Former Texas Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, author of 2013 abortion restrictions, dies
Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, announced her passing Monday, calling her “one of the first and most effective fighters” for the anti-abortion movement.
Texas AG Ken Paxton encourages students to recite Lord’s Prayer in latest test of church-state separation
The endorsement comes as Texas elected officials push for more Christianity in public life and as Paxton’s office fights a legal challenge to religion in education.
Texas House advances fundraising restrictions for lawmakers who leave state to block legislation
The proposal would cap absent members’ daily fundraising at $221 — their current per diem payment — and entirely prohibit the use of political funds for travel expenses.
Texas lawmakers scrap new measure allowing late voter registration changes
Lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year allowing voters to update their address at the polls and immediately vote on elections tied to that new residence, as long as the move was within the county. This bill walks it back.
Rep. Alma Allen, longtime Houston Democratic lawmaker, to retire from Texas House
Allen, known for her focus on public education issues, announced her retirement after 20 years in the House. She endorsed her son, Lawrence Allen Jr., to succeed her.
Grand juries in Washington, DC decline to indict two accused of threatening to kill Trump
Grand juries in Washington, D.C. refused to indict two people accused of threatening the life of President Donald Trump, prosecutors confirmed to Fox News Digital Tuesday. Officials from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington said both cases involved threats against the president while jurors rejected charges, preventing the cases from moving forward to trial. One case involved Nathalie Rose Jones, who is accused of posting online threats to assassinate Trump and later repeating those threats directly to Secret Service agents during an interview. JEANINE PIRRO SHUTS DOWN REPORTERS QUESTIONING TRUMP’S DC CRIME CRACKDOWN U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro, whose office pushed for the indictment, blasted the jury’s refusal on Tuesday. “A Washington D.C. grand jury refused to indict someone who threatened to kill the President of the United States. Her intent was clear, traveling through five states to do so,” Pirro told Fox News in an exclusive statement. “She even confirmed the same to the U.S. Secret Service. This is the essence of a politicized jury. The system here is broken on many levels. Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in D.C. refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics,” Pirro added. In a second case, another grand jury declined to indict Edward Alexander Dana, who allegedly threatened to kill Trump while being arrested last month on unrelated charges of vandalism in Northwest D.C. TRUMP SAYS ‘INCOMPETENT’ ILLINOIS GOVERNOR, ‘NO BETTER’ CHICAGO MAYOR SHOULD CALL HIM FOR HELP WITH CRIME According to charging documents, Dana told police he was intoxicated, admitted making the threat and described himself as a descendant of the Huguenots, French Protestants who waged rebellions in the 1600s. Then, magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey denied a request by prosecutors to keep the jury’s decision sealed, ordering the disclosure of the “no true” bill to Dana’s attorney. Dana’s defense attorney, Elizabeth Mullin, told Fox News Digital she had “never seen anything like it” in over 20 years of practice. “This is the result of them taking weak cases and trying to shoehorn them into federal district court,” Mullin said. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Meanwhile, Pirro said grand juries in D.C. are politically motivated and unwilling to hold violent or threatening defendants accountable. Last week, she told Fox News that residents were “so used to crime” that they’re increasingly unwilling to indict. On Tuesday, she called the decisions not to indict Jones and Dana “a sign the system is collapsing from within.”
