US, China strike deal to lower tariffs on $30B in goods after Trump-Xi Washington summit
The United States and China agreed to lower tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods traded between the two countries following a three-day summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington, D.C. According to the White House, the $30 billion in reciprocal tariff reductions apply to “non-sensitive goods.” U.S. exports including agricultural products, fish and seafood, logs and wood products, cosmetics and medical devices will receive favorable tariff treatment in China. Meanwhile, U.S. imports of Chinese-made small appliances, toys, holiday decorations and children’s car seats will also receive preferential treatment. The agreement was reached through the U.S.-China Board of Trade, a body first proposed during Trump’s visit to China in May and formally established during Xi’s visit to Washington this week. XI PRAISES US STATE VISIT ‘PERFECTION’ AS TRUMP CALLS MEETINGS ‘VERY PRODUCTIVE’ U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told CNBC on Friday that “a lot more details” about the new trade agreement will be released on Monday. Greer said the tariff terms were hammered out after weeks of negotiations. Neither country has released the final tariff rates or all the products that will receive favored status going forward. This marks one of the most significant cooldowns in the trade war Trump launched against China in February 2025, when he levied a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, citing Beijing’s alleged role in the fentanyl crisis and illegal immigration. China hit back with levies on U.S. coal, liquefied natural gas, crude oil and cars. BESSENT REVEALS EXTENSION TO BUSAN AGREEMENT WITH CHINA UNTIL JANUARY At their peak, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods reached a staggering 145% in April 2025, shortly after Trump unveiled his “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs. China responded with tariffs of up to 125% on U.S. goods. U.S. and Chinese negotiators met in Geneva in May 2025 and agreed to a 90-day truce that lowered U.S. tariffs to 30% and China’s to 10%. The agreement was extended for another 90 days in August. Trump and Xi reached another tentative agreement during talks in South Korea in October 2025. Under the deal, China agreed to crack down on fentanyl precursors, resume purchases of U.S. soybeans and ease restrictions on rare-earth exports, while the United States agreed to further ease tariffs. The two countries will now use the Board of Trade to negotiate additional tariff reductions and other trade disputes, leaving open the possibility of broader agreements in the months ahead.
Dem House hopeful endorsed by activist who said ‘evil Jews run the world’
Adina Flores, an activist and a self-proclaimed “civil rights” advocate with a colorful social media presence, is endorsing Eric Jones, the Democratic candidate for Congress in California’s 4th Congressional District. The endorsement itself, which focuses on Jones’ promises to combat women’s sexual exploitation, is nothing out of the ordinary. But Flores’ Facebook, Instagram and Substack pages are full of eccentric content that frames political issues as a conflict between race, sexual orientation and secretive sources of influence. The endorsement raises questions for Jones, who has met with Flores multiple times according to social media clips, about whether he agrees with Flores’ views. In one video, posted to Facebook, Flores stated she believed part of California, Sonoma County, was run by Jews. “But we’re literally run by the gay Jewish mafia — the Zionists in Sonoma County. The Jews still run the world. That’s where we’re at,” Flores said. “All our money gets sent to Israel, but nobody wants to talk about that.” JEWISH COMMUNITY IN DENVER ON HIGH ALERT OVER RISE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST MELAT KIROS “Evil Jews run the world through Masonic Lodges,” Flores said in an August Instagram post. “Santa Rosa City Schools is always recruiting for little gay communists. Help save public school enrollment decline by sending your child off to liberal prison indoctrination centers,” she said in another post earlier this year. When asked about Flores’ comments online, Jones’ campaign said he condemns prejudice towards the Jewish community. “I firmly condemn any and all hate toward our Jewish and LGBTQ+ communities. It has no place in our district. My wife is Jewish, we are raising our kids in a Jewish household, I’m a fierce advocate for our public schools and educators, and I have zero tolerance for hateful commentary toward my neighbors or my family,” a campaign spokesperson said in a comment to Fox News Digital. Beyond her comment about Jews, in much of her content, Flores bashes what she sees as efforts to indoctrinate kids in LGBTQ+ ideology through control over institutions like schools and local government. “I wasn’t doing any of the wokeness. I stood up for conservative parents. So right now, look at this pride indoctrination. I’m not trying to be mean, but who made this logo? They got all the rainbow mafia colors, and it looks like a p-nis,” Flores said, holding up a design made by a local school. The image depicts a tree on top of a hill, illustrated in rainbow colors. “Like literally that’s where we’re at. So, I’m sorry that’s f—ing cracked out. If your child is in public school, please remove them because they’re going to be gay and r-tarded. Thank you, Santa Rosa schools,” Flores said. Flores’ criticisms, usually couched in similar language, cut across both parties. “Every day my Instagram algorithm is filled with reels of Democrats and Republicans arguing back and forth deciding who is more gay and r-tarded even though they are two sides of the same bird [sic],” Flores said. LOS ANGELES SCHOOLS QUIETLY REMOVE COMPULSORY ‘AFFIRM AND RESPECT’ GENDER IDENTITY PLEDGE FROM LGBTQ TRAINING “The real puppet master, as always, the Freemasons. This is not a conspiracy. And that is who is pulling the narrative of both sides — red and blue.” Flores recounted that she was once a government employee but was forced out