On Thursday, the Trump administration ordered the US agriculture department to remove its websites documenting or referencing the climate crisis.
By Friday, the landing pages on the United States Forest Service website for key resources, research and adaptation tools – including those that provide vital context and vulnerability assessments for wildfires – had gone dark, leaving behind an error message or just a single line: “You are not authorized to access this page.”
In a directive issued by the United States Department of Agriculture’s office of communications, officials instructed website managers across the agency to “identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change”, according to Politico. It also included a Friday deadline to list the mentions in a spreadsheet for further review. As of publication, the USDA’s Climate Hubs – helpful sites that connect producers to local programs and research – are still live.
The move is just one in a dizzying flurry of orders issued in the first two weeks of the Trump administration as it attempts to drastically reshape the federal government and halt key investments made to blunt the effects of global heating.
Trump repealed environmental protections put in place by Joe Biden, declared a misguided energy emergency to hasten already-booming fossil fuel extraction, and withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
The administration also added confusion and chaos within federal agencies by halting hiring and pausing projects, along with issuing a widespread buyout offer that would guarantee federal workers pay and benefits through September 2025 if they resign within the next week.
It is unclear what the agencies will do with the websites or the policies and studies once detailed on them; links to the landing pages are still live, even if the information on each page has been blocked.
But the sites featured important tools and information to help mitigate the effects of climate change and research. For now, the administration has effectively barred access to dozens of programs set up to help a wide range of communities – from farmers to firefighters – as they navigate changing conditions.
The USFS and the Department of Agriculture did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a controversial move, President Trump has ordered the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to take down websites that reference the climate crisis. This decision has sparked outrage among environmentalists and scientists who rely on this information for research and policy-making.
The Trump administration has been criticized for its stance on climate change, with many accusing the President of ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. By removing access to vital information on the USDA’s websites, critics argue that the administration is further suppressing efforts to address the growing threat of climate change.
The USDA has yet to comment on the decision, but it is clear that this move will have far-reaching implications for those working to combat climate change. As the debate over the administration’s environmental policies continues, it is more important than ever for individuals to stay informed and advocate for action on this critical issue.
The Trump administration will put a pause on most federal government websites Friday evening in an effort to eliminate DEI content and any language opposed to President Trump’s agenda, Fox News Digital has learned.
A Trump administration official told Fox News Digital that federal government websites are expected to go dark at around 5:00 p.m. Friday evening.
The official told Fox News Digital that the length of the pause on federal websites is unclear at this time, but will seek to remove content that is “anti-Trump administration.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.
The Trump administration has announced plans to pause federal government websites in an effort to eliminate content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as anti-Trump material. This move comes as part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to suppress dissenting voices and promote a more narrow, pro-Trump agenda.
Critics of the decision have raised concerns about the impact this could have on government transparency and the ability of the public to access important information. By limiting access to DEI resources and information critical of the Trump administration, the government risks further polarizing the country and stifling important conversations about social justice and equality.
It remains to be seen how this decision will be implemented and what specific content will be targeted for removal. However, it is clear that the Trump administration’s actions are a concerning step towards limiting the free flow of information and promoting a more narrow, partisan message. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
18F is a much-hyped government agency within the General Services Administration that was founded under the Obama Administration after the disastrous rollout of Healthcare.gov. It more or less had the specific goal of attracting Silicon Valley talent to the federal government to help the government innovate and make many of its websites and digital services suck less. It is one of the “cooler” federal agencies, and has open sourced many of its projects on GitHub.
GitHub is a website for open source development that shows changes across different “commits,” or changes to code and documentation. In the first days of the Trump administration, 18F’s commit list is full of change logs detailing the administration’s attempts to destroy the concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The changes show that in the last 48 hours, 18F has edited text and wholesale deleted both internal and external web pages about, for example “Inclusive behaviors,” “healthy conflict and constructive feedback,” “DEIA resources,” and “Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.” It deleted a webpage about “psychological safety” (which now 404s) deleted all information about the “DE&I leads” at the agency, as well as language for employees that said “Anyone who has issues or concerns related to inclusion or equity in the 18F engineering chapter should feel empowered to reach out to the DE&I Leads.” It has deleted, in various places, the word “inclusion,” as well as the term “affinity groups.”
It also deleted an internal Slack Bot called “Inclusion Bot,” which is described as being “integrated into Slack and passively listens for words or phrases that have racist, sexist, ableist, or otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory histories or backgrounds. When it hears those words, it privately lets the writer know and offers some suggested alternatives.”
Do you work for the federal government? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at +1 202 505 1702. Otherwise, send me an email at jason@404media.co.
It has also notably deleted information intended for improving accessibility for blind and visually impaired employees, which asked employees to use “visual descriptions” when introducing themselves on Zoom meetings.
In a hiring document, the language “Teams should consider factors of equity and complexity of the research when determining compensation for participants on their project” has been changed to “team should consider other factors or complexity of the research.”
Jason is a cofounder of 404 Media. He was previously the editor-in-chief of Motherboard. He loves the Freedom of Information Act and surfing.
GitHub Is Showing the Trump Administration Scrubbing Government Web Pages in Real Time
Recently, GitHub, the popular platform for developers to collaborate on code, has been used to track the Trump administration’s efforts to scrub government web pages of information. Users have set up automated scripts to monitor changes to government websites in real time, documenting the removal of data and resources.
This comes amid growing concerns about transparency and accountability in the government. The Trump administration has been accused of deleting or altering information on government websites related to climate change, LGBTQ rights, and other contentious issues.
By using GitHub to track these changes, concerned citizens and activists are able to hold the administration accountable and ensure that important information is not erased or manipulated. This grassroots effort to monitor government actions shows the power of technology in promoting transparency and preserving the public record.
As the Trump administration continues to make changes to government websites, GitHub will likely play an increasingly important role in documenting these actions and keeping the public informed. This innovative use of technology highlights the importance of open-source tools in promoting government accountability and protecting access to information.
Liza counted the months until Donald Trump would be president. And she counted the months until her baby was due.
The timing filled her with dread. She’d learned from a friend that Trump planned to end birthright citizenship, right around the time she’d learned she was pregnant.
Last week, the moment she feared came even faster than she expected.
“I was shocked that it happened so quickly. … My world fell apart,” says Liza, a grad student in Texas who’s 24 weeks pregnant. Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship, she says, has thrust her family’s life into uncertainty.
Now the mass communications student from Russia is part of a group of pregnant moms – and advocacy organizations who represent them – who are fighting back.
“We have to do it for us, for our baby, and for all the other people like us,”she told CNN.
Advocates argue the mothers’ voices particularly convey the urgency and significance of this moment.
“The executive order is already creating chaos in immigrant communities,” says Conchita Cruz, executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). The organization is also a plaintiff in the case, and Cruz says its members include numerous families who would be impacted by the ban.
CNN has reached out the Justice Department for comment on the lawsuit. In response to another federal lawsuit over the order filed in Seattle, administration officials have argued that the 14th Amendment only grants birthright citizenship “to those persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction — and thus excludes children of noncitizens here illegally as well as children of temporary visaholders.”
In their lawsuit filed in federal court in Maryland, Liza and other plaintiffs argue that the government’s interpretation “violates long-settled law” and unjustly denies citizenship to US-born children who “are plainly ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.”
Losing birthright citizenship wouldn’t be merely a bureaucratic matter, according to Liza, who asked to be identified only by her first name because she fears she could face persecution for speaking out. On top of the stress of pregnancy, she says, she now finds herself worrying that her baby won’t be able to get health care or go to school, or that the child could even face deportation someday. Getting a birth certificate from the Russian Embassy wouldn’t be an option, she says, as her husband is seeking asylum and they fear persecution from the Russian government.
“My baby will be stateless,” she says.
Liza says she fears returning to a country she fled in 2023 – and now fears for the future of her unborn child in a country that feels more unwelcoming by the day.
“It looks like my baby will have less rights than I have,” she says. “You feel unwelcome in your own country. You come here for opportunities. You come here to study, to change the world. … And then it’s all for nothing. They clearly tell you that they do not want you here.”
She thought she’d found safety and stability in the US. Now nothing seems certain
Mónica, a doctor from Venezuela who’s living in South Carolina, thought she and her husband had finally found stability in the United States six years after arriving.
“We’ve been trying to do everything the right way,” she says. “We’ve been working, we have been paying taxes and we actually were able to buy our own home.”
The moment seemed right to have a child, Mónica told reporters last week.
“Time was passing, and this was something that was important to us. And we had reached a point of stability in this country,” she said.
And now at 12 weeks pregnant, she says she should be focusing on her baby’s health.
But lately, she says her thoughts have been consumed by other worries.
“Instead, my husband and I are stressed, we’re anxious and we’re depressed about the reality that my child may not be able to become a US citizen,” says Mónica, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym to protect her safety.
Further complicating matters, it isn’t clear whether Trump’s executive order applies to her. Monica has Temporary Protected Status, which allows her to legally work in the US, and she’s applying for asylum. If she wins her case, she would eventually become a legal permanent resident of the US. But there’s no telling how long that process will take, she says.
“I’ve been waiting for many years, and I might be waiting for another 10 years before they even call me for an interview, it seems,” she says.
In the meantime, she says, she also fears her child will be stateless. The Venezuelan Embassy in the US has been closed for years.
“I don’t know what will happen. … and I don’t understand how it is that my child could be treated differently than other children,” she says. “It should be a right for him to be born in the United States and get US citizenship.”
Barbara was a lawyer in Cuba, and she’s always liked the idea of fighting injustice. Now, about two years after arriving in the US, she’s working as a school custodian in Kentucky while seeking asylum in the US. And she’s about four months pregnant. Being listed among the impacted ASAP members in a legal filing, she says, has given her strength.
“Everything that’s in my hands, I’m going to do,” she says. “I want to support this cause because really it’s the children who are being harmed by this, it’s the pregnant women who are going to receive this stress, it’s the families of so many immigrants that are going to be affected.”
Barbara asked to be identified only by her first name to protect her family’s safety. The stress of handling pregnancy while also worrying about whether the baby girl she’ll have this summer will be a US citizen is overwhelming, she says.
“After they announced it, I couldn’t sleep. It’s a double concern,” she says. “I feel like they can suddenly steal my baby’s future.”
It’s a sharp contrast to the supportive environment that Barbara says she, her husband and her 4-year-old daughter have found in Kentucky.
“There’s a huge Hispanic community,” she says, including many Cubans. And Barbara says they feel at home.
“My dream is to settle permanently in this country,” she says, “and with God’s blessing, to have our family and a peaceful life.”
In the days since the lawsuit was filed, Liza says she’s found herself mulling many questions.
Chief among them: “How do these kids hurt Trump?”
She says it’s difficult to understand why the US president would target her unborn child and so many others.
“It’s not making anyone’s life better — not mine, not my family’s, not the people who voted for Trump,” she says. “I would just like people to understand that. Hurting someone does not make your life better.”
A better life is what Liza says she dreams of for her own child.
“The baby will be bilingual. I think that’s a big thing. There will be so many opportunities for the baby. And in the US…if you work hard, you will get what you deserve,” she says.
The future for a child in this country, she says, is still bright.
Despite all the uncertainty of this moment, Liza says that’s one thing she knows.
CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report.
In a recent development, a group of pregnant mothers have decided to take legal action against the Trump administration over the birthright citizenship executive order. The controversial order, which seeks to end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents, has sparked outrage and concern among immigrant communities.
