President Donald Trump slammed a reporter for asking about Jeffrey Epstein during a high-profile Cabinet meeting Tuesday, calling the disgraced financier "this creep."
"Can I just interrupt for one second?" Trump said after a reporter directed an Epstein question at Attorney General Pam Bondi. "Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?"
"This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking. … We have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people are still talking about this guy, this creep?" Trump asked. "That is unbelievable.
"Do you want to waste the time?" Trump said to Bondi.
"I don't mind answering," he said.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI released a memo Sunday that ended theories about an alleged Epstein client list, concluding there was no such list detailing the names of the world's elite who allegedly took part in Epstein's history as a sexual predator. The DOJ also concluded the disgraced financier did in fact commit suicide in his New York jail cell in 2019.
"I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Jeffrey Epstein," Trump continued before Bondi answered. "At a time like this, where we're having some of the greatest success and and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration. But you go ahead."
The reporter had asked if Epstein had "worked for a American or foreign intelligence agency," as well as why a minute of jailhouse footage the day Epstein committed suicide is missing from the footage released by DOJ.
"I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well," Bondi said, referring to an interview she had on Fox News in February and was asked about the allegedly Epstein client list.
"That's what I meant by that. Also, to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein," she continued.
Bondi continued that she was unaware of Epstein allegedly working for an American or foreign intelligence agency and that she would check in on the matter, before also addressing why a minute of footage was missing from the videos of Epstein's jail cell the day he died.
"And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively that the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was — showing he committed suicide."
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) unveiled its National Farm Security Action Plan on Tuesday morning.
The plan is specifically meant to address threats from foreign governments, like China, and how those threats impact American farmers. It presents legislative and executive reforms such as banning Chinese nationals from obtaining farmland in the U.S., as well as assessing who holds land near military bases.
"The farm's produce is not just a commodity, it is a way of life that underpins America itself. And that's exactly why it is under threat from criminals, from political adversaries, and from hostile regimes that understand our way of life as a profound and existential threat to themselves," USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a press event in Washington, D.C.
"For them, agricultural lands and our farms, because they are a previous inheritance, are weapons to be turned against us," she continued. "We see it again and again, from Chinese communist acquisition of American farmland to criminal exploits of our system of agriculture, to the theft of operational information required to work the land and beyond. All of this takes what is profoundly good and turns it toward evil purposes."
"As someone who's charged with leading the Defense Department, I want to know who owns the land around our bases and strategic bases and getting an understanding of why foreign entities, foreign companies, foreign individuals might be buying up land around those bases," Hegseth said.
Bondi directly referenced how agroterrorism is becoming a top concern for the administration. Two Chinese nationals were arrested in Michigan last month for allegedly smuggling what FBI Director Kash Patel described as a "known agroterrorism agent."
"A country who cannot feed itself, cannot take care of itself, and cannot provide for itself, is not secure, and we have to be able to feed ourselves to make sure that no other country ever controls us," Noem said.
Noem said that during her time as governor of South Dakota she signed a law that banned the governments of China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Russia and entities related to them from buying farmland in the state.
"And I've watched for decades as evil foreign governments, including China, have come into this country, and they have stolen our intellectual property. They've manipulated their currency, they've treated us unfairly in trade deals. They've come in and purchased up our processing companies, stolen our genetics," she continued.
Numerous states have laws on the books restricting land purchases by those with ties to China and other foreign adversaries. In 2021, over 383,000 acres had ties to China, but the number has dipped in recent years, according to Agriculture Dive.
President Donald Trump disclosed he and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley clashed over leaving equipment in Afghanistan as the U.S. withdrew troops in 2021.
Trump, who historically has pushed to recover billions of dollars' worth of equipment U.S. troops left in Afghanistan, said that Milley argued at the time it was cheaper to leave the equipment there.
"That's when I knew he was an idiot," Trump said during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday. "Didn't take long to figure that one out. But they left all that equipment. But they left their dignity behind. It was the most embarrassing moment, in my opinion, in the history of our country. Not that we got out. We should have not been there, but that we got out the way we got out with great embarrassment and death."
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Just days before a gunman ambushed Border Patrol agents in McAllen, Texas, on Monday, congressional Democrats voted nearly uniformly against a resolution condemning the Los Angeles riots and the anti-ICE rhetoric that led to the tensions in June.
Michigan resident Ryan Louis Mosqueda, 27, was allegedly armed with tactical gear and a rifle when he opened fire on Border Patrol agents as they arrived at a Border Patrol annex facility in McAllen, Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley on Monday. The gunman was killed, but a McAllen police officer was shot in the leg, and a Border Patrol agent and a staffer were also hurt, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The department said all three are in "non-critical condition."
Law enforcement believes the attack was a purposeful ambush targeting Border Patrol officials, who play a different role than ICE but serve a major role in how the federal government enforces immigration and border policies.
All but seven Democrats voted against a resolution, championed by Rep. Young Kim and the California Republican delegation, on June 27, which passed, that "expresses gratitude" toward both local and federal law enforcement, including ICE.
"Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not. Protecting public safety shouldn’t be controversial, which is why I am leading the California Republican delegation in a resolution to support law and order as we continue to see unrest," Kim said in a statement at the time.
"I hope Governor Newsom can come together with President Trump to stop the riots, lower the temperature, and keep our communities safe," she continued.
Still, the resolution sparked debate, as it said President Donald Trump was justified in sending the National Guard to Los Angeles amid civil unrest, which many Democratic leaders have argued acted as an instigator. Gov. Gavin Newsom even sued the administration over the deployment.
"The unrest in Los Angeles was sparked by Donald Trump’s reckless and inflammatory actions. Like Rep. Kim, we believe violence – especially against law enforcement – is never acceptable. That’s why the Governor condemned it over a dozen times, clearly and repeatedly, from the start, and sent state law enforcement to keep the peace. We look forward to Rep. Kim applying the same standard to a resolution condemning the January 6th insurrection and the brutal assault on U.S. Capitol police," a spokesperson for Newsom told Fox News Digital at the time.
