Connect with us

Politics

How a Phone Call Drew Alito Into a Trump Loyalty Squabble

Published

on

How a Phone Call Drew Alito Into a Trump Loyalty Squabble

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. received a call on his cellphone Tuesday. It was President-elect Donald J. Trump, calling from Florida.

Hours later, Mr. Trump’s legal team would ask Justice Alito and his eight colleagues on the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a pornographic film actress before the 2016 election. And the next day, the existence of the call would leak to ABC News — prompting an uproar about Mr. Trump’s talking to a justice before whom he would have business with substantial political and legal consequences.

Justice Alito said in a statement on Wednesday that the pending filing never came up in his conversation with Mr. Trump and that he was not aware, at the time of the call, that the Trump team planned to file it. People familiar with the call confirmed his account.

But the fact of the call and its timing flouted any regard for even the appearance of a conflict of interest at a time when the Supreme Court has come under intense scrutiny over the justices’ refusal to adopt a more rigorous and enforceable ethics code.

The circumstances were extraordinary for another reason: Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

Advertisement

The phone call centered on William Levi, a former law clerk of Justice Alito’s who seemingly has impeccable conservative legal credentials. But in the eyes of the Trump team, Mr. Levi has a black mark against his name. In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

Mr. Levi has been under consideration for several jobs in the new administration, including Pentagon general counsel. He has also been working for the Trump transition on issues related to the Justice Department. But his bid for a permanent position has been stymied by Mr. Trump’s advisers who are vetting personnel for loyalty, according to three of the people with knowledge of the situation.

As Mr. Trump puts together his second administration, Mr. Barr is among a handful of prominent Republicans who are viewed with such suspicion that others associated with them are presumptively not to be given jobs in the administration, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Republicans in that category include Mr. Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and his former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. To be called a “Pompeo guy” or a “Haley person” is considered a kiss of death in Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Resistance to such people can usually be overcome only if Mr. Trump himself signs off on their hiring.

Tuesday’s phone call took place against that backdrop. Several people close to the Trump transition team on Thursday said their understanding was that Justice Alito had requested the call. But a statement from Justice Alito framed the matter as the justice passively agreeing to take a call at the behest of his former clerk.

The disconnect appeared to stem from Mr. Levi’s role in laying the groundwork for the call in both directions. It was not clear whether someone on the transition team had suggested he propose the call.

Advertisement

Mr. Levi did not respond to a request for comment. The Supreme Court press office said it had nothing to add to the statement it put out from Justice Alito on Wednesday. In that statement, Justice Alito said that Mr. Levi “asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

He added: “We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed. We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”

During the call, according to multiple people briefed on it, Mr. Trump initially seemed confused about why he was talking to Justice Alito, seemingly thinking that he was returning Justice Alito’s call. The justice, two of the people said, told the president-elect that he understood that Mr. Trump wanted to talk about Mr. Levi, and Mr. Trump then got on track and the two discussed him.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.

While it is unusual for an incoming president to speak with a Supreme Court justice about a job reference, it is routine for justices to serve as references for their former clerks. Justices traditionally treat their clerks as a network of protégés whose continued success they seek to foster as part of their own legacies.

Advertisement

Seemly or not, there is a long history of interactions between presidents and other senior executive branch officials and Supreme Court justices who sometimes will have a say over the fate of administration policies.

In 2004, a controversy arose when there was a lawsuit seeking disclosure of records about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings. One of the litigants, the Sierra Club, asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from participation in the case because he had recently gone duck hunting with Mr. Cheney. Justice Scalia declined, issuing a 21-page memorandum that explained why he believed stepping aside was unjustified.

Part of Justice Scalia’s argument was that Mr. Cheney was being sued over an official action. That makes Mr. Trump’s pending attempt to block his sentencing for crimes that he was convicted of committing in his private capacity somewhat different, although the basis of Mr. Trump’s argument is that being sentenced and then fighting an appeal would interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties.

In trying to justify his decision not to recuse, Justice Scalia noted that justices have had personal friendships with presidents going back years, including some who played poker with Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but did not recuse themselves from cases challenging their administrations’ policies and actions.

Mr. Trump has long sought to pressure the Supreme Court, in some cases by publicly hectoring the justices on social media for decisions he disagrees with. Mr. Trump has often privately complained that the three justices he appointed in his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had “done nothing” for him, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

One week after the 2018 midterm elections, Mr. Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, had lunch with Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia Thomas. Ms. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, made suggestions about personnel shake-ups to Mr. Trump and later supported his efforts to try to overturn the 2020 election results.

In December 2020, Mr. Trump attacked the Supreme Court as “incompetent and weak” for refusing to address his legal team’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election. Two years later, he attacked the court again for giving Congress access to his tax returns.

