House Homeland GOP calls for Mayorkas written testimony; DHS slams ‘bad-faith’ impeachment push
Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee are seeking written testimony from DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas amid a lengthy back-and-forth with the agency over him potentially testifying at an impeachment hearing — as DHS is blasting what it says is a “bad-faith, predetermined and unconstitutional rush” to impeach him. Chairman Mark Green sent a letter to Mayorkas offering him the opportunity to submit written testimony ahead of the second impeachment hearing on Thursday — which will focus on the victims of illegal immigrant crime. “As stated in earlier letters to you, your perspective on the crisis at the border and actions you have taken as secretary are valuable for the Members of the Committee and the American public to hear. Regretfully, every invitation for almost half a year we extended to you to testify focused specifically on the border crisis has been rejected or subject to endless delay tactics,” Green said, requesting written testimony instead. REPUBLICANS, DEMS SPAR AT MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT HEARING AS STATE AGS DESCRIBE IMPACT OF MIGRANT CRISIS Republicans, who held the first hearing earlier this month, have accused Mayorkas of a “dereliction of duty” and a “willful violation of his oath” in his handling of the crisis at the southern border, where there have been record levels of migrant encounters. They have said that the expansion of “catch-and-release” and the rollback of Trump-era policies have fueled a historic crisis with devastating effects on the country. The administration says it is dealing with a hemisphere-wide crisis and needs more funding and reform from Congress. It has pointed to more than a million returns of migrants in FY 2022 and FY 2023 and a record seizure of fentanyl by officials at the border. Green’s office had invited Mayorkas to testify in person at the hearing earlier this month. DHS replied, saying he could not testify at the hearing on Thursday due to other commitments including hosting a Mexican delegation, but was open to testifying at a future date and said it would work to find a date and hearing structure with committee members. Republicans painted that response as a refusal to testify, arguing that they have been trying to get Mayorkas to testify at a border-specific hearing since August. DHS has fiercely denied that the letter counted as a refusal to testify and said that Mayorkas has testified 27 times in 35 months, more than any other Cabinet member, including at a Worldwide Threats hearing before the committee in November. DHS says that Republicans did not provide any alternate dates or options to DHS, nor did they respond to attempts to identify a date. Spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg tore into what she said was the “latest example of Committee Republicans’ sham process.” “It’s abundantly clear that they are not interested in hearing from Secretary Mayorkas since it doesn’t fit into their bad-faith, predetermined and unconstitutional rush to impeach him. Last week, the Secretary offered to testify publicly before the Committee; in the time since, the Committee failed to respond to DHS to find a mutually agreeable date,” she said. “Instead, they provided this offer of written testimony to the media before any outreach to the Department. CHS Republicans have yet again demonstrated their preference for playing politics rather than work together to address the serious issues at the border,” she said. Homeland Republicans, in turn, said that Mayorkas has now “tacitly refused” three times despite what they say is flexibility. HOUSE HOMELAND DEMOCRATS BACK MAYORKAS, SLAM GOP ‘SHAM’ AHEAD OF IMPEACHMENT HEARING “Secretary Mayorkas can object all he wants, but the paper trail is clear–he has consistently, tacitly refused to show up,” the majority said on X, formerly known as Twitter after accusing Mayorkas of “indefinite delays.” Democrats on the Committee backed the administration and called the impeachment push “just another political stunt.” “They refused to accept his offer to testify at a later date because it doesn’t fit with their arbitrary, rushed timeline dictated by extreme MAGA Republicans Illegitimate impeachment,” they said, calling the impeachment illegitimate. Meanwhile, Fox confirmed that the hearing will be the last hearing and the next step will be for the committee to schedule a markup of the impeachment articles. Fox News’ Kelly Phares contributed to this report.
Houthis still conducting attacks but need to ask how much of capability do they want ‘degraded’: Pentagon
Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels have maintained an ability to conduct attacks against international shipping vessels despite a wave of U.S. airstrikes targeting the terror group, the Pentagon said Wednesday. The U.S., in coordination with several other nations, conducted strikes on Houthi targets last week in response to the group’s ongoing attacks on commercial ships in and around the Red Sea that began in November. “We hit what we intended to hit with good effects,” Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters. “Again, the objective here was to disrupt and degrade Houthi capabilities to conduct attacks. And we believe that overall, in terms of the scope and the number of strikes that we took, we have degraded their ability to attack.” HOUTHI CRUISE MISSILE FIRED FROM YEMEN TOWARD US WARSHIP SHOT DOWN BY FIGHTER JET: CENTCOM Despite the retaliatory strikes, the Houthis launched an anti-ship ballistic missile from Yemen on Tuesday at the M/V Zografia, a Maltese flagged bulk carrier that was struck. No injuries were reported. Hours earlier, U.S. strikes destroyed four Houthi anti-ship ballistic missiles that were prepared to launch, U.S. Central Command said. Then on Wednesday, the group launched a one-way attack drone, hitting the M/V Genco Picardy, a U.S. owned and operated bulk carrier ship in the Gulf of Aden. The drone caused minor damage, officials said. The attack was the 34th on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden since Nov. 19, and the second time a U.S. owned and operated ship has been hit by the Houthis in two days. Ryder said he was not surprised that the Houthis would try and conduct further attacks following the U.S. response. “As I highlighted and as we highlighted shortly after those strikes, we would be surprised if we saw efforts on their part if they continued to try and conduct retaliatory strikes,” he said. “Ultimately at the end of the day, the Houthis need to ask themselves how much of their capability do they want degraded and disrupted in light of these illegal, reckless and dangerous attacks.” WHO ARE THE HOUTHI REBELS ATTACKING COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST? The Houthis have disrupted global shipping with its attacks. The group has said its actions are retaliation against Israel’s military operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The attacks, along with recent strikes by Iran against a “spy headquarters and the gathering of anti-Iranian terrorist groups,” in Ebril, Iraq and other locations have sparked concerns that the Israel-Hamas war could escalate into a regional conflict. “We’re also going to continue to work very hard to prevent the Israel-Hamas conflict from escalating into a broader regional conflict,” Ryder said Wednesday in response to a question from a reporter. “But to answer your question, no, we currently assess that the fight between Israel and Hamas continues to remain contained in Gaza.” The Biden administration plans to redesignate the Houthi’s as a terrorist group three years after removing them from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list in response its repeated attacks in the Red Sea. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The group will be placed on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) list, which will trigger sanctions designed to prevent further attacks on global trade in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, according to senior administration officials. Fox News Digital’s Chris Pandolfo and Liz Friden contributed to this report.
Protests erupt in Tunisian town as search continues for 37 missing migrants
Tunis, Tunisia – A boat said to be carrying some 37 migrants and asylum seekers has gone missing off the coast of Sfax in Tunisia. Relatives described receiving final phone calls at around 2:30pm on January 11, as the boat was setting out to sea. By around 10pm the same night, all contact with the boat and its passengers had been lost. Other than three or four people from elsewhere in Tunisia, all of the boat’s passengers are reported to be from the small village of El Hencha in the Sfax Governorate. They range in age from about 13 to 35 years old. Frustrated by the lack of news since the boat’s disappearance, the families of the missing migrants erected roadblocks and burned tyres around the village yesterday, only withdrawing when the government authorities assured the public that search efforts would