The nomination of Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO picked by President Donald Trump to head the Department of Education, will head to a final Senate vote after passing the final procedural hurdle of the confirmation process.
The chamber passed a cloture vote on Thursday afternoon that advanced McMahon's nomination to a final floor vote to decide on her confirmation.
Trump tapped McMahon to serve as head of the Education Department, which he has said he wants to close "immediately."
"It’s a big con job," the president said the day before McMahon's confirmation hearing. "They ranked the top countries in the world. We’re ranked No. 40, but we’re ranked No. 1 in one department: cost per pupil. So, we spend more per pupil than any other country in the world, but we’re ranked No. 40."
McMahon testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in February, focusing her remarks on the idea that "education is the issuethat determines our national success and prepares American workers to win the future," according to an excerpt of her opening remarks, shared first with Fox News Digital.
The confirmation hearing was marked by protesters, discussions on the participation of biological men in women's sports, and scrutiny over recent spending cuts proposed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the newly formed cost-cutting department led by Elon Musk.
McMahon co-founded WWE with her husband, Vince McMahon, before serving as administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) until 2019, when she stepped down to "return to the private sector."
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., claimed earlier this month that "no president" has presided over more plane crashes during his first month in office than President Trump. But data obtained by Fox News Digital shows there were more plane crashes during that same time period under President Biden.
"No president has had more planes crash in their first month in office than Donald Trump," Swalwell posted on X Feb. 17, a comment viewed over 7 million times on X.
Department of Transportation data provided by a senior administration official contradicts that data and shows more plane crashes during the first few weeks of President Biden’s term.
Swalwell had posted in response to a small plane crash in Georgia that left two dead.
There were 55 aviation accidents in the United States between Biden’s inauguration Jan. 21, 2021, and February 17, 2021, compared to 35 during the same period for Trump.
Worldwide there were 91 aviation accidents during that same time period for Biden and 50 during Trump’s first few weeks.
"Eric Swalwell is a habitual liar and fraud, who continues to beclown himself every single day because he suffers from a debilitating and severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has rotted his brain," White House communications director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital.
"As an elected official, he should actually tell the truth for once, but it’s understandable he’s incapable of that since he has Fang Fang on his mind all day."
Swalwell told Fox News Digital in a statement he was referring to commercial airliners, although his initial post stated "planes."
"There have been two U.S. commercial airliner crashes, where people died or were seriously injured in Trump’s first month," Swalwell said. "Please show me a president who had more in their first month."
Several Democrats have blamed Trump for high-profile plane crashes in recent weeks, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who suggested Trump's cuts to the FAA were to blame in the Toronto crash, which resulted in serious injuries but no deaths.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back at the time, pointing out that the "crash unfortunately took place in Canadian airspace with Canadian air-traffic controllers overseeing it."
She then disputed the Democratic attack line about Trump firing FAA officials.
"And the facts about the FAA are that no air-traffic controllers have been let go by Secretary Duffy or this new administration. In fact, Secretary Duffy has put great emphasis on hiring the best and the brightest air-traffic controllers who want to be part of the FAA," she argued.
Fox News Digital's Gabriel Hays contributed to this report
FIRST ON FOX: A bipartisan duo is looking to tag team cyber risks for American food supplies, debuting new legislation to increase analysis and threat detection in critical farm and food infrastructure.
Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., teamed up to introduce the Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act, designed to boost protection across agriculture and food sectors.
"America’s adversaries are seeking to gain any advantage they can against us—including targeting critical industries like agriculture," Cotton told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"Congress must work with the Department of Agriculture to identify and defeat these cybersecurity vulnerabilities," he said. "This legislation will ensure we are prepared to protect the supply chains our farmers and all Americans rely on."
"Food security is national security, and the Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act is a vital step toward safeguarding Michigan’s agriculture and food sectors," said Slotkin in her own statement.
"Cyber-attacks threaten our food supply constantly, and we must ensure both government and private industries are prepared," she added. "This bipartisan bill will require the Department of Agriculture to work closely with our national security agencies to ensure that our adversaries, like China, can’t threaten our ability to feed ourselves by ourselves."
Specifically, the measure would require the secretaries of agriculture, homeland security and health and human services to coordinate with each other and with the director of national intelligence to go through annual crisis simulations to prepare for any cyber emergencies relating to food infrastructure.
The secretary of agriculture would also be directed to conduct risk assessments every two years to determine any vulnerabilities in the food and farm sectors, reporting the findings to Congress.
Sens. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Budd, R-N.C., are cosponsors of the bill. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Brad Finstad, R-Minn.
The bill has already gotten the backing of several food industry groups, such as the North American Millers Association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, USA Rice and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
Air traffic controllers are set to receive a 30% pay hike as President Donald Trump's administration seeks to boost recruitment Thursday.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy made the announcement during a press conference at the air traffic controller's academy in Oklahoma on Thursday. He argued that the pay structure and the technology air traffic controllers are forced to use are outdated.
"Currently, students are paid $17.61 an hour. By the way, you might be able to go to Walgreens and make that, right? So we're going to bump it up to $22.84 an hour," Duffy said.