DHS attributes political rhetoric to the 700% surge in assaults on ICE agents. In Alvarado, Texas, 11 individuals are now facing charges for the "planned ambush" at the Prairieland Detention Center, which resulted in a local police officer being shot in the neck, according to Fox 4.
Axios reported Monday that Democrats in Congress have faced pushback from their voter base over their response to the Trump administration, saying they are not going far enough.
"What I have seen is a demand that we get ourselves arrested intentionally or allow ourselves to be victims of violence, and... a lot of times that's coming from economically very secure White people," a lawmaker told the outlet.
Some Democrats, like Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver and New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, were each arrested for protest actions involving ICE, and McIver recently pleaded "not guilty" for allegedly "impeding and interfering" with federal agents outside a Newark ICE detention facility in May.
President Donald Trump is aiming to terminate birthright citizenship in the United States – and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to curb universal injunctions has brought him one step closer to accomplishing that mission.
While changing the way the government gives citizenship to babies born in the United States is still an uphill climb, the high court’s ruling raised the possibility that Trump’s new policy to end automatic citizenship could, at least temporarily, take effect in some parts of the country.
Lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the conservative legal advocacy group JCN, said it was unclear at this stage of litigation how Trump’s policy would work logistically or to whom it would apply. The Supreme Court's decision, issued June 27, barred Trump’s executive order from becoming active for 30 days.
"Normally, if you give birth at the hospital, they just automatically issue everyone a Social Security number," Severino told Fox News Digital. "Now the question isn't open and shut like that."
The Supreme Court’s decision arose from various Democratic-led states and immigration rights groups bringing several lawsuits across the country challenging Trump’s executive order, which the president signed shortly after he took office.
The order dramatically changed the scope of birthright citizenship, which is outlined under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and allows babies born to noncitizens in the United States to automatically receive U.S. citizenship in most cases.
Courts uniformly rejected Trump’s policy and blocked it by issuing universal injunctions that applied to the whole country and not just certain pregnant noncitizens being represented in court.
Seattle-based federal Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, chastised government attorneys during a February hearing over the matter.
"It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals," the judge said. "The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain."
Coughenour later said that if Trump wanted to change the "exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship," then the president would need to work with Congress to amend the Constitution, rather than attempt to redefine the amendment through an executive order.
In the wake of the Supreme Court's order, courts and plaintiffs are moving quickly to adapt and, in some cases, find workarounds before the 30-day deadline arrives.
Within hours of the high court's decision, plaintiffs who brought a birthright citizenship lawsuit in Maryland asked a judge to change the lawsuit to a class action proceeding that covers all babies who will be born after Trump’s executive order takes effect.
The request was one of what is quickly becoming a manifold of court requests that are testing the Supreme Court’s injunction decision and potentially undercutting it.
The Supreme Court’s decision left intact the ability for judges, if they see fit, to use class action lawsuits or statewide lawsuits to hand down sweeping orders blocking Trump’s policies from applying to wide swaths of people.
"The bottom line is that the Trump administration has the right to carry this order out nationwide, except where a court has stayed it as to parties actually involved in a lawsuit challenging it," Severino said.
American Immigration Council’s Michelle Lapointe wrote online there was a "real possibility" that if the judges overseeing the current lawsuits do not find a way in the next few weeks to issue broad injunctions blocking birthright citizenship, then some states might see the policy take effect.
"That raises the risk of babies born in certain parts of the United States… being fully stripped of their rights as U.S. citizens, perhaps even rendering them stateless," Lapointe wrote. "The human cost of such an action is unconscionable."
Regardless of what happens in the coming weeks and months, the underlying merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy are on track to end up at the Supreme Court.
The justices were able to avoid touching the substance of Trump's argument by merely considering the constitutionality of universal injunctions during this last go-round, but the next time a birthright citizenship lawsuit comes before them, they are likely to have to weigh in on whether Trump's policy is constitutional.
Severino said she believed the six Republican-appointed justices would rely heavily on "history and tradition" and "what the words were understood to mean in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed."
"It's a challenging issue, in part because our immigration system looks so dramatically different now than it did at the time of the 14th Amendment, because the sort of immigration we're looking at was not really on their radar, nor was the type of entitlement state that we are living in," Severino said.
Michael Moreland, Villanova University law school professor, told Fox News Digital there has long been an academic debate about the language in the amendment. It states that babies born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. The dispute, Moreland said, has centered on "how broadly or narrowly" to interpret that clause.
The Trump administration has said that as part of its immigration crackdown, it wants to curtail abuse of the 14th Amendment, which can include foreigners traveling to the United States strictly to give birth with no intention of legally settling in the country. The amendment also incentivizes migrants to enter the country illegally to give birth and rewards pregnant women already living illegally in the country by imparting citizenship to their children, the administration has said.
Judges, thus far, have found that Trump's policy is at odds with more than 150 years of precedent. The government has long given citizenship to any child born in the United States with few exceptions, such as babies born to foreign diplomats or foreign military members.
"The balance of opinion for a long time has been on the side of saying that the 14th Amendment does have a right of birthright citizenship," Moreland said.
A resurfaced photo of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani flipping off a statue of Christopher Columbus is sparking backlash online and with some members of the Italian-American community.
"Take it down," Mamdani posted in June 2020, along with a photo showing what is presumably his gloved hand raising the middle finger toward a statue of the famed Italian explorer in Astoria, New York.
Some in the Italian community took offense to the post, according to a New York Post report, including Columbus Heritage Coalition President Angelo Vivolo.
"We will defend Columbus Day and Columbus statues," Vivolo said.
"He is being disrespectful to the Italian American community." Vivolo added. "If you offend one community, you offend all communities."
Joseph Scelsa, the founder and president of the Italian American Museum, suggested it is unwise for Mamdani to alienate Italians, who the New York Post reported make up 8% of the population of New York City.
