Biden appears to rest his eyes at African summit in Angola
President Biden appeared to rest his eyes during a summit with African leaders in Lobito, Angola, in a moment that was caught on video. Seated in the middle of a table with various officials from African countries, the 82-year-old president can be seen closing his eyes and resting his head while Tazania’s Vice President Philip Mpango spoke. Biden’s eyes remained closed for more than a minute. Otherwise, he was alert and gave remarks before and after the brief period. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. WHO ELSE MIGHT BIDEN PARDON AFTER HE SPARED HUNTER FROM SENTENCING? Several observers on social media said it looked like the president fell asleep. “Joe Biden fell asleep during a meeting with African leaders today,” Outkick founder Clay Travis posted on X. “He’s sharp as a tack though! Honestly, this feels intentional. Who puts an 82 year old on a plane for a THREE DAY trip to Africa?! Three days! So dumb.” BIDEN PLEDGES $1B IN AID TO AFRICA AS NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE AFTER HELENE Jake Schneider, who was the rapid response director for President-elect Trump’s campaign, quipped, “Biden literally falls asleep during his own meeting in Africa. Who’s running the country?” And Denver-based radio host Ross Kaminsky, among others, called the episode “embarrassing” for the United States. BIDEN TRAVELS TO AFRICA WHERE POLICIES WERE ‘OVER-PROMISED AND UNDER-DELIVERED,’ AMID MASSIVE CHINA EXPANSION “It’s incredible that our enemies haven’t challenged us more while we’re basically without a president,” Kamisnky shared on X. Earlier on Tuesday, Biden announced $1 billion in humanitarian aid to support Africans displaced by historic droughts and food insecurity. “The United States continues to be the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid and development assistance. That’s going to increase, you know, that’s the right thing for the wealthiest nation in the world to do,” Biden said while speaking in Angola. “Today I’m announcing over $1 billion in new humanitarian support for Africans displaced from homes by historic droughts and food insecurity. We know African leaders and citizens are seeking more than just aid. You seek investment. Biden’s visit to Angola this week marks the first time the president has stepped foot on African soil during his presidency, and it comes as people in North Carolina continue to face challenges after Hurricane Helene caused destruction and devastation in late September. Last month, the White House requested $98 billion in additional disaster relief funding to help efforts in Helene-ravished areas. Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.
Supreme Court appears divided over state bans on gender transition ‘treatments’ for minors
The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over the constitutionality of state laws banning gender-affirming medical care for minors, a politically charged issue dealing with transgender rights. The justices heard nearly two-and-a-half hours of tense oral arguments over a challenge to a Tennessee law. At issue is whether the equal protection clause — which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same — prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor’s transition to another sex. The three justices appointed by former President Trump could be the key to deciding the socially divisive question. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not speak during the marathon public session. Justice Samuel Alito cited “overwhelming evidence” from some medical studies that cited the negative consequences from teens that underwent gender-affirming care. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered with evidence from underage individuals that were denied treatment to address gender dysphoria. SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE Chief Justice John Roberts voted in the majority in a 2020 case favoring transgender employees who claim workplace discrimination. That opinion was authored by Gorsuch. But in Wednesday’s arguments, Roberts suggested state legislatures – rather than courts – were in a better position to decide such questions over regulating medical procedures. TED CRUZ, GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SCOTUS TO END ‘MEXICO’S ASSAULT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT’ “The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Roberts told ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, who was representing transgender minors, parents and a doctor. Strangio is the first openly transgender attorney to argue a case before the Supreme Court. He appeared alongside the U.S. solicitor general, representing the Biden administration in opposing the law in Tennessee, one of about two dozen with similar bans. Trump, who takes office again next month as president, had promised in his re-election campaign to implement certain policy changes that would affect transgender individuals across various sectors. A ruling is expected by late June 2025. The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti (23-477).