continue. Mohammed Jlaiel’s 25-year-old brother Ali is among the missing. “We haven’t heard anything about him. Nothing! It’s torturous,” Mohammed told Al Jazeera by phone. “We’re desperate for a piece of news on them,” he continued. ”They were all our neighbours and friends. The whole [of] Hencha is in pain. My mom is in a terrible state.” Migrants and asylum seekers attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea on October 6, 2023, are rescued by a boat from the group Doctors Without Borders [File: Paolo Santalucia/AP Photo] The Tunisian National Guard released a statement on Tuesday saying “all field units”, including maritime vessels and helicopters, have been mobilised to find the 37 passengers Maltese and Italian units were also reported to have been involved in the search. On Tuesday, the Italian news agency Agenzia Nova indicated that the ongoing search efforts were focused on the coastline between Sfax and the coastal town of Mahdia, some 80 miles (129km) north. Nevertheless, within Tunisia, politicians and the family members of the missing passengers have voiced disquiet about how long it is taking to receive concrete news. “Imagine not knowing anything about a brother for six days. They sent planes, boats, all sorts of things to look for them, but there’s no trace of them whatsoever,” Jlaiel said. “Tunisians, Italians, Libyans … Everyone is searching, and yet they can’t find anything. It’s so strange.” Majdi Karbai, a member of parliament responsible for Tunisians overseas, told Al Jazeera that the missing migrants and asylum seekers were “the latest victims of Europe’s migration policies”. He criticised the European Union’s efforts to control irregular migration along its southern border as endangering lives. The coastal town of Zarzis, Tunisia, is an occasional departure point for boats carrying migrants and asylum seekers [File: Angus McDowall/Reuters] Karbai added that he was in contact with family members in El Hencha. The continued absence of information about the lost boat was troubling to residents there, he explained. He worried that the situation could trigger unrest, as happened after another vessel sank in 2022. The southern Tunisian town of Zarzis lost 18 inhabitants in that shipwreck, leading to protests denouncing the speed of the rescue effort and the economic conditions that prompted the fatal voyage. Tunisian President Kais Saied eventually intervened to help quell ill feelings. “This is bad,” Karbai said of the current situation in El Hencha. “This could be very bad, like Zarzis.” Poverty and the absence of employment prospects within Tunisia often drive locals to depart for new lives in Europe. Other migrants, however, arrive on Tunisia’s coasts from elsewhere across the globe, particularly from impoverished and conflict-stricken areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Both Tunisia and neighbouring Libya are key departure points for those looking to travel irregularly by boat to Europe. However, despite its popularity, the migration route is also one of the world’s deadliest. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), 2,498 migrants and asylum seekers are known to have drowned while crossing the central Mediterranean Sea in 2023. The true figure is likely far higher. In the first 11 months of 2023, Tunisia’s National Guard intercepted almost 70,000 irregular migrants and asylum seekers. Of those, 77.5 percent had travelled to Tunisia from across Africa. The remainder came from Tunisia itself. Migrants and asylum seekers rest in the port city of Ben Gardane, Tunisia, after being rescued from the waters of the Mediterranean by the Tunisian navy on July 7, 2021 [File: Hamadi Sehli/AP Photo] Ali Jlaiel from El Hencha was as typical a passenger as any. His brother Mohammed described the missing 25-year-old as someone who struggled to settle down after a series of low-wage jobs, none lasting any great length of time. “He felt cornered,” Mohammed Jlaiel said. “He had no hope of a good future.” Ali’s last job was as an overnight security guard at the Mall of Sfax. But even with a steady wage, his budget barely covered his expenses, Mohammed explained. “He got 600 dinars [$193] as a salary [a month]. Ten dinars [$3] would be spent on daily transportation from Hencha to Sfax. Add to that the cost of his cigarettes and coffee. Nothing would be left. It’s depressing.” “There’s nothing in Hencha. And he’s not a special case. The boat was full of our neighbours. Even kids as young as 13 and 14,” he said. “They all didn’t find any chance here.” Adblock test (Why?)
Biden ‘playing with fire’ by redesignating Yemen’s Houthis as ‘terrorists’
It was one of Joe Biden’s first major foreign policy decisions. Less than a month after taking office in January 2021, the United States president lifted two “terrorist” designations imposed by his predecessor, Donald Trump, against Yemen’s Houthi rebels. At the time, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the move came in “recognition of the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen”. The United Nations, as well as humanitarian groups and US lawmakers, had warned the “terrorist” designations could interrupt the flow of aid to the country. Now, almost exactly three years later, the Biden administration is reimposing one of the designations against the Houthis, declaring them to be a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist group” amid a series of attacks in the Red Sea. And once again, rights advocates and political analysts are sounding the alarm over the negative effects the decision may have on Yemeni civilians. Many also question whether Wednesday’s designation will succeed in pushing the Houthis to end their attacks. “I’m very concerned about the devastating consequences for ordinary people in Yemen,” said Afrah Nasser, a non-resident fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC who previously worked as a Yemen researcher at Human Rights Watch. Nasser told Al Jazeera that the designation risks deepening the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, which has experienced a years-long war between the Houthis and a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. More than half of the Yemeni population — 18.2 million people — is in need of assistance, according to the UN, as the country reels from an economic crisis, rising costs, mass displacement and hunger. “The ordinary Yemeni family today is suffering because of both the Houthi domestic policies and also the international community policies in Yemen, such as this [US] designation that we heard today,” Nasser said. “Yemenis are caught between two fires.” Red Sea attacks In a statement on Wednesday morning, Blinken said the “Specially Designated Global Terrorist group” designation (SDGT) came in response to Houthi attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea. “This designation seeks to promote accountability for the group’s terrorist activities. If the Houthis cease their attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the United States will reevaluate this designation,” the top US diplomat said. The Iran-aligned Houthis, who control large swaths of Yemen, began firing missiles at Israel and attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea shortly after the war in Gaza began in October. The group pledged to target Israel-linked vessels as part of an effort to pressure the country’s government to end its Gaza bombardment and allow more humanitarian aid deliveries into the coastal Palestinian enclave. It later expanded the threat to any commercial vessels travelling to and from Israel along the arterial trade route off Yemen’s coast. The attacks led shipping companies to suspend operations in the Red Sea and drew condemnation from the US and its allies. Washington launched a naval coalition to protect commercial vessels in December, and it also carried out several strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen this month in what observers called a “dangerous” escalation. On Wednesday, the Biden administration defended its decision to reimpose the SDGT designation on the Houthis, saying there would be “carve-outs” to protect aid to Yemen. “Today’s designation targets the Houthis, not the Yemeni people,” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said in a press conference. When asked about how any related sanctions would impact negotiations with the Houthis, Kirby responded firmly: “There’s no negotiations. There’s not a bargaining chip. It’s a way of holding the Houthis accountable.” But experts cast doubt on whether the SDGT designation would lead the Houthis to stop their attacks in the Red Sea, as the administration suggested. “It seems highly unlikely to have any positive effect on the behaviour of the Houthis,” said Brian Finucane, a senior US programme adviser at the International Crisis Group think tank. “I think it’s a form of do-something-ism,” he told Al Jazeera. The reimposition of the SDGT designation, he added, is a reflection of Washington’s refusal to recognise that recent Houthi attacks are linked to the war in Gaza. “The Biden administration has put itself in a box … where it doesn’t have good policy options.” The designation An SDGT designation focuses primarily on the finances of an individual or a group. In this case, it will freeze the Houthis’ assets in the US and prohibit American citizens from having any financial dealings with the organisation. And while “civil and criminal penalties may be assessed for violations”, the designation is more narrow in scope than the second label that the Trump administration had imposed on the Houthis: that of “Foreign Terrorist Organization” or FTO. That label makes it a serious crime to provide support to a blacklisted group. “This [SDGT designation] is sort of a minimal: restricting access to funds from abroad, access to international markets. These are things that Houthis don’t have and never had. They don’t own stock on the New York Stock Exchange,” said Nabeel Khoury, a former deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Yemen. Houthi supporters attend a protest against US-led air strikes on January 12, 2024, in Sanaa, Yemen [AP Photo] Nevertheless, Khoury told Al Jazeera that the Houthis are unlikely to make a distinction between an SDGT or FTO designation and will see Wednesday’s decision as an affront that could lead to further escalation. Hours after the designation was announced, the Houthis said they fired “naval missiles” at an American ship in the Gulf of Aden. There was no immediate confirmation from Washington. “It’s really baffling what this administration is engaged in. I don’t think there’s much thought that went into this,” he said. “This designation is more like an insult. It’s the old glove in the face, slap someone with your glove. You’re sort of challenging, but not really hurting them.” Nasser also warned that it could further embolden the Houthis and “contribute in radicalising some parts of the population and strengthen the Houthi
