lawmakers

The ‘truth commission’ will interview victims who say they were abused at the sprawling property south of Santa Fe.

Lawmakers in the US state of New Mexico have approved the first fully-fledged investigation into Zorro Ranch, a sprawling property where the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is alleged to have trafficked and sexually assaulted girls and women.

The legislation, which passed New Mexico’s House of Representatives by a unanimous vote on Monday, forms a bipartisan “truth commission”.

Its four members will seek testimony from victims and local residents about the ranch, located about 55km (34 miles) south of the state capital, Santa Fe.

Members are slated to begin work on Tuesday, with an initial update to be delivered in July and a full report by the end of this year.

The move comes in the wake of the release of more than three million previously unpublicised files related to the disgraced financier, who died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

State Representative Melanie Stansbury said in a video posted after the vote that the commission will “help to bring forward a full picture of what happened here in New Mexico”.

“The crimes that were reported to federal and state authorities were never fully investigated,” Stansbury said. The probe seeks to “ensure we have safeguards in place not only to hold those individuals accountable, who were complicit, but to ensure that this can never happen again”.

Epstein bought the 7,600-acre (3075-hectare) property, which included a hilltop mansion and private runway, from former New Mexico Democrat Governor Bruce King in 1993.

Victim advocates say Epstein trafficked and sexually abused girls at the so-called “playboy ranch” as early as 1996, including Virginia Giuffre, the prominent victim who accused Epstein and the disgraced British royal Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of abuse.

Multiple civil lawsuits specify the ranch as a site of abuse. Epstein’s habit of flying “masseuses” to the property – as well as hiring local massage therapists – was also revealed in the Epstein files as part of a ranch manager’s 2007 testimony to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Epstein was never charged with crimes related to the site.

“Many of the survivors had experiences in New Mexico, and as we’ve learned, you know, there were local politicians and other people that were aware of what was happening in New Mexico,” said Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer whose law firm has represented hundreds of Epstein survivors.

Yet federal investigators never cast their eye on the property, according to Andrea Romero, a New Mexico state representative who co-sponsored the legislation.

And while New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas attempted to kick off a probe in 2019, federal prosecutors asked for it to be put on hold to avoid a “parallel investigation”, he said in a statement.

Epstein “was basically doing anything he wanted in this estate without any accountability whatsoever”, Romero said.

The committee – which will have subpoena power – aims to close that gap by gathering testimony that could be used in future litigation, Romero said. New Mexico’s state attorney general has also allocated a special agent to look into any allegations that arise.

The ranch was sold at a 2023 auction to the family of Don Huffines, a former Republican Texas senator who is now running for Texas state comptroller, the Santa Fe New Mexican media outlet reported. A family spokesperson said they would give investigators “full and complete cooperation”.

LONGMONT, COLO. — Dale Klotz’s business repairing power tools took a nose dive when foreclosure signs sprouted up on lawns across the northern suburbs of Denver here.

He’s looking for a second job, and he wishes he wasn’t saddled with a mortgage. But amid the hard times, he took some satisfaction Tuesday in the House’s vote to turn down President Bush’s $700-billion rescue package for the financial system.

“I don’t think we ought to bail out Wall Street,” Klotz, 45, said as he loaded groceries into his white Ford pickup at a shopping center. “I’m an average American, trying to make a living. I’ve got a home mortgage I’d like to unload, but I make my payments every month.”

Why, he asked, should his tax dollars go to save reckless Wall Street executives?

Sentiments like that fueled this week’s rebellion in the House, where members bucked party leaders and the Bush administration to block approval of the rescue package.

Election-year politics also played a role, analysts say. Klotz’s representative, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), is locked in a tight reelection battle and said she heeded the views of her constituents in voting against the bailout Monday.

“It’s not a moment at which people can put the national interest ahead of constituent interest,” said Robert Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College.

According to one count, 30 of the 38 representatives in the most competitive Nov. 4 House races voted against the bill. Americans have bombarded members of Congress with calls and e-mails urging “no” votes, causing some computers on Capitol Hill to crash repeatedly over the last two days.