These pregnant mothers argue that the executive order is not only discriminatory but also goes against the principles of the Constitution. They believe that every child born in the United States should have the right to citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Furthermore, these mothers are concerned about the impact that this order will have on their children’s future. By denying them citizenship, they fear that their children will be deprived of essential rights and opportunities that come with being a U.S. citizen.
The lawsuit aims to challenge the legality of the executive order and protect the rights of children born to non-citizen parents in the United States. These mothers are determined to fight for their children’s right to citizenship and ensure that they are not unfairly targeted by discriminatory policies.
As this legal battle unfolds, it is clear that these pregnant mothers are willing to stand up and fight for the rights of their children. Their courage and determination serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of upholding the values of equality and justice for all.
Madonna is slamming the Donald Trump administration for their slew of executive orders targeting marginalized groups.
The pop icon took to her X account (formerly Twitter) on Thursday to express her support for the LGBTQ community after the president, who returned to the White House last Monday, signed an order barring transgender people from serving and enlisting in the military.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
“It’s so sad to watch our new Government slowly dismantling all the Freedoms we have been fighting for and WON over the years,” Madonna wrote, adding the LGBTQ pride flag and broken red heart emojis. “Don’t give up the Fight!”
On Monday, Trump signed a controversial executive order titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” The order reinstates a policy from Trump’s first term and rescinds a 2021 order by Joe Biden that allowed trans people to enlist in the military and serve openly. The president has also rolled back diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives in his first week back in office.
The “Material Girl” singer has been a longtime advocate for the LGBTQ community, dating back to the 1980s, when she spoke out about the HIV/AIDS crisis and was fighting for gay rights. In 2019, Madonna was also honored with the Advocate for Change Award at the 30th annual GLAAD Media Awards.
Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of GLAAD, also wrote in a statement following Trump’s executive order, “Transgender people are already serving in the military with honor and keeping our country and military safer and stronger. They meet the same rigorous health and readiness standards, and continue to do so. The Trump administration’s inaccurate statements and rhetoric targeting transgender people are not based on facts. LGBTQ Americans have been here before, ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and Trump’s previous trans military ban. Research and military experts have made it loud and clear that targeting service members because of who they are is blatantly discriminatory and makes our country less safe.”
Madonna isn’t the only celebrity condemning Trump’s aggressive new policies. In a since-deleted Instagram video, Selena Gomez got vulnerable over the deportation of undocumented immigrants. “All my people are getting attacked … the children. I don’t understand,” she said as tears streamed down her face. “I’m so sorry. I wish I could do something but I can’t. I don’t know what to do. I’ll try everything, I promise.”
Madonna Slams Trump Administration for “Slowly Dismantling All the Freedoms We Have Been Fighting For”
Madonna, the iconic singer and outspoken activist, has once again taken aim at the Trump administration for what she sees as a systematic erosion of the rights and freedoms that Americans have fought so hard to achieve.
In a recent interview, Madonna criticized President Trump and his administration for their handling of various social and political issues, including the treatment of immigrants, LGBTQ rights, and women’s rights. She accused the administration of slowly dismantling the progress that has been made in these areas over the years.
Madonna, who has never been one to shy away from controversy, has been a vocal critic of President Trump since he took office in 2017. She has used her platform to speak out against his policies and actions, and has urged her fans to stand up and fight for what they believe in.
The singer’s latest comments come at a time when tensions in the United States are running high, with many Americans feeling disillusioned and frustrated with the current political climate. Madonna’s words serve as a reminder that the fight for equality and justice is far from over, and that it is up to all of us to continue pushing for progress and positive change.
As Madonna herself put it, “We cannot let the actions of a few powerful individuals dictate the future of our country. We must stand together and fight for the freedoms that we hold dear.”
Tags:
Madonna, Trump Administration, freedoms, dismantling, fighting for, political activism, current events, celebrity news, social justice, resistance, activism, equality, human rights, government policies.
The Trump Department of Transportation is actively considering its options to kill New York’s congestion pricing plan, just three weeks after it started, two sources told the New York Times.