of the role and is banned from serving in public roles again. “I got started in my activism because I am a former government employee. I’m a whistleblower who was forced out of the government.” Flores said she was removed over COVID-19 mask mandates and the information that was being shared with parents. For his own part, Jones has centered his campaign around issues like affordability, government transparency and protecting government-run programs. On his website, Jones has listed three main priorities: ending corruption, lowering the cost of living and resource sustainability in government. His stances have attracted endorsements from progressive groups like Indivisible and Our Revolution, organizations with ties to progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Throughout his campaign, Jones has highlighted his family’s struggle with financial stability. He grew up in a military family and had a disabled father. According to Jones, the family also struggled to overcome medical debt, relying on Medicaid and food stamps. In her endorsement of Jones, which she made shortly after the resignation of Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., Flores praised Jones’ promise to be a voice for survivors of sexual misconduct. Swalwell, a prominent California Democrat, surrendered his office after several women accused him of unwanted sexual advances, allegations that he denied. WASHINGTON MOTHER PULLS CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL AFTER PRIDE LESSON SHOWN IN MUSIC CLASS WITHOUT NOTICE “Thank you for being one of the only candidates — and this is insane because you’re not even in office yet, but you’re talking about this very critical issue, so God bless you, brother,” Flores said. After Fox News Digital reached out to Flores, who has over 144,000 followers on Instagram, for comment, she posted a video response on Instagram dismissing the inquiry and saying she was a “private citizen” and that her social media accounts are “not monetized.” “My views are mine & mine alone. I am an unpaid advocate & have never been paid to support a political candidate,” her post said. “I am highly against the two-party system. If I feel someone is a good fit for office, I support them. F— your gangs! It’s really that simple!”
Trump revives rare budget maneuver to rescind $810M in congressionally approved funds
The Trump administration announced Friday that it was canceling $810 million in congressionally approved spending for programs serving illegal immigrants, diversity initiatives and other efforts the administration argued do not benefit American citizens. To claw back the funds, President Donald Trump used a “pocket rescission,” a budget maneuver the executive branch contends is within its authority but that Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) say exceeds the president’s authority. The vast majority of the cuts, some $567 million, were aimed at Health and Human Services programs that provided funding to non-government organizations supporting refugees, asylees and other non-citizens. The White House is also seeking to rescind $25 million for education programs for migrant students, claiming they supported things such as “an LGBT youth summit” and “Therapy for Latinx workshops.” TRUMP ADMIN AXES TIES TO DOZENS OF PROGRESSIVE GROUPS IN ‘DIRECT OPPOSITION’ TO MISSION: ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ Programs the administration labeled “Woke International Education” were also selected for $70 million in cuts. The White House said the funding supports bringing foreign students and faculty to the United States and, in some cases, has funded doctoral dissertations on “queer and trans community building in foreign countries.” Other programs receiving the axe included a Justice Department office focused on reducing racial tensions, a business development initiative for minority entrepreneurs, Housing and Urban Development Department counseling services, and a series of Health and Human Services grants the administration described as “outright harmful and blatantly ideological.” The White House’s announcement about the rescissions noted that several of the organizations are led by former officials in President Barack Obama’s administration. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who faces a tough re-election campaign, condemned Trump’s cuts and called it “the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.” WHITE HOUSE LAUNCHES INTERACTIVE MAP TRACKING BILLIONS IN SUSPECTED FRAUD Under the most recent pocket rescission, the White House proposed canceling the funding near the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30. Collins argued that this was intentional on the part of the Trump administration, because if the money remains unspent until Sept. 30, it expires before Congress’ 45-day review period can be completed. On top of that, the House of Representatives will be out of session through the November election, making it essentially impossible for Congress to respond. “The independent Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act,” Collins said in a statement. “I will work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions.” The OMB under Trump has argued that the Impoundment Control Act does not explicitly forbid the president from rescinding funds near the end of a fiscal year, according to a summary from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). OMB Director Russ Vought has repeatedly said the same. That same CRS summary said the GAO has likened pocket rescissions to a line-item veto, which would allow a president to strike portions of legislation without congressional approval — a power the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. A year ago, Trump issued the first pocket rescission in nearly 50 years, seeking to cancel $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. The Supreme Court declined to block the move, citing the president’s authority over foreign affairs as it allowed litigation to continue. The last pocket rescission took place under former President Jimmy Carter, who proposed it well before the 45-day congressional review deadline.