"To eliminate such a large population of people would be a travesty," Scelsa said. "It’s not inclusive. It’s exclusionary. Who’s to say who is a hero and who is not a hero? Columbus is our hero."
"This guy needs to be stopped," YouTuber Joey Salads posted on X.
"The most defining characteristic of the left is ingratitude," journalist Megan Basham posted on X.
"He disrespects the critical role Italians and Catholics played in the founding of our nation," former Trump official Ezra A. Cohen posted on X. "Shameful."
"What a disgusting socialist," Florida GOP Chair Evan Power posted on X.
"so u can be a nepo baby anchor baby who's never had a job in your life and potentially become mayor of America's largest city simply on the force of hating white people hard enough," Foundation for Freedom Online executive director Mike Benz posted on X.
"This communist clown needs to be sent back," Federalist CEO Sean Davis posted on X.
Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani’s campaign but did not receive a response about the post, which is still visible on his X account as of Tuesday morning.
Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, rocked the political landscape last month when he was victorious in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary despite running on a platform filled with left-wing priorities and a track record that includes previous calls to defund the police.
Mamdani, who was born in Uganda to parents from India, has become a target for moderate Democrats and Republicans over his socialist views and recently faced controversy after it was reported he identified as Asian and African American while applying to college.
Mamdani is set to face off against several candidates in the general election this November, including current Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, Republican Curtis Sliwa, and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Senate Republicans are set to consider a multibillion-dollar package of cuts from the White House, but the top Senate Democrat warned that doing so could have consequences for a later government funding showdown.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned on Tuesday that the Senate GOP’s plan to move forward with a $9.4 billion rescissions package would have "grave implications" on Congress, particularly the forthcoming government funding fight in September.
"Republicans’ passage of this purely partisan proposal would be an affront to the bipartisan appropriations process," Schumer wrote in a letter to fellow Senate Democrats.
"That’s why a number of Senate Republicans know it is absurd for them to expect Democrats to act as business as usual and engage in a bipartisan appropriations process to fund the government, while they concurrently plot to pass a purely partisan rescissions bill to defund those same programs negotiated on a bipartisan basis behind the scenes," he continued.
The rescissions package, proposed by the Impoundment Control Act, allows the White House to request that Congress roll back congressionally appropriated funding. Such proposed cuts must be approved by both chambers within 45 days.
This package in particular, which narrowly squeaked through the House by a two-vote margin last month, would claw back $8.3 billion in funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS.
The package, informed heavily by the cuts proposed by President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, formerly helmed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, would only need to pass a simple majority in the upper chamber to pass.
Musk and DOGE made USAID a primary target of their hunt for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government, dismantling much of the long-standing organization ahead of the rescission request.
The impending deadline to fund the government in September will either require the passage of a dozen appropriations bills – something Congress has not done in years – or the need to work with Democrats to crest the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
And the rescissions package is not wildly popular among Republicans.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said during a hearing on the package late last month that she was concerned about proposed cuts to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the CPB, and warned that cuts to the AIDS and HIV prevention program would be "extraordinarily ill-advised and shortsighted."
Schumer is no stranger to trying to leverage government funding fights to his advantage. Earlier this year, he withheld support for the House GOP-authored government funding extension before ultimately agreeing to the deal.
That same scenario could play out once more come September.
"This is beyond a bait-and-switch – it is a bait-and-poison-to-kill," Schumer said. "Senate Republicans must reject this partisan path and instead work with Democrats on a bipartisan appropriations process."
First lady Jill Biden's political rise coincided with the end of her husband's political career, according to a new book about how President Joe Biden lost the White House.
One year after Biden's consequential debate performance, the first octogenarian president's age has inspired congressional investigations and books detailing his alleged cognitive decline.
"2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America," is the latest to tackle the inner workings of the Biden administration.
The book, released Tuesday by journalists Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of The New York Times and Isaac Arnsdor of The Washington Post, details the influential role Jill Biden played in her husband's administration.
He was subpoenaed to testify on July 16 after refusing to appear before the committee investigating the alleged cover-up of Biden's mental decline, which argued that executive privilege did not apply to him.
According to the book, Bernal accused Anita Dunn, a veteran Democratic political strategist who served in the Biden and Obama administrations, of being disloyal for pushing for more transparency about the Biden family.
There was a "near-total ban" on discussing Hunter Biden, the journalists wrote in their new book, as Hunter's federal trial fell in the middle of his father's re-election campaign in June 2024.
Jill Biden, with Bernal by her side, went to great lengths to attend Hunter Biden's federal trial, often traveling long distances from overseas trips or campaign events.
She attended the first three days of the trial, flew to France to join the president at the D-Day commemoration and then returned to Wilmington less than 24 hours later for the fifth day of the trial.
As described in "2024," West Wing staffers were surprised when Jill Biden arrived at the trial. Most senior aides had no idea the first lady planned to attend, revealing her willingness to act independently.
But while Jill Biden demonstrated her independence from the White House, Bernal was right there with her leading the East Wing.
"He quickly bonded with Jill Biden and never left her side, becoming unflinchingly loyal to her and using his proximity to her to exert power wherever he decided. It was often unclear if the opinion he was expressing was his own or the first lady’s. Sometimes, when donors or voters asked her questions, Bernal would jump in to answer," the authors said.
Just as Jill jumped to Hunter's defense during his high-profile trial, she became the president's staunchest supporter following his disastrous debate performance against President Donald Trump.
"Joe isn’t just the right person for the job," the first lady said at a fundraiser soon after the debate. "He’s the only person for the job."
The book alleges that Jill Biden had always played the "role of the protective spouse, encouraging the president to eat vegetables, keeping him on time, and questioning staffers when she felt they erred."
In one such case in January 2022, a Biden aide apologized to the first lady when she questioned why they allowed a press conference to go on for too long, according to the book.
As Biden struggled to successfully defend his debate performance, with donors and Democratic politicians growing weary, and "her husband in the fight of his political life, Jill was making clear: The Democratic Party had to stick with Joe," the authors said.
After the debate, the Bidens took a pre-planned family trip to Camp David.
"The president was not entertaining the idea of dropping out of the race; he was taking stock of how bad things really were," the authors said of Biden's trip to Camp David.
The authors described how dropping out "was not even a consideration" at Camp David, and how the first lady was part of those in the inner family circle who persuaded Biden to stay in the race, despite mounting pressure from party leaders and donors to step down.
Biden huddled with his family in Camp David during the last few days of June, then appeared for debate damage-control interviews on network TV in the weeks following, referring to the debate as a bad night and blaming a cold for his off-night.
"Biden also acknowledged he needed more sleep and said he told his staff that he should not participate in events that start after 8 p.m. But his message was clear: He was staying in the race," the authors said.
Less than a month after the debate, and one week after an assassination attempt on Trump, Biden announced he was suspending his re-election campaign, and later endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee.
Fox News Digital has written extensively dating back to the 2020 presidential campaign about Biden's cognitive decline and his inner circle’s alleged role in covering it up.
A Biden spokesperson did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Texas Rep. Wesley Hunt blasted California Gov. Gavin Newsom for providing health benefits to millions of illegal migrants through the state's Medi-Cal program, and called on Newsom to conduct a full audit of the state's Medicaid expansion.
In a scathing letter obtained by Fox News Digital, Hunt called on Newsom to fully audit California's Medi-Cal enrollment, publicly release the findings of ineligible individuals receiving benefits, and revoke waivers that allow the state to provide Medi-Cal to illegal migrants.
"Given the posture of Democrats in Congress and California Governor Gavin Newsom's public opposition to ICE operations, it's only logical to demand transparency on how many illegal immigrants in California are receiving benefits meant solely for American citizens," Hunt wrote.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Census Bureau estimates that one in five immigrants in California are illegal aliens.
Sources at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) say that the state of California is obligated to report Medi-Cal data to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Newsom cut back on funding for illegal migrant healthcare in the state's budget he signed late last month, freezing California taxpayer-funded Medi-Cal for new illegal immigrant applicants starting January 2026. The governor also plans to charge illegal migrants on the program a premium beginning in 2027.
But Hunt honed in specifically on Newsom's use of waivers previously granted by the Biden administration that allow the state to make Medi-Cal easier for illegal migrants to obtain.
"I'm especially alarmed by Newsom’s use of Section 1115 waivers under the Social Security Act, which have opened the door for undocumented immigrants to access Medicaid at the expense of American taxpayers," Hunt added.
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act grants the federal government power to waive specific Medicaid requirements. States can request waivers from Section 1115, allowing them to bend and potentially reduce these requirements.
"Does California's Medicaid system fully comply with federal law?" Hunt questioned. "How many other Democrat-run states are exploiting similar loopholes? It’s time to shine a light on this abuse and shut it down."
"Californians deserve transparency, accountability, and adherence to the law in the administration of public health programs," the letter reads. "Policies that divert limited resources away from lawful recipients not only violate federal standards—they destroy public trust and threaten the sustainability of programs designed to serve our most vulnerable citizens."
Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's office, but did not receive a response.
South Carolina Republicans say they’re ready to give California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom "a HUGE Southern welcome" when he arrives in the key presidential primary state on Tuesday.
Newsom is teaming up with the South Carolina Democratic Party for two days of meetings with voters in the state that officially held the first primary in the Democrats' 2024 calendar.
The trip by the term-limited governor with a large national profile is sure to spark plenty of 2028 speculation, since Newsom is considered a potential contender for the next Democratic presidential nomination.
Republicans in the GOP-dominated state are taking notice.
"Gavin Newsom is bringing his Crazy California agenda to Trump Country. It’s up to us to show him what real leadership looks like," the South Carolina GOP said in an email to supporters.
The email included Newsom's itinerary during his Tuesday-Wednesday swing, which is full of stops at cafes, coffee shops, community centers and churches.
"The dates, times, and locations are listed below," the South Carolina GOP said. "Show up loud, proud, and decked out in your Trump gear and flags."
State GOP chair Drew McKissic, in a separate statement, argued that "Gavin Newsom should go sell Crazy California somewhere else. He won't find many takers here."
It was a similar message from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who earlier this year launched a Republican campaign for governor in 2026.
"We don’t need Gavin Newsom’s twisted version of America in the Palmetto State," Wilson argued in a statement. "If Gavin Newsom wants to test his national message here, he’ll be met by a united conservative front that knows exactly what’s at stake."
The South Carolina Democratic Party, which announced Newsom's trip last week, said it's part of their effort to bring national Democrats to parts of the Palmetto State that they say have long been overlooked and "left behind" by Republican officials.
"Governor Newsom leads the largest economy in America and the fourth largest in the world, and he’s coming to meet folks in towns that have been hollowed out by decades of Republican control," state party chair Christale Spain said in a statement.
Newsom stopped in South Carolina in January of last year to campaign on behalf of then-President Joe Biden during the state's 2024 presidential primary. Newsom also visited Nevada, another early-voting state in the party's primary calendar.
And Newsom traveled last summer on behalf of Biden to New Hampshire, the state that for a century has held the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
The former president was the Democrats' 2024 standardbearer before dropping out of the race last July following a disastrous debate performance against now-President Donald Trump. Vice President Kamala Harris replaced Biden at the top of the Democratic national ticket.
South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada are vying for the lead-off position in the next presidential election cycle, and the Democratic National Committee is expected to decide on their 2028 calendar by early 2027.
Newsom has long been thought to harbor national ambitions and is considered one of many Democrats who may make a run for the party's 2028 presidential nomination.
The two-day swing through South Carolina will give Newsom an opportunity to make connections not only with voters, but also with local party and elected officials. The relationships forged this week could possibly pay dividends down the road for Newsom if he eventually decides to launch a 2028 presidential campaign.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested that business magnate Elon Musk push for balanced budget and congressional term limit amendments to the U.S. Constitution, rather than build a new political party.
Musk, who has been beating the drum about the need to rein in government spending, announced that he is launching a new political party called the America Party.
"Backing a candidate for president is not out of the question, but the focus for the next 12 months is on the House and the Senate," he noted in a post on X.
The governor suggested that if Musk funds candidates in competitive Senate and House contests, Democrats will likely win.
But DeSantis acknowledged that the GOP has an issue with people running on spending less, but then failing to do so. "There's a gap between the campaign rhetoric, and then the performance," he said.
He explained that he does not believe "electing a few better people" will alter the "trajectory" on the debt issue.
DeSantis said that the "incentives" in D.C. will "lead to these outcomes, really, regardless of the outcome of elections at this point," asserting that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is needed.
A top advisor to former President Joe Biden reportedly labeled Hunter Biden’s presence on a call about the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that former presidents have some immunity from prosecution "inappropriate," according to a new book.
The book, "2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America," was published Tuesday and chronicles how Biden’s team dismissed concerns about his age during the 2024 election cycle, along with how President Donald Trump secured his victory.
The book said Biden’s White House chief of staff, Jeff Zients, coordinated a video call with key Biden staffers, including White House Counsel Ed Siskel, communications director Ben LaBolt, senior advisor Mike Donilon and others to discuss whether Biden should provide an on-camera statement to the Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision.
While Donilon already had drafted a written statement, Biden wanted to speak about the matter on-camera, the book claims. Staffers on the call started to hash out specifics of such an appearance, when Biden’s son started to chime into the call.
"Suddenly an unidentified voice piped up from Biden’s screen and recommended an Oval Office address," the book said. "At first, some aides had no idea who was speaking. It soon became clear the voice belonged to Hunter Biden, who the White House staff had not known was on the call. Siskel expressed some concern about the appearance of using the Oval Office."
"Hunter snapped back: ‘This is one of the most consequential decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.’ He said his father had every right to use the powerful imagery of the Oval Office to deliver that message," the book said. "They later settled on the Cross Hall, the long hallway on the first floor of the White House. After the call ended, Siskel told colleagues. Hunter’s presence was inappropriate."
Biden ultimately delivered a brief speech responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling and took no questions from the press, per the suggestion of his son, the book claimed.
Siskel and a spokesperson for Biden did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 ruling in Trump v. United States that former presidents have significant immunity from prosecution for acts they committed in an official capacity. The case made its way to the Supreme Court after Trump faced charges stemming from then-Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and engaged in any other alleged election interference.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges, and claimed a former president could not face a prosecution without a House impeachment and a Senate conviction.
The book "2024" is one of several that have been released in this year detailing Biden’s mental deterioration while in office and how Trump won the election. It is authored by Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of the New York Times and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post.
Another book covering similar material is "Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," released May 20.
Fox News Digital has written extensively dating back to the 2020 presidential campaign about Biden's cognitive decline and his inner circle’s alleged role in covering it up.
According to Dawsey, Hunter Biden’s involvement in his father’s affairs as president was not out of the ordinary during the former president’s time in office.
"What we found out over the course of reporting for our book is, Hunter Biden (was) a major figure in the president's orbit," Dawsey said in a Sunday interview with ABC's "This Week." "He was often on these calls, he would pipe in to calls, he was helping him make campaign decisions, and the president was very concerned about his son. It was one of the things that was an albatross on him as he tried to run for re-election."
Former White House physician Kevin O'Connor, who served as doctor to former President Joe Biden, requested a delay to his upcoming testimony before the House Oversight Committee this week.
O'Connor was scheduled to testify on Wednesday, but is now in a disagreement with the committee over the scope of the questions he will be expected to answer during his testimony. The committee, led by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., is interviewing the doctor as part of its investigation into Biden's mental fitness and his administration's use of an autopen.
A lawyer for O'Connor requested the testimony be delayed to July 28 or August 4 in a letter to Comer.
"Dr. O’Connor has legal and ethical obligations that he must satisfy and for which violations carry serious consequences to him professionally and personally," the letter says.
"We are unaware of any prior occasion on which a Congressional Committee has subpoenaed a physician to testify about the treatment of an individual patient. And the notion that a Congressional Committee would do so without any regard whatsoever for the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship is alarming."
A spokesman for the Oversight Committee replied in a statement to NBC News that O'Connor and his legal team were merely trying to "stonewall" the process.
The committee said O'Connor is welcome to object to individual questions during his testimony. But O'Connor is not allowed, in the committee's view, to delay or decline a congressional subpoena due to concerns over questions about potentially privileged information.
The debate over O'Connor's testimony comes weeks after a former top aide to Biden, Neera Tanden, told the Oversight Committee that she was authorized to direct autopen signatures but was unaware of who in the president's inner circle was giving her final clearance.
During Tanden's interview before Congress last month, which lasted more than five hours, she told lawmakers that, in her role as staff secretary and senior advisor to the former president between 2021 and 2023, she was authorized to direct autopen signatures on behalf of Biden, an Oversight Committee official told Fox News.
"Ms. Tanden testified that she had minimal interaction with President Biden, despite wielding tremendous authority," Comer said at the time. "She explained that to obtain approval for autopen signatures, she would send decision memos to members of the President’s inner circle and had no visibility of what occurred between sending the memo and receiving it back with approval. Her testimony raises serious questions about who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House amid the President’s obvious decline. We will continue to pursue the truth for the American people."
Salena Zito, a veteran political reporter with more than 20 years of storytelling experience, is telling her own story in her book, "Butler: The Untold Story of the Near Assassination of Donald Trump and the Fight for America's Heartland."