Organizations such as ACORN, or Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a national advocacy group for low-wage workers, organized rallies outside Federal Reserve offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other major cities.

“You look at an electoral battleground map and you are looking at Nevada, the foreclosure capital of the country, and Michigan and Ohio and Florida,” said Austin King, director of an ACORN center in New Orleans. “These swing states have tens or hundreds of thousands of foreclosures. Voters there want to see something done that helps them, not just Wall Street.”

On Monday, the opponents got their wish: The House rejected the plan. But stocks cratered, with the Dow Jones industrial average diving 777.68 points — a gut-wrenching experience for almost everyone with stocks, mutual funds or 401(k) retirement funds.

Stocks regained much of their losses Tuesday, but that wasn’t the only twist — as some congressional officials said they detected growing support for some kind of rescue plan.

Rep. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) said she voted against the bailout Monday after her office was swamped over the weekend with more than 1,000 calls on the plan, with just two of those in support.

But Tuesday, after attending a funeral at First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles, Watson said she was besieged by people demanding to know what she was going to do to get the economy back on track.

“These are teachers, nurses, regular working people, and they’re worried about their 401(k)s, their jobs, the whole economy because they don’t understand how this is all going to work,” Watson said.

Watson’s urban district bears little resemblance to Musgrave’s 4th Congressional District in the eastern part of Colorado, which is dotted with ranches and tiny agricultural settlements.

Most of that district’s population, however, is in the exurbs at the northern edge of the Denver metropolitan area. Some of those cities had the nation’s highest foreclosure rates before last year’s housing bust kicked rates even higher in parts of California and other states.

A former schoolteacher and small-business owner who was first elected to Congress in 2002, Musgrave is a staunch social and fiscal conservative who narrowly won reelection in 2006. She is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbent House members this year.

Floyd Ciruli, a Denver-based pollster, said the district is populated by people inherently unsympathetic to the proposed bailout.

“Fiscal conservatives; small-government, anti-government ideologues,” Ciruli said. Musgrave “has both a good sprinkling of those individuals in her district, and she has a personal philosophy like that.”

Even residents with starkly different politics were unenthusiastic about the bailout.

“If people who were being rescued are like you and me, working hard every day and struggling to make ends meet, that’s one thing,” said Roni Lavine, 61, a Longmont meeting planner with an Obama pin on her purse. “People are really angry that they’re losing their homes and they see these corporate executives walking out with millions of dollars.”

Still, some were unnerved at the package’s failure and eager for some action.

“There’s a perception out there it just relates to a bunch of people in New York, on Wall Street,” said Mike Preigh, a 42-year-old chemist. “But it all flows downhill. . . . Doing nothing is probably worse than doing something that’s not great.”

Musgrave announced her opposition to the bailout on Sept. 23, the day Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson presented the plan to Congress.

Her spokesman, Joe Brettell, said Musgrave was not moved by politics but by the people she represented. “The congresswoman looks at her district first, and she really feels she made the right decision,” he said.

On Tuesday, Musgrave said she was not concerned about the huge stock sell-off that followed Monday’s rejection of the bailout plan.

“We don’t answer to Wall Street,” she said in an interview on “Good Morning America.” “We answer to Main Street. We answer to our constituents.”

Later Tuesday, however, Musgrave was huddled in meetings as negotiators worked to craft revised legislation expected to go to a vote in the Senate tonight and in the House on Thursday. “It is important,” she said in a statement, “for people around the country to know that we are actively working toward a solution to this problem.”

—

nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com

william.heisel@latimes.com

Riccardi reported from Colorado and Heisel from California.

WASHINGTON — A grand jury in Washington refused Tuesday to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video in which they urged U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders,” according to a person familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department opened an investigation into the video featuring Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four other Democratic lawmakers urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful. All the lawmakers previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies.

Grand jurors in Washington declined to sign off on charges in the latest of a series of rebukes of prosecutors by citizens in the nation’s capital, according to the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter. It wasn’t immediately clear whether prosecutors had sought indictments against all six lawmakers or what charge or charges prosecutors attempted to bring.