Wave of overlooked ‘left-wing’ lawsuits could come with an unexpected price tag for Americans
FIRST ON FOX: American households could end up paying $1,465 more per year on average in energy costs if “anti-energy” climate lawsuits against oil and gas companies are successful, according to a new report first obtained by Fox News Digital. Americans will “pay a lot more” if the far-left “get their way,” warned Heritage Foundation chief economist E.J Antoni, who co-authored the report with Power The Future founder Daniel Turner. Hundreds of lawsuits and other state-level “climate superfund” laws could increase the cost of gasoline, electricity and other everyday necessities Americans rely on, the report estimates. SUPREME COURT CAN RESTORE SANITY AND STOP THE LEFT’S RADICAL CLIMATE AGENDA The new analysis, obtained by Fox News Digital, comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a closely-watched lawsuit next month out of Boulder, Colorado, which could drastically shape the future of climate litigation. “If those folks on the radical left wing who are anti-energy, if they get their way, your costs are going to go up,” Antoni told Fox News Digital. “Your household is going to pay a lot more. The energy is going to get much more expensive.” “You may think it’s bad now, but it will get significantly worse,” he added. The report estimates energy companies could face an additional $194 billion in annual costs, which the authors argue would ultimately be passed on to consumers through higher prices rather than absorbed entirely by companies or their shareholders. Those costs could add roughly 41 cents to a gallon of gasoline and increase residential electricity rates by about 8.6%, according to the analysis. “Every single time a company is sued, yes, they pay some damages, but ultimately they will just charge people more for their product to recoup those losses,” Turner told Fox News Digital. LAWSUITS COST EVERY AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. SUPREME COURT CAN HELP The report examined more than 300 pending lawsuits, three state “climate superfund” laws, 12 state legislative proposals and one federal bill. Its estimate reflects a “full-success scenario” in which all of those measures prevail; it does not predict that they will. The analysis counted each lawsuit only once and excluded duplicate filings. In fact, Antoni said the estimate may be conservative because some lawsuits do not specify the damages they are seeking, leaving potential court awards open-ended. The legal efforts include New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, which was blocked by a federal judge in August, and the Supreme Court’s pending Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County case. That case could determine whether state and local governments can pursue climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies in state court. GAVIN NEWSOM’S ‘HIDDEN CLIMATE TAX’ HITTING AMERICANS NATIONWIDE, LAWMAKER WARNS Turner argued the lawsuits could also shift responsibility away from state and local leaders. “The concern about these superfund lawsuits is that they absolve elected leaders from doing the bad, boring part of governing, which is infrastructure and mitigation strategies,” he said. Despite the rise in climate lawsuits and state “superfund” laws, Antoni said the issue has largely flown under the radar. “It really is important that we start ringing the alarm bells now before these things actually come to pass and American families have to foot the bill for it,” he said.
Trump’s Greenland deal shadows Xi visit after years of Beijing eyeing Arctic influence
President Donald Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to Washington this week, one day after signing a Greenland security agreement that, once in force, would bar non-NATO states such as China from establishing a military presence there, sharpening the Arctic-security backdrop to their face-to-face talks. Xi’s three-day state visit unfolded against that backdrop, with Trump hosting a formal White House arrival ceremony, holding high-stakes talks, joining Xi for a tour of the National Archives and presiding over a state dinner attended by some of America’s most prominent technology executives. A senior U.S. official told Fox News Digital that Trump and Xi discussed the economy, trade, “Super Intelligence” and cooperation on a range of shared priorities, though it remained unclear what concrete agreements emerged from behind closed doors. TRUMP-XI REUNION COMES WITH UNFINISHED BUSINESS — AND A BIGGER BATTLE LOOMING Trump has so far stopped short of announcing a concrete agreement from Xi’s Washington visit, a contrast to his May trip to Beijing. Trump was already telling reporters before leaving China that the two countries had made “some fantastic trade deals,” even though the White House did not release its full economic deal package until two days after the summit. Thursday’s state dinner drew 134 guests, including the two leaders and prominent technology figures such as Jensen Huang of Nvidia, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Lisa Su of AMD, Tim Cook of Apple, Sam Altman of OpenAI, Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google. Christine Balling, senior vice president for professional affiliations at The Institute of World Politics, told Fox News Digital that inviting America’s top AI tycoons to Thursday night’s state dinner was a strategic move to show Xi that the United States is the world’s top dog in the AI race. ‘RED CARPET FOR A DESPOT’: TRUMP’S LAVISH XI WELCOME COLLIDES WITH GOP ANTI-COMMUNISM MESSAGE “I think the significance of the timing of this meeting, whether it’s intentional or not, shows that the Trump administration is taking The future of AI and the world very, very seriously,” she said. “I think that is the most significant takeaway. But the bottom line is, I think the most important images were those of all of the AI techs who were invited to that state dinner.” Greenland has emerged as a backdrop to Trump’s two meetings with Xi this year. Negotiations over an expanded U.S. security role there began months before Trump traveled to Beijing in May, while Trump renewed his public pressure over Greenland during the summer as his administration continued negotiations aimed in part at limiting Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic. Five days before Xi arrived in Washington, Trump announced a Greenland security agreement that was formally signed Sept. 22 and, once in force, would expand the U.S. military position while restricting Chinese military presence and certain sensitive investments in the territory. China has had its eye on Greenland for years, especially as it looks to expand its role in the Arctic. Beijing has shown interest in Greenland’s infrastructure and natural resources, including its valuable rare earth and critical mineral deposits. U.S. officials have also pointed to past Chinese efforts involving a former U.S. naval base and airport projects as signs of Beijing’s broader ambitions in the region. Balling is an expert in foreign policy, particularly in the Western hemisphere, and says Trump’s historic deal with Greenland struck a massive blow to China. TRUMP DECLARES VICTORY IN HISTORIC DEAL WITH GREENLAND AS HE SECURES ‘PERMANENT’ US MILITARY RIGHTS “Number one, that is a tremendous victory for the United States and frankly, the free world,” she said. “It means that the United States has the ability to establish two more bases at present. So we have a Space Force base … and now secured land, air, and sea rights across Greenland. We have the ability to screen out any other country who expresses interest in either establishing any sort of military presence and or investment.” “That means that the United States and NATO allies are going to have first right of refusal when it comes to mining, and not only for rare elements, but also oil and gas and data centers.” SECURITY EXPERT HAILS TRUMP’S GREENLAND PACT AS A ‘BIG DEAL’ ON PAR WITH ALASKA PURCHASE China has long sought a larger Arctic role, declaring itself a “near-Arctic state” and promoting a “Polar Silk Road” encompassing commerce, research and resource development. Balling argued that Beijing had reason to oppose the U.S.-Denmark-Greenland agreement because the United States remains heavily reliant on China for several critical-mineral supply chains. “I also have to say for all of those who were mocking the Trump administration and President Trump’s talk about buying or invading Greenland, they have an egg on their faces now,” she said. “I never for a moment thought that President Trump was serious about this. I think that what he was serious about, was exactly what was achieved in the agreement that was just signed.”
Two powerful federal courts face push to break free from DC bubble as unlikely duo steps in
A bipartisan team of senators is proposing legislation that they say will broaden the pool of qualified judges available to serve on two powerful federal courts with nationwide jurisdiction. Sens. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, and Ashley Moody, R-Florida, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would remove the requirement that judges sitting on the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit live within 50 miles of Washington, D.C. Both courts have nationwide jurisdiction, though their specialized dockets differ. The Court of Federal Claims primarily handles claims against the federal government, while the Federal Circuit hears appeals involving patents, trademarks, government contracts and other areas. A decision from either court, for example, could affect Coons’ constituents in Delaware or Moody’s in Florida. The claims court hears arguments from entities seeking money or other relief from the federal government whereas the circuit court, which is a feeder for Supreme Court justices, reviews decisions from lower courts and agencies in relation to the federal government. MIKE DAVIS: FEDERAL COURT SETS DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AGAINST 99-YEAR-OLD JUDGE “Americans deserve the best, most qualified judges, especially in areas like intellectual property law where expertise is key to understanding complex cases and fairly deciding the future of many entrepreneurs’ businesses,” Coons said of the legislation. “For too long, we have limited the pool of judges available to take on the toughest IP and federal contract cases to those willing to uproot their lives and move to Washington, D.C. No longer. This bipartisan bill ensures that courts of national jurisdiction can draw from a pool of national talent.” Legal scholars who spoke with Fox News Digital saw merit in the senators’ proposal. “It’s often difficult to recruit top-level talent from across the country to relocate to the District of Columbia for these judgeships,” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zach Smith told Fox News Digital, noting that the Court of International Trade in New York City has a similarly broad geographic jurisdiction and lacks a residency requirement for judges. “Many other circuit courts of appeal cover multiple states and often the judges on those courts sit throughout the states that that court covers and then they often come together to meet and hear cases and hear oral arguments in a specific location. This type of geographic dispersal it’s not an unusual arrangement.” Thomas Berry, the director of the libertarian-aligned Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies largely agreed. ‘UNPRECEDENTED’: JUDGES REVEAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES COORDINATION ON TRUMP IMMIGRATION CASES “These courts have jurisdiction based on the issue involved, so potentially if this meant that the judges were able not just to live elsewhere, but even hear oral arguments elsewhere, that could potentially be more convenient for some types of cases if they’re, say, involved parties on the opposite side of the country,” Berry told Fox News Digital. Critics may argue that the proposed legislation could increase travel costs to taxpayers by requiring frequent travel for judges to and from D.C. Legal experts may also feel that the ability of judges to regularly meet face to face could lead to a loss of judicial collegiality. Berry noted that some studies show that, during the Coronavirus pandemic, court decisions saw less dissents as judges spent less time in person with one another, but qualified possible concerns by stating that “all of the other regional courts of appeals have been basically working under such a system for over 100 years, and clearly it hasn’t gotten in the way from them doing the work that they’re meant to do.” SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE PINPOINTS WHAT AMERICANS MISUNDERSTAND ABOUT HIM AND HIS COLLEAGUES Neither expert felt that travel costs would be an issue in implementing this proposal. “For a court that covers the entire country, we should be considering nominating judges from everywhere in America based on merit — not their proximity to the D.C. bubble,” Moody, herself a former Florida circuit judge and federal prosecutor, said of the legislation. “My Better Bench Act removes an outdated residency requirement to expand the pool of qualified Americans who can serve and allows our courts to be a better reflection of the nation as a whole.” The offices of Coons and Moody did not respond to requests for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday.
She grew up under Soviet rule. Now EU’s top diplomat warns Europe against giving Russia what it wants
NEW YORK — Russia is trying to scare Europe into backing off its defense in the region, claims European Union’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas, who warns it will only lead to Moscow becoming more aggressive if it succeeds. “Their goal is to intimidate us from not supporting Ukraine, from refraining to support them and pressuring Russia,” Kallas told Fox News Digital in an interview on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. “What is important for us is that we are not afraid,” she continued. “Because otherwise this kind of intimidation actually pays off, and then we will see more of it across the world.” For Kallas, Russia’s attempts to intimidate its European neighbors carry a history that reaches well beyond the war in Ukraine. Her mother, Kristi, was just six months old in 1949 when Soviet authorities deported her — along with her mother and her grandmother — to Siberia during Stalin’s mass deportations from the Baltic states. Kallas’ maternal grandfather was separately sent to a Siberian prison camp. Kallas has recounted how her mother was transported east in a cattle car, with fellow deportees drying the infant’s diapers against their own bodies during the freezing journey. The family spent roughly a decade in Siberia before they were allowed to return to Soviet-occupied Estonia in 1959. Kallas was born in Tallinn in 1977 and spent the first 14 years of her life under Soviet rule. Estonia restored its independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union collapsed. FRONTLINE NATO ALLY SHARES SHOCKING TAKE ON RUSSIAN INVASION THREAT