Republicans from Connecticut, who came to Washington, D.C. to celebrate and mark Trump’s transition back into power, believe he is best-positioned to enact such changes and move in a different direction than the last four years of the Biden era.

A large group of supporters ranging from state legislators, mayors, city councilors and rank and file Republicans travelled to Washington to experience the inauguration in person. But the shift to an indoor ceremony upended the plans of Republicans making the trek from the northeast.

Connecticut Republicans, who originally had seats to watch Trump take the oath outside of the U.S. Capitol or on the National Mall, ended up at more informal events to watch the speech and swearing-in ceremony.

Supporters from across the U.S. waited in massive lines to get into Capital One arena to watch the ceremony on a livestream before Trump stopped by later in the day. But many from Connecticut opted to watch it from a restaurant less than a mile away from the Capitol.

The state’s Republican Party partnered with New York’s delegation on events throughout the weekend, including a watch party Monday at Capital Grille. One of those attendees was Ray Ouellet, an at-large Republican city councilor from Meriden.

Beneath a veneer of calm, Trump’s inauguration holds warning signs for US democracy

“The country needs to go in a different direction, and he’s the man to do it,” Ouellet said in an interview ahead of the inauguration.

“I still kind of keep my opinion to myself, but Donald Trump is our next president,” he added. “I think it’s time to not be afraid to show your support for our United States president. It’s very difficult in Connecticut to be a proud Trump fan without getting any backlash.”

More moderate Republicans in the state have grappled with how closely to align with Trump and some largely distanced themselves during the most recent elections.

But others see the tide changing when it comes to Trump, even in a blue state like Connecticut. Ben Proto, chairman of the state GOP, said the group that came down to D.C. for the inauguration included many ardent supporters who have been with him “since he came down the escalator” during his 2015 announcement at Trump Tower, as Proto puts it.

“I think there’s more excitement now than in 2017. A lot of that has to do with how we lived for the last four years and saw the bad direction we had been going in,” Proto said.

Lisa Milone, the newly sworn in Republican registrar of voters in New Haven, said she was intrigued by Trump years ago when he was a businessman. She was able to secure a ticket to the swearing-in ceremony when it was planned for indoors. Prior to Monday, she was hoping for a speech focused on unity, noting that her job in a heavily Democratic city requires working with the other party.

“I’d like to see more of unifying America as Americans rather than party,” Milone said. “I’m all about working together. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t survive in New Haven.”

Monday was a historic day on a few accounts. Trump is the first president to serve non-consecutive terms since Grover Cleveland in the late 1800s and the first in 40 years to have an indoor ceremony. He also delivered two speeches from the Capitol that offered a split-screen of the president’s style: one who sticks to the script with a disciplined message as well as an off-the-cuff approach with more rambling thoughts, humor and falsehoods about the 2020 election.

The swearing-in ceremony was held in the Capitol Rotunda – where Trump delivered his inaugural address under the coffered dome surrounded by murals and statues. Hundreds of guests and dignitaries packed into the circular room, including members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation.

Seated with Trump at the front were his Cabinet nominees, family, former presidents and vice presidents and billionaire tech executives from X, Meta, Google, Amazon and Apple.

Trump wasted little time rolling out his first batch of executive actions. During his inaugural address, Trump promised that he would imminently sign a flurry of orders, including declaring a national emergency at the southern border and sending troops there, as well as declaring a national energy emergency.

That will set up a showdown with Connecticut’s Democratic leaders, namely Attorney General William Tong who plans to sue against orders, particularly any efforts to end birthright citizenship, the enshrined right for anyone born in the U.S. to get citizenship regardless of their parents’ legal status.

Monday’s speech was reminiscent of Trump’s first inaugural address in 2017 where he described “American carnage” that he claimed was embroiling cities across the country. His past address also heavily referenced the “forgotten men and women” who had been left behind by the establishment in Washington.

Like he did eight years ago, he leaned heavily on that same imagery and vowed to fix “America’s decline” and usher the country into a “golden age.”

“During every day of the Trump administration, I will very simply put America first,” Trump said. “Our sovereignty will be reclaimed. Our safety will be restored. The scales of justice will be rebalanced. Our top priority will be to create a nation that is proud, prosperous and free.”

