“President McKinley made our country very rich through tariffs and through talent,” he said. “He was a natural businessman, and gave Teddy Roosevelt the money for many of the great things he did, including the Panama Canal, which has foolishly been given to the country of Panama.”

But Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowsi and Dan Sullivan, both Republicans, said they wanted to keep Denali National Park and Preserve as is, calling Denali the rightful name of the awe-inspiring white peaks, 20,310 feet above sea level in the home of the Koyukon people and other Alaska Native groups.

“I prefer the name Denali that was given to that great mountain by the great patriotic Koyukon Athabascan people thousands of years ago,” Mr. Sullivan said in a video.

In a statement, Ms. Murkowski said she disagreed with Mr. Trump’s decision. “You can’t improve upon the name that Alaska’s Koyukon Athabascans bestowed on North America’s tallest peak, Denali: the Great One,” she said. “For years, I advocated in Congress to restore the rightful name for this majestic mountain to respect Alaska’s first people who have lived on these lands for thousands of years. This is an issue that should not be relitigated.”

As the story goes, William Dickey, a prospector in Alaska in the late 1800s on the hunt for gold in the Cook Inlet, admired William McKinley, who was then the president-elect.

Mr. McKinley, who was from Ohio, had no known connection to Alaska and never visited the mountain, but he was a supporter of the gold standard, so Mr. Dickey was a fan. Mr. Dickey used the name Mount McKinley in an article in the New York Sun in 1897 and it stuck. The name Mount McKinley became even more popular after the president’s assassination in 1901.

Alaska Native groups and lawmakers spent decades trying to get the mountain recognized as Denali, which was how the Koyukon people referred to the mountain long before the United States was founded. Other Native groups in the area have their own names for the peak.

For years, Denali versus McKinley was like a game of legislative Ping-Pong. Alaska lawmakers introduced bills to call the mountain Denali and then a lawmaker from Ohio would file a bill to retain McKinley.

In 2015, the Obama administration renamed the mountain Denali.

Sally Jewell, who was the Interior secretary at the time, said that she did not believe Mr. Trump has the authority to change the name back to Mount McKinley. She said that authority rests with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, a federal body that oversees standardized geographic names.

Any proponent of a name change is required by law to make the case before the board, which is made up of representatives of various government agencies. The chairman, Michael Tischler of the Interior department, did not respond to requests for comment.

Under the law, if the board does not act in a “reasonable” amount of time, the Interior secretary does have the authority to change a name. Ms. Jewell said in the case of Denali, Alaska tried for about 40 years to replace Mount McKinley with the Indigenous name and no objections were raised in the state when she did so.

“It is generally accepted as an Alaska Native name and certainly preferred over Mount McKinley,” Ms. Jewell said in an interview.

Mr. Trump’s affinity for Mr. McKinley appears to stem in part from a shared taste for tariffs. In his executive order, Mr. Trump highlighted that Mr. McKinley had “championed tariffs” that he said expanded the U.S. economy, a model that Mr. Trump has said he will follow.

Mr. Trump suggested changing the name in 2017 during his first term, but Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Murkowski objected. Mr. Sullivan at the time told Alaska Public Radio that he had informed Mr. Trump that his wife is Athabascan “and if you change that name back now she’s gonna be really, really mad.”

His executive order this week also seeks to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The administration does have more leeway there and could simply use Gulf of America in federal references. Other countries don’t have to follow suit, though. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico responded to Mr. Trump’s plan by suggesting America should be renamed América Mexicana, or Mexican America.

Gerad M. Smith, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Alaska Anchorage, said the name Denali would persist despite Mr. Trump’s efforts.

“Mr. Trump might get the name of the mountain renamed to McKinley, but it’s had its native name for thousands of years,” Dr. Smith said. “Regardless of whether it’s the official name, they’ll still remember that it is Denali for thousands of years after.”

The memo came as the Department of Homeland Security prepared to make targeted raids in cities, including Chicago and San Diego, with high numbers of undocumented immigrants — setting up a possible confrontation with local officials. The document underscored the central role the Justice Department will play in enforcing Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda.

“Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands,” wrote Emil Bove III, the department’s interim deputy attorney general and a former member of the president’s criminal defense team.

U.S. attorneys’ offices and officials from various branches of the department’s Washington headquarters “shall investigate instances involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution,” Mr. Bove wrote, pointing to the same federal obstruction law used in the federal indictment against Mr. Trump that accused him of inciting the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Mr. Bove also warned localities against taking action to contradict the new federal policies and instructed the department’s civil lawyers to “identify state and local laws, policies, and activities” that flout Mr. Trump’s executive orders and “where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws.”

