Connect with us

Politics

From Day 1, Trump Shows He’ll Test Limits of What He Can Get Away With

Published

on

From Day 1, Trump Shows He’ll Test Limits of What He Can Get Away With

His vice president, JD Vance, said he “obviously” wouldn’t do it.

His nominee for attorney general, Pam Bondi, agreed there was no way: “The president does not like people that abuse police officers,” she told senators last week.

The Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, gave similar assurances that President Trump would not pardon “violent criminals” — the kind who bashed police officers with pieces of broken furniture or stashed an arsenal of weapons in Virginia to be used if their breach of the Capitol failed on Jan. 6, 2021.

Even public opinion was against Mr. Trump. Just 34 percent of Americans thought he should pardon the Jan. 6 rioters, according to a Monmouth University poll in December.

But on Monday, the first day of the second Trump presidency, he tossed caution aside and did exactly what he wanted: He decreed that every rioter would get some sort of reprieve. It didn’t matter what crimes they committed; whether they were convicted of violent acts or even seditious conspiracy, they will all eventually be cleared. Hundreds of convicts got full pardons; 14 members of far-right groups accused of sedition had their sentences expunged; and all others with ongoing cases will eventually have their charges dismissed.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s decision to intervene in even the most violent cases sends an unmistakable message about his plans for power these next four years: He intends — even more so than in his first term — to test the outer limits of what he can get away with.

“These people have been destroyed,” Mr. Trump said of the Jan. 6 rioters, after issuing the pardons, sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office for the first time as the 47th president. “What they’ve done to these people is outrageous.”

Mr. Trump’s advisers and lawyers had spent months debating how far he should go in granting clemency to people prosecuted in connection with the Capitol riot. The White House counsel, David Warrington, presented Mr. Trump with options, some more expansive than others, according to two people briefed on the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive internal discussions.

Mr. Trump and his advisers had said during the campaign that he would approach the pardons on a case-by-case basis. It was an unspoken recognition that there were dangerous criminals within the group, but the vague formulation was also Mr. Trump’s way of keeping his options open.

He was still making up his mind over the weekend and into Monday, according to advisers. But by Sunday afternoon, people close to him had the impression that he was likely to go for a sweeping form of clemency. To have done anything less would have been an admission that there was something wrong with what his supporters did on Jan. 6, or that cause of overturning the 2020 election was somehow unjustified, or that anyone defending Mr. Trump’s view of the world had erred.

Advertisement

President Biden’s pre-emptive pardons for people who had investigated Mr. Trump’s role in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 assault only added to his desire to take the broadest approach possible, according to the two people with knowledge of his decision-making.

Sitting in the Capitol Rotunda awaiting Mr. Trump’s swearing-in on Monday, one senior member of Mr. Trump’s team said to others, “We can do it all now,” referring to Mr. Biden’s pardons.

The way Mr. Trump sees it, he didn’t only defeat the Democrats in the 2024 campaign; he also vanquished the remnants of Republican opposition, the mainstream media and a justice system that he saw as a force weaponized against him. He has occasionally claimed that the only retribution he wants in office is “success” for the country; but it’s clear from what he has said and done in his first 24 hours on the job that he also wants payback.

The pardons were among several Day 1 actions — some public, some less so — that revealed his plans to get even.

Mr. Trump revoked the Secret Service protection for John R. Bolton, his former national security adviser who fell out with him. Agents had guarded Mr. Bolton since 2021, after U.S. authorities learned of an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate him; a person was criminally charged with targeting him in 2022.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump also revoked Mr. Bolton’s security clearance and that of 49 former intelligence officials who signed a letter before the 2020 election claiming that a laptop belonging to Mr. Biden’s son Hunter appeared to be part of a Russian disinformation operation.

Another of Mr. Trump’s executive orders, lost within the blur of activity on Inauguration Day, suggests an even broader scope for retribution.

The order, titled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” has a preamble that asserts as fact that the Biden administration weaponized its prosecutorial powers in pursuing criminal investigations of Mr. Trump and his allies. The order instructs federal agencies, including the Justice Department and the intelligence community, to dig deep to demonstrate the alleged weaponization and then to send reports of the misconduct to the White House. The order sets up what will be, at a minimum, a name-and-shame exercise.

More likely, it will provide a road map for prosecutions.