Her family would go on to become deeply entwined with the new democratic Estonia. Her father, Siim Kallas, became the first president of the Bank of Estonia after gaining its independence, later serving as foreign minister and prime minister before moving to Brussels as a European commissioner. Kaja Kallas followed her own path from lawyer to member of Estonia’s parliament and then the European Parliament. In 2021, she became Estonia’s first female prime minister and three years later was chosen as the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. It was a historic moment — putting a politician who grew up under Soviet occupation at the center of Europe’s response to Russian aggression on the continent. That history has made Kallas one of Europe’s most prominent voices on Moscow — even as officials in her native Estonia and elsewhere along NATO’s eastern flank now caution against interpreting Russia’s recent provocations as preparations for a conventional invasion. Russia invaded Ukraine more than four-and-a-half years ago and shows no signs of backing off despite repeated promises that negotiations for an end of war are ongoing. Asked whether she agreed with Estonian and other Baltic officials who say they do not currently see Russia preparing for such an attack, Kallas instead pointed to Moscow’s growing use of sabotage and the importance of deterrence. “We see that Russia is actually increasing their sabotage acts in Europe,” Kallas said. “But of course how far they will go depends very much on us and whether we are investing enough in defense so that it acts as a deterrent.” The debate comes as NATO countries confront a string of Russian aircraft and drone incursions, along with suspected sabotage and other hybrid activity across Europe. The incidents have fueled warnings in some European capitals that Moscow is probing the alliance for weaknesses, while officials closer to Russia have cautioned against equating those provocations with preparations for an invasion. US ALLIES NEED TO SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT TESTING NATO BOUNDARIES, CZECH PRESIDENT WARNS Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told Fox News Digital in a separate interview this week that his country’s intelligence services see no indication Russia is preparing for a full-scale attack on NATO. “We have more and more this kind of panic in Europe that Russia will invade and will be full-scale aggressive against NATO and Europe and the Baltic states, Poland, but we don’t see it,” Tsahkna said. “Our intelligence, we see very, very deep into Russia, we don’t see any change.” Kallas, however, argued that Moscow’s actions are designed to weaken Western support for Ukraine rather than simply test NATO’s defenses. “Their goal is to intimidate us from not supporting Ukraine, from refraining to support them and pressuring Russia,” she said. The pressure campaign comes as Washington continues its push for a negotiated end to the war. Kallas said Moscow has yet to demonstrate that it is serious about reaching one. “They should start with stopping bombing the civilians,” she said, pointing to recent Russian attacks on Kyiv. “If they are serious about this, they should agree to a ceasefire, sit down at the negotiation table and talk to the Ukrainians.” Kallas said Ukraine has already agreed to an unconditional ceasefire while “Russia is just playing games,” arguing that coordinated pressure from Washington and its European allies could change Moscow’s calculations. “If America, Europe, UK, other strong players are all acting together in the same way to put in the sanctions, then actually we could have the effect that Russia understands that this is serious and they will sit down and negotiate,” she said.
WATCH: Black bishop calls voter ID argument ‘deeply insulting’ after explosive noncitizen registration report
EXCLUSIVE: Black bishop and author Earl Walker Jackson blasted Democrats and the left over what he called the “deeply insulting” and “deeply offensive” claim that minorities and African Americans cannot get I.D.s to vote. Debate erupted this week over voter I.D. requirements after Reuters reported that an investigation found 30,000 noncitizens were “erroneously” registered to vote in 11 states. Jackson, a nondenominational Christian leader and descendant of enslaved ancestors, said the findings underscored what he described as a growing problem of noncitizen voting that disenfranchises American citizens. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Jackson charged, “Why the Democrats are so committed to this can only be explained one way: they think it empowers people who shouldn’t vote to vote, and they believe those people are going to vote for them.” “This is nothing but a power grab,” he posited, emphasizing that “every vote by a noncitizen does in fact cancel out the vote of an American citizen, or it amplifies it in a way that’s illegal or inappropriate.” BOMBSHELL VOTING SCANDAL ADDS TO PATTERN OF NONCITIZEN VOTERS AS TRUMP WARNS OF THREAT TO ‘HEART’ OF DEMOCRACY Reuters reported on Wednesday that more than 30,000 self-declared noncitizens were added to U.S. voter rolls since 2000. The outlet attributed the erroneous registrations to “software glitches and clerical errors” and said its review suggested “inadvertent bureaucratic failures, rather than organized efforts to register immigrants illegally.” Reuters said it was unable to determine how many noncitizens actually cast ballots. The errors occurred in California, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Don Palmer, the senior legal fellow for election integrity with the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that due to legal loopholes and loose reporting requirements, he believes the 30,000 number “is actually quite low.” “I think it’s undercounting it. I