This year’s inauguration coincided with Martin Luther King Jr. Day. After declaring Jan. 20, 2025, “Liberation Day,” he made a mention of the Civil Rights icon and argued his presidency would make King’s “dreams come true.” A number of Democrats and Black lawmakers had said they would not attend his inauguration and instead focus on events to honor King and the holiday.

While the frigid temperatures moved the traditional pomp and circumstance indoors, the day still had its own Trump-style flair.

With limited seating in the Rotunda, more than a thousand people packed into the overflow viewing room in Emancipation Hall, the large sandstone-walled room that greets visitors when they tour the Capitol grounds.

CT Gov. Ned Lamont attended Donald Trump’s swearing-in as the 47th president of the United States on Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. Credit: Lisa Hagen / CT Mirror
Congressional spouses, governors and other dignitaries were among those in the overflow room. Gov. Ned Lamont walked in with a group of governors before the ceremony, shaking hands with others seated in Emancipation Hall.

The overflow room was a who’s who of politicians and personalities: New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat; YouTube stars like brothers Jake and Logan Paul, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and podcaster and comedian Theo Von, who interviewed Vice President JD Vance ahead of the election.

Shortly after the ceremony, Trump, Vance and Republican leaders visited Emancipation Hall to directly address the guests, supporters and dignitaries who were not able to watch in the Rotunda.

Trump quickly launched back into his free-wheeling, campaign-style speech that went longer than his inaugural address. He joked with Vance and Republican leaders who flanked him on stage, and repeated the falsehoods of a stolen election in 2020.

He told the overflow crowd that he was urged to keep his traditional inaugural address on unity and to refrain from certain topics that he said he saved for the group in Emancipation Hall who “are serious Trump fans.”

“I was going to talk about the J6 hostages,” Trump said, referring to the rioters who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. “But you’ll be happy because, you know, it’s action not words that count.”

Republicans and the president himself argue Trump has a “mandate” to carry out his campaign promises and agenda after winning the popular vote, unlike in 2016, and having Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.

That could be stymied by the fact that while Republicans control all of Congress, they do so with smaller majorities and will need Democratic support on some issues. They also face challenges from different factions within the GOP who have different priorities.

But for now, they are hopeful about the trajectory of the party – and the country.

“I think because everything is so expensive, everything that’s gone up in price, there’s some people, whether they like him or not, appreciate his business and economic stance,” said state Rep. Cara Pavalock-D’Amato of Bristol. “I think a lot of people are looking forward to that kind of administration. Because he now has four years under his belt, winning to losing and then being shot, I’ve definitely seen a change.”

Lisa Hagen is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2025 @ CTMirror (ctmirror.org).

More than 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the protest and attempt to stop the certification of the presidential election vote and one died of his injuries. Four more officers who were present during the attack later died by suicide.

Gov. Ned Lamont and others expressed surprise Tuesday that President Donald Trump issued blanket pardons and commutations for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

“I was shocked,” Lamont said twice when asked by The Courant. “You can say, look, some of these people got wrapped up in the event and pardon them if they didn’t commit any crimes. But you’re pardoning people who beat the stuffing out of the police. I’m shocked that more people aren’t speaking out about that.”

For months on the campaign trail throughout 2024, Trump repeatedly described the convicted rioters as “hostages” and “patriots” who had been treated improperly by a “weaponized” U.S. Department of Justice. Trump declared that his pardons would now bring an end to “a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years.” Going forward, the pardons would start “a process of national reconciliation,” he said.

Some observers were surprised by the sweeping nature of the pardons because incoming Vice President JD Vance of Ohio and others had said recently that they did not expect those convicted of violent acts would receive pardons.

Among the 14 convicted rioters who received commutations, some had been convicted of seditious conspiracy – a difficult legal standard requiring extensive evidence.

Some of those convicted were already being released Tuesday. Those from Connecticut charged in the riots include:

Patrick Edward McCaughey III, 25, of Ridgefield, was charged with “an assault on Officer Hodges, the Capitol, and the rule of law itself,” Acting U.S. Attorney Michael R. Sherwin said in U.S. Department of Justice statement. McCaughey was reportedly captured in a YouTube video participating in the riot, crushing the officer against a door.

He was found guilty and sentenced to 90 months in prison.

“Even after days of seeing so many shocking and horrific scenes from the siege on the U.S. Capitol, the savage beating of D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Hodges stands out for the perpetrator’s blatant disregard for human life,” said Steven M. D’Antuono, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office. “Patrick McCaughey’s actions were violent, barbaric, and completely out of control.

