Latest Executive News | ӣ��Ƶ

Gorsuch suggests Supreme Court's Trump ruling is opening move against administrative state

Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:03:39 -0400

The Supreme Court may have done more Monday than give President Donald Trump new firing power — it may have opened the door to a far broader challenge to the modern administrative state, the sprawling network of federal agencies that many conservatives have long dubbed the "deep state."

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled Trump could lawfully remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, overturning much of the nearly 90-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent that had protected independent agency officials from at-will dismissal.

While Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion held that the FTC's leaders must remain accountable to the president because the agency exercises executive power, Gorsuch argued the ruling raises a broader constitutional question over whether Congress can continue allowing executive agencies to exercise sweeping legislative and judicial powers.

"The fourth branch's powers still exist; they have just been reassigned to the President," Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.

SCOTUS TAKES UP TRUMP’S BID TO FIRE FTC COMMISSIONER AT WILL — A SHOWDOWN THAT COULD TOPPLE 90-YEAR PRECEDENT

That observation could become the next major front in the Supreme Court's ongoing effort to reshape the modern administrative state.

For decades, independent agencies such as the FTC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission and National Labor Relations Board have combined multiple governmental functions under one roof. They investigate alleged violations, write regulations carrying the force of law and adjudicate enforcement actions through administrative proceedings.

With Humphrey's Executor now overruled, those agencies remain intact, but their leadership is subject to presidential control if they exercise executive power. Gorsuch questioned whether Congress can continue delegating broad legislative and judicial authority to agencies that are now unmistakably under presidential supervision.

"The power to write new regulatory crimes still exists," Gorsuch wrote. "The ability to judge disputes in-house remains, but now the house is white."

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said Gorsuch's concurrence points toward the next phase of litigation.

CONGRESS EXPANDED THE EXECUTIVE—ONLY FOR TRUMP TO QUASH MUCH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

"I think the next step in this type of litigation won't be looking at firings per se, but really trying to make sure all of these administrative agencies actually fall into one of our constitutional buckets," Severino said. "Are they executive agencies or are they legislative or are they judicial? You can't straddle all of this."

She said that while Monday's ruling restored presidential control over executive agencies, it did not resolve whether those same agencies can continue exercising quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers that Congress has delegated over decades.

"There still remains to be more work going back and taking out of these agencies that now are properly under executive control the activities that really aren't fundamentally executive in nature," Severino said.

Haley Proctor, a constitutional law professor at Notre Dame Law School, similarly described Gorsuch's opinion as a roadmap for future legal challenges.

LEGAL CHALLENGES ON ADMINISTRATIVE REACH EXPECTED IN TRUMP'S DEREGULATORY SCHEME, EXPERTS SAY

"I do think what Justice Gorsuch is pointing out is that this is the first step toward rethinking the way in which the administrative state is empowered and structured," Proctor said.

Rather than simply expanding presidential authority, Proctor said the concurrence raises the possibility that Congress may ultimately have to reclaim powers it has delegated to agencies or assign certain responsibilities back to Article III courts.

"If we're concerned about the amount of power that the Federal Trade Commission has, then the next step would be to reconsider giving that power to the Federal Trade Commission because some of the decisions that it's making could be made by Congress instead and some of the decisions that it's making could be made by the courts," she said.

The majority opinion did not resolve those questions. Instead, Roberts limited the Court's holding to presidential removal authority, concluding that the FTC "unquestionably exercises executive power" and therefore its commissioners must remain accountable to the president.

The Court stopped short of deciding how much power Congress can give executive agencies to make rules or resolve disputes, saying questions involving agencies such as the Federal Reserve will have to wait.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But Gorsuch suggested future cases could go much further, arguing the Constitution provides the tools to dismantle much of the modern administrative state. He pointed to several constitutional doctrines that could be used to sharply limit the power of independent federal agencies and return lawmaking authority to Congress and judicial power to the courts.

"From here, the only sure path is to finish the journey we start today and restore legislative and judicial powers to where they belong: in Congress and the courts," Gorsuch wrote.

Trump taps acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling for permanent role pending Senate confirmation

Mon, 29 Jun 2026 20:50:52 -0400

President Donald Trump on Monday nominated acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling to serve as U.S. labor secretary, sending his pick to the Senate for confirmation.

If confirmed, Sonderling would formally assume the Cabinet post after leading the Labor Department on an acting basis since former Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer's departure in April. He would continue overseeing the department's efforts to enforce federal labor laws, administer workforce programs and implement the administration's employment agenda.

"It is my Great Honor to announce that I am nominating Keith E. Sonderling, the outstanding Acting United States Secretary of Labor, to be permanent," Trump announced on Truth Social. "Keith previously served as Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer and, during my First Term, worked at the U.S. Department of Labor as the Acting and Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division.

"Throughout his career, Keith has proven his dedication to delivering strong results for the Hardworking People of our Country, and I know he will do an incredible job in his new role," Trump added.

ACTING LABOR SECRETARY SONDERLING: A FAST-TRACK WAY TO GET A JOB WITHOUT COLLEGE DEBT

Chavez-DeRemer left the Labor Department in April, when the White House announced Sonderling would serve as acting labor secretary.

ACTING LABOR SECRETARY SONDERLING: A FAST-TRACK WAY TO GET A JOB WITHOUT COLLEGE DEBT

Chavez-DeRemer's departure came after a whistleblower complaint accused her of having an affair with a member of her security detail, drinking on the job, creating a hostile work environment and directing staff to perform personal errands at taxpayer expense.

The Labor Department's inspector general is investigating the allegations, which also include claims that Chavez-DeRemer's husband made unwanted advances toward department officials and that family members routinely sent personal requests to young staffers, according to previous ӣ��Ƶ Digital reporting.

ACTING LABOR SECRETARY SONDERLING: A FAST-TRACK WAY TO GET A JOB WITHOUT COLLEGE DEBT

Reporting on the complaints indicates Chavez-DeRemer requested staff perform private errands for her and her husband, including picking up dry cleaning, purchasing wine and cleaning out the secretary's closet, while allegedly using threats to ensure compliance.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Meanwhile, other complaints alleged drinking on the job and keeping stashes of liquor around the office, according to the New York Post, which first reported the complaints in January. Chavez-DeRemer has denied the allegations.

ӣ��Ƶ Digital's Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

Trump’s firing power faces twin Supreme Court tests, but one agency may get special treatment

Thu, 18 Jun 2026 06:00:11 -0400

Two high-stakes Supreme Court battles over President Donald Trump's authority to remove federal officials could reshape the balance of power in Washington, but legal experts say the justices may draw a sharp line between the cases.

At the center of the debate are Slaughter v. Trump, involving the firing of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, and Trump v. Cook, involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. While both cases touch on presidential removal power, legal scholars say the disputes present fundamentally different legal questions.

In Slaughter, the administration is directly challenging statutory restrictions on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners, arguing that limits on the president's authority to fire commissioners violate his Article II executive powers. But in Cook, the central question is whether Trump met the Federal Reserve Act's "for cause" removal requirement. Trump has argued that Cook's alleged misconduct involving mortgage disclosure documents justified her removal for cause.

Catholic University of America law professor Joel Alicea said Solicitor General John Sauer's approach during oral arguments in Slaughter differed significantly from his strategy in Cook. The Trump administration argued in Slaughter that the FTC Act's removal limit — which allows the president to fire commissioners only for reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct — unconstitutionally restricts the president's Article II authority.

"In the Slaughter case, they are making the explicit constitutional argument that it doesn't matter what the statute says, the president gets to fire the FTC commissioners at will," Alicea said.

SCOTUS TAKES UP TRUMP’S BID TO FIRE FTC COMMISSIONER AT WILL — A SHOWDOWN THAT COULD TOPPLE 90-YEAR PRECEDENT

The administration was far more cautious in Trump v. Cook.

"The president's team chose not to raise the constitutional argument in Cook," Alicea explained, suggesting the Court has already indicated that the Federal Reserve presents a distinct set of constitutional issues rooted in historical precedents involving the nation's early banking system.

In its recent emergency ruling in Trump v. Wilcox, the Supreme Court allowed removals involving NLRB and Merit Systems Protection Board officials to take effect while the litigation continued.

But the Court rejected the argument that its decision would necessarily call into question the Federal Reserve Board's tenure protections, stating, "we disagree," and explaining that the Federal Reserve is a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity" with a distinct historical tradition dating back to the First and Second Banks of the United States.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS READY TO KEEP LISA COOK ON FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD DESPITE TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE HER

Many legal experts, including Erin Hawley, chair of Lex Politica's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, expect the Court to be more receptive to the administration's argument in Slaughter than in Cook, where the Fed's longstanding independence may weigh heavily.

"The Supreme Court has signaled that it believes the core function of the Fed — setting monetary policy — be unique in that it has a historical analogue in the First Bank," Hawley told ӣ��Ƶ Digital. "Based on history, that core function may well satisfy constitutional separation of powers."

While Hawley noted that the Federal Reserve also engages in rulemaking and other activities that could be characterized as exercises of executive power, the Court is not being asked in Trump v. Cook to decide the broad constitutional validity of the Fed's removal protections in the same way it is being asked to evaluate the FTC's protections in Slaughter.

The Cook dispute has also drawn opposition from a bipartisan group of former Federal Reserve chairs, former Treasury secretaries and economists, who warned that allowing presidents greater control over Federal Reserve governors could undermine central-bank independence and create economic instability.

"There is broad consensus among economists, based on decades of macroeconomic research, that a more independent central bank will lead to lower and more stable inflation without creating higher unemployment," a brief filed by a bipartisan group to the Court stated.

SUPREME COURT SETS DATE TO HEAR FTC SLAUGHTER CASE IN TEST OF TRUMP'S FIRING POWERS

Slaughter v. Trump, meanwhile, has become a major test of the unitary executive theory, the view that Article II gives the president control over officials who exercise executive power. The justices have agreed to consider whether to overrule or narrow the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which upheld statutory limits on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners.

"This isn't about Trump's power so much as it is about the power of the president generally — the same authority over the executive branch in this case is going to apply to the next president as well," said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network.

"Indeed, President Biden was very aggressive in using the firing power, and maybe if he had a second term, he would have gotten down to firing this level of officers as well," Severino continued.

Another issue emerging from Slaughter concerns the remedies available to courts when an agency head is allegedly removed unlawfully.

"The idea that the federal courts get to order the president to reinstate an executive officer he has fired? That's actually a novel question," Alicea said. "It's not something that has been adjudicated before when you're dealing with an agency head."

The Court could therefore face not only whether Trump had authority to remove officials but also whether judges possess the power to compel their reinstatement.

Critics of expanding presidential removal authority warn that a ruling for Trump in Slaughter could weaken the independence of agencies Congress intentionally insulated from political pressure.

CONGRESS EXPANDED THE EXECUTIVE—ONLY FOR TRUMP TO QUASH MUCH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Constitutional law expert Robert McWhirter argued that supporters of broader presidential power should consider how that authority might be used by future administrations.

"The underlying policy issues to be considered is let's say that you're all pro-Donald Trump and you think he should have that power," McWhirter said. "Well, do you really want to make sure that any president has that power?"

McWhirter also defended independent boards as valuable safeguards that remove certain decisions from day-to-day partisan politics. He argued that many executive powers ultimately derive from congressional delegations, giving Congress significant authority to structure agencies as independent entities.

"So, if you think about anything, Trump's immigration enforcement policies, he only has that power because Congress passed the Immigration Nationality Act," McWhirter said. "He acts under acts of Congress, delegation of power from Congress, and he has a duty to faithfully execute."

Supporters of broader presidential removal power see the issue differently, arguing that the president should have the power to remove heads of independent agencies because they cannot be thrown out by voters in elections.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"A ruling for the president in the Slaughter case would be very significant. It would ensure that the president is able to direct and control independent agencies, even those with multi-member heads," Hawley said. "Were the rule otherwise, that would mean that unelected bureaucrats would be calling the shots."

"Such a result is not only anti-democratic but inconsistent with the Constitution's allocation of power."

These 11 upcoming Supreme Court decisions could make or break Trump's second term agenda

Sun, 14 Jun 2026 09:07:08 -0400

As the Supreme Court enters the final stretch of its term, a flood of closely watched decisions could determine not only the fate of several of President Donald Trump’s key policy priorities but also the scope of presidential authority for years to come.

Around the marbled halls and chambers, the final weeks of June are often known as "flood season," the annual rush to complete opinions before the justices leave Washington for their summer recess. The nine justices and their law clerks are on tight, self-imposed deadlines to write and circulate final drafts of opinions in cases big and small.

This year, 23 cases remain unresolved after the court heard arguments in nearly 60 disputes during the term. Among them are four appeals involving executive actions by Trump, two election-related disputes and separate questions involving gun rights and transgender rights.

Several of the remaining disputes share a common thread: how much power a president can exercise over federal policy and the executive branch. The rulings could significantly affect Trump’s ability to advance his second-term agenda, particularly on immigration and government oversight, while further defining the boundaries between the White House, Congress and the courts.

TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY FACES CRUCIAL TESTS AS SUPREME COURT BEGINS PIVOTAL TERM

The court's last day before its traditional summer recess is still unknown, even to its nine members, but they hope to finish up by month's end. However, given the divided court's compressed workload, that is no guarantee.

Here are 11 remaining opinions that we are closely watching.

Trump v. Barbara

Arguably the most closely watched Supreme Court case remaining to be decided, this challenge centers on President Trump's Executive Order 14160, an effort to limit automatic citizenship for children born to parents who entered the country illegally.

The case could define the limits of presidential power by determining whether a president can change a longstanding interpretation of citizenship law without Congress.

Trump made history by personally attending oral arguments in March, becoming the first sitting president to do so — but that did not seem to matter.

The Supreme Court openly pushed back against the administration's sweeping efforts to restrict who can be called an American, expressing varying levels of skepticism about the claim a citizenship "privilege" has been historically abused and wrongly granted to those whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.

A ruling against Trump would affirm the longstanding legal, political and social consensus supporting the idea of granting automatic citizenship to all babies born in the country, regardless of their parents' immigration or temporary visitor status.

INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS

Mullin v. Doe, Dahlia; Trump v. Miot

Immigration-related executive power is also at the center of Mullin v. Doe, Dahlia and Trump v. Miot, cases involving the administration’s effort to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections from certain Haitian and Syrian migrants living in the U.S.

The TPS program currently covers roughly 1.3 million people fleeing war and natural disasters from 17 countries and allows them to live and work in the country for a limited time.

CHECKS AND BALANCES: TRUMP, SUPPORTERS SEEK TO PUSH BACK AGAINST 'ACTIVIST' JUDGES

The administration argues the Department of Homeland Security has broad discretion to end some Temporary Protected Status protections for migrants from certain countries, arguing protections are intended to be temporary. Migrant advocates counter that federal law requires specific procedures and allows courts to review those decisions.

The conservative court majority has signaled its support for the Homeland Security secretary's discretionary power to revoke deportation protections for 13 countries on the TPS list.

SUPREME COURT PREPARES FOR MAJOR TEST OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR

Trump v. Cook; Trump v. Slaughter

In Trump v. Cook, the justices are weighing whether Trump can dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Based on January's oral arguments, the court appears ready to give President Trump one of his biggest legal setbacks in office, offering strong support for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook remaining in her leadership position — at least for now.

The questions of presidential power deal with whether Trump has broad unilateral executive authority to fire someone from the central bank, despite its special status as a stand-alone federal agency.

In arguments, most on the court seemed skeptical of Trump's actions.

"That's your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh told the Justice Department's Solicitor General D. John Sauer. "Very low bar for 'cause' that the president alone determines? I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve."

But a separate case involving presidential firing authority, Trump v. Slaughter, could have even broader implications. Former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter is challenging her removal from the agency, setting up a direct test of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent set in Humphrey's Executor v. United States that limits a president’s ability to fire members of independent regulatory commissions except only for "cause."

A ruling favoring the administration could strengthen presidential control over agencies that regulate everything from communications and consumer safety to labor policy and financial markets, and a ruling in Slaughter's favor could greatly restrict the president's powers.

SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN: TRUMP'S STRATEGY TO TEST LIMITS OF HIS POWER COULD SPELL DOOM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

The stakes could be enormous for how the federal government is run. Independent regulatory agencies and boards help manage almost every aspect of American life — from transportation safety, labor relations and the environment to Social Security and finance. Agencies include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Reserve.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

At issue is a federal law that caps coordinated spending between political parties and candidates running for Congress and the White House.

The high court in recent years, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has tossed aside congressionally enacted federal campaign spending limits.

THE BIGGEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF 2024: FROM PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY TO OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE

And the six conservative justices appear ready to do so again, and could upend a nearly quarter-century opinion limiting how the major political parties spend tens of millions of dollars, much of it going to television advertising.

The dispute underscores a divide over whether campaign spending restrictions intended to prevent corruption improperly infringe on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Watson v. Republican National Committee

At issue is a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, provided they were mailed on time.

SCOTUS CONSERVATIVES SIGNAL READINESS TO CURB LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS

Mississippi is one of about 14 states, the District of Columbia and three territories that permit a grace period ranging from one day to several weeks during which regular ballots can be counted, so long as those ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day.

That is currently the case in California, where final results from the June 2 election may not be known for another couple of weeks or more.

The justices are deciding whether federal Election Day statutes preempt various state laws and may clarify exactly what "the election" means when it comes to the casting and receipt of ballots.

The outcome could rest with Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who could cast the deciding votes.

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

The court is also considering a pair of cases involving transgender athletes and school sports. In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the justices are weighing whether state laws that restrict transgender girls and women from competing on female athletic teams violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or federal protections under Title IX.

Almost 30 states have laws limiting participation for transgender females who were designated male at birth, in both public school and college athletics, and officials say their restrictions are a matter of ensuring a level playing field and student safety.

SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW STATE BANS ON TRANSGENDER ATHLETES' PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL SPORTS

But lawyers for a high school sophomore and a college senior counter those prohibitions are clearly discriminatory, and that the issues should be about equality and dignity for every student, free from politics and misinformation.

The high court is examining whether the laws unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of sex.

Wolford v. Lopez

The challenge targets a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals, including concealed-carry permit holders, from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner has expressly granted permission.

This case could come down to whether property rights trump gun rights, and how those rights interact.

GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT

A group of gun owners in Maui are challenging those default permission rules, arguing the law improperly makes it a crime to bear arms even where the owner of property accessible to the public is merely silent. They refer to these laws as "vampire rules," a nod to the legend of Dracula, who could not enter a room without being invited.

But Hawaii officials told the high court the restrictions balance gun and property rights, citing a long tradition in the Aloha State of limiting all kinds of dangerous weapons, dating back to when it was a monarchy.

United States v. Hemani

A separate Second Amendment case still unresolved deals with the federal government's law banning people with a "habitual" use of marijuana from legally keeping a firearm.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The "guns and ganja" dispute centers on whether the widespread use of cannabis in recent decades — legal in some form in 40 states — makes criminalizing "mere possession" contingent on firearm ownership.

The same law was applied to former President Joe Biden's son Hunter, who was convicted under Section 922(g)(3), which bars any "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from possessing a firearm.

New York Times sued by federal government over alleged 'DEI-related' employment discrimination

Tue, 05 May 2026 18:00:55 -0400

The New York Times is being sued by the Trump administration over alleged 'DEI-related' discrimination, something the paper fervently denied.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced Tuesday it has filed a lawsuit against the Times, claiming it "violated federal law when it passed over a White male employee for a promotion because of his race and/or sex."

"According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, The New York Times chose not to promote a well-qualified White male employee because of his race and/or sex," the EEOC said in a press release. "The New York Times has a well-documented commitment to enacting race and sex conscious decision making in the workforce through its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. In The New York Times’s 2021 'Call to Action' and throughout numerous other publications, the company stated goals and action plans to increase non-White and female representation in its leadership positions."

TRUMP BLASTS NEW YORK TIMES, CNN FOR ‘SEDITIOUS’ COVERAGE OF IRAN WAR

The incident allegedly involved a "longtime New York Times editor" who has an "extensive experience in real estate journalism" and was apparently snubbed from an open deputy real estate editor position in early 2025.

"Every candidate who advanced through to the final interview process was not a White male. The company ultimately hired an outside candidate for the role — a non-White female with little to no experience in real estate journalism, despite such experience being a requirement for the real estate editor position," the EEOC said, alleging the paper's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

FBI DIRECTOR KASH PATEL, NEW YORK TIMES CLASH OVER PAPER'S CLAIM ITS REPORTER WAS ‘INVESTIGATED’

The agency went on to claim that the paper's hiring manager approved the external candidate "without her first going through the standard interview processes for the position" and she was selected for the position "despite the company’s own final interview panel rating her less favorably than two other final candidates."

"No one is above the law — including 'elite' institutions," EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said in a statement. "There is no such thing as 'reverse discrimination'; all race or sex discrimination is equally unlawful, according to long-established civil rights principles. The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head."

"Federal law is clear: making hiring or promotion decisions motivated in whole or in part by race or sex violates federal law. There is no diversity exception to this rule," Lucas added.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST MEDIA AND CULTURE NEWS

The New York Times issued a fiery response to the lawsuit, rejecting what it calls "politically motivated allegations."

"Our employment practices are merit-based and focused on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world. We will defend ourselves vigorously," Times communications chief Danielle Rhoades Ha stated. "Throughout this process, the EEOC deviated from standard practices in highly unusual ways. The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative. Neither race nor gender played a role in this decision – we hired the most qualified candidate, and she is an excellent editor."

"The New York Times’s commitment to diversity in all its forms is longstanding and unwavering, as is our commitment to a fair and legal hiring process that does not discriminate against anyone," Rhoades Ha added.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Power 4 college sports conferences react to Trump's latest executive order

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 21:40:03 -0400

The leaders of college sports’ most powerful conferences quickly aligned behind President Donald Trump’s latest executive order.

Commissioners from the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 all released statements on social media Friday evening unanimously thanking Trump for his executive action.

Trump's EO directs federal agencies to potentially restrict funding for schools violating new, tighter rules on player transfers (limited to one) and eligibility (maximum five years), while curbing pay-for-play booster collectives and protecting women's and Olympic sports funding.

The conferences struck a consistent tone of appreciation for federal involvement, coupled with a renewed call for Congress to establish national standards governing college athletics, particularly with respect to athlete compensation, employment status and name, image and likeness (NIL) rules.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

Big 10 Commissioner Tony Petitti wrote, "The Big Ten Conference would like to thank President Trump for his leadership and continuing efforts to protect college athletics and joins him in urging Congress to quickly pass legislation addressing the critical issues undermining its long-term stability.

"Consistent with President Trump’s executive order, the bipartisan SCORE Act thoughtfully addresses name, image, and likeness for student-athletes, protecting academic and athletic opportunities provided through women’s and Olympic sports programs, and expands resources to support student-athletes on and off the field.

"We will continue to work with a broad coalition of college sports stakeholders and members of Congress to enact this legislation."

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey wrote, "The establishment and enforcement of consistent national standards for college athletics remains a top priority, and President Trump’s executive order provides important clarity to help ensure all programs operate under comparable policies.

TUBERVILLE SUGGESTS BILLIONAIRES BUYING COLLEGE PROGRAMS WOULD BE WORSE THAN AN NFL-STYLE TV DEAL

"We are grateful for the President’s leadership and the continued, bipartisan engagement of members of the House and Senate on these key issues.

"We support House of Representatives approval of the SCORE Act and meaningful Senate consideration of similar legislation to preserve academic opportunity for student-athletes and the long-term future of college sports."

Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark wrote, "Federal action is essential to protect the future of college athletics, and on behalf of the Big 12, we appreciate President Trump’s commitment to advancing a solution. To build on this momentum and provide long-term clarity and stability, Congress must now act.

"The bipartisan SCORE Act offers a comprehensive framework for many of the issues facing our industry, and I look forward to continue working with President Trump and Congress to enact meaningful reforms."

ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips wrote, "We deeply thank President Trump and his administration’s ongoing commitment to protecting college athletics by issuing today’s executive order. Following the White House’s college sports roundtable, there continues to be significant momentum to preserve the athletic and academic opportunities for the next generation of student-athletes, and we appreciate the efforts.

"We remain optimistic that the SCORE Act, which would provide stability to college sports, will pass the House of Representatives in the near future."

The executive order "directs Federal agencies to bolster the effectiveness of key college sports rules on transferring, eligibility, and pay-for-play by evaluating whether violations of such rules render a university unfit for Federal grants and contracts."

It also says that a "five-year participation window" will be enforced, along with "structured transfer rules" and a "banning (of) improper financial arrangements including pay-for-play agreements facilitated by collectives and similar entities."

Trump's executive order comes roughly a month after he hosted a roundtable addressing several hot-button issues with notable sports figures and officials.

SCORE ACT RECEIVES SUPPORT FROM OVER 20 CONSERVATIVE GROUPS AS NIL REFORM FIGHT REVS UP

The SCORE Act was at the forefront of the roundtable. It was scheduled to be voted on in December, but the vote was canceled shortly before it was to take place.

The White House endorsed the act, but three Republicans — Byron Donalds of Florida, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Chip Roy of Texas — voted with Democrats not to bring the act to the floor. Democrats have largely opposed the bill, urging members of the House to vote against it.

The act would give the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption in hopes of protecting the NCAA from potential lawsuits over eligibility rules and would prohibit athletes from becoming employees of their schools. It prohibits schools from using student fees to fund NIL payments.

The president's order from July prohibits athletes from receiving pay-to-play payments from third-party sources. However, the order did not impose any restrictions on NIL payments to college athletes by third-party sources. It also demands that schools account for preserving resources for the non-revenue sports.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A month before Trump's order, a judge approved a settlement between the NCAA, its most powerful conferences and lawyers representing all Division I athletes. The deal means the NCAA will pay close to $2.8 billion in back damages over the next 10 years to college athletes who competed from 2016 to 2025. The settlement also allows college programs to pay athletes directly.

ӣ��Ƶ Digital's Ryan Morik contributed to this report.

Follow ӣ��Ƶ Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the ӣ��Ƶ Sports Huddle newsletter.

Trump rolls out plan to back farmers amid rising costs, pledging 'golden age'

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:05:21 -0400

President Donald Trump announced a series of actions Friday aimed at assisting farmers and food suppliers to help cut costs amid rising energy prices, promising a new "golden age" for the agricultural industry.

Trump shared guidance on farm equipment regulations in an effort to cut costs and increase government loan guarantees for agricultural products, including tractors, among other reforms.

He said a lot of farm equipment has become unaffordable for many farmers.

"Every day we're looking for new ways to support our farmers, reduce your costs and to help lower the price of food for the American family," Trump said on the South Lawn of the White House. "We're going to prove that the golden age of American agriculture is right here and right now."

I'M AN AMERICAN FARMER — EMPTY USDA OFFICES MEANS FEWER FAMILY FARMS

The Biden administration crippled the farming industry, Trump said, with harsh restrictions and a lack of trade deals.

To help them, Trump said his administration recently used tariff money to give farmers $12 billion in relief.

"I'm also asking Congress to quickly pass the new farm bill," he said. "And, today, I'm promising to request additional farm relief for our great patriots in the next funding bill."

AMERICA’S QUIETEST CROP IS SET TO TAKE CENTER STAGE IN TRUMP–XI TALKS

In addition, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) will alter guidelines for a system designed to limit diesel emissions that will save farmers billions of dollars, Trump said.

He also announced new guidelines to limit Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) rules, which mandate that modern diesel engines use selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

"It was a basic disaster," Trump said.

Trump also highlighted the EPA's efforts to boost renewable fuels from agricultural products, while criticizing environmental activists.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"What they've done to you and the country — what they've done to the country — is just incredible," he said. "They are terrorists."

Trump also announced new loan guarantees from the Small Business Administration for small businesses in the agricultural industry, including food suppliers; vegetable, grain and seed farmers; and cattle, pig and poultry producers and grocery wholesalers.

Kash Patel set to tout crucial FBI reforms that many Americans may not know about: 'Real security'

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 07:30:52 -0400

FIRST ON FOX: FBI Director Kash Patel is expected to tout a list of his agency's top reforms and accomplishments under President Donald Trump's second term during a Senate hearing Wednesday on worldwide threats impacting the United States.

Patel is set to address several reforms during the hearing, which is being held by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, including expanded biometric collection overseas, sending more agents into the field from D.C., doubling the size and funding for drone utilization, a new first-of-its-kind training center meant to assist local law enforcement with counter-drone training, new artifical intelligence initiatives to support intelligence collection, among several other reforms, ӣ��Ƶ Digital has learned ahead of his planned remarks.

Alongside Patel, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is also slated to testify at the hearing Wednesday, as well as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe, Director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency James Adams, and acting commander of U.S. Cyber Command, William Hartman.

FBI SPOX UNLEASHES ON MEDIA'S ‘TRANSPARENT SPIN JOB’ THAT RECENT FIRINGS WERE 'DEVASTATING' TO IRAN WORK

"Under President Trump’s leadership, this FBI has been rebuilt into a faster, more accountable force focused on protecting Americans and crushing violent crime. We’ve surged agents out of Washington and into the field, expanded biometric screening overseas to stop threats before they reach our homeland, overhauled our intelligence and operations systems, and strengthened partnerships and technology to move at the speed of today’s threats," Patel exclusively told ӣ��Ƶ Digital. "This is a results-driven FBI delivering real security for the American people."

Patel is also expected to tout a laundry list of accomplishments that the FBI has racked up over the last year, including disrupting 1,800 gangs and criminal enterprises, seizing over 2,250 kilos of fentanyl, and several statistics highlighting major arrests, including a 112% increase in violent crime arrests, almost 350 cyber indictments, 6,000 child victims located, 1,700 child predators arrested, among many other accomplishments.

Democrats have charged Patel with politicizing the FBI, but Patel and Republicans have argued that the current efforts are aimed at doing just the opposite.

"You’ve begun the important work of returning the FBI to its law enforcement mission," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Patel during a September Senate hearing. "It’s well-understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics."

"As I've committed to you during my confirmation hearing and my conversations with you, this FBI will not be weaponized anymore in either side of the aisle," Patel added during the September hearing on FBI oversight.

FBI BUSTS CONVENIENCE STORE CLERKS FOR ‘STAGED ARMED ROBBERIES’ TO APPLY FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS

One reform aimed at reducing agency politicization at the FBI includes an end to what Patel has described as "politicized" threat-banding. Threat-banding is the process of assigning certain threats, such as White supremacy violence, to high-priority categories.

Under former FBI Director Christopher Wray, in 2020, the agency had indicated it would be elevating racially motivated violent extremism to a "national threat priority," with Wray indicating it was at the "top of the priority list" for the agency.

During Wray's tenure under former President Joe Biden, a leaked memo from the FBI's Richmond, Virginia, field office, warned about the violent domestic extremism threat allegedly posed by traditionalist Catholics, leading to GOP anger and concern that Catholics were being targeted based on biased information.

Meanwhile, Patel's push to make the FBI less Washington-centric and more Main Street-focused resulted in the FBI sending more than 1,000 agents, who were originally positioned in the nation's capital, to locations around the country. Patel told lawmakers last year during congressional testimony on Capitol Hill that this priority allows the FBI to "focus our resources where they’re needed the most."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The FBI is also increasing federal and state cooperation, including via a first-of-its-kind counter-drone operations training center in Alabama, where state and local law enforcement can learn about federal law enforcement techniques. Additionally, the FBI has been ramping up its counter-drone capabilities, doubling the current size of their efforts, per Patel.

Patel also has led initiatives to ramp up the FBI's utilization of artifical intelligence, such as new working groups meant to test AI's ability to process large volumes of national security and intelligence information. Efforts to streamline communications and improve threat detection systems have also been a focus of the FBI during Trump's second term.

Another big change Patel is ushering into the agency includes strengthening and providing more funding to the FBI's Threats Screening Center, renamed by the agency last year from the Terrorist Screening Center. The aim is to expand the system to assist with more than just terrorism-related threats, but also threats from cartels and others impacting border security.

Trump signs off on 10% global tariff, criticizes Supreme Court justices after ruling

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:28:17 -0500

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an order imposing a 10% "global tariff" following the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision that he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law.

"It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Friday evening.

The order was issued under Section 122 and applies in addition to the standard tariffs that are already in place, the president announced during a White House press briefing Friday afternoon.

He also announced the launch of several Section 301 investigations and other inquiries aimed at shielding the U.S. from what he described as unfair trade practices by foreign governments and companies.

The high court blocked Trump's tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what amounts to a major test of executive branch authority.

The president noted he will pursue "alternatives" to tariffs under emergency law.

"Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected," Trump said. "We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We'll take in more money, and we'll be a lot stronger for it. We're taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We'll continue to do so."

SUPREME COURT BLOCKS TRUMP TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS

Trump called the ruling "deeply disappointing," saying he was "ashamed" of certain members of the court.

"I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," the president said. "In actuality, I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because… I wanted to be very well-behaved.

"I didn't want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. I have very effectively utilized tariffs over the past year to make America great again," he said.

A source outside the Trump administration told ӣ��Ƶ that an aide came into the closed-door White House breakfast with governors earlier Friday and handed Trump a note about the Supreme Court ruling.

The source said Trump "called it a disgrace, and then he went on with the remarks."

Some of the Supreme Court's nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience when the president delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

"The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no," Trump said during the news conference. "They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation… They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think."

In the opinion, the high court declared, "Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate… importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not."

Trump has made tariffs a key plank of his economic agenda since retaking the Oval Office last year, but his policies have not come without controversy.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP'S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

Republican reaction to the ruling has been mixed.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., slammed the high court's decision.

"The Supreme Court just undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers. President Donald Trump was elected to fight unfair trade and stop the United States from being ripped off. I’m outraged by this decision; it's clearly judicial overreach," Carter asserted in a post on X.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., welcomed the ruling.

"In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism," Paul noted in a post on X.

ELECTION INTEGRITY GROUPS PRESS SUPREME COURT TO REQUIRE BALLOTS BY ELECTION DAY

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., also hailed the decision.

"The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics," Bacon wrote in a post on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Congress and the administration will determine the "best path forward" in the coming weeks.

"No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades," Johnson wrote in an X post.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Trump's NIH director isn't the only official wearing multiple hats during the president's second term

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 19:45:36 -0500

The Trump administration has repeatedly assigned additional job roles to Cabinet members and other officials, and one of his top health officials is the latest to begin pulling double duty for the president.

On Wednesday, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya became the latest Trump official assigned an additional role. The NIH chief and staunch COVID contrarian will temporarily run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) until a new permanent director is appointed by President Donald Trump and subsequently confirmed by the Senate, while continuing to lead the NIH.

Bhattacharya's move to the CDC followed the departure of Jim O'Neill, who was also deputy secretary of the Health and Human Services Department amid a broader restructuring of the Trump administration's public health agencies. O'Neill is now reportedly expected to lead the National Science Foundation.

ӣ��Ƶ Digital looked back on the various Trump Cabinet members and officials wearing multiple hats as the president adjusts during the second year of his second term.

TRUMP TOUTS 'MOST SUCCESSFUL' FIRST 100 DAYS IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY DURING MICHIGAN RALLY

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

A physician, former Stanford professor of medicine and senior fellow at the university's Institute for Economic Policy Research, Bhattacharya was a leading voice during the COVID-19 pandemic against lockdown measures and vaccine mandates.