The White House did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Advertisement

Mike Davis, a Republican lawyer and supporter of Mr. Trump who advocated pardons in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, said the president had learned a great deal about executive power over the past eight years. He said Mr. Trump will not be constrained by people who want to stymie him for what he sees as political reasons.

“This election was a referendum on Trump, on MAGA and on lawfare, and the American people rendered their verdict on Nov. 5,” Mr. Davis said. “He earned power, and now he’s going to use it, like Democrats.”

Mr. Davis was not worried about any backlash to the pardons. “He understands how to govern,” he said, adding that “he knows that public opinion can be changed.”

The Jan. 6 pardons culminated a four-year campaign to rewrite the history of the riot as a day in which Mr. Trump and his supporters were the righteous victims and those investigating their actions were the villains.

Advertisement

That wasn’t always Mr. Trump’s view — or at least not his publicly stated one. The day after the attack, he recorded a video in which he described the assault on the Capitol as “heinous,” adding, “to those who broke the law, you will pay.” This was the second video he released after the riot; his staff thought his first video was too sympathetic to the rioters and they persuaded him to tape another.

In the final days of his first term, Mr. Trump privately discussed the possibility of granting clemency to people involved in the riot. He dropped the idea, but within months of leaving office, Mr. Trump began reframing Jan. 6 as a patriotic day, “a day of love.”

He integrated the “J6 community” into his campaign as patriotic martyrs or, as he called them, “hostages.” Mr. Trump played at his rallies a version of “The Star-Spangled Banner” recorded by a choir of imprisoned Jan. 6 defendants. His nominee for F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, had the idea of turning it into a song, dubbed over with Mr. Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Trump still plays the recording on his patio at Mar-a-Lago, as guests stand and sing along, hands over hearts.

Daniel Hodges, one of the officers who was injured on Jan. 6 after being pinned in a doorway of the Capitol and crushed, said Mr. Trump’s whitewashing of Jan. 6 was necessary to preserve his supporters’ belief in their own goodness and patriotism.

“In a way he had to lean into it and say that these insurrectionists were patriots,” said Officer Hodges. If Mr. Trump didn’t elevate the rioters, “they would have to come to terms with the fact that they led an attack against the United States of America — and that’s very antithetical to their self-image.”

Advertisement

The speed with which the mammoth investigation of Jan. 6 collapsed astonished even those who had been mentally preparing for it. Within the space of an evening, not only were nearly 1,600 people granted clemency, but defendants were walking out of prison — among them Enrique Tarrio and Joseph Biggs, two leaders of the Proud Boys serving lengthy sentences for seditious conspiracy.

Ed Martin, Mr. Trump’s new interim U.S. attorney in Washington, was already moving to dismiss riot cases — including the trial of a former F.B.I. agent accused of confronting officers at the Capitol, calling them Nazis and encouraging a mob of Trump supporters to kill them. Mr. Martin sits on the board of the most prominent legal fund-raising group to help Jan. 6 defendants.

Mr. Trump has always favored a maximalist approach toward whatever he does, but he has sometimes stopped short when external constraints seem immovable. It’s unclear, now, how much is left in Washington to restrain him.

He has far more capacity to get what he wants than he did four years ago. He is more knowledgeable about the range of his presidential powers and is far more willing to test them in court. His order to terminate birthright citizenship was something he pushed his administration to do in his first term right up until his 2020 election, but his White House lawyers and his attorney general, William P. Barr, told him he did not have the authority to nullify a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

He now has a more favorable judiciary, which he transformed in his first term, and he has a far more compliant Republican leadership in Congress. Few G.O.P. lawmakers have been willing to say anything critical about Mr. Trump’s pardons of the rioters.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s team is also far less of a restraint on his impulses. His second term West Wing contains none of the type of first term aides who tried to talk him out of his most extreme ideas. In their place is a team of loyalists who may occasionally disagree on policy, but are true believers in his instincts, especially after his remarkable comeback.

His team has weeded out anybody they view as disloyal to Mr. Trump. Even people with no known history of opposition to Mr. Trump have been blacklisted because of their associations with Republicans he now views as disloyal. That group includes Republicans he hired in his first term such as Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo.

Many Trump aides have received subpoenas over the past four years, and some of his closest aides, including his aide Walt Nauta, have been indicted. These investigations further radicalized many of his advisers against what they pejoratively refer to as the “deep state.” Many of them are now joining him in his return to government for this second shot at power. They don’t plan to waste it.

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending