Minnesota Timberwolves star Anthony Edwards showed off his jumping abilities on Tuesday night against the Los Angeles Lakers when he put Jaxson Hayes on a poster.
Minnesota was down by 15 points when Edwards took a pass from Julius Randle, gathered himself and attacked the basket. Hayes went up with Edwards but got absolutely hammered.
Edwards had 25 points and six rebounds but it was not enough to steal another game on the road away from Los Angeles.
The Lakers won, 94-85, to tie the series at one game apiece.
Luka Doncic led the Lakers with 31 points, 12 rebounds and nine assists. LeBron James added 21 points, 11 rebounds and seven assists. Austin Reaves contributed with 16 points, five rebounds and five assists.
"We looked at what we didn’t do so well, which is a lot of things in Game 1," James said. "We took it to heart, held each other accountable and had a much better result."
Lakers head coach J.J. Redick tore into the team during a timeout. He was heard on the TNT broadcast asking his players, "What the f---" they were doing.
"I think tonight was just more about getting that urgency button switched back on," Redick said afterward.
Despite the highlight-reel dunk, Edwards said the Lakers’ tough defense made it difficult for him.
"The way that they’re guarding us, when I catch the ball, they kind of go zone, and when I try to attack a gap, it’s like three people," Edwards said. "I've just got to make my decisions a little quicker, and we’ll be all right."
Game 3 is set for Friday night back in Minneapolis.
FIRST ON FOX: Republicans in Congress are launching a probe into a Biden-era green energy grant program that sent billions in funding to climate groups tied to Democrats and former President Joe Biden's allies.
GOP leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to the eight nonprofits awarded grants from the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), seeking answers to ensure the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) followed proper ethics and conflict of interest protocols in distributing the funds.
In February, the Trump administration's EPA announced it would take steps to get the money back, citing concerns over a lack of oversight related to how the money was being disbursed. In the announcement, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin cited comments from a former Biden EPA political appointee, who described disbursements made through GGRF as akin to "tossing gold bars off the Titanic," because Biden officials were allegedly trying to get money out the door before Trump took over.
It was also revealed that $2 billion from GGRF went to a Stacy Abrams-linked group, Power Forward Communities, which had not been established until after the Biden administration announced the GGRF application process. Meanwhile, during Power Forward's first few months of operations — prior to receiving the funding — the group reported just $100 in revenue.
Climate United, another group that received the most money from the GGRF, roughly $7 billion, currently staffs a former Biden climate advisor who worked during the last two years of the former president's term. The same group is also run by a CEO with ties to the Obama administration and a board member who was among those invited to Biden's signing ceremony for his multitrillion-dollar infrastructure bill in 2021.
Several GGRF grant recipients have ties to Democrats and Biden advisors, and some were reportedly founded shortly before or after the Biden administration announced the program. Meanwhile, these groups, according to Zeldin, had sole discretion on how to use the funds.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., alongside fellow committee members Reps. Gary Palmer of Alabama and Morgan Griffith of Virginia, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that their investigation into the GGRF recipients will be "key" to understanding whether these funds were allocated "fairly and impartially to qualified applicants," while also helping to determine the manner in which the money has been used.
"The Committee has had concerns about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program since its creation—including concerns about the program’s unusual structure, a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients, and the recipients’ ability to manage the large influx of federal dollars they received from the EPA," the lawmakers said in their statement.
"A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing that examined these concerns coupled with the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA heightened the Committee’s concerns and raised additional questions about certain Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund recipients."
Several of the groups that were recipients of GGRF money sued the Trump administration in March over its attempts to rake back the funds.
Subsequently, Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order preventing the EPA from freezing $14 billion in GGRF funds awarded to three of the climate groups.
House Republican leaders are rallying GOP lawmakers around a plan to enact a broad swath of President Donald Trump's agenda, after the legislation was passed by the Senate in the early hours of Saturday morning.
"More than a year ago, the House began discussing the components of a reconciliation package that will reduce the deficit, secure our border, keep taxes low for families and job creators, reestablish American energy dominance, restore peace through strength, and make government more efficient and accountable to the American people. We are now one step closer to achieving those goals," Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and his top lieutenants wrote to House Republicans.
"Today, the Senate passed its version of the budget resolution. Next week, the House will consider the Senate amendment."
Congressional Republicans are pushing a conservative policy overhaul via the budget reconciliation process. Traditionally used when one party holds all three branches of government, reconciliation lowers the Senate's threshold for passage on certain fiscal measures from 60 votes to 51.
As a result, it's been used to pass sweeping policy changes in one or two massive pieces of legislation.
Senate Republicans passed a framework for a reconciliation bill just after 2 a.m. ET on Saturday, after hours of debate and votes on amendments to the measure.
It's similar to the version House Republicans passed in late February; but mechanisms the Senate used to avoid factoring in the cost of extending Trump's 2017-era tax cuts as well as a lower baseline for required federal spending cuts has some House conservatives warning they could oppose the bill.
The Senate's version calls for at least $4 billion in spending cuts, while the House's version mandates a floor of $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion.
Both bills also include Trump priorities on border security, energy, and new tax policies like eliminating penalties on tipped and overtime wages.
"If the Senate’s 'Jekyll and Hyde' budget is put on the House floor, I will vote no," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on X.
"In the classic ways of Washington, the Senate’s budget presents a fantastic top-line message – that we should return spending back to the pre-COVID trajectory (modified for higher interest, Medicare, and Social Security) of $6.5 Trillion, rather than the current trajectory of over $7 Trillion – but has ZERO enforcement to achieve it, and plenty of signals it is designed purposefully NOT to achieve it."
But House GOP leaders insist that the Senate's passage of its framework simply allows the House to begin working on its version of the bill passed in February – and that it does not impede their process in any way.
"The Senate amendment as passed makes NO CHANGES to the House reconciliation instructions that we voted for just weeks ago. Although the Senate chose to take a different approach on its instructions, the amended resolution in NO WAY prevents us from achieving our goals in the final reconciliation bill," the letter said.
"We have and will continue to make it clear in all discussions with the Senate and the White House that—in order to secure House passage—the final reconciliation bill must include historic spending reductions while protecting essential programs."
House GOP leaders have pointed out that passing a framework is just the first step in a long process, one that just lays out broad instructions for how money should be spent.
Now that similar frameworks have passed the House and Senate, the relevant congressional committees will work out how to achieve the final reconciliation policy goals under their given jurisdictions.
"We have made it clear the House will NOT accept nor participate in an ‘us versus them’ process resulting in a take it or leave it proposition from the Senate," House leaders warned.
"Immediately following House adoption of the budget resolution, our House and Senate committees will begin preparing together their respective titles of the reconciliation bill to be marked up in the next work period."
The letter reiterated Johnson's earlier goal of having a bill on Trump's desk by the end of May.
House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, called the Senate's resolution "unserious and disappointing," noting it only mandated $4 billion in "enforceable cuts."
He vowed to work with congressional leaders to find the best path forward, however.
"I am committed to working with President Trump, House leadership, and my Senate counterparts to address these concerns and ensure the final reconciliation bill makes America safe, prosperous, and fiscally responsible again," Arrington said.
President Donald Trump marked the week by unveiling an unprecedented wave of tariffs on imports to the U.S., aligning with his long-held position that other countries have taken advantage of the U.S. in trade.
Trump disclosed the historic tariffs in a ceremony at the White House’s Rose Garden for a "Make America Wealthy Again" event, asserting these new duties would generate new jobs for U.S. workers.
"For nations that treat us badly, we will calculate the combined rate of all their tariffs, nonmonetary barriers and other forms of cheating," Trump said Wednesday.
"And because we are being very kind, we will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us," he said. "So, the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal. I could have done that. Yes. But it would have been tough for a lot of countries."
The tariff plan establishes a baseline tax of 10% on all imports to the U.S., along with customized tariffs for countries that place higher tariffs on American goods. The baseline tariffs of 10% will take effect Saturday, while the others will take effect Wednesday.
The Trump administration previously imposed a 25% tariff on imported vehicles, up to 25% tariffs on certain goods from Mexico and Canada and a 20% tariff on shipments from China. The tariffs already imposed on Canada and Mexico remain unaffected, but the new tariffs on China will be added on top of the previous duties on Beijing, according to the White House.
The tariffs have faced backlash from both parties in Congress, and allies, including Canada and Australia. A bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation Friday called the Trade Review Act of 2025 that would require the executive branch to provide Congress a 48-hour notice before imposing tariffs. Likewise, the measure would permit tariffs to expire after 60 days, unless Congress moves to approve a joint resolution codifying the duties.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged countries against imposing retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. in response.
"My advice to every country right now: Do not retaliate," Bessent said in an interview Wednesday with Fox News. "If you retaliate, there will be escalation."
Trumpalso disclosed that several members of the National Security Council, headed by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, were fired Thursday. Trump said the firings affected a small number of employees, and he still had a high level of confidence in his national security team.
"Always, we’re going to let go of people we don’t like or people we don’t think can do the job or people who may have loyalties to somebody else," Trump told reporters on Air Force One when asked about media reports on the firings.
The firings come amid scrutiny over Waltz’s use of a Signal group chat to discuss strikes in Yemen after a journalist was accidentally added to the group.
Waltz created the group chat that included White House leaders like Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The chat also included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.
The White House said classified information was not shared via the encrypted messaging service. However, The Atlantic published the full exchange of messages March 26. The messages included certain attack details, including specific aircraft and times of the strikes.
Still, the White House has defended Waltz and said the White House is no longer looking into the incident.
"As the president has made it very clear, Mike Waltz continues to be an important part of his national security team," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday. "And this case has been closed here at the White House as far as we are concerned."
The White House confirmed that SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk would depart his position spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) later this spring in response to reports from Politico that Trump was disclosing to those close to him that Musk would "step back" from his role with DOGE in the forthcoming weeks.
"This ‘scoop’ is garbage," Leavitt posted on X Wednesday. "Elon Musk and President Trump have both *publicly* stated that Elon will depart from public service as a special government employee when his incredible work at DOGE is complete."
Musk is a "special government employee." The executive or legislative branches are permitted to take on temporary employees to address short-term projects for up to 130 days in a single 365-day period. For Musk, that period of time will expire at the end of May.
Musk and Trump have previously said they anticipate Musk will complete the work necessary for DOGE within that window of time.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon gave unexpected remarks in the spirit of nonpartisanship at the House Democrats' press conference on Wednesday, but she did not answer when pressed on the timing of the DOE shutting its doors.
McMahon stopped by the Democrats' press conference outside the building for the Department of Education, which she has promised to dismantle in line with President Donald Trump's recent executive order. Beforehand, she met with Rep. Mark Tankano, D-Calif., and at least ten other Democratic members to discuss concerns over recent layoffs. The department announced last month it was initiating its reduction in force mission, impacting nearly 50% of its workforce.
"I just want to express my gratitude to all of these folks who came today so that we get to have an open discussion about what I believe is one of the most important things that we can have a discussion on on our action in our country, and that is the education of our young people," McMahon said on Wednesday. "As Representative Tankano said as we were ending the meeting, which I thought was incredibly appropriate, and that is that this is not a partisan issue. This is about the children of America, and it's the next generation to generation after that. And if we want to have our leaders, if we want to have that next, group of engineers and doctors and lawyers and plumbers, electricians and HVAC operators, then we need to focus on how they can best have their education."
"And I believe, and I know the president does believe this as well, the best education is that that is closest to the child, where teachers and parents, local superintendents – working together and local school boards to develop the curriculum for those students – is the best way that it can happen," she said. "Funding from the United States government will continue through the programs, that is, that have already been established, and I will look forward to continuing to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. And I welcome the fact that these folks came today and expressed their concerns and shared in an open, collegial format their concerns and how we can lead now to work more together. That's the way it ought to operate. And I'm very happy to have had them here."
As McMahon concluded her remarks and attempted to turn the event back over to Democrats, Tankano interjected with a question for the secretary.
"When are you going to shut down this building?" he asked her in front of news cameras.
"Well, we've had our discussions already, so thank you all," McMahon said, leaving the podium and walking back into the building.
"As you see, she's not answering the question when she's going to shut down the Department of Education," Tankano told reporters. "Now she doesn't have a plan. And while she doesn't have a plan, they're continuing to look at firing people, reduction and reverse a reduction in force."
Tankano told reporters that during their meeting McMahon expressed "ambiguity" regarding when she would carry out Trump's campaign promise of shuttering the Department of Education. He said she vowed to consult appropriate statute.
Tankano also noted that McMahon said during her Senate confirmation hearing that she would consult with Congress as far as when it would be lights out for the department.
Congress established the Department of Education in 1979 and will most likely need to approve its dismantling. Republicans have floated legislation to achieve that goal.
Trump signed an executive order on March 20 to significantly scale down the department while maintaining some of its core functions. It was unclear whether the department would continue to manage its $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio, as the order's language suggested bank functions could be moved to a more suitable entity. Privatization seems to remain on the table for the administration.
"I have to say that the Secretary indicated more than once, that before she moved any functions of the department to other departments and the other place that, she was looking carefully at what the statute allows her to do," Tankano said on Wednesday. "That was refreshing information that the secretary relayed to all of us, and we certainly hope she sticks to what she told us today."
"I think part of the story of today is, you know, [the] president's campaign promise to shut this department down, is a lot of fluff. It's. You can't, it's illegal. He can't do it by law," he added.
A historic tree at the White House will meet the end of its lifespan soon – but an expert says that's not necessarily a bad thing.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump announced that he plans to chop down a southern magnolia purportedly planted by former President Andrew Jackson. The Republican wrote that he was working with "the wonderful people at the National Park Service" to make "tremendous enhancements to the White House, thereby preserving and protecting History!"
"One of the interesting dilemmas is a tree planted many years ago by the Legendary President and General, Andrew Jackson," Trump explained. "It is a Southern Magnolia, that came from his home, The Hermitage, in Tennessee. That’s the good news!"
"The bad news is that everything must come to an end, and this tree is in terrible condition, a very dangerous safety hazard, at the White House Entrance, no less, and must now be removed," he continued.
Legend states that Jackson, who served as president from 1829 to 1837, reportedly planted two magnolia trees at the White House to honor his late wife Rachel. But it is not clear if the trees were definitely planted by Old Hickory, and the National Park Service's (NPS) website states that they date back to the 1860s at the latest.
Regardless, the tree is still considered historic, and Trump promised that the magnolia's wood will be "preserved by the White House Staff, and may be used for other high and noble purposes."
Speaking to Fox News Digital on Tuesday, consulting arborist Denice Britton explained that the tree "could very likely be potentially dangerous."
"Just from looking at a photograph, I can see that the tree is thin, meaning that there were lots of branches that didn't have foliage on it," she observed. "So that's a sign that it wasn't as vigorous as the trees around it."
Britton, who has worked as an arborist for over four decades, professionally consults clients on matters ranging from tree appraisal and tree management to risk assessment. A risk assessment is when an arborist inspects a tree for heavy wood, disease or any other type of risk.
"As long as one of the [White House's] tree service's arborists has performed a risk evaluation on it, and declared it high risk, the tree should be taken down," she added. "The arborists who take care of the trees at the White House are highly qualified."
Having spent her career in California, Britton said that she's worked with a few southern magnolias before, particularly one in Napa.
"The southern magnolia is a fairly common tree that's planted pretty much all over the country… it is similar to cherry trees," Britton said. "It is a hardwood, but it's considered a ‘soft’ hardwood in that it's got straight grain. It's valued by woodworkers."
"Because so many of the original old growth trees have been removed over the years, [the Jackson magnolia] is not a particularly old tree for a magnolia."
Britton also noted that environmentalists who oppose the tree's felling would be remiss to ignore that repurposing wood helps save carbon.
"If you burn it, you release that carbon back to the atmosphere," she explained. "If you cut it up and put it into a structure, then you're actually saving it… so you're prolonging the life of the carbon that's in the tree."
The expert also expressed contentment over seeing how well the trees have been taken care of.
"I'm sure that [Trump] spoke to an expert with the NPS or the tree service that takes care of the trees and was reiterating what he was told," Britton said. "It's just nice to see trees talked about positively… they have always been revered as part of our culture. And I'm so glad to see them revered and cared for like they do in Washington."
The Supreme Court appeared likely to side with a Wisconsin-based Catholic Charities group in its fight with the government over a state ruling it says "distorts" and "undermines" its mission of caring for the sick and poor.
The Trump Justice Department has filed a brief in support of the charity, arguing exemptions in federal tax laws, like the Wisconsin tax law, protect the rights of religious institutions.
The group, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, is appealing a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that found that because it does not conduct "typical" religious activity, it is not exempt from the state's costly unemployment payment program.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a Wisconsin law exempting religious nonprofits from the program does not apply to the charity group, because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and serves and employs non-Catholics and does not attempt to convert individuals, they said.
Catholic Charities, however, argues that helping the disabled, elderly and those living in poverty — regardless of their faith — is a core tenet of their religious practice.
The group’s attorney, Eric Rassbach, with the religious liberty law firm Becket, argued during the hearing that Catholic teaching forbids Catholics from conditioning assistance on acceptance of the church’s teachings.
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court got it wrong when it interpreted a state-law religious exemption to favor what it called 'typical' religious activity and when it held that helping the poor can't be religious, because secular people help the poor too," he said.
The group is seeking to be exempt from the state's unemployment compensation program so it can join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s private program, which they say would save them more money than paying into the state program.
In nearly two hours of often heated debate, a majority on the bench seemed to agree the state engaged in an unnecessary entanglement over defining whether Catholic Charities should be treated differently from other similarly situated secular groups.
Attorneys for Wisconsin faced intense questioning from the justices about the state entangling itself in religious doctrine and practice, thus violating the First Amendment by denying a religious organization an otherwise available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
"Isn’t it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that the state shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religions," questioned Justice Neil Gorsuch.
"Doesn’t it entangle the state tremendously when it has to go into a soup kitchen, send an inspector in, to see how much prayer is going on?" he asked.
Even some of the court’s liberal justices seemed to have concerns with Wisconsin’s ruling.
"There are lots of hard questions in this area," said Justice Elena Kagan. "But I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don’t treat some religions better than other religions and we certainly don’t do it based on the contents of the religious doctrine that those religions preach."
"The reason why we're so worried about entanglement is because it gets us enmeshed in the content of religious doctrine," she said.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett commented during the hearing that "the problem here is how to figure out what the line is."
Alan Rock, executive director of the Catholic Charities Bureau, told Fox News Digital that following the hearing, he is "confident the Supreme Court will ensure our freedom to serve all those in need according to our Catholic faith."
"The state of Wisconsin said that our work isn’t religious. The state denied that our care for those in need is driven by our faith, simply because we serve everyone and do not try to convert those we serve. That view distorts the heart of our mission and undermines our ability to care for the most vulnerable," he said, adding, "We look forward to the Court’s ruling."
Speaking with Fox News Digital after the hearing, Bishop James Powers, head of the Catholic Diocese of Superior, said that Wisconsin is "punishing Catholic Charities for following this example of Christian love."
"We do not help the needy because they are Catholic — we help them because we are Catholic," he said. "The Good Samaritan did not ask about the wounded man’s faith: He simply saw a neighbor in need and responded with mercy. That is the model Catholic Charities has embraced since its founding."
The White House considers the Signal group chat leak case "closed," Trump administration press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the media Monday while reiterating President Donald Trump's support of national security advisor Mike Waltz.
"As the president has made it very clear, Mike Waltz continues to be an important part of his national security team," Leavitt told the media in brief remarks during a gaggle outside of the White House's press room Monday afternoon. "And this case has been closed here at the White House, as far as we are concerned."
"There have been steps made to ensure that something like that can obviously never happen again," she continued. "And we're moving forward. And the president and Mike Waltz and his entire national security team have been working together very well, if you look at how much safer the United States of America is because of the leadership of this team."
The Trump administration came under scrutiny from Democrats and other critics after the Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed in an article published March 24 that he was added to a Signal group chat with top national security leaders, including Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
Signal is an encrypted messaging app that operates similarly to texting or making phone calls, but with additional security measures that help ensure communications are kept private to those included in the correspondence.
The Atlantic's report characterized the Trump administration as texting "war plans" regarding a planned strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Trump administration has maintained, however, that no classified material was transmitted in the chat, with Trump repeatedly defending Waltz amid the fallout.
Leavitt told the media Wednesday that the administration was investigating the incident, explaining Elon Musk's team was also assisting with the investigation.
"The National Security Council, the White House Counsel's Office, and also, yes, Elon Musk's team" will be leading the investigation into the Signal leak, Leavitt said during a White House press briefing.
"Elon Musk has offered to put his technical experts on this, to figure out how this number was inadvertently added to the chat – again, to take responsibility and ensure this can never happen again," she continued.
Trump slammed the media's coverage of the group chat in a Truth Social post Sunday afternoon, calling it the "never ending Signal story."
"They just don’t stop – Over and over they go! Meet the Fake Press should instead explain how successful the attack was, and how Sleepy Joe Biden should have done it YEARS AGO," he posted.
"This story and narrative is so old and boring, but only used because we are having the most successful ‘First One Hundred Presidential Days’ in the history of America, and they can’t find anything else to talk about. The Fake News Media has the lowest Approval Ratings in history, and for good reason. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"
A Texas judge ruled on Tuesday night against an injunction that sought to force the NCAA to implement mandatory gender testing to keep trans athletes out of women's sports.
Lubbock County Judge Les Hatch, a Republican, presided over a hearing brought about by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sued the NCAA over its recent revised gender eligibility policy.
The NCAA revised its policy in February to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order to ban trans athletes from women's and girls' sports, now ruling that any biological male athlete is ineligible to compete in the women's category. However, Paxton and many women's rights activists argued the policy does not do enough to keep trans athletes out of women's sports, and mandatory gender testing is necessary to enforce the ban.
Paxton was joined by three former women collegiate athletes impacted by trans inclusion. Former San Jose State University volleyball player Brooke Slusser, former University of Kentucky swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler and former North Carolina State University Kylee Alons all testified, sharing their own experiences of having to compete with trans athletes.
Slusser shared her experience of having to share a team, locker room and bedroom with former teammate Blaire Fleming, while Wheeler and Alons shared their experiences competing with former University of Pennsylvania Swimmer Lia Thomas.
However, Paxton's arguments and the women athletes' testimonies were not enough to convince Hatch to rule in favor of the injunction.
The NCAA provided a statement to Fox News Digital addressing Tuesday's ruling.
"The Trump administration has made clear that the new NCAA policy is consistent with the Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports Executive Order. The NCAA is looking forward to another championship season getting underway for thousands of women student-athletes competing for national titles," the statement read.
Trump himself has not commented on the controversy surrounding the lack of gender testing in the NCAA. The president last addressed the NCAA's policy with praise after it was amended in a Truth Social post on Feb. 6.
"Due to my Executive Order, which I proudly signed yesterday, the NCAA has officially changed their policy of allowing men in Women’s Sports – IT IS NOW BANNED! This is a great day for women and girls across our country," Trump wrote.
Critics of the NCAA's current policy have argued that depending on birth certificates could allow trans athletes to gain access to women's competition via amended birth certificates.
In the U.S., 44 states do allow birth certificates to be altered to change a person's birth sex. The only states that do not allow this are Florida, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Montana. There are 14 states that allow sex on a birth certificate to be changed without any medical documentation required, including California, New York, Massachusetts and Michigan.
The NCAA previously told Fox News Digital amended birth certificates will not be accepted as sufficient evidence to compete in women's sports.
Wheeler told Fox News Digital that she sees the ruling is just a "bump in the road."
"While yesterday’s ruling was disappointing, it’s just a bump in the road. This case isn’t over, and we will keep fighting to protect fairness in women’s sports," Wheeler said.
"My hope is that this will be a wake-up call for those in power to finally stand up for female athletes. The NCAA has continuously failed us, but we aren’t backing down. Women deserve a level playing field, and if the NCAA won’t act, then lawmakers and the courts must step in.
Meanwhile, Slusser's mother, Kim Slusser, who also testified at the hearing, told Fox News Digital that Hatch's ruling was a "disappointment" but she plans to "keep fighting."
"All of our little battles, which are not little battles, they're big to us, I feel like we kind of lose along the way, and sadly I kind of felt that way. I was like ‘oh, is this going to be another one,’ and sure enough it is," Kim Slusser said. "But we keep fighting on, we keep going, we know we're going to win the big one in the end, and it is a disappointment. It's a disappointment."
Brooke Slusser is engaged in two separate lawsuits over the alleged situation at San Jose State. She has joined another lawsuit against the NCAA over its previous gender eligibility policy alongside Alons, Wheeler and led by Riley Gaines. Additionally, Slusser also currently leads a lawsuit against SJSU and the Mountain West Conference alongside 10 other conference players and her former assistant coach Melissa Batie-Smoose over the handling of Fleming.
Paxton also leads another lawsuit against the NCAA over its previous policy. Paxton filed that lawsuit in December, accusing the NCAA of "engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading practices by marketing sporting events as ‘women’s’ competitions only to then provide consumers with mixed-sex competitions where biological males compete against biological females."
The Associated Press, not exactly a White House favorite, has shot itself in the foot.
The following retraction is nothing short of humiliating:
"The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard saying President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘are very good friends.’ Gabbard was talking about Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The AP will publish a corrected version of the story."
Whoa! How do you run that piece in the first place without having it nailed down?
The wire service, you may recall, is suing the Trump administration for ousting its reporters from the White House pool over its refusal to refer to "Gulf of America." So, this unforced error puts the White House in I-told-you-so mode.
On Monday, when Trump was at the Kennedy Center, an NBC reporter tried to ask a question, Trump asked, "Who are you with?"
After the journalist identified himself, the president said: "I don’t want to talk to NBC anymore. I think you’re so discredited."
The Trump team later posted the exchange with "mic drop" emojis.
The point is that Trump dominates the news no matter what he does. And, as I’ve been saying for the 35 years I’ve known him, even a torrent of negative publicity helps him because his media detractors are playing on his turf.
While Trump was visiting the Kennedy Center, he "floated" the idea of personally hosting the annual awards show. And who’s going to stop him, since he’s purged the Democratic board members?
The ratings, he said, would skyrocket. And he’s right about that.
As the New York Times notes, a younger Trump dreamed of becoming a Broadway producer. He now says the Kennedy Center will concentrate on producing "Broadway hits."
And by the way, Trump released 80,000 pages of JFK assassination files yesterday and has asked for no redactions.
The president can make news on the slightest whim, just by posting on Truth Social.
He just went after Judge James Boasberg, who ordered the deportations of mostly Venezuelan gang members to be stopped while planes were still in the air:
"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY."
The posting drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts:
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
The president is also renewing his habit of going after journalists personally. Ashley Parker had a highly successful career at the New York Times and Washington Post–she’s also an MSNBC analyst–who recently joined the Atlantic.
She asked Trump for an interview.
After dismissing the liberal Atlantic as a "Third Rate Magazine," Trump posted:
"Ashley Parker is not capable of doing a fair and unbiased interview. She is a Radical Left Lunatic, and has been as terrible as is possible for as long as I have known her. To this date, she doesn’t even know that I won the Presidency THREE times. If you have some other reporter, let us know, but Ashley is not capable or competent enough to understand the intricacies of High Level politics."
Parker is restrained, not radical, and in bringing up the 2020 election, Trump is asking her to accept something that has never been proven in court or by his own attorney general.
A magazine spokesperson said, "Atlantic reporters are diligent and fair and continue to pursue stories of importance to the public."
And then there is, you know, the actual job of the presidency. Trump reported yesterday on his 90-minute phone call with Vladimir Putin.
They "stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia" – no surprise there.
"The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace….
"They further discussed the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons and will engage with others to ensure the broadest possible application. The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel."
And: "The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside," including "enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability."
It seems to me that Trump got next to nothing. A 30-day pause in attacks on energy plants and infrastructure, that’s about it. Everything else is subject to negotiations, which gives the Kremlin more time to keep attacking Ukraine and lock in further territorial gains. A real cease-fire seems a long way off.
But whether Trump is on the attack or being attacked, he is driving the news every day, even inserting himself into culture and sports topics. Keep that in mind when the ratings-driven president hosts the Kennedy Center honors.
Roblox announced Monday that it’s launching the first iteration of its 3D model, dubbed “Cube,” to allow creators to create 3D objects using generative AI. The company also launched an open source version so anyone off the platform can build on it. Announced last year at Roblox’s annual developer conference, the company is demoing Cube […]
All 40 illegal migrants held at the Guantánamo Bay U.S. naval base in Cuba have been sent back to the United States and are now being held in Louisiana, two U.S. defense officials told Fox News.
The group includes 23 "high-threat illegal aliens" who were held at the detention facility on base and 17 migrants who were held at the migrant operations center on base.
The illegal migrants were transported to Louisiana via Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) aircraft and there are currently no migrants being held at the base and no flights scheduled to arrive with more migrants, the officials said.
The U.S. defense officials were not told why the 40 migrants were sent back to the United States, and Homeland Security and ICE have not yet responded to any inquiries about why they were sent back and where in Louisiana they are being held.
It is unclear if the U.S. will continue to hold migrants at the base, commonly known as "Gitmo." None of the 195 tents that were set up to hold migrants have been used because they do not meet ICE standards, according to several U.S. defense officials, such as having air conditioning and other amenities.
In late January, President Donald Trump instructed the Pentagon to prepare 30,000 beds at the base to house "criminal illegal aliens" who pose a threat to the American public, adding that putting them there would ensure they do not come back. The president said the move would bring the U.S. one step closer to "eradicating the scourge" of migrant crime in communities, once and for all.
The 45-square-mile base, located about 430 miles southeast of Miami, is best known for detaining terrorism suspects, including those behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It's been leased from Cuba since 1903 and serves as a key operational and logistics hub for maritime security, humanitarian assistance and joint operations.
News of the migrants being sent to Louisiana comes as President Donald Trump is reportedly expected to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in an effort to pave the way for faster mass deportations of illegal immigrants.
Trump will use the law to target members of the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, the New York Post reported, citing two sources close to the administration.
Trump campaigned on invoking the wartime law, which allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation.
Fox News’ Louis Casiano contributed to this report.
Protesters against Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency rallied outside the Department of Education Tuesday and held a moment of appreciation and applause for the federal agency, which is rumored to be next on the chopping block.
The protesters, many of them former Education Department officials, chanted, "This is what democracy looks like" and held signs saying, "Boycott Tesla!," "Elon don’t rob kids" and "No DOGE no kings."
After the protest, FOX Business Senior Correspondent Charles Gasparino posted on X that he had reviewed an email from education department officials telling employees they would have to vacate the agency's offices by 6 p.m. Tuesday and that the offices would remain closed Wednesday.
He also reported that "employees have been receiving multiple emails alerting them of massive cuts in the workforce and opportunities to tap into buyouts and severance."
Rally speakers railed against the Trump administration’s planned cuts to the department and instead called for more funding. At one point, organizers had attendees turn to face the department building and clap for the federal workers inside.
President Donald Trump is expected to issue an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Education Department" based on "the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law," according to a draft of the order reported by The Wall Street Journal.
The draft order says the "the experiment of controlling American education through Federal programs and dollars — and the unaccountable bureaucrats those programs and dollars support — has failed our children, our teachers, and our families."
Trump has long talked about dismantling the Department of Education, saying it has failed America's students.
"It’s a big con job," the president said in November. "They ranked the top countries in the world. We’re ranked No. 40, but we’re ranked No. 1 in one department, cost per pupil. So, we spend more per pupil than any other country in the world, but we’re ranked No. 40."
However, the protesters, who stood outside the Education Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., claimed dismantling the agency "will lead to children and families being hurt."
"This cut in funding is the opposite of what we should be doing. We should be providing more federal funding for these services for these kids, not less," one protester, a former Education Department employee, told Fox News Digital.
She said her biggest worry was that DOGE cuts would make students "suffer" and also affect after-school programs such as special programs and English courses for immigrant children.
"We're going to be going back to the 1800s, the early 1900s, when special ed kids can't get services, when English learners can't learn English. This is an outrage," she said.
Another former federal employee at the rally told Fox News Digital that "seeing all these employees laid off right now breaks our heart," and "we really have to speak up for what's been done to the federal government."
One of the rally speakers, Rebecca Pringle, president of the National Education Association, pointed out that, on its own, the Trump administration does not have the authority to close the Education Department. Fully abolishing the department would require 60 votes in the Senate, requiring cooperation from Democrats.
Pringle told Fox News Digital her group is organizing a series of national walk-in protests for March 19 to hold Congress members "accountable."
"Educators all over this country are rising up, and they're saying, no. … We will not stand by while this administration focuses on giving tax cuts to billionaires who already have more, when we know our students need more," said Pringle.
Speaking directly to Trump and Musk, Katie Gates, an activist with the political activism group Voters of Tomorrow, told Fox News Digital her message to the administration is, "Please stop. Just don’t do it."
"You might think that you're making government more efficient, or you're getting rid of the deep state or whatever. But, like I said, this has far-ranging impacts on kids, on parents, on communities, on schools," she said. "Sometimes efficiency isn’t the highest value. Sometimes it's support. Sometimes it's learning."
Fox News Digital reporter Louis Casiano contributed to this report.
Even three years later, AMD's high-end X3D-series processors still aren't a thing that most people need to spend extra money on—under all but a handful of circumstances, your GPU will be the limiting factor when you're running games, and few non-game apps benefit from the extra 64MB chunk of L3 cache that is the processors' calling card. They've been a reasonably popular way for people with old AM4 motherboards to extend the life of their gaming PCs, but for AM5 builds, a regular Zen 4 or Zen 5 CPU will not bottleneck modern graphics cards most of the time.
But high-end PC building isn't always about what's rational, and people spending $2,000 or more to stick a GeForce RTX 5090 into their systems probably won't worry that much about spending a couple hundred extra dollars to get the fastest CPU they can get. That's the audience for the new Ryzen 9 9950X3D, a 16-core, Zen 5-based, $699 monster of a processor that AMD begins selling tomorrow.