According to the DOJ, the video shows McCaughey using a clear police riot shield to pin the officer against a door.

“The officer appeared to be loudly crying out in pain. As the officer was being pinned to the door by McCaughey, a separate rioter was violently ripping off the officer’s gas mask, exposing the officer’s bloodied mouth,” the statement said.

Richard Markey, 38, of Wolcott, had been sentenced to 30 months in prison, followed by 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution after he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers with a deadly or dangerous weapon

According to a Department of Justice statement, on Jan. 6 Markey “emerged from the riotous mob and proceeded to climb on top of other rioters in order to make his way toward the police line defending the Tunnel. From his elevated vantage point, Markey began forcibly assaulting police officers in the Tunnel. Markey assaulted police with a baton and later his fists. In one instance, Markey forcibly struck and pulled on a police shield held by two officers.

“Markey then balanced himself atop the mob of rioters, grabbed the police shield again, and proceeded to kick the shield several times with considerable force. Another police officer sought to deter Markey from assaulting police using a pole; however, Markey pulled the pole from the officer’s grasp, pointed it at the officer, and screamed, “Oathbreaker! Oathbreaker! You’re not doing your f— job. Listen! I fought for this f— country.”

According to the DOJ statement, Markey “then used the pole that he wrestled away from the police to continue striking the shield held by the two police officers. Court documents say that Markey assaulted the officers with the pole by striking them with it seven distinct times and did so with such force that on the seventh strike, the pole broke.

“Markey struck the shield held by the two officers one final time before discarding the remaining piece. Markey continued to assault police, yelling at them, striking and pushing their shield with his hands, and later turning the shield parallel to the ground to render it ineffective.”

Jeremy K. Baouche, 24, a New London man who held a secret security clearance at Electric Boat, was charged with entering or remaining a restricted building or grounds, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building. He took a plea deal.

As part of the  investigation, Electric Boat, a U.S. Department of Defense contractor, reportedly provided FBI agents with the internet search history on Baouche’s work computer, which included searches on the inauguration, the Capitol building layout, guns and rifle scopes and Trump protests.

According to court documents, video examined by investigators showed Baouche enter the Capitol building and in the rotunda, at times shouting, “Whose house?” into a megaphone.

Benjamin Cohen, 22, of Westport, pleaded guilty to a felony charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers after joining a crowd in breaching a police line, pushing and shoving officers and eventually entering a room in the Capitol through a broken window.

James Roe Cleary, 56, of Waterford, was also facing charges for his alleged role in the riots. He was allegedly captured on video in an area of intense fighting between rioters and police.

“Cleary was filmed on body-worn camera allegedly clambering across the bodies of a fallen rioter and the downed officer and grabbing a baton on the ground,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a statement. “Cleary then quickly handed the baton off to another rioter in the mob and then returned to the front of the Tunnel.”

Richard T. Crosby Jr., 28, of Harwinton, was charged with obstruction of Congress, a felony with a 20-year maximum sentence, and five misdemeanors that accuse him of trespassing at the Capitol and engaging in disruptive behavior.

Crosby can be seen on video on and near the dais in the U.S. Senate chamber with about a dozen other supporters of former President Donald J. Trump. According to a police report, Crosby and the others walked in immediately after the evacuation of the senators and former Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the Senate that day.

Along the campaign trail, Trump promised to pardon the Jan. 6 defendants and a Connecticut lawyer representing Joseph Biggs, a member of the militant Proud Boys organization that the government says organized the violent break-in at the Capitol, called for Trump to deliver.

A mother and daughter from Canterbury who took a bus to the Capitol were also convicted for participating in the riots.

Jean Lavin, 57, was sentenced to 36 months of probation, including confinement in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for five weekends. Her sentence included 60 days of home detention, a $2,500 fine and $500 in restitution, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C.

Her daughter, Carla Krzywicki, 20, also was sentenced to 36 months of probation, but her probation included 90 days of home detention, and a $500 fine.

Derby builder and one-time mayoral candidate Gino DiGiovanni was sentenced to 10 days in jail for entering the Capitol. DiGiovanni, 42, admitted he was in the building for a matter of minutes and he was not accused of violence or of causing any damage. He was tracked down by the army of amateur sleuths who studied thousands of hours of video recordings of the event and was confronted with his crime by a local television reporter at a meeting of the Derby Board of Alderman.

