WASHINGTON — Incoming senior Trump administration officials have begun questioning career civil servants who work on the White House National Security Council about who they voted for in the 2024 election, their political contributions and whether they have made social media posts that could be considered incriminating by President-elect Donald Trump's team, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.
At least some of these nonpolitical employees began packing up their belongings since being asked about their loyalty to Trump — after they earlier were given indications they would be asked to stay on at the NSC in the new administration, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Trump's pick for national security adviser, Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, in recent days publicly signaled his intention to get rid of all nonpolitical appointees and career intelligence officials serving on the NSC by Inauguration Day to ensure the council is staffed with those who support Trump's agenda.
People are also reading…
A wholesale removal of foreign policy and national security experts from the NSC on Day 1 of the new administration could deprive Trump's team of considerable expertise and institutional knowledge at a time when the U.S. is grappling with difficult policy challenges in Ukraine, the Mideast and beyond.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Monday he has not been told by Waltz or Trump transition team officials that the incoming team conducted or planned on conducting such vetting.
But Sullivan in recent days made a robust case for the incoming Trump administration to hold over career government employees assigned to the NSC at least through the early going of the new administration. He called the career appointees “patriots†who have served “without fear or favor for both Democratic and Republican administrations. â€
“And many of them have raised their hands to say, ‘I’m ready to stay and keep serving,’†Sullivan told reporters.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan speaks Nov. 13 at the White House in Washington.
The NSC staff members being questioned about their loyalty are largely subject matter experts who have been loaned to the White House by federal agencies — the State Department, FBI and CIA, for example — for temporary duty that typically lasts one to two years. If removed from the NSC, they would be returned to their home agencies.
Vetting of the civil servants began in the last week, the official said. Some of them were questioned about their politics by Trump appointees who will serve as directors on the NSC and who weeks earlier asked them to stick around. There are dozens of civil servants at the directorate level at the NSC who anticipated remaining at the White House in the new administration.
The White House is seen Nov. 4 in Washington.
A second U.S. official told the AP he was informed weeks ago by incoming Trump administration officials that they planned to raise questions with career appointees that work at the White House, including those at the NSC, about their political leanings. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly, however, had not yet been formally vetted.
Waltz told Breitbart News last week that "everybody is going to resign at 12:01 on January 20." He added that he wanted the NSC to be staffed by personnel who are "100 percent aligned with the president's agenda."
A Trump transition official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the incoming administration felt it was "entirely appropriate" to seek officials who share the incoming president's vision and would be focused on common goals.
The NSC was launched as an arm of the White House during the Truman administration, tasked with advising and assisting the president on national security and foreign policy and coordinating among various government agencies. It is common for experts detailed to the NSC to carry over from one administration to the next, even when the White House changes parties.
Sullivan noted when Biden took office in 2021, he inherited most of his NSC staff from the outgoing Trump administration.
"Those folks were awesome," Sullivan said. "They were really good."
Donald Trump speaks July 27 at the Bitcoin 2024 Conference in Nashville, Tenn.
Trump, during his first term, was scarred when two career military officers detailed to the NSC became whistleblowers, raising their concerns about Trump's 2019 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which the president sought an investigation of Biden and his son Hunter. That episode led to Trump's first impeachment.
Alexander Vindman was listening to the call in his role as an NSC official when he became alarmed at what he heard. He approached his twin brother, Eugene, who at the time was serving as an ethics lawyer at the NSC. Both Vindmans reported their concerns to superiors.
Alexander Vindman said in a statement Friday that the Trump team's approach to staffing the NSC "will have a chilling effect on senior policy staff across the government."
He added, "Talented professionals, wary of being dismissed for principled stances or offering objective advice, will either self-censor or forgo service altogether."
The two men were heralded by Democrats as patriots for speaking out and derided by Trump as insubordinate. Eugene Vindman was elected in November as a Democrat to represent Virginia's 7th Congressional District.
Candidates promised a bigger child tax credit. Will that actually happen?
Candidates promised a bigger child tax credit. Will that actually happen?
