Hawley blasts FDA approval of new abortion drug, cites safety and trust concerns
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., accused the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of endangering women’s health, saying the agency approved another chemical abortion drug without the thorough safety review it had promised. Hawley argued the move shows both regulatory failure and the influence of a company that refuses to define “woman” in its materials. “This is shocking. FDA has just approved ANOTHER chemical abortion drug, when the evidence shows chemical abortion drugs are dangerous and even deadly for the mother. And of course 100% lethal to the child,” he wrote on X on Thursday afternoon. “FDA had promised to do a top-to-bottom safety review of the chemical abortion drug, but instead they’ve just greenlighted new versions of it for distribution. I have lost confidence in the leadership at FDA.” PRO-LIFE GROUP URGES SENATE TO PRESS RFK JR. ON ABORTION PILL SAFETY, DEMAND SAFEGUARDS RETURN Evita Solutions describes its mission as one to “normalize abortion” and make it “accessible to all.” On its website, the company says it “believes that all people should have access to safe, affordable, high-quality, effective, and compassionate abortion care, regardless of their race, sex, gender, age, sexuality, income, or where they live. “We know that you can make the best choice for your body.” According to the FDA, Evita received approval in a Sept. 30 letter obtained by Reuters. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Hawley said the FDA’s decision was even more troubling given its promised safety review has barely begun. “I just, I can’t figure out what’s happening at the FDA. I’m totally baffled by it,” Hawley said. Fox News Digital has reached out to the FDA and Evita Solutions for comment on the matter. FDA CHIEF HAS NO ‘PLANS’ FOR ABORTION PILL POLICY CHANGES BUT CONTINUES SAFETY REVIEW In another post, Hawley blasted the FDA for partnering with a company that “doesn’t even believe there is such a thing as a ‘woman.’” Evita Solutions now joins GenBioPro in producing the generic version of mifepristone, the abortion pill originally made by Danco Laboratories. Mifepristone blocks progesterone, a hormone needed to sustain pregnancy, and is followed by misoprostol to complete the process. The approval comes as abortion drugs face mounting opposition from conservative lawmakers, religious organizations and pro-life groups. MORE THAN 20 GOP ATTORNEYS GENERAL CALL ON RFK JR, FDA TO REINSTATE SAFEGUARDS FOR ABORTION DRUGS Religious groups like Inspire Investing and Alliance Defending Freedom have campaigned against the drug, while the Restoration of America Foundation (ROAF) has pressed lawmakers for accountability. Last month, ROAF called on the Senate Finance Committee to hold Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accountable at a hearing, demanding answers about the removal of safety protocols for the abortion pill mifepristone. In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, ROAF warned that the rollback leaves women more vulnerable and shifts costs to taxpayers. The group said the Biden-era changes endanger women by allowing abortion pills to be prescribed via telehealth and sent through the mail. Hawley said the FDA should restore the safeguards put in place under the Trump administration. “What needs to happen is the FDA needs to get in line with the president’s policy and put back into place the safety regulations President Trump had. Ditch the Biden approach and go back to President Trump’s approach,” Hawley said. Under the Biden administration, the FDA for the first time allowed telehealth prescribing and mail-order delivery of abortion pills. Previously, the agency required mifepristone to be dispensed in person to screen for complications such as ectopic pregnancy. Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr and Reuters contributed to this report.
‘Come-to-Jesus meeting’: Military community reacts to Hegseth’s get fit, get in line or get out speech
War Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a blunt message to military leaders from around the globe this week: Get fit, get on board with the Trump agenda or get out. It marked the first time generals from around the world had been summoned to convene with the secretary, and many had expected closed-door announcements on trimming the general officer corps, drawing down forces in the Middle East and Europe or cutting civilian and contractor roles. Instead, what they got was a televised address from Hegseth and President Donald Trump. The secretary pushed a populist message of handing decision-making back to the warfighter, requiring senior leadership to perform physical training in line with lower-ranking officers and bringing uniformity back to the force. Garrett Smith, an active-duty Marine Corps reservist and CEO of defense tech firm Reveal, said the spectacle was unusual but not without precedent. TRUMP DECLARES ‘REAWAKENING’ OF ‘WARRIOR SPIRIT,’ UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR MILITARY: ‘I HAVE YOUR BACKS’ “At a first level, at any big multinational corporation or big organization, when there’s a new boss, it’s totally reasonable to call in all your regional managers and VPs for a setting of tone, to reconfirm the agenda, to ensure alignment. So, all of that makes sense,” Smith said. “But, obviously, these are not normal times. This is the Trump administration. So, it’s going to come with a bunch of enhanced drama and mystique and weirdness about it. … The policy and the action might have been totally great, but much of the country is going to be left wondering, ‘What was that really about?’” Even so, Smith argued, the underlying message was unmistakable: “A return to warfighting and preparation for winning wars as the priority mission of the department. There was a perception we’d strayed from that, that it had become just one mission among many. Reconfirming that this is the mission is really important — investing in a warfighting ethos.” At a moment when the Trump administration is on alert for internal resistance to its agenda, the speech served as a reminder to commanders stationed far from Washington that their authority ultimately flows from the president. “This is a historic come-to-Jesus meeting,” said Chad Robicheaux, a former reconnaissance Marine who deployed to Afghanistan eight times. “The message is clear. The days of divisiveness, resistance and undermining leadership are over.” “It was crystal clear. Generals and admirals are on notice. Comply and enforce these new policies and culture or be fired. No more woke leaders,” said Amber Smith, a combat veteran and advisor with the Coalition for Military Excellence. “The topic today is about the nature of ourselves, because no plan, no program, no reform, no formation will ultimately succeed unless we have the right people and the right culture at the Department of War,” Hegseth told the group. He emphasized that combat fitness tests would be gender-neutral and that high-level officers would need to meet standards. “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It’s not who we are,” he said. “Whether you’re an airborne Ranger or a chairborne Ranger, a brand-new private or a four-star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass your PT test.” Hegseth announced that all personnel must pass physical training tests and meet weight requirements twice a year and would be required to work out daily. “We’re not talking, like, hot yoga and stretching,” he said. “Real hard PT.” That represented a departure from previous years, when fitness standards often fell away once officers reached higher ranks and desk-bound commands. HEGSETH INSTATES ‘HIGHEST MALE STANDARD ONLY’ FOR COMBAT, OTHER CHANGES, DECLARING DEPT. OF DEFENSE ‘IS OVER’ Smith, who comes from the infantry, said the focus on standards for physical readiness was part of that shift. “If we want to present a deterring force to the world so we don’t have to go to war, we have to be ready to win the next war. That is the deterrent force we project,” he said. At the same time, Smith acknowledged the cultural edge of Hegseth’s message. “There was an obvious and very clear anti-woke, anti-social justice threat in there. That is unique to this administration, and it has to be a part of their message every time. That’s not a surprise given the last four or five years.” From Trump, generals saw a preview of what is expected in the forthcoming national defense strategy, a renewed focus on homeland defense and U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Trump suggested crime-ridden U.S. cities could even serve as “training grounds” for troops. “I told Pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military — National Guard, but military — because we’re going into Chicago very soon,” Trump said. HEGSETH TELLS TROOPS TO RESIGN IF THEY OPPOSE HIS PLAN TO SCRAP ‘WOKE’ POLICIES AND RESTORE WARRIOR ETHOS Hegseth’s message carried a personal edge rooted in his own military experience. A former Army National Guard officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hegseth left the service at the rank of major, well short of the general officer tier he now oversees. That trajectory has long colored his outsider posture toward the Pentagon brass, giving him credibility with rank-and-file troops but also fueling what some see as a chip-on-the-shoulder tone toward those who climbed higher in the hierarchy. His insistence that generals shed weight, train daily and live by the same standards as junior officers reflects both his populist instincts and his lived sense of being closer to the warfighter than the war planner. “I can’t really imagine a scenario where a general needs to be able to run across a battlefield,” one veteran mused. “It felt a bit theatery,” one junior officer said of the speech. “But he’s right that generals should have to meet the same standards they expect of the people they lead.” CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE
Virginia voters sue to boot Democrat off ballot in district that could decide state House majority
A new court filing claims a Democratic candidate for a hotly contested, GOP-held Virginia House of Delegates seat doesn’t live in the district she seeks to represent, a dispute that could shape control of the chamber in 2026. Three voters in Stafford County went to court to allege candidate Stacey Carroll does not live in District 64 and instead in the neighboring, Democratic-majority 23rd and want her booted from the ballot. Plaintiffs Stephen Schwartz, Judith Anne Parker and Juliet Schweiter alleged Carroll continues to live near US-1 in Aquia, Virginia, at the southern edge of the 23rd district but filed to run for office from an address about 7 miles southwestward near Stafford Court House, Virginia, in the 64th. Local residents are asking the court to throw out Carroll’s voter registration at the Stafford address, which they argue would disqualify her from the ballot. RAMASWAMY ENDORSES WINSOME EARLE-SEARS FOR VIRGINIA GOVERNOR, RALLY PLANNED NEXT WEEK IN SWING SUBURB That address is reportedly registered to another family, and a 1966 Virginia court ruling puts the burden of proof-of-residency on the voter registrant or ballot applicant, according to The Virginia Mercury. While a seemingly local matter, the result of the case could have wide-ranging implications for the final tally on Election Day as all 100 House of Delegates seats are up for grabs. And Democrats achieved the rare accomplishment of running candidates in all of them, including reliably Republican seats in far-flung rural regions like St. Charles, Big Stone Gap and Tazewell. COURT SHUTS DOWN REDISTRICTING FIGHT IN KEY SWING STATE — HERE’S WHAT IT MEANS If her candidacy stands, Carroll will face Republican Del. Paul Milde of Stafford in a district that narrowly went for President Donald Trump in 2024 by just under two points. If she is found to truly live in Aquia, her home district seat would be that of Democratic Del. Candi King of Prince William, a much safer and more suburban seat that went for former Vice President Kamala Harris by about 66-31. A tie loses in the House of Delegates, meaning Republicans need only three seats to win back the majority but cannot afford to lose tight races like Milde’s. ‘DON’T MARYLAND MY VIRGINIA’: YOUNGKIN, 2025 GOP TICKET RALLIES TOGETHER FOR FIRST TIME AHEAD OF KEY ELECTION Democrats won back the House of Delegates in the last election in 2023, scoring a 52-48 majority. Republicans currently have one vacancy after House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Luray, resigned to briefly become U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia. Carroll’s chances of flipping Milde’s seat give Republicans an additional roadblock in their quest to take back the chamber. They are also fielding other tightly contested races, including in Hampton Roads. LONE MARYLAND GOP CONGRESSMAN WARNS REDISTRICTING COULD CUT WHITE HOUSE TIES FOR ENTIRE STATE Del. A.C. Cordoza, R-Poquoson, is the only Black Republican in the chamber and represents a district Harris narrowly won. Republicans are laser focused on the seat, and Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and lieutenant gubernatorial candidate John Reid have all stumped for Cordoza. Like exurban Stafford, Hampton Roads is perennially competitive. Democrats tend to have the edge in state races, while Republicans, such as incumbent Rep. Jennifer Kiggans, often prevail in federal contests. DEMS WANTED TO DRAW EVERY REPUBLICAN OUT OF MARYLAND BUT NOW LAMBAST TEXAS REDISTRICTING Earle-Sears shocked the area in 2001 by winning a routinely Democratic-held seat in Virginia Beach, launching her into the commonwealth’s political conscience. Several other seats in the region, which also includes Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Chesapeake and Isle of Wight, are seen as potential pickups for the opposing party. Reid’s race is also expected to weigh heavily on Republicans’ chances of controlling Richmond beyond the governor’s seat. While Democrats control the upper chamber, Earle-Sears is statutorily the tie-breaking vote. Divided similarly to the House, the Senate’s partisan future may hang in the balance depending on whether Reid can defeat state Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Chesterfield. Reid would break ties in favor of Republicans, meaning they only need to win back two more Senate seats. Hashmi would do the opposite, meaning the GOP would need three. Fox News Digital reached out to Carroll’s campaign for comment.
The agency staff Vought might recommend cutting and whether the cuts will be permanent
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) chief Russell Vought and President Donald Trump are in the midst of mapping out cuts to the federal government after lawmakers on Capitol Hill failed to reach a funding bill agreement early Wednesday morning. Trump set the stage in the lead-up to the shutdown that the federal government is likely to see staffing and program cuts during the shutdown, adding in a message Thursday to Truth Social that many federal agencies are a “political SCAM.” “I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump posted. HERE’S WHAT TRUMP WANTS TO DO TO RESHAPE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DURING THE SHUTDOWN “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity. They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Fox News Digital spoke with Richard Stern, the Heritage Foundation’s director of the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, Thursday morning to discuss which agencies the OMB chief would likely target for staffing cuts and if such cuts would be permanent. Stern explained to Fox Digital that there are a pair of overlapping issues that lead to the government’s staffing size. Agencies are required by various laws to provide certain services to citizens. And, separately, appropriation bills set funding floors on how much money an agency has available to spend on staff payroll. During a shutdown, however, there is a lapse in funding, meaning agencies do not have “payroll floors from the funding bill,” leaving the executive branch with discretion on how to continue providing required services to citizens, he explained. “Because the funding bills set effective floors per salary spending, that tends to dictate how many people work for the agencies. In the event of a shutdown, the only requirement on the administration is to ensure that the agencies provide the services and whatnot that are required by law. But those laws don’t say you need, you know, 100 staffers to write a grant or only one staffer,” Stern told Fox Digital in a phone interview. WHITE HOUSE PREPARES FOR ‘IMMINENT’ FEDERAL LAYOFFS AFTER DEMOCRATS FORCE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN “They simply say, you know, ‘There’s a grant program that has to go out the door under XYZ parameters.’ So, in the event of a lapse in funding, it means that the administration … can lay out a plan saying, ‘Hey, look, you know, we think the Department of Education, for example, could do everything it is legally required to do, but do it with 10% of the workforce,’” he continued. If the administration determines that an agency can fulfill its legally required services to citizens with fewer people, it will subsequently send reduction in force notices, known as RIFs, to staffers. “If the funding was there, and if the funding law required those staff levels, then you wouldn’t be able to RIF,” he said. “But in the lapse of funding, it gives the White House that opportunity.” Permanent changes to the government are in a gray zone, however, because RIFs would not be able to take effect until after 60 days. “Once the RIF notices go out, you … legally need to wait 60 days before the RIF notices can be enacted,” Stern continued. “Really the shutdown would have to last 60 days, beyond that, to actually act on the RIFs.” The Heritage Foundation expert, who also serves as the conservative think tank’s acting director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, stressed that any staffing cuts are not an example of government “downsizing.” TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE DEMANDS AGENCIES MAP OUT MASS LAYOFFS AHEAD OF POTENTIAL SHUTDOWN “It’s not downsizing the activities of agencies,” he said. “It’s not reducing what they make available, what services they provide. It’s simply reducing the workforce that’s providing the same level and the same amount of services.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told a gaggle of reporters Thursday that “thousands” of federal employees could be laid off during the shutdown. “Look, it’s likely going to be in the thousands. It’s a very good question. And that’s something that the Office of Management and Budget and the entire team at the White House here, again, is unfortunately having to work on today,” Leavitt said. Stern pointed to a handful of agencies that will likely be targeted for layoffs, citing agencies that have “mission creeped” their original purview into regulatory issues, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other agencies, like the National Science Foundation, that handle grant writing for programs. “Probably the