Victoria Bergeson and Maurcio Mendez, both 40 and reportedly of Groton, were also among those charged.

Thomas Kenny and Michael Kenny, of Greenwich, were set to be sentenced next week for participating in the riot.

Norm Pattis, the Connecticut lawyer defending Biggs, wrote a long letter to Trump appealing to his grievances with the criminal justice system and argues that clemency might contribute to political unification.

Connecticut’s congressional delegation reflected on the attacks ahead of the certification of the vote this year, remembering hearing glass breaking as they sheltered in place while rioters breached the building and shouted chants to hang then-Vice President Mike Pence.

“We should be really, really freaked out that Donald Trump, having not condemned that violence but celebrated that violence, got reelected,” U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy said at the time. “Maybe that says something about the country but it probably says more about how unpopular the Democratic brand is that we can’t beat a candidate who openly celebrated and wrapped his arms around the violence that happened that day.”

Connecticut’s elected officials have issued dire warnings about what the Trump administration portends for democracy.

U.S. Rep. John B. Larson issued a statement Tuesday on Trump’s first day in office.

“When a mob of violent insurrectionists attacked the Capitol to try to overturn a free and fair election, five police officers died and more than 140 were injured defending our democracy,” Larson said. “These dangerous pardons are wide-reaching, including rioters who brutally assaulted police officers, and the leaders of white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, many of whom have shown no remorse for their actions. No matter how hard Donald Trump tries to erase history, the American people will never forget what we saw on January 6th, and his legacy will forever be tarnished.”

In a statement reacting to news of the pardons, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday, “These mass pardons are sickening— the ultimate disrespect for police officers who were assaulted brutally by criminal rioters, suffering lasting injuries and death in some cases. Giving a blanket pass to cop killers and other insurrectionists, convicted by juries of everyday Americans, discredits justice and law enforcement. Shame on Republican colleagues who were protected that terrible day and now stay silent.”

Courant reporter Christopher Keating contributed to this report. 

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston accused Trump of a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”

In the 150 years since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, courts have accepted its plain-language meaning: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

One of the executive orders Trump signed Tuesday night asserts a novel interpretation of the jurisdiction clause, which long had been accepted as narrowly applying to children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.

Trump says the clause allows him to deny birthright citizenship to the children of non-citizens in certain circumstances: A baby born to a mother who is in the U.S., lawfully or not, without permanent resident status would be denied unless the father was a citizen or permanent resident.

The order was titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

The lawsuit filed by the 18 state attorneys general, as well as cities of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., was one of three filed in opposition to the order. They are the first shots in what is expected to be a war of litigation.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates sued on behalf of several immigrant groups in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire. The attorney general of Washington state filed another action in his state.

The multistate suit seeks an injunction barring the enforcement of Trump’s prospective order, which applies only to babies born after Feb. 17 — 30 days after the signing.

Trump grants sweeping pardon of Jan. 6 defendants, including rioters who violently attacked police

Connecticut’s attorney general, William Tong, said the birthright order was an irresistible target for obvious reasons: Trump’s order flies in the face of the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1898 affirming that babies born on American soil are American, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

“There’s no doubt. There’s no ambiguity. Black and white, the language is clear,” Tong said Tuesday. “This is not a matter of statutory interpretation.”

Absent from Trump’s order is a legal rationale some conservative lawyers have offered for a way around the 14th Amendment: an assertion that America is under invasion from immigrants, even if some are coming ashore with visas.

One of Trump’s judicial nominees, James C. Ho, who was a year ahead of Tong at the University of Chicago Law School, defended birthright citizenship as constitutionally protected in a 2006 article.

Ho, a Texas conservative appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2018, offered a more sympathetic take on Trump’s invasion theory in an interview a week after Trump’s election in 2024.

“Everyone agrees that birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to the children of lawful combatants. And it’s hard to see anyone arguing that unlawful combatants should be treated more favorably than lawful combatants,” Ho said.

Tong said Ho and Trump are pushing against more than a century of precedent.

CT senators warn Trump’s inaugural signals ‘government by oligarchy’

Tong, a Chinese-American born in Hartford to parents in the U.S. with green cards making them permanent residents, said the practical harms of Trump’s order rival the constitutional ones.

