The Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a key immigration win, clearing the way for the deportation of eight migrants from Djibouti to South Sudan, a country not listed in their original removal orders.
In a short, unsigned opinion, the justices granted the administration’s request to "clarify" a prior ruling, confirming that their June 23 stay of a lower court injunction also blocked a follow-up remedial order issued May 21.
That remedial order had required the government to give the migrants notice and a chance to raise claims under the Convention Against Torture before being sent to a third country.
"The motion for clarification is granted," the court wrote. "The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable".
The decision gives the Trump administration a green light to move forward with third-country deportations under its executive order, even to destinations not previously clarified in court-approved removal documents.
Earlier, a district judge had found the government violated its April injunction by failing to provide a "meaningful opportunity" for six of the migrants to make their case against removal. The Supreme Court stayed that injunction in June, and Thursday’s clarification makes clear the lower court’s follow-up order can’t stand either.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented sharply, accusing the court of enabling deportations that could lead to torture or death.
"Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial. Respectfully, I dissent," Sotomayor wrote.
"The Government seeks to nullify [basic rights] by deporting noncitizens to potentially dangerous countries without notice or the opportunity to assert a fear of torture."
The ruling strengthens the Trump administration’s hand as it enforces its third-country deportation policy.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X regarding the ruling, writing, "This is another incredible victory for America. Thank you to the Supreme Court for ruling on the side of law and order, and affirming the executive authority of the President."
"Today’s decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration," David Warrington, White House Counsel wrote in an email to Fox News Digital. "This decision is a clear rebuke of such judicial overreach."
FIRST ON FOX:Vivek Ramaswamy is putting his money where his mouth is.
The multimillionaire biotech entrepreneur and business leader fueled his campaign for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination with over $30 million of his own money.
And in a Fox News Digital interview Thursday, Ramaswamy revealed that when it comes to his 2026 Republican campaign for Ohio governor, "we are prepared to invest at the same scale or greater."
"Whatever is required to ensure that we're successful in really leading the state to the next level," Ramaswamy said. "Losing this race is not an option. Winning is the only option, and we're going to win it. And I think that that will require resources of every form."
Ramaswamy was interviewed the day after his campaign announced that he had raised nearly $10 million in a little over four months since he announced his gubernatorial candidacy in late February. Ramaswamy's campaign touted that the money raked in set a "record for the largest first-quarter fundraising total in state history."
"I think it says that we have unprecedented support in our state, and that is a beautiful thing to see this early in a Republican race," Ramswamy said. "And I think that that's a powerful signal of unity."
Ramaswamy, who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, noted he's the only major Republican candidate right now in the race to succeed term-limited GOP Gov. Mike DeWine.
"I'm running unopposed in a Republican primary in a state that is certainly leaning reliably red, and I'm proud to say that we have united, not just the Republicans in Ohio, but we are beginning to draw support from a wide range of nontraditional Republican backers, entrepreneurs, younger people," he added.
State Attorney General Dave Yost launched a gubernatorial campaign but dropped out of the race in May.
Ohio Lt. Gov. Jim Tressel, a former longtime Ohio State University head football coach who later served as president of Youngstown State University, said earlier this year he was considering a run for governor. But speculation surrounding Tressel has faded in recent weeks after his initial comments were not followed by any announcement.
Asked if he has any concerns about facing a competitive primary, Ramaswamy said, "None, zero."
"I like Jim a lot. He and I have had some great conversations, none of which were about this race," Ramaswamy said. "I actually consider him to be a guy who is bringing a great spirit and tenor to Ohio. And I view Coach Tressel as an asset that I want to see our state continue to use to revive our sense of unity and spirit and ambition and pursuit of success."
In the race for the Democratic nomination in the onetime battleground turned red state, former Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton launched a gubernatorial bid in January.
But all eyes are on former longtime Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, who narrowly lost his Senate seat in last year's election to GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno.
Brown is thought to be a potential candidate in either the Senate or gubernatorial races.
Ramaswamy said he "would love the Democrats to have a competitive primary while I continue to run unopposed in this race."
But he suggested it didn't matter who the Democrats nominate because "it's not who we're running against, it's what we're actually running for."
"I think we have incredible strength," he added before predicting "that we're going to defeat whoever we are up against by, I believe, a decisive margin."