Department of Ed is, is kind of the poster child on this one,” he said. “They’ve been talking about, they quite literally only need 10% or so on the staff.” He also noted the EPA, Department of the Interior and the Department of Labor could face cuts due to the various agencies’ “mission creep into a lot of regulations that are quite harmful to the economy, that are quite harmful to just American families.” WHITE HOUSE TELLS FEDERAL AGENCIES TO PREPARE LAYOFF PLANS AS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN LOOMS “EPA over … a decade or so, has mission creeped its jurisdiction into more and more regulatory affairs, that just simply the EPA doesn’t have under a statutory capacity,” he said. “They’re regulating outside of the confines, the charge they were given by law, by Congress. So, EPA is another one of those where that makes a lot of sense to cut a lot of the workforce there. Then, at HUD and Department of Labor you have similar things.” Stern said the administration likely is also eyeing agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities and certain aspects of the Department of Housing and Urban
Unearthed debate clip goes viral against Dems as illegal immigrant health coverage becomes top issue
As the federal government shutdown continues, a clip from the 2019 Democratic presidential primary went viral when the candidates were asked if they support providing healthcare to those in the country illegally. “Is JD Vance a liar or just woefully ignorant when claiming that Democrats want to give health benefits to undocumented immigrants?” disgraced ex-Democratic Minnesota Sen. Al Franken posted to X on Wednesday, leading to the clip being posted in the comments by one user. “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants,” NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie asked while moderating the June 2019 debate followed by all ten Democrats on stage raising their hands. JOHNSON SAYS DEMOCRATS LYING ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HEALTHCARE PUSH Franken’s post triggered a range of responses, including from conservatives. CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE “You should stick to intimate photography,” GOP communicator Matt Whitlock posted on X, referring to the disgraced ex-senator’s scandal that included a photo of him smiling while posing and groping radio host Leeann Tweeden, who was sleeping in the photo. DEMS IN THE HOT SEAT AFTER OBAMACARE’S SPIKING PREMIUM COSTS TORPEDO THEIR NARRATIVE “Why don’t we let Democrats answer that?” Heritage Action said, posting the debate clip. The clip, which included multiple current members of Congress like Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also garnered the attention of billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who posted “lol” in response to the debate video, which means “laugh out loud.” Part of the ongoing government shutdown debate centers on subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which would lead to a rise in premiums that opponents say prove that the program is unsustainable. Illegal immigrants are unable to get insurance on the ACA marketplace, but Emergency Medicaid is covered as well as several states that use state taxpayer dollars for illegal immigrants to enroll in Medicaid. SPEAKER JOHNSON, ABC’S STEPHANOPOULOS CLASH OVER GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS GETTING HEALTHCARE However, California was once the subject of a federal audit where they were recommended to refund over $52.7 million in “improperly claimed” medical costs for those with “unsatisfactory immigration status.” “Democrats are now trying to run away from their RIDICULOUS $1.5 Trillion big government spending bill — now that Americans are learning what’s in it,” House Speaker Mike Johnson posted to X on Thursday. “Some Democrats now claim they don’t want illegal immigrants on Medicaid — but their previous votes, and the ACTUAL LANGUAGE of their current bill, say otherwise.” However, some Democrats have also criticized Republicans for bringing up state-based Medicaid programs that offer coverage to illegal immigrants. “This isn’t funded by the Federal Government or ACA Tax credits. [The Vice President] is lying again. However if he wants to tell the GOP to write a bill to exclude illegal immigrants from buying on the market and restore ACA tax credits to 24 million Americans, I would be game,” Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said in response to a post from Vice President JD Vance, which included a screenshot showing New York’s public health insurance coverage for “undocumented immigrants over age 65.” As of Thursday afternoon, it’s unclear when the shutdown will end.
