Connect with us

News

House Republicans move closer to rare move of impeaching DHS Secretary Mayorkas | CNN Politics

Published

on

House Republicans move closer to rare move of impeaching DHS Secretary Mayorkas | CNN Politics

Story highlights

Republicans have been investigating DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ handling of the border.

GOP lawmakers are planning to do a whip check this week on whether to impeach Mayorkas.

Some legal scholars have poured cold water on the GOP’s legal arguments.



CNN
 — 

Advertisement

House Republicans will hold a markup of their impeachment articles against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday, moving closer to taking the rare step of impeaching a Cabinet official.

The House Homeland Security Committee will mark up its resolution claiming Mayorkas has committed high crimes and misdemeanors for his handling of the southern border, even though a number of constitutional experts have said the evidence does not reach that high bar.

The controversial move would make Mayorkas the first Cabinet secretary to be impeached in nearly 150 years.

The impeachment effort comes as House Republicans have faced building pressure from their base to hold the Biden administration accountable on a key campaign issue: the border.

While Republicans have been investigating Mayorkas’ handling of the border since they reclaimed the House majority, their impeachment inquiry has moved swiftly in the new year. House Speaker Mike Johnson has promised to move the articles of impeachment against Mayorkas to the floor quickly, and has signaled he will reject a bipartisan deal being negotiated in the Senate that would address border policies.

Advertisement

While senior House Republicans are confident they have the support to impeach the DHS secretary, they can lose only two votes given their narrow majority. Republicans are planning a whip check this week to take the temperature of the conference, a GOP source told CNN.

House GOP Whip Tom Emmer told CNN ahead of the markup that he is counting votes, but added: “We are going to have to pass that. I mean, it’s pretty egregious what he’s done.”

House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green of Tennessee has been meeting with some of the remaining GOP holdouts, such as Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, and has issued a number of memos on Mayorkas in recent weeks, according to GOP sources. Green presented his case to senior Republicans during a closed-door meeting Monday night, telling CNN afterward that “nobody had any questions or dissent.”

In a sign of growing momentum for the effort, GOP swing district Rep. Don Bacon said he will vote to impeach Mayorkas. But Washington Rep. Dan Newhouse, another moderate House Republican lawmaker, was less definitive.

“I want to hear all of the arguments for it. I understand that there is quite a groundswell of support for it, and I want to just understand it totally,” Newhouse said.

Advertisement

Ahead of the markup, Green outlined his case for why Mayorkas should be impeached.

“These articles lay out a clear, compelling, and irrefutable case for Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ impeachment,” Green said in a statement provided to CNN. “He has willfully and systemically refused to comply with immigration laws enacted by Congress. He has breached the public trust by knowingly making false statements to Congress and the American people, and obstructing congressional oversight of his department.”

Green argued Mayorkas’ “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” amounts to the impeachable offenses of high crimes and misdemeanors. Green claimed Mayorkas has “willfully exceeded” his parole authority, “refused to comply” with detention mandates, and lied for saying that DHS has “operational control” over the border. He cited Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who said Congress could “employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare,” including impeachment, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that states could not challenge federal immigration law.

But a variety of legal scholars have poured cold water on the legal arguments Republicans are using to support their impeachment effort.

Ross Garber, a Tulane law professor who has represented many Republican officeholders as both the prosecution and defense in impeachment cases, told CNN that House Republicans have not presented evidence of impeachable offenses.

Advertisement

“I think that what the House Republicans are asserting is that Secretary Mayorkas is guilty of maladministration,” Ross said. “At least as framed right now, the charges don’t rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.”

Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served under Republican President George W. Bush, wrote in a recent op-ed, “as a former federal judge, U.S. attorney and assistant attorney general — I can say with confidence that, for all the investigating that the House Committee on Homeland Security has done, they have failed to put forth evidence that meets the bar.”

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, who has been called by Republicans to serve as a witness in hearings, said, “There is no current evidence he is corrupt or committed an impeachable offense,” and 25 law professors wrote in an open letter that impeaching Mayorkas would be “utterly unjustified as a matter of constitutional law.”

Despite outside voices, a growing number of House Republicans, including House GOP leadership, support impeaching Mayorkas.

Even if Mayorkas were impeached, it is highly unlikely that he will be charged in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Advertisement

Mayorkas sent a letter to Green ahead of Tuesday’s markup, detailing how he came into a career in public service and defending his record.

“My reverence for law enforcement was instilled in me by my parents, who brought me to this country to escape the Communist takeover of Cuba and allow me the freedoms and opportunity that our democracy provides,” Mayorkas said.

Mayorkas wrote that “the problems with our broken and outdated immigration system are not new” and called on Congress to help provide a legislative solution to the “historically divisive issue.” He praised the bipartisan group of senators he has worked with for its willingness to put their differences aside to try to find solutions at the border.

The Department of Homeland Security has also blasted House Republicans over its upcoming committee vote, calling it a “farce” and “distraction from other vital national security priorities.”

In a memo, DHS slammed the impeachment inquiry, arguing that there are no high crimes or misdemeanors, that the probe was “predetermined from the start,” and that the process is “cynical and hypocritical.”

Advertisement

In response to Republicans blaming Mayorkas for the uptick in border crossings, the DHS memo states, “This Administration has removed, returned, or expelled more migrants in three years than the prior Administration did in four years.”

Addressing the claim that Mayorkas has failed to maintain operational control over the border, DHS said that based on the way the law defines operational control, “no administration has ever had operational control.”

Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee have repeatedly bashed their Republican colleagues for their efforts to impeach Mayorkas. Ahead of Tuesday’s markup, Democrats released a report calling the GOP effort “a sham.”

“What is glaringly missing from these articles is any real charge or even a shred of evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors – the Constitutional standard for impeachment,” Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement in response to the Mayorkas impeachment articles.

Momentum to plot a swift impeachment of the Cabinet secretary picked up steam this month as key swing-district Republicans expressed fresh openness to the idea amid a recent surge of migrant crossings at the southern border.

Advertisement

The focus on Mayorkas amounts to a shift for the House GOP, which had set its sights on potentially impeaching President Joe Biden in early 2024. But with the Biden probe moving methodically and a number of Republicans still skeptical about impeaching the president, senior Republicans now believe targeting Mayorkas will be an easier lift as the border crisis becomes a defining campaign issue.

Instead of formally launching an impeachment inquiry with a House floor vote, the effort has been unilaterally run through the Homeland Security Committee as opposed to the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment articles typically originate, though it is not constitutionally required.

“When a committee chair doesn’t vote for regular order, it’s a huge disservice to the institution,” House Financial Services Chairman Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican, said of how the Mayorkas impeachment process unfolded.

In the investigative phase, Homeland Security Committee Republicans held 10 hearings, published five interim reports, and conducted 11 transcribed interviews with current and former Border Patrol agents. But since launching the inquiry, the GOP-led panel has held only two hearings and has decided to move forward with impeachment articles without giving the secretary an opportunity to testify.

Republicans invited Mayorkas to testify at an impeachment hearing on January 18. But the DHS secretary said he was hosting Mexican Cabinet members to discuss border enforcement, and he asked to work with the committee on scheduling a different date, according to a letter obtained by CNN.

Advertisement

Green said his committee has given Mayorkas “chance after chance to appear,” but Mayorkas wrote that he has testified before Congress more than any other Biden Cabinet official, noting that seven of those times were in front of Green’s committee.

“Whatever proceedings you initiate, however baseless, my responsiveness to oversight requests will not waiver,” Mayorkas said.

CNN’s Melanie Zanona and Priscillia Alvarez contributed to this report.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending