In a hearing that centered on whether she would stand up to President-elect Donald Trump as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, Pam Bondi said she wouldn't weaponize the Justice Department while also vowing to “Make America Great Again” and refusing to answer whether Trump lost the 2020 election. While the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared satisfied with Bondi’s answers, Democrats pressed her on whether she can be trusted as attorney general to safeguard the independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and uphold the rule of law if Trump were to initiate politically motivated investigations. Bondi, a Trump ally who served two terms as Florida’s attorney general, vowed to uphold "one tier of justice for all" and suggested she would steer the department away from any partisan agendas. While Bondi will likely garner all Republican support on the committee and in the wider Senate, which would ensure her confirmation, Democrats on the committee raised concerns about her support for Trump as his personal lawyer during his first impeachment trial in 2020 and her central role in advancing his post-election challenges. “At issue in this nomination hearing is not your competence, nor your experience,” said Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee. “At issue is your ability to say no.” Holiday inbound tourism thrives Branded Content Holiday inbound tourism thrives By China Daily Asked if Trump lost the 2020 election, Bondi twice said, “I accept the results,” while claiming that she saw evidence of potential election interference when she visited Pennsylvania after President Joe Biden won. Her loyalty to Trump became the main focus of the hearing, particularly the question of whether she would allow political influence to steer DOJ decisions. Democrats noted that Trump has expressed a desire for retribution against perceived enemies, potentially including the prosecutors who investigated him or the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, and had indicated that it would be up to Bondi to decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate those individuals. “No one has been prejudged, nor will anyone be prejudged, either,” Bondi said. Read More: Pete Hegseth Faces Tough Questions on Women in Military Bondi claimed to have never heard Trump’s widely reported call with Georgia’s secretary of state after the 2020 election in which he repeatedly pressured him to “find 11,780 votes.” She said she was not familiar with several of Trump’s comments, mostly from the campaign trail, such as his claim that Jan. 6 defendants are “hostages” and “patriots” or that illegal immigration is “poisoning the blood of our nation.” Trump has said that one of his first acts after taking office on Jan. 20 will be to pardon most, if not all, of the defendants charged in relation to the attack on the Capitol. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he recently told TIME. “Maybe the first nine minutes.” While the pardon power lies exclusively with the President, the attorney general would have to defend Trump’s actions in court if they are challenged. Bondi told senators that she would look at requests from the White House to grant pardons to Jan. 6 rioters, but “condemned” any violent attacks on law enforcement officers. Bondi denied any intention to politicize the DOJ, insisting that her legal experience made her qualified to bring a fair, professional approach to the position of attorney general. “The partisanship, the weaponization, will be gone,” Bondi said in her opening statement. But despite her insistence that she would not be political, Bondi at times sounded like a Trump campaign surrogate. She repeatedly lauded Trump’s 2024 electoral victory and pledged to “Make America Safe Again,” a slogan often used by the Trump campaign. At one point, she taunted Senator Adam Schiff of California, a prominent Trump antagonist who was on the House Jan. 6 committee and led Trump’s first impeachment trial, saying, “Look at the map of California, Senator Schiff. It's bright red!” (Trump won 38.3% of the vote in California). “We have got to work together to Make America Safe Again, and that, in turn, will Make America Great Again,” Bondi added. “I don't know where that phrase has become a bad word, because I think that's a great one—Making America Great Again.” Her exchange with Schiff was the tensest of the hearing. They were on opposite sides of Trump’s first impeachment trial, and Trump has called Schiff the “enemy from within.” Schiff asked if Bondi would investigate special counsel Jack Smith or Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who investigated Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. “Senator, that’s a hypothetical, and I’m not going to answer. We’re all so worried about Liz Cheney,” Bondi said. “You know what we should be worried about, Senator? The crime rate in California is through the roof.” Asked by Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat, if she would drop a case if the White House asked her to—which Trump had requested of his then-FBI director James Comey in his first administration in a situation involving then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn—Bondi said, “If I thought that would happen, I wouldn’t be here.” Bondi also faced several questions from Democrats over what role she would play as attorney general to be a check on Kash Patel, a polarizing Trump loyalist who was nominated for FBI director and has promised to pursue Trump’s perceived rivals. Patel, if confirmed, would work closely with the attorney general. Bondi defended Patel’s pledge to target a list of people he views as “government gangsters” but said she won’t use her power to pursue a so-called “enemies list.” “I have known Kash, and I believe that Kash is the right person at this time for this job,” she said. Bondi was asked to explain her comments in a 2023 Fox News appearance that “prosecutors will be prosecuted” and “the investigators will be investigated” under a Trump DOJ, to which she responded that they would only be prosecuted “if bad.” Pressed further on the extent of prosecutions, Bondi would not promise that she wouldn’t prosecute journalists. “None of us are above the law,” she said, adding that she “believes in freedom of speech.” Asked in the second round of questions to clarify those comments, given that Patel has suggested he would investigate news reporters, Bondi said that “going after the media just because they are the media is wrong, of course.” In a question about news that is at the top of many Americans’ minds this week, Bondi did not commit to enforcing a new law enforcing a TikTok ban. In addition to questions about her political independence, Bondi is expected to face scrutiny over her post-public service work as the hearings continue. After leaving the Florida attorney general’s office in early 2019, she joined Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with close ties to the first Trump Administration. Critics argue that her lobbying work—especially her representation of foreign governments and large corporations—could undermine her credibility as a champion of the rule of law. Trump nominated Bondi for the position after his initial pick for attorney general, former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid sexual misconduct allegations.