think those are the identified non-citizens that have been accidentally or erroneously placed on the voter rolls through the mistake of the driver’s license agency. I think it’s much more because we don’t know in a lot of states, either they have not conducted the audits or they’re not using tools to find noncitizens that may have accidentally been placed on the rolls,” he said. Palmer said “the answer really is that there needs to be more care taken to developing a system of verifying citizenship and you just don’t see that in most states.” BIDEN ADMINISTRATION GRANTED WOMAN GREEN CARD MONTHS BEFORE SHE ILLEGALLY VOTED IN 2024 ELECTION: DHS “If they’re going to do voter registration, they need to make sure that there’s a verification in place for identity and for citizenship, just as if you come into an agency and you’re getting a driver’s license or identification card, you’ve got to show that I.D., you’ve got to make sure that your identity is confirmed, similarly, if you’re going to register someone to vote at the driver’s license agency, there needs to be a verification process or a documentation process to ensure that you are a citizen,” he said. Meanwhile, after hearing the 30,000 figure, Jackson told Fox News Digital that “the sad reality is I’m not shocked.” “I wonder if it’s more,” he said, adding, “We’ve been told, particularly by Democrats, that that’s not happening, that there’s nothing to see here, and yet we hear again and again documentation that it is happening.” With this in mind, he decried efforts to resist more stringent voter eligibility verification and identification. He took particular issue with those equating voter I.D. requirements as anti-Black and a new form of Jim Crow. “Forgive me for being personal about this for a moment, but I just find this deeply insulting and deeply offensive because the implication is that somehow if you are black, no matter how wealthy, educated, well-to-do, somehow getting an ID is a problem for you,” he said. “But on the other hand, if you’re white, no matter how poor, no matter how uneducated, no matter what your circumstances are, somehow you can get an I.D., that’s not a problem, I mean, it’s preposterous.” DESCENDANT OF SLAVES SHAMES SMITHSONIAN’S WOKE ‘INDOCTRINATION’ AGAINST THE ‘GREATEST NATION ON EARTH’ He pointed to the hotel where he was staying as an example. SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER “Look, I’m in a hotel right now … What was the first thing they asked me for when I walked up to the counter? May we see your I.D., please? Should I say, ‘Wait a minute, oh, you’re discriminating against me. You know Black people can’t get I.D.s; how dare you ask?’ he said. “I mean, it’s ridiculous.” “I don’t hate illegal aliens, I don’t want to see them harmed or hurt, but they don’t have a right to vote in our elections, and they shouldn’t be permitted to do so,” he concluded. “Anybody who wants to say, well, ‘You’re a bigot, you are a hater,’ I mean, they’re going to say that. But I think most Americans are people of goodwill and don’t feel that way at all; we’re simply trying to preserve the integrity of our electoral system.”
How a six pack of beer and the Magna Carta could finally fix a problem plaguing Americans for decades
The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in a case out of Alaska that centers around an airplane, a six pack of beer, and an amendment to the Constitution that traces its history back centuries as a legal expert lays out the potential impact of the ruling to Fox News Digital. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads. That amendment is at the heart of a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court in December and Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at Heritage Foundation, described it as “the case that libertarians and freedom-minded people have been hoping for for years.” Kenneth Jouppi, now 82, was operating a one-man air taxi service using his personally-owned 1969 Cessna plane in 2012 when Alaska state troopers executed a search warrant on his plane and found alcohol on board, including one six-pack that they said was plainly visible. At the time, Jouppi was on a runway in Fairbanks preparing to take a customer and her groceries to the remote village of Beaver near the center of the state. SUPREME COURT REJECTS MICHIGAN FAMILY’S CLAIM THAT COUNTY COMMITTED ‘HOME EQUITY THEFT’ OVER $2,200 TAX DEBT Having beer on board wasn’t illegal on its own and Jouppi says he was not aware the woman had the beer with her. However, since Beaver had banned the possession or sale of alcohol within its limits, Jouppi was convicted of alcohol importation, a misdemeanor. The Alaska Supreme Court held that, under the alcohol importation ban, the state was required to confiscate Jouppi’s Cessna. Jouppi has since argued in court that the state’s seizure of his plane, valued at $95,000, runs afoul of the 8th Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in on whether he’s right. “Taking a guy’s airplane, livelihood because he tried to take a six-pack of beer into a dry village, I mean can there be a more outrageous abuse of the excessive fines clause?” Stimson said. “I don’t think so. So honestly, in a perfect world, it should be 9-0 for Mr. Jouppi.” Stimson says the idea that governments should not be able to devastate citizens with fines dates back centuries to the Magna Carta, the 1215 English charter that limited the king’s power and established the principle that rulers are subject to the law, and explained in a recent Daily Signal article that prohibition on excessive fines is backed by “8 centuries of proportionality.” THE FBI TOOK A WOMAN’S LIFE SAVINGS, BUT A NEW BILL WOULD END THE ‘LAWLESS’ SEIZURE OF AMERICANS’ PROPERTY At the center of the case, Stimson explained, is whether Alaska’s forfeiture