Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty suggested Sunday that Americans don’t care about traditional FBI background checks for President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks as Democrats call for deeper vetting of executive branch nominees.
Hagerty, R-Tenn., said Sunday that Americans “don’t care” who conducts background checks for presidential nominees when asked 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 getting to work on the “mandate” the American people voted on is more important to Americans than an FBI-conducted background check.
“I don’t think the American public cares who does the background checks. What the American public cares about is to see the mandate that they voted in delivered upon,” Hagerty said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
“We need to get to work again. Making our military stronger is absolutely critical. And I think we’re we’re looking at a chance to do this,” Hagerty added.
Hegseth, who Trump picked to lead the Department of Defense, was accused of sexual assault in 2017. An unidentified woman told police at the time that Hegseth took her phone and prevented her from leaving a hotel room before he sexually assaulted her after a Republican women’s convention in California, according to a police report released earlier this month.
Hegseth has denied wrongdoing and was not 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, usually used during confirmation proceedings, would likely look into allegations such as that one.
Trump’s team has not said why he hasn’t submitted 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 for potential nominees are critical tools when vetting potential high-level appointees.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that she can’t evaluate Cabinet-level nominees without FBI background checks, adding that the practice is used for securing even lower-ranking government jobs.
“We require these background checks of DEA agents — drug enforcement agents. We require them of first-time prosecutors for the federal government. Why wouldn’t we get these background checks for the most important jobs in the United States government?” Klobuchar said, pointing out that Republicans would be deciding whether Trump’s picks are qualified for the job, regardless of a background check.
Many Republican lawmakers have agreed, rejecting the notion of doing away with FBI background checks.
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said the FBI can get access to information that private firms cannot and would be able to conduct more thorough checks.
“If you wanted to supplement it with a private firm, I’d say OK. But the FBI does have access to information that probably a private firm wouldn’t have, even a really good savvy one,” he told The Hill.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, also said that the FBI should conduct the checks, while Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said that if the FBI did not vet the nominees and the job were outsourced to a private firm, lawmakers “would want to know the validity of those individuals doing the background checks.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said it’s “routine” for the FBI to conduct the checks.
“I get there is distrust by some of different agencies, and the FBI is not immune from that, but I do think it is vitally important, particularly from a national security perspective, that you have a level of vetting that is thorough,” Murkowski told The Hill.
Last week, Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., and Ted Lieu, D-Calif., released a press statement saying they had introduced the Security Clearance Review Act to codify the FBI’s role in conducting background checks for Executive Office of the President employees such as Cabinet officials “amid reports that President-elect Donald Trump and his advisors intend to bypass traditional background checks to grant security clearances to political appointees.”
While the bill would necessitate background checks for all high-level administration positions, some of Trump’s picks in particular have been cause for concern among Democratic senators. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., told Dana Bash on CNN Sunday that Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was “compromised,” saying that “Russian-controlled media called 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 invasion of Ukraine in 2022, following a pattern of siding with the country and other authoritarian regimes. Gabbard made a trip in 2017 to meet with Syria’s leader Bashar al-Assad, even though the U.S. 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 Sunday.
“The US intelligence community has identified her as having troubling relationships with America’s foes, and so my worry is that she couldn’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 absolutely dead wrong on this, and she should retract those words. It’s the most dangerous thing she could say is that a United States lieutenant colonel and the United States Army is compromised and is an asset of Russia,” Mullin said, adding it was “actually sad to hear her say that.”
On 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 really interesting that anybody that has a different political view now is being cast as a Russian asset. … I think it’s insulting. It’s a slur, quite frankly. You know, there’s no evidence that she’s an asset of another country,” Schmitt said, also stating he was confident all of Trump’s picks will be properly vetted prior to undergoing the Senate confirmation process.
Responding to Schmitt’s interview, Senator-elect Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said he wouldn’t describe Gabbard as “likely a Russian asset” but maintained that she has “certainly echoed talking points for the Kremlin.”
“The problem is, if our foreign allies don’t trust the head of our intelligence agencies, they’ll stop sharing information with us. And that makes our country less safe. So, I have profound concerns about her,” he told moderator Kristen Welker.
Schiff also argued that the president-elect’s “lack of background checks for his nominees is flawed,” pointing to former Rep. Matt Gaetz’s selection to be attorney general and hasty withdrawal amid sexual misconduct allegations as exposing a “flaw in the process.”
“That vetting process, having the FBI review potential nominees, is not only to protect the public interests, it’s to protect the president-elect’s interests, to make sure that he’s not embarrassed by nominating someone like Matt Gaetz. So, I think it shows a flaw in the process that he even got nominated,” he said.
One additional 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 allegation 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 over text messages this year, NBC News reported.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