The Supreme Court redeemed itself in Mr. Trump’s eyes last summer when the six Republican-appointed justices ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from being prosecuted over actions they took in their official capacity. That ruling threw into doubt how much of the indictment brought against Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election could actually survive to go to trial — even after prosecutors filed a revised version trying to account for the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s intervention also seriously delayed the case’s progress, effectively making it impossible to get the charges to a jury before the election. And once Trump won the 2024 race, he could no longer face prosecution under Justice Department policy.

Kirsten Noyes contributed research from New York.

Advertisement

Politics

Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution

Published

on

Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution, including the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.

The court, in a 4-1 ruling, sided with the state’s only abortion clinic and others who had sued over the abortion bans passed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which returned the power to make laws on abortion back to the states.

Despite Wyoming being one of the most conservative states, the ruling handed down by justices who were all appointed by Republican governors upheld every previous lower court ruling that the abortion bans violated the state constitution.

Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the abortion access advocacy group Chelsea’s Fund and four women, including two obstetricians, argued that the laws violated a state constitutional amendment affirming that competent adults have the right to make their own health care decisions.

Advertisement

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

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2012 in response to the federal Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obamacare.

The justices in Wyoming found that the amendment was not written to apply to abortion but noted that it is not their job to “add words” to the state constitution.

“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote.

Advertisement

Wellspring Health Access President Julie Burkhart said in a statement that the ruling upholds abortion as “essential health care” that should not be met with government interference.

“Our clinic will remain open and ready to provide compassionate reproductive health care, including abortions, and our patients in Wyoming will be able to obtain this care without having to travel out of state,” Burkhart said.

Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction and delayed its opening. A woman is serving a five-year prison sentence after she admitted to breaking in and lighting gasoline that she poured over the clinic floors.

Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction. (AP)

Attorneys representing the state had argued that abortion cannot violate the Wyoming constitution because it is not a form of health care.

Advertisement

Republican Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling and called on state lawmakers meeting later this winter to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion that residents could vote on this fall.

An amendment like that would require a two-thirds vote to be introduced as a nonbudget matter in the monthlong legislative session that will primarily address the state budget, although it would have significant support in the Republican-dominated legislature.

“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself. It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote,” Gordon said in a statement.

APPEALS COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP ON BUDGET PROVISION CUTTING PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDS

Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling. (Getty Images)

Advertisement

One of the laws overturned by the state’s high court attempted to ban abortion, but with exceptions in cases where it is needed to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest. The other law would have made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, although other states have implemented de facto bans on abortion medication by broadly restricting abortion.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Abortion has remained legal in the state since Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens blocked the bans while the lawsuit challenging the restrictions moved forward. Owens struck down the laws as unconstitutional in 2024.

Last year, Wyoming passed additional laws requiring abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers and women to receive ultrasounds before having medication abortions. A judge in a separate lawsuit blocked those laws from taking effect while that case moves forward.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

What Trump’s vow to withhold federal child-care funding means in California

Published

on

What Trump’s vow to withhold federal child-care funding means in California

Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state Democratic leaders accused President Trump of unleashing a political vendetta after he announced plans to freeze roughly $10 billion in federal funding for child care and social services programs in California and four other Democrat-controlled states.

Trump justified the action in comments posted on his social media platform Truth Social, where he accused Newsom of widespread fraud. The governor’s office dismissed the accusation as “deranged.”

Trump’s announcement came amid a broader administration push to target Democratic-led states over alleged fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, following sweeping prosecutions in Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed the planned funding freeze, which was first reported by the New York Post.

California officials said they have received no formal notice and argued the president is using unsubstantiated claims to justify a move that could jeopardize child care and social services for low-income families.

Advertisement

How we got here

Trump posted on his social media site Truth Social on Tuesday that under Newsom, California is “more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible???” In the post, Trump used a derogatory nickname for Newsom that has become popular with the governor’s critics, referring to him as “Newscum.”

“The Fraud Investigation of California has begun,” Trump wrote.

The president also retweeted a story by the New York Post that said his Department of Health and Human Services will freeze taxpayer funding from the Child Care Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which is known as CalWORKS in California, and the Social Services Block Grant program. Health and Human Services said the affected states are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York.

“For too long, Democrat-led states and Governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said Andrew Nixon, a department spokesperson. “Under the Trump Administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

The department announced last month that all 50 states will have to provide additional levels of verification and administrative data before they receive more funding from the Child Care and Development Fund after a series of fraud schemes at Minnesota day-care centers run by Somali residents.

Advertisement

“The Trump Administration is using the moral guise of eliminating ‘fraud and abuse’ to undermine essential programs and punish families and children who depend on these services to survive, many of whom have no other options if this funding disappears,” Kristin McGuire, president of Young Invincibles, a young-adult nonprofit economic advocacy group, said in a statement. “This is yet another ideologically motivated attack on states that treats millions of families as pawns in a political game.”