FLASHBACK: James Comey urged officials to always prosecute high-profile perjury cases
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was indicted Friday on two federal charges alleging that he issued a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, previously has called for those who lie under oath to face consequences. For example, Comey once railed against lifestyle icon Martha Stewart, who was convicted of misleading federal investigators, and said her case served as an example to deter others from lying to officials. “The Stewart experience reminded me that the justice system is an honor system,” Comey wrote in his book, “A Higher Loyalty,” released in 2018. “We really can’t always tell when people are lying or hiding documents, so when we are able to prove it, we simply must do so as a message to everyone. People must fear the consequences of lying in the justice system or the system can’t work.” MARTHA STEWART’S ANGER AT JAMES COMEY FOR MAKING HER ‘TROPHY’ CRIMINAL IS ‘UNDERSTANDABLE,’ ATTORNEY SAYS “There once was a time when most people worried about going to hell if they violated an oath taken in the name of God,” Comey wrote. “That divine deterrence has slipped away from our modern cultures. In its place, people must fear going to jail…To protect the institution of justice, and reinforce a culture of truth-telling, she had to be prosecuted.” Comey served as the lead prosecutor who indicted Stewart on charges of obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI in 2003, which stemmed from the FBI’s insider trading investigation into Stewart’s friend’s company, ImClone. Stewart ultimately was convicted on four counts of obstructing justice and lying to investigators. She was sentenced to five months in prison. Comey’s statement in his book aligns with those he made at the time. After the charges were filed against Stewart in 2003, Comey said Stewart’s “case is about lying — lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC and investors.” “That is conduct that will not be tolerated. Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not because of who she is, but what she did,” Comey said at a news conference in 2003. Stewart took a swipe at Comey in her Netflix documentary called “Martha,” which was released October 2024. “It was so horrifying to me that I had to go through that to be a trophy for these idiots in the U.S. Attorney’s office,” Stewart said. Fox News Digital reached out to Comey for comment and has yet to receive a reply. Meanwhile, Comey’s feud with President Donald Trump is also back in the spotlight following Comey’s indictment. The two men have gone head-to-head against each other for years, dating back to Trump’s first administration amid the FBI’s investigation into whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and they have continued to trade barbs during Trump’s second term. While Trump has lobbed out terms like “sick person” and “untruthful slime ball,” Comey also has hurled criticism against the president and said he’s not fit for office. HOW JAMES COMEY’S INDICTMENT COULD GO SOUTH FOR THE DOJ For example, Comey described Trump as someone who “lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it,” and questioned whether Trump embodied U.S. values during an interview in April 2018 with ABC News ahead of the release of his book, “A Higher Loyalty.” “I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president — I think he’s morally unfit to be president … that’s not a policy statement,” Comey told ABC News. “Again, I don’t care what your views are on guns, or immigration, or taxes. There is something more important than that, that should unite all of us, and that is our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country, the most important being truth. This president is not able to do that.” That same month Comey attracted the ire of Trump, who accused Comey of being a “terrible” FBI director and that it was his “great honor” to fire Comey. “James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under OATH,” Trump said in a social media post in April 2018. COMEY DENIES CHARGES, DECLARES ‘I AM NOT AFRAID’ “He is a weak and untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI…It was my great honor to fire James Comey!” Trump said. Trump fired Comey in May 2017, just after Comey revealed in March 2017 before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election. At the time, Trump said that he had ousted Comey due to his handling of an investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Comey, who previously identified as a Republican, went on to endorse former President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. He also called for “everyone who cares about the rule of law and America’s indispensable role in the world” to get behind former Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee during the 2024 election when she went up against Trump. TRUMP SAYS COMEY ‘PLACED A CLOUD OVER THE ENTIRE NATION’ WITH CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, REACTS TO INDICTMENT “Kamala Harris made me feel like it’s finally morning in America,” Comey wrote in a post on X in August 2024. More recently, Comey and Trump sparred after the former FBI director posted a photo on Instagram in May depicting shells arranged on a beach to spell out “86 47.” The term “86” can mean getting rid of something or someone, and Trump is the 47th president. Following backlash from Trump allies who interpreted Comey’s post as a threat to remove Trump, Comey said that the thought hadn’t crossed his mind and he opposed “violence of any kind.” Still, Trump didn’t