“So if the baby gets sick, are you going to go to the emergency room and risk exposing your family?” Tong said. “Will anybody care for your child because the child has no status? Will you call the police? Will you call 911 if there’s an emergency at your house?”

The constitutional implications are broader than the single order in citizenship, Tong said. Trump is trying change a constitutional right by a unilateral order and a flourish of his black sharpie pen, Tong said.

“This is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution for more than 150 years, and it would be akin to saying on other fundamental rights, ‘People may have them, it may be ensconced in the Constitution, but they don’t apply to you.’ Can you imagine?” he said.

Tong quoted Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who personified the modern GOP before the rise of Donald Trump, in arguing that birthright citizenship, while not unique to the U.S., is inherent to what it means to be an American.

In 1989, Reagan noted that citizenship and identity in Germany and Japan are denied to the children of recent arrivals, unlike the longstanding practice in America.

“And he said, ‘This, I believe is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness.’ And that is as true today as it was in 1989,” Tong said.

Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat who attended Trump’s inauguration, said he thought birthright citizenship was resolved in 1868 with the adoption of the 14th Amendment. He fears other conflicts with Trump over immigration.

“I have a ton of concerns,” Lamont said Tuesday.

Prime among them, he said, is the Trump administration moving to deport the “Dreamers,” the immigrants brought to America without legal status as young children and now are young adults who have known no other home.

They were not addressed in the first round of executive orders.

The measure would also empower the state — through eminent domain — to assume control of hospitals that are at risk of closure because of financial instability.

Sen. Saud Anwar, a South Windsor Democrat who is co-chair of the Public Health Committee, said he raised the proposal after researching what authority other states had to intervene in dire situations.

CT officials vow 3 hospitals in bankruptcy won’t close

Rhode Island has a policy that permits hospital receivership, and state officials in Massachusetts can seize hospitals through eminent domain, as was recently done in the case of St. Elizabeth Medical Center, a Steward Health Care-operated facility. Steward has also filed for bankruptcy.

Earlier this month, Prospect Medical sought Chapter 11 protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Northern Texas. The chief executive officer of Prospect’s three Connecticut hospitals — Manchester, Rockville and Waterbury — said payroll continues to be met and Gov. Ned Lamont vowed that the hospitals would remain open.

But it’s unclear what the filing will mean for the pending agreement Prospect signed in 2022 to sell its three Connecticut hospitals to Yale New Haven Health.

Attorney General William Tong recently commented on the need for stronger state authority to intervene when hospitals confront financial hardship.

“We need stronger power and authority to step in when situations like this happen,” Tong said at a press conference last week. “The Rhode Island Attorney General, for example, has receivership power that I don’t have, and he exercised that power in Rhode Island. … As I look at the legislators over here, we’re going to have the conversation about what we need to do in Connecticut.”

New wrinkle in sale of three struggling CT hospitals. ‘We are watching this closely’: state official

The language of Anwar’s bill says lawmakers are trying to “prevent abrupt service interruptions and ensure the continuity of health care services at hospitals,” as well as “allow the state to coordinate long-term solutions when a hospital is in financial distress or experiencing an operational crisis.”

Tong said he supports the measure.

“We are aware of the proposal and would support an expansion of the state’s authority to intervene in these types of situations, including receivership which is not currently an option in Connecticut,” he said in a statement. “More broadly, we remain concerned by the growing influence of private equity over health care, and the challenges posed by consolidation of health care delivery in Connecticut. There needs to be greater oversight and transparency regarding these transactions and acquisitions.”

Nicole Rall, a spokeswoman for the Connecticut Hospital Association, said receivership and eminent domain don’t solve issues of financial distress.

“CHA looks forward to continuing conversations with lawmakers related to what would be helpful in preserving patient care and protecting jobs during a time of crisis, but we also must recognize that receivership and eminent domain do not solve the problems that cause financial hardship in the first place,” Rall said. “Important questions need to be answered about defining financial hardship, how receivership would be used, and why eminent domain for this use should even be considered. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively on solutions.”

A spokesperson for Prospect Medical did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The Connecticut Mirror wrote about the lack of a receivership law in Connecticut last year as Prospect was dealing with financial difficulties and hospital officials were sounding the alarm about deteriorating conditions at the facilities.

