House Committee Investigating Sec. of State Pompeo for Possible Hatch Act Violations in RNC Speech
- On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo broke long-standing precedent by issuing his support for a presidential candidate during President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign at the Republican National Convention
- Even before his speech, a House committee announced it was launching an investigation over concerns Pompeo violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits executive branch employees from political activities while on-duty.
- The White House has argued that Pompeo was off duty and not on government grounds when he gave the speech, though Pompeo may have still violated his own State Department guidance.
- Tuesday night’s RNC events also included another possible Hatch Act violation, according to critics. This occurred when Trump hosted a naturalization ceremony for five immigrants, with federal employees also in attendance.
House Committee Probe
Night two of the Republican National Convention featured major controversial moments that critics and legal experts say could have violated federal law.
The most notable was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s decision to speak at the RNC while on a diplomatic trip in Jerusalem. In fact, the move is now the subject of a House committee investigation.
That probe, launched by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is investigating whether or not Pompeo violated the Hatch Act by appearing at the RNC. According to the Office of the Special Counsel, which promotes compliance with the law, it limits “certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs.”
Specifically to this situation, the law bars executive branch employees from using their positions to influence a presidential election. While those employees can still participate in political activities, the Hatch Act prevents them from doing so while in government buildings or while wearing an official uniform or insignia.
“It is highly unusual, and likely unprecedented, for a sitting Secretary of State to speak at a partisan convention for either of the political parties,” Representative Joaquin Castro said in a letter Stephen Biegun, deputy secretary of state. “It appears that it may also be illegal.”
Castro continued by asking Beigun to provide a host of details about Pompeo’s current trip to Jerusalem, including:
- Any potential involvement in the speech by State Department employees and their responsibilities.
- Information about whether or not the State Department will be paying for all of the travel costs of this trip or if part of it will be reimbursed by the RNC or the Trump campaign.
- The date the State Department was first made aware of Pompeo’s decision to make this address from Jerusalem while on a trip abroad.
Despite the House inquiry, the State Department has argued that Pompeo didn’t use his official title and only spoke on a “personal capacity,” A spokesperson with the department also said Pompeo didn’t use any departmental resources or staff to deliver his speech.
“The State Department will not bear any costs in conjunction with this appearance,” the spokesperson added.
Reportedly, lawyers for Pompeo, the State Department, the RNC, and the White House all reviewed Pompeo’s speech to ensure that it would not violate the Hatch Act.
In his letter, Castro addresses the State Department’s explanation, saying Pompeo “has not made any of this supposed legal analysis public. Instead, the legal analysis that has come to light shows precisely the opposite.”
Other critics have also cited departmental guidance approved by Pompeo himself last month, which states that “the Department’s longstanding policy is that U.S. citizen employees and family members may not engage in partisan political activity while posted or on [temporary duty travel] abroad, even on personal time.”
Therefore, it is also possible that Pompeo broke his own guidance by giving his address; however, that would not constitute a violation of federal law, unlike the Hatch Act.
Pompeo Praises Trump’s Foreign Policy
When it came time for Pompeo’s pre-recorded speech to finally air, he praised many of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions; however, Pompeo was careful to never actually reference his position as Secretary of State.
“He’s pulled back the curtain on the predatory aggression of the Chinese Communist Party,” said. “The president has held China accountable for covering up the China virus and allowing it to spread death and economic destruction in America and around the world, and he will not rest until justice is done.”
Like Trump’s repeated use of the phrase, Pompeo’s explicit choice to use the “China virus” has been condemned by many as racist. While China has been accused by U.S. intelligence of covering up COVID-19 cases, as of Wednesday, John Hopkins University reported just under 90,000 cases in the country of over 1.4 billion. By comparison, the U.S. has nearly 5.78 million cases but only has a population of 328 million.
Additionally, as The New York Times points out, “Trump has taken no specific action to punish China for its virus response.”
Continuing to praise Trump for his response to China, Pompeo toured Trump’s trade war with China, saying that China “punched a hole in our economy” and that “jobs are coming back home.”
Pompeo then shifted gears to Trump’s historic talks with North Korea and later, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, where he said that NATO is stronger today because of Trump.