Experts bash White House claims of shrouding Hunter Biden’s art buyers: ‘Proved as abstract’ as his art
Top legal and ethical experts weighed in on art gallerist Georges Bergès’ revelation of Hunter Biden’s knowledge of his art buyers, saying the American people were “misled.” Fox News Digital reached out to several legal and ethical experts on Bergès’ revelation during his closed-door, transcribed interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees earlier this month. Bergès told the committees that an agreement to shield the knowledge of Hunter Biden’s buyers from him was not put in place for months after the White House’s statement that a “system” had been “established” to do so. HUNTER BIDEN KNEW 70% OF ART BUYERS, CONTRADICTING WHITE HOUSE NARRATIVE ON ‘ANONYMOUS’ COLLECTORS: GALLERIST Hunter Biden’s gallerist said that the first son knew the identities of approximately 70% of those buyers. “The White House effort was the ultimate example of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted,” George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital. “The clear message given repeatedly to Congress and the public was that an ethical plan was in place to prevent such knowledge,” he continued. “The ethical claims of the White House proved as abstract as Hunter’s art pieces,” Turley said. “In reality, the breach had occurred long before the ethical plan was implemented.” “The testimony that Bergès did not have interactions with the White House on the plan further undermines these claims. Indeed, Bergès admitted that he was reading these statements from the White House with no knowledge of what they were referencing. Yet, Bergès and the Bidens proceeded knowing that the public was being misled.” Former Bush administration ethics chief Richard Painter told Fox News Digital that the White House’s “whole arrangement of keeping the buyers secret was completely the wrong way to go.” Painter said the White House “should have had nothing to do” with Bergès, and that the “best approach” for Hunter Biden would have been to “not sell the art at all during his father’s presidency and certainly not sell it at those prices.” “The worst option is what they chose, which is to keep it all, to say it’s all going to be confidential, and Hunter Biden won’t know and nobody will know,” Painter said. “And this is exactly what I said happens, is that the word gets around.” “Of course you find out who bought the art,” Painter continued. “People hang the art on the wall.” “They don’t stick it in closet,” he added. Attorney Sol Weisenberg said that we “don’t know right now the full ethical implications, if any, of this latest White House falsehood regarding Hunter Biden’s special privileges and ethical/legal lapses.” “It is simply another example of the Biden family’s leisurely approach to influence peddling,” Weisenberg said. “As a citizen, I would rather know who is buying the paintings and how much they are paying than operating under the false illusion that Hunter and the family are being kept in the dark about the source of this latest largesse.” Fox News Digital reached out to Bergès and the White House for comment. Bergès’ interview with the committees came as part of the House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Biden. House investigators, during his interview, showed Bergès a statement made by then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki on July 9, 2021. “After careful consideration, a system has been established that allows for Hunter Biden to work in his profession within reasonable safeguards,” she said. “All interactions regarding the selling of art and the setting of prices will be handled by professional galleries, adhering to the highest industry standards. Any offer out of the normal court would be rejected out of hand.” Psaki added, “The galleries will not share information about buyers or prospective buyers, including their identities, with Hunter Biden or the administration, which provides quite a level of protection.” When pressed further, Psaki stressed that “it would be challenging for an anonymous person who we don’t know and Hunter Biden doesn’t know to have influence — so that’s a protection.” However, Bergès testified that at the time of the White House’s July 2021 statement, he had an agreement with Hunter Biden which called for him, instead, “to disclose to Hunter Biden who the purchasers of his art were.” Bergès said that contract was agreed to in December 2020. Bergès said that it was not until September 2021 that a new agreement with Hunter Biden was created. That agreement stated that “the gallery will not disclose the name of any buyers of artist’s artwork to artist or any agent of artist.” Bergès stressed, though, that there was not a “White House-involved agreement,” and that Hunter Biden did know the identities of approximately 70% of the buyers of his art. Meanwhile, Bergès testified that he had spoken to President Biden both on the phone and in person. The art gallerist previously told Fox News Digital he “never violated the agreement we had with Hunter Biden.” “If he knew the identities of some of the buyers — it’s because they were his friends or by happenstance,” Bergès said. “My obligation to Hunter is to not disclose the buyers — which I haven’t.” Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed reporting.