Zito's novel, released Tuesday, takes readers back to July 13, 2024, when a young shooter unleashed gunfire into the crowd at President Donald Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
"I didn't get down," Zito told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview ahead of the release. "There was this inner voice that told me, ‘You have a job to do, continue doing it.’"
When 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks began firing toward Trump, Zito found herself in the Secret Service's secure perimeter, right by the stage where Trump was delivering his remarks.
"Time has these layers that happen," Zito said. "It's not remembering them. It's experiencing them. It's this interesting thing that happens. I see a sea of navy blue suits immediately surround him. Then, I hear the second four shots. I still didn't get down."
As a gun owner, Zito recognized the sound of the gunshots right away. But as a journalist, she quickly began to commit the historic moment to memory as it was unfolding.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, Zito described the scene she saw first-hand, that was caught on video by the network pool camera and watched across the world.
Just over eight minutes into Trump's speech, Zito was standing in the "buffer" with her daughter, her son-in-law and a Trump campaign aide, Michel Picard. It was Picard who finally brought Zito to the ground.
"Michel Picard takes me down and lies on top of me and covers me," Zito explained. "This young man didn't have to do this. He will always be a hero in my heart. He lies on the top of my daughter. My son-in-law has already taken my daughter down."
Zito said, even from that vantage point, she could still see and hear the situation unfolding as Trump shouted out for his shoes, someone called out for a medic and a woman screamed.
"I had my recorder on my phone because I thought I was going to be recording the rally, his speech. I wanted to make sure I got the nuance. I always do that. I could see, and I could hear everything that was happening."
She said Trump was saying, "USA," from the ground as the crowd began to chant. When the Secret Service helped Trump onto his feet, he shouted, "Fight! Fight! Fight," Zito said she saw a different side of Trump, which is revealed in her book.
The journalist, who is a political reporter for the Washington Examiner, is a special contributor for the Washington Post and has been a columnist for the New York Post, said Trump must have called her seven times in the 24 hours after the shooting.
Zito was slated to interview Trump ahead of his rally in Butler, but such is the case with presidential campaign schedules, the interview time kept slipping. Zito was planning to fly with Trump to Bedminster, N.J., to interview him after the rally.
Trump recovered from his near assassination with little more than a bullet graze to the ear, thanks to the immigration chart he was turning his head to face. One rally attendee, firefighter Corey Comperatore, was killed, and two others were critically injured by Crooks' gunshots.
Comperatore shielded his wife and daughters from the shots, saving his family. Trump honored their family when he returned to Butler to finish the rally later that year.
"This book is for everyone," Zito told Fox News Digital. "First of all, it was a witness to history. And it's told in a way that is very conversational and told in way that's very real and authentic. I tell the story exactly the way that it happened."
"But it's also a book about understanding why place and rootedness [are] so important in American politics. There have been very few Republicans or Democrats that have understood that. It is part of America's experience, no matter what happens next, that there's a light shining on it, so that you understand people better."
FIRST ON FOX: As Planned Parenthood sues the Trump administration for provisions of the Big, Beautiful Bill defunding abortion providers, pro-life medical groups are urging Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reexamine the FDA’s broad approval of abortion drugs.
In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, six anti-abortion medical organizations, representing approximately 30,000 medical professionals, urge Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary to reinstate safety guards on the abortion pill mifepristone that have been removed since it was first approved in 2000.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortion accounts for 63 percent of all U.S. abortions. The most common form of medication abortion method involves ingesting mifepristone, a pill that cuts off progesterone flow to the womb, essentially starving the fetus of nutrients. A second pill, called misoprostol, is then ingested to expel the dead fetus.
Under the Biden administration, the FDA significantly expanded its approval of mifepristone, allowing the drugs to be obtained via telemedicine, without in-person doctor appointments and to be mailed.
In the letter, the groups, which include the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the American College of Family Medicine, warn that the latest data on mifepristone "strongly suggests" that hundreds of thousands of women have been harmed by using the drug.
Planned Parenthood states on its website that chemical abortion is "safer than many other medicines like penicillin, Tylenol, and Viagra." The letter, however, calls mifepristone "a high-risk abortion-inducing drug that is known to cause serious adverse effects and medical emergencies, including hemorrhage, sepsis, and incomplete abortions requiring surgical intervention."
The letter cites two reports released this May, one by the Foundation for the Restoration of America and the other by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, that they say showed as many as one out of every nine women using mifepristone suffered serious adverse events.
The studies claimed that, based on an analysis of health insurance records covering 330 million U.S. patients of 860,000 women receiving mifepristone prescriptions, 10.93 percent of those women experienced sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, surgical intervention or another serious adverse event within 45 days following using the drug.
Based on this, the letter says that real-world data on mifepristone use "shows real patients experience very real medical emergencies at an alarming rate – a rate that is consistent with what our members are seeing in their clinical practice."
"The data strongly suggest that mifepristone poses a far greater risk of causing harm than previously stated. In fact, the risk of serious complications may be 22 times higher than previously disclosed," the letter states.
In light of this, AAPLOG and the other groups signing onto the letter are urging the FDA to conduct its own evaluation of real-world data to determine the overall safety of mifepristone in both the adult and adolescent populations.
The groups also urge Kennedy and Makary to reinstate reporting of all adverse events related to mifepristone use and reinstate the pre-2016 Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies on the drug’s use, including limiting the use of the drug to 7 weeks of gestation and requiring in-person dispensing as well as follow-up appointments.
The letter stressed that requiring ultrasounds is also essential to confirm the gestational age of the fetus, which the groups said is "crucial to accurately dating a pregnancy and determining the risk of complications."
"A basic tenet of medical ethics is informed consent — which requires a review of accurate risks and benefits of any proposed intervention that is specific to the patient sitting in front of us which is based on actual data, not ideologically-driven rhetoric," the letter states. "Women deserve to know the true risk of serious adverse events and medical emergencies after using mifepristone – no matter how politically charged the discussion surrounding this drug."
