Trump Administration Live Updates: Trump’s C.D.C. Pick Faces Senate Confirmation Hearing

“Schumer is a Palestinian, as far as I’m concerned. He’s become a Palestinian,” Mr. Trump said. “He used to be Jewish. He’s not Jewish anymore. He’s a Palestinian.”

Nihad Awad, the national executive director of CAIR, the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the United States, said in a statement that Mr. Trump’s use of the term “Palestinian” as a racial slur was offensive and “beneath the dignity of his office.” He added that Mr. Trump’s comments contributed to the “dehumanization of the Palestinian people.”

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization that fights antisemitism, said that using “Palestinian” as a slur and deciding who is and is not Jewish was unacceptable. “Instead of weaponizing people’s identity, use the power of the bully pulpit to bring the American people together,” the group said in a statement.

Halie Soifer, chief executive of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said Mr. Trump’s comments were “abhorrent” and showed why many Jewish voters did not support Mr. Trump. “His rhetoric, agenda, and alignment with right-wing extremists are endangering American Jews,” she wrote on social media.

Mr. Trump’s comments came after Senate Democrats said on Wednesday that they would not back a Republican bill to fund the government through the end of September, raising the chances of a government shutdown at the end of the week.

Mr. Schumer’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump’s jab came a day after E.U. leaders announced that they would respond to the United States imposing 25 percent tariffs on steel, aluminum and related products.

The 27-nation bloc plans to react in two waves: First, with tariffs as high as 50 percent on U.S. products including Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Kentucky bourbon, which will take effect on April 1; and second, a series of measures in mid-April that would target farm products and industrial goods that are important to Republican districts.

European leaders have made it clear that they would prefer not to enact the tariffs, and would like to negotiate with Mr. Trump.

“Tariffs are taxes,” Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, said in a statement on Wednesday.

But with little progress toward a deal, E.U. leaders have decided to hit back in politically sensitive product categories, hoping to inflict enough pain that they would drive Americans to the negotiation table.

This is not the first time the spirits and alcohol industry has been caught in a trade war. Less extreme tariffs were placed on liquor and other alcohol during Mr. Trump’s first term, and the industry’s recovery from that hit has been long and grueling.

Industry executives have been lobbying in Washington, Brussels and other European capitals to be spared this time — and expressed alarm on Wednesday that they were once again caught in the crossfire.

“Reimposing these debilitating tariffs at a time when the spirits industry continues to face a slowdown” will “further curtail growth and negatively impact distillers and farmers in states across the country,” Chris Swonger, the chief executive of the Washington-based Distilled Spirits Council, said in a statement on Wednesday.

Mr. Trump wrote in his social media post that the tariffs “will be great for the wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.”

Champagne, technically, is only produced in a specific region in France.

The European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, did not have an immediate comment on Mr. Trump’s post.

But Olof Gill, a spokesman for the commission, said that bloc’s trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, had reached out to his American counterparts after the E.U.’s announcements Wednesday and that calls were “being prepared.”

President Trump has threatened to escalate a trade war with the European Union, saying in a post on social media this morning that he could raise tariffs on alcohol from the bloc. If a “nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky” was not removed immediately, “the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES,” he wrote.

Mr. Trump made the threat after the E.U. announced that tariffs on American products would come into effect next month in response to the Trump administration imposing new levies on steel and aluminum imports yesterday.

In January 2019, China’s No. 2 official at the time, Li Keqiang, met with Mr. Musk in the Hall of Purple Light, a pavilion for foreign dignitaries inside the Communist Party’s leadership compound known as Zhongnanhai. A photograph on a Chinese government website shows Mr. Li peering at a Tesla as Mr. Musk, the company’s chief executive, looks on approvingly.

During that meeting, Mr. Li said that he hoped Mr. Musk could promote the “stability of China-U.S. relations” and offered the billionaire a Chinese green card, according to the state news media outlet CGTN.

It was a sign of how crucial China was to Tesla’s future at the time. Mr. Musk had just broken ground on a Tesla factory in Shanghai, which was granted unusually favorable conditions by the Chinese government and has since become the company’s most important manufacturing facility in the world. Beijing ensured Tesla low-interest loans, overhauled ownership rules so that the company could set up without a local partner and granted changes that Tesla had sought on emissions regulations.

It was the second time that Teslas had been displayed in Zhongnanhai. A year earlier, Mr. Musk had posted a photo of himself standing in front of Teslas in the Hall of Purple Light. He had just met with Wang Qishan, China’s vice president at the time. They had a “profoundly interesting discussion of history, philosophy & luck,” Mr. Musk wrote on social media.

These days, Tesla is struggling in both China, where sales are plunging amid fierce domestic competition, and in the United States, where Mr. Musk’s politics have set off protests and violence at Tesla dealerships and charging stations.

There was at least one major difference between the Beijing and Washington Tesla shows, however. At the White House, Mr. Musk donned a T-shirt and baseball cap. At Zhongnanhai, he wore a suit.

Joy Dong contributed research.

Dr. Weldon, 71, was to appear before the Senate health committee on Thursday at 10 a.m., the first time an agency director would have been subject to the confirmation process. The decision to withdraw the nomination was first reported by Axios.

His hearing was set to take place amid significant measles outbreaks in Texas and New Mexico, which have infected more than 250 people and claimed two lives; a flu season that led to record numbers of hospitalizations; and the potential for a bird flu epidemic.

He had repeatedly questioned the safety of the measles vaccine and criticized the C.D.C. for not doing enough to prove that vaccines are safe.

While in Congress, Dr. Weldon pushed to move the vaccine safety office away from C.D.C. control, saying the agency had a conflict of interest because it also purchases and promotes vaccines. He is also a staunch opponent of abortion.

Dr. Weldon was perhaps the least known of the men nominated to lead major agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services. But he was the one aligned most closely with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s new health secretary.

Dr. Weldon and Mr. Kennedy have maintained a 25-year relationship. The health secretary has cited Dr. Weldon’s criticisms of the C.D.C. along with his own.

Dr. Weldon served in Congress for 14 years, from 1995 to 2009. His signature legislative accomplishment was the Weldon Amendment, which bars health agencies from discriminating against hospitals or health insurance plans that choose not to provide or pay for abortions.

Like Mr. Kennedy, he had questioned the need to immunize children against hepatitis B, describing it as primarily a sexually transmitted disease afflicting adults.

He also argued that abstinence is the most effective way to curb sexually transmitted infections. Cases have soared in recent years and only began to show signs of a possible downturn in 2023.

In an interview with The New York Times in late November, Dr. Weldon said that he had worked “to get the mercury out of the childhood vaccines,” but described himself as a supporter of vaccination.

Both his adult children are fully immunized, he said. As a doctor in coastal Florida, he prescribes thousands of doses of flu and other vaccines to his patients.

“I’ve been described as anti-vaccine,” Dr. Weldon said, but added: “I give shots. I believe in vaccination.”

Members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions also questioned Mr. Kennedy — whom they later endorsed — as well as Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, the respective nominees to lead the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration.

(The hearing for Dr. Mehmet Oz, the nominee to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is scheduled for Friday.)

Apart from a handful of tough questions from the committee’s chair, Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, comments from members have largely fallen along partisan lines. Dr. Weldon’s hearing was not expected to be different.

The suit accused employees of Southwest Key, which has worked with the federal government for more than two decades, of exploiting “children’s vulnerabilities, language barriers and distance from family and loved ones” from 2015 through at least 2023, including President Trump’s first term.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, in the statement, blamed the Biden administration’s immigration policies for enabling the abuses.

“Under the border policies of the previous administration, bad actors were incentivized to exploit children and break our laws: this ends now,” Ms. Bondi said, adding, “securing our border and protecting children from abuse are among the most critical missions of the Department of Justice and the Trump administration.”

Anais Biera Miracle, a spokeswoman for Southwest Key, maintained the nonprofit denied the claims of abuse. She said it was “pleased” that the Justice Department had dropped the case in its entirety, and that charges cannot be refiled.

“There is no settlement or payment required,” Ms. Miracle said in an email. “We are glad this matter is now concluded.”

Abuse and harassment were also alleged to have taken place during President Trump’s first term, including during his policy of family separation, which forced thousands of additional minors into federal custody. In a complaint filed in July, federal prosecutors reported that Southwest Key employees subjected minors to threats of violence to prevent them from reporting rape, solicitations of sex and entreaties for nude photographs, among other inappropriate conduct and abuse for at least eight years, across three presidential administrations.

At the time the complaint was filed, the H.H.S., which assumes responsibility for housing children who arrive at the southern border unaccompanied by parents or legal guardians, continued to place minors at shelters run by Southwest Key even as prosecutors asked that the nonprofit face penalties and that it pay damages to the victims.

The decision appears to conclude a gradual reversal of fortune for Southwest Key, which has worked with the federal government for more than two decades, operating more than 25 shelters across Texas, Arizona and California. It has been awarded more than $6 billion in federal funds since 2007. After the H.H.S. announced that it would review its grants to Southwest Key, Ms. Miracle, the spokeswoman, said that the government had frozen funding and put in place a stop placement order on Southwest Key shelters, forcing the nonprofit to furlough about 5,000 employees.

Housing underage migrants for the federal government has been a financial boon for contractors like Southwest Key, whose award money more than doubled during the family separation policy overseen by Mr. Trump in 2017 and 2018. It was one of several providers that cashed in as the administration scrambled to find shelter for more than 5,000 children forced into federal custody, turning the care of migrant children into a billion-dollar business with little transparency.

The New York Times revealed in 2018 that Southwest Key had funneled government money through a web of for-profit companies to convert public funds into private money for the organization and pay top executives millions of dollars. Shortly after, the Justice Department opened an investigation into possible financial improprieties. Southwest Key also began an internal inquiry, and high-level executives, including its founder and chief financial officer, eventually resigned.

The complaint filed by the Justice Department last year disclosed that Southwest Key had documented dozens of cases of abuse reported by children, the majority of whom were 13 to 17 and came from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. But Southwest Key’s employees did not report abuse they had observed or knew of, or any violations of policies intended to protect minors.

By one account, a worker who sexually abused three girls ages 5, 8 and 11 threatened to kill their families if they told. In another case documented by Southwest Key, a supervisor deliberately changed shifts to be alone with a teenage girl he repeatedly raped, abused and threatened. At night, he would enter her bedroom and those of others in violation of Southwest Key’s policies. The girl was transferred to a different shelter after she reported the abuse.

At the time, a spokeswoman for Southwest Key said that the complaint did not “present the accurate picture of the care and commitment our employees provide to the youth and children,” and that the company remained focused on “the safety, health and well-being” of the children at its shelters.

The subpoena requested testimony and evidence from the hotel related to “an alleged violation” of federal immigration law. It asked the hotel for the names of entities and individuals responsible for the “funding and management of the illegal immigrant/migrant shelter program,” as well as any contracts or agreements related to it.

It was unclear why prosecutors sent a subpoena to the Chandler, a hotel on East 31st Street that was converted into a homeless shelter years ago but does not operate as a shelter for migrants.

The investigation appears focused at least in part on the management and funding of hotels acting as shelters, but its full scope was unclear as of Wednesday, as was whether other hotels had received subpoenas.

The grand jury subpoena was issued by the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. A spokesman for the office, Nicholas Biase, referred questions to the Department of Justice in Washington. A spokesman there declined to comment on what he said was “an ongoing criminal investigation,” adding that he could not discuss the scope or contours of the inquiry.

New York City, which is housing about 43,000 migrants in shelters across the city, including dozens of converted hotels, had not received a subpoena as of Wednesday, according to an official briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

Liz Garcia, a spokeswoman for Mayor Eric Adams, declined to comment, saying, “We cannot comment on any type of federal investigation.”

The Guardian first reported on Wednesday that a Manhattan hotel, which they did not name, had received a subpoena.

The city’s migrant shelters have been criticized and scrutinized by the Trump administration, which has made New York City, the country’s largest sanctuary jurisdiction, a target of its immigration crackdown.

The city entered into multimillion-dollar contracts with more than 100 hotels as it struggled to house the more than 230,000 migrants who have arrived in the city seeking shelter since early 2022. Republicans have long decried the use of hotels as shelters to house migrants as wasteful spending of taxpayer funding.

Last month, the Trump administration abruptly clawed back $80 million in federal funds from the city’s bank accounts that was meant to cover some expenses associated with paying hotels to shelter migrants.

In doing so, the federal government singled out the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown, which the city had converted into its main processing center for migrants. The Trump administration depicted it as a safe haven for migrant gangs. Shortly after, the city announced it would shut down the Roosevelt Hotel by June, citing a sharp decline in the number of migrants arriving in the city.

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting, and Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

Mr. Ezell had been ordered to appear before a San Francisco judge as part of a lawsuit brought against the Office of Personnel Management by unions representing some of the fired workers.

As the office’s acting chief, Mr. Ezell began issuing guidance in January that agencies interpreted as orders to fire federal employees, particularly those with probationary status. That guidance is at the heart of multiple legal challenges, with the once-obscure agency assuming a lead role in President Trump’s government-gutting initiative.

According to a legal complaint from the employee unions, Mr. Ezell held a meeting on Feb. 13 with the heads of many federal agencies in which he ordered them to fire tens of thousands of employees. The next day, O.P.M. provided a template to agencies to use for the termination letters, stating that employees were being fired for performance reasons, according to the plaintiffs.

The unions argued that O.P.M. does not have the authority to make such personnel decisions and asked the court to rule that the office’s orders were illegal and force the government to stop firing people at their direction.

Mr. Ezell filed a declaration on Feb. 26 asserting that he did not order the agencies to fire anyone, and that the memos from his office were intended only as “guidance.” The same day, lawyers for the unions filed examples of correspondence from O.P.M. that they argue show that the memos were indeed orders.

A day later, the judge presiding over the case, William Alsup of the Northern District of California, heard arguments from both sides about O.P.M.’s role in the mass firings at the agencies involved in the lawsuit, including the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Judge Alsup concluded that O.P.M. has no legal authority to order the agencies to fire anyone, ordered that the government retract the memos and said the government should put a stop to unlawful personnel moves. He also scheduled a hearing for Thursday, March 13, making clear he wanted Mr. Ezell to appear.

O.P.M. responded to his order by retracting the original memos, but the government disputed the need for Mr. Ezell’s testimony. Judge Alsup disagreed, ordering on Monday that Mr. Ezell come before the court.

“The problem here is that Acting Director Ezell submitted a sworn declaration in support of defendants’ position, but now refuses to appear to be cross-examined, or to be deposed,” Judge Alsup wrote Monday.

On Tuesday, the government confirmed that Mr. Ezell would not comply. Government lawyers said his testimony is not necessary “because existing documentary evidence and briefing demonstrates that O.P.M. is not directing agencies to terminate probationary employees.”

Since the lawsuit was filed, the unions have drastically expanded its scope, including fired employees from 28 agencies, up from the five in the initial complaint.

The broader scope reflects the extraordinary personnel actions that have been taken since Mr. Trump’s return to office and the opacity surrounding who is responsible for orchestrating the wholesale changes that have been ordered by O.P.M. — Mr. Trump or his government downsizing guru, the tech billionaire Elon Musk.

During his address to a joint session of Congress on March 4, Mr. Trump said Mr. Musk is the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, which is overseeing the culling of the federal government. Two days later, Mr. Trump told members of his cabinet that they are the ones in charge of reducing the number of employees at their agencies, not Mr. Musk.

Yet members of Mr. Musk’s team continue to show up at federal agencies demanding data and documents and operating with outsized importance.

Mr. Ezell’s testimony on Thursday would have given lawyers representing the unions the opportunity to press him on O.P.M.’s role in how Mr. Trump’s government overhaul is being carried out. According to a court filing after the government’s notice informing the judge that Mr. Ezell would not testify, the court clerk said Thursday’s hearing would go on as planned.

Mr. Ezell took over as leader of O.P.M. on Inauguration Day. Before that, he was a lower-level official at the agency, overseeing data analytics. He also previously served as a consultant to the agency, according to his LinkedIn page.

Zach Montague and Devlin Barrett contributed reporting.

That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump’s actions, and open threats of more to come, have shaken law firms across Washington and beyond, leaving them looking at their client lists and wondering whether their representation could put them in the president’s cross hairs and endanger their business. Perkins Coie has acknowledged that in just the few days since Mr. Trump signed the executive order it “has already lost significant revenue” because of clients who have severed their relationship with the firm.

“This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,” said Samuel W. Buell, who is a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor.

A federal judge on Wednesday sided with Perkins Coie in an initial courtroom skirmish with the White House, temporarily barring a major portion of Mr. Trump’s executive order against the firm from taking effect.

“I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through,” said Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She added, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.

Her reaction mirrored those of other legal experts who said the issues at stake go far beyond whether or not Mr. Trump will make life difficult for elite law firms and well-paid lawyers.

The experts say Mr. Trump’s actions could create a trickle-down effect in which those who find themselves under scrutiny from Mr. Trump and his administration struggle to find lawyers who are willing to defend them in the face of the vast powers of the federal government. Those facing scrutiny could be forced to turn to less skilled lawyers or firms that enjoy access or good ties to the White House, the experts say.

“If you’re a political enemy, you really need the best representation when the government comes after you for who you are,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor. “Chilling the lawyers who represent those people hurts the rule of law because when the government can’t be legally opposed, the law provides no protections to anyone and you start to live in an autocracy.”

Mr. Trump’s attack on Big Law comes as his administration has also gone after law schools, the American Bar Association and even lawyers inside the government itself who might question or hinder his agenda.

Last week, the top federal prosecutor in Washington threatened to stop hiring graduates from Georgetown Law School if its dean, William Treanor, failed to abolish the school’s diversity programs. Mr. Treanor all but dared the prosecutor, Ed Martin, to make good on his threats, saying that the First Amendment would forbid them.

Mr. Trump has often relied on pliant lawyers to do his bidding, and last month he fired the three top lawyers in the armed forces who are supposed to advise military leaders on the legality of various policies and operations. The lawyers, known as judge advocates general, were fired without reference to their professional performance, raising concerns that the administration wanted replacements who would be more amenable to Mr. Trump’s orders.

One of the first big tests of this new era arose late last week, setting off maneuvering that shows how big firms in Washington are rushing to adapt to the new challenges they face, according to interviews with people involved in or briefed on those discussions.

In his executive order targeting Perkins Coie, Mr. Trump was going after a firm that represented Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and repeatedly won election law cases in 2020 against Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Trump singled out Perkins Coie’s involvement in a dossier complied during the 2016 campaign by a former British spy about Mr. Trump’s potential ties to Russia.

Amid concerns in the legal community about a chilling effect, few, if any, major firms issued statements condemning Mr. Trump’s action. And amid that silence there was a question about whether any firm would take the even bigger step of agreeing to represent Perkins Coie in its effort to challenge Mr. Trump’s executive order in court.

Perkins Coie reached out to Derek L. Shaffer, a lawyer at the firm Quinn Emanuel. Mr. Shaffer had a long history of bringing civil actions against federal and state governments, and had argued before the Supreme Court three times. Perkins Coie wanted to see if he could take on the firm as a client and quickly go to court to file a suit against the Trump administration to stop the executive order.

Convincing Mr. Shaffer to take the case would come with a major potential bonus: close links to Mr. Trump and his allies.

Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel represent Elon Musk and provide ethics advice to the Trump Organization. The firm has also represented Mayor Eric Adams of New York as the Trump Justice Department has moved swiftly to drop corruption charges against Mr. Adams, a Democrat.

But Perkins Coie was rebuffed. Quinn Emanuel decided against taking the case. Its top leaders concluded that this was not an issue they wanted to jump into at this stage as they continue to build themselves into a power center in Mr. Trump’s Washington.

Other major law firms expressed concerns that if they represented Perkins Coie, they, too, could face Mr. Trump’s ire. Leaders of top firms asked: How would their own clients react if Mr. Trump cut off their access to the government?

In response, the elite Washington firm Williams and Connolly decided it would take on Perkins Coie as a client.

It’s unclear why Williams and Connolly was willing to take a risk that other firms were not. But lawyers at Williams and Connolly have long taken pride in their role as an adversary and check against the government, including by highlighting the firm’s role in protecting high-profile defendants against prosecutorial misconduct. The firm was founded by the well-known defense lawyer Edward Bennett Williams, who built his career on vigorously representing an array of clients before the government, including those out of political favor.

On Tuesday, Williams and Connolly, on behalf of Perkins Coie, filed suit against the Trump administration in Washington. That suit led to Judge Howell’s ruling on Wednesday imposing a temporary restraining order to block for now the section of Mr. Trump’s executive order that essentially barred Perkins Coie from dealing with federal officials and prevented it from entering government buildings. She said the executive order was most likely unconstitutional.

Other law firms have been discussing whether to file a joint amicus brief on behalf of Perkins Coie. While some major firms have signaled they are willing to sign onto it, others have said they are reluctant. On Wednesday, 21 state attorneys general filed their own amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie.

Covington & Burling, which had the security clearance stripped from a lawyer at the firm who was assisting Mr. Smith, has taken a different approach from that of Perkins Coie.

Covington has declined to fight Mr. Trump in court. Instead, the firm, concerned about a perception among its clients that it was falling out of favor with Mr. Trump, has begun discussions with other prominent law firms with fewer ties to Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies about becoming the face of some of their most important cases before the Justice Department.

But beyond what Mr. Trump has done to law firms, the political appointees he has placed at departments, agencies and commissions are taking on the legal profession in other ways.

One of Mr. Trump’s political appointees has ordered government officials under him to not renew their memberships to the American Bar Association, hold a position with the association or attend its events.

At the Justice Department, the attorney general has sent a letter to the American Bar Association questioning its diversity practices.

And last week, at an annual conference on white-collar crime for the association, a slew of top officials from the Justice Department — who regularly attend the event — canceled at the last minute. That meant that a conference designed to bring together the industry about an important topic was devoid of senior department officials in charge of enforcing the law.

Abbie VanSickle and Alan Feuer contributed reporting.

But news of the proposed appointment generated blowback on the right. A senior administration official said Ms. Gabbard reconsidered her choice given the criticism, and other officials confirmed the decision.

Mr. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, a think tank with funding from Charles Koch that has a number of alumni in key positions in the Trump administration. Defense Priorities has taken a skeptical view of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and has supported Mr. Trump’s efforts to reach an immediate cease-fire in the war in Ukraine.

The abandoned appointment has highlighted an emerging foreign policy fault line in the new administration. The Trump administration has appointed both more hawkish Republicans, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, and officials far more skeptical of American intervention, including Ms. Gabbard.

The tug of war over Mr. Davis’s appointment also highlighted the strain among supporters of Mr. Trump’s over U.S. support of Israel.

Before Mr. Davis’s appointment was pulled, the Anti-Defamation League said on Wednesday that the appointment would be “extremely dangerous.” In a social media post, the group accused Mr. Davis of minimizing Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack and undermining American support for Israel.