House passes resolution condemning Biden border crisis
The House of Representatives formally rebuked President Biden over his border and immigration policies on Wednesday. Lawmakers passed a resolution “denouncing the Biden administration’s open-borders policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his administration’s open-borders policies.” It’s a largely symbolic move, but a pointed message from the House GOP Conference as talks are underway between the Senate and White House on a border security compromise in exchange for Republican support for sending Ukraine more aid. Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, who spearheaded the resolution in the House, told Fox News Digital that it sent a clear message of unity to those negotiators. ICE LAUNCHES 60-DAY EVALUATION OF CALIFORNIA DETENTION FACILITY AMID GOP DEMANDS TO FULLY REOPEN “It shows that we’re in lockstep together to make sure that the president has a clear, unified message from the House Republicans and the Senate has a clear, unified message from the House Republicans, that says border security is of utmost consequence for this nation and its national security,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. The vote comes just after the top four Congressional leaders — Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. — met with Biden at the White House to discuss the status of supplemental aid talks. ICE DETENTION CENTER HOUSES HANDFUL OF INMATES DESPITE HAVING THOUSANDS OF BEDS: LAWMAKER Democrats are trying to pass a mammoth $110 billion supplemental aid bill that includes money for Ukraine, Israel, and humanitarian causes like aid to Gaza. Johnson has fixed the House GOP’s position on H.R.2, the comprehensive border security and immigration bill his conference passed back in May. Democratic leaders have called H.R.2 a nonstarter. TEXAS BEGINS FLYING MIGRANTS TO SANCTUARY CITIES WITH FIRST FLIGHT TO CHICAGO “Last May, we passed H.R.2, which provides a lot of the substantive solution that’s necessary to close our borders,” Moran told Fox News Digital. “What we’ve seen since then though, is stonewalling from the Democrats.” “This resolution is trying to re-sound that alarm to the Democrats and the American public to say we really do have a crisis.” More than 300,000 migrants were encountered at the U.S.-Mexico border in December, an all-time record.
Divided Supreme Court debates major cases over power of federal administrative state
Who decides? That was the oft-repeated refrain from members of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a major dispute over the power of the federal administrative state. At issue is the discretion of the Executive Branch to interpret and enforce congressional laws over a range of areas like the environment, health care, workplace safety, and consumer protections. SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO DECIDE MAJOR CASES OVER POWER OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE STATE A majority of conservative justices appeared ready to limit, but not entirely overturn, what has become known as “Chevron” deference — a 1984 high court precedent that says when congressional laws are “ambiguous” — federal judges should typically defer to “reasonable” federal agency interpretations. That has since been used thousands of times by federal courts, including more than 70 Supreme Court cases to allow wide latitude over an agency’s power — spanning more than 170 pages of federal regulations. That tension between preserving the separate, but equal powers of the three government branches was at the heart of the appeals. It has been billed as a fight between what one side calls unchecked government overreach and others see as necessary protection of a broad swath of federal agency oversight. The lengthy arguments in two separate cases had the justices questioning their own authority. “How do we determine how much deference is too much deference?” asked Justice Clarence Thomas. “How do we know where the line is?” RAMASWAMY URGES SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN COLORADO DECISION, FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF TRUMP Some conservative justices suggested the time to overturn the Chevron precedent was now. “Maybe a dozen or more circuit judges have written asking us to overrule Chevron,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. “And should that be a clue that something needs to be fixed here, that even the federal government at the podium can’t answer the question what triggers ambiguity?” But others on the bench expressed concern that overturning the current system of agency statutory interpretation would put judges in the uncomfortable position of making policy — something that is left to the political branches. “A new product designed to promote healthy cholesterol levels — is it a dietary supplement or a drug?” said Justice Elena Kagan, using a hypothetical. “I would rather have people at HHS [Health and Human Services Department] telling me whether this new product was a dietary supplement or a drug.” “Judges should know what they don’t know,” added Kagan. The high court heard two separate appeals involving the same issue: whether Atlantic herring fishermen must pay for federal officials to board their vessels to monitor the catches and collect data. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented a revised federal mandate in 2020, even though Congress never gave the agency-specific authority to launch such a program. The owners say the fees can exceed $700 daily and often exceed the money earned from catching low-priced herring. NOAA has waived the rule temporarily, saying it ran short of funds to administer the monitoring program. “I’m concerned that it will make it harder, for sure,” Bill Bright, who runs his family seafood business Loper Bright Enterprises, told Fox News. The Cape May, New Jersey company is among those suing. “We’re survivors as an industry, but it’s certainly not going to make it any easier, adding more expense to it.” FEDERAL APPEALS COURT REJECTS PETITION OVER SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH ACCESS TO TRUMP’S TWITTER FEED The fishing fleets and business groups say their livelihoods are being threatened by onerous, expensive regulations that Congress did not specifically authorize. They say judges, not federal bureaucrats, should be interpreting what are admittedly often ambiguous congressional statutes. In arguments, their lawyers for the small business people said you need a “secret decoder ring” to figure out what the Chevron deference precedent means. Gorsuch called it a “recipe for instability.” “This is what niggles at so many of the lower court judges,” he said. “You’ve left open the possibility that a judge, if left to his own devices, would say the fairest ruling is in favor of the immigrant, it’s in favor of the veteran, and it’s in favor of the Social Security Disability applicant, but because of a fictionalized statement about what Congress wanted when it didn’t think about the problem, the government always wins.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the courts may be the better forum to decide whether federal laws passed by Congress are ambiguous, given the politics at play. “The reality of how this works is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in, whether it’s communications law or securities law or competition law or environmental law, and goes from pillar to post.” The Biden administration argues those federal agencies have the expertise and mandate to enforce federal laws to ensure consumers and the public have, among other things: clean air and water; safe food and medicine; and stable economic and financial institutions. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court the fishing industry has long been subject to federal regulation, and that the current rules ensure “necessary and proper” management of limited seafood stocks. Some left-leaning justices agreed. “Isn’t it sort of impractical and chaotic to have a world in which every undefined term in a statute is subject to litigation if you’re trying to govern?” asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “I’m worried about the courts becoming uber legislators.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, at times suggesting a scaled-back ruling — a “course correction” as was suggested in court — narrowly favoring the fishermen, might be the best approach. Roberts drew courtroom laughter when he said giving the judiciary too much power might be problematic. “Judges are used to deciding things, and when they get around to doing it, they tend to think what they’ve come up with is not only the best answer, but it’s the only answer.” The cases are Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
GOP lawmakers hail Trump’s ‘big victory’ in Iowa; some call for DeSantis, Haley to drop out
Republican lawmakers are galvanized for 2024 after former President Trump’s win in the Iowa caucuses this week. Now, some GOP members of Congress are calling on the remaining Republican presidential candidates, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, to drop out of the race. “I thought it was great,” Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden told Fox News Digital. NEW HAMPSHIRE GOP PRIMARY A 2-PERSON RACE BETWEEN TRUMP AND HALEY, NEW POLL INDICATES “It’s time to coalesce behind President Trump,” Van Orden continued. “And [I] respect Nikki Haley and Gov. DeSantis a lot, but they’ve got to do the right thing: step out of the race and support President Trump, because we’ve got to do this collectively. Indiana GOP Rep. Jim Banks, who is running for Senate, said Trump’s victory was a “landslide” and that the former president “won by the largest margin that anyone has ever won the Iowa Caucus before.” “It should be a wake-up call to any other Republican candidates who are still in the race and any holdouts all over the country,” Banks said. “Donald Trump is going to win every single state, and he will be the Republican nominee, and Republicans need to get behind it,” he continued. Banks said that at “this point, it’s a binary choice: You’re either for Donald Trump or you’re for Joe Biden” and that Republicans “have to do everything we can to help Donald Trump beat Joe Biden to save our country in November.” “Now is the time to do it,” Banks said. “Get behind him now. Drop out of the race if you’re still in the