Grand jury rejections are extraordinarily unusual, but have happened repeatedly in recent months in Washington as citizens who have heard the government’s evidence have come away underwhelmed in a number of cases. Prosecutors could try again to secure an indictment.

Spokespeople for the U.S. attorney’s office and the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The FBI in November began contacting the lawmakers to schedule interviews, outreach that came against the backdrop of broader Justice Department efforts to punish political opponents of the president. President Trump and his aides labeled the lawmakers’ video as “seditious” — and Trump said on his social media account that the offense was “punishable by death.”

Besides Slotkin and Kelly, the other Democrats who appeared in the video include Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania.

Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who represents Michigan, said late Tuesday that she hopes this ends the Justice Department’s probe.

“Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” Slotkin said in a statement. “But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country,” she said.

Kelly, a former Navy pilot who represents Arizona, called the attempt to bring charges an “outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies.”

“Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him,” Kelly said in a post on X. “The most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down.”

In November, the Pentagon opened an investigation into Kelly, citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has censured Kelly for participating in the video and is trying to retroactively demote Kelly from his retired rank of captain.

The senator is suing Hegseth to block those proceedings, calling them an unconstitutional act of retribution. During a hearing last week, the judge appeared to be skeptical of key arguments that a government attorney made in defense of Kelly’s Jan. 5 censure by Hegseth.

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (UPI) — Some seven months after a Supreme Court Case gave parents sweeping rights to remove their children from lessons that violate religious beliefs, Republicans expresses concern Tuesday about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination.

​”In a world where new and controversial types of content are finding their way into classrooms, it is essential that parents maintain control over their child’s education,” Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., said in a congressional hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, which he chairs.

​In Mahmoud vs. Taylor, the high court ruled in June that Maryland parents had a First Amendment right to opt out their children from public school lessons involving LGBTQ+ themed storybooks that conflict with their religion. Tuesday’s hearing provided a venue for House members to reflect on how the ruling has changed classrooms.

Democrats, for example, voiced worries about the dangerous precedent it sets for censorship and exclusion.

​”Inclusion is not indoctrination,” said the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. “Differences exist in the world around us. and part of a good education includes teaching students about tolerance and understanding.”

Bonamici said Republicans are using parental rights as another means to undermine public education.

One witness, Yeshiva University Assistant Professor of Law Zalman Rothschild, said he fears the decision could have broad implications and could be disruptive for education.

​”I have no idea how in any sense this can be bounded,” Rothschild said.

“For example, say a teacher tries to teach the value of nondiscrimination against religion and specifies its wrong to discriminate against Jews or against Muslims, and some parents have a problem with that because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, because Chapter 16 of Mark says that those who are not baptized are condemned,” he said.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., urged her Republican colleagues not take the ruling as permission to turn public schools into the “latest front in a culture war.”​

Grijalva said Republicans were hypocritical to encourage federal involvement in education when they call themselves “the party that wants things to go back to the local level.”​

“I want us to continue to support our duly locally elected school districts to make decisions about school curriculum,” Grijalva said.

Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., held up a children’s picture book from the Montgomery Area School District curriculum, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” while she questioned witnesses. The story follows a young girl as she learns that her favorite uncle is getting married to his male partner, Jamie.

Lee said providing holistic education to American children became harder after the ruling.

“It’s about exploiting religious exemptions to shield children from the reality of queer people existing,” he said.

​Conservative education groups, however, applauded the power shift in schools after the ruling.

“Two of the story books, not only “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” but “Pride Puppy!” addressed non-binary individuals, drag queens and pride parades. These are individuals who don’t have a clear sense of their identity regarding whether they want to be a firefighter or a fairy when they grow up. What we’re dealing with is a designed attempt to change minds on perspectives,” said Sarah Perry, vice president of Defending Education, a national advocacy group that supports more parental involvement in schools.

​Throughout the hearing, Bonamici tried to steer the conversation to “hearing topics that actually matter,” including ICE allegedly inflicting trauma in schools and the effects of the dismantling of the Department of Education.

She pointed out that the committee had yet to hold a hearing on gun violence in schools and that just Monday, a 16-year-old was shot at a Montgomery County Public School.