"Americans must be able to trust that no matter what, the FDA will rely on the most robust safety standards before and after approving any drug and that they can have truly informed consent by knowing what the risks to taking FDA-approved drugs are," the letter says.
The FDA’s broad approval of mifepristone has been the subject of intense legal debate in recent years, including in the Supreme Court. In 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed a case brought by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine challenging the FDA’s abortion pill approval on the grounds that the group lacked standing.
At the time, Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., then president of the American Medical Association, claimed that restricting mifepristone "would have devastating health consequences for people living in states where abortion is still legal."
Resneck Jr. claimed that "hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed clinical studies and decades of evidence-based research disprove the assertions of the plaintiffs in this case and demonstrate the safety of mifepristone," which he said, "has a safety profile comparable to ibuprofen."
After the Ethics and Public Policy report was released, Dr. Céline Gounder, a CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News, disputed the findings, accusing the study of lacking transparency and not disclosing its data source, according to CBS.
Gounder also said the study lacked a comparison group to examine how experiences compare to pregnant women not taking mifepristone.
A spokesperson for Danco, mifepristone's manufacturer, also told the outlet that the company "stands confidently behind the product's established safety and efficacy record."
In a statement emailed to Fox News Digital, Dr. Christina Francis, an OB-GYN and CEO of AAPLOG, said that the FDA’s deregulation of mifepristone "subjects pregnant women to an unacceptably low standard of care, leaving them vulnerable to life-threatening complications, and empowers abusers and traffickers who wish to force unwanted abortions on their victims."
"Our doctors have seen the devastating impact this recklessness has had on patients, which makes clear the dire need for the FDA to reprioritize women and girls by reexamining the drug's safety and reinstating basic safeguards that should never have been lifted," she said.
The other groups that signed onto the letter are the Christian Medical and Dental Association, the American College of Pediatricians and the Coptic Medical Association of North America.
Meanwhile, as Trump delayed his sky-high tariffs, the stock market hit record highs.
And he won a $16-million settlement from CBS's parent company in his lawsuit against unfair editing by "60 Minutes." That means he has now beaten two of the three broadcast networks, having won the same sum from ABC in a suit involving a crucial mistake by George Stephanopoulos.
And after days of pressure and arm-twisting, he managed to pass the Big Beautiful Bill.
Make no mistake, the bill was always going to pass. What were Republicans going to say, never mind, we just tanked the president's main legislative priority because we didn't like this or that?
They didn't need Democratic votes, under so-called reconciliation. And Trump controls the GOP. So its members fell into line.
Now the question is why, through this successful stretch, has Trump continued to draw such negative coverage?
For starters, many in the media just can’t stand the guy. And this has largely been true since 2015. So anything that helps him must be wrong and must be denigrated.
Even the successful strike on Iran drew only scattered instances of grudging praise, when under any other president there would have been standing ovations.
The press immediately reframed this as a debate over whether the bunker-busting bombs had only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months.
In fairness, that’s what the preliminary, classified Intel report leaked to the press said. And there’s nothing wrong with reporting that accurately, even though the assessment was made with low confidence.
But Trump wants reporters for CNN and the New York Times, which broke the story, fired over this, and with an FBI leak probe under way, says he may force journalists to reveal their confidential sources.
Once the White House could no longer blame anonymous sources, there is nothing wrong with quoting a government report – even if if turns out to be wrong.
The cease-fire between Israel and Iran was fine, but that quickly morphed into chatter about why Trump couldn’t pull off an end to the fighting between Israel and Hamas, a far more difficult task.
Not to mention his freezing of weapons shipments to Ukraine, when despite his "very disappointing" call with Vladimir Putin, who promptly unleashed the biggest drone and missile attack against Kyiv since the illegal invasion of its sovereign neighbor.
Perhaps the president is learning what has been obvious to the rest of us: Putin has no conceivable interest in peace.
Everyone had to report the stock market surge, though not with the enthusiasm of the earlier plunge, and Trump yesterday announced that he’d hit Japan and South Korea, two allies, with a 25 percent hike in tariffs. But they don’t take effect till Aug. 1, so this could just be another negotiating tactic.
There was almost no television coverage of Trump’s $16 million settlement with Paramount, which is nothing more than the news business protecting its own. If this had been any other kind of company – with the backstory that someone like Shari Redstone needed administration approval to sell the company and pocket $2 billion – the press would have gone haywire.
Now there’s a new twist. Fox’s Charlie Gasparino, writing for the New York Post, reported the Paramount settlement includes a side deal between Trump and for the buyer David Ellison, son of tech mogul Larry Ellison, for him to run $15 to $20 million in advertising supporting causes backed by the president.
And Trump confirmed it.
"We did a deal for about $16 million plus $16 million, or maybe more than that in advertising," he told reporters.
The president has also been drawn into a war of words with Elon Musk, calling him a "train wreck" who’s gone "off the rails" in forming a third party and raising the Epstein files again. Musk says the lack of an Epstein client list is the "final straw" – he had once apologized for raising it – and there’s no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
But there was one moment, in my view, that was a misstep by Trump.
The president had no need to negotiate with Democrats, who strongly opposed a tax cut tilted toward the wealthy while making deep cuts to Medicaid.
"Every Democrat in Congress voted against the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill…They wouldn’t vote only because they hate Trump, but I hate them, too, you know? I really do. I hate them. I cannot stand them, because I really believe they hate our country."
I don’t believe the overwhelming majority of Democrats hate their country. And that was hardly a unifying message on July 4 weekend. Maybe many in the media hate him and he was just counterpunching. But he didn’t need to go there.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has been getting terrible coverage since 2015, and he’s clearly grown tired of it.
As Elon Musk moves forward with forming a third party in hopes of rocking the nation's longstanding two-party system, the world's richest person is reaching out to a one-time presidential candidate who has started his own independent party.
Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX who spent the first four months of President Donald Trump's second administration as a special White House advisor steering the recently created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spoke with Andrew Yang, Fox News has confirmed.