"And again, I think making sure people have a wage that can allow them to live while they're going through school. But the real incentive is, again, three years out of this academy, and you're certified, on average, $160,000 a year. So you can be 24 years old, 23 years old, making a great salary, as an air traffic controller."
The announcement comes after a string of air travel disasters in recent weeks, though few of them were blamed on air traffic control.
Most recently, a Southwest airliner narrowly avoided a collision with a Flexjet business jet on a runway in Chicago. The Southwest plane was coming in for landing as the Flexjet, allegedly ignoring instructions from air traffic control, crossed the landing strip.
Pilots in the Southwest plane were able to take off again quickly enough to avoid a collision.
The National Transportation Safety Board says it is still investigating Tuesday's incident. Trump himself called for the Flexjet pilots to have their licenses revoked if the investigation exposes wrongdoing.
The Trump administration's lawyers have spent significant time in court this month fighting dozens of requests filed by legal groups, labor organizations and a litany of other state and local plaintiffs across the country – and so far, most judges haven't granted these requests.
The courts "are rightfully saying we don't have jurisdiction over this," or, in certain cases, that plaintiffs "aren't proving harm," Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn, a former spokesperson for Attorney General Bill Barr, said of the numerous legal challenges to Trump's agenda.
The lawsuits, totaling more than 80, are aimed at blocking or reversing some of Trump's most controversial actions and executive orders.
Nearly all plaintiffs are seeking, in addition to the long-term injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order, or TRO, from a federal judge that would block the order or policy from taking force until the merits of the case can be heard.
Almost all these requests for emergency relief have been rejected in court, with judges noting that plaintiffs lacked standing, and ordering both parties to return for a later hearing date to consider the merits of the case.
Some Trump allies and legal commentators have criticized the many lawsuits as a way for plaintiffs to skip over the traditional administrative appeals process and take their case directly to the courts instead – a pattern they say has prompted the wave of rejections by federal judges.
There is an internal review process for agency-specific actions or directives, which can be challenged via appeals to administrative law judges or an agency-specific court.
But doing so for executive orders or presidential actions is much more difficult.
According to information from the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, a president’s executive order can be revoked or modified only by the president or via the legislative branch, if the president was acting on authority that had been granted by Congress.
Since the latter is not immediately applicable to the Trump-era orders many of the lawsuits hinge on, that leaves the courts as one of the limited arbiters for determining whether to let stand the orders or action in question.
That means the requests for injunctive relief are considered in a sort of two-part wave of proceedings, since most – if not all – Trump-era complaints include both the request for the TRO and for the preliminary injunction.
The TRO requests are the first wave of "mini-arguments" to come before U.S. judges tasked with reviewing the complaints.
They are heard immediately and require plaintiffs to prove they will suffer irreparable injury or harm if their request for relief is not granted— a difficult burden to satisfy, especially when the order or policy has not yet come into force.
(As one judge remarked earlier this month, the court cannot grant TRO requests based on speculation.)
The courts then order both parties to re-appear at a later date to consider the request for preliminary injunction, which allows both sides to present a fuller argument and for the court to take into account the harm or damages incurred.
"The bottom line is that courts typically do not grant requests for emergency relief at the start of a lawsuit," Suzanne Goldberg, a Lawfare contributor and professor at Columbia Law School, wrote in a recent op-ed.
"Instead, they wait to decide what remedies a plaintiff deserves, if any, until after each side makes its legal arguments and introduces its evidence, including evidence obtained from the other side through the discovery process."
These near-term court victories have buoyed Trump allies and the Department of Government Efficiency, allowing DOGE, at least for now, to continue carrying out their ambitious early-days agenda and claiming "victory."
"LFG," Elon Musk cheered on X recently, in response to a court's rejection of a request from labor unions seeking to block DOGE access to federal agency information.
Other accounts have praised the overwhelming court rejections of emergency restraining orders as evidence that the Trump administration, and DOGE, are "winning" – a characterization that legal experts warn is largely premature.
In fact, they've noted, the slow-moving legal challenges and nature of the court calendar are features, not bugs.
This includes efforts to block or curtail DOGE from accessing internal government information or firing agency employees; lawsuits aimed at blocking the Trump administration's transgender military ban; and complaints seeking to block the release or public identification of FBI personnel involved in Jan. 6 investigations, among many other things.
But that's not because every one of these actions is legitimate. Rather, legal experts say, the near-term "victories" hinge on the limited power a judge has to intervene in proving emergency relief, or granting temporary restraining orders.
Judges, including U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, noted previously that fear and speculation alone are not enough to curtail DOGE access: plaintiffs must prove clearly, and with evidence, that their workings have met the hard-to-satisfy test of permanent or "irreparable" harm.
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that plaintiffs must be able to show evidence that a rule, action or policy in question will result in "immediate, irreparable harm" to satisfy a TRO request.
That's a difficult burden of proof, and a near impossible one for plaintiffs to satisfy, especially for an action that has not yet taken effect.
One exception is the Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship.
The request for immediate relief, was granted by multiple U.S. district courts judges, who sided with plaintiffs in ruling that hundreds of children born in the U.S. were at risk of real harm.
It was also upheld by a U.S. appeals court last week, setting the stage for a possible Supreme Court fight.