The memo did not provide information about how extensive the planned raids or other actions would be. But it cited the fentanyl and opioid crisis, gang activity and crime by immigrants as justifications for the impending immigration crackdown.

The unusual missive, written in blustery language, doubled as a warning shot to department employees who slow-walk or refuse to aggressively enact “the president’s actions” or federal law.

A copy of the memo was obtained by The New York Times and was earlier reported by Bloomberg Law.

The Trump team, concerned that career department employees will not execute orders they deem to be immoral or unlawful, has considered transferring or instigating disciplinary actions against prosecutors who refuse to comply with commands.

They have also been making plans to transfer prosecutors to five U.S. attorneys’ offices near the border with Mexico, and have discussed tactics to pressure recalcitrant departmental employees to unpalatable jobs in an effort to encourage their mass departure, according to people familiar with transition planning.

In the memo, Mr. Bove ordered prosecutors to immediately step up immigration investigations against the most dangerous undocumented immigrants, and warned employees that “any deviations” from that policy had to be cleared with supervisors.

In addition, prosecutors will be required to file an “urgent report” if they decide not to bring charges against serious offenders. The department will also begin tracking cases brought by each U.S. attorney’s office on a quarterly basis.

The memo also instructed other parts of the Justice Department — including the Bureau of Prisons, F.B.I., Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — to share any information they have regarding the immigration status of people they investigate or regulate.

“If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security — so be it,” Mr. Dimon told CNBC on Wednesday from the World Economic Forum’s annual conference in Davos, Switzerland. “Get over it,” he added.

Mr. Dimon did not specify how he thought tariffs would improve national security.

Mr. Dimon’s approval is noteworthy, because the longtime head of JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, had long been a critic of Mr. Trump. During the president’s first term, Mr. Dimon once described himself as “smarter than he is,” in remarks the bank chief later said he regretted. Mr. Dimon backed Kamala Harris during the presidential campaign.

But that was then. With Mr. Trump saying he plans to impose 25 percent tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico by next month, and 10 percent tariffs on imports from China, Mr. Dimon appeared to take a fresh look at the policy.

“The question is how they get used,” he said on Wednesday. “Can they get — be used to bring — people to the table? Yes.”

A JPMorgan spokesman said that Mr. Dimon had not changed his views and that the issue was “not binary.”

Dr. Beck is credited with leading a wide-ranging pushback against chemical regulations during the first Trump administration, as well as what a subsequent internal investigation described as political interference in agency science and policymaking. She rewrote rules, for example, that made it harder to track the health consequences of a “forever chemical” linked to cancer, and therefore to regulate it.

She also helped scale back proposed bans on other substances like asbestos and methylene chloride, a harmful chemical found in paint thinners. Neither the E.P.A. nor Dr. Beck responded to requests for comment for this article.

Hunton Andrews Kurth, the law firm where Dr. Beck served most recently as director of regulatory science, said she was no longer with the firm. Dr. Beck is listed in the E.P.A. staff directory as a political appointee.

Dr. Beck is expected to be joined by Lynn Ann Dekleva, who also worked for the American Chemistry Council, who is set to return to a role helping to oversee new chemicals as deputy assistant administrator, though her title could still change, the people said. An environmental engineer by training, her career in the chemicals industry includes more than three decades at DuPont, the chemicals giant.

Recent reports released by the E.P.A.’s Office of Inspector General said that, under Dr. Dekleva, employees were pushed to approve new chemicals based on less stringent assessments and were retaliated against if they raised concerns.

Dr. Dekleva did not respond to requests for comment.

Chris Jahn, chief executive of the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement that the group looked forward “to working with all EPA staff in support of sound science” and policy to strengthen America’s competitiveness and create jobs.

The appointments of Dr. Beck and Dr. Dekleva to advisory or deputy jobs at the agency are not expected to require approval by Congress. Dr. Beck was previously nominated to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2020, but did not get to a Congressional vote after Democrats and environmental groups accused her of using her previous government positions to advance the chemical industry’s agenda.

“Nancy Beck, E.P.A.’s ‘toxics czar’ during the first Trump Administration, is back to fulfill the chemical industry’s wish list,” said Daniel Rosenberg, director of federal toxics policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. “The weakening of health protections” from toxic chemicals “is just around the corner,” he said.

Over the past four years the Biden administration has tried to catch up on regulating the most dangerous chemicals on the market, as required under a law that was strengthened in 2016.

The Biden administration proposed or finalized restrictions on 10 dangerous chemicals, including trichloroethylene, a chemical used in cleaners and lubricants also linked to cancer, as well as asbestos, a heat- and fire-resistant mineral widely used in building materials that can cause cancer and lung disease. Currently, more than 80,000 chemicals on the market are not subject to environmental testing or regulation.

The Biden administration also set the first-ever federal standards for PFAS in drinking water, and designated two types of PFAS as hazardous substances under a law that shifts the responsibility for the cleanup of toxic sites from taxpayers to industry.

The chemicals industry has asked the Trump administration to roll back many of those rules. In a letter to Mr. Trump last month, a coalition of industry groups, including the chemistry council, called for a reversal of what they called the Biden administration’s “unscientific, sledgehammer approach” to chemical policy.

In the letter, the industry groups in particular ask the Trump administration to revisit PFAS drinking-water standards and the designation of the two PFAS chemicals as hazardous. They also press the E.P.A. to speed up its review of new chemicals, and to roll back its effort to place new regulations on existing chemicals, something chemical companies said was causing “confusion, duplication and overregulation.”

On Tuesday evening, Mr. Trump expanded the threat and said he also intends to put an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese products by the same date, saying China was sending fentanyl to Mexico and Canada.

The statements leave just 10 days before significant levies would go into effect on the United States’ three largest trading partners, a move that could throw both American diplomatic relationships and global supply chains into disarray. Mexico, China and Canada together account for more than a third of the goods and services that are imported and exported by the United States, supporting tens of millions of American jobs.

The three countries together purchased more than $1 trillion of U.S. exports and provided nearly $1.5 trillion of goods and services to the United States in 2023.

The economies of Mexico and Canada in particular are closely integrated with that of the United States. Supply chains for various goods snake back and forth across North American borders, traveling between fields, factories and stores in each country as they are transformed from raw materials into finished products.

A single car and its parts may cross the U.S.-Canada border eight times as it is assembled. A pair of bluejeans could be made with cotton, fabric and buttons from the United States, but sewn in a factory in Mexico. Farmers in the United States send corn and soybeans south of the border to be incorporated into packaged food and animal feed; Mexican farms send American groceries stores cheap avocados, mangos and tomatoes, even in the dead of winter.

If a 25 percent tariff is added each time that one of those products crosses the U.S. border, trade experts said, it could significantly raise the cost of goods Americans buy and even force U.S. manufacturers to shutter operations.

It’s not clear whether Mr. Trump will actually follow through on those threats, nor which products the tariffs would apply to if imposed. One person familiar with the Trump administration’s deliberations said they had been considering tariffs on all imports from those countries, as well as looking at tariffs on specific goods, like cars, steel and aluminum.

Stock markets have mostly shrugged off Mr. Trump’s tariff statements and closed yesterday near record highs.

The Canadian and Mexican governments in particular have rushed to try to avoid any tariffs. They have tried to reassure the Trump team that they are taking extra effort to stop people and drugs from crossing American borders, and have drawn up lists of American products on which they could impose their own tariffs in response.

The Chinese government has also been weighing its options for potential retaliation, should Mr. Trump impose tariffs. At a news briefing in Beijing on Wednesday, Mao Ning, a spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, said that China would “safeguard” its interests. “We always believe there is no winner in a tariff or trade war,” she added.

Executive orders cannot create new legal powers for a president. Instead, they are a vehicle by which presidents exercise legal authority they already have, either because the Constitution has bestowed it upon the office or because Congress has enacted a law creating that power.

That said, there are often disputes about the proper interpretation of the scope and limits of executive power. It is not uncommon for a president to use an executive order to claim the authority to take some action whose legal legitimacy is contested, leading to a court fight.

For example, near the beginning of Mr. Trump’s first term, he tried to ban travel to the United States by citizens of several predominantly Muslim countries. But courts blocked that travel ban — and a successive version — from taking effect, before the Supreme Court permitted a more carefully written third iteration to go into force.

Several of Mr. Trump’s executive orders at the start of his second term are also expected to lead to litigation.

For example, Mr. Trump wants to end “birthright citizenship” for babies born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents. He will likely do that by declaring that the executive branch now interprets the Constitution differently on that issue and instructing executive branch agencies not to issue citizenship-affirming documents, like Social Security cards and passports, to such infants. The question of whether he can do so will almost certainly be decided by the Supreme Court.

Executive orders are among the most prominent types of executive actions, and sometimes people use that term as a catchall for other categories of ways that presidents can exercise their control over the executive branch.

Other types include presidential policy memorandums and national security directives, which shape particular bureaucratic processes, and presidential proclamations like the declaration of a national emergency that can unlock certain standby powers that Congress has granted presidents to wield in exigent circumstances.

Mr. Trump declared national emergencies in his first term to spend more on a border wall with Mexico than Congress had appropriated, and later to take certain public health measures during the Covid-19 pandemic — including rejecting asylum claims by migrants without full hearings. He is expected to revive such measures on Monday.

The memo also directed agencies to take down any language or advertisements about their D.E.I. initiatives and to withdraw any pending documents or directives that would undermine the new orders. It also ordered agency heads to inform D.E.I. officials that their offices would be closed and that employees would be questioned about whether there were any remaining efforts that remained “in disguise” by using coded or imprecise language.

The directive was a swift attempt to carry out elements of President Trump’s Day 1 executive order dismantling federal diversity efforts. In a new executive order on Tuesday, Mr. Trump encouraged the private sector to follow the federal government’s lead and “end illegal D.E.I. discrimination and preferences and comply with all federal civil-rights laws.” His order also directed agencies to investigate the compliance of corporations and foundations with those laws.

While the federal government has no purview over many private-sector practices, it does have discretion to enforce its rules on heavily relied-upon private contractors and subcontractors who would be subject to the new rules. In anticipation of Mr. Trump’s taking office, several companies, like Meta and McDonald’s, have rolled back their D.E.I. initiatives.

The order on Tuesday said that D.E.I. policies “undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.”

“Yet in case after tragic case,” the order said, “the American people have witnessed first hand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.”

Within hours of his swearing in, Mr. Trump rescinded several executive orders signed by his predecessor, Joseph R. Biden Jr. The first was one that Mr. Biden had signed on his first day in office instructing federal agencies to infuse equity into virtually all policymaking during his tenure.

Mr. Biden prided himself on putting racial equity at the center of his policymaking, in areas including the environment, infrastructure, the economy and health care.

Mr. Trump’s orders reverse Mr. Biden’s position that a government committed to reversing decades of discrimination and neglect in underserved communities is a course correction for the nation rather than a threat to its future.

The executive actions instead are attempts to fulfill Mr. Trump’s promise to eradicate “radical” policy and “wasteful” spending on initiatives aimed at combating systemic inequities, which have drawn the ire of conservatives who say diversity initiatives have amounted to reverse discrimination and racial “preferences.” Mr. Trump’s order on Tuesday required the elimination of programs with goals of “diversity,” “equity” and “equitable decision-making,” among other terms.

Mr. Trump amplified these calls during his inaugural address to the nation upon taking office, vowing to stop efforts to “socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.”

“We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based,” Mr. Trump declared during the address.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement that the new directives should “come as no surprise.”

“President Trump campaigned on ending the scourge of D.E.I. from our federal government and returning America to a merit based society where people are hired based on their skills, not for the color of their skin,” the statement read. “This is another win for Americans of all races, religions, and creeds. Promises made, promises kept.”

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

But the policy issued by the acting homeland security secretary, Benjamine C. Huffman, allows ICE officers to use it across the entirety of the United States.

“The effect of this change will be to enhance national security and public safety — while reducing government costs — by facilitating prompt immigration determinations,” the notice read.

Mr. Trump’s first administration tried to implement a similarly speedy nationwide process for deportations, but those efforts were challenged in federal court. The ensuing legal battle kept the rule from going into effect until late 2020, when a federal appeals court allowed the Homeland Security Department to move forward with expanded expedited removals while the lawsuit continued. The Biden administration rescinded the policy.

Like some of Mr. Trump’s other early actions around immigration, the rule could be met with another legal challenge.

Generally, unauthorized immigrants picked up in the U.S. are given a notice to appear in immigration court, where they could make their case to stay in the country. The courts are struggling under a backlog of more than three million cases, leading to some cases being scheduled years in the future. Deportation proceedings typically can’t begin until a judge issues a decision.

By cutting out court proceedings for immigrants who meet the parameters of the policy, the sped-up process could offer the Trump administration another tool to fulfill the president’s campaign promise to conduct mass deportations early in his presidency, experts and former ICE officials said.

“Expanded expedited removal could spur much faster deportations and increase the number of migrants removed. Unlike lengthy immigration court proceedings that can take years, expedited removal can be done in a matter of hours,” Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said in an email.

Ms. Bush-Joseph said the burden would be on migrants to provide documentation showing that “they have been in the country for more than two years, have lawful status, or a claim to protection such as asylum.”

Corey Price, a former senior ICE official who oversaw deportations at the agency, said the policy could make a big difference for ICE officers tasked with removing more people.

“I would expect they would lean into this heavily,” he said.

Immigrant rights groups quickly denounced the measure as a way to scare immigrants across the country.

“Expedited removal is a deeply flawed practice that often denies immigrants a fair opportunity to access relief, separates families unnecessarily and makes a mockery of the right to access counsel,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, which helps represent immigrants.

“I just called the mother of Ross William Ulbright to let her know,” Mr. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, misspelling Mr. Ulbricht’s name and making a reference to federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. “The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern day weaponization of government against me.”

In its nearly three years of existence, Silk Road, which operated in a shady corner of the internet known as the dark web, became an international drug marketplace, facilitating more than 1.5 million transactions, including sales of heroin, cocaine and other illicit substances. (The site generated over $200 million in revenue, according to authorities.) In court, prosecutors claimed that Mr. Ulbricht had also solicited the murders of people whom he considered threats — but acknowledged there was no evidence that the killings took place.

Despite his crimes, Mr. Ulbricht has remained popular with crypto enthusiasts because Silk Road was one of the first venues where people used Bitcoin to buy and sell goods. For years, his supporters have argued that his sentence was overly punitive and adopted the slogan “Free Ross” online and at industry gatherings.

“It’s hard to argue that Ross Ulbricht wasn’t the most successful and influential entrepreneur of the early Bitcoin era,” said Pete Rizzo, an editor at the news publication Bitcoin Magazine. “This is the industry banding together and saying, ‘We’re going to reclaim our own.’”

Mr. Ulbricht’s pardon was eagerly anticipated by crypto enthusiasts. On Monday, after Mr. Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, Elon Musk, one of the president’s biggest supporters, responded to a concerned post on X, writing that “Ross will be freed too.”

Mr. Ulbricht, who grew up in Austin, Texas, was arrested in 2013, after the F.B.I. tracked him down at a library in San Francisco. At his sentencing in Federal District Court in Manhattan two years later, a judge called Mr. Ulbricht “the kingpin of a worldwide digital drug-trafficking enterprise” and said that his actions were “terribly destructive to our social fabric.”

At least six deaths were attributable to drugs bought on Silk Road, prosecutors said. Addressing the court, the father of one of the people who died said that “all Ross Ulbricht cared about was his growing pile of Bitcoins.”

But the life sentence struck many observers as harsh. In 2017, the federal appeals court for the Second Circuit, in affirming Mr. Ulbricht’s conviction, acknowledged the severe nature of the punishment.

“Although we might not have imposed the same sentence ourselves in the first instance,” the court said, “on the facts of this case a life sentence was within the range of permissible decisions that the district court could have reached.”

Mr. Ulbricht has been serving his sentence at a federal prison in Tucson, Ariz. Supporters in the crypto industry, in calling for his release, have noted that he was convicted of a nonviolent crime and was never tried on prosecutors’ most explosive allegation that he paid to have people killed. At a Bitcoin conference in Miami in 2021, Mr. Ulbricht’s supporters played a recording of him speaking from prison.

“I had so many big dreams for Bitcoin,” he said.

Last year, Mr. Trump embraced Mr. Ulbricht’s cause on the campaign trail, first in a speech at a libertarian event and later at an annual Bitcoin conference in Nashville. He doubled down on social media, posting the hashtag #FreeRossDayOne on Truth Social, the site he owns.

After the election, a message from Mr. Ulbricht posted on X said he had “immense gratitude to everyone who voted for President Trump on my behalf.”

“I can finally see the light of freedom at the end of the tunnel,” the post said.

Benjamin Weiser contributed reporting.

The committee could schedule a hearing on Mr. Patel’s razor’s-edge nomination as soon as Jan. 29, according to several people with knowledge of the situation. As part of that process, Mr. Patel, 44, responded to a series of standard questions about his personal and professional experiences.

Most answers are written in job-application boilerplate, but taken as a whole the questionnaire paints a far more nuanced portrait than the bombastic and combative Mr. Patel projects on right-wing podcasts or as a speaker at Trump rallies.

In particular, it sheds new light on his early years as the Long Island-bred son of immigrants from the Indian state of Gujarat who worked as a caddy and toiled for years as a local and federal public defender in Florida.

He reports in detail on his legal defense of crack dealers, gun runners and one 2013 case in which he persuaded federal prosecutors to drop charges against a man accused of trafficking 17 people, including three minors, from an unnamed foreign country.

But one of the most intriguing lines is his reference to participating in the American Bar Association’s Judicial Intern Opportunity Program, a diversity initiative, while a student at Pace University’s law school in 2003.

The program, a summer internship with judges in 12 cities around the country, “provides opportunities to students who are members of groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the profession, including students from minority racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, veterans, students who are economically disadvantaged, students who identify as LGBTQ+, women and others,” according to the bar association’s website.

“It is also an opportunity to make an impact on the diversity and inclusion pipeline and give back to the legal community,” the program’s directors wrote.

A spokesman for Mr. Patel, one of relatively few people of color to be selected for top administration positions, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

That he availed himself of such a program as an ethnic minority would be unexceptional had not Mr. Trump made attacking diversity, equity and inclusion programs in academia and government a core element of his pitch to voters.

On Day 1 of his second term, Mr. Trump announced an executive order ending D.E.I. programs in the federal government, which he has denounced as “Marxist” and racist. The F.B.I. has taken pre-emptive action, quietly closing its own D.E.I. office in December.

If confirmed, Mr. Patel would be the first director of color of an agency that had a decadeslong history of racial and gender discrimination.

Mr. Patel has been an unrestrained campaign surrogate for Mr. Trump, but has said relatively little over the years about diversity or inclusion, a go-to topic for Mr. Trump and his allies.

“I helped support diversity in the legal profession and mentor attorneys from underrepresented backgrounds,” he wrote of charitable work that included service as a board member of the South Asian Bar Association of North America.

Mr. Patel revisits familiar ground in the sections devoted to his more recent activities as a House staffer whose loyalty and assiduous courtship of Mr. Trump put him on the express elevator to senior national security posts in the president’s first term — and have now given him the opportunity to run the country’s most powerful and storied law enforcement agency.

In his 2023 memoir, “Government Gangsters,” and in a conversation on a September podcast of “The Shawn Ryan Show,” Mr. Patel inflated his role as a federal prosecutor in the investigation of the 2012 attack on a diplomatic compound and a C.I.A. annex in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans. Mr. Patel made it sound like he had led the government’s overall effort to prosecute those involved in the attack.

In particular, he repeatedly said he was leading the prosecution’s efforts at “Main Justice.” But he makes scant reference to the case in the documents, simply saying he had “collaborated on cases tied to the Benghazi attacks.”

And he doesn’t mention Benghazi when asked to describe the 10 most important cases he litigated in his career.

The documents also shed some light on his personal life — he has incorporated a variety of businesses around the country, has coached in a youth hockey league and lives in Las Vegas. He was recently accepted as a member of the Poodle Room, a rooftop club at the Fontainebleau Hotel there, with an estimated $20,000 members’ fee. The club was named after a lounge of the same name in Florida, frequented by Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack.

The direct appeal to Mr. Trump, at the start of the first full day of his presidency, was a remarkable moment. Twenty-four hours after he had reclaimed the highest office in the land, summoning tech billionaires as witnesses and pulling off a sweeping display of power by signing a flurry of executive orders, he was suddenly confronted by an extraordinary act of public resistance from an unlikely source: a soft-spoken bishop.

“The vast majority of immigrants are not criminals,” Bishop Budde said. “I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away, and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.”

Mr. Trump, seated in the first row of pews in the towering Washington National Cathedral, looked down and then away. Vice President JD Vance raised his eyebrows and looked several times at his wife, Usha Vance, who kept her gaze trained ahead on the bishop. When Bishop Budde finished, Mr. Trump said something to Mr. Vance, who shook his head in apparent irritation. Members of the Trump family seated directly behind them appeared to look at one another, noticeably perturbed. Eric Trump, Mr. Trump’s middle son, shook his head.

It was not how Mr. Trump has generally been spoken to as he returns to the White House. Since winning the election, he has been courted by powerful business leaders and politicians alike, including many who kept their distance during his first term. Just the day before, he celebrated his return to office with an inauguration in the Capitol Rotunda, a rally surrounded by supporters and a succession of inaugural balls. Even former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. greeted Mr. Trump at the White House by saying, “Welcome home.”

Bishop Budde’s comments came a day after Mr. Trump issued a flurry of executive orders focused on transgender rights and immigration.

Asked by a reporter what he thought of the service, the president said, “I didn’t think it was a good service, no.”

Shortly after midnight, Mr. Trump doubled down on his criticism in a post on Truth Social, calling on Bishop Budde and her church to apologize and saying she had made inappropriate statements.

“She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way,” Mr. Trump wrote. “She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart.”

In response to Bishop Budde’s comments about immigration, Mr. Trump said, without providing evidence, that a “large number” of immigrants had come to the United States illegally and killed people.

In an interview, Bishop Budde said she had decided to speak to the president directly because “of the fear that I have seen and experienced among our people — people that I know and love, both within the immigrant community and within the L.G.B.T.Q. community, and how terrified so many are.”

She said she was concerned about “the level of license to be really quite cruel” that some people feel now.

“I wasn’t necessarily calling the president out. I was trying to say, ‘The country has been entrusted to you,’” Bishop Budde said. “And one of the qualities of a leader is mercy, right? Mercy. And to be mindful of the people who are scared.”

Bishop Budde is not the only prominent clergy member to call attention to the fear caused by Mr. Trump’s agenda. Pope Francis on Sunday called Mr. Trump’s plans for mass deportations “a disgrace.”

