking.
A French official said they have taken note of Mr. Trump’s statements and called the use of tariff threats to influence France’s foreign policy unacceptable and ineffective.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the board a work in progress, indicating an expectation by the Trump administration that membership would rise. “Many others who are going to join, you know, others either are not in town today or they have to go through some procedure internally in their own countries, in their own country, because of constitutional limitations, but others will join,” Rubio said in Davos on Thursday.
Is the Board of Peace intended to replace the United Nations?
President Trump said Thursday that the board would be committed to ensuring Gaza’s demilitarization, and hinted at wider ambitions for the group going forward.
He said the board would work “coupled with the United Nations” to create a “safer future for the world, unfolding before your eyes,” adding that the board would help to “end decades of suffering.”
The president also said the board can do “pretty much whatever we want to do” once it is formed, and that “we’re going to do it in conjunction with the United Nations.”
Earlier this week, Mr. Trump said the Board of Peace “might” replace the world’s primary global body.
“I mean, the U.N. just hasn’t been very helpful. I’m a big fan of the U.N. potential. But it has never lived up to its potential,” he said in a more than 90-minute press conference at the White House on Tuesday, Jan. 20.
But he added, “I believe you’ve got to let the U.N. continue because the potential is so great.”
In November, the United Nations passed a Security Council resolution that approved a “Board of Peace,” but with a focus limited only to Gaza.
The resolution welcomed the establishment of a Board of Peace “as a transitional administration with international legal personality” that would set the framework and coordinate funding for the redevelopment of Gaza.
The U.N. resolution more broadly endorsed the Trump administration’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, and authorized countries working with the Board of Peace to establish a stabilization force inside the Palestinian territory.
Is a financial contribution required to join?
A U.S. official confirmed a Bloomberg report that countries can contribute $1 billion to the Board of Peace to become permanent members instead of having a three-year membership. The official also said it isn’t a requirement to contribute to become a member.
The official told CBS News that any contributions will be used to rebuild Gaza and said “virtually every dollar” raised will be spent on the board’s mandate. There will be no “exorbitant salaries” or “administrative bloat,” the official said.
When it comes to financial disbursements and cash management, the board “will implement the highest financial controls and oversight mechanisms,” and funds will sit only in approved accounts at reputable banks, according to a U.S. official.
Republican lawmakers are poised to grill former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday at a congressional hearing that’s expected to focus fresh attention on two criminal investigations that shadowed Donald Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign.
Smith testified behind closed doors last month but returns to the House Judiciary Committee for a public hearing likely to divide along starkly partisan lines between Republican lawmakers looking to undermine the former Justice Department official and Democrats hoping to elicit new and damaging testimony about Trump’s conduct.
Smith will tell lawmakers that he stands behind his decision as special counsel to bring charges against Trump in separate cases accusing the Republican of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden and hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity,” Smith will say, according to a copy of his opening statement obtained by The Associated Press. “If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”
“No one should be above the law in our country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith will say.
The hearing is unfolding against the backdrop of an ongoing Trump administration retribution campaign targeting the investigators who scrutinized the Republican president. The Justice Department has fired lawyers and other employees who worked with Smith, and an independent watchdog agency responsible for enforcing a law against partisan political activity by federal employees said last summer that it had opened an investigation into him.
“In my opinion, these people are the best of public servants, our country owes them a debt of gratitude, and we are all less safe because many of these experienced and dedicated law enforcement professionals have been fired,” Smith said of the terminated members of his team.
Smith was appointed in 2022 by Biden’s Justice Department to oversee investigations into Trump. Both investigations produced indictments against Trump, but the cases were abandoned by Smith and his team after Trump won back the White House because of longstanding Justice Department legal opinions that say sitting presidents cannot be indicted.
The hearing will be led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who told reporters on Wednesday that he regards Smith’s investigations as the “culmination of that whole effort to stop President Trump from getting to the White House.”