But barring that, most of the lawsuits will play out in the longer-term, Goldberg, wrote in the Lawfare op-ed.
"Stepping back, the current litigation landscape of TROs and preliminary injunctions may seem quite extraordinary… But considered in context, these many provisional orders suggest that even more extraordinary are the government’s threatened actions, both in their likely unlawfulness and their potential for irreparable harm," she said.
FIRST ON FOX:Billionaire Elon Musk, now also a senior adviser to President Trump, met with Senate Republicans in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus on Thursday at the White House to discuss the work they've been doing and to get briefed on DOGE's findings.
The meeting was led by caucus Chairwoman Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who has spearheaded efforts to audit and cut bloat in the government for years.
"The Senate DOGE Caucus has hit the ground running to save taxpayer dollars," Ernst told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement. "I was proud to bring my colleagues together to coordinate efforts with Elon, so we can continue to streamline our work. We are just getting started to make government more efficient and protect taxpayers to ensure Washington works for the American people."
The discussion was the first opportunity for senators in the caucus to hear from Musk directly regarding the discoveries he and DOGE have made.
The goal of the gathering was to share work between the Senate and Musk's DOGE, and to discuss how they could be most helpful in the legislature, Ernst's office shared with Fox News Digital.
During the meeting, they presented to Musk the various areas that senators are already focused on, using a divide and conquer strategy. Some of the Republicans have targeted government spending, while others have sought to address the national debt, concerning flows of money to labs like the Wuhan Institute of Virology and much more.
The senators further talked with Musk about how congressional action could make Washington, D.C., more efficient going forward and protect American taxpayers from funding extravagant projects.
In attendance at the meeting were Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, Rick Scott, R-Fla., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., Roger Marshall, R-Kan., James Risch, R-Idaho, Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Jon Husted, R-Ohio, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, John Cornyn, R-Texas, Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., Katie Britt, R-Ala., Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., and John Hoeven, R-N.D.
Musk similarly met with President Donald Trump and his Cabinet at the White House on Wednesday.
The White House's DOGE spokesperson did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
President Donald Trump accepted an invitation on Thursday from King Charles III for a second state visit to the United Kingdom.
The invite came in a letter presented to Trump by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is meeting with Trump at the White House regarding ending the war in Ukraine.
"This is really special. This has never happened before. This is unprecedented," Starmer said as he was sitting next to Trump in the Oval Office.
"I think that just symbolizes the strength of the relationship between us. This is a very special letter. I think the last state visit was a tremendous success," he continued. "His majesty the king wants to make this even better than that."
"What I haven’t got yet is your answer," Starmer then said, drawing laughs.
"The answer is yes, on behalf our wonderful First Lady Melania and myself, the answer is yes and we look forward to being there and honoring the king and honoring really your country," Trump responded. "Your country is a fantastic country."
Trump described Charles "beautiful" and "wonderful man."
"I’ve gotten to know him very well actually, first term and now, a second term," he added.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
National Public Radio could see its funding slashed as a new bill would scrap both "direct or indirect" federal taxpayer support for the news organization.
Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., and Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., introduced the "Defund NPR Act" this week as spending across the board is being scrutinized by Republican lawmakers.
"I'm glad to join my longtime friend, Senator Banks, in introducing the Defund NPR Act in the House," Cammack said in a statement. "Last Congress, the Energy & Commerce Committee held a hearing about the status of NPR and how federal funds are often used for left-wing activism under the journalism moniker."
The public radio orgnization receives 1% of its budget from the United States government, but local NPR affiliates rely on federal government grants much more heavily. However, it also takes aim at the "dues" and "fees" paid out by those affiliates, which NPR describes on its website as a significant source of income.
NPR’s website also describes the funding from the government as "essential" and would risk "weakening the institution" if it were scrapped, as it would have to rely more heavily on donations and other sources of revenue.
"Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund NPR's liberal propaganda. If NPR can't stay afloat without government funding, that tells you all you need to know about the quality of their news," Banks said in a statement. Bank iontroduced legislation under the same title while he was in the House in April 2024.
Earlier this month, Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced the "Defund Government Sponsored Propaganda Act," taking aim at both NPR and PBS.
"Americans have hundreds of sources of news and commentary, and they don’t need politically biased, taxpayer-funded media choosing what they should see and hear. PBS and NPR are free to compete in the marketplace of ideas using donations, but their public subsidy should end," Lee said in a statement at the time.
NPR did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
A city hall building, the mayor's house and some residences of current and former council members in Huntington, California, were raided on Wednesday in a major corruption probe of a $14 million project, according to Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman.
The investigation, named "Operation Dirty Pond," has been focusing on the "potential misuse of millions of dollars in public funds allocated for the construction of an aquatic center" since November 2022, the DA’s Office said.
The Huntington Park Regional Aquatic Center, which was deemed "critical" on the city website, was expected to become a two-story building with an Olympic-size pool, gym, football field, conference rooms and more. However, residents never saw any results, according to the city’s vice mayor.
"This is a project that has yielded nothing for the residents," Vice Mayor Arturo Flores said to FOX 11 Los Angeles. "It's my understanding that there's an estimated $14 million, give or take, that has been expended by the city, and that from those funds, the residents of the city have only received an empty lot with dead grass and nothing to show for those millions of dollars."
Fox News Digital also reached out to Flores and Huntington Park Mayor Karina Macias for comment but did not immediately hear back.
Former Huntington Park city council member Linda Caraballo reportedly said she sent a 282-page dossier to the DA’s Office many years ago to alert them to alleged corruption. Caraballo said to the local station that "big time city officials from the city manager all the way down to the shot caller" should be prepared.
"Heads are going to roll and a lot of people are going to be really put into some serious problems," Caraballo said to FOX 11. "They all should find lawyers right away."
Valentin Amezquita, another former Huntington Park council member, said to FOX 11 that this may not be the city’s only corrupt project and suggests conducting a "forensic audit of the city of current and past contracts."
"This is just the tip of the iceberg," Amezquita said to the local station. "There's many, many more."
Numerous items were seized during the searches, including public records, financial paperwork and electronic devices, according to the DA’s Office.
"My office is committed to ensuring that public officials uphold the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency," Hochman said. "When concerns arise about the use of public funds or the actions of those in office, it is our duty to investigate thoroughly and protect the public’s trust."
"I want to commend our dedicated prosecutors and investigators for their diligent work on this complex case. Their unwavering commitment to justice ensures that no one – regardless of their position or title – is above the law."
United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer is meeting with President Donald Trump on Thursday at the White House hours after Trump told his Cabinet that he wouldn’t provide security guarantees to Ukraine "beyond very much."
Trump, who met with French President Emmanuel Macron at the White House on Monday regarding Ukraine, is expected to sit down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tomorrow in Washington.
The meeting between Trump and Starmer will include much discussion about the president's efforts to bring the conflict to an end through a peaceful resolution, a senior administration official said. They will later hold a joint press conference at 2 p.m. ET.
As Trump was greeting Starmer Thursday, the president was asked if he was confident he could get a peace deal done on Ukraine, to which he replied "We can and we will."
Starmer pushed the United States on Wednesday to provide a security "backstop" for any potential European peacekeepers in Ukraine, according to Reuters.
"I'm absolutely convinced that we need a lasting peace, not a ceasefire, and for that to happen we need security guarantees," he was quoted as saying. "Precisely what that layers up to, what that looks like, is obviously a subject of intense discussion."
Starmer reportedly added that his "concern is if there is a ceasefire without a backstop, it will simply give him [Putin] the opportunity to wait and to come again because his ambition in relation to Ukraine is pretty obvious, I think, for all to see."
However, Trump said during a Cabinet meeting Wednesday that "I'm not going to make security guarantees beyond very much, we're going to have Europe do that, because... Europe is their next-door neighbor. But we're going to make sure everything goes well."
"I've had very good conversations with President Putin. I've had very good conversations with President Zelenskyy. And until four weeks ago, nobody had conversations with anybody," Trump also said Wednesday. "It wasn't even a consideration. Nobody thought you could make peace. I think you can."
"We're going to do the best we can to make the best deal we can for both sides," Trump added.
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., is preparing legislation to safeguard the FBI’s Jeffrey Epstein files, citing concerns that some documents at the bureau were in danger of being destroyed.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the government was in possession of "pretty sick" information on the late convicted pedophile, during an interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters on Wednesday. She said documents could be released as early as Thursday.
"Should you encounter any statutory barriers to the expeditious public release of Jeffrey Epstein’s client list or other pertinent information related to his activities – to include circumstances in which any such documentation is housed in other federal agencies – I stand ready to assist," Ogles wrote to Bondi in a memo on Wednesday.
"To that end, upon hearing reports that certain FBI agents are allegedly attempting to destroy critical records, I am currently drafting legislation entitled the Preventing Epstein Documentation Obliteration Act, or the PEDO Act."
The legislation, which is still in the works, would protect all files across Bondi’s jurisdiction.
Ogles did not cite the names of any specific agents. He’s the latest Republican lawmaker to speak out about the Epstein files this week, after the House announced the creation of a new task force led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., dedicated to declassification efforts.
It comes after conservative influencer Benny Johnson reported on whistleblower allegations that there were rank-and-file agents within the FBI destroying documents in a bid to block FBI Director Kash Patel’s work.
A handful of House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution on Thursday to block a Biden-era appliance regulation.
The Department of Energy (DOE) announced a new rule in the final days of former President Joe Biden's term to ban non-condensing, natural-gas-fired water heaters by 2029.
The rule was set to go into effect in March but faces headwinds after a resolution to overturn the appliance rule was passed in the House, with every House Republican and 11 Democrats voting for its passage.
"The Democrats want control," Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., who introduced the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in January with Fox News Digital, said ahead of the vote. "Their cold rhetoric leads to cold homes and cold water."
"The American people were tired of being told what to do, what they could buy, what they could wear, what they could use," Palmer said on the House floor. "That's why I introduced this resolution, because we're determined to restore a quality of life in this country that we enjoyed before the Democratic Party took over the White House, and the House and the Senate."
"We believe that we can help American people be able to afford their groceries, afford an automobile, afford their education, and that is why we are doing what we're doing," he added.