Mr. Trump began his presidency on Monday with executive actions that aimed to turn his campaign rhetoric into tangible policies, including one that rescinded a Biden administration order that sought to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

Mr. Trump’s new order, the administration said, seeks to defend women against “gender ideology extremism” that allows biological males to undermine their rights and privacy. And the definitions it sets forth go further to more explicitly define “sex.”

Under the order signed by Mr. Trump on Monday, males and females would be defined at “conception,” the text states. Someone who eventually produces “the large reproductive cell” would be deemed female, the order says. A male would be defined as the person who eventually “produces the small reproductive cell.”

The order also says that the federal government would no longer recognize “gender identity,” and only “sex” as defined by “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.”

The order also prohibits the use of federal funds for any promotion of “gender ideology” through grants or other government programming, as well as the use of public funding for transition-related medical procedures in prisons.

The order effectively defines transgender Americans out of existence.

“At its core, this executive order is an appallingly cruel effort to make transgender people strangers to the law and push them back into the closet,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign.

Mr. Trump also issued multiple immigration-related executive orders on Monday that suspended refugee admissions, severely restricted asylum for migrants and made clear that he intended to deploy the military to the southern border. The border, however, remains relatively calm after a record number of illegal crossings earlier in the Biden administration.

The Trump administration also rescinded a Biden policy that directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to not make arrests at schools, places of worship and other places described as “sensitive locations.”

Throughout his campaign, and during his first term, Mr. Trump often portrayed all migrants crossing the border illegally as criminals. While sporadic crimes by migrants have gained national attention in recent years, homeland security officials themselves acknowledge that most people crossing the border are fleeing poverty or violence and seeking a better life.

“There are times when he talks of immigrants in broad strokes that feel as if the image portrayed is that all immigrants who are coming into the country are dangerous,” Bishop Budde said. “And I know that’s not true. It’s not true.”

Yan Zhuang contributed reporting.

The allegations, which Mr. Hegseth denied through his lawyer, surfaced as Republicans were working to speed him to confirmation, and could imperil that push. About a half-dozen Republicans who have learned of the accusations in recent days have privately raised serious concerns about them, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Yet just hours after the affidavit was filed, Republican leaders plowed ahead on Tuesday night to schedule a vote on Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation, with several rank-and-file members of the party dismissing the sworn statement as a desperate attempt at character assassination that would fail.

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, began taking the necessary steps to limit debate and schedule an up-or-down vote within days, effectively closing off any avenue for senators to investigate further. And all Republicans voted to keep the nomination on track.

Senator Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said he did not expect the new disclosures to threaten Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation, and that the Senate would work into the weekend if necessary to ensure his swift approval. With Democrats expected to oppose Mr. Hegseth en masse on the floor, he can afford to lose only three G.O.P. votes.

“The nomination is going to go forward,” Mr. Wicker told reporters, saying that while he had not reviewed the affidavit, he had “grave doubts as to the substance” and believed that its author “has an ax to grind.”

In her affidavit, Danielle Hegseth said she had spoken with the F.B.I. about Mr. Hegseth and had come forward to Congress in the hopes that her account would persuade enough Republicans to block him. She said she was submitting her account at the request of Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

“I have been assured that making this public statement will ensure that certain senators who are still on the fence will vote against Hegseth’s confirmation,” she wrote. The affidavit was reported earlier by NBC News.

Mr. Reed said the account describes behavior that is disqualifying, and “confirms my fears” that the F.B.I. background check on Mr. Hegseth had been incomplete.

“The alleged pattern of abuse and misconduct by Mr. Hegseth is disturbing,” he said. “This behavior would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the secretary of defense.”

In the affidavit, sent Tuesday to the Armed Services panel, Danielle Hegseth wrote that on one occasion between 2014 and 2016, Mr. Hegseth’s second wife, Samantha Hegseth, “hid in her closet from Hegseth because she feared for her personal safety.”

She also said that Samantha Hegseth had given her a code word, shared with her and another person, that she would use if she needed help. According to the sworn statement, Samantha Hegseth texted Danielle Hegseth the code word once in either 2015 or 2016, and Danielle contacted the other person to put the plan into motion.

Danielle Hegseth said that she “did not personally witness physical or sexual abuse by Hegseth,” but described “erratic and aggressive behavior” by him over many years. She also recounted a number of instances in 2008 or 2009, as well as around 2013, in which she had witnessed Mr. Hegseth being intoxicated to the point of passing out.

The new allegations are strikingly similar to a raft of accusations that had already surfaced since Mr. Trump chose him to lead the Pentagon. Mr. Hegseth has adamantly denied the allegations and dismissed them as politically motivated smears from anonymous sources.

Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for Mr. Hegseth, denied Danielle Hegseth’s charges in a statement.