He was one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document published in October 2020 by a group of scientists advocating against widespread COVID lockdowns and promoting the efficacy of natural immunity for low-risk individuals as opposed to vaccination.

During Bhattacharya's tenure, he has been forced to defend certain funding cuts tied to academic research and staffing. One of the core components Bhattacharya indicated that he wanted to pursue after his confirmation was to usher in a new age of "gold standard science."

"I think fundamentally what matters is do scientists have an idea that advances the scientific field they're in?" Bhattacharya said during his March confirmation testimony. "Do they have an idea that ends up addressing the health needs of Americans?"

Marco Rubio

Rubio and the Trump administration came under fire from Democrats for the secretary of state holding as many as four high-profile roles during the second Trump administration. As of today, he remains in two of those roles.

He was first confirmed as secretary of state hours after Trump was inaugurated, a role Rubio remains in today.

About a month later, amid a massive reorganization at the U.S. Administration for International Development (USAID), Rubio was named director and held that role until handing it off a few months later.

Around the same time, Rubio was tapped to be the acting archivist of the United States (NARA), a role he stopped serving in earlier this month.

Rubio does still serve as the interim national security advisor, a role he has held since May after the departure of Michael Waltz.

"There’s no way he can do that and do it well, especially since there’s such incompetence over at DOD with Pete Hegseth being secretary of defense and just the hollowing out of the top leadership," Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth said of Rubio's multiple jobs. "There’s no way he can carry all that entire load on his own."

CRITICS WARNED TRUMP'S DEPORTATIONS WOULD SPARK BLOODSHED – PROGRESSIVE GROUP REPORTS POLICE KILLINGS FELL

"I don’t know how anybody could do these two big jobs," Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner added.

When asked about the trend of Trump officials wearing multiple work hats in May, the White House reflected in a comment to ӣ��Ƶ Digital on former President Joe Biden's "disaster of a Cabinet."

"Democrats cheered on Joe Biden’s disaster of a Cabinet as it launched the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, opened the southern border to migrant criminals, weaponized the justice system against political opponents and more," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told ӣ��Ƶ Digital in May.

"President Trump has filled his administration with many qualified, talented individuals he trusts to manage many responsibilities."

The Trump administration has repeatedly brushed off concerns over Rubio holding multiple roles, most notably juggling both his State Department leadership and serving as acting national security advisor. Similarly, former President Richard Nixon in 1973 named National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger to simultaneously serve as Secretary of State.

TRUMP NOMINATES WALTZ FOR HIGH-LEVEL POST AFTER OUSTING HIM AS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

"You need a team player who is very honest with the president and the senior team, not someone trying to build an empire or wield a knife or drive their own agenda," an administration official told Politico. "He is singularly focused on delivering the president’s agenda."

Despite Democratic rhetoric that Rubio was taking on too many roles, the former Florida senator helped oversee successful U.S. strikes on Iran in June, which destroyed a trio of nuclear sites and decimated the country's efforts to advance its nuclear program.

Kash Patel

FBI Director Kash Patel, who railed against the "deep state" and vowed to strip corruption from the federal law enforcement agency ahead of his confirmation, was briefly charged with overseeing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in February after the Biden-era director resigned in January 2025.

Patel was later replaced by Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll as acting ATF director in a job change that was reported publicly in April.

ARMY SECRETARY DAN DRISCOLL TO LEAD ATF, REPLACING FBI DIRECTOR KASH PATEL

"Director Kash Patel was briefly designated ATF director while awaiting Senate confirmations, a standard, short-term move. Dozens of similar redesignations have occurred across the federal government," the White House told Reuters in April. "Director Patel is now excelling in his role at the FBI and delivering outstanding results."

Sean Duffy

Duffy, a former Republican congressman from Wisconsin, was tapped to oversee the Department of Transportation and was confirmed by the Senate Jan. 28. Duffy has been forced to juggle a handful of crises related to tragic plane crashes, including the 2025 Potomac River midair collision and air traffic control issues that plagued New Jersey's Liberty International Airport last year.

In July, President Trump announced Duffy would also serve as interim chief of NASA. Duffy remained in that position until mid-December, when commercial astronaut Jared Isaacman took over.

Prior to Trump's inauguration in January 2025, the president announced he would be nominating Isaacman but withdrew his nomination in May before the full Senate confirmed him. Trump said the decision followed a review of Isaacman's "prior associations," pointing to money he has given to Democrats.

However, Isaacman suggested at the time that the rescission of his nomination may have been due to his connections to Elon Musk, who was running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the time.

Duffy replaced Janet Petro, who had served as acting NASA administrator since Trump's inauguration.

Daniel Driscoll

Driscoll was sworn in as the 26th secretary of the Army in February. The secretary of the army is a senior-level civilian official charged with overseeing the management of the Army and also acts as an advisor to the secretary of defense in matters related to the Army.

It was reported in April that Driscoll was named acting ATF director, replacing Patel in that role.

NEW ARMY SECRETARY PRAISES TRUMP, HEGSETH FOR CREATING 'A LANE FOR CHANGE' AS HE ZEROES IN ON CUTTING WASTE

"Mr. Driscoll is responsible for the oversight of the agency’s mission to protect communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, and the illegal trafficking of firearms, explosives, and contraband," his ATF biography states. "Under his leadership, the ATF works to enforce federal laws, ensure public safety, and provide critical support in the investigation of firearms-related crimes and domestic and international criminal enterprises,"

Ahead of Trump taking office, Republican representatives Eric Burlison of Missouri and Lauren Boebert of Colorado introduced legislation to abolish the ATF, saying the agency has worked to strip Second Amendment rights from U.S. citizens.

The ATF has been tasked with assisting the Department of Homeland Security in its deportation efforts under the Trump administration.

Driscoll remains listed as the agency's acting director as of February 2026.

Doug Collins

Former Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins was sworn in as the Trump administration's secretary of Veterans Affairs in February, a Cabinet-level position tasked with overseeing the department and its mission of providing health, education and financial benefits to military veterans.

Days after his confirmation as VA secretary, Trump tapped Collins to temporarily lead two oversight agencies, the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of Special Counsel.

VA SECRETARY ACCUSES REPORTER OF SPREADING 'RUMORS' ABOUT DOGE THAT HURT VETERANS IN TENSE CLASH

The Office of Government Ethics is charged with overseeing the executive branch's ethics program, including setting ethics standards for the government and monitoring ethics compliance across federal agencies and departments.

The Office of Special Counsel is charged with overseeing and protecting the federal government's merit system, most notably ensuring federal whistleblowers don't face retaliation for sounding the alarm on an issue they've experienced. The office also has an established secure channel to allow federal employees to blow the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.

The Office of Special Counsel also enforces the Hatch Act, which bans executive branch staffers, except the president and vice president, from engaging in certain forms of political activity.

Jamieson Greer

Trump's trade representative, Jamieson Greer, has also been tapped for multiple roles within the administration, in addition to helping lead the administration's tariff negotiations to bring parity to the chronic U.S. trade deficit with other nations.

Greer took on Collins' roles as acting director of the Office of Government Ethics and as acting special counsel of the Office of Special Counsel April 1.

Trump nominated conservative attorney Paul Ingrassia to lead the Office of Special Counsel in May, but he subsequently withdrew his nomination amid concerns about his rhetoric and other accusations the young conservative was facing at the time.

Russell Vought

Trump named his former director of the Office of Management and Budget during his first administration, Russell Vought, to the same role in his second administration. Vought was confirmed as the federal government's budget chief in February.

Days later, Vought was also named the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a position he still holds.

RUSS VOUGHT, TAPPED AS CFPB'S ACTING DIRECTOR, DIRECTS BUREAU TO ISSUE NO NEW RULES, STOP NEW INVESTIGATIONS

The CFPB is an independent government agency charged with protecting consumers from unfair financial practices in the private sector. It was created in 2010 under the Obama administration after the financial crash in 2008. Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren originally proposed and advocated for the creation of the agency.

The CFPB came under fierce investigation from the Department of Government Efficiency in February, with mass terminations rocking the agency before the reduction in force initiative was tied up in court.

Ric Grenell

President Donald Trump's former ambassador to Germany and acting director of national intelligence during his first term, a pair of roles held at separate times in the first administration, currently serves as president of the Kennedy Center and special presidential envoy for special missions of the United States.

GRENELL DEVELOPING 'COMMONSENSE' PLAN TO TURN KENNEDY CENTER FINANCIALS AROUND

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts serves as the national cultural center of the U.S. Trump notably serves as the center's chairman, and Grenell said the center will see a "golden age" of the arts during Trump's second administration through productions and concerts that Americans actually want to see after years of the performing arts center running in the red.

Trump named Grenell his special presidential envoy for special missions to the United States in December 2024 before his inauguration, saying Grenell will "work in some of the hottest spots around the world, including Venezuela and North Korea."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In this role, Grenell helped lead the administration through its response to the wildfires that tore through Southern California in the last days of the Biden administration through the beginning days of the Trump administration.

ӣ��Ƶ Digital's Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

Labor Department orders lawyers to cut ties with ABA, slams group as ‘radical’ activist force

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 11:15:33 -0500

FIRST ON FOX: The Department of Labor’s top lawyer ordered staff on Monday to stop engaging with the American Bar Association in their official capacities, saying the organization partakes in liberal activism and that any federal participation would only boost its influence.

Trump-appointed Solicitor Jonathan Berry wrote in an email that the hundreds of attorneys at the Department of Labor are not to use taxpayer funds to participate in any ABA events or use their government job titles at them, according to a copy of the email reviewed by ӣ��Ƶ Digital.

"The ABA is strategically equivocal about its ideological stance," Berry wrote. "Equivocal in that the ABA holds itself out as non-ideological at certain times, but takes decidedly radical ideological positions at others."

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TELLS AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IT WILL NO LONGER COMPLY WITH RATINGS FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES

His email marks the latest step in the Trump administration’s effort to weaken the ABA, the nation’s largest association of lawyers and other legal personnel.

The Department of Justice implemented a similar policy last year and terminated more than $3 million in federal grants to ABA programs before a judge found that ending the funds was unconstitutional. The Federal Trade Commission likewise severed its ties with the ABA's antitrust arm, saying it "promotes the business interests of Big Tech."

Republicans have long argued the ABA promotes Democrat-aligned viewpoints and that its institutional presence in the legal world is a disadvantage to conservatives. The ABA's website touts that it is the "national voice of the legal profession" and showcases work that includes support for "LGBTQ+" initiatives, abortion access, stricter gun control measures, and diversity, equity and inclusion.

The ABA has also taken a stance against President Donald Trump, condemning what its president described as the administration's "wide-scale affronts to the rule of law."

The ABA wields enormous power, weighing in on nominations of federal judges, engaging in litigation and involving itself in the hiring processes across the legal industry. One arm of the ABA also handles law school accreditation.

In a reversal of a decades-long practice, Attorney General Pam Bondi told the ABA last year that the DOJ would not give the association a heads up on judicial nominees before they are announced, stripping the ABA of the ability to rate the nominees in advance.

DOJ OUTLINES 10 ‘WINS’ UNDER TRUMP, SAYS AGENCY RESTORED AFTER BIDEN ERA

Berry wrote in his email to staff that the Labor Department lawyers' participation in the ABA would only serve to endorse what he viewed as an institutional problem.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"There is genuine benefit to our attorneys engaging with the employer bar in ABA programs, but the benefit genuinely feeds the problem too: Our participation in ‘neutral’ ABA events contributes to institutional stature the ABA leverages to advance radical goals as if they were ‘neutral,’" Berry wrote. "No more."

The ABA declined to comment.

When anti-ICE clashes trigger federal intervention: Experts explain the constitutional breaking point

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 18:26:47 -0500

Anti-ICE protesters have surrounded federal agents, Democratic leaders have denounced enforcement operations and tensions in Minneapolis have boiled over, but experts say none of it crosses the line into a constitutional breakdown or would justify the use of federal emergency powers by President Donald Trump.