California pushes back

Newsom’s office brushed off Trump’s post about fraud allegations, calling the president “a deranged, habitual liar whose relationship with reality ended years ago.” Newsom himself said he welcomes federal fraud investigations in the state, adding in an interview on MS NOW that aired Monday night: “Bring it on. … If he has some unique insight and information, I look forward to partnering with him. I can’t stand fraud.”

However, Newsom said cutting off funding hurts hardworking families who rely on the assistance.

“You want to support families? You believe in families? Then you believe in supporting child care and child-care workers in the workforce,” Newsom told MS NOW.

California has not been notified of any changes to federal child-care or social services funding. H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said the only indication from Washington that California’s child-care funding could be in jeopardy was the vague 5 a.m. post Tuesday by the president on Truth Social.

Advertisement

“The president tosses these social media missives in the same way Mardi Gras revelers throw beads on Bourbon Street — with zero regard for accuracy or precision,” Palmer said.

In the current state budget, Palmer said, California’s child-care spending is $7.3 billion, of which $2.2 billion is federal dollars. Newsom is set to unveil his budget proposal Friday for the fiscal year that begins July 1, which will mark the governor’s final spending plan before he terms out. Newsom has acknowledged that he is considering a 2028 bid for president, but has repeatedly brushed aside reporters’ questions about it, saying his focus remains on governing California.

Palmer said while details about the potential threat to federal child-care dollars remain unclear, what is known is that federal dollars are not like “a spigot that will be turned off by the end of the week.”

“There is no immediate cutoff that will happen,” Palmer said.

Since Trump took office, California has filed dozens of legal actions to block the president’s policy changes and funding cuts, and the state has prevailed in many of them.

Advertisement

What happened in Minnesota

Federal prosecutors say Minnesota has been hit by some of the largest fraud schemes involving state-run, federally funded programs in the country. Federal prosecutors estimate that as much as half of roughly $18 billion paid to 14 Minnesota programs since 2018 may be fraudulent, with providers accused of billing for services never delivered and diverting money for personal use.

The scale of the fraud has drawn national attention and fueled the Trump administration’s decision to freeze child-care funds while demanding additional safeguards before doling out money, moves that critics say risk harming families who rely on the programs. Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and appointed a director of program integrity. Amid the fallout, Walz announced he will not seek a third term.

Outrage over the fraud reached a fever pitch in the White House after a video posted online by an influencer purported to expose extensive fraud at Somali-run child-care centers in Minnesota. On Monday, that influencer, Nick Shirley, posted on the social media site X, “I ENDED TIM WALZ,” a claim that prompted calls from conservative activists to shift scrutiny to Newsom and California next.

Right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson posted on X that his team will be traveling to California next week to show “how criminal California fraud is robbing our nation blind.”

California officials have acknowledged fraud failures in the past, most notably at the Employment Development Department during the COVID-19 pandemic, when weakened safeguards led to billions of dollars in unemployment payments later deemed potentially fraudulent.

Advertisement

An independent state audit released last month found administrative vulnerabilities in some of California’s social services programs but stopped short of alleging widespread fraud or corruption. The California state auditor added the Department of Social Services to its high-risk list because of persistent errors in calculating CalFresh benefits, which provides food assistance to those in need — a measure of payment accuracy rather than criminal activity — warning that federal law changes could eventually force the state to absorb billions of dollars in additional costs if those errors are not reduced.

What’s at stake in California

The Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal child-care, welfare and social services funding would affect $7.3 billion in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding, $2.4 billion for child-care subsidies and more than $800 million for social services programs in the five states.

The move was quickly criticized as politically motivated because the targeted states were all Democrat-led.

“Trump is now illegally freezing childcare and other funding for working families, but only in blue states,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said in a statement. “He says it’s because of ‘fraud,’ but it has nothing to do with fraud and everything to do with politics. Florida had the largest Medicaid fraud in U.S. history yet isn’t on this list.”

Added California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister): “It is unconscionable for Trump and Republicans to rip away billions of dollars that support child care and families in need, and this has nothing to do with fraud. California taxpayers pay for these programs — period — and Trump has no right to steal from our hard-working residents. We will continue to fight back.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

Published

on

Video: Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

new video loaded: Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

transcript

transcript

Walz Drops Re-Election Bid as Minnesota Fraud Scandal Grows

Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota abandoned his re-election bid to focus on handling a scandal over fraud in social service programs that grew under his administration.

“I’ve decided to step out of this race, and I’ll let others worry about the election while I focus on the work that’s in front of me for the next year.” “All right, so this is Quality Learing Center — meant to say Quality ‘Learning’ Center.” “Right now we have around 56 kids enrolled. If the children are not here, we mark absence.”

Advertisement
Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota abandoned his re-election bid to focus on handling a scandal over fraud in social service programs that grew under his administration.

By Shawn Paik

January 6, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending