Trump Cabinet Picks Are Set for Confirmation Hearings This Week: Live Updates – The New York Times

Mr. Musk donated hundreds of millions to help Mr. Trump win the 2024 election and has been a regular by his side since then, often using one of the cottages available for rent on Mr. Trump’s property at Mar-a-Lago. During the transition, he has sat in on official meetings and at least one foreign call, and weighed in on staff and cabinet choices.

It was not clear whether Vivek Ramaswamy, Mr. Musk’s partner in leading the project, would also have office space in the Eisenhower building.

The Musk-Ramaswamy project is called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, but it is not a “department” in the sense of the Justice Department — an official, congressionally authorized part of the government. Mr. Musk’s status and the project have raised myriad issues about the rules for outsiders helping to wield governmental power.

DOGE staff members are currently working out of the Washington, D.C., offices of Mr. Musk’s SpaceX company.

Mr. Musk has had discussions with transition officials about what his level of access to the West Wing will be, but that was left unclear, according to two people briefed on the matter. Staff members and others who are able to come and go freely in the West Wing typically require a special pass.

Officials with the Trump transition and associated with DOGE did not respond to requests for comment.

The work around DOGE has so far been shrouded in secrecy, with the transition revealing little to nothing about how it will function, or how it will be budgeted for.

It remains to be seen how large Mr. Musk’s team will be, as well as what his own status will be. Some transition officials have suggested he could become a “special government employee,” a status that can be paid or unpaid and has more flexible rules for personal financial disclosures than what is required of ordinary employees.

Should he do that, Mr. Musk, the richest man in the world, would almost certainly forgo a salary. But there could be legal implications to how the Trump administration ends up defining Mr. Musk’s role and how DOGE fits in the executive branch bureaucracy.

One issue involves ethics rules, including financial disclosures and prohibitions on certain conflicts of interest, like limits on the ability of former special government employees to lobby on behalf of certain private interests after having worked on relevant topics during temporary service.

In particular, all government employees, including special temporary ones, are subject to a criminal conflict of interest law that bars them from participating in official matters in which they or their families or organizations have a financial interest. Because some of Mr. Musk’s companies have contracts with the federal government, that statute would seem to bar DOGE from working on related issues if he takes on such status.

If Mr. Musk or his staff were to become special government employees, they would have to file financial disclosure forms. If they decide to pass up sizable government salaries, however, the Trump administration could keep those records secret from the public.

There would also be implications for government transparency laws.

One such law is the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which regulates boards, panels, councils and other types of committees that work with people from outside the government to provide advice to the executive branch.

If Mr. Musk does not seek special government employee status for himself and all his staff members and everyone else who provides input, the act would seem to apply to DOGE’s work. Among other things, the law says that all meetings of such committees are to be conducted in public, and all the documents submitted to such a panel or produced by it are also supposed to be available to the public.

Mr. Musk has not yet determined whether he will take on the status and obligations of being a special government employee, according to his allies.

Another relevant issue is the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. It allows members of the press or the public to request access to official records, with certain exceptions, and to file lawsuits for court orders requiring their disclosure.

The president and his immediate staff in the White House whose sole function is to advise him are considered to be exempt from FOIA requests. But much of the larger bureaucracy surrounding them is subject to such requests.

.

Here are the steps nominees and prospective nominees take after a president-elect chooses them for a post and before they can be confirmed.

Meetings with senators

Nominees for cabinet posts typically visit Capitol Hill well before their confirmation hearings, allowing lawmakers to get to know them informally and express support, or press them on potential policy disputes that may arise later in the confirmation process.

They work with advisers who help them navigate the Capitol complex and handle interactions with Senate committees and offices. They are typically swamped with briefing materials.

Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who became the head of the Homeland Security Department under President Barack Obama, recalled the reading she did during her confirmation process.

“I remember looking at the door of the governor’s office one day, and a man is coming down with a dolly filled with 3-inch binders of briefing materials from D.H.S.,” she said. “And I remember thinking to myself, ‘Oh God, what have I gotten myself into?’”

“I had to learn the difference between a ship and a boat,” Ms. Napolitano added.

Candidates often use the Capitol visits to present themselves as having momentum. Some of Mr. Trump’s more divisive picks for top positions, including Kash Patel, the potential F.B.I. director, have met in recent weeks with friendly Republican senators who afterward posted photos and statements affirming their support.

The meetings are also a chance for candidates to demonstrate bipartisanship. Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, Mr. Trump’s choice for ambassador to the United Nations, has met with Democrats who have indicated support, including Senator Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

An ethics review and background check

Nominees must submit documents on their work and education backgrounds — a kind of supersize résumé that federal officials use to conduct investigations into a candidate’s work and personal life, including whether they used drugs or have a police record. Many high-level candidates submit a more expansive version of the document that explores potential foreign contacts or travel.

The F.B.I. uses those forms to complete background checks that lawmakers use to evaluate candidates, like one conducted on Mr. Hegseth that top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were briefed on last week ahead of Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing Tuesday.

(Mr. Trump’s transition team had considered bypassing the F.B.I. background checks by using private investigators but later signed an agreement with the Justice Department allowing those checks. Still, it was unclear whether all of Mr. Trump’s nominees were undergoing the process.)

Nominees must also complete an Office of Government Ethics document known as OGE Form 278, which examines possible conflicts of interest a candidate might have in running an agency. Many of those forms have been published in recent days, including for Marco Rubio, Mr. Trump’s choice for secretary of state.

The questionnaire asks about a candidate’s financial background, such as assets held, forms of income and gifts received. Potential conflicts do not disqualify someone. But nominees do have to resolve them in some way in a formal ethics agreement with the federal government. Corporate executives appointed to top positions, for example, are regularly required to divest from stock.

“That ethics agreement is often one of the most complex and important parts of the entire nominee screening process,” said Norman Eisen, who was an ethics official in the Obama administration. “That is the place where, for example, former employers or clients or current financial interests are identified, and arrangements are made to recuse the nominee from working on relevant particular matters or other issues.”

Scott Bessent, Mr. Trump’s pick for Treasury secretary who has made millions as an investor and hedge fund manager, on Saturday released his plan to divest from dozens of funds, trusts and investments.

Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary under President Barack Obama, said that she adjusted her stock portfolio so that there was no risk of it conflicting with the work of the Food and Drug Administration, in particular, since she would oversee that agency.

“There was extensive, forensic audit of our finances,” she said, referring to vetting by the Senate Finance Committee, one of the panels that checks the background of a health and human services secretary nominee. “You’re getting policy briefings, and questions about 10 years ago when you sold your house: ‘What did you do about this?’”

Meeting with Senate staff and confirmation hearings

Only in the middle of the 20th century did Senate committees begin requiring nominees to meet with them in person.

Candidates are vetted by committees that oversee the agencies they hope to lead. Ms. Bondi, the president-elect’s pick for attorney general, is being evaluated by the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example.

Early on, committees may ask candidates to provide disclosure forms for staff members to review, or ask them to meet in person with staff members. Candidates may be questioned about their policy positions, as they might be during official confirmation hearings.

John Ratcliffe, whom Mr. Trump selected to run the C.I.A., provided background documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee staff ahead of his hearing this week.

A candidate’s interactions with committees culminate in hearings, the most dramatic and visible part of the confirmation process. In a public hearing, nominees first take an oath to speak truthfully, then deliver opening statements to the committee that usually summarize their priorities and experience related to the jobs they hope to take. Members of the committees from both parties have time-limited slots to ask nominees questions.

Some nominees will face multiple hearings because of their potential job’s broad portfolio. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for example, Mr. Trump’s choice for health secretary, is expected to have hearings in both the Senate health committee and the Senate Finance Committee.

Senators may also request further information after a hearing in what are known as questions for the record, or Q.F.R.s.

The committee and Senate vote

After a confirmation hearing, a committee votes on whether to recommend a candidate to the full Senate, formally teeing up a final confirmation vote. Lawmakers can then debate a nominee on the Senate floor before the ultimate vote is taken. Nominees need a majority of senators to be confirmed.

Senator John Tower, a Texas Republican, was the last Cabinet nominee to be voted down by the Senate. Mr. Tower was chosen by President George H.W. Bush to be defense secretary, but was rejected in part over accusations of excessive drinking.

Julian E. Barnes contributed reporting.

Ms. Underwood, whose career was launched when she won “American Idol” in 2005, will sing “America the Beautiful” with an accompaniment from the Armed Forces Chorus and the United States Naval Academy Glee Club, according a copy of the inaugural program obtained by The New York Times.

After she sings, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath of office to Mr. Trump.

Ms. Underwood’s agreement to perform will lend star power to the event. Eight years ago there were days of headlines of singers making it clear that they would not be performing at Mr. Trump’s first inauguration. The Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli and Elton John were among those who said that they would not appear, and after it was announced that the Rockettes would perform internal tensions within the dance troupe burst into public view.

A number of other events and parties, many featuring musical acts, will be held around the inauguration.

Victor Willis, the last surviving founding member of the Village People, announced on Facebook on Monday that the group had accepted an invitation to participate in Mr. Trump’s inaugural activities. Mr. Trump had made the Village People song “Y.M.C.A.” a campaign anthem of sorts, playing it at his rallies and campaign events.

Charlie Kirk, the founder and chief of the pro-Trump, youth-focused group Turning Point USA, said on social media that the Village People would perform at the Turning Point Inaugural-eve Ball.

Mr. Willis wrote on Facebook that the decision would not make some fans happy however, “we believe that music is to be performed without regard to politics,” he said. “Our song ‘Y.M.C.A.’ is a global anthem that hopefully helps bring the country together after a tumultuous and divided campaign where our preferred candidate lost.”

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Mr. Trump has so far stood by Mr. Hegseth, encouraging him to fight the allegations over his past conduct. Mr. Hegseth has denied that he committed sexual assault, saying the encounter with the complainant in 2017, was consensual. He said he was a victim of a smear campaign. A phalanx of well-financed groups that back Mr. Trump and his cabinet picks, including popular podcasters and political advocacy groups, say Mr. Hegseth is the right person for the job and have helped make his political survival a cause célèbre.

Some of those efforts are being coordinated with senior advisers to Mr. Trump, according to several people who are involved and who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss strategy.

A Trump transition official did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The concerted push is a sharp departure from Mr. Trump’s first administration, when his outside supporters’ efforts were often scattershot and underfunded.

This time around, backers of Mr. Trump and his agenda are “pretty coordinated,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump White House adviser whose podcast, “War Room,” has talked up Mr. Hegseth and other cabinet picks.

“We know that one of the mistakes from the first time around was that we didn’t really have any outside groups, and the ones that were around weren’t really on board with the Trump agenda,” Mr. Bannon said in an interview. “This time, it’s more sophisticated, it’s got more money, it’s got a whole media and influencer ecosystem, and it started earlier, because a lot of it came out of the campaign.”

Outside groups are promoting Mr. Hegseth in myriad ways.

Officials from a conservative advocacy group called Article III Project have appeared on television and on podcasts, including Mr. Bannon’s, to encourage listeners to use their website to contact senators in support of Mr. Hegseth. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and a linked advocacy group, are spending $1 million on ads and other efforts supporting the potential defense secretary and other Trump nominees.

Building America’s Future, a nonprofit group that spent $45 million supporting Mr. Trump’s campaign directly and through allied super PACs, has aired more than $500,000 in ads on Fox News and elsewhere, saying Mr. Hegseth is the victim of a “deep state” campaign to sink his nomination.

And on Tuesday, just before Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, a group of Navy SEALs and other veterans plan to rally in support of Mr. Hegseth at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington — an effort promoted by Mr. Bannon.

Mr. Hegseth is not the only cabinet pick of Mr. Trump’s to face questions about his past behavior. Kash Patel, Mr. Trump’s choice for F.B.I. director, was accused by a former defense secretary of endangering the rescue in 2020 of a kidnapped American citizen in Africa by fabricating information. Tulsi Gabbard, the presumed nominee for director of national intelligence, expressed sympathy for Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, a U.S. ally, and in 2017 visited Syria’s authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad, when she was serving in Congress.

But the closest Trump-era parallel to Mr. Hegseth’s case may be the confirmation process in 2018 for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who contended with claims of sexual assault and excessive alcohol consumption in his high school and college years. Mr. Kavanaugh, who was nominated by Mr. Trump, denied those accusations during a fractious Senate committee hearing. A brief follow-up investigation by the F.B.I. appeared not to support them, and he was quickly confirmed by the Senate by two votes.

Now, six years and one electoral comeback for Mr. Trump later, supporters of the president-elect’s agenda believe they can be much more aggressive in supporting his cabinet choices and agenda.

“Our job is to represent the grass-roots MAGA movement and help Republican senators find and keep their backbones,” said Mike Davis, the founder and president of Article III Project and a former chief counsel for nominations to the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Kavanaugh confirmation.

In November, Mr. Davis wrote on X of Mr. Trump’s past legal and political opponents that he wanted “to drag their dead political bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall. (Legally, politically, and financially, of course.)”

The groups bolstering Mr. Hegseth and other cabinet picks are deeper-pocketed and better connected to the president-elect than last time around.

“I think they are playing hardball, in a much more focused, targeted and calculated way,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat and longtime member of the Judiciary Committee. “You know, they’ve learned from experience.”

He added, “That’s putting a lot of pressure on my Republican colleagues.”

Building America’s Future has named Chris LaCivita, who helped run Mr. Trump’s campaign, and Tony Fabrizio, the campaign’s top pollster, as advisers; it has also taken in contributions from the billionaire Elon Musk, whom Mr. Trump has named to lead a new enterprise focused on slashing government spending. Mr. Davis, who was briefly floated as an attorney general candidate, is in regular touch with Mr. Trump and is preparing several of his cabinet nominees for Senate hearings.

Charlie Kirk, the founder of the grass-roots youth organization Turning Point USA, is also in regular contact with Mr. Trump’s inner circle as well as key Republican senators whose “no” votes could sink a Hegseth confirmation — a fact he has used to pressure them into supporting the potential nominee.

A super PAC called American Leadership PAC last week launched a $1 million advertising campaign calling on residents of five states to urge their senators to back Mr. Hegseth, according to a person familiar with it who requested anonymity and was not authorized to disclose financial details. The super PAC, which bills itself as “anti-woke,” is airing a television ad predicting Mr. Hegseth will “ban woke nonsense from our armed forces,” and “make our military great again.”

The bare-knuckled approach appears to be gaining traction.

Last month, as Mr. Hegseth’s prospects for confirmation appeared to be dimming, Mr. Trump’s supporters targeted Senator Joni Ernst, the Iowa Republican and combat veteran who serves on the Armed Services Committee that will hold the confirmation hearings. Ms. Ernst initially seemed unconvinced that Mr. Hegseth should lead the Pentagon. But under intensifying pressure — including a digital ad buy from Building America’s Future and a threat of a primary challenge in 2026 backed by Mr. Kirk — she signaled that she would be receptive to supporting the nomination.

Article III Project officials say Republican senators are pleading with them to make the phones stop ringing after an initiative in support of Mr. Hegseth that generated nearly 31,000 calls, emails and social-media posts. (Similar efforts for Mr. Patel and Ms. Gabbard have also yielded thousands of incoming messages.)

Mr. Bannon believes the current grass-roots advocacy is only the beginning.

The push for Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation is “a test run for other times that we’re going to have to get people into the streets and into the halls of Congress,” he said.

“As we unite our country and usher in this new era of leadership, I ordered all flags to be raised to full-staff at the Texas Capitol and all state buildings for the inauguration of President Trump,” Governor Abbott said in a statement. “While we honor the service of a former President, we must also celebrate the service of an incoming President and the bright future ahead for the United States of America.”

As is customary after a former president’s death, on Dec. 29 President Biden ordered flags at the White House, on all public buildings and grounds, and at all military posts and naval stations, to be lowered for a period of 30 days following Mr. Carter’s death at age 100.

As justification for the order in Texas, the governor’s announcement cited guidance from the United States Code that the flag “should be displayed on all days” including the day of the inauguration.

But the statute also holds that “the flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President,” and does not specify that any federal holiday should override the 30-day period.

The flag at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort had been lowered immediately after Mr. Carter’s death, but was already flying at full staff on Monday with a week to go until Mr. Trump reassumes the presidency. Though Mr. Trump’s residence is not a public building or subject to the order by Mr. Biden, the gesture there on behalf of Mr. Carter appeared to have ended, after Mr. Trump had previously expressed dismay that the mourning period would overlap with his inauguration.

“The Democrats are all ‘giddy’ about our magnificent American Flag potentially being at ‘half-mast’ during my Inauguration,” he wrote on social media earlier this month. “They think it’s so great, and are so happy about it because, in actuality, they don’t love our Country.”

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

The effort got underway with a speech at the State Department focused on what Mr. Biden sees as his successes in the international arena. He said that he strengthened U.S. alliances in Europe while facing Russian aggression, as well as in the Asian-Pacific amid the rise of China. At the same time, he argued that America’s adversaries — particularly Russia, China and Iran — were all weaker than when he came to office.

“Right now, in my view, thanks to our administration, the United States is winning the worldwide competition,” Mr. Biden said. “Compared to four years ago, America is stronger, our alliances are stronger, our adversaries and competitors are weaker. And we have not gone to war to make these things happen.”

Mr. Biden was hosted in the department’s eighth-floor auditorium by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, his longtime adviser, and welcomed with a sustained and even emotional standing ovation by political appointees and lawmakers. Foreign policy has long been a passion of Mr. Biden’s, and he wanted to devote a full address to it before leaving office.

He argued that he had improved America’s position in the world by making it stronger at home, enhancing the “sources of national power” by expanding the economy, investing in the semiconductor industry and rebuilding roads, bridges, airports, clean water systems and other public works.

He boasted of eliminating the leader of Al Qaeda, even though he withdrew U.S. troops from Afghanistan; ending the war there; imposing new restraints on China while rallying its neighbors; and working to combat climate change. And while the wars in Ukraine and Gaza still rage, he claimed credit for helping Ukraine and Israel defend themselves against different kinds of threats even as he talked about trying to bring peace to the Middle East.

“Make no mistake, there’s serious challenges the United States must continue to deal with,” Mr. Biden said, ticking off a number of them. “But even so, it’s clear my administration is leaving the next administration with a very strong hand to play. And we’re leaving them an America with more friends and stronger alliances, whose adversaries are weaker and under pressure, an America that once again is leading.”

Mr. Biden never mentioned Mr. Trump by name nor addressed how radically different his successor’s worldview is or what might happen in the next four years. But there were a few pointed lines.

He said that it was “more effective to deal with China alongside of partners than going it alone,” a seeming allusion to Mr. Trump’s “America First” approach. Mr. Biden also said the world should “make sure Putin’s war ends in a just and lasting peace for Ukraine,” a nod to Mr. Trump’s desire to broker a deal with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

He also implicitly contrasted his influence among European allies with that of Mr. Trump, who bullied NATO partners to increase their military spending. While just nine NATO allies were meeting a target of spending 2 percent of their economies on their militaries when Mr. Trump left office, Mr. Biden said, 23 now meet that goal.

The speech was the first this week aimed at presenting the best case for Mr. Biden’s presidential legacy. He will deliver a broader televised farewell address to the nation in prime time on Wednesday evening, much as other presidents have done. He will also deliver at least three other speeches this week: on his conservation record, at a farewell ceremony for the commander in chief and before the nation’s mayors.

On foreign policy, Mr. Biden has presided over a tumultuous time, and Mr. Trump blamed him for the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, although no U.S. troops are directly involved on the ground in either place. Some critics said the perception of a world aflame and spinning out of Mr. Biden’s control contributed to the erosion of his political popularity at home and ultimately his withdrawal from the presidential race under pressure.

“The fact that Biden is handing the presidency back to his predecessor is in part a reflection of his foreign policy shortcomings,” said Peter Rough, the director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute and a former aide to President George W. Bush.

“For most of his time in office, Biden has been on the defensive, first in Ukraine and then in Gaza,” Mr. Rough continued. “The president’s 1990s-era liberal internationalism may have been well intentioned, but it always felt out of step to me with the power politics of the 2020s.”

Still, a Gallup poll released on Monday showed that America’s standing in Europe had improved strikingly under Mr. Biden. Of 30 NATO allies surveyed, approval of U.S. leadership rose among all but four since 2020, Mr. Trump’s last year in office. Approval ratings rose by double digits in 20 of the 30 countries. In Germany, for instance, approval of U.S. leadership rose to 52 percent under Mr. Biden from just 6 percent under Mr. Trump.

By most assessments, Mr. Biden revitalized NATO after relations with Washington frayed under Mr. Trump, who came close to pulling the United States out of the alliance and regularly harangued European partners. Mr. Biden welcomed two new members, Sweden and Finland, and led the delivery of tens of billions of dollars in arms and other aid to Ukraine.

In his speech on Monday, Mr. Biden taunted Mr. Putin, boasting that Moscow had failed to achieve the strategic goals of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 to take over its neighbor and drive a wedge between the United States and its allies.

“When Putin invaded Ukraine, he thought he’d conquer Kyiv in a matter of days,” Mr. Biden said. “The truth is, since that war began, I’m the only one that stood in the middle of Kyiv — not him. Putin never has.”

Mr. Biden has been criticized on Ukraine from two different directions: Some said he was too reluctant to deliver more powerful weapons to Ukraine for fear of escalation with a nuclear superpower, while others said he invested too much American treasure in someone else’s war.

Mr. Biden argued that he had turned around the rivalry with China, both by forging new partnerships in the Asian-Pacific region and by bolstering old ones while also strengthening the American economy to better compete.

He noted that experts once expected China’s economy to surpass America’s. “Now, according to the latest predictions, on China’s current course, they will never surpass us,” he said. “Period.”

The president offered no regrets in his speech, not even for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. In extricating America from the longest war in its history, Mr. Biden finally accomplished what his two predecessors wanted to but could not. But the chaotic nature of the withdrawal did considerable damage to both his and the country’s standing in the world.

Mr. Biden said he grieved for the 13 American troops killed by a suicide bombing during the withdrawal but did not acknowledge the Afghan allies who were left behind or the fact that the withdrawal opened a vacuum for the Taliban to take over the country again. “Ending the war was the right thing to do, and I believe history will reflect that,” he said.

The war in Gaza that followed the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, was the other dominating crisis of Mr. Biden’s tenure. He stood staunchly by Israel and provided weapons for its all-out assault on Hamas, but eventually grew frustrated with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who rebuffed American pressure to do more to curb civilian casualties and relieve humanitarian suffering.

As with Ukraine, Mr. Biden faced criticism from opposite directions. Some accused him of not doing more to stop the killing of civilians and called him “Genocide Joe” at protests. Others, conversely, faulted him for putting any pressure at all on Israel to restrain itself in the face of a profound terrorist threat.

Mr. Biden argued that the past year had devastated Israel’s enemy, Iran, which has sponsored not only Hamas but also Hezbollah, as well as the Houthis and other regional militias. He also took credit for twice deploying U.S. forces to successfully defend Israel from Iranian missile attacks. “Iran is weaker than it’s been in decades,” Mr. Biden said.

Some critics, however, contend that Iran is weaker not because of Mr. Biden but because Israel ignored Mr. Biden’s advice to hold back and instead demolished Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s own air defense systems.

But even now, in his final days in office, Mr. Biden is straining to seal an elusive cease-fire agreement that would end the fighting and result in the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza, including a few with American citizenship.

Mr. Biden spoke with Mr. Netanyahu on Sunday and with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the emir of Qatar, who is among the brokers of cease-fire negotiations, on Monday. He also planned to call President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt. “We’re pressing hard to close this,” he said.

Mr. Biden offered no advice to Mr. Trump on how to solve conflicts in the Middle East or other issues around the world. The only advice he explicitly gave was urging “the next administration” to focus on artificial intelligence and the transition to clean energy.

He noted that some around Mr. Trump deny climate change. “I think they come from a different century,” he said. “They’re wrong. They are dead wrong. It’s the single greatest existential threat to humanity.”

MSNBC said on Monday that Ms. Maddow would temporarily return to broadcasting her one-hour show every weeknight at 9 p.m. Eastern for the duration of Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in office.

Through April 30, Alex Wagner, the anchor who filled Ms. Maddow’s time slot from Tuesdays to Fridays, will instead file reports from around the country “on the impacts of Trump’s early policies and promises on the electorate,” the network said.

Ms. Maddow signed a lucrative contract in 2021 that significantly raised her compensation while lowering her on-air commitments. She has since pursued several podcasts and documentaries, although MSNBC viewers regularly saw her hosting coverage of major events like election nights and last summer’s political conventions.

After April 30, Ms. Maddow will return to hosting only on Mondays, with Ms. Wagner taking the time slot for the rest of the week.

MSNBC’s ratings plummeted in the wake of Mr. Trump’s re-election in November. Executives at the network are hopeful that audiences will return as Mr. Trump takes office and viewers seek to dissect his early policy moves. Among other changes is a new fact-checking segment to be hosted by Chris Hayes called, “Here Is What Is True.”

Fox News also announced a programming change on Monday. Will Cain, a conservative pundit who is a weekend host of “Fox & Friends,” will depart his morning role and take over the 4 p.m. weekday hour on the network. That time slot had previously been occupied by a straightforward newscast hosted by Neil Cavuto, a veteran business journalist who signed off from his show in December.

Under the ruling, the Justice Department would be free to release the part of the report about the election case as early as just after midnight Tuesday morning. Mr. Trump’s lawyers could still ask an appeals court or the Supreme Court to stop that part of Mr. Smith’s report from coming out.

Judge Cannon’s order, filed in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., was the latest twist in a weeklong battle over the release of the two-volume report, which represents Mr. Smith’s final word on the two defunct criminal cases he brought against Mr. Trump.

In one of those cases, overseen by Judge Cannon in Florida, Mr. Trump was charged with illegally holding on to a trove of state secrets after leaving office in 2021 and then conspiring with two of his aides to obstruct the government’s efforts to retrieve the material. In the other case, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, he was accused of three intersecting conspiracies to illegally maintain his grip on power after losing the presidential race.

The Justice Department has already said that Attorney General Merrick B. Garland wants to release the volume about the classified documents case privately to congressional leaders, not to the public, because the matter is still active against two aides to Mr. Trump who were charged with him as co-defendants.

But lawyers for the co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, said that plan was risky and expressed concern that the lawmakers might leak the contents of the volume.

In her order, Judge Cannon agreed with the defense lawyers and barred the Justice Department from showing that section of the report to anyone until the completion of all proceedings in the classified documents case.

“The court is not willing to make that gamble on the basis of generalized interest by members of Congress, at least not without full briefing and a hearing on the subject,” she wrote.

Judge Cannon suggested that much of the hearing on Friday may need to take place behind closed doors to avoid public dissemination of any of the contents of the classified documents volume.

The Justice Department has been fighting on numerous fronts to get Mr. Smith’s report into the public eye even though he formally stepped down from his post as special counsel on Friday.

Prosecutors had already appealed Judge Cannon’s original order blocking the release to a federal appeals court in Atlanta — the same court that had previously overturned one of her other unusual rulings in Mr. Trump’s favor. Prosecutors argued to the appeals court that she had no jurisdiction to issue the delay order in the first place, let alone extend it, but Judge Cannon proceeded anyway.

Still, Judge Cannon, in her order, asserted that she did have proper authority at least over the classified documents section of Mr. Smith’s report. She asserted jurisdiction in the issue because the release of the report could affect the cases of Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira.

After Mr. Trump won the 2024 election, Mr. Smith dropped both cases against him, bowing to a longstanding Justice Department policy that prohibits pursuing criminal prosecutions against sitting presidents.