In the lead up to Election Day, presidential candidates had big ambitions for the future of the child tax credit, which is set to expire next year. That looming deadline means Congress will have to take up the credit in 2025, deciding whether to let it lapse, lock it in as is, or expand it further. However, despite what had been proposed on the campaign trail, there is unlikely to be a major expansion to one of the for American families, reports.
During the election cycle, candidates were proposing expansions that would have doubled and tripled the existing tax credit, from the $2,000 it is today to as much as $5,000 or $6,000. But the feasibility of those proposals is now being tested.Ìý
In 2017, Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act raised the child tax credit amount from $1,000 to $2,000 and made it available to families earning up to $400,000, instead of those earning up to $110,000. But at least 20% of the poorest children still didn't receive any or most of the credit because their parents earned too little to pay income taxes. That's how the tax credit has been structured since it was introduced in 1997.
In 2021, a to the child tax credit showed what was possible if it was significantly expanded. In the wake of the pandemic, the credit went up so that families received at least $3,000 per child and as much as $3,600 if they had kids under six. The credit also came via monthly checks to households, instead of one annual lump sum.Ìý
And, critically, it was expanded so that the poorest families qualified for the first time. The impacts were immediate: Child poverty was cut in half, to 5.2%. But that expansion and the credit went back to $2,000— kids became ineligible again, most of them children of color. The child poverty rate also rose back up to 12.4%. Today, it stands at .Ìý
Both versions of the credit show the different paths Congress could take next year, and those conversations are already beginning, according to several advocates lobbying for the credit.
Republicans will go into the negotiations with control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, which means they can "fast-track legislation," said Meredith Dodson, the senior director of public policy for the Coalition on Human Needs. She said early conversations indicate members of Congress are working to iron out details of what could be in the tax package so they can get started as soon as a new Congress is sworn in.
At minimum, it's likely the credit will not be allowed to expire, which would return it to $1,000 per child and cut more higher-income families out of the benefit, experts told The 19th. The current Republican platform outlines a goal of making the 2017 expansion , which makes the possibility of the credit just remaining as it is now the most probable starting point.Ìý
It's possible the credit could be indexed to inflation so that it retains its value over time. A proposal in Congress this year would have done just that, as well as make other modest changes to the tax credit. Three-quarters of House Republicans supported it, but because Senate Republicans opposed some parts of the plan.
Historically, Republicans have opposed any provisions that they view as disincentivizing work. One of the most hotly contested components of the child tax credit proposal from earlier this year was a provision that would allow people to use their prior year's income to qualify for a larger credit, which would allow caregivers who are not working this year to still claim the money. Proposals for increasing the dollar amount of the child tax credit may also lead parents to reduce their work hours, Republicans have argued. But proponents say that money instead aids parents in paying for child care or other needs, which is how much of the 2021 expansion dollars were , at least in the short term.ÌýÌý
All of that shapes the kind of child tax credit changes that Republicans may now consider. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who sits on the influential Senate Finance Committee and was one of the Republicans who voted against the expansion proposed this year, has been supportive of an approach that would Ìý
Dodson said there is "a lot of interest" in indexing the credit to inflation, making that one of the most likely changes that could be on the table next year. If the credit stays at $2,000, that would mean it would be worth less today than it did in 2017. Indexing it to inflation would raise the credit to around $2,500.Ìý
Still, that approach would continue to leave out about 18 million children who would still not be eligible.Ìý
"We can still sometimes see a real disconnect between what families are saying they need, what the evidence shows, and then what actually ends up happening. The details really matter," said Megan Curran, the policy director at Columbia's Center on Poverty and Social Policy, which has done much of the research and analysis on the child tax credit. "What the child tax credit has the potential to do, and that we have seen that it has done in very recent history—that's a different child tax credit from what we have on the books and what is the baseline on the books for negotiation in 2025."Ìý
The best evidence that some in the new administration would consider going a more ambitious route has come from Vice President-elect JD Vance, who said on the campaign trail he would support a $5,000 child tax credit for families. No further details were released and the definition of "all" could be immensely consequential if it meant making the credit universal.Ìý
Trump himself has said far less on the credit, but he has at least indicated that he does "support it and I want to have it." In an interview with CBS News, he alluded to there being of the child tax credit on the table, but those details have not been released. A campaign official in August that Trump "will consider a significant expansion."Ìý
The Trump transition team did not respond to multiple requests for comment to clarify what kind of expansion the president-elect might push.Ìý
Still, two of the biggest Republican child tax credit champions are also leaving Congress—Utah Sen. Mitt Romney is retiring, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been tapped to lead the State Department.