If you're only worried about game performance (and if you can find one), the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is the superior choice, for reasons that will become apparent once we start looking at charts. But if you want fast game performance and you need as many CPU cores as you can get for other streaming or video production or rendering work, the 9950X3D is there for you. (It's a little funny to me that this a chip made almost precisely for the workload of the PC building tech YouTubers who will be reviewing it.) It's also a processor that Intel doesn't have any kind of answer to.
AMD's Ryzen 7 9800X3D is probably the best CPU you can buy if you're trying to put together a fast gaming PC, thanks to its eight Zen 5 CPU cores and extra helping of 3D V-Cache. You don't really need more CPU cores than this to play games, and most games benefit from the extra cache more than they do from a bit of extra clock speed.
AMD announced today that it's following up the 9800X3D with two higher-end X3D processors next week. The 12-core Ryzen 9 9900X3D and 16-core Ryzen 9 9950X3D are both launching on March 12 for $599 and $699, respectively, the same as the launch pricing for the last-generation 7900X3D and 7950X3D but a couple hundred dollars more expensive than the current street pricing for the Ryzen 9900X and 9950X.
AMD recommends the 9900X3D and 9950X3D to people whose gaming PCs also do other heavy-duty non-gaming work or for streamers whose gaming PCs are simultaneously running other apps. But they might also appeal to people who would normally just buy a 9800X3D because that processor has been difficult to find at its $479 MSRP since launching last fall. If a 9800X3D already costs nearly $600, why not spring for a faster chip if you can get one?
The Trump administration appealed a federal judge's decision Thursday that the administration's firing of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member was illegal – the same day that the former head of the Office of the Special Counsel announced he was dropping his suit against President Donald Trump on similar grounds.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered Thursday that NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox be reinstated after she had been fired by Trump earlier this year. Wilcox filed suit in D.C. federal court, arguing that her termination violates the congressional statute delineating NLRB appointments and removals.
"A President who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution," Howell wrote in her Thursday opinion.
The Trump administration filed its appeal to the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit shortly after the decision was issued. The administration wrote in its appeal that it intended to request a stay of the order pending appeal, "including an immediate administrative stay" from the appellate court.
In her Thursday opinion, Howell had some harsh words for the president, writing that his "interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power – or, more aptly, his aspiration – is flat wrong."
"At issue in this case is the President’s insistence that he has authority to fire whomever he wants within the Executive branch, overriding any congressionally mandated law in his way," Howell wrote.
Howell's decision came on the same day that Hampton Dellinger, a Biden-appointee previously tapped to head the Office of Special Counsel, announced that he would be dropping his suit against the Trump administration over his own termination.
"My fight to stay on the job was not for me, but rather for the ideal that OSC should be as Congress intended: an independent watchdog and a safe, trustworthy place for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing and be protected from retaliation," Dellinger said in a statement released Thursday.
Dellinger's announcement was preceded by a D.C. appellate court's Wednesday holding that sided with the Trump administration.
The court issued an unsigned order pausing a lower court order that had reinstated Dellinger to his post.
"Thank you to the countless DOJ lawyers working around the clock each and every day to defend the President’s actions and uphold the Constitution against baseless attacks," a Department of Justice spokesperson told Fox News at the time.
Dellinger said in his announcement that he believes the circuit judges "erred badly" in their Wednesday decision, saying that it "immediately erases the independence Congress provided for my position."
"And given the circuit court’s adverse ruling, I think my odds of ultimately prevailing before the Supreme Court are long," Dellinger said. "Meanwhile, the harm to the agency and those who rely on it caused by a Special Counsel who is not independent could be immediate, grievous, and, I fear, uncorrectable."
Similar to Wilcox, Dellinger sued the Trump administration in D.C. federal court after his Feb. 7 firing.
He maintained the argument that, by law, he can only be dismissed from his position for job performance problems, which were not cited in an email dismissing him from his post.
The Supreme Court had previously paused the Trump administration's efforts to dismiss Dellinger. The administration had asked the high court to overturn a lower court's temporary reinstatement of Dellinger.
Fox News' Jake Gibson, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and David Spunt contributed to this report.
Life for many residents in border communities improved following swift policy changes by the Trump administration, Rep. Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz., says.
"They're very happy with the results, and we knew that the numbers were going to be reflecting like they are," the Republican told Fox News Digital in an interview, calling the change "drastic."
Migrant encounters plummeted at the border in February with just over 8,300, which is the lowest month since officials started keeping track of the numbers, according to United States Customs and Border Protection data.
The reduction in the influx of people crossing is just one piece of the puzzle. More troops were sent down to the southern border upon President Donald Trump taking office; cartels and gangs like Tren de Aragua were designated as foreign terrorist groups; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is conducting raids nationwide for illegal immigrants suspected of crimes.
"They've seen an immediate change in their daily lives on this for some people. They're seeing the reports on TV for my community, they're seeing it in person," Ciscomani said about his constituents, which includes people on or near the border.
In his capacity as the Vice Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Ciscomani is leading the freshman GOP class on an Arizona border trip this week, where they will visit ports of entry, strike up conversations with authorities on the ground and take a tour with the National Border Patrol Council. The group of lawmakers includes Reps. Mike Kennedy, R-Utah; Julie Fedorchak, R-N.D.; Jeff Hurd, R-Colo.; Tim Moore, R-N.C.; Derek Schmidt, R-Kan.; Dave Taylor, R-Ohio; Jeff Crank, R-Colo.; John McGuire, R-Va.; and Riley Moore, R-W.Va.
"When I first got to Washington a few years ago, I realized that a lot of people run on the issue of the border," said Ciscomani. "They care about fixing it and addressing it, but a lot of members just haven't had the opportunity to visit the border. And even if they have, they probably have gone to the area of Texas. And Arizona's so unique in so many ways, right?"
The congressman added that there’s still work to be done to make sure the changes under the Trump administration are permanent to prevent another border crisis in the future, as there were millions of migrant encounters during former President Joe Biden's tenure.