The vote comes after the owner of a tankless water heater manufacturing facility, Frank Windsor, recently warned that hundreds of jobs could be at risk if the new rule were to go into effect, telling FOX Business that the ban on "very efficient and highly effective technology for water heating" does not align with consumer interests.
"The scary thing is most Americans don't understand what's going on with these, I would describe, radical energy decisions that people are making that are going to have far-reaching impacts on consumers," Windsor, president of Rinnai America Corporation, told FOX Business in an interview.
House Republicans are working to introduce resolutions derailing Biden's climate agenda, specifically overturning regulations on household appliances.
The House passed another CRA on Wednesday to overturn the Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program.
Also on Wednesday, a Democrat-led resolution to reverse President Donald Trump's executive order declaring an "energy emergency" failed to pass in the Senate.
U.S. and Canadian air force members conducted joint military drills in Greenland in practice for action under bitterly cold conditions.
Operation Noble Defender took place from Jan. 28 through Feb. 11 at Pituffick Air Force Base, the U.S. military's northernmost installation, according to NORAD. The roughly 100 total service members had to operate in temperatures that were regularly below 0 degrees Fahrenheit, sometimes dropping as low as -28 degrees.
"Over the last three weeks, our integrated American and Canadian NORAD teams have demonstrated the ability to operate at the highest level in one of the most austere environments in the world," Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Shemo said in a statement.
"I am immensely proud of them and their dedication to this mission and appreciate the close cooperation from the Kingdom of Denmark as we train for the defense of Canada and the United States across all domains," he added.
The joint military exercise comes weeks after President Donald Trump pushed the idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland, an idea that has been rebuffed by Denmark, its current owner.
Trump has signaled interest in acquiring Greenland since 2019, calling it a potentially "large real estate deal," toward the end of his first term. In December, he ramped up calls for the U.S. to acquire the Danish territory and called it a national security issue.
"[F]or purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity," the then-president-elect wrote in a Truth Social post at the time.
At the beginning of February, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen affirmed that Greenland is "not for sale," but said she was open to the U.S. increasing its footprint in the Arctic region.
"I totally agree with the Americans that the High North, that the Arctic region is becoming more and more important when we are talking about defense and security and deterrence," Frederiksen said, referencing Chinese and Russian activity in the region. "And it is possible to find a way to ensure stronger footprints in Greenland. They [the U.S.] are already there, and they can have more possibilities."
FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans are urging President Donald Trump to use his executive power to block hospitals from denying organ transplants for people not vaccinated against COVID-19.
Rep. Michael Rulli, R-Ohio, who is leading the letter, said he was partially moved to act after Vice President JD Vance’s 12-year-old relative was reportedly denied a heart transplant over her COVID-19 vaccination status.
"Over the past week, it has come to light that multiple desperate Americans have been denied life-saving organ transplants due to their COVID-19 vaccination status," the letter said. "This outrageous denial of care has affected some of our most vulnerable citizens – including a child from Indiana and a veteran from Ohio."
Earlier this month, he and Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., introduced a bill to stop federal funds from going to any entity that denies someone treatment based on COVID-19 vaccination status.
"President Trump has done such a great job recently on executive orders," Rulli told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And I am asking President Trump if he sees this, to please do an executive order… because you could save someone's life today."
"The timing is everything. If we don't get this done, people's lives could be at risk."
The letter, signed by Rulli, Houchin and five other House Republicans, cited Trump’s executive orders ending COVID-19 vaccine mandates in schools and reinstating military service members who were discharged for not getting the vaccine.
"The same principles apply here. These reckless mandates, implemented under the Biden Administration, do more harm than good," the letter said.
"With your leadership, our nation could return to a time when our brave and talented medical professionals can save lives freely, unburdened by bureaucratic barriers that endanger our most vulnerable citizens."
The girl’s mother, Jeneen Deal, told the Daily Mail that giving her daughter the vaccine would violate the family’s religious beliefs.
When reached for comment on the lawmakers' letter by Fox News Digital via Facebook Messenger, Deal beseeched them to include the influenza vaccine in their request to Trump.
"Just removing the covid is just a start. The flu and covid are keeping her from being on the list," Deal wrote.
Vance said in comments to the Daily Mail that he would try to help.
"I guess it’s been circulating on social media, but I was made aware of a couple days ago, and we’re trying to dig in and trying to help, obviously, as much as possible," he said.
Fox News Digital reached out to spokespeople for Trump and Vance for comment, but did not hear back.
The Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of a straight woman's discrimination claim in a case that could overturn a line of precedent that has made "the Civil Rights Act apply unequally," according to a legal scholar familiar with civil rights litigation.
Petitioner Marlean Ames claims that she was demoted and passed over for a position in the Ohio youth corrections system in favor of two less-qualified gay employees who had neither applied for nor interviewed for the roles.
At issue in her case is a higher burden of proof some lower courts have required for those considered to be in "majority groups" – in this case heterosexuals – to prove discrimination occurred under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
During Wednesday's oral arguments, the justices – and the lawyers on both sides of the dispute – all agreed that the appeals court erred in Ames' case, which required her to provide additional "background circumstances" to "support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Wednesday all the court really needs to do is issue "a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it’s because you’re gay or because you’re straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same."