President Joe Biden will leave the White House, presumably for the last time, on Jan. 20. And while his successor, Donald Trump, has promised to implement a raft of policies on Day One of his new term, Biden isn’t leaving before pushing through a few of his own. In December, Biden announced nearly $2.5 billion in security assistance for Ukraine, commuted death-row sentences, and granted clemency to a record number of prisoners. Since the beginning of 2025—in addition to addressing crises like the California wildfires and attending to the usual end-of-presidency securing of judicial confirmations, bill signings (mostly post office renamings), and handing out of medals to citizens and service members—Biden has used his remaining days in office to tout his administration’s accomplishments—on everything from LGBTQ rights to health care to small-business growth—as well as to assert his domestic and foreign-policy principles through a series of executive actions. “My Administration is leaving the next Administration with a very strong hand to play,” Biden said on Monday in the first of two farewell speeches to the nation. (The second is scheduled for Wednesday.) Read More: Biden’s Final Attempts at Legacy Polishing Won't Boost His Standing. Here's What Might Here’s a rundown of some of the final policies Biden has announced this month so far, as his presidency winds down. Blocking Nippon Steel’s planned acquisition of U.S. Steel On Jan. 3, Biden blocked a nearly $15-billion deal from Japanese company Nippon Steel to acquire Pittsburgh-headquartered U.S. Steel—a planned move that drew political scrutiny during the recent election season amid reinvigorated calls to shore up America’s domestic manufacturing industry. Biden said he blocked the acquisition on national security grounds. “A strong domestically owned and operated steel industry represents an essential national security priority and is critical for resilient supply chains,” the outgoing President said in a statement. “Without domestic steel production and domestic steel workers, our nation is less strong and less secure.” Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel were ordered to abandon their transaction within 30 days, but they sued the Biden administration alleging “illegal interference” in the deal that the companies say, according to a joint statement, would “enhance, not threaten, United States national security.” The Biden administration extended the deadline to unwind the transaction to mid-June, further into Trump’s term, though Trump has also opposed the acquisition. Increasing Social Security benefits for millions On Jan. 5, Biden signed into law the Social Security Fairness Act, a bipartisan measure that will increase Social Security payments for former and current public employees who receive pensions—including firefighters, police officers, and teachers, as well as their spouses and survivors—by rescinding two federal policies that limited their benefits. “This is a big deal,” Biden said during a signing event at the White House, where he touted himself as “the first president in more than 20 years to expand Social Security benefits.” The law would increase the monthly payouts of some 3 million recipients by an average of $360, while many will also receive lump-sum payments to make up for the shortfall of benefits they should have gotten in 2024. Trump has promised to “protect Social Security,” though analysts have warned the fund is headed toward insolvency and his proposals could worsen its finances, which may lead to legally-mandated benefit cuts. Banning offshore drilling On Jan. 6, Biden, using his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, issued a ban on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters, as part of his larger climate and conservation agenda. The order covers some 625 million acres of federal waters, including the U.S. East coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Coast along California, Oregon, and Washington, and more portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska. “My decision reflects what coastal communities, businesses, and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs,” Biden said in a statement. Trump, who has promised to establish U.S. “energy dominance” by expanding oil and gas drilling, posted on Truth Social that Biden is “doing everything possible to make the TRANSITION as difficult as as possible” and said during a Jan. 7 press conference at Mar-a-Lago that he will immediately reverse Biden’s order—though he will likely need an act of Congress. Removing medical debt from credit reports On Jan. 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule that will remove around $49 billion in medical bills from consumer credit reports, improving the credit score of more than 15 million Americans. Lenders will also be barred from using medical information in their lending decisions, the bureau said, based on previous research that showed medical bills on people’s credit reports are poor predictors of their loan repayment ability. “This will be lifechanging for millions of families, making it easier for them to be approved for a car loan, a home loan, or a small-business loan,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a White House factsheet that called reducing the burden of medical debt “a key priority in President Biden and Vice President Harris’s effort to lower cost for American families.” Expanding veterans’ benefits On Jan. 8, Biden announced that the Department of Veterans Affairs will expand the benefit coverage of veterans with cancer believed to be linked to toxic pit exposures, as part of a yearslong effort of his Administration to increase veterans’ access to benefits. According to a press release by the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans with acute and chronic leukemias, multiple myelomas, myelodysplastic syndromes, myelofibrosis, urinary bladder, ureter, and related genitourinary cancers, as well as the survivors of veterans who passed from these conditions, can immediately apply for benefits without needing to prove that their ailments are linked to their service. “It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve as Commander-in-Chief and to support and care for our service members, veterans, and their families,” Biden said in his statement. Imposing more sanctions on Russia On Jan. 10, the Biden Administration expanded the sanctions on Russia’s energy sector in response to the war it continues to wage in Ukraine. In a statement, the Administration called the sanctions the “most significant” so far—covering two major Russian oil producers, dozens of oilfield service providers, 183 vessels moving seaborne Russian oil, and opaque traders of Russian oil worldwide. Some of the targeted vessels are also suspected to ship Iranian oil, according to the Treasury Department. “Some will ask why we waited for the end of the Administration to introduce sanctions on Russian oil,” reads a White House statement on the sanctions. “The answer is this: for sanctions to be successful, they must be sustainable.” Whether or not the Trump administration plans to continue these sanctions remains to be seen, though analysts have said that Trump may find sanctions on Russia to be “stickier” than expected, and he may even take advantage of them to force negotiations with Putin to end the war. Trump “has been handed a great big stick to use,” wrote Bloomberg’s Julian Lee. “He shouldn’t just throw it away.” Issuing guidelines on clean tax credits On Jan. 10, the U.S. Treasury Department released partial guidelines on how companies can secure clean fuel tax credits—which was aimed at incentivizing production of low-carbon fuels—in an apparent rush to secure climate initiatives before Biden’s term ends. “This guidance will help put America on the cutting-edge of future innovation in aviation and renewable fuel while also lowering transportation costs for consumers,” said Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo. But while the guidelines provide emission reductions criteria to ensure access to the subsidies, biofuels groups criticized the lack of specificity, as it leaves many of the final decisions to Trump, who has vowed to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act that established the credit in the first place. Forgiving student debt On Jan. 13, Biden approved student loan relief for more than 150,000 borrowers, bringing the total number of borrowers whose student debt has been cancelled under his term to 5 million—more than any other President in U.S. history, according to the Associated Press. Student loan relief, a key Biden campaign proposal in 2020, totaled to $183.6 billion throughout Biden’s presidency despite the Supreme Court striking down a wider forgiveness plan in 2023, forcing the Administration to instead expand upon the Education Department’s existing programs. “Since Day One of my Administration, I promised to ensure higher-education is a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity, and I’m proud to say we have forgiven more student loan debt than any other administration in history,” the President said in a statement. In November, Politico reported that Trump’s transition team and advisers are already eyeing a rollback of Biden’s debt-forgiveness policies, though Trump allies have admitted that doing so won’t be simple. Restricting exports of AI chips On Jan. 13, the Biden Administration announced additions to its existing restrictions on AI chips, aimed at preventing China and other countries of concern to the U.S. from access to the technologies that will allow them to beat America in the artificial intelligence space. Under the framework, 18 U.S. allies will have no new restrictions, but for most other countries, the U.S. will require authorization for exports, reexports, and transfers of advanced computing chips. “This policy will help build a trusted technology ecosystem around the world and allow us to protect against the national security risks associated with AI, while ensuring controls do not stifle innovation or US technological leadership,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo in a statement. Tech groups, however, have warned that such “rushed” new policies could cause “unintended and lasting damage” to the American semiconductor and AI chip industry. The rule, however, has a 120-day comment period, which means the Trump Administration will get to decide whether or not it ultimately goes through. Read More: Why Biden Is Rushing to Restrict AI Chip Exports “Obviously it’s going to be up to them how they want to proceed, and they may have internal debates the same way we had internal debates about exactly how to calibrate the rule,” Biden National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told Bloomberg. “But I would be surprised sitting here today if, after 120 days, they looked at the landscape as we’ve looked at it, and said, ‘You know, we really don’t need this at all.’”. Negotiating a Gaza ceasefire deal The Biden Administration has been working to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, for which it has collaborated on negotiations with mediators Qatar and Egypt for more than a year. Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, which is seen by many as a deadline for a deal to be reached, Biden has made calls in the last couple days with the Emir of Qatar and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to White House readouts of both calls, Biden emphasized the need for a deal that would return the hostages that are still held in Gaza as well as bring a surge in humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. In a foreign-policy speech at the State Department on Jan. 13, Biden said, “On the war between Israel and Hamas, we’re on the brink of a proposal that I laid out in detail months ago finally coming to fruition.” Personnel from both Biden’s and Trump’s teams have been working together on the negotiations—as Trump also appears keen to quickly resolve the conflict in the Gaza Strip, having warned Hamas that there will be “all hell to pay” if the remaining hostages held captive are not released by the time he returns to the Oval Office.