race; back him if you haven’t backed him yet.” “Get behind him. He’s our best shot to save the country and beat Joe Biden,” he said. Tennessee GOP Rep. Tim Burchett said Trump “dominated” in Iowa and that he “figured he would.” “Every debate, everyone says, ‘Who won?’ and I say, ‘President Trump,’” Burchett said Wednesday. “… He’ll be the party’s nominee, no question.” Burchett said DeSantis or Haley dropping out is “up to them” but noted he doesn’t “know why they’d stay in it at this point, unless they’re trying to get their points on some issues in his … radar.” Other GOP lawmakers lauded Trump’s win, including Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who said Trump’s victory was “great” and that the large margin of victory “doesn’t surprise us.” “I think it goes well for us going into New Hampshire and moving on to Super Tuesday, too,” Mullin said. “I think the race is going to be pretty over before long,” Mullin said. “We all expected it, but the showing in Iowa came out so strong it codified it.” Mullin said the Iowa caucuses results for Trump show an appetite to return to the former president’s policies and a dissatisfaction with the current White House resident. Florida Reps. Matt Gaetz and Anna Paulina Luna, both Republicans, also weighed in on Iowa, with Gaetz calling it a “big victory” for Trump and saying he’s “proud” of him. “Time to bring our party together and make sure we whoop the Democrats,” Gaetz said. Luna said Trump “crushed it” in Iowa and called it “the largest recorded victory” at the famous caucuses. “Look, I’ve always been a staunch supporter of President Trump. I think we need to consolidate around him, so why not?” Luna responded when asked if she believes the other GOP presidential candidates should drop out of the race. “Anyone but Nikki Haley, that woman is terrible,” Luna added. Haley’s campaign pointed to the candidate’s Tuesday comments on “Fox & Friends” where she said “70% of Americans” don’t want a rematch between Trump and Biden in response to an inquiry from Fox News Digital. Fox News Digital reached out to DeSantis’ campaign for comment.
Fox News Politics: ‘Alarming’ surveillance
Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail. Subscribe now to get Fox News Politics newsletter in your inbox. What’s Happening? – Sanders’ anti-Israel bill goes down in flames – New poll shows Trump dominating New Hampshire primary – Maine superior court stays decision to barring Trump from primary ballot FIRST ON FOX: Federal investigators asked banks to search and filter customer transactions by using terms like “MAGA” and “Trump” as part of an investigation into Jan. 6, warning that purchases of “religious texts” could indicate “extremism,” the House Judiciary Committee revealed in a letter obtained by Fox News Digital Wednesday. Fox News Digital has learned the committee also obtained documents that indicate officials suggested that banks query transactions with keywords like Dick’s Sporting Goods, Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shops and more. “This kind of pervasive financial surveillance, carried out in coordination with and at the request of federal law enforcement, into Americans’ private transactions is alarming and raises serious doubts about FinCEN’s respect for fundamental liberties,” Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter asking for a briefing from FinCEN, a Treasury Department investigating bureau that looks at financial crimes …Read more VIVEK VS VP: Ramaswamy challenges Harris to debate focused on AI, as speculation swirls over Trump’s running mate …Read more ANTI-TRUMP PLOT: IRS leaker sought consultant role with express purpose of releasing former president’s tax returns, DOJ says …Read more ‘BORDER, BORDER, BORDER’: Johnson to prioritize border crisis in meeting with President Biden …Read more KEEP IT ‘SUBTLE’: Aide to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asked EMS not to use lights or sirens, 911 call reveals …Read more PROTECTING CHURCHES: Rubio introduces bill to protect nonprofit institutions from federal regulations …Read more GOV SPENDING: Senate clears 1st hurdle to pass short-term government funding …Read more SWING AND A MISS: Sanders resolution that would freeze aid to Israel goes down in flames …Read more NO LABELS NO CHANCE: Judge says No Labels can block candidates from running for offices other than president in Arizona …Read more WARNING TO BIDEN CAMPAIGN: Jamie Dimon says Trump ‘wasn’t wrong’ about critical issues …Read more 2-PERSON RACE: New poll shows where Trump, Haley stand in New Hampshire GOP primary …Read more JOB FOR VIVEK? Trump teases future role for former GOP rival …Read more CONTENTIOUS MOMENT: Judge threatens to throw Trump out of defamation trial …Read more BORDER INSECURITY: California voters overwhelmingly say US-Mexico border is ‘not secure,’ poll finds …Read more VOLUNTEER FUNDRAISER: Hollywood producer who introduced Hunter to art dealer raised major cash for Biden’s campaign …Read more
Appeals court blocks Texas from enforcing book rating law
Plaintiffs claimed that the 2023 law, which required book vendors to rate the explicitness of sexual references in materials sold to schools, was unconstitutionally broad.