​”No one is arguing that parents should not be involved in their children’s education. We all agree on that,” Bonamici said. “Banning books or preventing students from learning about differences only serves to perpetuate a culture of hatred and fear.”

SACRAMENTO — National union leaders, including the head of one of California’s largest labor organizations, on Wednesday urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to protect workers as artificial intelligence threatens to replace or surveil employees — and warned that a failure to do so could hurt his presidential ambitions.

“This is a priority for the entire nation,” Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said at a news conference near the state Capitol. “He cannot spend his time waiting to be done in California and think he’s not going to get questions about the true issues surrounding AI, Big Tech and the Big Tech billionaires that are trying to buy our government.”

Gonzalez, a former state lawmaker from San Diego, said the federation is sponsoring a package of new bills aimed at reining in the use of AI and protecting the rights of workers, including safeguards against spying in the workplace and restrictions on layoffs.

The package of bills supported by labor organizations includes:

• Senate Bill 947 by Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton), which would require human oversight if an algorithm is used to justify the discipline or termination of an employee.
• Senate Bill 951, introduced by Sen. Eloise Gomez Reyes (D-Colton), which would require employers to provide a 90-day advance notice to workers and local and state governments before AI-related layoffs. It would apply to cases affecting 25 or more workers or 25% of the workforce, whichever is less. Recent layoffs, including at Amazon, Expedia and Pinterest, have been tied to AI, although some economists argue it’s challenging to determine whether that was the primary factor.
• Assembly Bill 1331, dubbed “No bosses in the bathroom,” would grant workers the right to remove workplace surveillance tools when entering public bathrooms or certain employee-only areas. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), would subject employers to a $500 civil penalty for violations.

Gonzalez said labor organizations are often told to “work it out” with businesses but argued this was a dead end.

“We are not going to be able to achieve guardrails by working with bosses who want no guardrails,” she said. “It is time that the governor engages with workers in the workplace. Every AI convening he does, everybody he’s pulled together is [representing] AI and Big Tech lobbyists.”

Gonzalez was joined Wednesday by Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, and other labor leaders from Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada.

“This is the most urgent issue that we [as workers] are facing,” Shuler said. “This is a crisis and no one is prepared.”

In a joint letter addressed to Newsom, they implored the governor to act quickly to establish meaningful safeguards around the technology.

“This fight extends beyond devastating job losses and new forms of union busting,” a copy of the letter states. “There is dignity in human work that is the foundation of a healthy, productive democracy. The future of our economy and our society cannot be left to the unchecked whims of profit driven technology corporations and billionaires.”

In an email to The Times, Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said the governor had a strong record of fighting for workers’ rights, including raising the minimum wage and expanding sick leave and other worker protections.

“No Governor has done more than Governor Gavin Newsom to regulate AI in a way that protects workers without killing jobs or innovation,” she wrote. “Under his leadership, California has taken the most comprehensive, worker-centered approach to AI in the country.”

Adults in the United States are growing increasingly concerned about the ramifications of AI, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Fifty percent of those surveyed last year said they are “more concerned than excited” about the increased use of AI in daily life, up from 37% in 2021.

WASHINGTON — A budget impasse in Congress is poised to halt large swaths of federal operations early Saturday as lawmakers in Capitol Hill turn to the next flashpoint in negotiations to reopen the government: whether to impose new limits on federal immigration authorities carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Over the next two weeks, Democrats and Republicans will weigh competing demands on how the Department of Homeland Security should carry out arrests, detention and deportations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents this month in Minnesota.

Seeking to rein in the federal agency, Senate Democrats late on Thursday were able to strike a deal with the White House that would temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security but fund the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation agencies through Sept. 30.

The agreement is intended to give lawmakers more time to address Democratic demands to curb ICE tactics while averting a partial government shutdown.

The Senate finalized the deal Friday evening on a 71-29 vote, hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown. Passage of the deal was delayed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who objected to parts of the package.

The House expected to take up the legislation as early as Monday. The partial government shutdown will occur until the measure clears the House and Trump signs it into law.