Missing minute in Jeffrey Epstein jail security video revealed in document dump
A newly released congressional video fills a one-minute gap in earlier surveillance from notorious financier Jeffrey Epstein’s jail unit on the night of his 2019 suicide. Two key clips, part of a nearly 34,000-file drop by the House Oversight Committee Tuesday night, revealed the highly contested minute missing from surveillance footage filmed outside Epstein’s cell block in the Metropolitan Correctional Center. The disputed minute lasted from 11:58:59 on August 9, 2019, to midnight on Aug. 10, 2019. GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S FAMILY INSISTS SHE RECEIVED UNFAIR TRIAL IN JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE Digital forensics experts previously found the clip released by the Department of Justice was chopped from at least two separate video segments and strung together using Adobe Premiere Pro, fueling conspiracy theories that the administration was covering up Epstein’s death. The new drop from the House committee shows the camera data switched at about midnight, leading to a necessary binding of the two clips for a consecutive video. GHISLAINE MAXWELL FOLLOWS PRISON FITNESS ROUTINE, VIDEO SHOWS, AS DOJ’S JEFFREY EPSTEIN MEMO DRAWS HEAT Fox News Digital combined the two clips after the latest release on Tuesday, showing there was indeed no lapse in footage—contradicting Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previous explanation that the last minute of footage is deleted every night. “What we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every night the video is reset, and every night should have the same minute missing,” Bondi previously said in a meeting at the White House. BONDI UNDER SIEGE AFTER DOJ REVEALS NO EPSTEIN CLIENT LIST It is unclear why the footage disappeared, though the minute that was missing from the original drop did not reveal any action inside the jail block. The DOJ found Epstein committed suicide inside his New York City jail cell while awaiting further sex trafficking charges. The attorney general’s office could not immediately be reached by Fox News Digital for comment.
Trump’s Justice Department moves to block blue state from giving financial aid to illegals
President Donald Trump’s United States Attorney General Pam Bondi is moving to block a controversial Illinois law recently signed by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker extending student financial aid, including in-state tuition rates and scholarships, to illegal immigrants. In a Tuesday statement, the Justice Department announced it had filed a complaint in the Southern District of Illinois against the state, Pritzker, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, also a Democrat, as well as the boards of trustees of Illinois state universities. The DOJ is seeking to block the state from enacting its laws granting illegal immigrants financial aid, which the DOJ is claiming violates federal law by unconstitutionally discriminating against U.S. citizens. In its complaint, the DOJ states that “federal law prohibits providing aliens not lawfully present in the United States with any post-secondary education benefit on the basis of residency unless that benefit is also available to United States citizens and nationals regardless of their residency.” Because of this, the complaint alleges that Illinois’ law is a “blatant and ongoing violation of federal law.” ‘NONSENSICAL’ ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TUITION POLICY SCRAPPED IN KENTUCKY, BONDI LAWSUIT DEAL In the DOJ statement, U.S. Attorney Steven Weinhoeft for the Southern District of Illinois commented that “Illinois has an apparent desire to win a ‘race to the bottom’ as the country’s leading sanctuary state.” Weinhoeft said that Illinois’ “misguided approach mandating in-state tuition, scholarships, and financial aid to illegal aliens plainly violates federal law” and that “this policy treats illegal aliens better than U.S. citizens living in other states and incentivizes even more illegal immigration, all on the taxpayer’s dime.” “Illinois citizens deserve better,” he said. Bondi commented that “this Department of Justice has already filed multiple lawsuits to prevent U.S. students from being treated like second-class citizens — Illinois now joins the list of states where we are relentlessly fighting to vindicate federal law.” In response to the complaint, a spokesperson for Pritzker’s office told Fox News Digital that “this is yet another blatant attempt to strip Illinoisans of resources and opportunities.” “While the Trump Administration strips away federal resources from all Americans, Illinois provides consistent and inclusive educational pathways for all students – including immigrants and first-generation students – to access support and contribute to our state,” said the spokesperson. “All Illinoisans deserve a fair shot to obtain an education and our programs and policies are consistent with federal laws.” DOJ CALLS FOR TIPS ON EMPLOYERS FAVORING FOREIGN WORKERS IN HIRING PRACTICES In August, Pritzker, who is a rumored 2028 Democratic presidential contender, signed a bill into law opening student financial aid to all Illinois residents, regardless of immigration status, opening a pathway for illegal immigrants residing in the state to receive educational financial benefits. The bill purports to establish “equitable eligibility for financial aid and benefits” for all students in the state. The bill reads that “a student who is an Illinois resident and who is not otherwise eligible for federal financial aid, including, but not limited to, a transgender student who is disqualified for failure to register for selective service or a noncitizen student who has not obtained lawful permanent residence, shall be eligible for financial aid and benefits.” The law has been heavily criticized by parents in the state. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Michelle Cunney, an Illinois mother and local Parents’ Rights in Education chapter leader, called the new law a “nightmare.” JB PRITZKER CLAIMS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANNING AN ‘INVASION’ WITH US TROOPS “To be honest, it’s terrifying that not only are we having to pay for this, as you know, tax-paying citizens … But also, as parents, not knowing how it will really truly end up affecting our children and their education,” explained Cunney. She said that under Pritzker’s leadership, “we know that the children who are not here legally will get … more of a chance and an opportunity to get scholarships and everything than our children, because to Pritzker, and so many others, we are not important. We are not anything other than money.” A spokesperson for Raoul’s office told Fox News’ Digital the office is “reviewing the case and don’t have any further comment.”
