As the Venezuelan political crisis reaches a breaking point, members of the Venezuelan opposition party are warning there will be an increase in Tren de Aragua gang violence with deadly consequences for the U.S. if socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro remains in power. 

Despite widespread belief among Venezuelans and much of the international community that Maduro lost the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election to opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, he was sworn into his third six-year term on Friday. 

But with opposition leader María Corina Machado calling on Venezuelan citizens to join her on the streets to demand González be installed as the rightful president of Venezuela, the stage is now set for a confrontation with the Maduro regime. 

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Machado, whose supporters said she was temporarily kidnapped by authorities and then released after a rally on Thursday, warned that if Maduro is not stopped there will be millions of Venezuelan migrants fleeing the country into the U.S.

TREN DE ARAGUA ARE IDEOLOGICAL TERRORISTS DISGUISED AS A STREET GANG WARNS FORMER MILITARY OFFICER

"If Maduro remains, prepare yourself because we will see three, four or five million Venezuelans crossing the border," she said.

On the other hand, Machado told Fox News Digital: "I want you to know how important it is also for the safety of the American people."

"We also are desperate to solve the migration problem in our region," she said. "We want those Venezuelans to come back in billions and voluntarily. And that will happen when they'll see there's a future in their country." 

Meanwhile, José Gustavo Arocha, a former high-ranking Venezuelan military official who fled persecution by the Maduro regime, told Fox News Digital that gang violence in the U.S. by the Maduro-aligned criminal group Tren de Aragua will get worse if he remains president. 

Tren de Aragua — also known by its acronym "TdA" — is Spanish for "Train from Aragua." It is a brutal international gang that victimizes Venezuelan migrants and Americans alike and has unleashed a spate of violence in recent months, including kidnapping, torture, robbery and taking over entire apartment buildings. 

2 AMERICANS ARRESTED IN VENEZUELA ON EVE OF MADURO INAUGURATION OVER ‘TERRORISM’ CLAIMS

Arocha, who is now a senior fellow for the U.S.-based Center for a Secure Free Society, told Fox News Digital that "if Maduro remains in power, he will likely use the Tren de Aragua as a tool for coercion and asymmetric tactics to achieve his objectives."

"Migration, weaponized with elements of the Tren de Aragua, will serve as leverage to seek the easing of economic sanctions and to gain legitimacy from the United States," he said. "Repression, economic collapse and chaos in Venezuela will continue to be cornerstones of Maduro's state policy. As a result, migrants who are deported will likely return, as in recent years they have established logistical routes that enable them to navigate clandestine pathways along the southern border."

Alberto Ray, a security and risk strategist who helps handle security for Machado, told Fox News Digital that the situation in Venezuela is "extremely explosive." He said that "more Maduro is more Tren de Aragua in the U.S."

'GOING TO BE PAINFUL': VENEZUELAN EXPERT SOUNDS ALARM ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT IF SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES CONTINUE

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

While Ray noted that most Venezuelan migrants are honest, hardworking people, he said that Maduro has been "weaponizing" migration to sow chaos and discord in the U.S. He said it is "inevitable" that TdA presence in the U.S. will grow if the Maduro regime continues.

"These are very few fractions of Venezuelans that were introduced inside those migration processes designed by the regime… but you don't need too many to destabilize, create chaos, to install organized crime processes inside the U.S.," said Ray. "What is going to happen if Maduro stays in power is that more illegal and weaponized migration is going to keep going out of Venezuela and that increases the probability of Tren de Aragua and other gangs to migrate and be around the region, including the U.S."

On the other hand, Ray said that if Maduro is stopped, "we will see Venezuelans returning to Venezuela because many of them didn't want to leave."

VENEZUELAN GANG TREN DE ARAGUA IS A 'NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT,' WARNS RETIRED ICE SPECIAL AGENT

While he said that both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration have been very supportive, Ray urged the U.S. to take a strong stance against Maduro not only for the sake of the Venezuelans but for Americans as well. He urged the U.S. government to shed light on what is happening in Venezuela and to strictly enforce already-existing sanctions against Maduro and several members of his government.

He said that "the next 72 hours are going to be critical."

"Maduro has nobody supporting him but some factions inside the armed forces, and he's counting on those factions to support him and make him president," Ray explained, adding, "There are not two sides here. There is a huge Venezuelan side that is democratic, and they are looking and trying to get back democracy. And there is a tiny group that is in power that is desperately fighting to keep their privileges and to keep their position in power." 

Los Angeles' municipal utility lacks a common safety procedure that may have kept water pumping to fire hydrants during an intentional power shutoff, though President Biden said the outage caused the problem.

Republicans, including President-elect Trump, have blamed Democratic officials – at least in part – for the water shortage, which has hampered efforts to fight devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County. However, Democrats have rebuked these claims, and on Thursday Biden suggested the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) bore responsibility for shutting off power to pumps that fuel the hydrants.

"What I know from talking to the governor, there are concerns out there that there’s also been a water shortage," Biden told reporters. "The fact is the utilities, understandably, shut off power because they are worried the lines that carried energy were going to be blown down and spark additional fires. When it did that, it cut off the ability to generate pumping the water – that’s what caused the lack of water in these hydrants."

Biden noted that generators were being deployed following the shutdown to get power back to the pumps and ensure there is no longer a shortage of water to fight the fire.

TRUMP ACCUSES NEWSOM OF PRIORITIZING ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES OVER PROTECTING RESIDENTS FROM WILDFIRES

But a report from the Wall Street Journal unveiled Friday highlighted how LADWP is the only major utility company in California without an intentional shut-off protocol, known as a "Public Safety Power Shut Off" procedure. The protocol lays out plans for how to proactively shut down certain electricity lines during dangerous windstorms and limit the impact to public safety. 

"Being prepared for a power shutoff takes careful planning, which begins by designing our water systems the right way and working with local fire agencies and energy companies to ensure community safety," California Water Service, a private utility provider in the state, explains on its website FAQ page about public safety power shut-offs.

OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST-TURNED-FIREFIGHTER BATTLES CALIFORNIA BLAZES AS WILDFIRES CONTINUE TO BURN

"We go to great lengths beyond our standard procedures to ensure water service isn’t disrupted during a power shutoff," the company added. "Cal Water has been installing permanent generators at a number of our critical stations over the years, and we are working to bring in additional, portable generators for other stations. Our crews and employees have also been trained on emergency response procedures for when these widespread shutoffs occur."

Michael Wara, a lawyer who directs the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University and studies wildfire mitigation strategies, added in remarks to the Wall Street Journal that "there is no need to make any trade-off between reliability and safety."

Edward Ring, the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, confirmed there are measures that could be taken to keep power to the pumps during an intentional shutoff. 

"They need to underground these power lines, that would be the solution, or they need to have parallel systems that go to vital services like fire hydrant pumps that are not on the same circuit as the lines that are going into households," Ring said.

‘DEVASTATING’: CALIFORNIA HAD RECORD RAINFALL LAST YEAR, BUT LACKED INFRASTRUCTURE TO STORE IT

A spokesperson for LADWP told Fox News Digital that in the absence of a public safety power shut-off protocol for Los Angeles, it has a different procedure in place to reduce fire risks while continuing vital functions. The spokesperson said that Los Angeles's urban environment is different from the environments that other California utility companies serve. 

"LADWP worked closely with the Los Angeles Fire Department to develop this emergency protocol," the spokesperson said. "LADWP's plan is audited every 3 years by an independent third party and is submitted to state regulators as required."

But, in the past, according to the Wall Street Journal, the LADWP has asserted it will not proactively shut off power ahead of heavy winds.

Former Los Angeles firefighter John Knox, who spoke with Fox News on Friday, said he was "surprised" to hear that fire hydrants were running dry, adding that there are "a lot of things that need to be asked by the people to get answers from these so-called leaders." 

"In my career I've never seen us have – every once in a while you might have a dry hydrant, but we do annual testing in January where we test all the fire hydrants and that didn't happen this year," Knox said. "That area has a very large reservoir with four huge tanks that are supposed to be filled at all times. It's my understanding also that they had one of them that's been out for maintenance for a year during peak brush season. 

"There's a lot of issues and a lot of things that need to be asked by the people to get answers from these so-called leaders."

FIRST ON FOX: Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of a ruling handed down by his state's highest court invalidating a 2013 law that requires minors seeking an abortion to obtain notarized written consent from a parent or guardian. 

The law also includes a judicial bypass provision, allowing minors to seek court approval for an abortion without parental consent.

The Montana Supreme Court struck down the Parental Consent for Abortion Act in 2024, ruling it violates a minor’s fundamental right to privacy under the state constitution by conditioning access to abortion on parental consent. 

The court acknowledged parents have a right to direct the care and custody of their children but determined those rights don't override the "fundamental" right of a minor child to seek an abortion.

GOP AG PREDICTS WHICH SIDE HAS ADVANTAGE IN HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE WITH 'DIVIDED' JUSTICES

Justice Laurie McKinnon, writing for the Montana Supreme Court, said "a minor's right to control her reproductive decisions is among the most fundamental of the rights she possesses" and that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the law to protect minors, Reuters reported at the time.

Knudsen's appeal asks the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether parental rights include the ability to participate in decisions about a minor child’s medical care, including abortion. 

The case highlights the ongoing debate over parental authority after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

"SCOTUS should hear the case and reverse the radical Montana Supreme Court’s bad decision allowing minors to receive abortions without parental consent," Knudsen said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"A child’s right to privacy does not supersede a parent’s fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their child. Until we get clarity from the Supreme Court, the health and safety of young Montanans seeking abortions is at risk."

WHISTLEBLOWER AT TRANS CARE CENTER EXPOSES 'APPALLING' PRACTICES INSIDE GENDER-AFFIRMING HOSPITAL FOR KIDS

The outcome could have broad implications for abortion access and parental consent laws nationwide because several states have passed "shield laws" recently, protecting medical providers from legal fallout for performing gender transition surgeries and abortions on minors.

For Knudsen's case to be heard before the court, at least four justices must agree to review it.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Planned Parenthood Montana for comment.

Aides for Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy are starting to interview staffers with the federal government for the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), according to a new report. 

Representatives for DOGE have had conversations with staffers from more than a dozen federal agencies — including the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, The Washington Post reported Friday. 

Musk and Ramaswamy are leading DOGE, a blue-ribbon committee separate from the federal government that seeks to address issues concerning government spending, waste, efficiency and operations. They are expected to suggest executive actions for the Trump administration and partner with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate reforms. 

Altogether, the committee aims to cut $2 trillion from the federal government budget through efforts to slash spending, government programs and the federal workforce. 

AMERICA'S NEWEST GOVERNOR TAKES PAGE FROM TRUMP WITH DOGE-LIKE COMMISSION

However, Musk recently cast doubt on the likelihood of eliminating $2 trillion from the federal budget and said there was a better chance at cutting $1 trillion. 

"I think we’ll try for $2 trillion. I think that’s like the best-case outcome," Musk said during tech trade show CES on Wednesday in Las Vegas, the Post reported. "But I do think that you kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting $1 [trillion]."

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have voiced support for working with DOGE, and Reps. Aaron Bean, R-Fla., and Pete Sessions, R-Texas, announced the creation of the Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus last year. 

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT DOGE AND ITS QUEST TO SLASH GOVERNMENT WASTE, SPENDING 

"Our national debt has surpassed a staggering $36 trillion and should be a wakeup call for all Americans," House DOGE Caucus Co-Chair Bean said in a statement in November. "We must take action to avoid diving headfirst off the cliff of fiscal ruin. I’m thrilled with President-elect Trump’s appointment of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead DOGE, but taking on Crazy Town will be no easy task — they will need partners."

Likewise, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, is slated to oversee the Senate DOGE Caucus.

"The tables are finally turning, the knives are out, and waste is on the chopping block," Ernst said in a November statement. 

Currently, DOGE boasts a staff of approximately 50 people who are working from SpaceX’s offices in Washington, D.C., and it is aiming to roughly double that number when President-elect Trump is sworn into office on Jan. 20, according to the Post. 

A representative for Ramaswamy declined to provide comment to Fox News Digital.

DOGE appears to be the source of inspiration for other similar initiatives at the state level. For example, Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte of swing state New Hampshire on Thursday announced the creation of the Commission on Government Efficiency, known as COGE.

"COGE will make us smarter than ever before when it comes to saving taxpayer dollars and finding better ways to serve the people of our state," Ayotte said in her inaugural address. 

Tulsi Gabbard, who is President-elect Donald Trump's choice to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in his next administration, has reversed course on a controversial item after lobbying from Republican senators. 

Gabbard revealed on Friday that she believes section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "is crucial for gathering foreign intelligence on non-U.S. persons abroad."

She previously opposed FISA section 702 re-authorization while serving as a Democrat in the House of Representatives. 

