GOP Senate leader rejects Trump call for end to bipartisan judicial nomination tradition
The Republican leader told reporters on Capitol Hill that he doesn't believe 'there's any strong interest' in doing away with the 'blue slip' precedent, which takes into account the views of a nominee's home state senators before moving forward in the confirmation process.
'I'm happy to hear what Senator [Chuck] Grassley and my colleagues say, but no, I don't think there's any strong interest in changing that up here,' the South Dakota Republican said.
The comments come after Trump urged Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday to 'step up' and break with the tradition to speed up stalled nominees.
But while Trump argued on Truth Social that 'Democrats have broken this ridiculous custom on us, it's time that we break it on them,' Thune said Wednesday that both parties have used blue slips to block nominees from consideration.
'I think the blue slip process is something that's been used for a long time by both sides, and neither side has violated its usage in the past,' he told reporters.
'We'll see where the conversation goes with our colleagues, but I don't sense any rush to change it,' he added. 'I think the key is to make sure that we're making good headway doing the list of judges that are on the President's list, and at some point, we may need to look at doing things differently on nominees generally, if the Democrats continue this path of obstruction that they're on right now.'
Grassley said at the start of the morning's Judiciary Committee meeting Wednesday that he had been 'surprised to see President Trump on Truth Social go after me and Senate Republicans over what we call the 'blue slip.''
'Now, to people in the Real America – not here in Washington, DC, an island surrounded by reality – the people in Real America don't care about what the 'blue slip' is, but, in fact, it impacts the district judges who serve their communities and the US attorneys who ensure law and order is enforced,' he said. 'Both parties have successfully used the rule to block presidential nominees in the past, and it has generally been respected.'
'I was offended by what the president said, and I'm disappointed that it would result in personal insults,' Grassley concluded.
A number of Senate Republicans backed the Iowa Republican and precedent.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso told CNN 'I support the chairman,' while Sen. John Kennedy asked Trump to 'back off this' issue and called it a 'needless fight.'
'Particularly for district judges, senators are much better able to be able to pick a lawyer from their community,' Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said. 'That satisfies what I call community standards.'
'What I try to do is pick men and women so that others in the community will look at and go, you know, I maybe don't agree with everything they've ever said or done, but man, those are damn good lawyers, and they'll be fair and they'll listen to both sides,' he continued. 'That's the goal.'
Similarly, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis opposed any change, saying of Trump: 'Whoever advised him on that policy has no brain on this subject.'
'If you send forth a nom in a state where you're really not even conferring with the two Democrat members, then you're just setting that up for the political physics that I talk about of payback,' he said. 'And why would we do that?'
Sen. John Cornyn, who is facing a tough reelection battle in Texas, said he would support Grassley's and Thune's choice.
When pressed on whether he thinks it's the correct move, Cornyn repeated that he will 'support their decision.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
a few seconds ago
- Atlantic
Trump's Dreams for D.C. Could Soon Hit Reality
Washington, D.C., more than any other city in the country, presents President Donald Trump with the opportunity to meddle in the minutiae of municipal governance. Even in the capital, though, his powers are far from limitless. And the chasm between Trump's sweeping plan to 'clean up' D.C. and his actual authority over the city sets up a stark choice for the president: He can either settle for a significantly diminished version of the kind of change he desires or attempt to push the bounds of the law. On Monday, Trump announced that he would federalize the city's police department, deploy the National Guard, and dispatch hundreds of federal officers to patrol the nation's capital, pledging to address its 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor.' Trump set a high bar for himself during a press conference in which he promised to, among other things, get rid of D.C.'s 'homeless encampments' and 'slums,' revoke the city's cash-bail system, end its so-called sanctuary-city policies, increase penalties for youth offenders, and even fill potholes with fresh asphalt. 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people,' he said yesterday at the White House. 'And we're not going to let it happen anymore. We're not going to take it.' But Trump is likely to find that even this seizure of broad emergency powers does not give him free rein to remake the city to his liking. The 1973 Home Rule Act, which allows a president to take over Washington's police force during an emergency, also sets a limit on how long this kind of federalization can last. Under that law, Trump has a maximum of 30 days to maintain control over the Metropolitan Police Department—hardly enough time to conduct a major revamping of policing tactics and enforcement priorities. (The 1973 law actually limits the White House's authority to 48 hours, allowing an extension to 30 days only after the president has notified Congress why such an accommodation is necessary.) Extending the federalization, which began yesterday, past a month would require an act of Congress. Democrats, whose votes Trump would likely need to pass such a law, have already blasted his actions as those of a would-be authoritarian. Charles Fain Lehman: Trump is right that D.C. has a serious crime problem Washington's attorney general, Brian Schwalb, has denounced Trump's moves as 'unprecedented, unnecessary and unlawful,' challenging the president's claim that D.C.'s crime levels constitute an emergency. 