Appeals court blocks Trump from firing FTC commissioner in case testing president’s removal powers
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., allowed a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday to keep her job, at least for now, as part of a lawsuit centered on President Donald Trump’s authority to remove members of independent agencies without cause. In a 2-1 order, a three-judge panel agreed with a lower court that Trump unlawfully fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and that her firing was squarely at odds with Supreme Court precedent. “The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent,” the panel wrote, adding that “bucking such precedent is not within this court’s job description.” FTC FIRINGS TAKE SPOTLIGHT IN TRUMP’S FIGHT TO ERASE INDEPENDENCE OF AGENCIES Slaughter was abruptly fired after Trump took office, rehired when Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in her favor in July, and then re-fired days later when the appellate court briefly paused AliKhan’s decision. The three-judge panel, comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee, lifted that pause on Tuesday, which means Slaughter can now return to work. The Trump administration could now seek relief from the full appellate court bench or the Supreme Court. A Department of Justice spokesperson told Fox News Digital the government plans to appeal Tuesday’s order. The Trump appointee on the panel, Judge Neomi Rao dissented, saying the “balance of equities here is ultimately indistinguishable” from other cases where the Supreme Court has temporarily greenlit Trump’s firings. DOJ attorneys had argued for the appellate court to grant the Trump administration a stay and keep Slaughter’s firing in place, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decisions to do the same in recent separate cases involving other independent agencies, including two labor boards. TRUMP’S CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO FIRE FEDERAL WORKERS FINDS FAVOR WITH SUPREME COURT “The court’s reinstatement of a principal officer of the United States—in defiance of recent Supreme Court precedent staying similar reinstatements in other cases—works a grave harm to the separation of powers and the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution,” the attorneys wrote. The firings all relate to a 90-year-old Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which found that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner was illegal. Firing commissioners without cause, such as malfeasance, before their seven-year tenures were up was a violation of the FTC Act, the high court found. While the Supreme Court has let Trump’s firings at other independent agencies proceed temporarily while the lawsuits play out in the lower courts, Slaughter’s case would present the most blatant question yet to the justices about whether they plan to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. Legal scholars have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court has an appetite to reverse or narrow that decision. Trump initially fired both Democrat-appointed members of the five-member FTC at will. Slaughter has vowed to see her lawsuit through to its conclusion, while the other ousted member, Alvaro Bedoya, has since resigned. Slaughter said she plans to be back to work on Wednesday. “Amid the efforts by the Trump admin to illegally abolish independent agencies, incl the Federal Reserve, I’m glad the court has recognized that he is not above the law,” Slaughter wrote on social media. “I’m eager to get back first thing tomorrow to the work I was entrusted to do on behalf of the American people.” Trump also recently fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations, a move Cook is now challenging in court. That case presents its own unique set of challenges, in part because the Supreme Court said this year that the Federal Reserve was more insulated than other independent agencies.