'DELAYING AND OBSTRUCTING': TOP SENATE REPUBLICAN HITS BACK AS DEM CALLS FOUL ON TRUMP CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

"We have a very important responsibility to strike a balance between national security to keep the American people safe, while also protecting our constitutionally protected freedoms," she said on the House floor in 2018. "Let us make this critical choice. Vote to keep our country safe. Vote to uphold our constitutional rights that so many have fought and died to protect."

In her statement, provided by a Trump transition spokesperson, Gabbard said, "This unique capability cannot be replicated and must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans."

"My prior concerns about FISA were based on insufficient protections for civil liberties, particularly regarding the FBI's misuse of warrantless search powers on American citizens. Significant FISA reforms have been enacted since my time in Congress to address these issues. If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans' Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people," she said. 

The change in Gabbard's beliefs on the key national security issue was first reported by Punchbowl News. 

It comes after multiple Republican senators made the case to her of the importance of FISA's section 702. 

REPUBLICANS BLAST 'JOKE' SENTENCING OF TRUMP 10 DAYS BEFORE SWEARING IN

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told Fox News Digital in a statement: "Tulsi Gabbard has assured me in our conversations that she supports Section 702 as recently amended and that she will follow the law and support its reauthorization as DNI."

One GOP aide shared that during his meeting with Gabbard, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., emphasized how important the authority granted by section 702 is, and how important her navigation of it would be. 

In a podcast appearance earlier this week, Lankford told the Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel that there were some issues "that people aren't talking about" as it relates to Trump's picks. One of them, he said, was Gabbard and her stance on section 702. 

"She has voted against what's called 702 authority every time that she was in Congress and voted against it. Well, now she's going to be the spokesman for 702 authority. It's a legitimate question just to say, ‘Okay, how are you going to handle this?’" he asked. 

LAKEN RILEY ACT OVERCOMES FILIBUSTER IN SENATE AS DEMS GIVE GOP HELPING HAND

Lankford suggested that this is something that matters to other Republican senators. "I don't hear anyone really coming up publicly and saying, 'I'm adamantly opposed'" to Trump's nominees, he explained. 

But, "What I hear is a lot of people saying, ‘Hey, I want to give a fair hearing. I want people to be able to answer questions publicly.’" 

While most GOP senators are supportive of FISA, some have been vocal critics. "Voting to reauthorize FISA 702 without a warrant requirement is difficult to defend. So are those casting such votes—especially if they purport to care about the Fourth Amendment," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote on X ahead of the most recent FISA re-authorization. 

Another top critic, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in 2023, "Using 702, Americans’ communications content and metadata is inevitably swept up and kept in government databases without a warrant. Law enforcement agencies then access Americans’ communications without a warrant." 

NEW GOP SENATOR TEARS INTO DEMS 'SEEKING TO DELAY' PETE HEGSETH DOD CONFIRMATION

These Republicans may not be as happy about Gabbard's change of heart. However, there isn't any indication that it would harm their support for her as of yet. 

One Republican senate source cast doubt on Gabbard's new stance, noting that she has been "a life-long skeptic of intelligence gathering." They suggested it is unlikely that she has "completely changed her mind." 

A GOP Senate source confirmed to Fox News Digital that conservative senators are encouraged by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and his apparent desire to confirm Trump nominees on the day he is sworn into office. 

The group is eager to have all national security nominees confirmed on Trump's first day, they added. 

New York lawmakers called for the governor-appointed chairman of the New York City transit system to be fired amid accusations he downplayed a rash of subway crime to praise new Manhattan tolls that are aimed at driving commuters underground.

In comments on a Bloomberg podcast, MTA Chairman Janno Lieber argued that crime on the MTA has declined and that the recent viral incidents are giving an impression of a system-wide safety crisis.

"The overall stats are positive. Last year, we [had] actually 12.5% less crime than 2019 . . . , " he said.

"But there's no question that some of these high-profile incidents; terrible attacks, have gotten in people's heads and made the whole system feel less safe." 

SUBWAY MAYHEM SPURS CUOMO TO URGE HALT TO NEW NYC DRIVING TAX

Rep. Michael Lawler, R-N.Y., shared a clip of Lieber ceremonially unveiling one of the new "Congestion Pricing" setups near Lincoln Center and said the agency "needs an enema; starting with Janno Lieber."

"Imagine being such an a--hole as to celebrate screwing New Yorkers out of their hard-earned money just for the privilege to drive to work," Lawler wrote, adding that Hochul "needs to be defeated in 2026."

Lieber ripped Lawler in response, telling MSNBC that the Rockland County lawmaker was dabbling in "grievance politics."

Lieber claimed that a plurality of Lawler’s constituents – in bedroom communities 30 miles north of the city – already rely on mass transit and that only "one percent" make the daily drive down the Palisades to the "congestion-pricing" zone.

HOCHUL CHRISTMASTIME BOAST OF SAFER SUBWAYS CAME AMID STRING OF ALARMING VIOLENT ATTACKS

New York’s new $9 toll to enter any part of Manhattan below Central Park has enraged commuters, as well as residents within its bounds.

Commuters from Long Island found themselves bottlenecked in trying to access the last unaffected entry to Manhattan – the Upper Level of the Queensboro Bridge.

One East Side luxury building's exit also unintentionally forced residents through a toll gantry, even if they are trying to go uptown; away from the zone, while outer neighborhoods braced for a deluge of suburbanites looking for parking to avoid the toll.

New York Senate Deputy Minority Leader Andrew Lanza, R-Staten Island, torched Lieber:

"Janno: pull your head out of your piles of statistics, get out from behind your computer, and walk a mile in your riders’ shoes before you ignore, dismiss and insult them," Lanza said.

"The people of this state and city deserve the truth and real solutions, not eggheads trying to convince themselves they’re doing a good job."

Sen. Bill Weber of Valley Cottage added: "Albany Democrats claim congestion pricing is to reduce traffic congestion, but at what cost? It punishes everyday people—working parents, firefighters, seniors going to doctor's appointments, and those who already struggle to make ends meet."

"For them, this isn’t just a toll; it’s another obstacle in their daily lives. Tell me, how is that progressive?" he asked.

Sen. Steve Rhoads of Nassau previously quipped that the MTA’s acronym stands for "Money Thrown Away" and said this week that his constituents who rely on trains like the LIRR have grown distrustful of the agency.