Supreme Court appears divided over state bans on gender transition ‘treatments’ for minors
The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over the constitutionality of state laws banning gender transition medical “treatments” for minors, a politically charged issue dealing with transgender rights. The justices heard nearly two-and-a-half hours of tense oral arguments over a challenge to a Tennessee law. At issue is whether the equal protection clause — which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same — prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor’s transition to another sex. Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue rallied in front of the court. Some demonstrators held signs saying, “Kids’ Health Matters,” while others promoted “Freedom To Be: A Celebration of Transgender Youth & Families.” The court’s ruling could affect other current legal fights over transgender rights, including bathroom access and participation in scholastic sports. It could also serve as a legal template to future disputes involving the LGBTQ+ community, and whether sexual orientation is a “protected class” that deserves the same rights that involve a person’s race and national origin. The three justices appointed by former President Trump could be the key to deciding the socially divisive question. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not speak during the marathon public session. SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE Justice Samuel Alito cited “hotly disputed” medical studies on the supposed benefits of such medical treatments. Instead he referred to other research from Great Britain and Sweden that reported on the negative consequences from teens that underwent gender transition treatments. Those studies “found a complete lack of high-quality evidence showing that the benefits of the treatments in question here outweigh the risks,” he told the federal government’s attorney. “Do you dispute that?” But Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered with evidence from underage individuals that were denied treatment. “Some children suffer incredibly with gender dysphoria, don’t they? I think some attempt suicide?” she said. “The state has come in here and, in a sharp departure from how it normally addresses this issue, it has completely decided to override the views of the parents, the patients, the doctors who are grappling with these decisions and trying to make those trade-offs.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the competing interests facing the high court. “How do we as a Court choose which set of risks is more serious in deciding whether to constitutionalize this whole area?” Chief Justice John Roberts voted in the majority in a 2020 case favoring transgender employees who claim workplace discrimination. That opinion was authored by Gorsuch. But in Wednesday’s arguments, Roberts suggested state legislatures – rather than courts – were in a better position to decide such questions over regulating medical procedures. TED CRUZ, GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SCOTUS TO END ‘MEXICO’S ASSAULT ON OUR SECOND AMENDMENT’ “The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Roberts told ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, who was representing transgender minors, parents and a doctor. Strangio is the first openly transgender attorney to argue a case before the Supreme Court. He appeared alongside the U.S. solicitor general, representing the Biden administration in opposing the law in Tennessee, one of about two dozen with similar bans. Prelogar said the state laws have the effect of “sex discrimination,” since the minor’s gender is key when determining specific medical treatments for those seeking to transition. She cited the benefits of such “medically necessary care” that can have the effect of preventing “escalating distress, anxiety, and suicidality.” The Justice Department mentioned the experience of Ryan, one of the plaintiffs, who told the courts such treatment “saved his life.” The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed such medical treatments for youths. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told reporters after the arguments, “The Constitution allows the states to protect kids from unproven, life-altering procedures based on uncertain science.” The state’s lawyer told the justices its law — known as SB1 — “draws a line between minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes,” like a congenital defect or precocious or early onset puberty. In arguments, much of the discussion was whether the laws were applied equally to boys and girls, and whether states had a greater interest in regulating treatment, since it involved underage individuals. “It’s really for minors,” said Justice Clarence Thomas. “So why isn’t this simply a case of age classification when it comes to these treatments as opposed to a [outright] ban?” for everyone. But the three more liberal justices were skeptical of the state’s positions. “It’s a dodge to say that this is not based on sex, it’s based on medical purpose, when the medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex,” said Justice Elena Kagan. She added the state law seems to me sending a message that “there’s something fundamentally wrong, fundamentally bad, about youth who are trying to transition.” “One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity,” said Kagan. It “sounds to me like: we want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls.” Trump, who takes office again next month as president, had promised in his re-election campaign to implement certain policy changes that would affect transgender individuals across various sectors. A ruling is expected by late June 2025. The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti (23-477).
Some migrants, anticipating Trump’s policies, are already turning back home: report
A growing number of migrants are deciding to return home rather than face the consequences of President-elect Trump’s planned border policies, according to a new report. Mexican officials say between 50 and 100 migrants are now requesting “voluntary return” to their own countries, with migrants either covering their own costs or relying on state funds. Some migrants credit their apprehension to Trump’s plans to eliminate a U.S. government app used to claim asylum with border agents. “I trust I will arrive before Mr. Trump takes office,” one migrant, Johana, told Reuters. “If it’s not by appointment, there’s always a way.” President Biden’s administration has used the application to allow hundreds of thousands of migrants to schedule border crossings and claim asylum in the U.S. Officials with the incoming Trump administration have said they will eliminate the program as well as re-institute the “remain in Mexico” policy. BORDER PATROL, ICE MORALE SURGING AFTER TRUMP ELECTION WIN: ‘THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET THE BAD GUYS NOW’ Migrants waiting to receive appointments in Mexico will be stranded there if they don’t get a date scheduled by the beginning of Trump’s term, leaving them to either attempt crossing illegally, remain in Mexico during their asylum process, or return home. DEM GOVERNOR THREATENS TO USE ‘EVERY TOOL’ TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST TRUMP-ERA DEPORTATIONS Thanks to the dangerous cartel environment in Mexico, many are saying they would rather return home. “I cry every day and ask God to take me back, I don’t want to be here anymore… this is horrible,” said Yuleidi Moreno, a migrant who has yet to receive an appointment. Nidia Montenegro, another migrant in the same position, said she would choose to return home if she could. “I am traumatized. If I don’t get the appointment, I will go back,” she told Reuters. MIGRANT ACCUSED OF VIOLENT CRIMES ARRESTED BY ICE AFTER MASSACHUSETTS COURT REFUSED TO HONOR DETAINER Officials in Trump’s first administration stressed that its policies were aimed at dissuading migrants from making the dangerous journey through Mexico to the U.S. border. Migrants are often kidnapped and faced with violence by cartels. Trump’s incoming border czar, Tom Homan, has said the new administration will both stem illegal immigration and take the cartels “off the face of the earth.” “They have killed more Americans than every terrorist organization in the world and Trump is committed to calling them terrorist organizations and using the full might of the United States Special Operations to take them out,” Homan said on Fox News last month. Reuters contributed to this report.