Pete Hegseth came under fire from Senators of both parties weighing his nomination to lead the Defense Department over his past comments about women serving in the military, putting the first of Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks to face a hearing on the defensive. Hegseth has faced a series of controversies in recent weeks, including alleged womanizing, sexual misconduct, inappropriate drinking, and claims of financial mismanagement. During a contentious hearing on Tuesday, he clarified his past comments and told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would work to eliminate "wokeness" within the military, vowing to “restore the warrior ethos to the Pentagon.” While Hegseth tried to project confidence and clarity about his vision for the U.S. military, some of the most pointed questions came from within his own party. One skeptical Republican was Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, whose vote on the Armed Services Committee might well decide the fate of Hegseth, a 44-year-old former Fox News host and National Guard veteran. Ernst, a former Army National Guard commander and sexual assault survivor, has expressed concerns about Hegseth’s leadership experience and his past comments on women in combat. In one exchange with Ernst, Hegseth appeared to walk back his previous stance against women serving in combat roles—a position that has already prompted backlash within and outside the military. He was pressed by Ernst and several Democratic members of the committee on those comments, which he now claims were "misconstrued.” Hegseth wrote in his 2024 book that women are meant to be “life-givers” and shouldn’t serve in combat roles. “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially not in combat units,” he wrote. Currently, 18% of the military is composed of women. Asked by Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat, if he thinks the two women on the committee who served in the military—Senators Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Ernst—made the military less capable, Hegseth said: “No, their contributions are indispensable. My comments are about having the same standards across the board.” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat on the committee, said that his comments on women were a “silly thing to say” and “beneath the position” of Secretary of Defense. “You have to change how you see women to do this job well, and I don’t know that you can,” she said. Later, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democrat, questioned his apparent recent change of opinion on women in combat and asked how women can be certain he won’t reverse his opinion again once confirmed. "I've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time I've seen a nomination conversion," she said. Read More: Pete Hegseth’s Role in Trump’s Controversial Pardons of Men Accused of War Crimes Hegseth can only lose a single Republican vote on the Senate Armed Services panel if all Democrats oppose him. If he makes it for a vote in the full Senate, Hegseth can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes if all Democrats vote against him. Hegseth only met with one Democrat prior to the hearing—Senator Jack Reed of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee. Several Democrats called him out for not scheduling meetings with them. For many on the committee, it wasn’t just Hegseth’s views on gender and military service that raised questions. Past personal allegations—including sexual assault, drinking on the job, and claims by former co-workers that he mismanaged veterans organizations he led—remained key concerns. Hegseth called those allegations a “coordinated smear campaign” and said the media was “out to destroy me…because I'm a change agent.” He previously acknowledged that he paid an undisclosed sum to a woman who had accused him of sexual assault at a Republican conference in 2017. No charges were ever filed against Hegseth in the incident. Pressed by Ernst, Hegseth said he would appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention in the military. "I’m not a perfect person," Hegseth said. "But redemption is real.” The hearing also saw scrutiny from Democrats over Hegseth’s qualifications to lead the Pentagon, particularly given his relative lack of experience managing large, bureaucratic organizations. Reed, the top Democrat on the committee who voted in favor of Trump’s picks for Secretary of Defense in the President-elect’s first term, questioned Hegseth’s capacity to oversee the massive U.S. military apparatus, adding that he reviewed the allegations against Hegseth and concluded that the alleged conduct would “disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military.” Other Democrats pointed out that his management experience pales in comparison to even mid-level civilian managers in private sector companies, let alone the head of one of the world’s largest institutions. Duckworth, an Iraq War combat veteran, then quizzed Hegseth on military issues. At one point, she asked Hegseth to name a country that’s in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a political and economic union of 10 states. He mentioned South Korea, Japan and Australia—none of which are in ASEAN. "I suggest you do a little homework," she said. In response to concerns about his qualifications, Hegseth highlighted his military service, his leadership in the National Guard, and his work at veterans’ organizations, while also stressing his role as a critic of the military establishment and advocate for reform. Read More: ‘Not Qualified’ And ‘Out of Touch’: Combat Veteran Tammy Duckworth on Why She Opposes Pete Hegseth’s Nomination “It is true that I don't have a similar biography to Defense Secretaries of the last 30 years,” Hegseth said in his opening statement. “But, as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly ‘the right credentials’—whether they are retired generals, academics, or defense contractor executives—and where has it gotten us?” “It's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm,” he added. “A change agent. Someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives.” If confirmed, Hegseth would oversee more than 3 million military and civilian personnel around the world, the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and an annual budget of more than $800 billion. He would be expected to lead the nation’s military as the U.S. faces threats from Russia, China, Iran and adversaries around the world. Some members of the public expressed their opposition to Hegseth’s nomination on Tuesday as well. Four people, one wearing a Vietnam veteran cap, were removed from the hearing within the first minutes of Hegseth’s opening statement. At least three were protesting Hegseth’s stance on the war in Gaza. Later, when asked by Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas to address the protestors and clarify his stance on the Israel-Hamas war, Hegseth said that he supports “Israel killing and destroying every last member of Hamas.” Hegseth also addressed diversity and inclusion policies, arguing they “divide” troops and that the military should be putting “meritocracy first.” Asked by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, a Democrat on the committee, if he will use the military to take over Greenland or the Panama Canal as Trump suggested he might use the military to do in a press conference on Jan. 7, Hegseth said he would never tip his hand in a public setting on military plans. It’s not yet clear if Hegseth will get the support of every Republican on the committee—or in the upper chamber. Some Republican senators—including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have remained noncommittal on his nomination.