Consideration of Mr. Davis had also upset some hawkish conservatives in Congress who began quietly trying to get the administration to rethink it. These officials believed Mr. Davis’s skepticism of the war in Gaza could weaken the Trump administration’s support for Israel.

Former intelligence officials were also critical of the pick. Marc Polymeropoulos, a former C.I.A. operations officer and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said Mr. Davis’s positions were outside the ideological mainstream of the Republican Party.

“His overt criticism of Israel and total opposition to any military action against Iran seems to run counter to current administration policy,” Mr. Polymeropoulos said.

Allies of Mr. Davis had defended him and said there was no hint of antisemitism or opposition to Israel in his work. He is skeptical of military action when it does not directly align with American interests, they say, and troubled by the use of proxies when the United States is unwilling to put its own troops in harm’s way.

While some of Mr. Davis’s criticisms of Israel are well outside the mainstream of the Republican Party, they are similar to certain critiques by liberal Democrats. He has spoken frequently about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

While Mr. Trump has repeatedly called for Palestinians to be removed from Gaza to allow it to be redeveloped into a beach resort, Mr. Davis has said the removal of people from the territory would be “ethnic cleansing.”

In January, he wrote on social media that U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza was a “stain on our character as a nation, as a culture, that will not soon go away.”

Consideration of Mr. Davis for the intelligence post was reported earlier by Jewish Insider.

Ms. Gabbard has said little about the war in Gaza recently. But many of Mr. Davis’s other positions, including a skepticism of American support for Ukraine’s war effort and his worries about the consequences of the fall of the Syrian government, match her views. And Mr. Davis’s social media feed has been supportive of Ms. Gabbard’s foreign policy positions.

During the Biden administration, the head of mission integration conducted many intelligence briefings at the White House. Beth Sanner, who was deputy director of mission integration through much of the first Trump administration, was the primary presidential briefer. Another intelligence official has had that responsibility in the current Trump administration, according to former officials.

In recent years, senior C.I.A. analysts with decades of experience have had the briefing responsibility. Robert Cardillo, who was the first person ever to hold the job, had been a senior official at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

“I can confirm that, at the direction of President Trump, Shelly Lowe has departed her position as chair of N.E.H.,” a spokesman for the agency, Paula Wasley, said in a statement. She said Mr. McDonald would serve as acting chairman “until such time as the president nominates and the Senate confirms a new N.E.H. chairman.”

Agency chairs are appointed for four-year terms, though some have served across administrations. Maria Rosario Jackson, the chair of the endowment’s sister agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, announced her resignation on Jan. 17, shortly before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

The National Endowment for the Humanities was founded in 1965 and has awarded more than $6 billion in grants to museums, historic sites, universities, libraries and other organizations, according to its website.

Dr. Lowe’s departure comes as Mr. Trump has moved to put his stamp on federal cultural agencies, most prominently the Kennedy Center, where he purged Biden appointees from the bipartisan board, fired the center’s president and had himself elected chairman.

The president has also issued sweeping executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the federal government while calling for the promotion of “patriotic history.” In one order issued in January, Mr. Trump included the heads of both the art and humanities endowments as members of his newly created Task Force 250, which is charged with providing “a grand celebration worthy of the momentous occasion of the 250th anniversary of American independence.”

Last month, the arts endowment, which is led by an interim chair, Mary Anne Carter, announced that it was canceling this year’s “Challenge America” grants, a relatively small program aimed at supporting projects serving underrepresented groups or communities.

Potential applicants were instead encouraged to apply for the agency’s much larger main grant program, which according to its website encouraged projects that “celebrate and honor the nation’s rich artistic heritage and creativity” during the lead-up to the 250th commemoration in July 2026.

In his first term, Mr. Trump repeatedly vowed to eliminate both agencies, which have an annual budget of roughly $200 million each. But they survived.

Information was not immediately available about any staff or budget cuts or shifts in its programs at the humanities endowment.