“Tomorrow he’ll be there in a public setting so the country can see that this was no different than all the other lawfare weaponization of government going after President Trump,” Jordan said, advancing a frequent talking point from Trump, who pleaded not guilty in both cases and denied wrongdoing.
At the private deposition last month, Smith vigorously rejected Republican suggestions that his investigation was motivated by politics or was meant to derail Trump’s presidential candidacy. He said the evidence placed Trump’s actions squarely at the heart of a criminal conspiracy to undo the election he lost to Biden as well as the Jan. 6, 2021, riot by a mob of his supporters at the U.S. Capitol.
“The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy,” Smith said. “These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit.”
Smith is also expected to face questions about his team’s analysis of phone records belonging to more than half a dozen Republican members of Congress who were in touch with the president on the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021. The records contained data about the participants on the calls and how long they lasted but not their contents.
It is unlikely that Smith will share new information Thursday about his classified documents investigation. A report his team prepared on its findings remains sealed by order of a Trump-appointed judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, and Trump’s lawyers this week asked the court to permanently block its release.
Eric Tucker, Mary Clare Jalonick, Lisa Mascaro and Alanna Durkin Richer | The Associated Press
President Trump could start flying in a plane donated by Qatar as early as this summer, as the U.S. Air Force confirms it will deliver the refurbished jumbo jet for use as Air Force One within months.
“The Air Force remains committed to expediting delivery of the VC-25 bridge aircraft in support of the Presidential airlift mission, with an anticipated delivery no later than summer 2026,” an Air Force spokesperson said Wednesday, confirming a report by The Wall Street Journal.
The royal family of Qatar donated the Boeing 747-style plane for Mr. Trump’s use last spring. The plane could not enter service immediately, though, as the Pentagon needed to retrofit it to serve as Air Force One. It also needed to be checked for security and spying devices before it was accepted, a source told CBS News at the time.
The donated plane could take the place of two 35-year-old jets that currently serve as Air Force One. Mr. Trump has long pushed to replace the aging planes, but a project to replace them has faced delays, with delivery of two new planes currently set for 2027 and 2028.
The existing planes showed their age late Tuesday, when Air Force One turned around less than an hour after taking off for Switzerland due to a “minor electrical issue.” The president then switched to a smaller plane before flying across the Atlantic for the World Economic Forum.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt joked at one point during the ordeal that the Qatari jet sounded “much better.”
The donation has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats and watchdog groups, who have argued it poses ethics concerns for the president to accept a gift worth hundreds of millions of dollars from a foreign country. Some critics have also questioned the cost of retrofitting the donated plane.
“The fact that taxpayers are now funding a fifth Air Force One, originating from a foreign monarchy, is a staggering abuse of public trust, fiscal priorities, and national security interests,” said Virginia Canter, chief counsel for ethics and anti-corruption at Democracy Defenders Fund, a group run by an Obama-era ethics official that requested an investigation into the gift last year.
Mr. Trump has brushed off the concerns and defended his decision to accept the gift.
“If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they’re building the other ones, I think that was a very nice gesture,” Mr. Trump said last year. “Now I could be a stupid person and say, oh no, we don’t want a free plane.”
Tenacious D guitarist Kyle Gass is addressing the controversial joke he made about Donald Trump following the attempted assassination, and where he stands with bandmate Jack Black.
In a new interview, the musician and actor recalled the incident, which happened in 2024, and remained hopeful that he would reunite with Black on-stage.
“It’s like a marriage,” Gass said in an interview with Rolling Stone. “You go through these ups and downs, and try to understand your partner.”
He continued, “We will serve no D-wine before it’s D-time — but we will be back. We will return.”
Gass made a comment about Trump following the shooting incident back in July 2024 while Tenacious D was touring in Sydney. The guitarist said, “Don’t miss Trump next time,” and the backlash was swift, with the band canceling the rest of the tour.
Black would subsequently release a statement saying he was “blindsided” by the comment, saying in a statement, “I would never condone hate speech or encourage political violence in any form. After much reflection, I no longer feel it is appropriate to continue the Tenacious D tour, and all future creative plans are on hold. I am grateful to the fans for their support and understanding.”
Following the fallout, Gass says that he “hashed it out” with Black, but after making the quip, he says, “it was terrible judgment,” adding, “I’ve felt terrible ever since, because it’s such a responsibility to not screw up like that.”
“I wouldn’t wish it on anybody. It’s one of those things, once it was picked up, it just got worse and worse. It was a Defcon 2 for sure in the camp. And I did it,” Gass continued. “It was hard to take responsibility for it, but it was my fuck-up. When you’re in it, it’s hard to even think straight. It’s just this thing flooding and coming at you. We had to take the break. And I got it. Jack has this magnificent career; I can’t even count the franchises now. So as hard as it was, I just had to take the long ride home.”
After President Donald Trump announced a new Greenland “framework” had been agreed upon with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the NATO chief told Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier” the U.S. forcibly taking control of Greenland from Denmark was not discussed during meetings between him and Trump in Switzerland during the World Economic Forum.
“That issue did not come up anymore in my conversations with Mr. President. He’s very much focused on what we need to do to make sure that that huge Arctic region, where change is taking place at the moment, where the Chinese and Russians are more and more active, how we can protect that,” Rutte said when pressed on the details of the reported “framework” that has been agreed upon.
Trump said the agreement resulted in his decision not to impose tariffs scheduled to go into effect Feb. 1.
“That was really the focus of our discussions,” Rutte insisted.
NATO chief Mark Rutte says Europe never would have stepped up its defense spending without Trump. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)
Trump announced the new “framework” for Greenland in a post on his social media site Truth Social Wednesday afternoon while at the World Economic Forum this week.
“Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” the president wrote. “Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress.”
Trump noted that Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff will lead “the negotiations” and report directly to him.
People wave Greenlandic flags during a mass demonstration opposing President Donald Trump’s proposal to acquire Greenland in Nuuk, Greenland, Jan. 17, 2026.(Getty Images)
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that,” Trump said earlier in the morning at the World Economic Forum. “Now everyone’s saying, ‘Oh, good.’ That’s probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
During the exclusive interview with Fox News, Rutte called Trump “totally right” about needing to shore up security in the Arctic region, noting that the chance of Russia or China becoming a threat in that region is increasing every day. The NATO Secretary General also praised Trump’s leadership in getting other NATO countries to pay more money for the alliance’s defenses.
“I would argue tonight with you on this program he was the one who brought a whole of Europe and Canada up to this famous 5%,” Rutte insisted, “which is crucial for us to equalize our spending, but also protect ourselves. And this is the framework which you see in his post that we will work on.”
Rutte also noted that increased volatility between NATO-aligned countries, Russia and China underscored the need to shore up security in the Arctic region.
The NATO chief was asked whether he thought other countries were dealing with the Russians and the Chinese differently than they have in the past.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping (AP)
“It’s not up to me to comment on what individual allies are doing in terms of their relationship with China,” Rutte responded. “I think collectively, as NATO, we have a position. The position is that we should not be naive. I can tell you’ll regret these huge investments the Chinese are making in the military. They are not there to organize parades in Beijing, and the military in Russia are not there to organize parades in Moscow. They are there to be used.”
President Donald Trump said Thursday that proposed tariffs against European allies are off the table after what he described as a tentative agreement with NATO tied to Greenland and Arctic security.
Trump said there is now a “concept of a deal” following talks in Switzerland, easing trade tensions that flared after European countries pushed back on his interest in acquiring Greenland.
“I think it’s going to be a very good deal for the United States — also for them,” Trump said to CNBC.
The announcement came after the president said the United States would not use military force to take Greenland from Denmark. Instead, Trump said the focus has shifted to cooperation with allies on security concerns in the Arctic region.
“We’re going to work together on something having to do with the Arctic as a whole, but also Greenland — and it has to do with the security, great security, strong security, and other things,” Trump said.
NBC10 Boston political commentator Sue O’Connell weighs in on Greenland.
Earlier Thursday, the European Union said it would pause adoption of a U.S. trade deal reached last summer in response to Trump’s proposal to impose tariffs on a handful of EU countries opposed to U.S. ownership of Greenland.
“We took that off, because it looks like we have, pretty much, a concept of a deal,” he said. “It’s a little bit complex, but we’ll explain it down the line.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Alan Leventhal told NBC10 Boston he agrees with the president on security concerns in the Arctic, particularly as ice caps continue to melt.
“Minerals and resources on the seabed in the Arctic Ocean are going to open up,” Leventhal said.
However, he warned that pressuring allies could risk a broader trade conflict and send the wrong signal to adversaries like Russia and China as it pertains to taking over territory by force.
“I think the best path is to work with the Danes and the Greenlanders to achieve whatever we want on Greenland, short of owning Greenland,” Leventhal said.
Trump said the agreement would “last forever,” though he did not provide details. He also said owning Greenland would give the United States a greater incentive to defend it through his proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system.
A newly disclosed whistleblower complaint indicates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorized its officers to enter homes without judicial warrants in the cases of people with deportation orders, a sweeping reversal of longstanding rules.
Historically, ICE has told its officers that they could not rely on administrative immigration warrants — signed by officials at the agency, not judges — to enter people’s homes, due to constitutional protections against warrantless searches.
But a May 2025 memo disclosed Wednesday by two U.S. government whistleblowers gave ICE officers permission to use those administrative immigration warrants to enter residences by force to arrest unauthorized immigrants who had been ordered deported by an immigration judge or court.
The directive, signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, says, “Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.”
Lyons’ memo empowered ICE officers to use the “necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence” if the targets of operations do not allow them inside.
Before any forced entry, ICE officers should knock on the residence’s door and identify themselves. The memo also directed officers to conduct such operations targeting those with deportation orders after 6 a.m. and before 10 p.m.
Asked about the previously undisclosed directive, which was reported by The Associated Press earlier Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said those affected by the memo had been given “full due process and a final order of removal from an immigration judge.”
“The officers issuing these administrative warrants also have found probable cause,” McLaughlin argued in her statement. “For decades, the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement.”
The directive is likely to trigger legal challenges, as the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been long interpreted to largely prohibit searches and seizures without judicial warrants, including in the immigration context.
According to the whistleblower complaint, which was shared with Congress, Lyons’ memo has not been shared widely within the agency but has been used to train ICE officers.
“The whistleblowers assert that this is a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said Whistleblower Aid, the non-profit representing the whistleblowers. “This disclosure is particularly timely and relevant given recent news reports of ICE officers breaking into homes, including those of U.S. citizens, without a judicial warrant and forcibly removing the residents.”
A newly disclosed whistleblower complaint indicates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorized its officers to enter homes without judicial warrants in the cases of people with deportation orders, a sweeping reversal of longstanding rules.
Historically, ICE has told its officers that they could not rely on administrative immigration warrants — signed by officials at the agency, not judges — to enter people’s homes, due to constitutional protections against warrantless searches.
But a May 2025 memo disclosed Wednesday by two U.S. government whistleblowers gave ICE officers permission to use those administrative immigration warrants to enter residences by force to arrest unauthorized immigrants who had been ordered deported by an immigration judge or court.
The directive, signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, says, “Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.”
Lyons’ memo empowered ICE officers to use the “necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence” if the targets of operations do not allow them inside.
Before any forced entry, ICE officers should knock on the residence’s door and identify themselves. The memo also directed officers to conduct such operations targeting those with deportation orders after 6 a.m. and before 10 p.m.
Asked about the previously undisclosed directive, which was reported by The Associated Press earlier Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said those affected by the memo had been given “full due process and a final order of removal from an immigration judge.”
“The officers issuing these administrative warrants also have found probable cause,” McLaughlin argued in her statement. “For decades, the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement.”
The directive is likely to trigger legal challenges, as the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been long interpreted to largely prohibit searches and seizures without judicial warrants, including in the immigration context.
According to the whistleblower complaint, which was shared with Congress, Lyons’ memo has not been shared widely within the agency but has been used to train ICE officers.
“The whistleblowers assert that this is a flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said Whistleblower Aid, the non-profit representing the whistleblowers. “This disclosure is particularly timely and relevant given recent news reports of ICE officers breaking into homes, including those of U.S. citizens, without a judicial warrant and forcibly removing the residents.”
President Trump has made a series of claims about Greenland in recent weeks, insisting the United States needs to take control of the island to protect Americans — a view Greenland officials and NATO allies reject.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday, Mr. Trump called acquiring Greenland “a core national security interest of the United States of America,” reiterating his interest in acquiring the self-governing territory from Denmark.
Later Wednesday, following a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the president seemed to temper his language, saying that he and Rutte had reached “the framework of a future deal” regarding Greenland. The president did not provide details on the alleged deal.
As he’s sought to justify his efforts, Mr. Trump has claimed in interviews and conversations with world leaders that Denmark has no legal claim to Greenland. He’s also exaggerated threats from China and Russia, and falsely suggested Denmark provides almost no defense for the island.
Here’s a closer look at several of those claims.
Trump’s claim that Denmark has no legal right to Greenland
Mr. Trump wrote in a text exchange with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on Jan. 19: “Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.”
Details: In the text exchange with Støre, Mr. Trump questioned Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, writing there are “no written documents” establishing ownership.
The claim is false.
There are written agreements and court rulings establishing Denmark’s claim to Greenland, including a declaration by the U.S. secretary of state in 1916 which explicitly recognized Danish control over the territory. An international court also ruled in 1933 that Denmark held valid sovereignty over the entire island.
Danish explorers and settlers began colonizing Greenland in the early 1700s, at a time when the U.S. was still a British colony.
“Danish expeditions reached and settled Greenland centuries ago,” Marc Jacobsen, a professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, told CBS News in an email. “Since then, Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland has been internationally recognized, including by the U.S., just as similar claims are recognized for many other nations around the world.”
Trump’s claim that Russian and Chinese ships surround Greenland
Trump said in a press gaggle on Jan. 4: “Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.” (Press gaggle, January 4)
Mr. Trump said at a Jan. 9 press conference: “We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers. There are Chinese destroyers and bigger. There are Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not going to have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.”
Details: Trump has also repeatedly claimed that a large number of Russian and Chinese ships are currently operating near Greenland.
There is no evidence to support that claim.
Greenland’s minister of business Naaja Nathanielsen said she was “not aware” of any Russian and Chinese ships or submarines around Greenland when asked about Mr.Trump’s comments earlier this month.
Public ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic does not show any Russian- or Chinese-flagged commercial vessels around Greenland, with most traffic consisting of fishing boats. While vessels can turn off their transponders or spoof their locations, experts say there is no indication of the large-scale naval presence Mr. Trump has described.
Open-source data shows the maritime activity around Greenland on Jan. 19, 2026. Pink arrows represent fishing boats while green arrows represent cargo ships.
MarineTraffic.com
“The claim by President Trump of Russian and Chinese ships all over the place does not hold,” Romain Chuffart, the managing director of The Arctic Institute, a non-profit think tank, told CBS News by email.
Other experts have noted that Russian naval activity in the Arctic is concentrated near Norway, while China’s Arctic involvement has focused on trade with Russia and exercises near Alaska.