'There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia,' Schwalb wrote yesterday on X. 'We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents.' Like many other cities, D.C. experienced a spike in crime during and immediately after the COVID-19 lockdowns but has since seen numbers drop. Homicides are down 12 percent so far this year compared with the same period last year, following a 31 percent decline in 2024, according to MPD. Violent crime is down 26 percent as of Monday, MPD reports, after a 35 percent drop last year. As a result, crime levels in Washington are at a 30-year low. Still, Trump has looked past the broader statistics to zero in on specific acts of violence—including a bloody assault on a federal staffer earlier this month that the president said led him to get more involved in local crime fighting. While the D.C. city council echoed Schwalb's criticism, calling Trump's actions 'a show of force without impact' in a statement, Mayor Muriel Bowser was less combative during a press conference yesterday afternoon. She said Trump's moves were 'unsettling and unprecedented' but 'not surprising,' given Trump's rhetoric in recent weeks. She said she would work with Trump's allies to review the city's crime laws and encourage the police force to collaborate with its federal partners to help end 'the so-called emergency.' Trump would need buy-in from Washington's police officers themselves to enforce the more aggressive form of policing he has requested. (Trump said yesterday that law enforcement should 'knock the hell out of' suspected criminals, lock up more juveniles, and otherwise 'do whatever the hell they want.') He received a nod from MPD's union, which has clashed with the city council over laws that aimed to reduce police misconduct and hold officers accountable for using excessive force. The union said yesterday that it welcomed the federalization and looked forward to working with the White House to tackle local crime. At the same time, the union asserted that any federal takeover should be temporary, and fissures have already emerged over staffing levels. The department said its force of about 3,200 officers, which has shrunk by about 600 over the past five years, is overstretched and needs more employees. Trump, who wants the department to make more arrests, disagrees, saying yesterday that the officers need only to have the right policies in place. 'I was told today, 'Sir, they want more police.' I heard a number—3,500 police,' Trump said. 'They said, 'We have 3,500. We need more.' You don't need more. That's so many. That's like an army.' As the commander in chief of D.C.'s National Guard, Trump faces fewer limitations in deploying the actual Army onto Washington's streets. Unlike state National Guard members, who report to a governor, the D.C. National Guard is under the purview of the White House. Even so, D.C.'s National Guard is relatively small. The Army said in a statement yesterday that it was mobilizing 800 soldiers, though only about 100 to 200 would be assisting local law enforcement at any given time. In practice, that means the troops will likely serve primarily as backup to D.C. police or other law-enforcement officials who might be arresting suspects or conducting direct law-enforcement activities, as California National Guard troops largely did after Trump sent 4,000 of them into Los Angeles earlier this summer. Trump's eagerness to deploy the guard members to a mostly quiet city sparked accusations of hypocrisy from Democrats, who questioned his delays in dispatching the guard during the deadly January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Other federal agents from branches including the FBI, U.S. Park Police, and the Drug Enforcement Agency have begun emerging on city streets but are supposed to limit their activities to enforcing federal laws. Yesterday, Trump pledged to overhaul several local D.C. policies—cash bail, immigration enforcement, road construction. The Home Rule Act does not give him authority to do any of those things; instead, it offers broad powers to the locally elected D.C. city council and mayor to govern the city of 700,000. Once Trump realizes that he does not have the ability to enact his vision quickly, the president is likely to move on to other matters, Joseph Margulies, an attorney and government professor at Cornell University, predicted. 'It's equivalent to the bloviating about buying Greenland or seizing the Panama Canal or making Canada the 51st state, where he's going to lose interest in an hour and a half,' Margulies told me. 'And then, the National Guard will drift away, and the FBI will be reassigned to where they need to be, and the D.C. police will go back to doing what they do. It's just a pointless symbolic exercise.' Others see darker possibilities. Trump's ultimate goal might be to normalize the idea of federal forces storming into Democratic cities, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on authoritarianism, told me. 'It is no surprise that with the flimsiest of excuses—a supposed crime surge that is contradicted flatly by the actual statistics—they are moving to militarize the capital,' she said. 