The president supports the deal, which came after Senate Democrats said they would not vote to fund Homeland Security unless reforms for the agency were approved. Among the demands: banning federal agents from wearing masks, requiring use of body cameras and requiring use of judicial warrants prior to searching homes and making arrests.

Democrats have also demanded that local and state law enforcement officials be given the ability to conduct independent investigations in cases where federal agents are accused of wrongdoing.

The deal, however, does not include any of those reforms; it includes only the promise of more time to negotiate with no guarantee that the new restrictions will be agreed to.

Both of California’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, voted against the Senate deal. They both opposed giving more funding to Homeland Security without reforms in a vote Thursday.

Schiff voted no because he said he promised to not “give another dime for ICE until we saw real reforms — and not just promised reforms but statutory requirements.”

“I want to see those reforms before I am prepared to support any more funding for these agencies,” Schiff said in a video message posted on X, and added that he did not see the White House acting in “good faith. “I want it in writing and statute.”

After voting against the measure, Padilla said in a statement: “I’ve been clear from the beginning: No more money for ICE and CBP without real oversight and accountability.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday morning that Democrats will find out whether two weeks is enough time to reach a compromise.

“We will evaluate whether that is sufficient time,” Jeffries said. “But there is urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE as we have seen is out of control.”

Meanwhile, the absence of reforms in the Senate deal has already drawn concerns from some progressives, who argue the deal falls short of what is needed to rein in federal immigration enforcement.

“First of all, I’m actually disappointed that Senate leadership is not right now demanding more,” Rep. Robert Garcia, a top-ranking House Democrat from Long Beach, told reporters Friday. “This idea that we’re somehow going to continue to fund this agency and somehow just extend the pain, I think is absolutely wrong.”

Garcia said it was “outrageous” that the Senate deal would extend funding for Homeland Security for two weeks without any new requirements.

“This idea that we’re somehow not demanding immediately the removal of masks and body cameras and all the other reforms while eliminating this agency that’s causing harm, I think, is outrageous,” Garcia said.

Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of Pasadena said in a statement that she had not yet decided whether to support the Senate deal once it reaches the House floor.

But, Chu added: “I cannot support legislation that increases funding to this agency while delivering no accountability measures.”

Rep. Kevin Calvert (R-Corona) said in a statement that it is “critical” for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan spending package, in part because it included funding for the U.S. military.

“As Chairman of the [House] Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, I’m especially concerned about the negative impacts of a shutdown at a time when we have a buildup of American military assets in the Middle East,” Calvert said.

Calvert added that Homeland Security operations will continue even in the shutdown because lawmakers provided an influx of funding for the agency in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But he said he worried that any lapse in funding would affect other operations by the agency, including disaster funding and security assistance for major events, such as the upcoming World Cup.

“We need to get these priorities funded,” he said.

Other Republican lawmakers have already signaled the possible hurdles Democrats will face as they try to rein in ICE.

Graham held up consideration of the Senate deal, in part because he wanted the Senate to vote to criminalize local and state officials in sanctuary cities — a term that has no strict definition but that generally describes local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“You can convince me that ICE can be better, but I don’t think I will ever convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you’re wedded to it on the Democratic side,” Graham said.

Graham also delayed passage of the deal because it included a repeal of a law that would have allowed senators — including himself — to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phones without notifying them. The law required senators to be notified if that were to happen and sue for up to $50,000 in damages per incident.

“We’ll fix the $500,000 — count me in — but you took the notification out,” Graham said. “I am demanding a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Other Senate Republicans also expressed concern with Democrats’ demands, even as Trump seemed to try appease them.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the demand for federal agents to remove their masks during operations was a “clear and obvious attempt to intimidate and put our federal agents in harm’s way.”

“When enforcement becomes dangerous for enforcers, enforcement does not survive,” Schmitt said in a Senate floor speech. “What emerges is not reform, it is amnesty by default.”

Despite the GOP opposition, most Senate Republicans were poised to join Democrats on Friday and vote for the deal. But there is no certainty that they will join the minority party when negotiations resume in the coming weeks.