Trump’s claim that Denmark’s defenses in Greenland consist of “two dog sleds”
Mr. Trump told reporters on Jan. 11: “And Greenland basically, their defense is two dog sleds. Do you know that? You know what their defense is? Two dog sleds.”
Details: In jest or not, that is incorrect. While Danish special forces do operate the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol — a special force which patrols remote, icy areas using sled dogs — that is just one part of its military presence.
Denmark deploys Arctic patrol vessels, surveillance aircraft, and maintains a military base in Nuuk with about 150 personnel, according to the Danish Ministry of Defense.
Danish officials have also committed roughly $6.5 billion to modernize military capabilities in Greenland over the next decade, Chuffart said.
As for the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, the 12-person team uses dog sleds because it is “the most adequate mode of transportation in the region,” according to Chuffart.
The U.S. already operates an air base in Greenland and has the option to expand its presence under a 1951 agreement with Denmark. Danish officials have said they would welcome greater U.S. cooperation on security — but insist Greenland is not for sale.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee member Lauren Boebert. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Just two months ago, there was a “revolt” in Congress over the Trump administration’s efforts to bury the Epstein files. Once it became clear that a few House Republicans would support a discharge petition requiring the files’ release, Donald Trump himself flipped on the issue and ordered GOP lawmakers to do the same. Nearly all congressional Republicans voted for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which gave the Department of Justice 30 days to release all of the materials (with redactions of materials that might harm Epstein’s victims). Some observers thought it might be the beginning of the end of Trump’s iron grip on the Republican Party or even over his own MAGA movement, where the Epstein files have long been the object of powerful conspiracy theories.
That 30-day deadline has now come and gone, and only a small fraction of the Epstein files have seen the light of day. Indeed, as the Guardianreports, the slow-walking from Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice seems downright defiant:
Justice department attorneys said in a 5 January Manhattan court filing that they had posted approximately 12,285 to DoJ’s website, equating to some 125,575 pages, under this legislation’s requirements. They said in this same letter that justice department staff had identified “more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the Act that are in various phases of review”.
That these DoJ’s disclosures apparently comprise a drop in the bucket – and have done little to shed light on how Epstein operated with apparent impunity for years – has roiled survivors’ advocates and lawmakers.
The original House co-sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Democrat Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie, are so furious about the administration’s noncompliance that they have petitioned federal district court judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York to intervene and force an independent audit of the files and their release, arguing that the “DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.”
Meanwhile, most of Massie’s congressional Republican colleagues seem to be moving along to other matters having made their one gesture the passage of the law Team Trump is now refusing to implement. As Politico reports, the widespread indifference is typified by Colorado representative Lauren Boebert, one of the handful of House Republicans who joined Khanna and Massie and forced the issue to the House floor via a rare discharge petition:
“I don’t give a rip about Epstein,” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said last week when she was asked to take stock of the month since the Dec. 19 deadline.
“Like, there’s so many other things we need to be working on,” she added. “I’ve done what I had to do for Epstein. Talk to somebody else about that. It’s no longer in my hands.”
Even those Republicans who do “give a rip” about the Epstein files seem more interested in selectively than completely releasing them:
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who has worked with Democrats on a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation into the Epstein case, said in a recent interview she’s now more more focused on holding Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for not honoring the panel’s subpoena to testify about Epstein.
Many of the photos released by the DOJ so far feature the former president consorting with Epstein, and the administration has sought to portray Bill Clinton as the real pariah, not Trump.
This is entirely contrary to the law that Representative Anna Paulina Luna and 215 other House Republicans voted to impose on the DOJ in an atmosphere of great self-righteousness. Luna told Politico the original deadline for release of the files wasn’t “realistic,” which does make you wonder why she voted for it just two months ago. Once viewed as a demonstration of the legislative branch’s last-ditch willingness to show just a little bit of independence from Team Trump, the Epstein files saga is now showing that only the judicial branch and perhaps midterm voters can exercise effective oversight of this lawless administration.