Over the past four years, Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and mischaracterized its funding. Many western officials reportedly worry about its future.
In his address, Pompeo also praised the Trump administration for the killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in January. That move was highly controversial in nature, and some claimed that it violated international law because the U.S. justification was not strong enough. Others criticized it for sharply escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
“The president exited the US from the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran and squeezed the ayatollah, Hezbollah, and Hamas,” Pompeo said, praising other controversial Trump decisions. “The president, too, moved the US embassy to this very city of God, Jerusalem, the rightful capital of the Jewish homeland.”
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal wasn’t popular at all with US allies. In fact, it was even opposed by his advisers.
Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem broke decades of U.S. policy and came at a tumultuous time for Israel.
Trump Naturalization Ceremony
Tuesday night also featured a pre-recorded naturalization ceremony hosted by Trump. In that ceremony, acting Homeland Security secretary Chad Wolf administers the Oath of Allegiance to five immigrants..
Notably, because this event was recorded in the White House, critics argued that Wolf was violating the Hatch Act.
In addition to Wolf, two uniformed Marines took part in the ceremony, which could also be at odds with the Hatch Act, according to a long-standing policy from the Department of Defense. The basis of that would likely depend on whether those Marines knew the ceremony was being recorded for the RNC.
According to an anonymous White House official who spoke with The Washington Post, the ceremony was part of the president’s official schedule that was publicized on a public website
“The campaign decided to use the publicly available content for campaign purposes,” that official told The Post. “There was no violation of law.”
But as The Post reported, the White House press corps was never informed about the ceremony and that ceremony was not listed on the president’s public schedule.
The Trump administration has a history of violating the Hatch Act. In 2018, six White House staffers were found to have violated the act, but no official punishments were even enforced. They were simply sent warnings.
In 2019, the Office of the Special Counsel recommended that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway be removed from her position for multiple violations of the Hatch Act.
See what others are saying: (Axios) (Politico) (Business Insider)
White House Endorses Bipartisan Senate Bill That Could Ban TikTok
The measure does not target TikTok specifically but instead would set up a framework to crack down on foreign products and services that present a national security threat.
The RESTRICT Act
A bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill Tuesday that would allow the federal government to restrict or even outright ban TikTok and other technologies produced by foreign companies.
Under the legislation, dubbed the RESTRICT Act, the Commerce Department would have sweeping authority to identify and regulate technologies that pose a risk to national security and are produced by companies in six “foreign adversary” countries: China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.
In other words, the proposal would not explicitly ban TikTok, but instead creates a path for future prohibitions on the Chinese-owned platform.
While the bill’s text does not specifically mention TikTok, the group of senators made it clear that the app is their number one target, directing most of their criticism to the platform in statements announcing the measure.
The legislation, however, would go way beyond TikTik: it is also designed to prepare for future situations where apps or technologies from an “adversary” country become popular in the U.S.
The bill’s Democratic sponsor, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Ma.), echoed that point in his remarks Tuesday.
“Today, the threat that everyone is talking about is TikTok, and how it could enable surveillance by the Chinese Communist Party, or facilitate the spread of malign influence campaigns in the U.S.,” he said. “Before TikTok, however, it was Huawei and ZTE, which threatened our nation’s telecommunications networks. And before that, it was Russia’s Kaspersky Lab, which threatened the security of government and corporate devices.”
“We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach that proactively tackles sources of potentially dangerous technology before they gain a foothold in America, so we aren’t playing Whac-A-Mole and scrambling to catch up once they’re already ubiquitous.”
Proponents of the bill also hope that, given the broad scope of the legislation, it will gain more traction than past proposals that zeroed in on TikTok. Support for the measure was further bolstered when the White House announced it would back the move shortly after it was rolled out.
“This bill presents a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in a statement. “We look forward to continue working with both Democrats and Republicans on this bill, and urge Congress to act quickly to send it to the President’s desk.”
A Bumpy Road Ahead
Despite the bipartisan push, there are still some hurdles for the RESTRICT Act to overcome.