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host whom Donald Trump has nominated to be Defense Secretary, came under fire on Tuesday during his Senate confirmation hearing, where he faced questions about his history of alleged sexual assault and excessive drinking, his views on women in the military, and his role in the pardoning of men accused of war crimes. But one particular moment from the 4.5-hour grilling has gained traction online: when he wasn’t able to name a single country in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In what has now gone viral, with millions of views on X and other platforms, Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth from Illinois, who has called Hegseth “not qualified,” says she appreciates that he’s “talked about the Indo-Pacific a little bit.” She then asks Hegseth if he could “name the importance of at least one of the nations in ASEAN and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations.” She adds: “And how many nations are in ASEAN, by the way?” Hegseth responds that he “couldn’t tell you the exact amount of nations in that” before saying “but I know we have allies in South Korea and Japan and in AUKUS with Australia…” “None of those three countries that you’ve mentioned are in ASEAN,” Duckworth interjected. “I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations.” .@SenDuckworth asks Pete Hegseth about ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations): "None of those three countries that you've mentioned are in ASEAN. I suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations." pic.twitter.com/C2qsQkBUi3 — CSPAN (@cspan) January 14, 2025 ASEAN, a bloc that has had diplomatic relations with the U.S. for nearly half a century, has 10 members—Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Though ASEAN is not a military alliance, the U.S. has defense alliances with both the Philippines and Thailand, while Singapore is a Major Security Cooperation Partner. Former Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) shared a clip of the moment on X and questioned Hegseth’s suitability for the role. “Hegseth can’t name one country that’s part of ASEAN and he doesn’t know any of the US international security agreements. America, if you want peace and security, this ain’t it!” she wrote. Other social media users were also concerned about Hegseth’s gaffe. “This is simultaneously hilarious and terrifying,” one user on X posted. “No great power in history has combined such immense imperial hubris with such profound ignorance of others.” “From a basic knowledge standpoint, Pete Hegseth is woefully unqualified for this job,” posted the anti-Trump organization Really American. VoteVets, a liberal advocacy group, called it a “mic drop” moment. Read More: How Asia Is Bracing for Trump’s Second Term But others came to Hegseth’s defense. “I’ve literally never heard of ASEAN and I’ve followed geopolitics all my life,” one X user said. “Sounds like they’re just throwing obscure irrelevant gotcha questions at him and then saying ‘you should have prepared for this.’” Former Rep. Peter Mejier (R-Mich.) posted: “Ok this is dumb. Clearly Hegseth heard Asia, and If I was in Hegseth’s shoes I would have said the same thing about Japan/South Korea/AUKUS- bc it’s not at all clear why Duckworth is raising ASEAN, a political and economic union, in the context of Indo-Pacific defense agreements.” (AUKUS is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the U.K., and the U.S.) In response to a post by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) praising Hegseth’s overall performance at the confirmation hearing, another X user pointed out: “Hegseth was so prepared that he couldn’t name a single ASEAN nation. Now, who should know about global affairs? Oh, that’s right, a Defense Secretary.”

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. President Joe Biden is down to his last week in the White House and he’s about to discover how little his half-century of service to the Democratic Party gets him once he is back on the outside. Heading into his final days in office, Biden is rightly feeling a little chaffed if not cheated as he rides a job approval rating so bad that you have to go back to Jimmy Carter’s surveys to find someone in worse shape. (Lost to no one is the fact that Biden last week eulogized Carter, a fellow one-term Democrat shown the door amid a frustrated public in favor of a mold-breaking outsider.) California fires derailed Biden’s plans for a final foreign trip to Italy and to Vatican City. He is set Monday evening to deliver the first of two legacy-polishing speeches that won’t do much to remedy the lack of enthusiasm from his party’s base to see him transition into sage leader. Let’s just look at the numbers. Only 37% of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing, besting Carter’s outgoing rating by about 5 points, but still way down from the 53% approval Biden had on Week One, according to polling shop FiveThirtyEight. The Associated Press-NORC poll puts Biden at 39% approval, including 72% of Democrats, down from 97% of them when he took office. More than half of Democrats—55%—said they are the same as or worse off than before Biden came to power in that AP-NORC polling. In short, no one is looking to Biden to guide a party that has now been cast as almost as much of an afterthought in official Washington as the President himself. Since Election Day, there has been a muted—but nearly universal—grumbling about Biden’s choices, mostly since the 2022 midterms that saw Democrats fare better than expected, building up the party’s hope in holding on to the White House in 2024. Biden’s insistence that he would proceed with plans to chase another four years now seems folly, but the President himself does not share that view. In fact, in an interview published last week, Biden flatly declared he would have defeated Trump. "It's presumptuous to say that, but I think yes," Biden told USA Today in the lone print exit interview he accepted as he leaves office. Giving voice to his own stubbornness only further depleted the little reservoir of goodwill for Biden inside the party. His decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, put Democrats in an almost impossible position of demanding equal treatment under the law for convicted felon Trump while trying to excuse Biden’s whitewashing of his son’s own criminal record. His awarding the nation’s top civilian honors to the likes of George Soros and Hillary Clinton came with thunderous objection from the right-wing ecosphere, and the bipartisan effort to recognize the late former Gov. George Romney—accepted by now-former Gov. and Sen. Mitt Romney—did little to balance that. (He drew better reviews for nearly emptying federal death row.) Come Monday, Biden will be delivering the first of two farewell addresses scheduled for his last week in power. The first, to be presented at the State Department, is set to cover what his team sees as foreign policy victories on his watch. (His Democratic critics, meanwhile, are all too aware of the counters about the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, a still-live Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a China that seems unchecked.) Given Biden’s years as a top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his eight years as Vice President and four as a globe-trotting President, the legacy-building set piece makes sense and the easiest to sell to a nation that is not exactly conversant in international affairs. Biden then plans to deliver a more traditional farewell from the Oval Office Wednesday evening, before he once again trades Washington for Delaware next Monday. Fatigue with an outgoing President is nothing new. Even some Democrats were exhausted by the time Obama made his exit with a speech delivered in Chicago, where he began his career and twice delivered winning election night remarks. (Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump played no small part in that.) George W. Bush’s final months in office were marked with managed chaos around a Wall Street meltdown, a housing crisis, and auto bailouts—so much so that even during the summer he opted to visit Africa in a piece of legacy-building rather than attend the GOP convention. And Bill Clinton’s final years in office left him leaving as a popular and even