Recent history suggests that bipartisan support at the outset does not guarantee a lasting deal, particularly when unresolved policy disputes remain. The last government shutdown tied to a debate over healthcare exposed how quickly negotiations can collapse when no agreement is reached.

In November, a small group of Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with the promise of negotiating an extension to healthcare tax credits that were set to expire in the new year.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a former House speaker, reminded the public on Friday that Democrats were unable to get Republican support for extending the tax credits, resulting in increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

“House Democrats passed a bipartisan fix, yet Senate Republicans continue to block this critical relief for millions of Americans,” Pelosi wrote in a post on X.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Jan. 30 (UPI) — Two Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers about why National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard was at an FBI raid at a Georgia election facility.

Gabbard was photographed outside the Fulton County Election Hub and Operations Center, just outside of Atlanta, when the FBI executed a “a court authorized law enforcement action” on Wednesday. FBI spokesperson Jenna Sellitto told The Hill that boxes loaded on trucks contained ballots.

Agents sought 2020 election records, Fulton County spokesperson Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez said.

“We don’t know why they took them, and we don’t know where they’re taking them to,” county board of commissioners Chair Robb Pitts told The Hill.

“Director Gabbard has a pivotal role in election security and protecting the integrity of our elections against interference, including operations targeting voting systems, databases, and election infrastructure,” a senior administration official told NBC News.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., released a statement about Gabbard’s presence at the raid.

“There are only two explanations for why the Director of National Intelligence would show up at a federal raid tied to Donald Trump‘s obsession with losing the 2020 election,” he said. “Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus — in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns — or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy.”

He said it shows she is unfit for the job.

“Either is a serious breach of trust that further underscores why she is totally unqualified to hold a position that demands sound judgment, apolitical independence, and a singular focus on keeping Americans safe,” he said.

Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., who both serve on their chambers’ intelligence committees, penned a letter to Gabbard expressing concern about her appearance in Georgia and demanding that she “appear before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence immediately.”

The letter said it is “deeply concerning that you participated in this domestic law enforcement action. The Intelligence Community should be focused on foreign threats and, as you yourself have testified, when those intelligence authorities are turned inwards the results can be devastating for Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.”

They said they want her to address her reasoning and role in attending the FBI operation in Fulton County, under what legal authority she or any other IC employee were involved, and an update on any intelligence she has concerning foreign interference in U.S. elections, including the 2020 election.

“Given the politically fraught nature of elections for federal office, any federal efforts associated with combatting foreign election threats necessitate public transparency, prompt updating of Congressional intelligence committees, and clear commitment to non-partisan conduct,” the letter said.

“Your recent actions raise foundational questions about the current mission of your office, and it is critical that you brief the Committees immediately as part of your obligation to keep Congress fully and currently informed.”

Two unnamed senior officials with knowledge of the matter told NBC that Gabbard’s presence in Fulton County was not requested by the Justice Department. They said Gabbard was only observing, and her presence wasn’t illegal.

“It seems to be an attempt to make herself relevant,” one official told NBC. “It’s so strange.”

On Thursday, Trump responded to a reporter’s question about her presence in Georgia.

“She’s working very hard on trying to keep the elections safe, and she’s done a very good job,” Trump said at the Kennedy Center. “You got a signed judge’s order in Georgia, and you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.”

If she took part in the search, her involvement would be “wrong and potentially even illegal,” said Kevin Carrol, a former CIA officer and national security lawyer, to NBC.

“It is also inappropriate for a Cabinet-level official to take part in a law enforcement operation. Among other things, the director is now potentially a fact witness in any suppression hearing or trial related to the evidence seized by the bureau,” Carroll said.

Jan. 28 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s opposition People Power Party and the ruling Democratic Party traded accusations Wednesday over U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks about restoring higher tariffs, with conservatives faulting the government’s diplomacy and liberals arguing Seoul must move quickly to pass pending legislation tied to a bilateral investment package.

The dispute unfolded at a National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee hearing, where Foreign Minister Cho Hyun faced questions about what the opposition described as a sudden reversal after the government promoted a tariff outcome that did not require a formal agreement document.