Legal analysts say the unrest, while volatile, does not inhibit the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce immigration law. That threshold would only be crossed if state officials themselves moved to block or materially obstruct federal agents, raising supremacy clause concerns.

Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, told ӣ��Ƶ Digital that agitators hindering federal agents' work, even aggressively, does not rise to that level.

"There is no general principle of law which says that anything that makes the work of federal agents more difficult in any way somehow violates the Constitution," Somin said.

FEDS SHIFT TO TARGETED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IN MINNEAPOLIS UNDER HOMAN

Protesters have taken to the streets of Minneapolis in recent weeks to confront immigration officers during Operation Metro Surge, a federal enforcement effort that has deployed thousands of ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minnesota.

During enforcement actions, protesters have at times surrounded ICE agents with shouting, whistles, filming and unruly crowds, creating a tense mix of peaceful demonstrators and coordinated agitators that has occasionally escalated into blockades or violence.

The dynamics at play have centered on two legal principles. On one hand, the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing state and local officials to enforce federal law. On the other, obstruction of federal law enforcement is unlawful and could violate the supremacy clause, which says federal law trumps state law when the two are in conflict.

If the state were to pass laws that obstruct federal law enforcement from performing its job duties, that would trigger supremacy clause concerns, Somin said, but he noted that such conditions are not present in Minnesota.

Operation Metro Surge began in December, sending 3,000 immigration agents to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The effort has led to thousands of arrests, but it has spurred resistance from residents and resulted in two high-profile deaths of U.S. citizens at the hands of immigration agents, which fueled further public outrage. The FBI is now investigating those incidents.

Democratic state leaders, meanwhile, have widely criticized the operation and drawn blame from Republicans for exacerbating tension with their rhetoric. At one point, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz compared ICE's presence to the Civil War.

"I mean, is this a Fort Sumter?" Walz told The Atlantic. "It’s a physical assault. It’s an armed force that’s assaulting, that’s killing my constituents, my citizens."

Asked whether the resistant nature of Minnesota's Democratic leaders could amount to "nullification," Somin rejected the idea.

"Nullification is when the state officials themselves resist the enforcement of federal law. If they merely fail to help the feds against private parties, that is something that's protected by the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment," Somin said.

That hands-off approach has extended beyond rhetoric. Walz has welcomed a reduction in federal personnel but urged a faster drawdown, while Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has said the city would not assist with immigration enforcement.

"We were never going to agree, and we have not agreed, to enforce federal immigration law. Why? It’s not our job," Frey said in a New York Times interview.

As state and local leaders have declined to intervene, opposition to the ICE operation has increasingly taken shape on the ground. Activists have mobilized to confront and monitor federal immigration agents, activity that legal experts distinguish from unlawful, state-led obstruction.

Central to that resistance is Defend the 612, a network of private citizens that has coordinated what activists describe as "ICE watching," using encrypted messaging apps to track enforcement activity and share information about agents’ movements, according to reporting by the conservative City Journal.

In addition to street confrontations, activists have staged protests at sensitive locations, including a disruption of a church service in St. Paul, where the pastor is also an ICE field director. Several participants, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, were arrested and charged under a federal statute typically used to protect abortion clinics and pregnancy counseling centers.

TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION VICTORY IN A MINNESOTA COURT IS A WIN FOR ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS

Federal authorities have moved to arrest individuals accused of directly impeding immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced charges against 16 agitators accused of obstructing agents and assaulting officers, while the Justice Department also charged a Minneapolis man, a self-described Antifa member, with cyberstalking after he allegedly called for attacks on ICE and doxxed a pro-ICE individual.

Even so, legal experts stress that, so far, all the anti-ICE activity falls short of a collapse of federal authority. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, said existing laws already prohibit "mob" violence and obstruction, adding that Minnesota leaders' approach has been "irresponsible" but not illegal.

The DOJ in January subpoenaed Walz, Frey and three others for information on whether they conspired to interfere with ICE's work. A DOJ spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on the status of that probe.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Should unrest intensify, the Trump administration has floated the Insurrection Act, a rarely used provision that allows the president to respond to unlawful obstructions of federal authority. The president has said that while it remains an option, it is not currently necessary.

Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, who is leading immigration operations in Minneapolis, likewise downplayed the impact of anti-ICE agitators.

"You’re not going to stop ICE. You’re not going to stop Border Patrol," Homan said. "These roadblocks they're putting up? It's a joke. It’s not going to work, and it’s only going to get you arrested."

Ilan Wurman, a University of Minnesota law professor, said in a podcast that while Trump "probably" could invoke the Insurrection Act, by constitutional standards a president should only call upon the military to enforce federal law as a "last resort."

ӣ��Ƶ contributor Jonathan Turley spelled out when the Insurrection Act could be appropriate, noting it was deferential to the president.

"The establishment of roadblocks and direct interference with the enforcement of federal laws can support such an invocation," Turley said. "During the Civil Rights period, opposition to and obstruction of civil rights laws justified the use of military force."

Still, Turley and others emphasize that the Minnesota protests, as intense and at times chaotic as they have been, do not yet meet the criteria for such drastic federal action.

"The promise of some Democratic leaders to arrest and prosecute ICE agents is likely to fail. Roadblocks to bar federal agents would also constitute obstruction and, if supported by the state, would violate the constitutional authority of the federal government," Turley said.

Watchdog claims proof of 'harm' nonexistent in suit against Trump's ban on trans surgeries for minors

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 17:41:36 -0500

FIRST ON FOX: A Trump-aligned lawfare group filed records requests attempting to uncover the "harm" that Democrat-led states said was being incurred as a result of President Trump's executive order banning sex changes for minors.

However, those states either ignored their requests or said they could not find any responsive records documenting the harms their lawsuit warns are already happening .

After 15 states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Josh Shapiro sued the president and his Department of Justice over the executive order Aug. 1, America First Legal filed records requests to those states suing in an attempt to uncover whether the claims of injury are true and accurate.

TRUMP ADMIN FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN ON NOTIFYING PARENTS OF GENDER TRANSITIONS VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW

Only three states — Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada — have provided any sort of response thus far. Furthermore, the responses that did arrive indicated there were no responsive records relating to AFL's request even though they asked for documents pertaining to precisely what the lawsuit in question alleges.

"States suing the Trump administration appear to lack evidence of actual harm supporting their allegations," said Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal. "The Trump administration’s executive order sought to protect minors from permanent physical damage. Protecting children should not be subject to politics."

A nationwide preliminary injunction was issued just a few months after the issuance of Trump's executive order prohibiting physicians from performing sex change surgeries on individuals under the age of 19. And, according to Epstein, the plaintiffs still must show "standing" for a court to provide a remedy, and just because the plaintiffs filed their suit early does not mean this responsibility disappears.

"Because standing is necessary for any federal court to provide a remedy, plaintiffs must plead concrete evidence of harm in their complaint," Epstein asserted. "Here, plaintiffs' complaint failed to show an actual, traceable loss tied to the federal action, beyond merely speculative claims of harm or generalized concerns. Filing suit early does not eliminate this requirement to establish standing."

ӣ��Ƶ Digital reached out to the health departments and attorneys general offices in Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, to request information about the documents being relied upon by plaintiffs in their suit against Trump's executive order. In particular, ӣ��Ƶ Digital also asked if the state health departments had no responsive records or whether there might be anywhere else they could be kept. Again, it did not receive a response.

In the lawsuit challenging Trump's Executive Order 14187, which bans federal taxpayer dollars from being used to "fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another," the blue state plaintiffs allege the executive order was fostering "an atmosphere of fear and intimidation experienced by transgender individuals, their families and caregivers, and the medical professionals who seek only to provide necessary, lawful care to their patients."

PRIVACY CONCERNS, DISCRIMINATION, DOCTOR PUSHBACK: THE COMPLIANCE TRAPS LOOMING BEHIND SEX-SEPARATED SPORTS

AFL’s records requests sought any documents showing the states had actually experienced the harms they claim in their lawsuit against Trump’s Executive Order 14187, including evidence of prosecutions or penalties for providers, clinic closures, reduced services and increased medical or mental-health crises for transgender adolescents.

The group also asked for records showing higher costs for services like counseling, crisis intervention or hospitalizations, worsened mental and physical health outcomes or the states’ inability to meet legal obligations to provide medical care for minors in state custody. AFL also asked for any internal communications specifically referencing the executive order and its alleged effects.

Massachusetts and Nevada said they had zero records pertaining to any of their requests, while Illinois responded that it had no records responsive to every one of AFL's requests except for the last and most broad one that asked for records and communication mentioning the terms "Executive Order 14187," the order's formal title or "affect shape harm."

The records handed over by Illinois' public health department included notices that agency personnel received notifying them that funds could not be used for services that violate President Trump's Executive Order 14187 and notices to grantees telling them they may incur new costs that support programs or activities in conflict with the executive order.

Illinois' records also showed that a program director at a nonprofit healthcare group expressed concern about an inability to register new clients because the president's directive prevented staff from asking a patient's gender identity or preferred pronouns, which were required fields in the healthcare group's client database. Because clients have to be enrolled in the database to receive HIV/AIDS services, the director feared this could affect those services.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Illinois records showed a slowdown in grant releases as well, while everyone got up to date with the new requirements of Trump's executive order.

ӣ��Ƶ Digital reached out repeatedly to the public health departments and the offices of the attorneys general for comment on AFL's accusations that their lawsuit is without evidence but only received a response from Massachusetts' Department of Public health, which referred ӣ��Ƶ Digital to the state's Attorney General office.

"AFL has previously exposed other states’ lack of standing in their own respective cases against the Trump administration. Specifically, AFL uncovered Colorado, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Arizona’s lack of evidence supporting their claims of injury in an attempt to block the Trump Administration’s sharing of Medicaid beneficiary data with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security," a press release from the lawfare group said.

"These states’ responses to AFL’s records requests repeatedly reveal a lack of standing. AFL will continue to expose baseless litigation efforts aimed at undermining the America First agenda."

Trump's Executive Order 14187 is also being challenged for alleged discrimination in a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department led by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Federal judge questions Trump authority on White House ballroom project

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 14:34:53 -0500

As President Donald Trump aims to build a ballroom at the White House, federal Judge Richard Leon on Thursday reportedly asked Justice Department lawyers to point to what authority allows the president to engage in a construction project at the White House.

"Where do you see the authority for the president to tear down the East Wing and build something in its place?" the judge asked, according to The Washington Post.

While the outlet reported that Leon said he could issue a decision next month, NBC News reported that the judge promised that he would issue a decision in February.

WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS TO REPORTS TRUMP NAMED NEW BALLROOM AFTER HIMSELF

Attorney Thad Heuer, who represents the National Trust for Historic Preservation, contended that the president lacks the constitutional power to rip down the East Wing and build a ballroom, according to NBC News, which quoted Heuer as saying, "He's not the owner."

The outlet reported that the judge seemed to be leaning in the direction of pausing the project.

ӣ��Ƶ Digital reached out to the White House on Friday.

WHITE HOUSE SAYS EAST WING DEMOLITION WAS NECESSARY DUE TO STRUCTURAL ISSUES

"The president didn’t want $400 million in taxpayer money to be used for this," Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth said, according to NBC News.

"He wanted to use donations," Roth noted.

The project began last year at the behest of Trump, but he has asserted that it is being funded by private donations, not taxpayer dollars.

WARREN-LED INQUIRY DRAWS NEW DETAILS ON TRUMP BALLROOM DONATIONS FROM MAJOR CORPORATIONS

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway — with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!" Trump declared in an October Truth Social post. "The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly. This Ballroom will be happily used for Generations to come!"

AOC accuses Trump of engaging in 'increasingly erratic' behavior

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:02:56 -0500

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., claimed that President Donald Trump has been exhibiting "increasingly erratic" behavior.

She made the comment in response to a question from Migrant Insider editor Pablo Manríquez, who asked, "How big of a factor is Donald Trump's cognitive decline, given what we're seeing at Davos?"