sympathetic figure, but his own VP, Al Gore, maintained an arm’s length between the two as he tried unsuccessfully to keep Democrats in the White House for a third term. To be clear, Biden is in worse shape than all of them, at least according to polling. The public is sour on him—in part because of Democrats who blame him for saddling the country with another four years of Trump. Biden’s own loyalists are not much more keen to spend time lingering on his legacy. While White House aides and apologists insist with plenty of credibility that Biden’s legislative wins rival any of his predecessors, legacies are like the economy: you cannot overpower a gut feeling with facts. It’s how Trump won during a third run for the White House, how Obama’s message of hope and change proved effective amid the turmoil of 2008, and how Bush 43 rode a wave of decency pledges to Washington in 2000 after the scandal-soaked Clinton years. But here’s why Biden shouldn’t be despondent: No one can say any of those three immediate predecessors saw their reputations unchanged after decamping from Washington. In that—more than anything his talented writing staff and outside cheerleaders may put on the Teleprompter for his final attempts at historical revisionism—Biden should take a true measure of comfort. While the polling shows him at an historical low, the tape also shows plenty of room for comeback, and it often comes in short order. Gallup routinely follows-up on former Presidents in their surveys, and even the first at-bat often shows big gains: Ronald Reagan rocketed up 15 points in his first reassessment; Carter jumped 12 points; and George H.W. Bush rose 10 points. Maybe after the nation has a bit of a break from Biden, it may give him a similar second chance—albeit one that could not keep him in the job he’d dreamed of having for almost his entire life. Snap judgements—like elections themselves—sometimes get the big questions wrong.

A little over a year ago, Donald Trump claimed he would be a “dictator”—but only for the first 24 hours of his presidency. Now, as his Jan. 20 inauguration approaches, the President-elect’s plans for his first day in office are becoming clearer. Trump told Republican Senators that he is preparing around 100 executive orders for the first day of his presidency, designed to strike swiftly at the heart of the Biden Administration’s legislative agenda. He has spent months teasing an ambitious list of measures he would take on Day One, including shutting down the U.S.-Mexico border, ending the Russia-Ukraine war, and pardoning Jan. 6 prisoners, among others. “Look, I can undo almost everything Biden did, he through executive order. And on Day One, much of that will be undone,” Trump told TIME in a November interview. While some of Trump’s first-day promises can be achieved through executive action, others may require months—or even years—of negotiation with Congress. Legal battles over several of his proposed orders are inevitable, particularly regarding issues like birthright citizenship and federal mandates on transgender rights. And it’s not clear that Trump will follow through on everything he’s vowed to do in his first hours back in the Oval Office. Here are the main promises Trump has said he would roll out on Day One of his presidency. Close the border and reinstate travel bans Trump’s plans to overhaul immigration enforcement are among the most sweeping of his Day One promises. He has vowed to close the U.S. southern border, reinstate his controversial travel bans, and suspend refugee admissions into the country—actions that would likely be performed through a series of executive orders soon after he is sworn in as President. “I want to close the border,” Trump said in December 2023 of his Day One plans. He went even further on the topic at a campaign rally in July: “On Day One of the Trump presidency, I will restore the travel ban, suspend refugee admissions, stop the resettlement and keep the terrorists the hell out of our country,” he said. Read More: What Donald Trump’s Win Means For Immigration Stephen Miller, an immigration hardliner who was recently tapped to serve as White House deputy chief of staff for policy, told Fox News last month that Trump would issue a series of executive orders on the first day to “seal the border shut and begin the largest deportation operation in American history.” While the contours of those executive orders are currently unclear, ideas floated by Republicans include mandating the federal government to finish the unbuilt area of the southern border wall and depriving sanctuary cities of federal resources. Mass deportations and end birthright citizenship Trump said that he intends to launch what he calls the "largest mass deportation operation" in U.S. history on his first day in the White House. He says his focus will be on removing criminals, recent border crossers, and individuals who have been ordered deported by the courts. Under his proposed system, parts of federal law enforcement would be shifted to immigration duties, and the Biden-era migrant app, CBP One, would be discontinued. Trump has also pledged to end birthright citizenship on his first day, which would mean children born to undocumented immigrants would not automatically gain U.S. citizenship—a move that is expected to face immediate legal challenges. “On Day One of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” Trump said in May 2023. Pardon Jan. 6 prisoners One of Trump’s most personal promises is to pardon those convicted for their roles in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Trump has repeatedly indicated that he will act quickly, issuing pardons for many of the more than 1,500 individuals convicted of crimes related to their involvement in storming the Capitol in protest of the electoral certification. Asked by TIME in December what the first 24-to-48 hours of his Administration would look like, Trump said: “I'll be looking at J6 early on, maybe the first nine minutes.” The move will be deeply controversial and likely to reignite the political battle over the Capitol attack. While most participants were charged with misdemeanor offenses for illegally entering the Capitol, others were charged with felony offenses, including assaulting police officers. Trump has said that he would consider pardons for some individuals charged with violent offenses. In addition to pardoning individuals, Trump has suggested he may establish a task force to review other cases of Jan. 6 participants still imprisoned. “I'm going to do case-by-case, and if they were non-violent, I think they've been greatly punished,” Trump told TIME in November. “And the answer is I will be doing that, yeah, I'm going to look if there's some that really were out of control.” End the Russia-Ukraine war On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly said that before taking office he would put an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine before taking office—a violent conflict which has raged for nearly three years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. “If I’m president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours,” Trump said at a CNN town hall in May 2023. “It will be over. It will be absolutely over.” He reiterated that promise at the September 2024 presidential debate, claiming that his relationships with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would help him broker peace between the two nations: “I will get it settled before I even become President… When I’m President-elect, what I’ll do is I’ll speak to one, I’ll speak to the other, I’ll get them together.” However, after winning the presidency, Trump appears to have walked back on that promise. “I hope to have six months," Trump said at a January press conference when asked how soon he could resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict. "I hope long before six months." End the ‘electric vehicle mandate’ and Green New Deal policies On his first day, Trump has said that he will reverse many of the climate-related policies instituted by the Biden Administration. His plan includes ending the so-called "electric vehicle mandate" and scrapping the Biden Administration’s climate subsidies. “I will end the electric vehicle mandate on Day One,” Trump said in his address at the Republican National Convention in July, referring to