People Power Party floor leader Song Eon-seok said the public had been led to believe tariffs would remain lower once legislation related to U.S.-bound investment was introduced and processed. He said Trump’s renewed tariff warnings felt like a betrayal to many South Koreans and criticized the government for opposing parliamentary ratification procedures, arguing major commitments should be handled through proper legislative channels.

Several People Power Party lawmakers pressed the government over the effectiveness of its communication channel with Washington, mocking earlier claims that a high-level “hotline” had been established and questioning whether Seoul had meaningful leverage if tariff threats resurfaced so quickly.

Rep. Ahn Cheol-soo said the government’s claim that negotiations were so successful they did not require a joint statement was not credible. He argued that if talks had been truly successful, the two sides would have presented the outcome publicly through a joint briefing.

Ruling party lawmakers countered that Trump’s unpredictability is well known and that repeated focus on ratification could slow Seoul’s ability to respond diplomatically and economically. They urged swift deliberation and passage of a special bill tied to U.S. investment commitments, saying similar memorandums and fact sheets with partners are often handled without full treaty-style ratification.

The dispute comes as South Korea moves to implement a bilateral memorandum and related measures that had been linked to tariff levels, while Seoul says it has not received an official U.S. notice of any change.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260129010013250

Jan. 27 (UPI) — Legislators in France took the first step toward becoming the first European country to block children from social media with a ban that would take effect at the beginning of the new school year in September.

National Assembly members voted 116-23 for the ban for children younger than 15, which was introduced by a lawmaker representing France’s Champagne region in President Emmanuel Macron‘s Renaissance party, late Monday.

The MPs amended the bill to empower the country’s media regulator to decide which social media services will be included in the ban and not limited to just those most popular with teens such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.

The law would use an as-yet-undecided method of age-verification to block children from accessing those sites the regulator determines are most harmful to children’s mental and emotional health.

An existing smartphone ban for children in junior and middle schools would also be extended to high schools, under the legislation.

Children younger than 15 would be permitted to continue to use platforms on a second list deemed to pose less risk to them, but only if their parents give their consent.

Hailing the vote as a “major step,” Macron urged the Senate, the upper house, where it must also pass to become law, to follow suit and vowed to make sure it was implemented in time for the start of the fall semester.

“To ensure that this ban is effective from the start of the next academic year, I have asked the government to activate the accelerated procedure,” he posted on X.

“Because our children’s brains are not for sale. Not to American platforms, nor to Chinese networks. Because their dreams cannot be dictated by algorithms. Because we do not want an anxious generation,” Macron added.

Fastracking the law will enable it to leapfrog over a logjam in the assembly which has been unable to pass a budget for this year.

National Assembly Deputy Laure Miller, sponsor of the bill, complained afterward that opponents attempted to run the debate, which went on for almost seven hours, off the clock, knowing they would lose when it came to a vote.

“We explained everything to you, but you didn’t want to listen. Obstruction, off-topic remarks, conspiracy-laden speeches… above all, you tried everything to avoid having to vote on this text. Pathetic,” she wrote online.

Miller headed a committee probe into the psychological impact of social media on children that issued its report earlier this month.

MP Louis Boyard from the populist France Insoumise party said the bill had been rushed through.

By granting blanket verification powers to the government and the European Union to check the ages of all social media users, regardless of age, Macronist deputies were sleepwalking France into a surveillance state,” he said on X.

“The Macronists refused to respond or speak in order to have it voted on as quickly as possible. Under the pretext of banning social networks for those under 15, the Macronists seem to be preparing to have everyone monitored.”

He urged the Senate to send it back to the assembly to allow a “more enlightened” public debate to take place.

“The subject is too important to be rushed,” added Boyard, who represents a different district of the same region as Miller.

The development in France comes amid similar efforts being weighed across Europe, including in Greece, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, and Britain, where the House of Lords voted through a ban for children under 16 on Wednesday.

Lawmakers in the upper chamber of parliament passed the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by 261 votes to 150, however, the government signaled it intended to overturn the effort in the House of Commons, the lower house.

The move came two days after the government launched a consultation on a potential ban for under-16s in the wake of the lead taken by Australia, which last month became the first Western country to implement such a ban.