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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The scales are not equal," she added.

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

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

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

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

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRUMP TO BE SENTENCED IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRENSHAW RIPS BIDEN SPENDING BILL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I’d support that," one X user wrote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT DOGE ARE ANSWERED HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPUBLICANS GIVE DETAILS FROM CLOSED-DOOR MEETINGS WITH DOGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

California does not have a water shortage, yet firefighters battling the brutal fires across Los Angeles are facing scarce resources to keep up with the blaze that has threatened thousands of lives, homes, land and wildlife. 

Meanwhile, critics challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom’s call to "not play politics," arguing that political mismanagement is precisely to blame.

"It's all political," Edward Ring, the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center think-tank, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "The entire cause is political, and they ironically politicize it by saying it's about climate change, which is a political wedge that they use all the time, which is really one of the least of the factors causing this."

Experts lay blame primarily on the state's handling of its forestry management and a lesser-known problem, the state's outdated water reserves system. California's existing reservoirs can only hold so much water, and many were built in the mid-20th century. 

Last year, the state experienced record-breaking rainfall after an atmospheric river event, but the existing water infrastructure faced difficulties managing the sudden influx of water. A significant portion of that rainfall was dumped into the ocean. 

PALISADES FIRE: HEIDI MONTAG, SPENCER PRATT LOSE HOME; CELEBRITIES FLEE RITZY NEIGHBORHOOD  

Ring also pointed to "environmentalist extremists" in the state who have pushed for heavier regulations like the Endangered Species Act, which requires freshwater to flow through rivers and into the Pacific Ocean to protect the endangered delta smelt and salmon. The mandates restrict how much water can be diverted to storage, even during wet years.

"There is plenty of water," Ring argues, but the primary challenge in transporting water south to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley and cities in Southern California isn’t infrastructure capacity—it’s environmental policies. He points to a "consensus among the bureaucrats and board directors" overseeing California’s water management that prioritizes keeping more water in rivers to support the endangered fish.

"That’s true as far as it goes," he said, but despite these efforts, the salmon and smelt populations have not recovered. Additionally, there is growing concern that sturgeon may soon be classified as endangered as well. 

"These endangered fish are being used as the reason to leave water in the rivers," he said.

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

Urban areas, like Los Angeles, have highly developed drainage systems that channel stormwater directly into the ocean. They were originally designed with flood prevention in mind, not water storage, so this presents an additional challenge for the area. 

"They bring water in off of the California Aqueduct, and they import water into Los Angeles, and they haven't brought enough in there, and their reservoirs are depleted," Ring said. "But the biggest problem, because you're not going to drain even a half-full reservoir fighting a fire, is the water infrastructure in Los Angeles, and the water infrastructure in Los Angeles has been neglected. And the reason it's been neglected is that they want the money for other projects."

"The bottom line is they haven't spent money on it, and they've justified that by saying, we have to use less water," he continued. "And so they've been encouraging people, and in some cases, rationing, or even forcing people to use less water. And as a result, you don't have a system that's as robust."

One recent ex-California lawmaker said the state's lack of water infrastructure is "devastating California." 

ELON MUSK ANNOUNCES SPACEX WILL PROVIDE FREE STARLINK TERMINALS IN LA AMID RAGING FIRES

California voters passed Proposition 1 in 2014, also known as the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act, which authorized $2.7 billion in bonds to increase the state's water storage capacity through building new reservoirs and groundwater storage facilities. Yet as of January 2025, no new reservoirs have been completed under Prop. 1.

"And here it's been all these years, and we haven't done a shovel full of dirt to move to make the project," Dahle said. "The project is just not funded, and we had $100 billion in surplus, and we didn't fund it. And so that's the frustrating part, I think, for most Californians, is that when we had the money, and we didn't do anything about it."

The largest of the wildfires, the Eaton Fire near Altadena and Pasadena, has scorched more than 27,000 acres, Cal Fire reported as of midday Thursday. 

When reached for comment, Newsom's spokesperson Izzy Gardon told Fox News Digital, "The Governor is focused on protecting people, not playing politics, and making sure firefighters have all the resources they need."

President-elect Trump is expected to be sentenced 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 is expected to attend his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. 

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

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

Merchan, though, said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison. 

Merchan wrote in his decision that he is 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, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary." 

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

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

Trump's attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court's ruling on presidential immunity. 

The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts. 

But New York prosecutors argued that the high court "lacks jurisdiction" over the case. 

They also argued that the evidence they presented in the trial last year concerned "unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity." 

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to those charges. After a six-week-long, unprecedented trial for a former president and presidential candidate, a New York jury found the now-president-elect guilty on all counts. 

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.