The CT Mirror obtained emails that showed a top Lamont adviser raised concerns about the absence of a receivership policy.

“Other states [like Rhode Island] have clear authority to put a hospital into receivership, we do not,” Matthew Brokman, then a senior aide and now chief of staff, wrote in an email.

A spokeswoman for Lamont said Monday the governor plans to also put forward measures that would bolster state oversight of health care.

“We’ve yet to review [Anwar’s] proposal but the governor plans to re-introduce legislation this session that would strengthen the state’s oversight of financial transactions involving hospitals and other health care institutions,” spokeswoman Julia Bergman said.

Although bills that would regulate private equity investment in health care failed to win passage last year, Anwar said he’s optimistic the receivership bill will have good support this legislative session, especially in light of the bankruptcy filing.

“Unfortunately, because of some of the bad actors in private equity, we are seeing hospitals go through significant financial trouble,” Anwar said. “As a last resort, if things do not work out, the state has to [be able to] intervene. I feel like this is life insurance for health care system.”

A Yale New Haven Health spokesperson has said, “Prospect’s decision to file for bankruptcy is much larger than just the state of Connecticut – this is a national matter and of grave concern to many hospitals around the country.

“Yale New Haven Health raised the alarm about this inevitability in the lawsuit we filed last year, recognizing Prospect’s lack of investment and mismanagement of the Connecticut Prospect hospitals,” the spokesperson said recently. “The situation was further exacerbated by their lack of payment to the pension plans and growing debt to the state, local governments and vendors. Many of these same issues were referenced in lawsuits filed by the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island regarding Prospect’s mismanagement of their hospitals in those states. We will closely monitor the proceedings and determine what steps, if any, YNHHS will take as part of this process.”

Jenna Carlesso and Dave Altimari are reporters for The Connecticut Mirror (https://ctmirror.org/ ). Copyright 2025 © The Connecticut Mirror.

The majority of Americans favor deporting undocumented immigrants, aligning with President Donald Trump’s promises for his second term, according to a new poll.

The Axios/Ipsos poll released Jan. 19 found that support for deportation was spearheaded by Republicans.

Two-thirds of respondents supported deportations of undocumented immigrants, but Democrats largely disagreed with Republicans in the poll.

Of the Republicans polled, 93% supported deporting undocumented immigrants while 43% of Democrats said they were in favor. Sixty-seven percent of independents favored deportations.

However, support drastically declined when Americans were asked how deportations should be carried out, the new poll found.

Most respondents opposed using active duty military to carry out mass deportations, separating families, sending immigrants to countries they are not from, deporting those who came to the U.S. illegally as children and using U.S. military dollars to pay for deportations, according to the poll.

This poll comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are gearing up to conduct mass deportations in the days after Trump takes office for his second term, NBC reported. Documents obtained by the news outlet showed deportations could begin as early as Jan. 21, but leaks to the media could postpone the plans.

Republicans, 71%, showed the most support for “using active duty military to find and detain undocumented immigrants in U.S. cities and towns,” the poll found. Just 12% of Democrats and 34% of independents responded favorably to this idea.

Despite Republican support for using active duty military to carry out deportations, they opposed using military funds to pay for it, the poll found.

Approximately one-third of those interviewed also supported deporting undocumented immigrants who came into the country when they were children, the poll found.

Additionally, about one-in-five Republicans said they favored deporting immigrants living in the United States legally. Just 10% of all respondents supported the idea.

The poll surveyed 1,025 Americans aged 18 and over between Jan. 10 to 12. It had a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. Ipsos interviewed 301 Republicans, 309 Democrats and 294 Independents.

_____

©2025 The Charlotte Observer. Visit at charlotteobserver.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the Food and Drug Administration a “corrupt system” that is waging “war on public health.” He has pledged to eliminate “entire departments” at the agency charged with ensuring the safety of the foods Americans eat and the medicines we take, warning the more than 18,000 people who work there to “pack your bags.”

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy will have the opportunity to “go wild” on health, foods and medicines, as Trump put it during the campaign.

Remaking the FDA may not be as straightforward — or as desirable — as it seems from the outside, says Dr. Robert Califf. He’s in a position to know: His second stint as the agency’s commissioner came to an end Monday.