At one point during the arguments, Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser – arguing on behalf of the Ohio Department of Youth Services – perplexed liberal Justice Elena Kagan when he agreed that "the idea that you hold people to different standards because of their protected characteristics is wrong."
"I mean, it's a little bit of a peculiar situation, isn't it, because this is what the court said," Kagan said. "And you're up here, and I don't know exactly what to make of this."
Gaiser said he agreed with Ames "on that major premise point," but "we don't think Ms. Ames proved enough evidence to showcase a discrimination claim."
"I think we had six depositions under oath, if you can't show any evidence that the employer was motivated by a protected characteristic when they took the adverse action, and certainly, if you can't show an adverse action at all, that's not enough to create any burden of production for the employer," Gaiser said. "And that sample pattern approved the four elements that McDonnell Douglas lays out, courts have adapted that under this court's guidance."
The governing precedent in question is McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, a 1973 case where the high court established a four-step process for handling discrimination cases based on indirect evidence. Gaiser told the justices that Ames has not met the criteria set by those tests, even as the appeals court's application of the precedent was wrong.
The "higher burden of proof" at the center of the case, which several circuit courts choose to apply, "is not supported by the text of Title VII," GianCarlo Canaparo, senior legal expert at Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"There was, and to some extent still is, an ideological movement which says the text of the Civil Rights Act, not just Title VII, all of it applies to everybody equally, but really it's only meant to give special protection to certain groups, and its protection doesn't apply to other groups," Canaparo said. "And that sort of logic is what underpinned the rule in the Sixth Circuit and others, that says if you're a majority group, you're presumptively entitled to less protection, and so you have this disparate standard."
Canaparo said that during oral arguments "pretty much everybody, except maybe Justice Jackson, said, 'Look, the text is what it is. It's really clear.'"
He also said Ohio's goal in the case is to raise the standard for everyone, making it more difficult to file discrimination claims. Under the current McDonnell Douglas framework, plaintiffs only need to present minimal preliminary evidence to suggest discrimination, after which the employer must prove a legitimate reason for firing the employee, Canaparo said.
"Now that sounds good in theory, but how it actually works out is that the evidentiary burden that a lot of plaintiffs have to put up in the first instance is so low that what functionally happens in a lot of cases is that the defendant, the employer, has to prove its own innocence," he said.
Gaiser's proposal, according to Canaparo, is to raise the initial burden on plaintiffs so that they must present a stronger case before the employer is required to defend itself, while maintaining an equal standard for all.
"I think Ames will win, but that means a couple things. Number one, it means that traditionally created doctrines that make the Civil Rights Act apply unequally are on the way out," he said.
This approach is expected to have significant implications in a second Trump term, especially as the president issued executive actions weeding out discriminatory DEI policies, he added.
"I think it'll have a pretty powerful effect in continuing to shape the country toward the colorblind understanding of the law," he said.
Meanwhile, Andrea Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, wrote in a post on X that the "neutral standard that SCOTUS likely will land on in Ames" already applies "and has for decades."
"@USEEOC unanimously signed @TheJusticeDept’s brief in Ames. Don’t wait for SCOTUS’s opinion—comply with Title VII now," she wrote.
Lucas told Fox News Digital in a phone interview Thursday that "the EOC has never held that position" of requiring a heightened background circumstances test for a "majority" plaintiff or group.
"The EOC position is that this background circumstances test conflicts with the McDonnell Douglas standard. It conflicts with Supreme Court precedent," Lucas said. "We already had policy and enforcement positions that we've taken for decades."
Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary, which oversees the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Since 2009, she was promoted several times, and by 2014, she was promoted to program administrator, according to the Supreme Court filing.
In 2017, Ames began reporting to a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is openly gay. During her 2018 performance review, Trim rated Ames as meeting expectations in most areas and exceeding them in one.
However, in 2019, after Ames applied for a bureau chief position and did not get it, she was removed from her program administrator role, the court filing states. The department’s assistant director and HR head, both of whom are straight, offered her the choice to return to her previous job with a pay cut. Ames chose to remain with the department and was later promoted to a different program administrator position. The department then hired a gay woman for the bureau chief role Ames had wanted, and a gay man for the program administrator position she previously held.
In a sign of apparent bipartisan agreement on the underlying controversy, Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general under the Biden administration, filed an amicus brief in December urging the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court's ruling.
The Supreme Court is expected to release its ruling by the end of June.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, sparked a firestorm on social media over comments questioning DOGE chief Elon Musk’s allegiance to the U.S. given that he has been a citizen for "only" 22 years.
"Mr. Musk has just been here 22 years," Kaptur said outside the Capitol on Wednesday. "And he’s a citizen of three countries. I always ask myself the question, with the damage he’s doing here, when push comes to shove, which country is his loyalty to? South Africa? Canada? Or the United States? And he’s only been a citizen, I’ll say again, 22 years."
Kaptur, who has served in Congress since 1983, drew immediate criticism on social media from conservatives accusing Kaptur of hypocrisy and using language that Republicans would be pilloried for using.
"Just like @elonmusk, I immigrated LEGALLY and pledged my full loyalty to America," Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno posted on X. "But Democrats just see us as cheap labor who pick their crops and mow their lawns. If you step out of line & question their liberal narrative, they say you don’t belong here. It’s disgusting."