The 39-year-old Ramaswamy launched his presidential campaign in February 2023 and quickly saw his stock rise as he went from a long shot to a contender for the Republican nomination, as part of a field of candidates challenging Trump.
He campaigned on what he called an "America First 2.0" agenda and was one of Trump's biggest supporters in the field of rivals, calling Trump the "most successful president in our century."
Ramaswamy dropped his White House bid early last year after a distant fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses and quickly endorsed Trump, becoming a top surrogate on the campaign trail.
Trump, in the days after his November presidential election victory, named Elon Musk, the world's richest person, along with Ramaswamy, to steer the newly announced Department of Government Efficiency initiative, better known as DOGE.
But in January, as Trump was inaugurated, the new administration announced Ramaswamy was no longer serving at DOGE. Ramaswamy's exit cleared the way for Musk, Trump's top donor and, at the time, a key ally, to steer DOGE without having to share the limelight. Ramaswamy quickly moved toward launching a run for governor.
Ramaswamy was raised in Evendale, Ohio, in suburban Cincinnati by parents who emigrated from India. His father worked as an engineer at General Electric Aviation, and his mother was a geriatric psychiatrist. Ramaswamy and his family live in suburban Columbus.
The candidate noted that "one of my core areas of focus that I think is really resonating, is elevating the standards of educational achievement in our state."
"The No. 1 issue that I see resonating across the board, in a non-partisan manner, is the recognition that we are in the middle of this educational achievement crisis," he added.
And Ramaswamy insisted that "anybody who's a parent, or even anybody who's a young person recently graduating from school, recognizes that this is going to be an issue that we have to turn around, to preserve our place, the leading country in the world, and that is the project that we are going to make Ohio ground zero for in the United States."
Fox News' Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report
The Supreme Court ended its term last week, but the justices aren’t done yet, partly due to a legal blitz President Donald Trump has strategically deployed in his second term, one that’s proven surprisingly effective in advancing his sweeping agenda.
Lawyers for the Trump administration filed their 20th emergency application to the Supreme Court Thursday in just a 23-week period.
The dizzying pace of applications comes as the administration looks to advance some of Trump’s sweeping policy actions. And, in many cases, the court’s 6-3 majority has given the administration the green light to proceed.
The high court has ruled in Trump’s favor in the majority of emergency applications, allowing the administration to proceed with its ban on transgender service members in the military, its termination of millions of dollars in Education Department grants and its firing of probationary employees across the federal government, among many other actions.
Like most emergency orders, the rulings are often unsigned, giving little indication what the justices might be thinking.
Emergency applications — and the Supreme Court’s responses — aren’t meant to offer lasting relief. But Trump has found success using a "move fast and break things" strategy to push key requests through the court’s so-called "shadow" docket.
For context, Trump has filed more emergency applications in five months than his predecessors did in years. Former President Joe Biden submitted just 19 over his entire term, while presidents Obama and George W. Bush filed only eight combined during their time in office.
In the interim, the strategy has allowed him to enforce many of the sweeping executive orders he signed upon taking office. These orders were met with hundreds of lawsuits across the country and blocked by many lower courts, prompting the administration to appeal them, again and again, through the federal judiciary.
For now, those near-term wins have energized Trump allies, allowing them to press forward with a blitz of executive actions and claim "victory," however temporary. The approach allows Trump to advance major policy priorities without relying on a slow-moving Congress.
The Supreme Court ended its term last week, but the justices aren’t done yet, partly due to a legal blitz President Donald Trump has strategically deployed in his second term, one that’s proven surprisingly effective in advancing his sweeping agenda.
Lawyers for the Trump administration filed their 20th emergency application to the Supreme Court Thursday in just a 23-week period.
The dizzying pace of applications comes as the administration looks to advance some of Trump’s sweeping policy actions. And, in many cases, the court’s 6-3 majority has given the administration the green light to proceed.
The high court has ruled in Trump’s favor in the majority of emergency applications, allowing the administration to proceed with its ban on transgender service members in the military, its termination of millions of dollars in Education Department grants and its firing of probationary employees across the federal government, among many other actions.
Like most emergency orders, the rulings are often unsigned, giving little indication what the justices might be thinking.