"I think that the president has been acting in increasingly erratic ways," Ocasio-Cortez replied, according to the video shared on X.

AOC ACCUSES VANCE OF BELIEVING ‘AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ASSASSINATED IN THE STREET’

"I think it is really damning when we think about the degree to which mass media outlets reported on Joe Biden," she said, pointing to how the Democratic Party ultimately nominated Kamala Harris in the 2024 race.

"Yet, we are seeing behavior from Donald Trump that is increasingly erratic and alarming," she said, asserting that "everyone's pretending that this is normal."

The congresswoman said America's "global partners" are seeing "the entire government apparatus and a party that is willing to watch someone decompensate in front of the world and do nothing about it."

ӣ��Ƶ Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

"While deranged Democrats like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez push these blatant lies, President Trump is dominating on the world stage and brokering historic deals to advance the interests of the American people," White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement.

"Don’t forget that after Joe Biden’s brain unraveled on the 2024 presidential debate stage and nearly the entire Democrat party subsequently panicked and demanded Biden drop out of the race, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez was one of the few delusional holdouts backing and pleading for Joe Biden to remain as their presidential nominee as late as July 8, 2024," she added.

TRUMP CLAIMS WHITE HOUSE DOCTORS REPORT HIM IN ‘PERFECT HEALTH,’ SAYS HE ‘ACED’ THIRD STRAIGHT COGNITIVE EXAM

"Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s peanut-sized brain either forgot this happened or she thinks the American people are too stupid to remember," Huston said.

In July 2024 — after President Joe Biden's disastrous debate performance against Trump, but before Biden dropped out of the presidential race later in July — Ocasio-Cortez expressed her support for the incumbent.

"Joe Biden is our nominee. He is not leaving this race. He is in this race, and I support him," she said at the time.

Earlier this year, Trump declared in a Truth Social post, "The White House Doctors have just reported that I am in ‘PERFECT HEALTH,’ and that I ‘ACED’ (Meaning, was correct on 100% of the questions asked!), for the third straight time, my Cognitive Examination, something which no other President, or previous Vice President, was willing to take."

"P.S., I strongly believe that anyone running for President, or Vice President, should be mandatorily forced to take a strong, meaningful, and proven Cognitive Examination. Our great Country cannot be run by ‘STUPID’ or INCOMPETENT PEOPLE!" he added.

TRUMP PITCHES COGNITIVE TESTS FOR LEADERS, QUESTIONS IF HARRIS, WALZ, NEWSOM COULD PASS

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In a Truth Social post last year, Trump referred to Ocasio-Cortez as "one of the ‘dumbest’ people in Congress."

Spanberger signals left bent after centrist campaign; GOP leader warns Dems will 'Fairfax the rest of VA'

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 16:51:42 -0500

Newly minted Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger campaigned as a pragmatic centrist, while critics said her day-one actions depict a very different four years the Old Dominion is about to experience.

In a flurry of executive orders after her inauguration, the Democrat rescinded ex-Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s 287(g) order that instituted cooperation with ICE, and seized on broad affordability initiatives, including housing regulation reviews that align with progressive approaches to zoning.

Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, saw his razor-thin 2025 minority get slashed to 36-64 after November’s wave election that Spanberger also won.

When asked about one of Spanberger’s key executive orders, establishing a "process for housing affordability," and how critics warned what that may mean for intervention in local zoning matters, Kilgore said that when it comes down to it, "government’s not always the answer."

FOX NEWS POLL: HOW SPANBERGER WON VIRGINIA GOVERNOR

"What you have to do is allow the free market to go in and build the houses and get a rate of return. But a lot of bills that we're passing here now; a landlord-tenant [bill] would keep folks if they're not paying their rent [have] longer to come up with their rent, gives them all kinds of options there," Kilgore said.

"When folks are investing money, and they are losing money because they can't get folks out because they're not paying their rent, they're not going to invest in the commonwealth."

He criticized how Spanberger’s orders often created commissions or panels, remarking, "Virginia needs affordability now; that’s what was campaigned on."

SPANBERGER SAYS 'ABSOLUTELY NOT' TO USING ELECTION WINS TO JUSTIFY GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN STANCE

"We're willing as a Republican caucus to [step] up right now. There are things we can do to make Virginia more affordable... We don't need a study. Let's work on it right now and address what we can."

ӣ��Ƶ Digital reached out to Spanberger for comment on whether her executive order would potentially lead to overriding local zoning policies – and for more clarity on her definition of "affordable" in terms of housing, and on her 287(g) rescission.

Spanberger’s order said she would "support, encourage, coordinate, and innovate using the fullest powers of state government in partnership with local governments and the nonprofit and private sectors to create practical solutions that meet the housing needs of Virginians."

SHOWDOWN FOR THE HOUSE: DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS BRACE FOR HIGH-STAKES MIDTERM CLASH

Del. Wren Williams, R-Stuart, told ӣ��Ƶ Digital that the flurry of orders, including the housing affordability one, is "exactly what we said would happen."

"Gov. Spanberger campaigned as a centrist pragmatist, but she was a progressive in moderate’s clothing from the start."

"Her ‘affordable housing’ order raises serious questions about whether this administration will override local zoning authority across the commonwealth. Virginians were sold a facade of practical solutions to make the commonwealth affordable—instead, they’re getting Zohran Mamdani-style collectivism dressed up as housing policy."

'FULL-BLOWN BATTLE' BREWING IN DEM PARTY AS MAMDANI-STYLE CANDIDATES RISE IN KEY RACES

Another top concern for Virginia Republicans is a push by Spanberger and Senate Leader L. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, to redraw the state’s congressional map in a way that would leave only one GOP-held seat — represented by Rep. Morgan Griffith — in an otherwise purple state.

"The Democrats are pursuing redrawing our lines in the commonwealth of Virginia to basically ‘Fairfax’ the rest of Virginia. That's what I'm calling it because all the lines that are being drawn across the commonwealth to make it a 10-1 Democrat majority in Virginia."

He said the lines proposed by Democrats don’t connect "communities of interest," remarking that Washington suburbs have little in common with the Shenandoah Valley and so forth.

"[Democrats] say it's because there's a threat to democracy. I don't know what the threat to democracy is or who's threatening anybody over democracy. So it's just a power grab," he said.

Republicans also suggested the leftward pivot is two-front, as Kilgore’s office shared a slew of what they dubbed the "bad bills" that the new legislature has already crafted for Spanberger.

VIRGINIA SLAMMED FOR ‘TRULY DEMONIC’ ELECTION THAT EXCUSED POLITICAL VIOLENCE TO SPITE TRUMP, CRITICS SAY

Several create new sales taxes, including 4.3% on Amazon and food-delivery services, 3.8% additional investment tax on top of the state income tax, which critics said would unnecessarily harm low-and-mid-tier investors, and a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers.

Another so-called "bad bill" would extend the absentee ballot acceptance period, prohibit hand-counting of ballots, allow internet-based voting, lower robbery penalties, and enact several Second Amendment-related taxes.

Kilgore said housing affordability also includes energy costs, adding Spanberger indicated she would reenter Virginia into RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. He noted another Democrat-led energy-industry state – Pennsylvania – just took itself out of the pact.

However, Kilgore also agreed with observers who warn that Spanberger and Richmond Democrats’ swift pivot from the Youngkin years may lead to voter backlash in the midterms.

Sen. Mark Warner, a former Democratic governor himself, is up for re-election, as are all members of the U.S. House and state delegates and senators.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Virginia is not a liberal state. A lot of folks think, ‘Oh, [Democrats] got their trifecta now’, but… we're a moderate state," Kilgore said.

"We are already looking at these bills – the pendulum swings back. I've been in politics a long time, and I've seen the pendulum go back and forth in the commonwealth of Virginia, and I'm sure that we'll be back."

ӣ��Ƶ Digital's Kiera McDonald contributed to this report.

Federal judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing mail-in voting rules in executive order

Sun, 11 Jan 2026 13:26:06 -0500

A federal judge in Washington state on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of an executive order that sought to change how states administer federal elections, ruling the president lacked authority to apply those provisions to Washington and Oregon.

U.S. District Judge John Chun held that several provisions of Executive Order 14248 violated the separation of powers and exceeded the president’s authority.

"As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, ‘[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,’" Chun wrote in his 75-page ruling.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told ӣ��Ƶ Digital in a statement: "President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue."

Washington and Oregon filed a lawsuit in April contending the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March violated the Constitution by attempting to set rules for how states conduct elections, including ballot counting, voter registration and voting equipment.

DOJ TARGETS NONCITIZENS ON VOTER ROLLS AS PART OF TRUMP ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH

"Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in response to the Jan. 9 ruling, according to The Associated Press. "The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief."

Executive Order 14248 directed federal agencies to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and sought to require that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.

The order also instructed the attorney general to take enforcement action against states that include such ballots in their final vote tallies if they arrive after that deadline.

"We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters and will continue to advocate for inclusive and equitable access to registration while protecting the integrity of the process. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted," said Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs in a statement issued when the lawsuit was filed last year.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"We will work with the Washington Attorney General's Office to defend our constitutional authority and ensure Washington's elections remain secure, fair, and accessible," Hobbs added.

Chun noted in his ruling that Washington and Oregon do not certify election results on Election Day, a practice shared by every U.S. state and territory, which allows them to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots were postmarked on or before that day and arrived before certification under state law.

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Sat, 10 Jan 2026 13:37:04 -0500

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order, "Safeguarding Venezuelan Oil Revenue for the Good of the American and Venezuelan People," states that any attempt through the courts to seize the funds would pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security and foreign policy.

It also states that the funds remain the sovereign property of Venezuela and are not assets available to private creditors or judgment holders.

BEHIND THE SCENES OF WHO IS ATTENDING TRUMP'S OIL EXECUTIVE MEETING AFTER MADURO OPERATION

The order says the United States will hold the funds "solely in a custodial and governmental capacity," not as a commercial participant.

It was issued to prevent private creditors from using U.S. courts to seize the funds before the administration determines how they will be used.

The funds are held in U.S. Treasury accounts on behalf of Venezuela’s government and its state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., and are derived from oil sales and related transactions.

'WE BUILT VENEZUELA’S OIL INDUSTRY:' TRUMP VOWS US ENERGY RETURN AFTER MADURO'S CAPTURE

Trump signed the order Friday, the same day he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House.

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s "rotting" oil infrastructure and push production to record levels after the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future after the collapse of the Maduro regime.

Trump has framed the effort as part of a broader push to reshape Venezuela’s oil industry, with U.S. companies expected to play a central role.

The Briefing: How Capitol Hill reacted to news of Nicolás Maduro's capture

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 18:38:13 -0500

It is the perpetual question in Congress.

Was the Speaker briefed?

When will they give you a briefing?

I don’t know anything about that, because I haven’t been briefed yet.

DEFIANT MADURO DECLARES HE IS A 'PRISONER OF WAR' IN FIRST US COURT APPEARANCE

A Congressional "briefing" is supposed to shed light on unanswered questions.

And the questions are legion after the U.S. military mission to extract Nicolás Maduro from Caracas.

That initial "briefing" unfolded Monday night at the Capitol. Granted, not for every lawmaker. But the bipartisan House and Senate leadership, top members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, leaders of the Armed Services Committees, and the chairs and ranking members of the Foreign Affairs/Foreign Relations Committees. Democrats seethed that the White House did not notify Congress in advance of the operation. Granted, "notification" is different from a briefing. And it’s a far cry from Congress voting to authorize or suspend an operation under its Article I "war powers." Democrats — and some Republicans — contend that only Congress can bless an operation like the one in Venezuela. But regardless, both sides wanted to know what comes next.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

"This is a military operation. We all know that," said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, on CNN.

"This was not an act of war or an invasion. This was the lawful apprehension of a fugitive from justice," countered Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla., on Fox.