Sources told The News that key authorization the Trump administration is thought to be targeting is the so-called “VPPP” agreement, signed in December under the Value Pricing Pilot Program, to allow congestion pricing tolls to be used for purposes other than road maintenance.
Congestion pricing cameras are pictured on Central Park West at Columbus Circle Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2024 in Manhattan, New York. (Barry Williams/ New York Daily News)
The Trump Administration is reportedly considering killing New York City’s congestion pricing plan, which aims to reduce traffic congestion and raise funds for public transportation improvements.
According to a recent report, the administration is concerned that the plan could negatively impact commuters and businesses in New York City. The plan, which was approved by the state legislature in 2019, would charge vehicles a fee to enter certain parts of Manhattan during peak hours.
Supporters of the plan argue that congestion pricing is necessary to address the city’s growing traffic problems and provide much-needed funding for public transportation projects. However, opponents fear that the fees could disproportionately affect low-income residents who rely on cars for transportation.
The Trump Administration’s potential decision to kill the congestion pricing plan has sparked debate among city officials, transportation advocates, and residents. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
The Trump administration is considering a move to halt New York City’s congestion pricing program, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
The Department of Transportation is discussing whether to withdraw a key federal authorization that the tolling plan received from the Biden administration last year. Such a move would almost certainly touch off a legal battle between the state and federal governments, and could effectively kill congestion pricing in its infancy.
No final decision has been made but President Trump had vowed to halt congestion pricing once he entered office, saying it was harmful to the city’s economy. The program’s opponents have urged Mr. Trump to re-examine it, with Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey calling it “a disaster for working- and middle-class New Jersey commuters and residents” in a letter to Mr. Trump last week.
The tolling program started on Jan. 5 after surviving a number of lawsuits seeking to block it and a last-minute suspension by Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York in June.
Ms. Hochul and Mr. Trump have spoken twice this week including on Thursday morning. They discussed a range of issues including congestion pricing, according to a person familiar with the matter, with the governor conveying to Mr. Trump that the program was showing signs of success.
President Trump told Ms. Hochul, the person said, that there would be no immediate action and that before any decisions were made they should touch base again next week.
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There is little precedent for the reversal of a transportation project of this magnitude, transit experts said. New York’s congestion pricing plan, an idea that first took shape in the state more than six decades ago, is the first such program in the country. Legal experts said that the federal government’s maneuver could flout the law and would undoubtedly face resistance in the courts.
“It is questionable whether the administration can unilaterally halt congestion pricing,” said Michael Gerrard, a Columbia Law School professor who supports the program. “The legal authority for that is not at all apparent.”
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates congestion pricing, declined to comment on the latest potential threat to the program, but pointed to recent comments it had made about the plan’s resilience.
“We’ve been sued in every federal court and state court east of the Mississippi, and we’re batting 1.000,” Janno Lieber, the chair and chief executive of the M.T.A., said in an interview this month. “We’ve won every time.”
A spokesman for Ms. Hochul pointed to her past statements talking up the merits of the program and why it was important to help improve New York’s transit system.
Other cities that have implemented congestion pricing programs, including London, Stockholm and Singapore, have used the tolls to cut traffic and vehicle emissions, push people to use other modes of transportation and raise money. The tolls are typically unpopular at the onset before gradually winning over more public support. In New York, more than half of voters across the state were opposed to congestion pricing in a Siena College survey released in December.
The plan, which state lawmakers approved in 2019, charges most vehicles a $9 fee to enter Manhattan below 60th Street, home to some of the most traffic-choked roads in the world. The program cleared its final bureaucratic hurdle in November when the Federal Highway Administration granted New York the approval it needed to toll drivers.
The M.T. A. had spent half a billion dollars on infrastructure for toll collection during the run-up to the program’s implementation.
Congestion pricing seeks to reduce the number of vehicles entering the newly tolled zone, which contains famed landmarks like the Empire State Building, Times Square and Wall Street. The tolls aim to help the M.T.A. raise $15 billion in financing for repairs and upgrades to the city’s decrepit subway system, which still depends on equipment that in some cases predates World War II. The funding is also earmarked for improvements to the authority’s bus fleet and two commuter train lines.