a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that limits tailpipe pollution so automakers are compelled to sell more electric and hybrid models. At a campaign rally in October, Trump said that these policies are part of a "Green New Scam" that hurts American energy producers and families. His Day One executive orders would likely focus on lifting restrictions on fossil fuel production and reversing mandates on electric vehicles, while he also pledges to expand domestic oil drilling, including the reversal of offshore drilling bans imposed under the current administration. Roll back federal regulations In a bid to lower the cost of living for Americans, Trump has promised to eliminate numerous federal regulations, which he argues have driven up the cost of goods and services. “On Day One, I will sign an executive order directing every federal agency to immediately remove every single burdensome regulation driving up the cost of goods,” he said at a campaign rally in October 2024. His goal is to ensure that for every new regulation introduced by a federal agency, 10 regulations would be eliminated. Trump has tasked billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk and former rival for the Republican nomination Vivek Ramaswamy with running a “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), which is aimed at cutting rules and reducing the size of the federal government. Read More: How Elon Musk Became a Kingmaker Ban transgender individuals in women’s sports and the military Trump has vowed to make moves on his first day in office to protect what he describes as "women’s rights" by banning transgender women from competing in women’s sports. “With the stroke of my pen, on Day One, we’re going to stop the transgender lunacy,” Trump said at a Turning Point USA event in December. “I will sign executive orders to end child sexual mutilation, get transgender out of the military and out of our elementary schools and middle schools and high schools.” (In his first term, Trump had instituted a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, which was overturned by President Joe Biden during his first year in office.) He added: “Under the Trump Administration, it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.” Read More: What Trump’s Win Means for LGBTQ+ Rights Trump has also signaled that he will convene a panel with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review whether hormone treatments for transgender individuals are linked to violent behavior, adding fuel to the ongoing debate over gender-affirming care for minors. “Upon my inauguration, I will direct the FDA to convene an independent outside panel to investigate whether transgender hormone treatments and ideology increase the risk of extreme depression, aggression and even violence,” Trump said in April 2023. Cut federal funding for ‘woke’ schools Trump has vowed to take a stance against what he calls "woke" educational policies, particularly the teaching of critical race theory (CRT). On Day One, he has said that he plans to cut federal funding to schools that teach CRT or enforce vaccine mandates. Trump also aims to ban CRT from being taught in the armed forces. His Administration will also focus on removing any federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) requirements, which he claims are divisive and harmful to the nation’s unity. His education policies are expected to face significant opposition from public school advocates and civil rights groups. “On his first day back in office, President Trump will immediately revoke Joe Biden’s sinister executive order mandating that federal departments establish an ‘equity’ enforcement squad to implement a Marxist takeover of the federal government—and he will urge Congress to create a restitution fund for Americans who have been unjustly discriminated against by such ‘equity’ policies,” Trump’s campaign website says.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Pete Hegseth’s nomination to lead the Pentagon is, at the moment, the most endangered of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet choices. Hegseth’s hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday—among the first of the incoming Administration—could offer some clarity on whether the former Fox News host is still on track to lead the nation’s largest employer. Central to that debate is likely to be Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat on the committee who happens to be disabled combat veteran who lost both of her legs when a rocket-propelled grenade hit the Army Black Hawk helicopter she was piloting in Iraq. Duckworth is among the first women to have flown combat missions. Hegseth says women have no place in combat operations. “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” Hegseth said in November before he was nominated. That position is among a host of past comments that have come to dog Hegseth's nomination to be Defense Secretary—along with a raft of allegations about alcohol, women, and mismanagement. “He's not qualified for the job,” Duckworth told TIME Monday evening ahead of Hegseth’s confirmation hearing. She points to not only his background, but his positions on issues like women in the military. “We could not go to war and keep America safe if we were to keep our female service members out of combat or areas of combat,” she says. Duckworth: Based on what I know so far, no. I was not afforded the opportunity to meet with him in person, either. I understand there was a scheduling conflict there. Oh, no, there's no scheduling conflict. I have the receipts. I have an email dated Dec. 18 where his team gives me the date of the week of Jan. 19. He was never planning on meeting with the Democrats prior to this. And we've made ourselves more than available. So whatever they're telling you is a fib. I went back through your voting record from the first Trump term. You have not been an automatic rejector of his Cabinet. Why is this nomination different? He's not qualified for the job. The largest organization that this man has led, best I can tell, was a 40-person platoon—if that was a fully manned-up platoon. The largest budget that I can tell that he has managed was somewhere around $16 or $18 million. And even that was in financial distress while he was in charge of it. We're talking about a 3 million personnel organization, military and civilian, and a budget this year of $825 billion. The manager of the local Applebee's has managed more people than Mr. Hegseth has. And I would no more want that person in charge of the Pentagon than I would Mr. Hegseth. You've served in combat as a woman. Can you explain what a Secretary Hegseth would mean for folks like yourself? It's not just about me as a woman serving. It's the fact that he's not qualified for the job. The military, what I love about it is that it's a pure meritocracy. Can you do the job? Can you meet the standards? If you can't fly the helicopter, you don't get to be a helicopter pilot. Yet here's a guy who can't meet the standards and is asking for special dispensation to do a job that he's not qualified to do. And so what does that say to the women who've earned their position? What does it say to the team leader, the company commander, or the brigade commander who has earned that position, to look and see there's a guy there who's a weekend talk show host who has no experience, and now he gets to do the job? It undermines the meritocracy and the very foundation on which the military trains and executes its mission. You're a retired member of the military now. You're on the Senate Armed Services Committee. You've seen the effects of DEI programs that Mr. Hegseth has made one of the cornerstones of his candidacy here. Do they hurt national security in the way he says? Not at all. Diversity is one of the greatest strengths of our military. You could just look at things like The Lionesses, right? The Marine Corps's women who formed units after it was found out that they could better get information on enemy actions from Afghan women villagers because they would talk to them. When we were in Iraq, especially in the early days of the war, we were attaching women who were supply clerks or medics to infantry units as they're going to kick down doors looking for insurgents, because then the women were there and they could actually frisk the local women