'Each laboratory of repression—first L.A., now this—is supposed to habituate people to accept this executive overreach and with the aesthetics of cities being subjugated by troops.' But unlike mass protests over racial justice or pro-immigrant activism in Los Angeles—incidents that tend to grab the national spotlight at least for a time—the issues of homelessness, youth crime, and municipal disorder are long-standing challenges that defy easy fixes. Trump has shown more interest in the flashier parts of managing the city's profile, appointing himself the chair of the Kennedy Center, creating the 'D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force' to tackle crime and urban grime, and overseeing a military parade near the White House. During his press conference yesterday, he took time to tout the recent 'upgrades' he has implemented at the White House itself, including renovated marble floors, an abundance of new gold trim, and plans for a massive ballroom. Citing his 'natural instinct' for 'fixing things up,' Trump suggested that he would do the same for the nation's capital, betraying no awareness that his power is far more limited outside the gates of the White House complex. 'Not only are we stopping the crime; we're going to clean up the trash and the graffiti and the grime and the dirt and the broken marble panels and all of the things they've done to hurt this city,' he said. 'And we're going to restore the city back to the gleaming capital that everybody wants it to be. It's going to be something very special.'
Chicago Tribune
a few seconds ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump administration calls out human rights records of some nations accepting deported migrants
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday released human rights reports for countries worldwide, which eliminate mentions of discrimination faced by LGBTQ people, reduce a previous focus on reproductive rights and criticize restrictions on political speech by U.S. allies in Europe that American officials believe target right-wing politicians. The reports, which cover 2024 before President Donald Trump took office, reflect his administration's focus on free speech and protecting the lives of the unborn. However, the reports also offer a glimpse into the administration's view of dire human rights conditions in some countries that have agreed to accept migrants deported from the United States under Trump's immigration crackdown. 'This year's reports were streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners,' the State Department said. The congressionally mandated reports in the past have been frequently used for reference and cited by lawmakers, policymakers, academic researchers and others investigating potential asylum claims or looking into conditions in specific countries. The reports had been due to be released in March. The State Department said in an overview that the delay occurred because the Trump administration decided in March to 'adjust' the reports, which had been compiled during the Biden administration. Among other deletions, the reports do not include accounts from individual abuse survivors or witnesses. 'Frequently, eyewitnesses are intimidated or prevented from reporting what they know,' the overview said. 'On the other hand, individuals and groups opposed to a government may have incentive to exaggerate or fabricate abuses. In similar fashion, some governments may distort or exaggerate abuses attributed to opposition groups.' Human rights groups decried the changes in focus and omissions of certain categories of discrimination and potential abuse. The new reports 'reveal a disturbing effort by the Trump administration to purposefully fail to fully capture the alarming and growing attacks on human rights in certain countries around the globe,' Amnesty International said in a statement. The reports do follow previous practices in criticizing widespread human rights abuses in China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. Although such deportations did not begin until after Trump took office, the reports, with one notable exception, detail general poor human rights conditions in many of the countries that have agreed to accept migrants, even if they are not citizens of that nation. The exception is El Salvador, which was the first of several countries in Latin America and Africa to agree to accept non-citizen migrant deportees from the U.S. Despite claims from rights advocates to the contrary, the report about the country says 'there were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses' in El Salvador in 2024 and that 'the government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses.' Human rights groups have accused authorities of abuses, including at a notorious prison where many migrants are sent. However, for Eswatini — a small country in Africa formerly known as Swaziland — South Sudan and Rwanda, the reports paint a grimmer picture. All have agreed to accept third-country deportees from the United States. In all three countries, the reports noted 'significant human rights issues included credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment … serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, prohibiting independent trade unions or significant or systematic restrictions on workers' freedom of association.' Those governments 'did not take credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses,' the reports said. South Africa was also singled out for its human rights situation 'significantly worsening.' The report pointed to unfair treatment of white Afrikaners following the signing of major land reforms that the Trump administration has said discriminate against that minority, which ran the country's apartheid government. That system brutally enforced racial segregation, which oppressed the Black majority, for 50 years before ending in 1994. With the signing of that law in December, the report said that 'South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country.' It also said the government 'did not take credible steps to investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, including inflammatory racial rhetoric against Afrikaners and other racial minorities, or violence against racial minorities.' This year, the administration admitted as refugees some groups of