The Trump Administration is currently considering halting congestion pricing, a policy that aims to reduce traffic congestion by charging drivers a fee for entering certain areas during peak hours. This move comes as cities like New York have implemented congestion pricing in an effort to reduce traffic and improve air quality.
Critics of congestion pricing argue that it unfairly targets low-income individuals who may not have other transportation options and could end up paying a significant portion of their income in fees. Proponents, on the other hand, believe that congestion pricing is an effective way to reduce traffic congestion, encourage the use of public transportation, and ultimately improve the quality of life in urban areas.
The Trump Administration’s potential decision to halt congestion pricing could have significant implications for cities across the country that are considering implementing similar policies. It remains to be seen how this debate will play out and what the ultimate impact will be on traffic congestion and air quality in urban areas. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan was ousted by the Trump administration Tuesday, on President Trump’s first full day in office. In 2022, Fagan became the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military.
Fagan was relieved of her duties Monday night in a workforce-wide message by Acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamin Huffman.
“Under my statutory authority as the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security I have relieved Admiral Linda L. Fagan of her duties as Commandant of the United States Coast Guard,” the brief message read, in part. “She served a long and illustrious career, and I thank her for her service to our nation.”
The Coast Guard commandant is appointed for a four-year term, and Fagan had served two years.
A senior DHS official said in a statement that Fagan was terminated “because of her leadership deficiencies, operational failures, and inability to advance the strategic objectives of the U.S. Coast Guard.”
In particular, the official said she had failed to address border security threats, citing “insufficient coordination” with DHS on operations along maritime borders and “ineffective deployment of Coast Guard assets” to support efforts to interdict fentanyl and other illicit substances.
The official also cited “significant shortfalls” in recruitment and mismanagement, including “[i]nadequate accountability for acquisition failures highlighted during the Trump 45 Administration.”
U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan arrives for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations hearing on Capitol Hill on June 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C.
Andrew Harnik / Getty Images
During her time as head of the service, Fagan worked to bolster the recruitment and retention of personnel amid a slump in numbers across the U.S. armed forces. Last year, as CBS News reported, the U.S. Coast Guard met its recruitment goals for its active-duty workforce, the reserves and officers for the first time since 2007.
And Hagan was also criticized by the official for “[e]xcessive focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies including at the US Coast Guard Academy, diverting resources and attention from operational imperatives.”
Fagan worked to rebuild trust within the halls of Congress and the agency’s own ranks, following previous revelations that the Coast Guard had mishandled sexual harassment and assault allegations. But the official said there had been a “failure to adequately address the systemic issues” and blamed Fagan for “a leadership culture unwilling to ensure accountability and transparency in protecting service members.”
Adm. Kevin Lunday, the service’s No. 2 in command, was named acting Coast Guard commandant, according to Huffman’s note. Lunday became vice commandant last June.
The Coast Guard, which sits under the Department of Homeland Security, has faced a budget crunch for several administrations. Several recent commandants, including Fagan, had urged lawmakers to fund the construction of new ships and repair of older ones to assist in the service’s expanding global role in safeguarding national security. Last year, the Coast Guard officially welcomed its first polar icebreaker in more than 25 years.
Trump adviser Elon Musk, who leads the new administration’s effort to cut costs across the federal government, did not explicitly confirm the termination of Fagan but wrote on X in response to the news that “undermining the U.S. military and border security to spend money on racist/sexist DEI nonsense is no longer acceptable.”
Fox News was the first to report the news of Fagan’s ouster.
Nicole Sganga is a CBS News reporter covering homeland security and justice.
In a shocking move, the Trump administration has fired Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan, a highly respected and experienced leader in the maritime industry.
Fagan, who was the first woman to ever hold the position of Coast Guard Commandant, was known for her dedication to protecting the nation’s waterways and ensuring the safety and security of all those who rely on the Coast Guard for assistance.