“Sam has never alleged that there was any abuse, she signed court documents acknowledging that there was no abuse and recently reaffirmed the same during her F.B.I. interview,” Mr. Parlatore said, accusing Danielle Hegseth of being “an anti-Trump far-left Democrat” who “had an ax to grind against the entire Hegseth family.”

Samantha Hegseth shares custody of three children with Mr. Hegseth. She was interviewed by the F.B.I. this month as part of her ex-husband’s background check. In one interview, she told investigators that Mr. Hegseth abused and continues to abuse alcohol, according to a person with knowledge of the findings. The F.B.I. had no comment.

Ms. Hegseth could not be reached for comment on Tuesday. In a statement to NBC News on Monday, before Danielle Hegseth filed her detailed affidavit, she said “there was no physical abuse in my marriage” and that she would not speak further about the matter.

In a 2021 order, dealing with the appointment of a parenting coordinator, a Minnesota family court judge said that neither Pete nor Samantha Hegseth claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse. The judge also said that there was no determination by the court that there was probable cause to believe that one parent “has been physically abused or threatened with physical abuse by the other parent.”

The Times and other media organizations have already documented a pattern of excessive drinking by Mr. Hegseth, although his former sister-in-law provided new details of that in her sworn statement. As for allegations that his behavior was so out of control that Samantha Hegseth felt she needed to protect herself from him, it is Danielle Hegseth’s word against that of Mr. Hegseth, who is citing a court document in his favor.

Still, her affidavit is the first time that a former member of Mr. Hegseth’s extended family has publicly alleged his personal conduct renders him unfit to lead the Pentagon. Mr. Hegseth’s mother wrote to her son in a 2018 email that he had mistreated women for years, but has since disavowed those sentiments.

Mr. Hegseth was also accused of raping a woman in Monterey, Calif., in 2017 while drunk. He has said that encounter was consensual and he was never charged with a crime, although he paid a financial settlement to the woman who accused him.

Samantha Hegseth treated Danielle Hegseth as a confidante, according to people familiar with their relationship. Danielle was married to Pete Hegseth’s brother Nathaniel from 2011 to 2019; Samantha and Pete Hegseth were married from 2010 to 2018.

During his confirmation hearing, Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, asked Mr. Hegseth if he had ever engaged in physical violence against any of his three wives.

“Senator, absolutely not,” Mr. Hegseth replied. Asked if physical violence toward a spouse ought to disqualify a nominee, he demurred, calling the question a hypothetical.

Mr. Hegseth described various other allegations as “anonymous smears.” Though he never admitted to personal misconduct, he spoke emphatically about being a changed man.

“I’m not a perfect person, but redemption is real,” he told senators. He also credited his current wife, Jennifer Rauchet, with having “changed my life.”

Many of the allegations in Danielle Hegseth’s affidavit detailed episodes of Mr. Hegseth’s apparent drunkenness, and in some, she said, he made racial statements she found offensive.

“He drunkenly yelled in my face one night in 2009,” she wrote, recalling that Mr. Hegseth had become upset after she walked out of a room when he was telling a story “with a racial slant that bothered me.”

“He was very aggressive, in my face, dressed in his military uniform,” she added.

In 2013, she said, Mr. Hegseth drank so much at a family dinner at a Minneapolis restaurant that afterward an Uber driver had to pull over on an interstate highway so he could vomit. At another bar that same year, she said, Mr. Hegseth danced drunk with a glass of gin and tonic in each hand, dropped the glasses on the dance floor and had to be dragged out of the bar.

She said that she recounted to the F.B.I. another episode that occurred in 2009 but said she did not have firsthand knowledge of it. She said she was told that after a drill with the National Guard, Mr. Hegseth was found at a nearby strip club, drunk and in uniform, getting lap dances.

She said the person who told her about the episode said that his behavior was a violation of military rules. That person’s name was redacted in the affidavit obtained by The Times.

On Tuesday, some rank-and-file Republicans were quick to dismiss Danielle Hegseth’s sworn allegations, likening them to a sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings in 2018, but ultimately did not derail his path to the Supreme Court.

“This kind of reminds me of Kavanaugh, when everybody was trying to slaughter him and his character,” Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma and a member of the Armed Services panel, told reporters Tuesday evening. “The media and those that did that should be ashamed of themselves. And this is the same thing. Pete is going to be the secretary of defense — period.”

Democrats who reviewed Danielle Hegseth’s affidavit on Tuesday said they were stunned by the litany of allegations. Several of them said that the F.B.I. had not done a thorough enough job.

“It’s clear that the F.B.I. has not followed up on the leads that it’s been given and has rushed through a report that is incomplete,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, told reporters Tuesday.

Maya C. Miller, Robert Jimison, Carl Hulse and Devlin Barrett contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett and Julie Tate contributed research.