"Rep Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) is now a nativist when it comes to Elon Musk," Greg Price of the White House Rapid Response team posted on X.
The White House’s official rapid response account also posted on X, saying, "@RepMarcyKaptur is now questioning the loyalty of American citizens. This is a new low."
"A really bad thing for Marcy Kaptur to say," Taxpayers Protection Alliance President David Williams posted on X. "Is she really saying this about immigrants?
Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman posted on X that Kaptur’s comment was a "new tone for House Democrats…"
"Marcy Kaptur’s disgusting remark questioning Elon Musk’s loyalty based on his immigrant background exposes the Democrat Party’s descent into nativist rhetoric — the very thing they claim to oppose," NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"Their hypocrisy is clear: they champion open borders when it benefits them but resort to xenophobic attacks when an immigrant doesn’t align with their political agenda."
"Only immigrant the Democrats aren’t for," National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuruposted on X.
"This is the attack they want to make?!" Republican communicator Matt Whitlock posted on X. "That Elon has only been a citizen for 22 years? The Trump administration continues to be blessed with the absolute dumbest opposition I’ve ever seen."
"I'm sorry, what?" Macarena Martinez, communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz,, R-Texas, posted on X. "If a Republican said this they would be cancelled."
Kaptur, 78, previously signed ontoa House resolution in 2019 condemning President Trump for alleged xenophobic comments.
"This resolution states that immigrants and their descendants have made America stronger and naturalized citizens are just as American as those whose families have been in the United States for generations," the resolution stated.
"It also expresses a commitment to keep America open to those who lawfully seek refuge from violence and oppression and those willing to work hard to achieve the American Dream, regardless of race, ethnicity, faith, or country of origin."
Musk has continued to draw the ire of Democrats in recent weeks for his cuts to federal spending and government programs. At the same time, polling suggests most Americans agree with DOGE's mission.
Kaptur’s office did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) eliminated federal regulations created during the Obama administration, which Secretary Scott Turner accused of putting "extreme and restrictive demands" on local housing developers.
President Donald Trump rescinded the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, created under former President Barack Obama, during his first administration. Trump said at the time in a speech about cutting red tape in the federal government that the rule serves to "eliminate single-family zoning to destroy the value of houses" at the benefit of "far-left Washington bureaucrats."
Then-President Joe Biden later worked to reinstate the rule but ultimately pulled back due to fear it could make him politically vulnerable as he sought reelection, according to Politico. On Wednesday, HUD initiated its own rulemaking to squash the Obama-era AFFH rule, which mandated that localities commission extensive analyses to certify that new housing developments do not exacerbate disparities among federally protected groups. This includes access to public transportation, schools, hospitals and parks.
During a Wednesday conference call about the AFFH rule's termination, a HUD official said that discrimination that is prohibited under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 will still remain illegal. But under the new change, localities will now be able to self-certify that their new developments comply with anti-discrimination laws implemented under the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
"Over the past four years, and really dating back to the Obama administration, far-left Democrats have tried to socially re-engineer communities from the top down," Turner said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital.
"By terminating the AFFH rule, localities will no longer be required to complete onerous paperwork and drain their budgets to comply with the extreme and restrictive demands made up by the federal government."
Turner added that as a result of cutting this regulation, the federal government will be able to "better serve rural, urban and tribal communities that need access to fair and affordable housing."
Research from the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute found that the AFFH rule, as initiated under Obama, cost taxpayers as much as $55 million annually to collect the certification information the regulation required.
Prominent attorney John Morgan, who supported President Joe Biden but did not get on board to back Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential candidacy, has announced plans to launch a new political party.
"I am forming a new political party for those of us stuck in the middle. Our two party system is broken due to Gerrymandering and divisive issues… both sides. No labels is not an option. Everyone wants a team or tribe. Ron Myers is my lawyer drafting the paperwork. Stay tuned," he wrote in a post on X, adding his lawfirm's catchphrase, "#ForThePeople."
In another post he noted that he did not vote for Trump or Harris last year.
"People… we are all on the same f---ing team. I didn’t vote for Trump but I’m pulling like hell for Trump. I didn’t vote for Kamala either btw. It’s time for a third choice. If the choice is only vanilla or chocolate… you never get to eat strawberry," he declared.
Morgan has floated the idea of potentially mounting a gubernatorial bid. The Sunshine State's next gubernatorial race will take place in 2026.
Fox News Digital emailed Morgan and reached out to his law firm on Thursday to request a comment from the attorney regarding the new political party and whether he is still considering running for governor.
Back in 2017, ahead of the state's 2018 election, Morgan ruled out a gubernatorial bid, saying in a tweet that he couldn't "muster the enthusiasm to run for the nomination."
"And I can’t muster enthusiasm for any of today’s politicians. They are all the same. Both parties. I plan to register as an Independent and when I vote, vote for the lesser of two evils. And if I ever ran, run as an Independent," he added in another post at the time.
He said last year on the Fox News Channel that Harris "has no talent" and "can never run for president again."
"She should go away, and never, ever come back," he told Kayleigh McEnany.
He described himself as a "Bill Clinton Democrat," but said that he is now an independent.