Although the legislation does not directly ban TikTok, because that is clearly its intent, the same issues with an outright prohibition still stand. One of the most serious concerns is that banning TikTok would violate the First Amendment.
There is past precedent on this front: in 2020, a federal magistrate judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring Apple and Google to take the Chinese-owned app WeChat off their app stores.
In that decision, the judge argued that the government only had “modest” evidence about the app’s risks and that removing it from app stores would “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to serve the government’s significant interest in national security.”
TikTok has emulated that argument. In a statement responding to the RESTRICT Act Tuesday, a spokesperson for the company said the legislation could “have the effect of censoring millions of Americans.”
Meanwhile, even if the act does pass, there is also the question of whether the Biden administration would decide on a full-scale ban.
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo would be the one responsible for overseeing the process under the bill, and while she said she said in a statement that she “welcomed” the proposal and promised to work with Congress to pass it, she has also previously expressed hesitation for a full prohibition.
On the other end of the equation, there are concerns that this measure will not ultimately get enough bipartisan support from Republicans who do want an outright ban and will refuse to accept anything that falls short of that.
While speaking with Fox News on Tuesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) said the new plan did not go far enough and argued that Congress “should pass a bill that bans TikTok.”
Even if the legislation does get enough support in the Senate, its path is unclear in the GOP-held House, where it also does not yet have a companion bill. Republicans in the House recently introduced a measure that would give the president the power to unilaterally ban TikTok in the U.S.
That proposal, however, is not bipartisan like the RESTRICT Act, which will be a key test to see if legislators can find a middle ground on the matter.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Reuters) (NBC News)
What You Need to Know About Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race — The Most Important Election in 2023
Gerrymandering, abortion, the 2024 presidential election, and much more are on the line.
An election to fill an empty seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court that has been described as the most consequential race of 2023 has now been narrowed to two candidates after the primary Tuesday.
Liberal Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz easily took first place, winning 46.4% of the vote with nearly all precincts reporting. In second place with 24.2% was conservative Daniel Kelly, a former Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice who was appointed by the state’s then-Republican governor in 2016 but lost his re-election in 2020.
Notably, the wide discrepancy in votes can be explained by the fact that Kelly split Republican ballots with another conservative candidate who came in a close third with 21.9%. As such, the general election is expected to be tight.
Also of note, this race is technically supposed to be non-partisan, but Protasiewicz has closely aligned herself with Democrats and Kelly has done the same with Republicans. Both parties, as well as dark money groups, have poured millions of dollars into the high-stakes election that will determine whether liberals or conservatives will have a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court at an incredibly consequential time.
There are a number of paramount issues at play here that have widespread implications not just for Wisconsin but America at-large.
Gerrymandering and Elections
Wisconsin is one of the most important swing states in the country: it helped decide the outcomes of both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, and it is the center of debates on gerrymandering and free and fair elections that have played a role in those races.
The state Supreme Court, which has had a conservative majority for the last 14 years, has been instrumental in shaping those policies, having weighed in on many of the most crucial topics and almost always siding with Republicans.
For example, in what VICE described as “arguably the most important decision the court made in recent years,” the court ruled 4-3 last year to uphold one of America’s most gerrymandered maps that gave Republicans a massive advantage.
“The maps are so gerrymandered that Republicans hold six of Wisconsin’s eight House seats and nearly two-thirds of legislative seats in the state—even though Democrats won most statewide races last year,” the outlet reported.
That ruling created something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: the conservative majority court has decided so many critical topics because the state government is deadlocked with a Republican majority in the legislature and a Democratic governor.
So, by approving a map that massively favored Republicans, the conservative court kept that system in place, ensuring that they would continue to have the final say on so many of these essential areas.
However, if Protasiewicz wins the general election, the court is all but certain to revisit the gerrymandered map. Protasiewicz, for her part, explicitly stated in a recent interview that a liberal majority could establish new election maps. Kelly, meanwhile, has said he has no interest in revisiting the maps.
A decision unfavorable to the GOP-drawn maps would have significant implications for the internal politics of Wisconsin and control of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold a very slim five-seat majority.
To that point, the Wisconsin Supreme Court also plays a big role in how the state’s elections are administered and how its ten Electoral College votes will be doled out in the 2024 presidential election.