Trump’s DOGE savings dwarfed by Medicare, Social Security spending, watchdog finds
A conservative watchdog says Trump’s much-hyped DOGE cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to America’s ballooning entitlement spending. OpenTheBooks, a conservative fiscal watchdog group, released a report on Thursday showing that mandatory spending for Medicare and Social Security vastly outweigh any cuts to discretionary spending ushered in by the Trump administration. The report was released as lawmakers clash over government funding, with the fight centered on Democratic plans to expand Obamacare. “Government shutdowns offer taxpayers a much-needed reality check on the massive scale of federal spending and our unsustainable debt and deficits,” OpenTheBooks CEO John Hart said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Policymakers need to wake up and take a much closer look at safety net spending, which is the largest share of our budget and is highly susceptible to fraud.” WHITE HOUSE MEMO SAYS DEMOCRATS’ PLAN COULD SPEND $200B ON HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS Of the $6.9 trillion spent by the federal government in 2024, $912 billion went to Medicare, and $1.5 trillion went to Social Security, according to OpenTheBooks. Meanwhile, OpenTheBooks highlights the rescission package passed by Congress in July, which largely focused on cuts to the United States Agency for International Development, saved around $9 billion and DOGE cuts saved taxpayers around $150 billion. “The amounts of disputed savings in 2025 pale in comparison to our spending on safety net programs,” the OpenTheBooks report states. “If the flow of money in the federal government could be viewed from a jet cruising at 30,000 feet, Medicare would be the Mississippi River and Social Security would be the Columbia River while USAID and ‘woke’ spending programs would be barely visible, tiny streams.” ‘WASTEFUL AND DANGEROUS’: DOGE’S TOP FIVE MOST SHOCKING REVELATIONS In particular, OpenTheBooks zeroed in on just one aspect of Medicare funds — those that are allocated for prescription drug coverage. The fiscal watchdog found that the top 1,000 providers in the system are linked to more spending in 2024 — $10.9 billion — than was saved by the July rescission package. According to OpenTheBooks’ findings, the top ten providers are associated with nearly the same amount of savings ushered in by the Trump administration’s $1.1 billion in cuts to PBS and NPR. “We are not implying that any of these providers are engaging in anything other than lawful conduct on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries,” the report asserts. “Yet, it is also true that healthcare spending in the United States is grossly inefficient and fraudulent at a large scale. In June, the Department of Justice charged 324 defendants for defrauding Medicare of $14.6 billion. Meanwhile, last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that insurers ‘pocketed $50 billion from Medicare for diseases no doctor treated.’” OpenTheBooks’ report argues that if American taxpayers want to understand the costs, benefits, vulnerabilities and potential savings, related to federal government spending, then they must fight for transparency. “When taxpayers see where their money is flowing, especially in times of heated debates and shutdowns, they can hold policymakers accountable to better direct its flow,” the report concludes.
Will Europe use Russian assets to fund Ukraine? Could Moscow hit back?
European Union leaders are considering a “reparations plan” that would use frozen Russian state assets to provide Ukraine with a $164bn loan to help fund its reconstruction after the war with Russia ends. Leaders expressed a mixture of support and caution for the plan on Wednesday as they met in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, days after drones were spotted in Denmark’s airspace, prompting airport closures. While the drones in Denmark were not formally identified as Russian, other European countries, including Poland, Romania and Estonia, have accused Russia of drone incursions into their airspace in September. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list “I strongly support the idea,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also said he was “very much in favour” of the plan. Others said there could be legal complications, however. Here is what we know about Europe’s “reparations plan”, how it may work and what the response from Russia is likely to be. What is Europe’s ‘reparations plan’? The reparations plan was first outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in mid-September, and backing for it has grown as United States financial support for Ukraine wanes. During his 2024 presidential campaign, US President Donald Trump promised voters he would pull the US back from providing high levels of financial and military aid to Ukraine. Since the beginning of his term in January, Trump has made it clear the US will take a back seat in terms of providing