Emergency applications — and the Supreme Court’s responses — aren’t meant to offer lasting relief. But Trump has found success using a "move fast and break things" strategy to push key requests through the court’s so-called "shadow" docket.
For context, Trump has filed more emergency applications in five months than his predecessors did in years. Former President Joe Biden submitted just 19 over his entire term, while presidents Obama and George W. Bush filed only eight combined during their time in office.
In the interim, the strategy has allowed him to enforce many of the sweeping executive orders he signed upon taking office. These orders were met with hundreds of lawsuits across the country and blocked by many lower courts, prompting the administration to appeal them, again and again, through the federal judiciary.
For now, those near-term wins have energized Trump allies, allowing them to press forward with a blitz of executive actions and claim "victory," however temporary. The approach allows Trump to advance major policy priorities without relying on a slow-moving Congress.
Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost, a Democrat, sparked a firestorm during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, accusing pro-life Republicans of caring only about children during infancy.
Frost, who represents Orlando and is the first Gen Z member of Congress, was seated as a witness in the hearing when he described how gun violence shaped his decision to seek public office and made the remark that sparked the uproar.
The situation heated up after ranking member James McGovern, D-Mass., said it "blows my mind there's more passion and energy" in Congress for Second Amendment advocacy than healthcare access for cancer patients, an apparent reference to Medicaid-centric debate on the budget bill.
"That tells you all you need to know about the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this," McGovern said, yielding to Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, D-N.M.
Leger Fernandez said Democrats have been the party of pursuing their "convictions," citing former Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama knowing he’d be beaten by police for protesting in support of civil rights before ceding the floor to Frost.
Frost said he got involved in politics at age 15 after the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut and was one mile from the Pulse Nightclub when 49 people were murdered there.
"[Shooter Omar Mateen] didn’t like them because they were gay and Latino. Three months later, I survived an instance of gun violence in Downtown Orlando."
Frost, a progressive who, while not a member of "The Squad," has said he has "plenty of love and admiration" for the group, went on to claim gun rights groups want to lobby Congress to pass amendments to "sell more guns" even if "more people [are] dying."
He claimed former President Joe Biden worked to reduce gun violence and contrasted that with his pointed allegation of Republicans.
"They say they're pro-life because they want the baby to be born, go to school and get shot in the school. Die in the schools, die on the streets," he said, before being cut off by an enraged Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.
Foxx began slamming her gavel and reprimanding Frost, though her initial comments could not be discerned because her microphone was not on.
"You've gone over the cliff. We are all going to be quiet now," she commanded.
"I meant every word," Frost retorted.
Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., made a motion to strike Frost’s words after Foxx suggested she wanted the same.
But Scott soon relented when Foxx said it "might be better to leave them on" the record for the public to view.
"You are not going to come into this room and impugn our integrity. You will not. We are pro-life people from conception to natural death; most of us are.
"Don't you come in here and say we want to preserve life so people can get shot," the Smoky Mountains congresswoman added.
Foxx adjourned the hearing shortly after Leger Fernández used up her remaining time, but the fireworks weren’t over just yet.
As lawmakers and witnesses stood up, Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., called out, "I might remind my Democrat colleagues of Proverbs 13:5," prompting a raised murmur on the left side of the dais.
"You can add [Proverbs] 14:5 to that too," Clyde added after Rep. Deborah Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., reprimanded Scott for using the term "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party."
The shorter name largely originated as a pejorative from former Rep. Joe McCarthy, R-Wis., during his investigations into the creeping of communism into American society and institutions.
Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content. Here's what's happening…
- Pentagon says Iran strikes set back nuclear program by 2 years
- Noncitizens get ‘only limited’ due process rights: Conservative legal expert
- Resurfaced video shows NYC mayoral hopeful saying he wants to replace private homes with communal living
Congress officially passed President Donald Trump’s "one big, beautiful bill" on Thursday afternoon after back-to-back sleepless sessions for both the House and Senate.
The massive agenda bill now goes to Trump’s desk to be signed into law just in time for Republicans’ self-imposed Fourth of July deadline.
The bill – which advances Trump’s policies on tax, the border, defense, energy and the national debt – narrowly passed the House of Representatives in a mostly party-line vote. All but two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., voted for the bill, which passed 218 – 214… READ MORE.
As large tech companies continue to take the lead implementing artificial intelligence (AI) into their platforms and workplaces, the latest Fox News national survey finds that while positive reviews of AI have increased, many remain skeptical about its role in society.
The survey, released Thursday, finds 43% view AI technology as a good thing for society, up 5 points from April 2023. Still, nearly half of voters, 47%, think AI is bad for society -- about where it was two years ago (46% bad in April 2023).
Overall, urban voters (60%), nonwhite voters (56%), voters under age 45 (53%), and men (52%) are those most likely to say AI is a good thing, while rural voters (55%), White voters (51%), voters ages 45 and over (49%), and women (55%) are likely to say it’s a bad thing.
Views are mixed among Democrats (44% good, 46% bad), while Republicans are more likely to say AI is good (47%, 42%). A majority of Independents think it’s bad (34% good vs. 58% bad).
When voters are asked what their first reaction is to AI, without the aid of a list, 43% offer a negative response, up 8 points since 2023. The most common answers include fear (15%), distrust (15%), or general negativity (13%). Only 3% of voters say the possibility that AI will threaten jobs is their first reaction.
Positive feelings also increased, as 26% react warmly, up 8 points since 2023. Those responses include innovation (11%), general positivity (10%), and cautious optimism (5%).
Others have mixed feelings about AI (9%), or point out the potential for abuse (4%), confusion surrounding AI (2%), the need for regulation (2%), privacy concerns (2%), the similarity between AI to science fiction (1%), and the need for more research (1%).
"Voters are all over the map when it comes to artificial intelligence," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News survey with Democrat Chris Anderson. "But there has been a slight increase in comfort and positivity as people come to grips with a world with A.I."
Overall, 27% say they use AI platforms regularly, either daily (11%) or weekly (16%), while another 15% say monthly. A majority (57%) says they use it rarely (19%) or never (38%).
Those most likely to use AI regularly are nonwhite men (48% daily/weekly), Hispanic voters (45%), urban voters (43%), and voters under age 45 (40%). Those least likely are rural voters (13% daily/weekly), Independents (15%), women ages 45 and over (16%), and Whites without a degree (17%).
Voters who see AI as bad for society are more likely to say they use it rarely (77%) than those who consider AI as a good thing to say they use it regularly (47%).
By a 21-point margin, more feel confident they can determine whether something they read, see, or hear was created by AI rather than a human (60% confident, 39% not).
The opposite is true when it comes to government regulation. A majority lack confidence that the government can properly regulate AI (38% confident can regulate, 62% not confident).
More Republicans (52%) think the government can properly regulate AI than Democrats (30%) and Independents (25%), while majorities of each group are confident they can identify artificial intelligence content.
Conducted June 13-16, 2025, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,003 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (149) and cellphones (566) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (288). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education, and area variables to ensure the demographics of respondents are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis and voter file data.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., touted the close coordination between Congress and President Donald Trump to successfully pass the "one big, beautiful bill," saying the collaboration is part of the "beauty of unified government."
Congress officially passed Trump’s multitrillion-dollar bill Thursday afternoon after back-to-back sleepless sessions for both the House and Senate.
The massive agenda package now goes to Trump’s desk to be signed into law just in time for Republicans’ self-imposed Fourth of July deadline.
The "big, beautiful bill’s" passage marks the first major piece of legislation passed under the Trump administration and the first to pass while Republicans have control of the executive branch and both chambers of Congress.
Speaking with reporters after the mega-spending bill’s passage Thursday, Johnson said, "The beauty of unified government is this is exactly how it can work.
"How it's supposed to work is that you have an interaction between the executive and the legislative branches, because that's what's best for the people, and that coordination is going to yield great results for the folks."
The speaker said people inside the Trump administration, including Cabinet secretaries, the vice president and the president, were all willing to take questions from members of Congress.
"President Trump was so generous with his time answering questions himself. Vice President JD Vance was directly engaged. We had Cabinet secretaries at a number of different federal agencies answering questions from members. Some of them even brought their agency attorneys in to get really deep in the weeds on the details," said Johnson.
"We had a tough four years before this last election cycle," the speaker added. "We knew that if we got unified government, we'd have to quite literally fix every area of public policy. Everything was an absolute disaster under the Biden-Harris radical woke Progressive Democrat regime."
The bill, which advances Trump’s policies on taxes, the border, defense, energy and the national debt, narrowly passed the House of Representatives in a mostly party-line vote. All but two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., voted for the bill, which passed 218-214.
It’s a commanding victory for Johnson and for the president, both of whom spent hours overnight trying to persuade GOP critics of the bill.
Speaking after the bill’s passage, Johnson explained his role in getting GOP holdouts to switch their vote to "yes," saying, "My leadership style is I try to be a servant leader."
He said that because many members wanted to take time to "go really deep in the weeds" on changes the Senate made to the bill, he felt it was his job as speaker to give each member the time to have their concerns addressed.
"I knew as the leader that we would have to take the time to do that," he explained. "And, so, some of that went late into the night, and I was not going to make anybody — I was not going to demand anybody's vote or their position on the bill until they felt that they had exhausted that opportunity. So, we did it. And that's how we got everybody to ‘yes.’"
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Thursday that he recalled the Chargé d’Affaires ad interim from Bogotá, Colombia, after what he said were "baseless and reprehensible statements from senior Colombian government officials."
The State Department said in a release that John T. McNamara, the Chargé d’Affaires ad interim for the U.S. Embassy in Colombia, was recalled to Washington for urgent consultations regarding the "baseless and reprehensible statements from the highest levels of the Government of Colombia."
"In addition to the recall of the Chargé, the United States is pursuing other measures to make clear our deep concern over the current state of our bilateral relationship," the press release read. "Despite policy differences with the current government, Colombia remains an essential strategic partner," the release continued. "We are committed to close cooperation on a range of shared priorities, including regional security and stability, and we remain engaged in efforts that improve the lives of Americans and Colombians alike."
No further details were available regarding the diplomatic recall, though the decision comes after Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused "right-wing extremists" of plotting to overthrow him.
The Associated Press reported in May that Petro’s former foreign minister, Alvaro Leyva, accused him of being a drug "addict" for the second time in three weeks.
Leyva also reportedly published a seven-page letter on X calling for Petro to resign, alleging that the president is "dependent on substances that affect emotional and mental equilibrium."
Petro, who was elected in 2022 and has a year left in office, denied the accusations during a speech in Bogota, in which he claimed to be a "revolutionary" who will not be "enslaved" by drugs.
Leyva had previously accused Petro of being on drugs in a letter published on April 22. In the letter, Leyva said Petro "went missing" for a couple of days during a state visit in Paris, attributing the absence to purported drug use. Petro, though, said he had taken time off to visit relatives in France.
As for relations between the U.S. and Colombia, the two countries agreed in March to deploy biometric capabilities to help authorities manage migration and stop criminal activity.
The agreement came months after President Donald Trump and Petro clashed over the treatment of Colombians on deportation flights from the U.S.
In January, U.S. officials sent two flights of Colombian illegal aliens back to their country of origin, though Petro rejected the flights, saying the U.S. cannot "treat Colombian migrants as criminals."
Petro also demanded the U.S. establish protocol for the dignified treatment of migrants before his country receives them.
In response, Trump threatened to unleash a slew of punishments, including ordering a 25% tariff on all goods coming into the U.S. from Colombia. After a week, Trump added, the tariffs would rise to 50%. Trump also ordered a travel ban and visa revocations for all Colombian government officials, plus "allies and supporters."
Ultimately, the two countries came to an agreement and deportations resumed, though Petro has urged Colombian migrants to return home.
EXCLUSIVE: With assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement official ssurging over 700% and Democrats pushing a bill to require agents to de-mask during immigration enforcement operations, a special agent voiced concern about escalating violence and the effect de-masking could have on agents’ families.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, the special agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said immigration enforcement officials "wouldn't wear masks if they didn't care" about their families.
The agent said increased protests and resistance from politicians have made carrying out their duties difficult. The agent also said attempts to dox agents have made many worry about their families’ safety.
The Department of Homeland Security told Fox News this week that assaults against ICE officers and federal agents conducting immigration enforcement are up 690% compared to the same time last year.
DHS recorded 10 assault events from Jan. 21, 2024, to June 30, 2024. From the day after President Donald Trump took office earlier this year until Monday, the department recorded 79 assault events. DHS said the true number is likely higher. They are happening at such a fast pace, some assault reports may not be accounted for yet.
This comes as Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., have called for ICE agents to be de-masked.