House Oversight Committee releases thousands of Epstein documents
The House Oversight Committee released a tranche of thousands of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case on Tuesday night. The surprise file dump came ahead of an expected House-wide vote to formalize the committee’s Epstein inquiry on Wednesday afternoon. That vote, while largely symbolic, would also direct the House Oversight Committee to release the Epstein files sent by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Nearly 34,000 pages are being released that include the DOJ’s interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and videos that appear to show the inside of Epstein’s Palm Beach home. A NEXT STEP IN THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION INVOLVES HIS ‘BIRTHDAY BOOK’ Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, was skepitcal about Tuesday’s release. “There is no news there. I’d rather see the tape in the morning when they took his body off of the tier,” he told Fox News Digital. “That would show who was there, maybe who was running the show etc. That might be news.” The drop included law-enforcement videos that show taped interviews with survivors conducted during the 2005–06 Palm Beach investigation involving Epstein, as well as police body-camera and search footage of the disgraced financier’s Palm Beach, Florida home and interview transcripts with Maxwell. The committee said the DOJ produced the files with victim identities protected, but Congress is now publishing the raw videos in a centralized repository. There was also video from the area outside Epstein’s jail cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. One folder contained an email chain from DOJ officials that included a timeline of Epstein’s final hours. It was written 24 hours after Epstein was found dead in his federal jail cell in Brooklyn, while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. “Hugh/Ray: Can you verify that the information below is accurate? It’s based in large part on the timeline you sent,” wrote one official, whose email address was redacted. “Is there any reason why this information shouldn’t be released to the public?” Details from the timeline have already been widely reported: Epstein was placed on suicide watch in the jail on July 23, 2019, and received daily psyche evaluations. On July 29, authorities removed him from suicide watch but placed him in a special housing unit, where he was supposed to be placed with a cellmate for safety. His cellmate left for court on Aug. 9, and the judge let him go home, so Epstein was alone in his cell. His last contact with guards came around midnight on Aug. 10. Although guards were supposed to conduct checks every 30 minutes, no one saw Epstein until around 6:30 a.m., when staff serving breakfast found him unresponsive in his cell. He was pronounced dead, and authorities said he hanged himself. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed the DOJ in early August for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Epstein and Maxwell. The subpoena was directed by a bipartisan vote during an unrelated House Oversight Committee hearing in late July. “This is the most thorough investigation into Epstein and Maxwell to date, and we are getting results,” Comer said during a House Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday evening. “We have already deposed former Attorney General Bill Barr, the Department of Justice provided nearly 34,000 pages of documents and will produce more, which are being made public as we speak.” Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, claimed that some 97% of those documents were already public, however. EPSTEIN ESTATE HIT WITH NEW HOUSE SUBPOENA FOR ‘CLIENT LIST,’ CALL LOGS Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., said Democrats would continue to push for the unredacted files involving Epstein. “We recognize that the Trump DOJ has every incentive to not comply,” Lee told Fox News Digital. “That is, I imagine, a very small start, but we await the rest.”? Lee notes that the massive majority of the files released Tuesday had all previously been publicly released, “which means that the DOJ has fallen short.” The sudden release appears to be a bid to neutralize an effort by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to force a vote on their own bill to make the DOJ release information on Epstein. The bipartisan pair is spearheading what’s known as a discharge petition — a rare procedural move that allows lawmakers to circumvent leadership if a majority of House members sign on. Such a vote could put Republican lawmakers, who are also pushing for more transparency, in a difficult position, forced to decide between the political ramifications of bucking the vote or defying their own leaders. Massie told Fox News Digital earlier this week he expected enough signatures to hit that threshold by the end of this week, however. “I think there’s a real good chance of that,” he said. But Comer said the committee was “way ahead” of Massie and Khanna’s move. “We’re going to go beyond it. We’re already getting the documents from the administration,” Comer said. “I don’t think [the discharge petition is] necessary at all.” In addition to deposing Barr and subpoenaing the DOJ, Comer’s panel also sent subpoenas to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, ex-FBI Director James Comey, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.