Califf’s career has spanned academia, large health systems, the biotech industry, Silicon Valley and the highest echelons of the federal government. His colleagues at the FDA “work just as hard and are at least as smart” as people he’s worked with anywhere else, he said. Public criticism comes with the territory, but things look different when you’re on the inside trying to ensure access to infant formula, make tobacco products less addictive and help consumers understand what’s in their groceries.

Califf spoke to a group of reporters last week on his last day in the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md. Here’s his advice to those who will take over public health roles in the incoming Trump administration. His comments have been edited for length and clarity.

What do you wish people understood about your job?

This is a job that has a lot of bosses and a lot of constraints. When you’re in the commissioner’s office at FDA, you report to the executive branch. But Congress also thinks it’s your boss. It’s not unheard of for FDA to want to do something and get a message from an important appropriator that, “If you do this, we’re going to cut your budget somewhere else.”

It’s really interesting to me that people think the FDA can just declare this and that. It usually can’t. It usually has to go through a systematic approach. The minute you step beyond the legal boundaries of what the rule book says, you’re going to end up in court. That will get reined in fairly quickly.

How do you expect the new administration to change the FDA?

I have no idea. Right now we have rhetoric, and the rhetoric is contradictory. We just have to wait and see.

Some of the people who have been nominated to positions have been very critical, implying that there are nefarious motives of people working in public heath agencies. It feels a lot different when you have to make the decision and be accountable for it as opposed to criticizing the decision.

I have a copy of [President Theodore] Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech above my desk at home to remind myself every day that you get all this criticism from people who are not actually doing the work. It’s better to be in the arena trying to do the best that you can do.

Kennedy says he wants to get rid of certain departments within FDA. Are there areas you’re most worried about?

I’m worried about every part of the FDA. I don’t think you’ll find people at FDA doing work that no one cares about.

If you look at the food side of the FDA and the inspectorate, it’s massively underfunded. If you cut that — especially if you’re also saying we need to radically change the food system — that would be a problem.

Kennedy wants to see big changes in the food and health industries. Is that realistic?

Slogans are easy, and they sound really tough, but it’s a little different when you get into the to-and-fro. The lobbies that have very much created this food system are powerful. Maybe they can be overcome. There’s a possibility that things could be done for public health that couldn’t be done before.

The other part of this is if you really want to change the food system, you’d better have a 10- or 20-year plan. If you pronounced today, “No ultra-processed foods in SNAP or other federally assisted programs,” the farming industry would crash. I’m not saying that’s a reason to keep it the way it is. What I am saying is you’d better have a very carefully thought-out plan which sustains the economy, not just a bunch of slogans.

Trump said he would investigate claims about vaccines and autism. How should the FDA respond?

Anyone that investigates this will find that the risks and benefits are already delineated. There are dozens of studies that show no relationship between vaccination and autism. It wouldn’t be where I would spend my time, but if he wanted to do it, I think he’ll find that things are already well-documented.

That doesn’t mean that post-market surveillance couldn’t be better. It’s not a great way to have things that every time a question needs to be answered for public health, you need to get permission from every state and territory.

But I don’t think people are going to find any surprises. It’s all out there. For there to be any kind of conspiracy, it would take a whole lot of people outside of government deciding to work together. I’ve lived in America my whole life. It’s hard to get anybody to work together on things.

You’ve called misinformation a leading cause of death. Is it getting better or worse?

We’re losing the battle on misinformation. I’m not talking specifically about FDA. I’m talking about all of us.

To me it’s very clear that a lot of people died who would not have died had they just gotten a free COVID vaccine, and had they not been misled or been made to feel doubtful by people peddling incorrect information.

Often people who are experts in one area have opinions about another area, then when someone disagrees they call it misinformation. It’s a lot easier to put out a slogan or to make something up than it is to worry about whether you’ve got it right and take the time and effort to go to sources and get the right information.

We’re losing the battle right now because of this intersection of social media and cultural changes that have happened. It threatens a lot of the basis for public health. We’ve got to create networks of people who are dedicated to the truth.

What advice do you have for the new health leadership?

Change doesn’t come so easily in government. If we move at least five people, it has to get a congressional review. This makes it really hard.

When possible, use evidence for decision-making. I’ve heard a lot of tweets and short social media things saying, “We’re going to do this, we’re going to do that.” Let’s see the evidence about what an effective treatment is, and then if it’s good, go with it.

Those are my two main pieces of advice.

©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.