In June, Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., introduced a bill, the No Masks for ICE Act, to bar ICE agents from wearing face coverings during enforcement actions. Earlier in June, Jeffries declared that all ICE agents who perpetrate "aggressive overreach" and attempt to conceal "their identities from the American people, will be unsuccessful in doing that." They will all be identified "no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes," he asserted, saying that is what the law requires.
Speaking on behalf of himself and his partner, the agent said that despite Jeffries' threats, they believe "the agency or the administration will do their best to protect us."
"If they don't, then whatever happens to us, my family, anything outside of that, he's [Jeffries] responsible for it. He's directly responsible for it," the agent said.
"What value do you get from taking masks off federal agents or law enforcement that are afraid and getting doxxed?" the agent asked. "What value does that have for you? What's your return on investment at that point?"
The agent said in the area of operations, which is run by Democrats who are friendly to sanctuary policies, "almost daily there's some kind of protest or there's a group that's calling out agents or following them around or videotaping them, taking pictures of license plates."
The agent said protesters have also been following and photographing agents even before they begin an operation, making it difficult to plan and prepare for missions at well-known places such as police departments.
Despite the disruptions, the agent said protesters only give illegals "false hope" that they will be able to evade arrest and deportation.
"They're telling them, ‘If you fight this, you might win.’ And that's not good legal advice at all," he said.
"If people come out, and it creates more of a problem, a lot of times the ICE agents just say, ‘Hey, this area is too heated up. We're going to go somewhere else,’" he explained. "We're not short on targets. So, if I'm in town X, and they're outside my car yelling and screaming or giving my agents a hard time, they can always go to town Y and look for another target."
Ultimately, the agent said, all de-masking immigration officials would do is allow them to be doxxed and endanger not only their families but their communities.
"You got people also within my agency and this career field, they work at a church part-time as a clergy person, or maybe they're involved in Girl Scouts, maybe they're a baseball coach," the agent explained.
"The last thing that these people want is for some angry person or for some agitator to show up at a baseball game that he or she's coaching and put the attention on them or threaten their families or their way of life."
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadorian migrant erroneously deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador, was beaten and psychologically tortured while detained in the country, according to court filings – one of many disclosures revealed just days before a major hearing in Maryland.
The status hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, is all but certain to reignite a closely watched legal fight over Abrego Garcia and his legal status in the U.S., which is currently playing out separately in two federal courts.
In a new court filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, Abrego Garcia's lawyers outlined a long list of abuses their client was subjected to at the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, a notorious anti-terrorism prison in El Salvador, including sleep deprivation, psychological torture and severe beatings.
These abuses allegedly began the moment the migrants arrived at the prison in March. There, they were greeted by a prison guard who said, "Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here, doesn’t leave."
According to court documents, Abrego Garcia was immediately frog-marched to his cell by prison guards, who kicked him with boots and struck him with wooden batons along the way, leaving visible bumps and bruises across his body.
He and other detainees in the cell slept on metal mattresses, with minimal access to food and satiation. They were also forced to kneel for approximately nine hours, from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., "with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion."
Abrego Garcia’s physical condition deteriorated quickly – within two weeks, his lawyers said, he lost roughly 31 pounds.
He was also psychologically tortured and received threats of violence during his time at CECOT, according to the filing, where prison guards repeatedly told him they would transfer him to other prison cells housing violent gang members, whom they assured him would "tear" him apart.
In fact, the filing said, Abrego Garcia "repeatedly observed prisoners in nearby cells" violently harm one another "with no intervention from guards or personnel."
"Screams from nearby cells would similarly ring out throughout the night without any response from prison guards or personnel," they said.
The filing, in part, appears to undercut administration officials' repeated assertions that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang – noting that prison officials at CECOT "explicitly acknowledged" his tattoos "were not gang-related," and told him, "your tattoos are fine."
The eye-popping conditions at CECOT described in the filing are among several issues expected to come to a head Monday, when Judge Xinis holds a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland.
There, she will consider a flurry of recent motions from both the Trump administration and Abrego Garcia's legal team – including a government motion to dismiss the case as moot, and a request from plaintiffs to sanction officials for allegedly failing to facilitate his return to the U.S.