While Mr. Trump will not stand trial in either case, Justice Department regulations call for special counsels to write final reports when they finish their work. In recent years, attorneys general have released such reports — including for the inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the counterinvestigation into that inquiry’s origins and the scrutiny of President Biden’s handling of classified documents — as highly detailed explanations of their findings for public understanding and history.

For more than a week, Mr. Trump’s legal team has been fiercely fighting to stop any part of Mr. Smith’s report from coming out, calling it a “one-sided” and “unlawful” attack on the president-elect. The lawyers have also expressed concern that the report could prove damaging or embarrassing to some unnamed but “anticipated” members of Mr. Trump’s administration.

Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case this summer on the grounds that Mr. Garland lacked the authority to appoint Mr. Smith — a ruling that conflicted with decades of higher-court precedent and Justice Department practice. Mr. Trump’s lawyers have used that ruling as another argument for why the report should be blocked from coming out, but the department has also appealed the ruling to the same appeals court in Atlanta.

The election interference case, which was brought before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington, is also dead after being significantly slowed by a Supreme Court ruling in July that presidents are presumptively immune from prosecution over their official actions.

The ruling by Judge Cannon on Monday was a significant capitulation in one respect, but an escalation in another.

While she did not modify or rescind her original injunction with respect to the volume of the report concerning the election case, she is no longer trying to block the Justice Department from releasing that part after her freeze expires at the end of Monday.

But she has extended her blocking of the department from showing the classified documents case volume to the top members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees — which has been Mr. Garland’s plan. She ordered the two sides to come to her isolated courthouse on Friday for a hearing on its fate.

In a brief note, Judge Cannon wrote that she was not “persuaded” by the government’s view that because prosecutors have appealed her injunction to an appeals court she has no jurisdiction over the matter.

Citing the possibility that the appeals court could overturn her earlier decision to dismiss the case, she argued that she has a continuing responsibility to protect Mr. Nauta’s and Mr. De Oliveira’s right to a fair trial by making sure the documents report does not come out prematurely and taint any jury pool.

The possibility that a release of the report could infringe on Mr. Nauta’s and Mr. De Oliveira’s rights to a fair trial, she wrote, “clearly activates” her “obligation to preserve the integrity of this proceeding.”

She did not address an earlier suggestion by prosecutors that in the real world, it is “uncertain” whether the case against Mr. Trump’s two co-defendants will “ever proceed.”

That appeared to be a reference to the likelihood that Mr. Trump would swiftly end the remnants of the classified documents case after he takes office, either by pardoning his aides or by the Justice Department’s new politically appointed leaders directing prosecutors to drop the matter.

Arizona attorney general Kris Mayes, a Democrat, wrote a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Sunday seeking access to former special counsel Jack Smith’s files from his aborted prosecution of President-elect Trump for election interference. Mayes is leading her own state prosecution of a number of current and former Trump aides and allies for election interference. In her letter, she writes that her office had request access when Smith’s investigation was active but was rebuffed. But now the federal case has been abandoned.

“Given these changed circumstances, I am revisiting my office’s earlier request,” Mayes wrote, adding, that her “office has one of the only remaining cases that includes charges against national actors. I have held steadfast to prosecuting the grand jury’s indictment because those who tried to subvert democracy in 2020 must be held accountable.”

Mr. Hamm, the founder of Oklahoma-based Continental Resources, has been influential in Mr. Trump’s plans to gut environmental protections and allow unfettered access by energy companies to federal land and waters. He also helped raise money from others in the oil and gas industry, which spent more than $75 million on efforts to elect Mr. Trump.

Among the invited guests to Mr. Hamm’s celebration is Doug Burgum, Mr. Trump’s pick to run the Interior Department. Mr. Burgum’s term as governor of North Dakota ended last month and if he is confirmed, he would help determine the use of public land and federal waters. He is also Mr. Trump’s choice to run a government-wide energy council. Mr. Burgum received an invitation to the celebration from Mr. Hamm’s executive assistant two weeks after Mr. Trump’s victory in the November election.

Rob Lockwood, an adviser to Mr. Burgum, said in a statement that Mr. Burgum would not attend Mr. Hamm’s party and would instead participate in “formal inauguration proceedings” on Jan. 20.

Top sponsors of the Jan. 20 event listed on the invitation include the Domestic Producers Energy Alliance, a lobbying group that Mr. Hamm founded to aggressively fight climate change policies, and Unleash Energy, a conservative group that includes many advisers to Mr. Trump.

“Enjoy a remarkable experience to commemorate this momentous occasion with panoramic views of the White House and a vibrant atmosphere of celebration,” read a typed note from Mr. Hamm to Mr. Burgum accompanying the invitation. “This will be a memorable gathering of friends, supporters, and special guests. We look forward to celebrating this pivotal moment with you!”

