
House panel asks Trump's small business chief to provide info on alleged Biden-era electioneering project
Chairman Roger Williams, R-Texas, and the panel have been pressing the SBA since they first uncovered cooperation between the agency and the state of Michigan under former President Joe Biden's Executive Order 14019: Promoting Access to Voting.
The committee prefaced its letter by saying Williams is pleased to hear Loeffler committed to rescinding the formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forged with the Great Lakes State – but went on to ask for detailed documentation of the SBA's work before she was confirmed.
The committee alleged the former SBA leadership used the MOU to involve themselves in partisan voter registration efforts in target precincts like Saginaw and Detroit, rather than simply aiding voters across the board.
In the heat of the conflict between the Biden SBA and the Small Business Committee, Williams filed what he told Fox News Digital was a "rare" subpoena for information from the SBA.
The government watchdog Oversight Project, of the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, also launched a separate lawsuit last year in regard to the alleged electioneering behavior.
A year-end report first obtained by Fox News Digital, found Biden's executive order to be an "improper use of executive authority" and that SBA actions in accordance with it thereby "pose unnecessary risks to the integrity of U.S. elections."
"Either intentionally or negligently, the SBA has failed to refute concerns of this MOU's partisan nature," the report added.
In that effect, Williams is now asking Loeffler for the travel schedules of Biden-era officials, communications including interoffice instant-messenger among SBA personnel in regard to Biden's order, and all communications with the state of Michigan.
The panel is also asking for an explicitly unredacted copy of implementation plans in regard to the MOU, as well as any evidence "sufficient to show whether the SBA engaged in any activity relating to voter access or voter registration before the MOU's March 19, 2024 announcement."
The committee also continues to seek travel schedules and related documents for a dozen SBA staff members, including Isabel Casillas Guzman, Dilawar Syed, Arthur Plews and Jennifer Kim.
Representatives for the Biden-era SBA repeatedly denied any "stonewalling."
In a statement on its work with SBA, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said she was proud to work with the agency "for this first-in-the-nation effort connecting Michigan's small business community with the tools and information they need to play an even greater active role in our democracy."
"For nearly two years, the SBA has cooperated with the committee's inquiry, testifying at multiple hearings, providing the committee staff with briefings, making agency officials available for transcribed interviews, and producing thousands of pages of documents responsive to their inquiry," a spokesperson said, calling the allegations "baseless."
Fox News Digital reached out to committee ranking member Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., for comment on Wednesday's letter as well.
Previously, Velazquez said that until the current controversy, the committee had long "prided itself in bipartisan cooperation to help American entrepreneurs."
"Unfortunately, with [these] subpoenas, Republicans have rejected these principles to pursue a partisan inquiry," Velazquez said at the time.
In December, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., praised the work of the committee and its interim report, saying it rightly exposed "not only the improper use of executive authority but also significant concerns about actions taken by an agency that may jeopardize the integrity of U.S. elections."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Forum shopping' for desired legal results is a bipartisan problem
Last month, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal courts to issue universal preliminary injunctions, temporary rulings that prevent the government from enforcing a challenged law or policy against anyone until the litigation is fully resolved. The decision should be viewed in the context of a larger problem that the Supreme Court found concerning and was attempting to address: In recent years, litigants have been able to increase their odds of success by handpicking the forums — and sometimes even the judges — for their lawsuits. But the court's ruling is not the way to solve this problem. A newly published analysis from NYU School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity (we are among the co-authors) examines every legal challenge to a federal 'major rule' since 1996, when the Congressional Review Act established the major rules definition. The study reveals that 'forum shopping' is indeed playing an increasingly large role in the fate of major federal policies. And it is a problem that has vexed presidents of both parties. The trend reached its apex during the Biden administration. The study finds that 40 percent of the challenges to the government's major rules were filed in the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit, the federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. This circuit had never seen more than 10 percent of such challenges in any prior administration. The Biden administration won only 21 percent of these challenges filed in the Fifth Circuit, while it won 68 percent of such challenges filed elsewhere. Litigants do not always have a choice of forum for their lawsuits. For example, most environmental regulations with nationwide impacts must be challenged in the D.C. Circuit. But many challenges can be brought nearly anywhere in the country. Under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, nearly two-thirds of challenges to major rules were still filed in the D.C Circuit. This fell to half of such cases under former President Barack Obama, and dwindled to just over one-third under President Trump's first administration. The figure continued to decline under President Biden. So where are the cases going instead? As the Fifth Circuit example suggests, litigants are shopping for results. During the first Trump administration, litigants challenging major rules favored the liberal-leaning Second and Ninth Circuits — which are headquartered in New York and California — nearly a third of the time. And the first Trump administration saw imbalanced results in these circuits, too. Its win rate in the Second and Ninth Circuits was 28 percent, compared to 54 percent in all other courts. Excluding these circuits would have increased the Trump administration's 45 percent overall win rate by 8 percentage points. While forum shopping is a game that both sides play, the effects are not symmetrical. For example, the Biden