His lawyers claim the case is not moot, because Xinis can still order his return to Maryland. They asked this week that she order him back to the district from Tennessee, where he was sent upon his return to the U.S. to face criminal charges. They also requested that Xinis block Abrego Garcia's possible removal from the U.S. without prior notification, pointing to statements from the Trump administration.
"Defendants have repeatedly stated their intent to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia to a third country," his lawyers said in a Wednesday filing, adding that he could face "persecution or torture if removed directly to various other countries," including Libya, South Sudan and Eritrea, which are notorious for human rights abuses.
Adding to the complexity of the matter is the separate criminal case playing out in Tennessee.
The federal judge overseeing that case on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to comply with rules prohibiting Justice Department and DHS officials from making any public statements about Abrego Garcia that could potentially prejudice a jury or impact the integrity of the court proceedings.
Lawyers for Abrego Garcia told the judge there in a separate filing Wednesday night that the Trump administration has, for months, made "extensive and inflammatory extrajudicial comments about [Abrego] that are likely to prejudice his right to a fair trial," including "relentlessly" attacking his character and reputation – claiming he is a "gang member, human trafficker, and serial domestic abuser," and referring to him as a criminal on three dozen occasions after his indictment, despite the fact he has not yet had a trial.
They noted that U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, the judge overseeing the criminal case, previously ordered his release pending trial, citing a lack of evidence and "double hearsay" presented by the government in his June arraignment.
"Thus far, the government’s unabated public disparagement of Mr. Abrego has far outpaced its ability to muster actual evidence, notwithstanding its extraordinary efforts to conjure up such evidence," they said.
The next steps here remain deeply uncertain, given the complexity of the cases, and the dual nature of the civil and criminal cases.
Xinis has previously signaled frustration and impatience with the Trump administration for slow-walking certain requests, or failing to comply with discovery requests from the court.
She chastised Justice Department lawyers on more than one occasion for what she described as their "vague, evasive and incomplete" responses, which she suggested demonstrate "willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations."
The two parties will appear in court on Monday at 11 a.m.
Intelligence agency officials like former CIA Director John Brennan must be held accountable for their role in advancing allegations about President Donald Trump’s connections with Russia during the 2016 election, according to the White House.
"President Trump was right — again," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Those who engaged in this political scandal must be held accountable for the fraud they committed against President Trump and the lies they told to the American people."
Leavitt’s comments come after a new lessons-learned review that CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified Wednesday determined that the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency's Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) examining Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election deviated from intelligence standards that led to some "procedural anomalies."
The review determined that the "decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment."
The "Steele dossier," composed by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele as part of opposition research on Trump during the 2016 campaign, featured salacious material and unfounded allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. Trump has denied the allegations included in the document.
Specifically, the CIA’s new review found that the CIA’s deputy director for analysis said in a December 2016 email to Brennan that including the dossier in any capacity jeopardized "the credibility of the entire paper."
"Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness," the new review stated. "When confronted with specific flaws in the Dossier by the two mission center leaders – one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background – he appeared more swayed by the Dossier's general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns. Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that ‘my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.’"
Brennan served as director of the CIA from March 2013 to January 2017 under the Obama administration.
Brennan could not be reached for comment by Fox News Digital.
Likewise, the review said Brennan had sent a note to intelligence community analysts one day before their only session coordinating on the ICA that he had met with then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-FBI Director James Comey.
In that message, Brennan told the CIA workforce that "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our recent Presidential election."
Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently placed nearly 140 employees on administrative leave amid an investigation into employees who signed on to a letter allegedly using their official titles and EPA positions.
Written as agency employees, the letter contained information that misled the public about agency business, according to officials.
The EPA confirmed it placed 139 employees on administrative leave pending an investigation.
"The Environmental Protection Agency has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November," an EPA spokesperson told Fox News Digital on Thursday.
The letter came after President Donald Trump's administration in April fired or reassigned nearly 500 EPA employees.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin confirmed 280 staffers in the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, Office of Inclusive Excellence, and EPA regional offices, were fired.
The EPA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Environmental Justice arms were also eliminated, as Zeldin cut back more than 30 Biden-era regulations.
Though more than a hundred employees were allegedly put on leave, there are thousands of employees at the agency.
The EPA did not provide Fox News Digital with any additional information about the situation.