financial support and security guarantees to Ukraine, indicating Europe should fill the gap instead. Advertisement Europe’s plan would use Russian assets frozen in European banks as collateral for a 140-billion-euro ($164.4bn) loan to Ukraine. Repayments for the loan would be recouped via war reparations from Russia, but the loan would also be guaranteed either in the EU’s next long-term budget or by individual EU member states. “We need a more structural solution for military support,” von der Leyen said on Tuesday. “This is why I have put forward the idea of a reparations loan that is based on the immobilised Russian assets.” How much in frozen Russian assets does Europe hold? About $300bn in Russian Central Bank assets have been frozen by the US and European countries since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Most of this – $246.9bn – is held in Europe, of which $217.5bn – the vast majority in cash – is held by Euroclear, a Belgium-based capital markets company. On June 30, Euroclear reported the Russian sanctioned assets on its balance sheet generated $3.2bn in interest during the first half of 2025, a drop from the $4bn in interest earned over the same period last year. What are the challenges to this plan? Under international law, a sovereign country’s assets cannot simply be confiscated. Hence, loaning this money to Ukraine would be an infringement of Moscow’s sovereign claim over its central bank assets. Since most of the assets are held in Belgium, the country has asked for the plan to be fleshed out in case it is required to return the assets to Russia. “I explained to my colleagues yesterday that I want their signature saying, ‘If we take Putin’s money, we use it, we’re all going to be responsible if it goes wrong,’” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters in Copenhagen on Thursday. On Wednesday, von der Leyen said: “It’s absolutely clear that Belgium cannot be the one who is the only member state that is carrying the risk. The risk has to be put on broader shoulders.” Are any European leaders hesitant about this plan? Yes. Besides De Wever, other European leaders have expressed hesitation or have asked their fellow leaders to work out more details of the plan before they agree to it. Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said the proposal should be considered very carefully, given the legal and financial risks that could arise. Others also signalled caution. “I think that’s a difficult legal question,” Luxembourg Prime Minister Luc Frieden told reporters. “You can’t just take over assets that belong to another state so easily.” Frieden added: “There are now other proposals on the table, but these also raise a whole host of questions. I would like to have answers to these questions first. Among other things, how would such a loan be repaid? What would happen if Russia did not repay these reparations in a peace treaty?” Advertisement Is the plan likely to go ahead? Experts said European leaders would likely have to find a way to make the plan viable as the prospects of further US aid for Ukraine dry up. “It is going to happen because with the US walking away, Europe is left with $100bn-plus annual funding needs for Ukraine,” Timothy Ash, an associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera. Ash explained that the bigger challenge for Europe would be to not go ahead with the plan if it means leaving Ukraine underfunded generally and placing it at higher risk of losing the war with Russia. “Risks to Europe would then be catastrophic,” he said, including the prospect of tens of millions of Ukrainians migrating west into Europe. If a Ukrainian loss in the war becomes more likely, European nations would be forced to ramp up defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic products (GDPs) much faster than expected. In June, members of NATO pledged to increase their defence spending to 5 percent of their GDPs by 2035. Such an acceleration “would mean higher budget deficits, higher borrowing costs, more debt, less growth and a weaker Europe and euro”, Ash said. How has Russia responded? Moscow has rebuked the EU plan, calling it a “theft” of Russian money. “We are talking about plans for the illegal seizure of Russian property. In Russia, we call that simply theft,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday. Peskov said anyone involved in seizing Russian assets “will be prosecuted in one
Renowned chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall dies at 91
NewsFeed Jane Goodall, the British conservationist and primatologist renowned for her groundbreaking research on chimpanzees, has died at age 91. Goodall revolutionised the study of humans’ nearest animal relatives and became a global advocate for wildlife and the planet. Published On 2 Oct 20252 Oct 2025 Click here to share on social media share2 Share Adblock test (Why?)
Intercepted Gaza flotilla boats arrive at Israel’s Ashdod port
NewsFeed Several boats from the Global Sumud Flotilla arrived at Israel’s Ashdod port on Thursday flying Palestinian flags, after being intercepted by the Israeli navy. Israel said it had intercepted at least 40 vessels from the flotilla, and that those on board have been detained. Published On 2 Oct 20252 Oct 2025 Click here to share on social media share2 Share Adblock test (Why?)