"[Lieber] has no idea what it is to be a working-class New Yorker," Rhoads said. "While affordability and safety are huge concerns for real people, they are abstract concepts for him."

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Lieber was previously an executive at Silverstein Properties — recently overseeing a World Trade Center project — a transportation adviser to President Bill Clinton and Mayor Ed Koch, and a journalist for the New Republic. 

He was also the MTA’s capital development officer under Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Cuomo, who still strongly supports the congestion pricing plan, recently told Fox News Digital through a spokesman that he, however, has reservations about whether now is the right time to activate the tolls – given the lack of confidence in subway safety and changes in the city since the COVID-19 pandemic.

"It is undeniable that New York is in a dramatically different place today than it was in 2019, and without a study forecasting its consequences based on facts, not politics, it could do more harm than good to New York City's recovery," Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said last week.

State Sen. Alexis Weik, R-Suffolk, called the video of Lieber’s Broadway sign-reveal "a despicable show of glee and greed" and called for a financial review board to scrutinize the transit agency’s books.

In response to the slew of calls for Lieber's ouster, MTA Chief of Policy & External Relations John J. McCarthy defended the transit boss.

"Under Chair Lieber’s leadership, the MTA has added service, opened new terminals and provided record on-time performance for their constituents on Long Island and the Hudson Valley, while delivering the most reliable subway service in a dozen years," McCarthy said.

"But apparently, none of that prevents out-of-touch politicians from bloviating."

Democratic lawmakers were noticeably silent following the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump despite previously commenting on the cases against him, as Washington prepares for a Republican trifecta in Congress.

Trump was sentenced on Friday after being found guilty on 34 charges related to falsifying business records in May.

The incoming president was sentenced to unconditional discharge, which means that he will not receive any jail time, fine or probation time. The sentence also preserves Trump's ability to appeal the conviction. 

After Trump was found guilty in criminal court in May, Democratic members of Congress put out a flurry of reactions on social media but appeared mum after the sentencing on Friday, which comes just days before he will be sworn into office on Jan. 20. 

TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO DENY HIS REQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in May, wrote in a post on X, fomerly Twitter, that "the jury has spoken and carefully rendered a decision. Responsible leadership requires the verdict to be respected," while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said that "nobody is above the law."

However, Democrats appeared less reactive to Friday's sentencing, which left Trump free of any penalty.

One Democratic congresswoman put out a statement following the unconditional discharge sentence, claiming that "our system of justice is not just."

"There is a two-tiered system of justice in this country, and Donald Trump lives on the tier where he gets to walk into the White House without spending a single day in jail or being put on probation after being convicted of 34 felonies. On the other tier are the clients I represented as a public defender in Texas, like the seventeen-year-old boy who was held on felony probation for taking some candy from his school's concession stand," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said in a post on X. 

REPUBLICANS BLAST ‘JOKE’ SENTENCING OF TRUMP 10 DAYS BEFORE SWEARING IN

"The scales are not equal," she added.

On the flip side, Republicans were very vocal following the sentencing. 

"I have no respect for the process being used in New York. I find the judge and prosecutor’s motives to be dripping with politics," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement. "This is a sad day for America."

Trump, ahead of the sentencing, said that he would appeal the decision.

Trump filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, but the high court ultimately denied his emergency petition to block his sentencing.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

The Biden administration on Friday announced the extension of deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals from a slew of countries, just weeks before the incoming Trump administration is expected to launch a historic deportation operation.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it is extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for El Salvador, Venezuela, Sudan and Ukraine for an additional 18 months beyond their current expirations.

TPS grants protection from deportation and work permits for nationals living in the U.S. from countries deemed unsafe for them to be returned. DHS cited environmental disasters in El Salvador, including storms and heavy rainfall, that it said resulted in a "substantial, but temporary" disruption of living conditions. It also cited the political and economic crises in Venezuela, political instability in Sudan and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine with Russia.

DEMS URGE BIDEN TO EXTEND CONTROVERSIAL IMMIGRANT PROGRAM; TRUMP SAYS HE'LL CUT IT

The moves do not redesignate countries for the status, meaning only those currently protected by TPS are eligible for an extension and no new applications can be received. Venezuela's extension will apply to approximately 600,000 nationals; El Salvador's will apply to 232,000; Ukraine's will apply to approximately 103,000; and Sudan will affect about 1,900 nationals. Venezuela's extension will run until October 2026, and El Salvador's will run until September 2026, with both having been scheduled to end in the spring of 2025.

The moves, particularly for El Salvador and Venezuela, could complicate efforts by the Trump administration to deport illegal immigrants from those countries. Venezuelan nationals have been a particular focus, given the rise of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, while El Salvador is where the MS-13 gang originated.

The agency noted that individuals for TPS are vetted and are barred from TPS eligibility if they have a felony conviction or multiple misdemeanors.

The Biden administration has faced a number of calls from Senate Democrats and immigration activists to extend TPS ahead of the incoming Trump administration, which has promised to crack down on illegal immigration and drastically ramp up deportations.

‘LEGAL AUTHORITY’: SENATE DEMS DEMAND BIDEN EXTEND PROTECTIONS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AHEAD OF TRUMP ADMIN

"We write now because the window to secure and finalize your administration’s policies is closing rapidly. We urge you to act decisively between now and the inauguration of the President-elect to complete the important work of the past four years and protect immigrant families," Democrats led by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Biden in a letter this month.

The first Trump administration moved to cut down on the number of countries designated for TPS, but the Biden administration has used it broadly, designating or redesignating a number of countries, including Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti. There are currently 17 countries designated for TPS.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS

Both President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have indicated they want to cut back on TPS once in office, specifically for Haiti.

Republicans have also made moves to restrict the program in Congress. Sen.-elect Jim Banks, R-Ind., introduced a bill last year that would require Congress to approve them for 12-month terms and to make additional moves to extend them.

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is accusing Democrats of "delaying and obstructing" top energy nominees for President-elect Trump's incoming administration. 

"Senate Democrats are once again showing that delaying and obstructing the incoming Trump administration are their top priorities," Lee told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement.

"Both Gov. Doug Burgum and Chris Wright's paperwork has been submitted to the Office of Government Ethics from their respective agencies. The confirmation process is moving forward as it should, and good progress has been made to ensure these nominees are thoroughly vetted and ready to serve. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has followed every rule in noticing their confirmation hearings.

REPUBLICANS BLAST 'JOKE' SENTENCING OF TRUMP 10 DAYS BEFORE SWEARING-IN

"This is the same party that, in 2009, went ahead with hearings for President Obama’s nominees under near identical circumstances. While Democrats drag their feet, Republicans are moving forward and doing the work the American people expect us to do. It's time for Senate Democrats to meet the moment with the seriousness it demands."

The Utah Republican was responding to claims from his Democratic counterpart on the committee, ranking member Martin Heinrich, who suggested that his scheduling of confirmation hearings for CEO and founder of Liberty Energy Chris Wright, Trump's pick for secretary of energy, and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Trump's choice for secretary of the interior, breached protocol. 

LAKEN RILEY ACT OVERCOMES FILIBUSTER IN SENATE AS DEMS GIVE GOP HELPING HAND

This week, Heinrich responded to "a breach of decades-long Senate protocol and precedent" when he said Lee set Burgum's hearing without the consent of the committee's minority. 

"I am extremely disappointed that Chairman Lee has scheduled the first Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee confirmation hearing over my objection and before basic information has been given to the committee. This is a breach of protocol and precedent, established over decades by chairs of both parties," Heinrich said in a statement Wednesday after Burgum's confirmation hearing was officially set by Lee for Jan. 14. 

He issued a second statement Thursday in response to Wright's Jan. 15 confirmation hearing being officially scheduled. 

"I am extremely disappointed that Chairman Lee has noticed a second nomination hearing without having received information from nominees required by law and in adherence to committee rules, including a completed FBI background check and financial report," the senator said. 

Heinrich said, "The documents that the Energy and Natural Resources Democrats do not have are not just paperwork. These are the documents, disclosures and (an) ethics agreement that are required by our committee rules and the law."

But, according to Lee, who assumed the role of chairman after Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., was elected to serve as Senate majority whip, his actions are in line with precedent in the committee. 

NEW GOP SENATOR TEARS INTO DEMS 'SEEKING TO DELAY' PETE HEGSETH DOD CONFIRMATION

He further maintained that he is "in full compliance" with all rules when it comes to setting up confirmation hearings for Trump's picks for key energy roles. 

While Heinrich accused Lee of going against precedent, a similar scenario played out in 2009 in former President Obama's administration. Steven Chu and Ken Salazar, the former secretaries of Energy and the Interior, respectively, had their confirmation hearings announced by former energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman before all documents were received. 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for committee Democrats said these are the only instances of this timeline of events "despite dozens and dozens of nominees being considered by the committee.

TRUMP DETAILS STRATEGY TO GET NECESSARY VOTES WITH ONE-BILL APPROACH TO BORDER, TAXES

"Further, unlike the hearings Chairman Lee has noticed, the committee did receive Dr. Chu and Mr. Salazar’s disclosures only one day after the notice was issued. Days have passed since Chairman Lee noticed these hearings. But the committee has yet to receive the required documents and has no assurance that it will receive them by the time the hearings occur." 

Lee's take on the criticisms from Heinrich was that Democrats "want to conflate notice with requirements that apply generally to nominations."

"Rest assured, Republicans will continue to comply with all the committee rules," he said. 

Attorneys and legal experts railed against New York Judge Juan Merchan sentencing President-elect Donald Trump in the NY v. Trump case just days ahead of his inauguration as president, saying the case will be remembered as "one of the worst" cases in history. 

"I'll tell you how it strikes me, when you look at cases throughout history, not just in the United States, but really all over the world, this will be remembered as one of the worst. This will be remembered as an absolute injustice from the beginning," Fox News host Mark Levin said after the sentencing. 

Merchan sentenced Trump on Friday morning to unconditional discharge, meaning he faces no punishment such as fines or jail time.

"This is the end of the politicalization of the justice system," said Fox News contributor Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney whom Trump named this week as senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice in his upcoming administration. 

DONALD TRUMP SENTENCED WITH NO PENALTY IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL, AS JUDGE WISHES HIM 'GODSPEED' IN 2ND TERM

"Trump's victory in the election basically, in my opinion, neutered this case. And the attempt to stain President Trump, to tarnish him with the scarlet felon, is going to be reversed just a matter of time. And I'm telling you this with 35 years of experience, this case should have never had been tried. It was done for one reason, to stop President Trump from becoming the 47th president. I want to be very clear, it failed."

Terrell added in his comments to Fox Digital that he is "salivating to get to the Department of Justice," where he will be "very involved in pursuing justice" surrounding the NY case and others brought against Trump. 

"I'm going to be involved in stopping anti-semitism and to stop going after Catholic families, parents who go to a school board meeting, and the misuse, the abuse of using the legal system for political gain. So, I'm going be involved in any investigation, and I hope I'm working there 24/7 to uncover all this nonsense," he said, noting that documents and correspondence surrounding the Trump cases will be "exposed." 

Merchan highlighted Friday ahead of sentencing that the court system handled Trump's case as it handles every other criminal case. 

"After careful analysis, this court determined the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Merchan said Friday. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts." 

Merchan added, "Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office."

REPUBLICANS BLAST 'JOKE' SENTENCING OF TRUMP 10 DAYS BEFORE SWEARING IN

Fox News contributor and lawyer Trey Gowdy underscored on Friday that if Trump's case was handled the same as any other in New York, it shows "there are a lot of bad trials going on" in the state. 

"Court time is precious. It is a precious resource. To waste this time on a case, where even the prosecution agrees you should not spend a minute. So if Juan Merchan says this case was not handled any differently, that just tells me there are lots of bad trials going on in New York," Gowdy said. 

Legal scholar and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley compared Merchan's remark that Trump's case was similar to any other in New York to Mary Shelley's "Dr. Frankenstein." 

"Merchan appears to be making the case in his own defense and insisted that this case is no different from any other case in New York. It is a case being made long after the jury has left the courthouse. This is like Dr. Frankenstein telling his creature that he is just like any other man. Stitching together this case from a dead misdemeanor and declined federal charges is anything but ordinary," Turley said on X. 

Trump addressed the court ahead of sentencing that the case was a "great embarrassment to the state of New York," while highlighting that voters "decisively" re-elected him to the White House in November. 

Fox News legal editor Kerri Urbahn added on Friday that as she walked into the courtroom, she noticed widespread support for Trump on the streets. 

"The only protesters, per se, who were here were Trump supporters. And even as I'm standing here right now, I'm looking into a square and I'm looking at people holding Trump flags, I'm looking at a person who has a sign that says, 'Enough is enough. We voted. We don't want this lawfare anymore.'" 