of Jouppi’s roughly $95,000 airplane was proportionate to his misdemeanor conviction for bringing a six-pack of beer into a dry village. Alaska argues the plane was worth less than 10 times the maximum possible fine of $10,000, while Jouppi’s attorneys point to the sentence he actually received: the minimum $1,500 fine and three days in jail. The Supreme Court will consider whether proportionality should be measured against the maximum penalty allowed by law or the specific punishment imposed in Jouppi’s case. “Alaska’s Brief spends a lot of ink on the purpose of these local rules that create dry cities,” Stimson said. “They spend a lot of ink on alcoholism in Alaska and all the rest of it. All of that’s irrelevant. If it was that important, they would have made it a felony and they would have made it a really serious felony with a lot of jail time and a huge forfeiture. They made it a misdemeanor. He was convicted of a misdemeanor and he got three days in jail.” Stimson pointed to the trial judge in the case who refused to take Jouppi’s plane in the first place and said that was the correct decision. LIBERAL JUSTICE HAMMERS SUPREME COURT FOR FAST-TRACKING EMERGENCY DOCKET CASES “The state appealed that, it came back to the judge on remand from the Court of Appeals and the judge said, I find that the request by the state is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause,” Stimson said. “The state appealed again. It went to the Court of Appeals, and then went to the Alaska Supreme Court,” Stimson explained. “So even the trial judge, when he had two bites of the apple, refused to take the plane and I think you really have to give credit to that trial judge, who was in the courtroom, who understood that this was almost a 90-year-old man, who was an Air Force veteran, whose only job and means of income besides Social Security was flying this plane to villages as a taxi cab driver, essentially. And so, if the government can do that, the state or federal government can take your means of livelihood away from you for a misdemeanor, we’re in deep, deep trouble as a country.” When ruling on Jouppi’s case, the court will have the opportunity to seriously rein in the ability of state and local governments to impose asset forfeiture, a longtime goal of civil libertarians, which has been an issue for decades in the United States as Americans have pushed back on excessive fines and seizures from government agencies. Stimson told Fox News Digital the Supreme Court has only ruled on the excessive fines clause five times and has “never really laid out exactly what constitutes an excessive fine.” He touted the significance this ruling could have and pointed to the amicus brief in the case filed by the Buckeye Institute in Ohio as something that “really stood out to me” “They talk about all the incentives built into the system that can be and are abused by law enforcement when they arrest you for this crime and they take all of this of yours over here, or they arrest you for this little tiny crime and then they take this,”
Kamala Harris uses flower analogy to explain social media algorithms while discussing AI, midterms
Former Vice President Kamala Harris used yellow and pink flowers to explain how social media algorithms can repeatedly feed users similar content, arguing that the technology can influence what people see online. Harris made the remarks during an appearance on “Off Air with Big Boy” after host Big Boy asked about AI, TikTok, Instagram and the role personalized algorithms could play in shaping how Americans consume information, including ahead of the midterm elections. “There is a part of this that is about understanding that, you know, if you keep seeing the same thing over and over again, know that you are being targeted,” Harris said. “Because you looked at it the first time, they’re just going to keep sending it to you, which means they’re trying to dumb people down with the assumption that people don’t have any interest beyond what they’ve already seen,” she continued. CHRIS MURPHY CALLS FOR ‘REGULATING THE INTERNET’ SO PEOPLE WON’T FALL FOR A ‘DEMAGOGUE LIKE DONALD TRUMP’ Harris, who previously played a leading role in the Biden administration’s work on artificial intelligence, continued with a colorful example. “The algorithm’s suggesting I have no more interest — because I’m looking at this yellow flower, I’m only interested in yellow flowers, as though my brain can’t handle the fact that there may be a pink flower that I might be interested in looking at,” Harris said. “Part of it is understanding how the algorithm is manipulating us and figuring out how we’re going to psych it out a bit,” she added. Harris’ explanation drew a mocking response from Fox News hosts, including Sean Hannity. “What was that?” Hannity said while reacting to the soundbite. HARRIS KEEPS 2028 DOOR OPEN AS SHE HITS MIDTERM CAMPAIGN TRAIL, WARNS ‘28 WON’T MATTER’ WITHOUT 2026 Hannity’s guest, Fox News host Jimmy Failla, joked that Harris thinks “AI is Allen Iverson from the Philadelphia 76ers.” Harris, the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential nominee, has not said whether she will seek the White House again in 2028. She has faced criticism in the past over her explanations of artificial intelligence, including remarks she made while serving as vice president in 2023. “AI is kind of a fancy thing,” Harris said at the time. “First of all, it’s two letters. It means artificial intelligence, but ultimately what it is is it’s about machine learning.” Harris’ latest comments come after she called on President Donald Trump earlier this month to pursue an international agreement – including with China – aimed at limiting dangerous uses of AI and establishing global testing standards. Fox News Digital’s Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.