The decision to remove Fagan from her role has been met with widespread criticism and outrage, with many questioning the motives behind the administration’s sudden and unexpected move.
As details continue to emerge about the circumstances surrounding Fagan’s dismissal, one thing is clear: her absence will be deeply felt within the Coast Guard and the maritime community as a whole.
We can only hope that the Trump administration will quickly appoint a qualified and capable successor to fill the void left by Fagan’s departure and continue the important work of the Coast Guard in protecting our nation’s waters.
Pam Bondi, the first female attorney general of Florida and a lawyer for Trump during his first impeachment trial, replaced the president’s first pick, Matt Gaetz, to head the justice department.
At her 15 January hearing, Bondi, 59, insisted she would ensure the justice department would remain independent. At the same time, she failed to say that Trump lost the 2020 election.
Doug Collins
Role offered: Veterans affairs secretary
Doug Collins, the former Georgia representative who defended Trump during his first impeachment trial, was nominated by Trump to be secretary of veterans affairs.
During his 22 January hearing, Collins pledged to “take care of the veterans” should he succeed in the confirmation process.
Elise Stefanik
Role offered: UN ambassador
The New York representative Elise Stefanik was selected by Trump to be the ambassador to the UN. Floated as a possible Trump running mate, Stefanik is the highest-ranking woman in the Republican conference in the House of Representatives.
Role offered: Office of management and budget chief
OMB chief during Trump’s first term in office, Russ Vought has been deeply involved in Project 2025.
During a 15 January hearing, Vought declined to fully commit to distributing congressionally approved funds, specifically US military aid to Ukraine.
Brooke Rollins
Role offered: Agriculture secretary
If confirmed, Brooke Rollins would lead a 100,000-person agency that would carry out an agenda with implications for American diets and wallets, both urban and rural.
Rollins was president of America First Policy Institute, a group helping lay the groundwork for Trump’s second administration.
Chris Wright
Role offered: Energy secretary
Trump named Chris Wright, an oil and gas industry executive with no political experience, to lead the US Department of Energy.
During a 15 January confirmation hearing, Wright faced criticism for disputing the ties between climate change and more frequent or severe wildfires, and for calling wildfire concerns “hype” and dismissing their connection to climate policies.
Doug Burgum
Role offered: Interior secretary
Trump named Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, as his pick for secretary of the interior.
Scott Turner
Role offered: Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary
Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/AP
Scott Turner is a former NFL player and White House aide. He ran the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during Trump’s first term.
Howard Lutnick
Role offered: Commerce secretary
Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Trump nominated Howard Lutnick, co-chair of his transition team, to be his commerce secretary. Lutnick has uniformly praised the president-elect’s economic policies, including his use of tariffs.
Lori Chavez-DeRemer
Role offered: Labor secretary
Photograph: Jemal Countess/UPI/Rex/Shutterstock
Trump tapped the Oregon Republican for labor secretary, a position that would oversee the department’s workforce and its budget, and would put forth priorities that affect workers’ wages, health and safety, the ability to unionize and employers’ rights to fire workers, among other responsibilities.
Robert F Kennedy Jr
Role offered: Secretary of health and human services
Trump has named Robert F Kennedy Jr his secretary of health and human services. In a statement, Trump said Kennedy would protect Americans from “harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives” that have caused a health crisis.
Linda McMahon
Role offered: Education secretary
Trump named Linda McMahon, co-chair of his transition team, his pick for education secretary. Trump, who previously promised to dismantle the Department of Education, said McMahon would work to “expand ‘choice’” across the US and send education “back to the states”.
Tulsi Gabbard
Role offered: National intelligence director
Trump announced Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat, as his nominee for director of national intelligence.
Jamieson Greer
Role offered: US trade representative
Trump lauded Jamieson Greer for his role enacting the USMCA, a revamped trade pact between the US, Mexico and Canada, and imposing tariffs on China. If confirmed, Greer will be tasked with reining in the trade deficit and opening up “export markets everywhere”.