During Trump's trial in the spring of last year, no cameras were permitted in the courtroom. For the sentencing, however, Merchan agreed to allow audio, which Urbahn found odd. 

"It is noteworthy that during the trial, there was no audio. There were no cameras, but for this particular sentencing, Judge Merchan agreed to have audio. I can't help but think if it's because he wants the world to hear his voice sentence Donald Trump because we were not able to have that before," she said on Fox News. 

Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for Jan. 10 earlier this month, and was swiftly met with repeated attempts to delay and block the sentencing. Merchan said ahead of the sentencing that he would likely not "impose any sentence of incarceration" on Trump, and instead hand down an "unconditional discharge." 

Trump’s legal team filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. However, the court rejected his request. Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary." 

"The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application," Trump’s filing requested. 

TRUMP TO BE SENTENCED IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL

The Supreme Court denied the request. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that they would have granted Trump’s petition to postpone sentencing, while the order suggested Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson to deny Trump’s request. 

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE

Trump has vowed to appeal the conviction, arguing that evidence in the case implicated his duties as president during his first term after the Supreme Court’s ruling in July that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office but not for unofficial acts. 

TRUMP FILES EMERGENCY PETITION TO SUPREME COURT TO PREVENT SENTENCING IN NY V. TRUMP

"I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL. The pathetic, dying remnants of the Witch Hunts against me will not distract us as we unite and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump posted to Truth Social shortly after the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday. 

"Every Legal Scholar stated, unequivocally, that this is a case that should never have been brought. There was no case against me. In other words, I am innocent of all of the Judge’s made up, fake charges. This was nothing other than Weaponization of our Justice System against a Political Opponent. It’s called Lawfare, and nothing like this has ever happened in the United States of America, and it should never be allowed to happen again. To this day, this highly political and corrupt Judge has put a gag order on me, which takes away my First Amendment right to speak about very important aspects of the case," his post added. 

​​Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump had falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

Fox News's Brooke Singman and David Spunt contributed to this report.

In the wake of President-elect Donald Trump announcing he hopes to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America," a Texas congressman offered a Lone Star-sized suggestion for compromise.

"Interesting compromise," Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw posted as a caption to a map showing the Gulf of Mexico’s label replaced with the emblem of a grinning Buc-ee the Beaver in his trademark red ball cap.

His post gained some traction on social media as someone commented enthusiastically: "The Gulf of Buc-ee’s!" 

While it has only started to increase its northward footprint, the Lake Jackson, Texas-based interstate-side gas station/meal-stop/country-store/convenience behemoth has a cult-like following in the South – as evidenced by the response to Crenshaw and others floating the idea.

CRENSHAW RIPS BIDEN SPENDING BILL

Known for 100-plus gas pumps dispensing at loss-leader prices that help draw in crowds, Buc-ee's has been described as both a 7-Eleven "on steroids" and "an amusement park without the rides."

Cooks can be heard regularly calling out "Fre-e-esh brisket on the board," as they continuously resupply visitors with Texas BBQ from a station in the middle of the store, while cheeky billboards advertise their massive, spotless bathrooms for miles.

The stores are also known for their mascot’s prized "Beaver Nuggets" snacks, fresh-made fudge, "wall" of jerky; vacation needs like camp chairs, clothing and even meat smokers. 

On Tuesday, Trump said he would change the name of the Gulf to the "appropriate" and "beautiful" "Gulf of America."

TRUMP ANNOUNCES GULF OF MEXICO TO BECOME ‘GULF OF AMERICA’

In response, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum posted an image of herself in front of an 18th century map showing a large portion of the United States as "Mexican America" and suggested facetiously that the name should revert.

Of Crenshaw’s "Gulf of Buc-ee’s" idea, social media was ablaze with support for the red hat-bedecked beaver.

"I’d support that," one X user wrote.

"Gulf of Buc’ees gets my vote -- that means brisket sandwich and a pitstop with hundreds of clean bathroom stalls every 3 hours...maybe picking up an iron skillet, crawfish boiler, or pair of Buc-ees pajamas too," a second user daydreamed of the idea.

Another commenter said they had yet to visit a Buc-ees but quipped, "I hope to someday be named among the blessed who have entered through the Brisket Gates. Gulf of Buc-ee’s -- I can support that."

The audio tape of President-elect Trump’s New York City sentencing hearing was released to the public on Friday, giving insight into the unprecedented conviction against a former president where Trump was ultimately sentenced to an unconditional discharge.

"This has been a very terrible experience," Trump, who virtually attended the criminal trial sentencing hearing, told the New York City courtroom on Friday morning. "I think it's been a tremendous setback for New York and the New York court system."

"This is a case that Alvin Bragg did not want to bring. He thought it was, from what I read and from what I hear, inappropriately handled before he got there. And a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney," the president-elect continued. "And that gentleman, from what I heard, was a criminal or almost criminal in what he did. It was very inappropriate. It was somebody involved with my political opponent." 

"I think it's an embarrassment to New York and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment," he added.

DONALD TRUMP SENTENCED WITH NO PENALTY IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL, AS JUDGE WISHES HIM 'GODSPEED' IN 2ND TERM

At one point, Trump, appearing virtually, leaned forward, looking at Judge Juan Merchan, and referenced the November election, suggesting that it represented a repudiation of this case.

"It's been a political witch hunt," Trump explained. "It was done to damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election. And obviously, that didn't work. And the people of our country got to see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom. They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted, and I won."

Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass stated that there was "overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict" and was critical of Trump, claiming the president-elect "has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way" with the comments he publicly made during the trial.

"I very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about President Trump's conduct fighting this case from before it was indicted, while it was indicted, to the jury's verdict, and even to this day," Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche said in response to the prosecution.

ANDREW MCCARTHY: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP TO BE TAINTED AS A FELON. BUT THERE'S A CATCH

During the hearing, Merchan defended the actions he took along the way. 

"The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make," Merchan said, noting the court "must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances."

Merchan reflected on the case, saying that "never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances." The judge said it was an "extraordinary case" with media interest and heightened security but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself "was not any more unique or extraordinary" than any other case.

Merchan acknowledged that Trump is afforded significant legal protections, but argued that "one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict."

"Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume the second term in office," Merchan said at the close of the hearing.

Merchan's unconditional discharge sentence means there is no punishment imposed: no jail time, fines or probation. The sentence also preserves Trump's ability to appeal the conviction. 

"After careful analysis, this court determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Merchan said Friday. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts." 