"I love Joe Biden," he declared.
Fox News Digital searched for Morgan on Florida's "Voter Information Lookup" portal on Thursday and found a result indicating that Morgan has "No Party Affiliation."
Fox35orlando.com reported in a December article that the attorney has been registered as having no party affiliation for years.
During an interview with Chris Cuomo of NewsNation last year, Morgan praised former President Barack Obama and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
"I wish he could be president for life," he said of Obama.
He described Pelosi as the individual he admires "the most in America."
"Any time Nancy Pelosi asks me for money I give it," he said, adding that Pelosi took his children to meet the Dalai Lama. "Whatever she wants, I will do," he said. "I wish she was president."
"Forme, it’s going to be giving to people, not party," the wealthy political donor said, according to a New York Times report published earlier this month. "The D.N.C. learned nothing from the last election."
President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are set to sign a landmark mineral deal Friday that represents a breakthrough in their relationship, but leaves the work of hashing out the financial details for a later date.
"This is in some ways an agreement to make an agreement," said Doug Klain, policy analyst at Razom for Ukraine.
Even so, it was an abrupt turnaround from last week, when Zelenskyy rejected the initial terms for a deal. Trump, finding Zelenskyy ungrateful for U.S. help, declared him to be a "dictator" and said Ukraine "never should have started" the war.
So how did both parties turn things around? Here's what we know about the deal so far:
Unlike an earlier iteration of the deal, the newest version, approved by the Ukrainian Cabinet on Wednesday, establishes a fund with joint U.S.-Ukraine ownership instead of 100% U.S. ownership.
Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said Wednesday Ukraine would be funneling half of its revenues from future oil, gas and mineral projects into the fund, with some of that money being reinvested for more development. The deal would exclude existing natural resources projects.
The deal says that once both sides sign on to the initial framework, negotiations will begin on a "subsequent agreement" on who will control how much of the fund and its operation.
The U.S. initially demanded Ukraine offer $500 billion worth of its rare earths and other minerals as back payment for about $185 billion in aid. The latest versions of the deal do not include a concrete figure for how much of the mineral revenues the U.S. would receive or the size of the stake the U.S. would hold in the fund.
At a Wednesday news conference, Zelenskyy still said his country would not be repaying the U.S. for any of the aid that has already been allocated.
"I will not accept (even) 10 cents of debt repayment in this deal. Otherwise, it will be a precedent."
But Trump seemed satisfied with the latest negotiations.
"We’re doing very well with Russia-Ukraine. President Zelensky is going to be coming on Friday. It’s now confirmed, and we’re going to be signing an agreement," he said Wednesday.
The agreement has little in the way of details on how the U.S. would benefit financially.
"Perhaps U.S. companies will be contracted to do all the work of extraction, and could make big profits that way; perhaps the U.S. government would award itself an annual sum from the fund; or perhaps there would be a stipulation that U.S. companies could purchase the minerals at discounted rates," explained Peter Harris, a political science professor at Colorado State and fellow at restraint-minded group Defense Priorities.
But rare earth mining is a long and arduous process. "It could be decades before anyone makes a dime from Ukraine's untapped natural resources," said Harris.
Ukraine is looking for help from across the world to keep Russia out in the future if they can agree on terms to end the war.
But Zelenskyy is desperate for U.S. participation since he does not believe European security guarantees alone are enough to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading again.
U.S. officials have insisted America will not put boots on the ground. "I'm not going to make security guarantees beyond very much – we're going to have Europe do that because we're talking about Europe is their next-door neighbor," Trump said Wednesday.
U.S. officials have also told Ukraine to read between the lines: if the U.S. has significant financial interests, potentially even workers on the ground in the region, it will defend those interests.
"The Ukrainians are not quite convinced by that argument," said Klain. "It’s reminiscent of 1994, the agreement Ukraine made with the U.S., Russia and others to give up its nuclear arsenal, and the U.S. would say, ‘If anybody threatens your sovereignty, we’ll have your back.'"
The agreement includes a vague reference that "supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace," according to the Kyiv Independent.
Harris said a "backdoor security guarantee" through a minerals deal amounted to "bad policy" for the U.S.
"It [does not] serve the U.S. for large numbers of American workers to be stationed in an unstable post-conflict zone," he said. "Uncertain access to Ukraine's natural resources is not worth risking a NATO-Russia war."
Ukraine controls over 100 major deposits of critical minerals, according to the Kyiv School of Economics, along with some oil and gas reserves. Its reserves hold titanium, lithium, graphite, rare earths and other minerals key to the energy and tech sectors.
Trump wants revenues from the minerals as repayment, but he could also be looking to break China's monopoly on the rare earth metals used in phones, solar panels and other electronics.
Putin, meanwhile, said he is open to offering the U.S. access to rare minerals, including those from Russia's "new territories" – those captured in its war on Ukraine.
He said a U.S.-Ukraine mineral deal is not a concern and Russia "undoubtedly has, I want to emphasize, significantly more resources of this kind than Ukraine," in televised remarks.
"As for the new territories, it's the same. We are ready to attract foreign partners to the so-called new, to our historical territories, which have returned to the Russian Federation," he added.