administration's overall win rate in challenges to major rules was 45 percent — effectively the same as the Trump administration's — but it would have risen to 68 percent if the Fifth Circuit had been excluded. This 23 percentage point difference is significantly larger than the 8 percentage point decrease for the first Trump administration if the Second and Ninth Circuits were excluded. There is also an increased trend of 'judge shopping.' There are over 1,000 federal district court judges. But of the 130 major rules challenged under the Biden administration, a whopping 16 percent were challenged before just two jurists: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk and Judge Reed O'Connor of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, both appointed by Republican presidents. By filing in a particular subdivision of the Northern District of Texas, litigants could effectively choose these judges. Similar judge-shopping did not occur in challenges against the first Trump administration, largely because such loopholes do not exist in courts perceived as favorable to challenges to Republican administrations. It is rational for litigants to play this game. But a system that encourages this kind of behavior — and especially one that produces asymmetrical effects for one side of the political aisle — undermines faith in the fair and even application of law, and thus faith in the judiciary. There is no perfect answer here. But, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her dissent, changing the rules determining which courts hear disputes may better address some of the policy concerns underlying the Supreme Court's ruling than limiting universal injunctions. One solution would be to channel more cases back to the D.C. Circuit, where nearly two-thirds of challenges to major rules used to be filed. Another would be to reduce litigants' ability to select the forum. For example, some challenges filed in multiple courts are already assigned to one of the courts using a lottery system. Another solution may be to assign challenges to major rules (or some other category of federal actions) randomly to a court across the country, regardless of where they were initially filed. Eliminating universal injunctions may dampen some of the effects of forum shopping. (We say dampen because the ruling does not prevent courts from striking down a federal regulation entirely or providing class-wide relief.) Different courts will continue to decide issues of nationwide import differently, and litigants will continue shopping for results. And the Supreme Court's partial fix comes with enormous downside, as it removes a critical check on unlawful executive actions. Whatever the ultimate solution, the status quo is untenable. Extensive forum shopping undermines faith in the judiciary and the rule of law. Ideally, the trends highlighted in the study will prompt scholars, practitioners and lawmakers to give this question serious thought, and identify bipartisan reforms that still ensure meaningful ways to challenge unlawful executive actions.


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Fox News to license "Ruthless" podcast as part of digital expansion
Fox News has reached a business and editorial licensing deal with the "Ruthless" podcast, a variety program hosted by veteran Republican staffers. Why it matters: It's the first time Fox News has licensed a podcast. State of play: Fox News has created a "new media" division that will house all of its opinion and non-news podcasts, as it invests more in that type of audio programming. The new media unit will be overseen by Fox News Digital president Porter Berry, who will also take on social media as part of his portfolio. Porter will report to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott, as well as president and executive editor Jay Wallace. Catch up quick: The "Ruthless" podcast, which launched right before the 2020 election, has become a popular entertainment news show for conservatives. It's hosted by public affairs executives Josh Holmes, Michael Duncan and John Ashbrook, as well as Shashank Tripathi, who is known for his witty political posts online under the pseudonym "Comfortably Smug." The podcast has become a hit among conservatives looking for an irreverent and digestible political talk show, somewhat akin to "Pod Save America" on the left. Zoom in: As part of the deal, the four "Ruthless" podcast hosts will serve as Fox News contributors, per Berry. Berry says Fox News is focused on making "Ruthless" a top podcast — "the biggest and best show that it possibly can be." Between the lines: The new media unit is part of a bigger effort to expand Fox News' opinion podcast slate beyond current offerings. The "Ruthless" deal suggests Fox News could license more shows as part of that expansion, while continuing to invest in its own. An example Berry noted of an opinion podcast performing well for the network is "Will Cain Country," hosted by Fox News anchor Will Cain. Flashback: Earlier this year, Fox News parent Fox Corp. acquired Red Seat Ventures, a creator company that supports a slew of conservative opinion podcasters, such as Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson. That business will continue to operate separately from Fox News Media and Berry's new media unit. The big picture: Since Scott became CEO seven years ago, Fox News has pushed aggressively to diversify its business away from being solely reliant on cable revenue. This year, it's projecting $500 million in revenue for its non-cable TV businesses, Axios reported. That revenue comes from new media ventures, such as audio and podcasting, as well as digital video, books and streaming. Under Scott, the network has broadened its aperture to include more digital lifestyle products that can attract a bigger audience. What they're saying: In a statement, Scott said the deal is "a natural extension of our powerhouse brand as audiences reshape how they consume quality content."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration Is About to Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Five months into its unprecedented dismantling of foreign-aid programs, the Trump administration has given the order to incinerate food instead of sending it to people abroad who need it. Nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food—enough to feed about 1.5 million children for a week—are set to expire tomorrow, according to current and former government employees with direct knowledge of the rations. Within weeks, two of those sources told me, the food, meant for children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be ash. (The sources I spoke with for this story requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions.) Sometime near the end of the Biden administration, USAID spent about $800,000 on the high-energy biscuits, one current and one former employee at the agency told me. The biscuits, which cram in the nutritional needs of a child under 5, are a stopgap measure, often used in scenarios where people have lost their homes in a natural disaster or fled a war faster than aid groups could set up a kitchen to receive them. They were stored in a Dubai warehouse and intended to go to the children this year. Since January, when the Trump administration issued an executive order that halted virtually all American foreign assistance, federal workers have sent the new political leaders of USAID repeated requests to ship the biscuits while they were useful, according to the two USAID employees. USAID bought the biscuits intending to have the World Food Programme distribute them, and under previous circumstances, career staff could have handed off the biscuits to the United Nations agency on their own. But since Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency disbanded USAID and the State Department subsumed the agency, no money or aid items can move without the approval of the new heads of American foreign assistance, several current and former USAID employees told me. From January to mid-April, the responsibility rested with Pete Marocco, who worked across multiple agencies during the first Trump administration; then it passed to Jeremy Lewin, a law-school graduate in his 20s who was originally installed by DOGE and now has appointments at both USAID and State. Two of the USAID employees told me that staffers who sent the memos requesting approval to move the food never got a response and did not know whether Marocco or Lewin ever received them. (The State Department did not answer my questions about why the food was never distributed.) In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told representatives on the House Appropriations Committee that he would ensure that food aid would reach its intended recipients before spoiling. But by then, the order to incinerate the biscuits (which I later reviewed) had already been sent. Rubio has insisted that the administration embraces America's responsibility to continue saving foreign lives, including through food aid. But in April, according to NPR, the U.S. government eliminated all humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and Yemen, where, the State Department said at the time, providing food risks benefiting terrorists. (The State Department has offered no similar justification for pulling aid to Pakistan.) Even if the administration was unwilling to send the biscuits to the originally intended countries, other places—Sudan, say, where war is fueling the world's worst famine in decades—could have benefited. Instead, the biscuits in the Dubai warehouse continue to approach their expiration date, after which their vitamin and fat content will begin to deteriorate rapidly. At this point, United Arab Emirates policy prevents the biscuits from even being repurposed as animal feed. Over the coming weeks, the food will be destroyed at a cost of $130,000 to American taxpayers (on top of the $800,000 used to purchase the biscuits), according to current and former federal aid workers I spoke with. One current USAID staffer told me he'd never seen anywhere near this many biscuits trashed over his decades working in American foreign aid. Sometimes food isn't stored properly in warehouses, or a flood or a terrorist group complicates deliveries; that might result in, at most, a few dozen tons of fortified foods being lost in a given year. But several of the aid workers I spoke with reiterated that they have never before seen the U.S. government simply give up on food that could have been put to good use. The emergency biscuits slated for destruction represent only a small fraction of America's typical annual investment in food aid. In fiscal year 2023, USAID purchased more than 1 million metric tons of food from U.S. producers. But the collapse of American foreign aid raises the stakes of every loss. Typically, the biscuits are the first thing that World Food Programme workers hand to Afghan families who are being forced out of Pakistan and back to their home country, which has been plagued by severe child malnutrition for years. Now the WFP can support only one of every 10 Afghans who are in urgent need of food assistance. The WFP projects that, globally, 58 million people are at risk for extreme hunger or starvation because this year, it lacks the money to feed them. Based on calculations from one of the current USAID employees I spoke with, the food marked for destruction could have met the nutritional needs of every child facing acute food insecurity in Gaza for a week. Despite the administration's repeated promises to continue food aid, and Rubio's testimony that he would not allow existing food to go to waste, even more food could soon expire. Hundreds of thousands of boxes of emergency food pastes, also already purchased, are currently collecting dust in American warehouses. According to USAID inventory lists from January, more than 60,000 metric tons of food—much of it grown in America, and all already purchased by the U.S. government—were then sitting in warehouses across the world. That included 36,000 pounds of peas, oil, and cereal, which were stored in Djibouti and intended for distribution in Sudan and other countries in the Horn of Africa. A former senior official at USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance told me that, by the time she'd left her job earlier this month, very little of the food seemed to have moved; one of the current USAID employees I spoke with confirmed her impression, though he noted that, in recent weeks, small shipments have begun leaving the Djibouti warehouse. [Read: 'In three months, half of them will be dead'] Such operations are more difficult for USAID to manage today than they were last year because many of the humanitarian workers and supply-chain experts who once coordinated the movement of American-grown food to hungry people around the world no longer have their jobs. Last month, the CEOs of the two American companies that make another kind of emergency food for malnourished children both told The New York Times that the government seemed unsure of how to ship the food it had already purchased. Nor, they told me, have they received any new orders. (A State Department spokesperson told me that the department had recently approved additional purchases, but both CEOs told me they have yet to receive the orders. The State Department has not responded to further questions about these purchases.) But even if the Trump administration decides tomorrow to buy more food aid—or simply distribute what the government already owns while the food is still useful—it may no longer have the capacity to make sure anyone receives it. Article originally published at The Atlantic