Trump’s team said in court that they will appeal the conviction, and he will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

A reporter went head-to-head with the Democratic speaker of the California assembly about whether lawmakers should be focused on earmarking legal funds to "Trump-proof" the Golden State while wildfires in the Los Angeles region are still ablaze.

"Is now the right time to have a special legislative session on allocating money to fight Trump in a way that you could already do without a special legislative session?" California correspondent Ashley Zavala asked Speaker Robert Rivas on Thursday. 

"I'm here to address … these wildfires," Rivas responded. "This is a historic, historic wildfire. This is, this is a historic event. These wildfires, as I mentioned, are going to be, quite possibly, some of the worst wildfires and disasters in the state and national history."

NEWSOM PROPOSES $25M FROM STATE LEGISLATURE TO 'TRUMP-PROOF' CALIFORNIA

Zavala fired back, saying "while this wildfire is happening, and while people are trying to understand what's going on and are worried about disaster relief, worried about the ability to get homeowners insurance, your chamber gaveled into a special legislative session to prepare for Donald Trump in a way that you are already able to do without a special legislative session. So again, is now the right time for that?"

Again, Rivas pivoted his answer to focusing on wildfire recovery, but did not directly answer Zavala's inquiry.

"So certainly our focus right now, as Speaker, Ashley, at this moment, my colleagues and I, we are acting with great urgency, great urgency, to ensure that we're providing much needed relief to Angelenos, to ensure that we understand what it's going to take for that for this region to recover and and to support those that have been most impacted by this disaster," Rivas said. "And you know it's … the response from our first responders has been unprecedented, and they're doing all that they can to control and contain, again, these multiple fires and doing whatever they can to ensure that they're keeping people safe now, and again in anticipation and in preparation for recovery, and as a state, we will, as a legislature we will do everything we can to support that recovery."

'DEVASTATING': CALIFORNIA HAD RECORD RAINFALL LAST YEAR, BUT LACKED INFRASTRUCTURE TO STORE IT

Shortly after President-Elect Donald Trump's electoral victory, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a special legislative session to bolster the state's legal fund in the case of attacks from the Trump administration. Trump hit back at Newsom after the announcement, saying "He is using the term 'Trump-Proof' as a way of stopping all of the GREAT things that can be done to 'Make California Great Again,' but I just overwhelmingly won the Election," Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

Between 2017 and 2021, California's Department of Justice led 122 lawsuits against Trump administration policies, spending $42 million on litigation. Newsom's office said in one case, the federal government was ordered to reimburse California nearly $60 million in public safety grants.

While California filed over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration, President-elect Donald Trump lobbed only four major lawsuits against the state. In 2018, Trump's DOJ filed a lawsuit over three California sanctuary state laws that restricted cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. That same year, Trump sued California for its state-level net neutrality law.

PACIFIC PALISADES INFERNO FORCES THOUSANDS TO FLEE CALIFORNIA HOMES; GOV. NEWSOM DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY 

In 2019, Trump also filed a lawsuit against California's vehicle emissions standards, attempting to revoke California's ability to set its own emissions rules. The Trump administration also sued California over its controversial independent contractor law, AB 5, in 2020. 

California, a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants, abortion procedures and transgender transition treatments for children, could be targeted by the Trump administration, especially considering Trump's mass deportation plan of illegal immigrants. 

Newsom said previously the Golden State "is a tent pole of the country … protecting and investing in rights and freedoms for all people" and that officials "will work with the incoming administration and we want President Trump to succeed in serving all Americans." 

"But when there is overreach, when lives are threatened, when rights and freedoms are targeted, we will take action," Newsom said. "And that is exactly what this special session is about – setting this state up for success, regardless of who is in the White House."

The audio tape of President-elect Donald Trump’s New York City sentencing hearing was released to the public on Friday giving insight into the unprecedented conviction against a former president where Trump was ultimately sentenced to an unconditional discharge.

"This has been a very terrible experience," Trump, who virtually attended the criminal trial sentencing hearing, told the New York City courtroom on Friday morning. "I think it's been a tremendous setback for New York and the New York court system."

"This is a case that Alvin Bragg did not want to bring. He thought it was from what I read and from what I hear, inappropriately handled before he got there. And a gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney," the president-elect continued. "And that gentleman, from what I heard, was a criminal or almost criminal in what he did. It was very inappropriate. It was somebody involved with my political opponent." 

"I think it's an embarrassment to New York and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment," he added.

DONALD TRUMP SENTENCED WITH NO PENALTY IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL, AS JUDGE WISHES HIM 'GODSPEED' IN 2ND TERM

At one point, Trump leaned forward, looking at Judge Juan Merchan, and referenced the November election, suggesting that it represented a repudiation of this case.

"It's been a political witch hunt," Trump explained. "It was done to damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election. And obviously, that didn't work. And the people of our country got to see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom. They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted, and I won."

Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass stated that there was "overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict" and was critical of Trump, claiming the president-elect "has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way" with the comments he publicly made during the trial.

"I very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about President Trump's conduct fighting this case from before it was indicted, while it was indicted, to the jury's verdict, and even to this day," Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche said in response to the prosecution.

ANDREW MCCARTHY: SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP TO BE TAINTED AS A FELON. BUT THERE'S A CATCH

During the hearing, Judge Juan Merchan defended the actions he took along the way. 

"The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make," Merchan said, noting the court "must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances."

Merchan reflected on the case, saying that "never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances." The judge said it was an "extraordinary case" with media interest and heightened security but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself "was not any more unique or extraordinary" than any other case.

Merchan acknowledged that Trump is afforded significant legal protections but argued that "one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict."

"Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume the second term in office," Merchan said at the close of the hearing.

Merchan's unconditional discharge sentence means there is no punishment imposed: no jail time, fines or probation. The sentence also preserves Trump's ability to appeal the conviction. 

"After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Merchan said Friday. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts." 

Trump’s team said in court that they will appeal the conviction, and he will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Friday in a fast-tracked case over the future of TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media app that will be barred from operating in the U.S. in just nine days barring divestiture or eleventh-hour intervention from the high court.

At issue is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law signed by President that passed Congress in April with bipartisan approval. The act gave TikTok either nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

On Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users. 

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

"We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here," Prelogar said. "Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data."

"TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage," she added. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments, in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

At the conclusion of oral arguments, it remained unclear as to how the Supreme Court might proceed in the matter— though a ruling or order is expected before the Jan. 19 ban comes into force.