A source familiar with the conversation said that the two discussed Musk’s push to create the "America Party," which Musk aims to field some candidates in next year's midterm elections.
"I’m excited for anyone who wants to move on from the duopoly," Yang said in a statement to Fox News. "And I’m happy to help give someone a sense of what the path looks like." News of the conversation was first reported by Politico.
Yang grabbed national attention in the 2020 election cycle, as the entrepreneur went from an extreme longshot to briefly being a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.
But Yang soured on the two-party system after an unsuccessful 2021 run for New York City mayor. He then formed the independent Forward Party, which has been recognized in a handful of states and aims to eventually gain ballot access from coast to coast.
Yang and Musk are far from strangers. Musk in 2019 supported Yang's unsuccessful presidential bid.
Musk became the top donor of the 2024 election cycle, dishing out nearly $300 million in support of Trump's bid through America PAC, a mostly Musk-funded super PAC aligned with Trump.
Trump named Musk to steer DOGE soon after the November election, and the president repeatedly praised Musk during his headline-making and controversial tenure at the cost-cutting effort.
But a feud between Musk and Trump broke out days after Musk left the White House in late May, as Musk dubbed the administration's massive landmark spending bill - which Trump called his "big, beautiful bill" - a "disgusting abomination," which he said would sink the nation into unsustainable debt.
Musk also argued that Trump would not have won last year's presidential election without all of his support.
Musk announced the launch of the "America Party" on his social media platform X on Saturday, a day after Trump signed the sweeping domestic policy package into law. The measure narrowly passed the Senate and House last week along near party-line votes in the Republican-controlled chambers.
Trump on Sunday ridiculed Musk's move.
"I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party," Trump told reporters. "It’s always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion.
After Zohran Mamdani, New York City's leading mayoral candidate, pledged to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits the city, Netanyahu responded to questions about whether he's worried.
In December, Mamdani, who identifies as a democratic socialist and is the Democratic Party’s nominee for New York City mayor, said, "as mayor, New York City would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu."
"This is a city that our values are in line with international law. It’s time that our actions are also," Mamdani said, referring to the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant against Netanyahu as well as Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Netanyahu met with President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday evening to discuss a range of topics, including Iran and Israel’s ongoing war with Hamas.
When asked whether he was worried about the possibility of facing arrest in America’s largest city, Netanyahu said, "I'm not concerned about that."
The prime minister added, "I'm going to come there with the President Trump and we'll see."
He went on to say that Mamdani’s threat is "silly in many ways, because it's just not serious."
Trump also chimed in, saying, "We don’t know who the mayor is going to be yet, but this is a communist. He's not a socialist. He's a communist, and he's said some really bad things about Jewish people."
"He might make it," Trump said. "But, you know, it all comes through the White House. He needs the money through the White House. He needs a lot.
"He's going to behave. He'll behave. He better behave. Otherwise, he’s going to have big problems."
Hearkening back to an earlier question asked by reporters, Netanyahu said, "what is serious" is whether there can be a two-state solution in Gaza that does not pose an existential threat to the Israeli people.
"Look, there's enough craziness in the world, but I guess it never ends," he said. "After October 7th, people said the Palestinians had a state, Hamas state in Gaza, and look what they did with it. They didn't build it up. They built down two bunkers into terror tunnels, after which they massacred our people, raped our women, beheaded our men, invaded our cities and our towns and our kibbutzim and did horrendous, horrendous massacres, the kind of which we didn't see since World War two and the Nazis, the Holocaust."
"So people aren't likely to say, let's just give them another state. It'll be a platform to destroy Israel," he added. "We'll work up a peace with our Palestinian neighbors, those who don't want to destroy us, and we'll work out a peace in which our security, the sovereign power of security, always remains in our hands."
"Now, people will say it's not a complete state. It's not a state, it's not that, we don't care," he said. "You know, we vowed, ‘never again.’ Never again is now, it's not going to happen again."
A federal judge on Monday prevented the Trump administration from enforcing part of a massive tax and spending bill that would block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood health centers.
The temporary restraining order by Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts blocks the "big, beautiful bill's" provision to defund the family planning provider.
At issue is the provision in the new tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 that eliminates one year of Medicaid payments from Planned Parenthood health centers because the organization also provides abortions.
A White House official told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration is committed to ending the use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortions. The official noted that the administration's stance is a commonsense position that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with.
On Monday, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed a lawsuit in federal court.
"The prohibition specifically targets Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member health care providers in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds," the lawsuit states.
If allowed to stand, Planned Parenthood said the provision would have "devastating consequences" for the more than 1 million patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at Planned Parenthood health centers across the country to get birth control and cancer screenings, among other services.
Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said the organization has a long history of fighting for sexual and reproductive freedom.
"The Trump administration’s hell-bent ambitions to close our clinics and abandon our patients won’t stop us. Let me be crystal clear: We are not intimidated. We were built for this moment," she said. "Here in Massachusetts, we fight back, and we will never be bullied into turning our backs on health care or human rights."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that he had sent a letter to the Nobel Prize Committee to nominate President Donald Trump for the peace prize.
Trump and Netanyahu met at the White House on Monday to discuss developments in the Middle East.
While speaking to reporters, Netanyahu spoke about the relationship between Israel and the U.S.
"I want to express the appreciation and admiration not only of all Israelis, but of the Jewish people and many, many admirers around the world, for your leadership, your leadership of the free world, your leadership of a just cause, and the pursuit of peace and security," he said. "The president has an extraordinary team, and I think our teams, together, make, an extraordinary combination to meet challenges and seize opportunities.
"But the president has already realized great opportunities. He forged the Abraham Accords. He's forging peace as we speak, in one country and one region after the other," Netanyahu continued. "So, I want to present to you, Mr. President, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize committee. It's nominating you for the peace prize, which is well-deserved."
Trump accepted the letter, saying he was unaware of the nomination and thanking the prime minister.