SCHUMER BLASTED TRUMP FOR FAILING TO OUST MADURO — NOW WARNS ARREST COULD LEAD TO ‘ENDLESS WAR’

Most Democrats say the administration violated the Constitution, dispatching U.S. forces abroad without Congressional permission.

"The President literally dropped into a sovereign nation, executed on this warrant, pulled the leader out with no plan for the next day," said Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Penn., on CNN.

Some lawmakers fretted about President Trump’s future intentions and wondered if Venezuela was just a precursor.

"Now he's doubling down on this reckless policy," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on MS fNOW. "He’s thinking about Colombia and thinking about Cuba and Greenland. I mean, the average American is going to say, ‘What is going on in the White House?’"

But at least one Democrat broke with some of his colleagues.

"This wasn't a war. This wasn't boots on grounds and in that kind of a way. This was surgical and very efficient. And I want to celebrate our military," said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., on Fox.

At this briefing, lawmakers heard from Attorney General Pam Bondi, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Democrats questioned what the administration told them in previous briefings.

"Marco Rubio personally, explicitly lied to me," charged Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., on CNN. "We asked over and over, ‘What is the larger plan? Is there an effort at regime change being planned?’"

However, most Republicans dismissed Democrats’ concerns and extolled the success of the mission.

"This is one of the most complicated and exquisite military operations that has ever been conducted in the history of warfare," said Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., a former Navy SEAL, on Fox. "This is the stuff that legends are made of."

"If President Trump won the battle against cancer and cured cancer, the Democrats would take the side of cancer," said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo. "It’s insane."

FETTERMAN DEFENDS TRUMP'S VENEZUELA MILITARY OPERATION AGAINST CRITICISM FROM FELLOW DEMOCRATS

The calendar flipped to 2026. It’s a midterm year. And Democrats are already trying to use Venezuela against Republicans. Democrats believe the GOP’s focus on the Caribbean and South America gives them a political opening as they focus on pocket book issues.

"The American people did not sign up for this kind of military adventurism when they voted for Donald Trump. They wanted a president focused on America first. Focused on lowering the cost of living. Lowering health care costs. Lowering grocery prices," said Schumer.

Democrats are now looking for parliamentary methods to impede potential future maneuvers – in Venezuela. Or perhaps elsewhere.

"The reality is that to fund these operations, to fund nation-building, they need the approval of Congress," said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., on CNN.

Most funding for the federal government expires in a little more than three weeks. That includes separate bills to fund the Pentagon and the State Department. Few want a government shutdown. In fact, work on other spending bills has gone quite well. Expect a vote on a mini-spending package later this week. But military and foreign operations spending bills are among the nine measures left incomplete ahead of this next funding round.

The ultimate power in Congress is that of the purse. It’s possible Democrats — and some Republicans who are skeptical of what the U.S. is doing in Venezuela — could limit or cut off funds for any operations there.

Lawmakers will question what’s needed from the military or diplomats. All of that involves money from Capitol Hill. There’s uncertainty about what the endgame is.

"I don't know what ‘run the country’ means," said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. "I would think that the United States does not want to be somebody running another country. Even in an interim."

TRUMP VOWS US WILL 'RUN' VENEZUELA UNTIL 'SAFE' TRANSITION OF POWER

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, represents a battleground district in eastern Iowa. She won in 2020 by six votes and by 967 votes in 2024.

"We don't want to have troops on the ground. Iowans don't want that. We do not want nation building," said Miller-Meeks on Fox. "We've got enough problems to clear up."

If lawmakers don’t like what they’re hearing, they could make the Defense Appropriations bill and the State/Foreign Operations measure tricky to pass. And, if Congress limits such funds, any continued operations in Venezuela must cease under the law.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is pushing a vote later this week on a war powers resolution. If approved, it would mandate Congressional approval for future interventions. Only GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., joined Democrats in voting yes on a similar resolution last fall.

So this was the first briefing. Other briefings will soon follow about the future of Venezuela. Likely for months if not years. South America and the Caribbean are the latest frontier to follow on the global stage.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But questions — and answers — will circulate through Capitol Hill. And it will hinge on whether or not lawmakers are "briefed."

Mamdani disputes antisemitism definition amid blowback from Jewish community about Day 1 executive orders

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 17:40:03 -0500

Zohran Mamdani, the newly sworn-in mayor of New York City, suggested Friday that the widely adopted definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) does not actually protect Jewish New Yorkers. The mayor spoke amid backlash over Day 1 executive orders that have angered many Jewish and civil rights groups.

The self-described democratic socialist also dismissed allegations that the timing of his executive orders, which came just hours after he was sworn in, were illustrative of what critics have argued is his record of hostility toward Israel and the Jewish community.

The new mayor's Day 1 directives included rescinding a ban on city agencies from boycotting or divesting from Israel and ending the city's adoption of the IHRA definition on antisemitism ushered in by the former mayor, Eric Adams.

"When we speak about the IHRA definition that you asked about, you know, protecting Jewish New Yorkers is going to be a focus of my administration, and I also know that a number, as you said, of leading Jewish organizations, have immense concerns around this definition," Mamdani said in response to questions about his executive orders Friday afternoon in Brooklyn.

SOCIALIST MAYOR MAMDANI INAUGURATED ALONGSIDE BERNIE SANDERS AND AOC ON NEW YEAR’S DAY

"What we will do is actually deliver on our commitment to protect Jewish New Yorkers in a manner that is able to actually fulfill that," he added before moving on to another question.

When asked about the criticism regarding the speed of the executive orders aimed at rescinding protections against antisemitism in New York City, Mamdani did not directly answer the question.

"As the new mayor of a city, you have to sign a continuation of all prior executive orders or a revocation or an amendment of all of them. And, so, what we did was sign an executive order that continued every executive order that predated the moment when our former mayor was indicted, a moment when many New Yorkers lost even more faith in New York City politics and the ability of city government to actually prioritize the needs of the public," Mamdani responded.

"And what we will now do is showcase that new era to protect each and every New Yorker and to deliver for those same New Yorkers in a manner that they have not seen under prior administrations."

Mamdani's responses at Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn came shortly after a slew of civil rights and pro-Jewish organizations doubled down on the criticism over Mamdani's Day 1 directives affecting the Jewish community.

ZOHRAN MAMDANI WILL BE FIRST MAYOR TO BE SWORN IN ON QURAN DURING NEW YORK CITY INAUGURATION

"We are deeply troubled that, on his first day in office, Mayor Mamdani weakened protections to fight antisemitism," the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) New York and New Jersey chapter said Friday.

The group, alongside a cohort of other New York-area Jewish groups, issued a joint statement against Mamdani's executive orders.

"Revoking these executive orders removes key tools for addressing antisemitism, including BDS-driven efforts that seek to demonize, delegitimize and isolate the world’s only Jewish state," the ADL added.

In addition to Mamdani's executive order rescinding "all executive orders issued on or after September 26, 2024," which included the measures affecting the Jewish community, the new mayor also unveiled a second executive order on Day 1 establishing five new deputy mayor positions in his administration.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Also Friday, Mamdani unveiled another new executive order shortly after he was sworn in to establish a new "Office of Mass Engagement," which aims to prioritize and centralize the city government's public comment and feedback mechanisms intended to help New Yorkers stay engaged with politics in the Big Apple.

New report reveals federal spending per person has ballooned by nearly 10,000% since 1916

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:53:55 -0500

FIRST ON FOX: Although the federal government’s spending on citizens has never been greater, Americans continue to feel the burden of an affordability crisis.

Conservative fiscal watchdog group Open The Books, which keeps track of various metrics on government growth and spending, identified in their latest report that, since 1916, per capita government spending, or how much money the government spends on average per person in the United States, is 9,800% bigger.

In 1916, the government spent an average of $208.36 per person in today's dollars, according to Open The Books. Since then, the fiscal watchdog group says the trend line has gone up "almost uninterrupted" and the current per capita spending by the federal government sits at $20,474.19.

Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan government agency that provides economic and budgetary analyses, found that in Fiscal Year 2025 the federal government spent a record $7.035 trillion.

WHITE HOUSE TURNS UP HEAT ON BIDEN’S ECONOMIC RECORD AS VOTERS SOUR ON ‘AFFORDABILITY’

"While American families and businesses find a way to do more with less, government does less with more," Open The Books CEO John Hart told ӣ��Ƶ Digital. "Today's federal government is 98 times bigger per person than it was just over a century ago. The best affordability and stimulus program imaginable is to reduce the waste, fraud and central planning in government. Every dollar saved in Washington is a dream realized somewhere in America."

The government's per capita spending level equals about $82,000 for a family of four. In their report outlining their findings, the group pointed out that this is virtually just as much as the median household income in 2024, which was $83,730.

Open The Books also notes that, according to national averages for how much people spend annually on their mortgages and groceries, the government's per capita spending eclipses the average spending on these two basic needs. According to Open The Books, the Department of Agriculture recommends spending between $12,000 and $20,000 annually on groceries for a family of four, while the average mortgage payment in 2025 is just under $28,000, according to Rocket Mortgage.

AMERICANS HAVE NEVER HAD ACCESS TO MORE LUXURIES, BUT WHY DO WE FEEL SO POOR?

During the early part of Donald Trump's first term, as Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) began to take shape, Open The Books also worked to keep track of all the savings that the Musk-led group created. Ultimately, DOGE's cuts were but a drop in the bucket compared to how much the government forks over each year in mandatory spending for programs like Medicare and Social Security, Open The Books found.

While DOGE helped scoop up discretionary spending savings totaling approximately $150 billion, and congressional Republicans' passed a July rescission package saving around $9 billion, spending for Medicare in 2024 totaled around $912 billion, while Social Security got $1.5 trillion.

Meanwhile, another recent report from Open The Books illustrated how government spending has increased at a much faster rate than it has grown. For example, staffing levels at the Department of Education have decreased since 2000, but the agency's spending has grown by 749%, according to Open The Books.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Much of the spending growth is now predestined as Americans are forced to service an extraordinary national debt. But taxpayers should also scrutinize all aspects of federal spending," Open The Books wrote in their per-capita spending report.

"Has quality of life, affordability, or innovation improved along with per capita spending? Aside from interest, what else is the government buying that it wasn’t before, back when we were building ourselves into a global superpower? Open the Books will spend 2026 continuing to expose waste, fraud and abuse wherever it exists and pushing for real-time transparency for taxpayers. Put simply, they deserve more bang for their buck."

SCOTUS poised to side with Trump on FTC firing — a showdown that could topple 90-year precedent

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 09:45:03 -0500

The Supreme Court's conservative majority seemed poised on Monday to allow President Donald Trump to proceed with firing a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause, in a blockbuster case that could reshape the separation of power within the federal government and topple a 90-year-old court precedent.

Justices heard nearly three hours of oral arguments in the case, centered on Trump's firing of former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter in March without cause.

Slaughter had sued to challenge her removal, which she argued violated protections afforded to her under Humphrey's Executor, or the 1935 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause, and only in specific circumstances.

As Monday's oral arguments came to a close, justices for the court's 6-3 conservative majority seemed inclined to allow Trump to proceed with firing Slaughter and to further weaken Humphrey's protections for similarly situated federal employees — though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains to be seen.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the Trump administration, urged the Supreme Court to completely overturn Humphrey's Executor, which he assailed as an "indefensible outlier" and a "decaying husk" of a Supreme Court decision that has "not withstood the test of time."

Liberal justices used arguments Monday to voice deep concerns about the consequences of weakening or overturning the 1935 decision, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned would give "absolute power" to a U.S. president to remove individuals on a purely partisan basis.

"You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government, and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent," Sotomayor said in an exchange with U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

LAWYERS FOR COOK, DOJ TRADE BLOWS AT HIGH-STAKES CLASH OVER FED FIRING

"Neither the king, nor parliament, nor prime ministers in England at the time of the [United States' founding], ever had an unqualified removal power," she added.

At one point during arguments, Sauer acknowledged that overturning Humphrey's decision could stand to impact at least a dozen federal agencies, indicating the importance of the case.