Also in the mix is how Republicans plan to pay for any extensions of the 2017 tax provisions. To offset some of the costs, Republicans said last week they are considering . That may be unlikely if it alienates moderate Republicans who oppose that approach in the House where the GOP only has a slim majority, said Michelle Dallafior, the senior vice president for budget and tax at First Focus Campaign for Children, a bipartisan advocacy organization. Some of the proposals on the table would create new work requirements and spending caps on the programs, impacting some 70 million low-income people.Ìý
"If the approach they take on this is to pay for some of these tax cuts and to pay for them with things that cause a lot of pain to kids and families, communities and people most in need, they start losing votes and they don't have many to lose in either chamber," Dallafior said.Ìý
If Republicans do choose to consider a broader child tax credit expansion, one place they might look is at some form of "baby bonus" for very young children. During the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris proposed a $6,000 bonus for families during the first year of a child's life, when costs are highest.Ìý
Others have also supported versions of that idea, including various conservative groups that outlining their view for what form the credit should take. They support raising the amount to $3,000 and adding a $2,000 credit for families with newborns.Ìý
The groups argue it is one of the best ways to signal support for families who choose to have children, particularly at a time of falling fertility rates and after the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.Ìý
"In a post-Dobbs, low birth rate, high deficit environment, a baby bonus will give the biggest political and cultural bang for the buck, and thus should be prioritized accordingly," Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center.Ìý
As politicians decide where they land, parents like Tia Simmons are stepping up their advocacyÌýefforts.
Simmons is part of the Automatic Benefit for Children Coalition parent , a group of about a dozen parents who are working to lobby Congress on the child tax credit. She joined the coalition earlier this year after being cut out of the 2021 expansion because of an issue withÌý child custody payments for a child she put up for adoption nearly two decades prior. Simmons has a three-year-old and a four-year-old, and cares for her nine-year-old niece. If she had received the credit in 2021 for all three, it would have amounted to about $900 a month that year—nearly enough to cover her mortgage payment.Ìý
"It made me realize that I can't be the only one who has small kids who are not getting credit for whatever reason," she said. "These kids are missing out on the money, not the parents."Ìý
The coalition is advocating for a universal child tax credit—available to all kids no matter how much their parents earn—that is at least $6,000 a year.Ìý
"It needs to be something that is enough that it can be helpful," Simmons said. "So many of the times you get SNAP or housing assistance that just isn't enough."
Child care alone, for example, costs families between for just one child in full-time care in 2022, the most recent year data is available from the Department of Labor.Ìý
Simmons is now in her third year of law school and still struggling to support three children. She hasn't received the tax credit for her niece in recent years because the way the credit is structured, the money goes to the person who in their tax returns, not necessarily the one doing the caregiving. It's all those small policy decisions that will be before Congress, and she wants to remind members that each decision could have a big impact on individuals' lives.Ìý
"While they're in Congress arguing about it and to determine whether or not it's going to make us quit our jobs, we are out here with no incomes, struggling to make ends meet—their attitudes about it are totally wrong," Simmons said. "Every month, we worry: 'Is there going to be a gas cut-off notice? Do we have to pick between buying Christmas gifts for our kids?' So these things are real. There are real families who need this funding, and that's what we want them to know the most: We are here and we are struggling, and we need these funds to come in and it might seem removed from them, but it's our reality."
was produced by and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