who could not be examined by our male counterparts. Having people within the ranks from all different perspectives and backgrounds with language abilities makes our military more diverse and stronger and more able to defend America. I wish Mr. Hegseth would focus on our adversaries and the needs of the military and less on being a culture warrior. This seems to be all that he's talking about when we don't have enough battleships and the Chinese are building more and more submarines to rival our submarine force. He's worried about renaming a military base for the worst generals in the Confederate war. It's, like, where are you focused, buddy? Those are tangible experiences of women in combat or combat-adjacent roles who actually made the United States safer. Why would there be a downside to that? The nature of modern warfare and the nature of the United States military is one that we could not go to war and keep America safe if we were to keep our female service members out of combat or areas of combat. In Iraq, over 50% of the casualties that we took in Operation Iraqi Freedom happened not when we were kicking down doors. It actually happened during convoy operations. Women have been driving vehicles in the military since the first World War. So if we were to take all of the females out of those convoy operations, they would never have happened. This is not like the Civil War, the Revolutionary War where we have a forward line of troops someplace and everybody stands behind it, and you can keep the women back 30 miles or 50 miles. That's not how war works today. He is completely out of touch with the realities of modern warfare and our military. So what does he want to do? Keep the women from being deployed completely? So that's 20% of the force that can't deploy. Does that mean that the men have to deploy more often? It's going to make our military unable to execute the mission. Is there any way you get to yes on him? Maybe he has hidden talents I don't know about. Maybe he's run a major multinational corporation. Maybe he actually has negotiated a major diplomatic agreement with a foreign military. Maybe he just is being very, very, shy and not telling us about it. Can Democrats stop this, though? I don't know. Unfortunately, if you'd asked me this a month ago, I would've said there are certainly Republican members who care enough about the military and the ability to secure our nation and provide for national security who would step up. But unfortunately, the ones who did speak up with anything other than enthusiastic support from Mr. Hegseth immediately came under extremely volatile attack from everybody from President Trump down to his MAGA base. I know [Sen.] Joni Ernst [of Iowa] certainly faced an onslaught of attacks. My understanding is that many of these attacks were very threatening to her physical security. I don't know what my Republican colleagues are going to do, whether they're going to choose to put country over self, or MAGA over country.

Days before Donald Trump will return to the White House, Special Counsel Jack Smith relayed an unsettling message to the American people: He had unearthed enough evidence to potentially send the incoming President to prison. The Justice Department released on Tuesday its final report on Smith’s charges alleging that Trump illegally conspired to overturn the 2020 election, saying that prosecutors secured the goods to convict Trump had his November victory not prevented the case from proceeding. “But for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the document says. The report amounts to a remarkable rebuke of someone soon to assume the powers of the presidency. While few of the findings were new—Trump’s schemes to remain in office after losing the 2020 election have been extensively chronicled through news reports, documentaries, and landmark congressional hearings—it’s yet another detailed account of how the President-elect waged an assault on American democracy and the U.S. government he will soon lead once again. Smith’s team interviewed more than 250 people, obtained grand jury testimony from more than 55 witnesses, and said the findings of the House committee that probed the attack constituted “a small part of the office’s investigative record.” In the sprawling 137-page report, Smith unspools Trump’s efforts to block the peaceful transfer of power, from pressuring state and federal officials to nullify the election outcome to inciting a mob to ransack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith accuses Trump of trying to obstruct the certification of Biden’s election “through fraud and deceit,” including by encouraging “violence against his perceived opponents” in the days and weeks leading up to the insurrectionist riot. “As set forth in the original and superseding indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power,” the report says. The case faced a series of unique challenges that come with not only investigating a former President but the inexorable force of Trump himself. Smith outlined legal tussles over executive privilege, the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity, and Trump’s scare tactics. “Mr. Trump used his considerable social media presence to make extrajudicial comments—sometimes of a threatening nature—about the case, and the Office was forced to pursue litigation to preserve the integrity of the proceeding and prevent witness intimidation.” At the same time, the case suffered from a public perception that it was politically motivated and the fact that it was transpiring amid an election season. “Mr. Trump’s announcement of his candidacy for president while two federal criminal investigations were ongoing presented an unprecedented challenge for the Department of Justice and the courts,” Smith wrote. Those weren’t the only roadblocks. The report says that prosecutors considered charging Trump with violating the Insurrection Act—a 19th century statute that prohibits engaging in a rebellion against the U.S. government—but ultimately decided there was not enough evidence that Trump intended to instigate the “full scope” of violence on Jan. 6. Many of those who committed violent acts may soon escape legal peril. Trump has said that one of his first acts after taking office on Jan. 20 will be to pardon most, if not all, of the defendants charged in relation to the attack on the Capitol. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he recently told TIME. “Maybe the first nine minutes.” On Sunday, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance said on Fox News that those who “committed violence” on Jan. 6 “obviously” shouldn’t be pardoned. Trump’s lawyers were shown a draft copy of the report more than a week ago and fought against its release, calling it a hit job that was designed to “disrupt the presidential transition.” They are also trying to thwart the release of a separate Smith report on his prosecution of Trump for mishandling classified documents. On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, blocked its immediate release and scheduled a hearing Friday for how to handle that volume. In each case, though, Trump won’t face consequences. Smith dropped both cases after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a Justice Department policy that prohibits the prosecution of sitting presidents. Under a separate agency regulation, he was obligated to submit a final report—one volume on each prosecution—to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has committed to publishing both documents. But with Trump’s inauguration in less than a week, the report will have little tangible effect beyond its addition to the historical record. To Trump, who possesses a profound ability to evade accountability, that in itself marks a victory. “Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide,” Trump posted on his social media platform. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Days before Donald Trump will return to the White House, Special Counsel Jack Smith relayed an unsettling message to the American people: He had unearthed enough evidence to potentially send the incoming President to prison. The Justice Department released on Tuesday its final report on Smith’s charges alleging that Trump illegally conspired to overturn the 2020 election, saying that prosecutors secured the goods to convict Trump had his November victory not prevented the case from proceeding. “But for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the document says. The report amounts to a remarkable rebuke of someone soon to assume the powers of the presidency. While few of the findings were new—Trump’s schemes to remain in office after losing the 2020 election have been extensively chronicled through news reports, documentaries, and landmark congressional hearings—it’s yet another detailed account of how the President-elect waged an assault on American democracy and the U.S. government he will soon lead once again. Smith’s team interviewed more than 250 people, obtained grand jury testimony from more than 55 witnesses, and said the findings of the House committee that probed the attack constituted “a small part of the office’s investigative record.” In the sprawling 137-page report, Smith unspools Trump’s efforts to block the peaceful transfer of power, from pressuring state and federal officials to nullify the election outcome to inciting a mob to ransack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith accuses Trump of trying to obstruct the certification of Biden’s election “through fraud and deceit,” including by encouraging “violence against his perceived opponents” in the days and weeks leading up to the insurrectionist riot. “As set forth in the original and superseding indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power,” the report says. The case faced a series of unique challenges that come with not only investigating a former President but the inexorable force of Trump himself. Smith outlined legal tussles over executive privilege, the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity, and Trump’s scare tactics. “Mr. Trump used his considerable social media presence to make extrajudicial comments—sometimes of a threatening nature—about the case, and the Office was forced to pursue litigation to preserve the integrity of the proceeding and prevent witness intimidation.” At the same time, the case suffered from a public perception that it was politically motivated and the fact that it was transpiring amid an election season. “Mr. Trump’s announcement of his candidacy for president while two federal criminal investigations were ongoing presented an unprecedented challenge for the Department of Justice and the courts,” Smith wrote. Those weren’t the only roadblocks. The report says that prosecutors considered charging Trump with violating the Insurrection Act—a 19th century statute that prohibits engaging in a rebellion against the U.S. government—but ultimately decided there was not enough evidence that Trump intended to instigate the “full scope” of violence on Jan. 6. Many of those who committed violent acts may soon escape legal peril. Trump has said that one of his first acts after taking office on Jan. 20 will be to pardon most, if not all, of the defendants charged in relation to the attack on the Capitol. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he recently told TIME. “Maybe the first nine minutes.” On Sunday, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance said on Fox News that those who “committed violence” on Jan. 6 “obviously” shouldn’t be pardoned. Trump’s lawyers were shown a draft copy of the report more than a week ago and fought against its release, calling it a hit job that was designed to “disrupt the presidential transition.” They are also trying to thwart the release of a separate Smith report on his prosecution of Trump for mishandling classified documents. On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, blocked its immediate release and scheduled a hearing Friday for how to handle that volume. In each case, though, Trump won’t face consequences. Smith dropped both cases after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a Justice Department policy that prohibits the prosecution of sitting presidents. Under a separate agency regulation, he was obligated to submit a final report—one volume on each prosecution—to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has committed to publishing both documents. But with Trump’s inauguration in less than a week, the report will have little tangible effect beyond its addition to the historical record. To Trump, who possesses a profound ability to evade accountability, that in itself marks a victory. “Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide,” Trump posted on his social media platform. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

When Donald Trump walked on stage at the Capitol One Arena in Washington, D.C. on Sunday night, he seemed to relish the moment, standing in front of so many supporters who have traveled the country to attend his rallies. He stretched his arms out wide and said, “We won!” Less than 24 hours before he'll be sworn in as President again, he promised big changes to the country in the first few hours of his second term. During his campaign, Trump said he would be a “dictator on day one” to surge deportations and open up lands for oil drilling. From what he told the arena crowd on Sunday, he intends to follow through on that and more. "You're going to see something tomorrow," Trump said. “You're going to see executive orders that are going to make you extremely happy—lots of them." Within hours of being inaugurated, Trump said he will be signing papers to repeal many of President Biden’s “radical” actions. He plans to roll back protections for trans athletes in school sports. He will give additional powers to immigration officers to surge deportations. He will end diversity, equity and inclusion practices in government. “By the time the sun sets tomorrow evening, the invasion of our borders will have come to a halt and all the illegal border trespassers will, in some form or another, be on their way back home,” he promised. Trump hinted that he planned sweeping pardons for those accused of crimes related to the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. “Everyone will be very very happy with my decision on the J6 hostages,” Trump told the crowd. And Trump also promised to quickly release the federal records on the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. And as TikTok's future remains in limbo due to a law requiring it be banned in the U.S. unless its Chinese owners divest from it, Trump floated the far-fetched idea of allowing access to TikTok as long as the U.S. could own 50 percent of the company in a joint venture. It’s going to be quite a kick off. Trump’s final rally before his return to the White House included performances by Kid Rock and the Village People, and warm up speeches from Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, his son Don. Jr. his daughter in law and Republican National Committee Co-Chair Lara Trump, and his firebrand policy advisor Stephen Miller. On the eve of Inauguration Day, Trump World was feeling vindicated after the election proved that four years of federal investigations, felony convictions and political scandals didn’t dampen Trump’s appeal at the ballot box. "MAGA is stronger and more united and more determined than ever before,” Miller said, who will be Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy starting on Monday. He’s the one corralling the executive orders that will be put in front of Trump to sign. Miller promised Trump would immediately clamp down on border security, increase the number of people targeted for deportation, and roll back protections for trans athletes. "It's not up to you if you are a man or a woman. That decision is a decision that is made by God and it can't be changed,” Miller said. As Trump was speaking, he brought billionaire Elon Musk on stage to huge cheers in the arena. Musk seemed surprised to be called up and walked over the podium after corralling his son X, who was wearing a red sweater. Musk has been tasked with slashing federal spending by trillions of dollars. “We’re looking forward to making a lot of changes. This victory is the start.” Musk said. Cutting costs will be challenging with the initiatives Trump is proposing. Deporting millions more people who are in the country illegally will be expensive, takes years, and require hiring thousands of federal officials. Trump also spoke at the rally of wanting to develop a “great iron dome of defense,” which would be a cash cow for defense contractors.