Ciscomani, who is in a highly competitive district that includes much of the Tucson suburbs, touted his recent passage of the Agent Raul Gonzalez Office Safety Act in the House, which would make those convicted of fleeing authorities within 100 miles of the border face prison time and potentially be deported, depending on the individual's immigration status. Some Democrats supported the legislation, whereas others said it was an overreach.
"For example, the asylum process, we have to increase the credible fear standard," Ciscomani said. "Things like Remain in Mexico. I think something like that should be permanent. So we've got some ideas on this through reconciliation."
There has been room for bipartisan work to be done, including a bill that Ciscomani and Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., are working on to get image technicians at ports of entry in the hope of detecting illicit drugs faster and more thoroughly.
Intangible, now backed by $4 million in seed funding, offers an AI-powered creative tool that allows users to create 3D world concepts with text prompts to aid creative professionals across a variety of industries. The company’s mission is to make the creative process accessible to everyone, including professionals such as filmmakers, game designers, event planners, […]
The integrated heat spreaders put on CPUs at the factory are not the most thermally efficient material you could have on there, but what are you going to do—rip it off at the risk of killing your $500 chip with your clumsy hands?
Yes, that is precisely what enthusiastic overclockers have been doing for years, delidding, or decapping (though the latter term is used less often in overclocking circles), chips through various DIY techniques, allowing them to replace AMD and Intel's common denominator shells with liquid metal or other advanced thermal interface materials.
As you might imagine, it can be nerve-wracking, and things can go wrong in just one second or one degree Celsius. In one overclocking forum thread, a seasoned expert noted that Intel's Core Ultra 200S spreader (IHS) needs to be heated above 165° C for the indium (transfer material) to loosen. But then the glue holding the IHS is also loose at this temperature, and there is only 1.5–2 millimeters of space between IHS and surface-mounted components, so it's easy for that metal IHS to slide off and take out a vital component with it. It's quite the Saturday afternoon hobby.
President Donald Trump's nominee for labor secretary cleared a key vote before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) on Thursday morning after picking up Democratic support from Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.
Lori Chavez-DeRemer was reported favorably out of the committee by a bipartisan vote of 14-9.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., ultimately voted against her, despite her attempts to clarify her past support for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act during her hearing.
In addition to Hassan, Democratic Sens. John Hickenloopers, D-Colo., and Tim Kaines, D-Va., voted to advance Chavez-DeRemer.
Her history of PRO Act backing seemed to jeopardize her confirmation odds last week, when Paul said he would not vote for her if she continued to support it. Paul's reluctance meant Chavez-DeRemer would likely need some Democrats' support to pass the key confirmation hurdle.
Hassan's support, as a Democrat on the HELP Committee, was a breakthrough for Chavez-DeRemer's chances.
"The Department of Labor plays an integral role in supporting workers and small businesses alike, and after hearing significant support from constituents, including members of labor unions in New Hampshire, I will support Representative Chavez-DeRemer's nomination as Secretary of Labor," Hassan shared in a statement to Fox News Digital.
Hassan admitted that she "may not agree on everything" with Chavez-DeRemer, but she is "qualified" to serve and earned "significant support" from New Hampshire voters.
"Though we may not agree on everything, after meeting with Representative Chavez-DeRemer and listening to her testimony during her confirmation hearing, I believe that she is qualified to serve as the next secretary of labor, and I look forward to working with her to support New Hampshire's workers and small businesses," Hassan added.
Chavez-DeRemer supported the PRO Act as a representative for Oregon’s 5th Congressional District but told senators during her confirmation hearing that she no longer supports overturning Republican-supported right-to-work laws under the PRO Act.
The PRO Act would effectively kill state-level laws that prevent employers and unions from requiring workers to pay union dues as a condition of their employment. Republicans oppose the PRO Act for overturning right-to-work laws.
Chavez-DeRemer went into the committee vote without Paul's voting plan publicly known. But, going in with Hassan's support, Chavez-DeRemer was much less likely to be reliant on Paul to be reported favorably out of the committee.
"If she wanted to make a public statement saying that her support for the PRO Act was incorrect and she no longer does, then I'd think about her nomination," Paul told Fox News Digital in a statement ahead of Chavez-DeRemer’s hearing.
"So you no longer support the aspect of the PRO Act that would have overturned state right-to-work laws?" Paul asked during the hearing.
"Yes, sir," she replied.
Paul's office did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on how he would vote in committee, however.
Chavez-DeRemer testified before the HELP Committee on Feb. 19.
Once reported out of committee, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., can file a motion to end Senate floor debate on the nominee, triggering a later cloture vote. Once the debate is closed, senators will cast their final confirmation vote.
During her hearing, Chavez-DeRemer advocated for trade school investments to expand "educational pathways beyond the traditional four-year degree" to strengthen the American workforce. She said she is committed to leveling the playing field for American businesses, workers and unions.
Chavez-DeRemer also thanked Trump and credited him with the "single greatest political achievement of our time" in building a "new coalition of working-class Americans."
"President Trump has united a new coalition of working-class Americans like never before. With 59.6% of Teamsters backing him, historic support from African-American and Latino voters, and record-breaking turnout in once-solid blue cities and states, Americans are speaking loud and clear. They are calling for action, progress and leadership that puts the American worker first," Chavez-DeRemer said.
Trump nominated Chavez-DeRemer for secretary of labor less than three weeks after he was elected president.
"Lori has worked tirelessly with both Business and Labor to build America’s workforce, and support the hardworking men and women of America," Trump wrote.
"I look forward to working with her to create tremendous opportunity for American Workers, to expand training and apprenticeships, to grow wages and improve working conditions, to bring back our manufacturing jobs. Together, we will achieve historic cooperation between Business and Labor that will restore the American Dream for Working Families," he added.
