House Oversight GOP shoots down Democratic attempt to subpoena Musk
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee shot down an attempt by the panel's Democrats to subpoena Elon Musk, seeking answers about his short stint in the Trump administration.
The surprise move from Democrats to compel Musk to testify before the panel sought to examine government service that, while brief, was impactful and marred by controversy.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.), the acting top Democrat on the panel, shifted the tune of a hearing on artificial intelligence (AI) by bashing the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head, saying President Trump created 'disaster and danger…by turning our government over to his biggest campaign donor.'
'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides to red states and blue states,' he said.
'Musk may say he has stepped away from his role in the federal government, but his recklessness will continue to have devastating consequences for America for years, possibly decades to come,' Lynch continued.
Republicans, very few of whom were in the room when the hearing began, suspended the hearing to give GOP colleagues more time to arrive and vote down the measure, delaying the hearing for more than 20 minutes.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who was overseeing the hearing, mocked Democrats, telling them they 'looked good' for social media clips as her Democratic colleagues sat before blown up photos of Musk.
Lynch and other Democrats pressed Mace to move forward with a vote as the wait stretched on. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) criticized the delay, noting that 'it has historically never taken this long for the clerk to call roll.'
The Thursday push was the second time the panel's Democrats have pushed to subpoena Musk, though the first since the DOGE leader has left government following the end of his term as a special government employee. His departure also came amid reports about Musk's alleged drug use, which he has denied.
Lynch said Musk was given 'free rein to terrorize our civil servants and drive more than 275,000 federal employees from their jobs serving the American people' and said he was among those in the Trump administration who are 'more interested in self enrichment than public service.'
Musk officially announced his departure from the Trump administration last week, bringing to a close a tumultuous four months in government for the Tesla CEO. The tech billionaire's role leading DOGE has been highly controversial, prompting numerous lawsuits challenging Musk and his staffers' authority and creating headaches for his business empire.
The move comes amid a four-way race to determine the next top Democrat to lead the panel, replacing the late Rep. Gerry Connolly. Lynch has thrown his hat in the ring, as have Crockett, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
Graham wants to punish Russia with ‘bone-crushing' sanctions. It could backfire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has pledged that his expansive sanctions bill would be 'bone crushing' for the Russian economy. But if enacted, the South Carolina Republican's proposal to impose 500 percent tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy would effectively cut the U.S. off from some of the world's largest economies — including allies in Europe. 'A 500 percent tariff is essentially a hard decoupling,' said Kevin Book, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners, an energy research firm. Graham appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday, when he proposed a broad carve-out for countries that provide aid to Ukraine. This exemption would spare the European Union, which continues to import almost 20 percent of its gas from Russia. But experts remain skeptical that the sky-high tariffs proposed in the Sanctioning Russia Act are in any way feasible. India and China buy roughly 70 percent of Russian energy exports, but several other countries that buy any oil, gas or uranium from Moscow — and aren't included in the carve-out — could also be exposed to tariffs under the bill. The United States, which is still reliant on imports of enriched uranium from Russia to fuel its nuclear reactors, could also run afoul of the bill. Edward Fishman, a senior researcher with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said countries in the crosshairs of the bill would struggle to halt their imports of Russian energy overnight. Tariffs of 500 percent on imports of goods made in China would send prices soaring, disrupt supply chains and could drive up U.S. unemployment to recessionary levels. Most likely, it would lead to a screeching halt in U.S. trade with China. 'It would hurt Americans quite a bit,' Fishman said. The legislation's goal, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is to starve Russia's war economy, which continues to earn hundreds of billions of dollars from energy exports. There is widespread support for the overall objective, with 82 senators signing on to Graham's bill so far, and growing support for a companion bill in the House. The bill is likely to change significantly as it moves through Congress and in consultations with the Trump administration, said Matt Zweig, senior policy director of FDD Action, a nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It may also take a long time. 'With sanctions legislation, you're also normally dealing with iterative processes where you would want to go through every nook and cranny,' Zweig said. Still, the widespread bipartisan support for the legislation suggests there is a high degree of support among lawmakers for tougher action on Russia. 'What Congress may be doing is pressuring the executive branch to act,' said Adam Smith, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn. 'There is a sense in the Senate that more sanctions on Russia need to be imposed, or ought to be imposed,' added Smith, who was a senior adviser to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control during the Obama administration. Graham, the bill's most vocal Republican advocate, said as much in a meeting with reporters in Paris over the weekend, where he described the bill as 'one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.' 'The Senate is pissed that Russia is playing a game at our expense and the world's expense. And we are willing to do something we haven't been willing to do before — and that is go after people that have been helping Putin,' Graham said. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed concerns that the bill is too harsh. 'We need to make Putin understand he has to stop screwing around and come to the table. But we also need to follow it up and make clear we will be tough,' she said. Not everyone agrees. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions to change the behavior of U.S. adversaries, bashed the bill on Monday as 'literally the most ill-conceived bill I've ever seen in Washington,' he said. 'It would be a worldwide embargo on 36 countries.' Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have made little progress on peace talks. Officials from both countries met in Istanbul on Monday and agreed to a further prisoner swap, but failed to achieve any major breakthroughs. Graham and Blumenthal visited Ukraine, France and Germany during last week's congressional recess, where they discussed the sanctions bill, as well as efforts to push Russia to the negotiating table. The proposal has been welcomed by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, who met with Graham in Berlin on Monday. 'Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else,' Von der Leyen said in a statement. 'These steps, taken together with U.S. measures, would sharply increase the joint impact of our sanctions.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated Monday that the chamber could take up the legislation later this month. Republican senators have said they would like to secure the approval of the White House before moving forward. The proposed use of blanket tariffs to target countries that continue to do business with Russia's energy sector is novel and appears to be pitched to Trump's interests. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed sanctions as 'a tool in his toolbox,' but declined to comment about his position on the bill. Trump appeared to be inching closer toward supporting the bill in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, which linked to an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting the legislation. Speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump indicated he wanted lawmakers to secure his approval before moving forward with the bill. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do,' he said, describing the legislation as a 'harsh bill.' The president has liberally wielded tariffs to advance his foreign policy agenda, but his implementation has been spotty. Wall Street has even adopted a trading strategy referencing Trump's capriciousness called TACO, which stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' Tariffs of 145 percent on China, imposed in April, lasted a month before being dramatically scaled back to make way for trade talks, which have so far failed to secure a breakthrough. As it stands, the bill includes some levers that Trump could pull to forestall the tariffs, requiring the president to make a formal determination that Russia is refusing to negotiate or has violated any future peace agreement. Nahal Toosi, Joshua Berlinger, Phelim Kine and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
Wall Street Journal
25 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Says Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Will Double to 50%
WEST MIFFLIN, Pa.—President Trump said he would double tariffs on imported steel, a move he said would bolster the domestic industry and protect U.S. jobs. Trump announced the higher duties at a rally near Pittsburgh promoting a $14 billion deal between Tokyo-based Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, which the president said would ensure U.S. control over the storied steelmaker.