white Afrikaners. The reports take issue with what the Trump administration believes are restrictions on free speech imposed against generally right-wing voices in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The reports use identical language to say that human rights conditions in each of the three NATO allies 'worsened during the year.' The executive summaries for each of the three reports say 'significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism.' These governments have rejected such assertions that have been made by senior U.S. officials, including Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Similar freedom-of-speech issues were raised in Brazil, which has more recently provoked Trump's ire by prosecuting his ally — former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro — and led to the imposition of massive U.S. tariffs and sanctions against Brazil's Supreme Court chief justice. 'The human rights situation in Brazil declined during the year,' the report said. 'The courts took broad and disproportionate action to undermine freedom of speech and internet freedom by blocking millions of users' access to information on a major social media platform in response to a case of harassment.' It added that the government 'undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to undermine democracy' and specifically mentioned suppressing the speech of Bolsonaro and his supporters.
NBC News
2 minutes ago
- NBC News
White House reviewing Smithsonian exhibits to make sure they align with Trump's vision
The White House is conducting an expansive review of the Smithsonian's museum exhibitions, materials and operations ahead of America's 250th anniversary to ensure it aligns with President Donald Trump's views of history, an administration official confirmed to NBC News. The assessment, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, will include reviews of museum exhibitions, online content, internal curatorial processes, exhibition planning, the use of collections and artist grants, and wording related to museum exhibit messaging, the official said. The Smithsonian Institution includes 21 museums, 14 education and research centers and the National Zoo. The news of the review was outlined in a letter dated Tuesday and sent to Lonnie Bunch, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. White House senior associate Lindsey Halligan, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley and White House Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought signed the letter. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the administration official quoted the letter as saying. The official said the review is aimed at making sure the museums reflect the 'unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story' and reflect the president's executive order calling for 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.' That order, which was signed on March 27, calls for removing "improper ideology" from the Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo. 'This is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions," Halligan said in a statement. "The Smithsonian museums and exhibits should be accurate, patriotic, and enlightening—ensuring they remain places of learning, wonder, and national pride for generations to come.' The impeachment exhibition at The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History, on Aug. 1. Andrew Leyden / ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters NBC News reported in May that historical leaders and critics were questioning why exhibits at the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture on the National Mall were rotating out. NBC News found at least 32 artifacts that were once on display had been removed. Among those items were Harriet Tubman's book of hymns filled with gospels that she is believed to have sung as she led enslaved people to freedom through the underground railroad, and the 'Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,' the memoir by one of the most important leaders in the abolition movement. The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History also recently made headlines after it removed a placard referring to Trump from an impeachment exhibit, sparking concerns over his influence on the cultural institution. Mention of his two impeachments was later restored to the exhibit after criticism of the removal. In a statement, the Smithsonian said that the exhibit was temporarily removed because it"did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation. 'It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case. For these reasons, we removed the placard," the statement added. Trump's executive order called for changes at the museum system, charging that the 'Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology. This shift has promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.' '[W]e will restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness –- igniting the imagination of young minds, honoring the richness of American history and innovation, and instilling pride in the hearts of all Americans,' the order said. Trump has also gotten more involved at another federally controlled D.C. institution, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. He has named himself the Kennedy Center chairman and fired the previous bipartisan board of trustees after vowing there would be no "anti-American propaganda" at the venue. 'We don't need woke at the Kennedy Center,' he said in February. House Republicans have moved to rename the center the 'Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts,' but the law creating the center prohibits any of the facilities from being renamed. Trump seemed to acknowledge the House effort in a post on Truth Social Tuesday. "GREAT Nominees for the TRUMP/KENNEDY CENTER, whoops, I mean, KENNEDY CENTER, AWARDS. They will be announced Wednesday," he wrote.