Kelly Loeffler
Role offered: administrator of the Small Business Administration
Trump named former senator Kelly Loeffler to head the Small Business Administration. He said she will use her business experience to “reduce red tape” and “unleash opportunity” for small businesses.
Mehmet Oz
Role offered: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator
Photograph: Andrew Kelly/Reuters
Trump tapped Dr Mehmet Oz to serve as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator, adding that he would work closely with Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Brendan Carr
Role offered: Chair of the Federal Communications Commission
Trump tapped Brendan Carr to be the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, the independent agency that regulates telecommunications.
In a statement, Trump said Carr “is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy”.
Kash Patel
Role offered: FBI director
Trump nominated the “deep state” critic Kash Patel to be FBI director. He has called for leadership of the federal law enforcement agency to be fired as part of a drive to bring federal law enforcement “to heel”.
As the Trump administration continues to fill key positions in the government, tracking the confirmation process of his cabinet members is crucial. Here is a rundown of the confirmations so far:
1. Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson was confirmed on February 1, 2017, by a vote of 56-43.
2. Secretary of Defense: James Mattis was confirmed on January 20, 2017, by a vote of 98-1.
3. Secretary of the Treasury: Steven Mnuchin was confirmed on February 13, 2017, by a vote of 53-47.
4. Attorney General: Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8, 2017, by a vote of 52-47.
5. Secretary of Homeland Security: John Kelly was confirmed on January 20, 2017, by a vote of 88-11.
6. Secretary of Health and Human Services: Tom Price was confirmed on February 10, 2017, by a vote of 52-47.
7. Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos was confirmed on February 7, 2017, by a vote of 51-50 with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie.
These are just a few of the key cabinet positions that have been confirmed so far. Stay tuned for updates on the confirmation process of other Trump administration nominees.
Tags:
Tracking Trump cabinet confirmations, Trump administration, Trump cabinet, confirmation hearings, cabinet members, government appointments, political updates, White House news, Senate confirmations, Trump nominees, presidential appointments, administration updates
The Senate voted on Wednesday to confirm former Rep. Lee Zeldin to head the government’s leading agency on environmental rules and regulations.
President Donald Trump tapped Zeldin, who previously served as a congressman from New York’s 1st Congressional District from 2015 to 2023, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under his administration. During his tenure in Congress, Zeldin, an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, launched a campaign for governor in New York, when he trailed only five percentage points in the largely Democratic state.
Zeldin underwent a confirmation hearing earlier this month, when he was questioned on climate change by members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
In a 56 to 42 vote on Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Zeldin to head the EPA in a final floor vote on his nomination.
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the EPA, appears before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2025.(AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Zeldin will head the agency that surveys environmental issues, provides assistance to wide-ranging environmental projects, and establishes rules that align with the administration’s views on environmental protection and climate change.
During his confirmation hearing, Zeldin pledged that if confirmed, he would “foster a collaborative culture within the agency, supporting career staff who have dedicated themselves to this mission. I strongly believe we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our environment for generations to come.”
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, with athlete Riley Gaines, outside the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 16, 2024.(J. Conrad Williams, Jr./Newsday RM)
The latest round of voting comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., continues to advance the confirmation process to push through Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Aubrie Spady is a Writer for Fox News Digital.
Lee Zeldin, Republican congressman from New York, has been confirmed to lead a key environmental agency in the Trump administration. Zeldin, known for his strong conservative views on environmental issues, has promised to prioritize economic growth and job creation while also protecting the environment.
Environmental groups have criticized Zeldin’s appointment, citing his record of voting against environmental regulations and his ties to the fossil fuel industry. However, Zeldin has stated that he will work to balance environmental protection with economic development, and will prioritize clean air and water for all Americans.
As the new leader of this important agency, Zeldin will have the opportunity to shape environmental policy for years to come. Stay tuned for updates on his plans and actions in this new role.
