As Democrats want more thorough screening of executive branch nominees, Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty implied on Sunday that Americans don’t care about standard FBI background checks for President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet choices.
When asked on Sunday about the FBI’s involvement in a background check on former Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth, Hagerty, R-Tenn., responded that Americans don’t care who does background checks for presidential nominees.
In response to a question concerning the FBI’s custom of running background investigations on presidential cabinet candidates, Hagerty told host Jon Karl that Americans value Trump’s ability to carry out the mandate that the American people voted for more than an FBI background check.
The American public doesn’t seem to care who conducts background checks, in my opinion. In an interview on ABC’s This Week, Hagerty stated that the American people are concerned about seeing the mandate they voted for fulfilled.
We must resume our task. It is imperative that we strengthen our military. Additionally, Hagerty stated, “I believe we’re looking at a chance to do this.”
Hegseth was accused of sexual assault in 2017 and was appointed by Trump to head the Department of Defense. According to a police report earlier this month, an unnamed lady informed police that Hegseth stole her phone and stopped her from leaving a hotel room before he sexually attacked her following a Republican women’s convention in California.
Hegseth was not charged and has denied any misconduct. Timothy Parlatore, his lawyer, stated that police interviews with other hotel guests and the report’s description of surveillance footage at the hotel where the unidentified woman met Hegseth demonstrate his innocence.
Allegations like these would probably be investigated by an FBI background check, which is typically utilized throughout confirmation procedures.
A request for comment from Trump’s transition office was not immediately answered, and his team has not explained why he hasn’t sent his nominees for background checks.
Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, contend that background checks on prospective nominees are essential resources for screening high-level officials.
On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., stated that she is unable to assess Cabinet-level nominations without FBI background checks, noting that the tactic is also used to obtain even lower-level government positions.
Drug enforcement officers, such as DEA agents, must undergo these background checks. For the federal government, we want them of new prosecutors. Why wouldn’t the most essential positions in the US government require these background checks? Klobuchar noted that regardless of a background investigation, Republicans would be determining if Trump’s candidates are fit for the position.
Numerous Republican members have concurred, opposing the idea of eliminating FBI background checks.
According to Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., the FBI would be able to perform more comprehensive inspections because it has access to information that private companies do not.
I would say that’s okay if you wanted to add a private firm to it. However, even a really smart and astute private corporation would not likely have access to the information that the FBI does, he told The Hill.
While Sen. Mike Rounds, R-SD, stated that Congress would want to know the legitimacy of those performing the background checks if the FBI did not screen the nominees and the task were contracted out to a private company, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, also stated that the FBI should perform the checks.
The FBI performs the checks on a regular basis, according to Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska.
“I understand that some agencies have mistrust, and the FBI is not exempt from that,” Murkowski told The Hill, “but I do think it is vitally important, particularly from a national security perspective, that you have a level of vetting that is thorough.”
“Amid reports that President-elect Donald Trump and his advisors intend to bypass traditional background checks to grant security clearances to political appointees,” said Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., in a press release last week, they introduced the Security Clearance Review Act to codify the FBI’s role in conducting background checks for Executive Office of the President employees, including Cabinet officials.
Even though the bill would require background checks for all high-level administration posts, Democratic senators have expressed alarm about some of Trump’s selections in particular. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence, was compromised, according to Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who told Dana Bash on CNN Sunday that “Russian-controlled media called her a Russian asset.”
Trump appointed Gabbard, a former Democratic representative from Hawaii, to the top intelligence position, sparking controversy. Following a record of supporting Russia and other authoritarian governments, Gabbard did not denounce Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Despite the lack of diplomatic ties between the United States and Syria, Gabbard traveled there in 2017 to meet with Bashar al-Assad, the country’s leader.
Gabbard has denied claims that she is a spokesperson for the Syrian government or Russia. A request for comment on Sunday was not immediately answered by Gabbard’s office.
My concern is that she wouldn’t be able to pass a background check because the US intelligence community has found her to have problematic ties to America’s enemies, Duckworth told Bash.
Later on Sunday, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., informed Bash that Duckworth’s remarks were both politically driven and dangerous.
Tammy should take back what she said because she is completely mistaken about this. Mullin said it was heartbreaking to hear her declare that a U.S. lieutenant colonel and the U.S. Army are compromised and an asset of Russia, which is the most hazardous thing she could say.
During his Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Senator Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., stated that referring to Gabbard as a “Russian asset” is a “slur.”
The fact that everybody with a different political opinion is suddenly portrayed as a Russian asset intrigues me greatly. It’s offensive, in my opinion. To be honest, it’s a slur. Schmitt stated that he was certain all of Trump’s nominees would be thoroughly investigated before going through the Senate confirmation process, adding, “You know, there’s no evidence that she’s an asset of another country.”
Senator-elect Adam Schiff, D-Calif., responded to Schmitt’s interview by stating that while he would not characterize Gabbard as likely a Russian asset, she has “certainly echoed talking points for the Kremlin.”
“The issue is that our foreign partners will cease providing us with information if they don’t trust the head of our intelligence agency. And that reduces the safety of our nation. Thus, I’m really worried about her,” he said to moderator Kristen Welker.
Schiff further contended that the president-elect’s “lack of background checks for his nominees is flawed,” citing the appointment of former Representative Matt Gaetz as attorney general and his abrupt resignation amid claims of sexual misconduct as evidence of a “flaw in the process.”
In addition to safeguarding the public interest, the FBI’s screening of possible nominees serves to ensure that the president-elect is not embarrassed by his nomination of someone like Matt Gaetz. Therefore, I believe that the fact that he was nominated at all indicates a fault in the process,” he stated.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., another Trump Cabinet pick, has been accused of sexual assault. He was appointed to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy replied, “I have so many skeletons in my closet that if they could all vote, I could run for king of the world,” in response to the accusation against him. According to NBC News, he expressed regret to his accuser for the text messages he sent this year.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!