The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have historically been deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

 The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year with strong bipartisan support— as well as the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

But the arguments also comes at a time when President-elect Donald Trump has signaled possible support for TikTok. His attorneys filed an amicus brief last month urging the Supreme Court to delay the ban until he is sworn in as president.

If the goal of China and ByteDance, through TikTok, is "trying to get Americans to argue with each other," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "I’d say they are winning."

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest — a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

Francisco told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

"We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here," Prelogar said. "Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data."

"TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage," she added. 

[Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the proceedings unfold.]

Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments, in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof in passing a law. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest— a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

Francisco told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

EXCLUSIVE: The nation's Republican governors are making clear their "overwhelming support" for President-elect Trump's planned "Department of Government Efficiency," better known by its acronym DOGE.

In a letter to Congressional leaders that was shared first with Fox News on Friday, the governors said they fully support DOGE and emphasized the importance of balancing the federal budget.

"As chief executives for our states, we know a thing or two about streamlining government, removing unnecessary bureaucracy, and bringing efficient, result-driven solutions to state government.  We stand by President Trump as he works to do the same with the federal government," the governors said.

AMERICA'S NEWEST GOVERNOR TAKES PAGE FROM TRUMP BY SETTING UP DOGE-LIKE COMMISSION

Days after his presidential election victory in November, Trump tapped Elon Musk, the world's richest person, and former Republican presidential candidate and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to steer DOGE.

The House of Representatives has set up an oversight subcommittee and the Senate has formed a DOGE caucus to work with Musk and Ramaswamy.

QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT DOGE ARE ANSWERED HERE

The governors highlighted that "our states are successful because we live within our means. We balance our budgets, lower taxes, leverage surpluses, pay down debt, improve the efficiency of state governments, and create an environment where our constituents can build a prosperous future for themselves, their family, and their community."

And they emphasized that "it is past time for Washington to live within its means too. We support President Trump’s appointment of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and agree with their assertion that the federal government needs to be cut down to size. We stand ready to help." 

Led by the Republican Governors Association (RGA) policy chair Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina, the letter was also signed by RGA chair Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and 24 other GOP governors.

They are Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Sarah Sanders of Arkansas, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Brad Little of Idaho, Eric Holcomb of Indiana, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Mike Parson of Missouri, Greg Gianforte of Montana, Jim Pillen of Nebraska, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Greg Abbott of Texas, Spencer Cox of Utah, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and Mark Gordon of Wyoming.

The only one of the 27 Republican governors who didn't sign the letter was Gov. Phil Scott of Vermont. While a longstanding member of the RGA, Scott has a history of not attaching his name to many of their letters.

The letter was sent the day after many of the GOP governors dined with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections.

Justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of TikTok's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments, in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

[Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the proceedings unfold.]

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof in passing a law. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest— a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

President-elect Donald Trump’s winter White House is hosting a parade of House Republicans this weekend, all of whom are hoping that getting the incoming commander in chief’s ear will help an ideologically diverse group of lawmakers get on the same page on a massive conservative policy overhaul.

It is also likely to be another test of Trump’s power over Congressional Republicans and whether his influence will be enough to overcome longstanding fractures on fiscal policy.

"The president is hosting multiple factions, right? It’s not just any one. The goal is to level-set the understanding of what we can accomplish," one GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital. "Nobody disagrees, in broad brushstrokes, on the large goals. But there are very specific issues that are going to create concerns for folks. And we’ve got to work through them."

On Friday, Trump is hosting members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, several of whom voted against a government funding bill the president-elect explicitly backed last month.

JOHNSON BLASTS DEM ACCUSATIONS HE VOWED TO END OBAMACARE AS 'DISHONEST'

He is also due to meet with senior Republicans and House committee chairs, as well as GOP lawmakers from blue states.

It comes amid disagreements between Congressional Republicans on the path forward for the budget reconciliation process. The mechanism generally has allowed one party in control of the government to advance their own agenda through one massive bill.

More specifically, reconciliation lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to just a simple majority, putting it on par with the House of Representatives.

REPUBLICANS GIVE DETAILS FROM CLOSED-DOOR MEETINGS WITH DOGE

Reconciliation only allows for budgetary and other fiscal measures to be passed. However, both parties have traditionally tried to stretch those parameters to advance as much of their agendas as possible. GOP leaders have signaled they want to use reconciliation to deal with border security, energy policy, defense and to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

However, there is broad disagreement on whether to split those goals in half. Proponents of the two-track approach believe that passing an initial bill on border and energy policies will allow Republicans to score an early victory there while taking more time on tax policy.

However, those who advocate for just one bill argue that two reconciliation bills have not been passed in decades, given the heavy political capital needed for even one. They’ve warned that the strategy could put Trump’s tax cuts in danger of expiring.

The House GOP conference is also at odds on other details, such as whether to use reconciliation to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions – a move favored by blue state Republicans who represent the suburbs of New York City and Los Angeles, but which rural representatives are against.

"I think it's gonna be a good discussion. I think this is a great opportunity for us to discuss not just SALT…This was just about, you know, blue state Republicans coming with our priorities," said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y.

The Big Apple’s new congestion tax, tax reductions for seniors living off social security, and using the tax code to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. were all agenda items Malliotakis named.

"I have much broader agenda items than just SALT, but SALT is critically important for the New York members in particular," she said.

House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., suggested the border would be at the forefront of his mind for his group’s Trump meeting.

"The main thing is, how do we move forward? It’s going to cost some money to secure our border. It’s going to cost some money to hire more agents. But at the same time, we’ve got to cut spending where we can," Moore told Fox News Digital.

"We need to be on the same sheet of music and I think we’ll have an opportunity for Trump to hear from us, but as well for us to hear from him."

Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., a staunch Trump ally who said he would also be at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, dismissed concerns about differences on issues like SALT.

"I think the dialogue is important to have. At the end of the day, we need to deliver for the American people. And so while people feel differently on various issues, it’s important to have that dialogue to figure out how we can put this thing together," he said.

Trump himself has not publicly declared the specifics of what he would want to pass via reconciliation. He has said he favors a one-bill approach, but would also be open to two.

Malliotakis and other Republicans on the tax-focused House Ways & Means Committee favor one bill.

However, a member of the House Freedom Caucus doubted that would happen.

"I think we’ll talk big-picture stuff as far as reconciliation. I’m of the mindset it’ll likely be two bills, not one. But I think that’ll happen organically, you don’t have to force it," they said.

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections. Justices both conservative and liberal appear skeptical of the social media app's arguments.

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  "It doesn't alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.