Justices also grilled Sauer and Slaughter's lawyers over their "unitary executive" that would give the president greater power to execute his political and policy agenda.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, for his part, noted that the bigger problem could be allowing the commissions to continue unchanged.

"I'll put my cards on the table," Gorsuch said. "Maybe it's a recognition that Humphrey's Executor was poorly reasoned, and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that's quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative."

A decision is expected to be handed down by the end of June.

Lawyers for ousted FTC member Rebecca Slaughter told the court that overturning the 1935 ruling altogether would mean that "everything is on the chopping block" — both for leaders of the FTC and for other multi-member federal agencies created by Congress.

Other civil servants could also be impacted, they warned.

As arguments drew to a close, it remained unclear how far the justices might go in paring back the protections enshrined in the 1935 court ruling.

TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA

Most conservatives on the court appeared to disagree with the notion that members of Congress should be able to block a president's ability to fire federal commission members — even as they grappled with the risks of completely overturning Humphrey's protections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, whose court has steadily handed a string of victories in recent cases, including cases involving executive branch authority, used his time to question lawyers about modern-day FTC powers, and how they have changed since the court's original ruling on the case nearly 100 years prior.

Humphrey's was "addressing an agency that had very little, if any, executive power," he said. "And that may be why they were able to attract such a broad support on the court at the time," he added.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also seemed to entertain the notion of further limiting protections for agency heads under that decision, if not axing them altogether, and pressed counsel for the Trump administration on what "limiting" principles might apply.

Liberal justices on the court appeared skeptical of Sauer’s claim that Trump has the power to fire the heads of independent federal agencies, citing concerns that allowing him to do so here could be a slippery slope that frees the executive to fire other agency heads, or lower-level civil servants.

"You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government," Sotomayor told Sauer shortly after oral arguments kicked off. "Where else have we so fundamentally altered the structure of government?"

Justice Elena Kagan echoed the same concerns. "Once you're down this road, it's a little bit hard to see how you stop," she said. Congress has "given all of that power to these agencies, largely with it in mind that the agencies are not under the control of a single person of the president … And if you take away half of this bargain, you end up with just massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president," he said.

The case also comes as the high court gears up to hear a case in January centered on Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

The arguments in Monday's case are expected to inform how the court might consider that case in January.

SCOTUS TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Slaughter had sued in March over her removal, arguing that it violates Humphey's Executor, and a 1914 law passed by Congress, which shields FTC members from being removed by a president except in circumstances of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

A federal judge had sided with Slaughter's lawyers in July, agreeing that her firing unlawfully exceeded Trump's executive authorites and ordered her reinstated. The Supreme Court in September stayed that decision temporarily, allowing Trump's firing to remain in effect pending their review.

The Supreme Court's willingness to review the case is a sign that justices might be ready to do away completely with Humphrey's protections, which have already been weakened significantly over the last 20 years.

Allowing Humphey's to be watered down further, or overturned completely, could allow sitting presidents to wield more authority in ordering the at-will firing of members of other federal regulatory agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission, among others, and replacing them with individuals of their choosing.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP FROM FIRING FEDERAL BOARD MEMBERS, TEES UP SUPREME COURT FIGHT

The six conservative justices on the high court signaled as much when they agreed to review the case earlier this year. Sauer, the solicitor general, had argued in a Supreme Court filing that today's FTC authorities vastly exceed the authorities granted to the commission in 1935.

"The notion that some agencies that exercise executive power can be sequestered from presidential control seriously offends the Constitution’s structure and the liberties that the separation of powers protects," he said.

SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE

The case, Trump v. Slaughter, is one of four cases the Supreme Court's conservative majority has agreed to review this term that centers on key separation of powers issues, and questions involving the so-called unitary executive theory.

Critics have cited concerns that the court's decision to take up the cases could eliminate lasting bulwarks in place to protect against the whims of a sitting president, regardless of political party.

It also comes as justices for the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority have grappled with a flurry of similar lawsuits filed this year by other Trump-fired Democratic board members, including Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Since taking office, Trump has signed hundreds of executive orders and ordered sweeping personnel actions that have restructured federal agencies and led to mass layoffs across federal agencies, including leaders that were believed to be insulated from the whims of a sitting president.

TSA worker sues to allow transgender officers to perform pat-downs

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:23:45 -0500

A transgender Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officer in Virginia is suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing it of sex discrimination over a new policy that bars transgender agents from conducting security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.

Danielle Mittereder, a transgender woman and TSA officer at Dulles International Airport, filed the lawsuit Friday claiming the new policy violates civil rights law, according to The Associated Press.

A TSA spokesperson told ӣ��Ƶ Digital that the new policy states that only male officers can perform pat-downs on male passengers and only female officers can perform pat-downs on female passengers.

MINNESOTA GIRLS SOFTBALL PLAYERS REACT AFTER JUDGE THROWS OUT THEIR LAWSUIT OVER TRANSGENDER PITCHER

The rule applies regardless of an officer’s gender identity or transition status.

The spokesperson said that the rule change was implemented to comply with an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20. That order, titled "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," declared that the federal government will recognize only two sexes — male and female — defined by biological sex "at conception."

Until February, TSA assigned work consistent with officers’ gender identity under a 2021 management directive, the agency said.

"Male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs," the statement reads.

LAWSUIT OVER MINNESOTA TRANS PITCHER HEATS UP WITH FIRST COURT HEARING

According to internal documents obtained by the AP, transgender officers will also no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveler elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area.

Mittereder claims in the lawsuit that transgender officers are also barred from using restrooms that align with their gender identity, arguing the restrictions block promotions, specialized certifications and core job duties.

"Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialized certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday," the complaint reads, according to the AP.

Mittereder’s attorney, Jonathan Puth, called TSA’s policy "terribly demeaning and 100% illegal," according to the AP.

DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that the policy is discriminatory.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Does the AP want female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?" Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a written response to the outlet.

"What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritize mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travelers," McLaughlin added.

ӣ��Ƶ Digital also reached out to DHS for comment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Trump says he could deploy US military in American cities, claims ‘courts wouldn’t get involved’

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 01:27:00 -0400

President Donald Trump spoke to the press while en route to South Korea on Tuesday aboard Air Force One and made remarks about his authority to deploy U.S. military forces domestically — something that will likely draw legal and political concerns.

Trump was traveling to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), where he is scheduled to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

During the media availability, Trump claimed he could deploy U.S. military forces into American cities if necessary, claiming that "the courts wouldn’t get involved."

When speaking with reporters, he said he would consider using the military beyond the National Guard if the need arises.

DEMOCRATS TRY TO FLIP THE SCRIPT ON ‘STATES’ RIGHTS’ TO DEFY, UPEND TRUMP’S NATIONAL GUARD PLAN

"I would do that if it was necessary," he said. "It hasn’t been necessary. We’re doing a great job without that."

Trump also argued that, as president, he has the power to take such an action.

"If I want to enact a certain act, I’m allowed to do it routinely," he said. "I’d be allowed to do whatever I want… You understand that the courts wouldn’t get involved. Nobody would get involved."

TRUMP IS THREATENING TO 'FEDERALIZE' DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE'S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT

He added, "I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I can send anybody I wanted, but I haven’t done that because we’re doing so well."

Trump made it a point to use San Francisco as an example, describing how federal officials were "all set to go last Saturday" to intervene in the city but held off after local leaders asked for a chance to handle it themselves.

"We would have solved that problem in less than a month," he said, adding that federal intervention "would go a lot quicker and it’s much more effective."

He also emphasized what he described as progress in other parts of the U.S.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Memphis is making tremendous progress," Trump said. "It’s down, I think, almost 70%, 60–70%. And within two or three weeks it would be down to almost no crime."

The president is scheduled to meet with Xi on Wednesday to discuss fentanyl trafficking, trade policy and border security.

Rubio ditches costly conference travel, slashes nearly $100M in Biden-era bloat

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:29:08 -0400

FIRST ON FOX: The State Department has spent nearly $100 million less on travel this year than last amid a wider effort to trim budgets, according to documents exclusively obtained by ӣ��Ƶ Digital.

From January to September 2024, the Biden administration State Department spent $306 million on foreign and domestic travel. At the same point this year, the department under President Donald Trump spent $212 million, according to documents seen by ӣ��Ƶ Digital.

Some $37 million in cuts was focused on domestic travel, largely driven by a decrease in conference attendance, which made up nearly $7 million of the cuts.

Site visits and consultations within the U.S. also decreased by around $14 million and domestic special mission travel was down around $5.5 million.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS SIDES WITH TRUMP TO TEMPORARILY FREEZE $5B IN FOREIGN AID SPENDING

Overseas travel decreased from $206 million from January-September 2024 to $149 million.

Site visits and consultations overseas were down around $12.5 million and travel for training was down around $15 million.

"The Trump Administration has consistently been on the side of the American people and the American taxpayer, and these numbers prove that," principal deputy spokesperson Tommy Piggot said.

"We believe in real diplomacy, not meetings for the sake of meetings."

STATE DEPARTMENT BLASTS DEMS OVER SHUTDOWN, SAYS NATIONAL SECURITY AT RISK AMID SENATE BATTLE

This travel-spending decline comes amid a broader effort by the Trump administration to shrink the department’s footprint and reduce overseas commitments. In April 2025, the Office of Management and Budget wrote a memo recommending the combined budget of the State Department and USAID be cut nearly in half in the upcoming fiscal year.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The plan would reduce the budget from about $55 billion to $28.4 billion, slash funding for humanitarian assistance and global health programs by more than 50%, and potentially shut down or significantly scale back dozens of U.S. missions abroad.

And as of July, the department had initiated layoffs of over 1,300 domestic staff.

Latest Executive News | ӣ����Ƶ

Gorsuch suggests Supreme Court's Trump ruling is opening move against administrative state

Trump taps acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling for permanent role pending Senate confirmation

Trump’s firing power faces twin Supreme Court tests, but one agency may get special treatment

These 11 upcoming Supreme Court decisions could make or break Trump's second term agenda

Trump v. Barbara

Mullin v. Doe, Dahlia; Trump v. Miot

Trump v. Cook; Trump v. Slaughter

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Watson v. Republican National Committee

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

Wolford v. Lopez

United States v. Hemani

New York Times sued by federal government over alleged 'DEI-related' employment discrimination

Power 4 college sports conferences react to Trump's latest executive order

Trump rolls out plan to back farmers amid rising costs, pledging 'golden age'

Kash Patel set to tout crucial FBI reforms that many Americans may not know about: 'Real security'

Trump signs off on 10% global tariff, criticizes Supreme Court justices after ruling

Trump's NIH director isn't the only official wearing multiple hats during the president's second term

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

Marco Rubio

Kash Patel

Sean Duffy

Daniel Driscoll

Doug Collins

Jamieson Greer

Russell Vought

Ric Grenell

Labor Department orders lawyers to cut ties with ABA, slams group as ‘radical’ activist force

When anti-ICE clashes trigger federal intervention: Experts explain the constitutional breaking point

Watchdog claims proof of 'harm' nonexistent in suit against Trump's ban on trans surgeries for minors

Federal judge questions Trump authority on White House ballroom project

AOC accuses Trump of engaging in 'increasingly erratic' behavior

Spanberger signals left bent after centrist campaign; GOP leader warns Dems will 'Fairfax the rest of VA'

Federal judge blocks Trump administration from enforcing mail-in voting rules in executive order

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

The Briefing: How Capitol Hill reacted to news of Nicolás Maduro's capture

Mamdani disputes antisemitism definition amid blowback from Jewish community about Day 1 executive orders

New report reveals federal spending per person has ballooned by nearly 10,000% since 1916

SCOTUS poised to side with Trump on FTC firing — a showdown that could topple 90-year precedent

TSA worker sues to allow transgender officers to perform pat-downs

Trump says he could deploy US military in American cities, claims ‘courts wouldn’t get involved’

Rubio ditches costly conference travel, slashes nearly $100M in Biden-era bloat

Latest Executive News | ӣ��Ƶ