President Donald Trump’s agenda appeared on life support as defectors in the House GOP, for a time, appeared ready to torpedo it. But in the end, only two Republicans voted against the bill, and it's now heading to the president's desk.
Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., were the sole defectors against Trump’s "big, beautiful bill." House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., could only afford to lose three Republicans, given that no Democrat was willing to cross the aisle to support the $3.3 trillion megabill.
While he did vote to support the procedural hurdle to get the bill on the floor, Massie’s decision to vote against the bill was seemingly predetermined. He has continually argued that the colossal tax, border, defense and energy package would add trillions to the nation’s debt and do little to actually curb Washington’s spending addiction.
And he was not among the many conservatives who Trump and Republican leadership tried to pressure throughout the day on Wednesday, nor as the floor stayed open into early Thursday afternoon.
"[Trump] reaches out every day on Twitter, reaching out with a million dollars of ads in my district with a picture of me and the Ayatollah," Massie said. "So, that's the only sort of reaching out I've seen so far."
While Trump did not directly single him out, the president did call on holdout Republicans to stop holding the bill hostage late Wednesday night, and declared on Truth Social that "MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!"
Trump had previously threatened Massie with a primary challenger, as he did with Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., before his retirement announcement, for defecting against the bill.
But senior White House officials told reporters on a call just after the bill passed that the president had not threatened a primary against lawmakers to earn their vote, and that lawmakers "well understand the President's political power, and ultimately, they want his political power to be used for their benefit."
Fitzpatrick had raised concerns about changes the Senate GOP had made to Medicaid reforms in the bill but had not publicly staked a position until the procedural vote.
He was the only ‘no’ vote on the rule, and that resistance carried into the final vote that ultimately saw House Republicans largely unify and pass the legislative behemoth.
Fitzpatrick said in a statement just minutes before the bill passed that he had voted to "strengthen Medicaid protections, to permanently extend middle class tax cuts, for enhanced small business tax relief, and for historic investments in our border security and our military," but that the Senate’s tweaks soured him to the bill.
"However, it was the Senate’s amendments to Medicaid, in addition to several other Senate provisions, that altered the analysis for our PA-1 community," he said. "The original House language was written in a way that protected our community; the Senate amendments fell short of our standard."
"I believe in, and will always fight for, policies that are thoughtful, compassionate, and good for our community," he continued. "It is this standard that will always guide my legislative decisions."
Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about a "potentially significant loophole" in the Supreme Court's decision to curb universal injunctions, and now his warning is hanging over lawsuits involving President Donald Trump.
Alito said in his concurring opinion in Trump v. CASA that class action lawsuits and lawsuits brought by states leave room for judges to hand down injunctions that, in practice, would function the same way a universal injunction does.
"Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools," Alito said.
Alito's warning comes as judges continue to hand down sweeping rulings and as plaintiffs begin filing lawsuits tailored to avoid running into the new roadblock established by the high court.
In one major ruling, Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee based in Washington, D.C., found this week that Trump's proclamation declaring an "invasion" at the border was unlawful.
Trump's proclamation restricted migrants from claiming asylum when crossing into the United States, a practice the Trump administration says has been abused by border crossers.
Moss "set aside" that policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, which had an effect similar to that of a nationwide injunction. More than a dozen potential asylees brought the lawsuit, and Moss also agreed to certify the case as a class action lawsuit that applied to all potential asylees in the country.
The Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that Moss was a "rogue district court judge" who was "already trying to circumvent the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against nationwide injunctions."
In his concurring opinion, Alito warned against class action lawsuits that do not strictly abide by Rule 23, which lays out the criteria for certifying a class. He said the Supreme Court's decision on universal injunctions will have "very little value" if district courts do not adhere to the rule.
"District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23," Alito wrote. "Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest."
Alito also noted that another area for exploitation could be states that seek statewide relief from a court.
For instance, Democrat-led states have filed several lawsuits challenging Trump's policies. A judge could grant those states statewide injunctions, meaning everyone living in the state would be exempt from the policies. Alito warned that giving third parties widespread standing in cases in that manner required careful scrutiny.
If judges are lax about these statewide lawsuits, states will have "every incentive to bring third-party suits on behalf of their residents to obtain a broader scope of equitable relief than any individual resident could procure in his own suit," Alito wrote. "Left unchecked, the practice of reflexive state third-party standing will undermine today’s decision as a practical matter."
