Rep. Robert Garcia elected ranking member on powerful House Oversight Committee after Rep. Connolly's death
Washington — House Democrats on Tuesday elected Rep. Robert Garcia of California as the new ranking member of the House Oversight Committee following the death of Rep. Gerry Connolly last month.
"I am incredibly honored to have been obviously elected the ranking member for the Oversight Committee," Garcia told reporters after the vote, saying the panel would get "immediately to work," while citing an opportunity to "continue holding the corruption of Donald Trump accountable and also doing incredible work on government reform."
Though Democrats are currently in the minority, as the new ranking member, Garcia would be in line to chair the Oversight Committee if Democrats retake the House in 2026, halfway through President Trump's second term. During Mr. Trump's first term, the committee led numerous investigations into the Trump administration after Democrats won the House in 2018.
Connolly's death came weeks after the Virginia Democrat announced that he would not seek reelection in 2026 and would be stepping back from his post as the top Democrat on the committee because his cancer had returned. He was 75 years old.
Connolly had been elected to the top committee post months earlier, as the committee's members rejected a push by some to tap a younger generation of lawmakers to lead the party on top panels. Connolly defeated 35-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to become the ranking member of the powerful committee.
Oversight Committee Democrats vied for the ranking member post after Connolly announced his departure from the role. And though Ocasio-Cortez opted not to seek the post, having left the committee months earlier, the contest quickly became crowded.
Rep. Robert Garcia speaks during the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency in the Rayburn House Office Building on February 12, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Al Drago / Getty Images
Garcia, a 47-year-old who currently serves as Democratic Caucus Leadership Representative, initially faced off against three other Democrats — Reps. Stephen Lynch of of Massachusetts, Kweisi Mfume of Maryland and Jasmine Crockett of Texas — for the post. Lynch, 70, served as the acting ranking member, while Mfume, 76, is high in the committee's ranks. And Crockett, 44, is seen as a rising star in the caucus, known for viral moments on the committee.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters after the vote that "all four candidates were excellent," saying that while all of them could have done a "great job internally," the question revolved around who could most successfully share the caucus' message.
"It came down to two candidates, both excellent," Pelosi added.
In a caucus vote Tuesday, Garcia defeated Lynch for the top post in a 150-63 vote.
The selection of a new top Democrat on the committee comes after a shakeup in committee leadership assignments in the party at the beginning of this Congress illustrated tensions over a potential generational shift. Long-serving top Democrats on the Judiciary, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees stepped away from the top spots amid challenges from younger Democrats as the party prepared to counter Republican efforts with a GOP trifecta in Washington.
Garcia said he brings experience to the role, while also acknowledging the party's interest in "expanding the tent" and bringing in "newer voices to the leadership and to this committee."
"We are 100% committed to winning the majority and making Hakeem Jeffries the speaker," Garcia said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
15 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Was Trump's attack on Iran legal? Experts weigh in on US and international law
President Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran has reignited a decades-long debate over the legality of unilateral military action. In response to the June 21 attack — during which U.S. stealth bombers struck three Iranian nuclear sites — Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, labeled it 'not constitutional.' Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, called it 'illegal' and dangerous. However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said Trump 'made the right call, and did what he needed to do.' Numerous other elected Republicans echoed this statement. McClatchy News has asked legal experts to clear the air and weigh in on whether the president's actions were lawful under both U.S. and international law. US law Whether or not the president has the power to independently launch a military attack has been a hotly contested and largely unresolved issue for years. 'It's been a longstanding situation of competing claims of authority between the Congress and the president,' Robert Goldman, a law professor at the American University Washington College of Law, told McClatchy News. The debate stems from the U.S. Constitution, which divides wartime powers between both the legislative and the executive branch, Goldman said. On the one hand, Article I grants Congress the power to declare war, while Article II designates the president commander in chief of the armed forces. The consensus among legal scholars is that the authors of the Constitution 'intended to separate the power to initiate a war from the power to run a war once it has begun, leaving the president able only to repel sudden attacks without first going to Congress,' experts told the New York Times. In practice, though, presidents of both parties have frequently initiated military campaigns without the approval of Congress — and often with little pushback. 'The U.S. has been involved in numerous armed conflicts or wars since World War II,' Goldman said. 'But the last time the U.S. Congress formally declared war was when Franklin Roosevelt, in 1942, came to them after the attack on Pearl Harbour.' While Congress has not declared war in eight decades, it has, in some cases, granted a president's request to use military force against specific targets through what is called an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). For example, in 2001, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lawmakers passed an AUMF, permitting President George W. Bush to use force against 'nations, organizations or persons' that took part in the attacks. But, in multiple other instances, presidents have used military force without an AUMF, including in Kosovo in 1999, Libya in 2011, in Syria in 2014 — and now in Iran under Trump. 'This is something that's gone on for ages,' Goldman said. 'This is not something that is unique to this particular administration.' International law On the other hand, under international law, the rules are more cut and dry, experts said. 'By attacking Iran, the U.S. is breaking international law — there is no doubt about that,' Ian Hurd, a political science professor at Northwestern University, told McClatchy News. 'It is illegal to use military force against another country,' Hurd said. 'This rule is the centerpiece of international law, written into the United Nations Charter at the end of World War II.' Under the U.N. Charter, an attack on another nation is only permitted under a few circumstances — none of which apply to Trump's bombing of Iran. Firstly, Article 51 of the Charter recognizes the right of a state to respond to an armed attack for purposes of self defense. 'Quite clearly,' Goldman said, 'we were not subject to an armed attack by Iran.' Some legal experts also argue that anticipatory self defense — under which a state has not been attacked, but determines that a foreign attack is imminent — is legal under international law. 'Obviously, you couldn't argue anticipatory self-defense because…Iran doesn't have any weapons platforms capable of hitting the continental U.S.,' Goldman said. Lastly, the charter permits the use of force against a state if it has been authorized by the U.N. Security Council — as it did during the First Gulf War in 1990. Such an authorization was not obtained for Trump's bombing of Iran. 'So I would say the situation is fairly straightforward as to the legality,' Goldman concluded. 'It may have been done politically for a reasonable reason, but that is distinct from international law.' The U.S., though, is hardly alone in breaking international law. In recent years, numerous conflicts have violated the U.N. Charter, according to Amnesty International, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's war in Gaza.
The Verge
23 minutes ago
- The Verge
A nasal spray company wants to make it harder for the FTC to police health claims
In the midst of the covid-19 pandemic, a health products company called Xlear began advertising its saline nasal spray to people desperately searching for ways to protect themselves from a new virus. In its marketing, Xlear pointed to studies that it said supported the idea that ingredients in the spray could block viruses from sticking to the nasal cavity. Based on its interpretation of the science, Xlear promoted the product as one part of a 'layered defense' against contracting covid. In 2021, the Federal Trade Commission, in a bipartisan vote, decided to sue Xlear for making allegedly 'unsupported health claims,' saying the company had 'grossly misrepresented the purported findings and relevance of several scientific studies' in its advertising. Earlier this year, the Trump Justice Department, on the FTC's behalf, asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed with prejudice, though it didn't explain its reasoning. But Xlear still wanted its day in court. Now, it's suing the FTC because it wants a court to make it harder for the agency to attempt to go after health claims. Xlear is filing the lawsuit at a time where the government's standard operating procedures around both science and administrative law have been upended. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently expelled all the members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine policy advisory committee, a simultaneously radical and predictable outcome given his career in spreading anti-vaccine falsehoods. Meanwhile, the current FTC is engaged in helping President Donald Trump undermine the agency's long-standing independence from the White House. After Trump purported to fire its two Democratic commissioners, the FTC has even openly taken up long-standing conservative grievances over alleged censorship in the digital sphere. Like Kennedy, Xlear is advocating for a path that could open up the health products space to alternative — and possibly less-tested — upstarts. 'There's a tension here between the reform movement of MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] and the old-guard approach of the FTC,' Xlear's lead counsel, Rob Housman, tells The Verge. 'If you want to break our focus on drugs and pharmaceuticals, one of the things you have to do is make space for innovation and things like hygiene and other approaches.' 'There's a tension here between the reform movement of MAHA and the old-guard approach of the FTC' Xlear insists it's not trying to lower the bar for health marketing claims, but simply hold the FTC to a reasonable legal standard. Housman believes the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Chevron deference last year — removing long-standing precedent telling courts they should often defer to federal agencies' expertise — makes the case even easier. 'We don't want people to think we're trying to reduce the burden of science,' he says. 'We, in fact, want to up the burden of science. We just want to make sure that companies are complying with the law — not the law as the FTC says it is.' As Xlear sees it, the FTC has stepped beyond its authority to enforce the law against false and misleading claims, coming up with arbitrary standards of what kinds of evidence should be considered adequate to justify a health claim. Housman points to the agency's 2022 guidance that says randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially when replicated at least once, are most reliable to substantiate health claims. There's no magic number for the number or kinds of studies, according to the guidance, but it says 'randomized, controlled human clinical trials (RCTs) are the most reliable form of evidence and are generally the type of substantiation that experts would require for health benefit claims.' The FTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Xlear says this is far too high of a hurdle, especially for smaller companies that may not have the money to conduct such resource-intensive trials. Housman compares it to an adage about how there's no RCT trials to prove parachutes work — the punchline being that no one would conduct a study where a control group jumped out of a plane without a parachute. (It's unclear how removing this high hurdle would 'up the burden of science.') One reason it's bringing the lawsuit is so that it can freely make health claims about another product it sells, which it believes can be an alternative to fluoride Xlear says that one reason it's bringing the lawsuit is so that it can freely make health claims about another product it sells, which it believes can be an alternative to fluoride, which Kennedy wants to strip from the water supply. Fluoride is a mineral that prevents tooth decay. A recent study from the National Toxicology Program found that very high levels of fluoride (atypically high in the US) are linked to slightly lower IQ scores for kids, but fluoride has been the subject of conspiracy theories for almost a century, even making an appearance as a comedic bogeyman in the movie Dr. Strangelove, in which General Jack D. Ripper refers to it as 'the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot' to 'sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.' Housman says that even if Xlear wins its lawsuit on every count, 'this doesn't allow people to make up bogus marketing claims.' The FTC will still have the authority to take down truly false and misleading claims, just not by the allegedly arbitrary standard it has been. He adds that the threat of private lawsuits is effective to keep egregious marketing claims at bay. 'We don't believe anybody should be making bogus claims,' Housman says, 'but we also believe that the agency has the responsibility to do the work.'
Washington Post
23 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump's approach to military action: a hard punch and a fast exit
President Donald Trump was so pleased with the results of his decision to strike Iranian nuclear targets that he decided even before he'd left the Situation Room late Saturday that he was done using the U.S. military to help Israel. He called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that night to tell him it was time for a ceasefire.