The documents were obtained by Fieldnotes, a research group that focuses on the oil and gas industry, through a public records request and were reviewed by The New York Times.

Campaign finance experts said the private event did not appear to violate ethics rules. Administration officials and nominees can join widely attended receptions so long as they only accept the same food and refreshments as offered to other guests.

But many also noted that few others than big donors can get the chance to privately chat up the people who will be influencing America’s energy policy over the next four years.

“This is an invite-only, high-dollar event for folks seeking access to the incoming Trump administration,” said Tyson Slocum, who directs the energy program at Public Citizen, a watchdog group.

Even if Trump officials do not attend, “You are basically getting the ear of the president,” Mr. Slocum said. “You have access to Harold Hamm, who is at the back shoulder of Donald Trump, dictating the priorities of the American oil and gas industry.”

Mr. Hamm and Continental Resources, the largest oil producer in North Dakota’s Bakken field, did not respond to requests for comment.

Others sharing the cost of Mr. Hamm’s party include Liberty Energy, the gas services company founded by Chris Wright, who is Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the Energy Department. Mr. Wright is expected to step down from the company when he is confirmed by the Senate.

Summit Agriculture Group, the parent company of Summit Carbon Solutions LLC, is also an event sponsor. Mr. Hamm is an investor in Summit Carbon Solutions, based in Iowa, which plans to build a $9 billion project to collect carbon emissions from ethanol plants in five states and send it by pipeline to North Dakota, where it would be buried underground. As governor, Mr. Burgum was a strong supporter of the project, which has run into opposition from landowners and local officials in several states.

Summit Agriculture Group is run by Bruce Rastetter, who has donated to Mr. Trump and the Republican Party for years. Other sponsors include Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil company with a long history of fighting climate regulation. Summit Agriculture Group and Devon Energy did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s main lobbying group, is also a sponsor.

“API regularly sponsors events with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to educate on the critical role of American energy in powering our economy and strengthening national security,” Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.

During the 2024 campaign Mr. Trump asked oil and gas executives to raise $1 billion for his White House bid. At a dinner in April at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Mr. Trump promised about 20 oil and gas executives that they would save far more than that amount in avoided taxes and legal fees after he repealed environmental regulations, according to several people who were present and who requested anonymity to discuss a private event.

The fossil fuel industry has reveled in Mr. Trump’s victory. Mr. Trump has promised a swift elimination of President Biden’s limits on pollution from automobile tailpipes, power plant smokestacks and oil and gas wells. He also pledged to boost American liquefied natural gas exports — which are already at record levels — and said he would allow drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and waive environmental regulations for companies that invest at least $1 billion in the United States.

The United States is currently producing more oil than any nation in history, and is the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas. Still, the oil and gas industry is glad to see the Biden administration go, said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, which supports fossil fuel energy development.

“They’ve been hostile to domestic oil and gas production from day one, right up to the very end, and President Trump has made it clear that he sees the important role that this industry plays,” Mr. Pyle said.

“When I need to be in New York, I will be in New York,” she said. “When I need to be in Palm Beach, I will be in Palm Beach. But my first priority is, you know, to be a mom, to be a first lady, to be a wife.”

Mrs. Trump offered some hints about her likely role in the second Trump White House. She said she would continue her “Be Best” campaign, a program targeting youth mental health issues and social media use, and said she was still hiring staff members for her office — people she said would not have “their own agenda.”

Mrs. Trump did not immediately move in to the White House when her husband was inaugurated in 2017, but she said the second move-in would be more routine.

“This time I have everything,” she said. “I have the plans. I could move in. I already packed. I already selected the, you know, furniture that needs to go in.”

The Fox interview came as Mrs. Trump has increased her public profile after largely going out of sight after Mr. Trump’s 2020 defeat.

Mrs. Trump released a series of videos this fall, ahead of the publication of her memoir, “Melania.” Amazon said earlier this month that its streaming service would release a documentary about Mrs. Trump’s life, which started filming in December. Mrs. Trump will be an executive producer of the film, which is set to play in theaters and on the streaming service in the second half of the year.

“I just feel that people didn’t accept me maybe,” Mrs. Trump told Fox. “They didn’t understand me the way maybe they do now. And I didn’t have much support.”

Some people, she said, may have seen her as “just a wife of the president.”

“But I’m standing on my own two feet, independent,” she added. “I have my own thoughts. I have my own yes and no. I don’t always agree what my husband is saying or doing. And that’s OK.”

Asked whether President Biden and Jill Biden, the first lady, had been welcoming during the transition, Mrs. Trump avoided addressing whether she had interacted with them.

“They’re still living there, and they will be out on January 20,” she said. There are only five hours to move the Bidens out and the Trumps in, she said, “so everything needs to be planned to the minute.”