Wall Street Journal
26 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's New Steel Tariffs Look Vulnerable to a Courtroom Challenge
U.S. steelmaker shares soared on news of President Trump's new tariffs. But are these tariffs as bulletproof as investors seem to believe? The steel tariffs, like those on autos and auto parts, are sector-based. They differ in that respect from the 'Liberation Day' tariffs Trump unveiled in April. The U.S. Court of International Trade in May blocked Trump's tariffs on U.S. trading partners, rejecting the argument that he could invoke emergency powers to set the country-by-country tariffs. An appeals court stayed that ruling, pending its own review. The conventional wisdom in the markets has been that Trump's recent sector-based tariffs are on firmer legal footing. That might not be the case, though. In fact, there is reason to believe his new 50% tariff on imported steel could be vulnerable to a legal challenge. To speed up the process, Trump piggybacked on the findings of a national-security investigation by the Commerce Department in 2018, during his first term. The question now is whether the findings were too stale to be the basis for a new tariff hike, and thus whether Trump should have sought a new national-security investigation first. Going that route would have delayed his CLF 7.04%increase; green up pointing triangle is up 30% since Trump announced his new tariff plans May 30. Nucor NUE 2.37%increase; green up pointing triangle and Steel Dynamics STLD 1.11%increase; green up pointing triangle are up 11% and 9%, respectively. The tariff increase took effect June 4. Trump also relied on Commerce Department findings from his first term in office when raising sector-based tariffs this year on aluminum, autos and auto parts. His directive raising aluminum tariffs to 50% from 25% took effect June 4, as well. While it is too soon to know whether the sectoral tariffs will draw serious court challenges, a look at the legal underpinnings shows potential soft spots. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he exercised his authority under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to raise steel tariffs to 50% from 25%. In doing so, he cited the Commerce Department's 2018 investigative report that concluded the quantities of steel being imported into the U.S. threatened to harm national security. The trade statute says the president, within 90 days of such a report, shall determine whether he concurs with the findings and decide what action to take in response. After that, he has 15 days to implement the action. A 2021 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the deadlines aren't strict and some flexibility is allowed. In that case, Trump waited five months after his initial 2018 action to boost tariffs on imported Turkish steel to 50% from 25%. An importer, Transpacific Steel, sued, and the Court of International Trade ruled against the higher tariffs on Turkish imports, saying Trump had gone past the statutory time limit. (By then, Trump had already returned the tariff on Turkish steel to 25%.) The appellate court reversed that ruling in a 2-1 decision. That decision might have opened the door for Trump to rely on the same 2018 investigative report yet again—seven years later—for his latest tariff boost. However, the appeals court said its ruling applied 'in the circumstances presented here.' A decision could turn out differently in other circumstances, such as where the investigative findings are 'simply too stale to be a basis' for new presidential actions, the court said. Tim Meyer, an international-trade specialist and professor at Duke Law School, said the appeals court's ruling appears to leave room for a plaintiff to challenge the new steel tariffs. 'The tricky part is how to apply the standards the court identifies,' he said. 'For example, what does it mean for a report to be 'stale'? The court seems to suggest that the passage of time might be enough. But how much time is too much time?' Much has happened in the past seven years, including a pandemic. U.S. steel imports were 26.2 million metric tons in 2024, according to the Commerce Department, down 24% since 2017. That point alone could underscore the need for new investigative findings as a predicate for presidential action. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he also considered 'current information newly provided' by the Commerce Department, but didn't say what it was. Investors will be watching to see if any well-heeled plaintiffs surface to contest the tariffs. Gordon Johnson, chief executive at GLJ Research, in a June 2 note to clients said he believed the surge in steel stocks was premature and that the new 50% tariffs 'could be overturned due to a lack of a new investigation.' He also noted that no one had sought an injunction yet to block them. That said, he wrote, 'we believe there are procedural problems that make these new tariffs vulnerable to a lawsuit.' Steelmaker shares could take a hit if a court invalidated the sectoral tariffs. U.S. automaker stocks, on the other hand, could rally. Of course, the Trump administration could simply initiate new Commerce Department investigations and reinstitute the tariffs later. The net result for investors and the economy ultimately might be just more prolonged uncertainty about Trump's favorite negotiating tool. Write to Jonathan Weil at
