Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty suggested Sunday that Americans don’t care about traditional FBI background checks for newly elected President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks, while Democrats are calling for a more thorough investigation of executive branch nominees.
Hagerty, R-Tenn., said Sunday that Americans “don’t care” who conducts background checks for presidential candidates when asked about the FBI’s role in conducting a background check on former Fox News host Pete Hegseth.
Asked about the common practice of conducting FBI background checks for presidential cabinet nominees, Hagerty told host Jon Karl that Trump running on the “mandate” voted on by the American people is more important to Americans than one passed by the FBI conducted background check.
“I don’t think the American public cares who does the background checks. What the American public cares about is seeing the mandate they voted for fulfilled,” Hagerty said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
“We have to get back to work. Strengthening our military is absolutely critical. And I think we’re looking at an opportunity to do this,” Hagerty added.
Hegseth, who was picked by Trump to lead the Defense Department, was accused of sexual assault in 2017. An unidentified woman told police at the time that Hegseth had taken her phone and prevented her from leaving a hotel room before sexually assaulting her after a Republican women’s party. convention in California, according to a police report released earlier this month.
Hegseth has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged. His attorney, Timothy Parlatore, said the report’s description of surveillance footage at the hotel where the unnamed woman met Hegseth and police interviews with others who were at the hotel prove his innocence.
An FBI background check, commonly used during confirmation proceedings, would likely investigate such allegations.
Trump’s team did not say why he did not submit his nominees for background checks, and a request for comment from his transition team was not immediately returned.
But Democratic lawmakers have argued that background checks on potential nominees are crucial tools in vetting potential high-level appointees.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that she cannot review Cabinet-level nominees without FBI background checks, adding that the practice is used to secure even lower-level government jobs.
“We need these background checks on DEA agents – drug enforcement agents. We need them as new prosecutors for the federal government. Why shouldn’t we get these background checks for the most important jobs in the U.S. government?” Klobuchar said, noting that Republicans would decide whether Trump’s picks qualify for the position regardless of a background check.
Many Republican lawmakers agree and reject the idea of abolishing FBI background checks.
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said the FBI can gain access to information that private companies cannot and could not more thoroughly control.
“If you want to supplement it with a private company, I would say, OK. But the FBI does have access to information that a private company probably wouldn’t have, even a very well-researched one,” he told The Hill.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, also said the FBI should conduct the checks, while Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said if the FBI didn’t investigate the nominees and the job was outsourced to a private company, lawmakers “would want to know the validity of the individuals doing the background checks.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said it is “routine” for the FBI to conduct the checks.
“I understand there’s distrust in a number of different agencies, and the FBI is not immune to that, but I do think it’s critical, especially from a national security perspective, that you have thorough vetting,” says Murkowski. said De Heuvel.
Last week, Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., and Ted Lieu, D-Calif., issued a press statement saying they had introduced the Security Clearance Review Act to address the FBI’s role in conducting background checks for the executive codify the office of the president. employees such as Cabinet officials “amid reports that President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers plan to bypass traditional background checks to grant security clearances to political appointees.”
Although the bill would require background checks for all high-level administrative positions, some of Trump’s picks in particular raised concerns among Democratic senators. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., told Dana Bash on CNN on Sunday that Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had been “compromised,” saying that “Russian-controlled media was calling her a Russian asset.”
Gabbard, a former Democratic lawmaker from Hawaii, has caused a stir after Trump picked her for the top intelligence job. Gabbard failed to condemn Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, following a pattern of siding with the country and other authoritarian regimes. Gabbard made a trip to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2017, even though the US did not have diplomatic relations with the country.
Gabbard has rejected accusations that she is a mouthpiece for Russia or the Syrian regime. Gabbard’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday.
“The U.S. intelligence community has determined that she has a problematic relationship with America’s enemies, and that’s why I’m concerned that she won’t pass a background check,” Duckworth told Bash.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told Bash later on Sunday that Duckworth’s comments were “dangerous” and politically motivated.
“Tammy is completely wrong about this, and she should retract those words. The most dangerous thing she can say is that a lieutenant colonel of the United States and the United States military has been compromised and is an asset to Russia,” Mullin said, adding that it was “actually sad to hear her say that.”
During an appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo. said calling Gabbard a “Russian asset” is a “slur.”
“I think it’s very interesting that everyone who now has a different political view is being cast as a Russian asset. …I find it insulting. It’s a blemish, honestly. You know, there is no evidence that she is an asset to any other country,” Schmitt said, also stating that he was confident that all of Trump’s picks would be properly vetted before going through the Senate confirmation process.
In response to Schmitt’s interview, Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he would not describe Gabbard as “probably a Russian asset” but asserted that she has “certainly reiterated the talking points for the Kremlin.”
“The problem is that if our foreign allies don’t trust the head of our intelligence services, they will stop sharing information with us. And that makes our country less safe. So I am very worried about her,” he told the moderator. Kristen Welker.
Schiff also argued that the “lack of background checks on his nominees is flawed,” pointing to the choice of former lawmaker Matt Gaetz to become attorney general and hasty withdrawal amid allegations of sexual misconduct as a “mistake in the process’.
“That vetting process, which requires the FBI to review potential nominees, is not only intended to protect the public interest, it is also intended to protect the interests of the president-elect, to ensure that he is not embarrassed by anyone as Matt Gaetz. So I think this shows a flaw in the process that he even got nominated,” he said.
Another Trump Cabinet selection, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been tapped to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has faced allegations of sexual misconduct. Kennedy responded to the allegations against him by saying, “I said in my announcement speech that I have so many skeletons in my closet that if they could all vote, I could run for king of the world.” He apologized to his accuser via text messages this year, NBC News reported.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