Last year, the conservative court banned absentee ballot drop boxes, and in 2014, it upheld a GOP voter ID law that studies have shown suppressed Black voters. While the court did vote against considering former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit to try and overturn the 2020 election in Wisconsin, it only did so by a thin margin of 4-3.
The court will very likely be tasked with wading into elections-related cases in the coming years. Already, it is anticipated that the justice will hear a lawsuit by a conservative group aiming to further limit voting access by banning mobile and alternate voting facilities.
Abortion and Other Important Statewide Subjects
In addition to the ramifications for America broadly, there are also plenty of paramount issues concerning the state Supreme Court that will materially impact the people of Wisconsin.
Much of the race has been centered heavily on the topic of abortion and reproductive rights because the composition of the court will almost positively determine whether or not abortion will be legal for the state’s six million residents.
Following the Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade, an 1849 Wisconsin law banning abortion went back into effect. Currently, a lawsuit against the ban is winding its way through the court system, and it is all but assured that battle will eventually go before Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.
Experts and analysts say that if Kelly wins, it is essentially guaranteed that abortion will remain illegal in almost all cases. Protasiewicz, by contrast, has campaigned extensively on abortion rights and vocally supported the right to choose.
Beyond that, there are also several other major issues the court will likely rule on in the coming years. For example, Protasiewicz has also said she believes a liberal majority could reverse a 12-year-old law that basically eliminated collective bargaining for public workers. All of that is just the tip of the iceberg.
“Everything is at stake, and I mean everything: Women’s reproductive rights, the maps, drop boxes, safe communities, clean water,” Protasiewicz told VICE. “Everything is on the line.”
See what others are saying: (VICE) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)
Republicans Want to Cut Food Stamps — Even As Pandemic-Era Programs Wind Down
Experts say cuts to food stamps could have a devastating impact on the 41 million Americans who rely on the program.
GOP Weighs SNAP Cuts in Budget
In recent weeks, top Republican lawmakers have floated several different ideas for cutting food stamp benefits.
Earlier this month, Republicans now leading the House Budget Committee flagged food stamps — formally known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP — as one of the ten areas they would support cuts to in their new budget proposal.
In a memo, the panel argued that stricter work requirements would “save tens of billions,” while a more rigid verification process for applicants would limit waste, fraud, and abuse. The idea comes as part of a broader effort to reduce the federal deficit.
Experts, however, say the proposed changes could result in debilitating cuts for the 41 million Americans who rely on food stamps and exacerbate an ongoing hunger crisis at a time when inflation has sent food prices rising.
SNAP provides low-income households with an average of around $230 a month for groceries. For many of those families who are also the most impacted by inflationary price increases across the board, that money is absolutely essential.
Experts have also noted that any additional cuts to SNAP would be especially harmful because Republicans are still proposing new cuts despite the fact that Congress already agreed just two months ago to end a pandemic-era program that had increased benefits in some states.
Under the pandemic policies, SNAP was expanded so households could receive maximum benefits instead of benefits based on income testing while also giving bigger payouts to the lowest-income Americans.
That expansion is now set to expire in March, and according to the anti-hunger advocacy group the Food Research and Action Center, an estimated 16 million households will see their per-person benefits drop by around $82 a month.
The Farm Bill Debate
Even if Republicans do not end up cutting SNAP in the budget, the program may still be in hot water.
While raising the debt limit is at the forefront of ongoing partisan battles at the moment, there is already a fight shaping up over another essential piece of legislation: the farm bill.
The farm bill is a package that has to be updated and reauthorized every couple of years. One of the most important legislative tasks Congress is responsible for, the farm bill includes many important subsidies and programs that are imperative to America’s food systems, farms, and much more.
SNAP is among the nutrition-based programs that fall under the purview of the farm bill, and Republicans have already tossed around the idea of cutting food stamp benefits in their ongoing negotiations.
Those debates are quite forward-looking, though it is normal for such discussions to occur early during a year in which Congress is charged with passing the farm bill. Lawmakers have until Oct. 1 to either enact a new version or agree on some kind of extension.