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

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."

Three women whose lives were ruined by historical child abuse want the PM to come and meet survivors.

No 10 insists millions of people share Sir Keir's view of the Truss government's economic record.

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. 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves may have to choose between tax rises and spending cuts, writes Henry Zeffman.

Why Rachel Reeves needs a more detailed growth strategy - and soon.

Experts say the UK has enough gas after Centrica said storage levels are "concerningly low".

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. 

The BBC's Analysis editor, Ros Atkins, investigates Elon Musk's recent posts on X about grooming gangs - and looks at how one day unfolded on his timeline.

The councils want to delay votes to explore new plans to redesign local government in England.

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.

Republicans slammed the sentencing of President-elect Trump on Friday, calling it a "disgrace."

Trump was sentenced Friday morning in New York City to unconditional discharge. He was convicted last year of falsifying business records after a years-long investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Despite Trump's attempts to delay the sentencing, it went forward just 10 days before his inauguration. 

The incoming president attended the proceeding virtually. "After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Judge Juan Merchan said. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts." 

"What a joke and a disgrace," wrote Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., on X. 

Rep. Rudy Yakym, R-Ind., sounded off on the sentencing as well, writing, "Today’s sentencing is an unfortunate reminder that Democrats will stop at nothing, including weaponizing the justice system to try and destroy President Trump. Rest assured, their efforts have and will continue to fail. America’s comeback begins in 10 days."

President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation. 

The president-elect attended his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. Trump sat beside his defense attorney Todd Blanche. 

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

Trump called the case and his sentencing a "tremendous setback for the American court system." 

"This is a great embarrassment to the state of New York," Trump said, adding that the people saw the trial firsthand, and voted "decisively" to elect him as president. 

Judge Juan Merchan set Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. 

Merchan did not sentence the president-elect to prison, and instead sentenced him to an unconditional discharge, meaning 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." 

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

Merchan, upon scheduling the sentencing last week, said that he was not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed. 

Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That 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." 

The high court denied the request, saying "the application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons." 

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

"First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal," the order states," the Supreme Court's order, filed Thursday night, stated. "Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing." 

The order also noted that "Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application." 

Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. 

Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Experts say the UK has enough gas after Centrica said storage levels were "concerningly low".