Dem senator urges Biden to extend protections for illegal immigrants before Trump admin: ‘Nobody is safe’
A Democratic senator is calling on the Biden administration to extend deportation protections and work permits for illegal immigrants in the U.S., ahead of what is expected to be a historic mass deportation campaign by the incoming Trump administration. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., said in a post on X that “President Biden has the power to protect immigrant families, and I’m calling on him to use it.” She pointed to the use of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which is a status administered by the Department of Homeland Security that allows nationals who are living in the U.S. already to obtain work permits and be shielded from deportation. TOP CONSERVATIVE GROUP REVEALS ROADMAP TO REBUILD NEW US IMMIGRATION SYSTEM ‘FROM THE ASHES’ TPS grants protection to nationals from countries considered unsafe to return them to. It has been used broadly by the Biden administration, including to protect hundreds of thousands of nationals from Haiti and Venezuela. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has sought to provide additional safeguards for those protected from deportation via the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. That program benefited illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors. FIVE THINGS TO WATCH FOR ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY IN 2025 “They are part of our communities, and what the president can do is just take legal action to extend their TPS statuses,” Cortez Masto said on MSNBC on Tuesday. “But it’s not just our TPS recipients. My hope is that the president, in the last two months, also quickly processes our DACA recipients applications. We need to make sure our dreamers also have the ability to stay here, continue to be a part of the country that they grew up in.” The first Trump administration sought unsuccessfully to end DACA, and reduced the use of TPS. In the next administration, it is expected to either terminate TPS for many nationalities or allow them to expire without renewal. CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS Cortez Masto highlighted the Trump campaign’s promise to launch a mass deportation campaign as a rationale for the extension of TPS and additional DACA protections. “They’re going to engage in mass deportation and nobody’s safe,” she said. “So that’s why I’m asking the administration to come in and take action that they can now to protect some of the immigrant community, TPS recipients and DACA recipients, make sure that at least we’re bringing certainty to them and keeping their families together.” The Biden administration moved on TPS as recently as October, when it both extended and redesignated TPS for Lebanese nationals – meaning that new nationals not initially covered could apply for protection. The Department of Homeland Security estimated that approximately 11,000 Lebanese nationals would be eligible under both TPS and Deferred Enforcement Departure – a similar use of executive authority administered by the president.
Outgoing GOP congressman seeks role as Trump’s drug czar after first nominee falls through
Outgoing GOP Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, R-N.Y., is gunning to be the next leader of President-elect Donald Trump’s Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), after Trump’s first nominee withdrew his name from the running, a source familiar with the situation told Fox News Digital. D’Esposito has been working to consolidate support from regional law enforcement unions to support his bid, and he has been actively making calls to people in Trump’s orbit to get his name to the top, the source indicated, adding that D’Esposito has been “campaigning pretty hard for this.” SMALL TOWN POLICE ON FRONT LINES OF CARTELS’ DRUG WAR COSTING AMERICANS THEIR LIVES Trump nominated Florida Sheriff Chad Chronister for the role over the weekend, but Chronister withdrew his name from consideration on Tuesday. Chronister’s decision came amid criticism from Republicans over how he handled lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. THOMAS MASSIE, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS VOCALLY OPPOSE TRUMP’S DEA NOMINEE After first being elected in 2022 to represent a Long Island congressional district that voted for President Biden in 2020, D’Esposito lost his bid for re-election last month to Democrat Laura Gillen. On Wednesday, the Nassau County Detectives Association lobbied for Trump to nominate D’Esposito to be the next head of the DEA, which is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Trump’s next DEA chief would be his point man to help stem the massive flow of fentanyl making its way into the U.S. “As a respected member of Congress, D’Esposito has demonstrated leadership & commitment needed to help DJT in his goal of Making America Safe Again,” the group wrote on social media Wednesday. Fox News Digital reached out to Trump’s transition team to glean more details on where D’Esposito stands in terms of being named the next head of the DEA, but did not receive an on-the-record response by publication time.
Supreme Court weighs transgender youth treatments in landmark case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a high-profile case regarding whether states can ban minors from receiving gender transition medical care under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a closely-watched case that could impact the care and treatment for young people in at least half of U.S. states. The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a Tennessee law that bans gender-transition treatments for adolescents in the state. The law, passed in March 2023, also takes aim at health care providers in Tennessee who continue to provide gender-transition treatments to transgender minors, opening them up to fines, lawsuits and other liability. At issue in the case is whether Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which “prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow ‘a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex’ or to treat ‘purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,’” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wednesday’s oral arguments marked the first time the Supreme Court considered restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors. However, it also comes as many other states have moved to ban or restrict medical treatments and procedures for transgender adolescents, placing outsize focus on the case and on oral arguments Wednesday, as observers closely watched the back-and-forth for clues as to how the court might rule. SUPREME COURT CAN TAKE MASSIVE STEP IN PREVENTING TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS’ SPORTS WITH HISTORIC HEARING Petitioners in the case were represented by the Biden administration and the ACLU, which sued to overturn the Tennessee law on behalf of the parents of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based doctor. At issue during Wednesday’s oral arguments was the level of scrutiny that courts should use to evaluate the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical treatment for minors, such as SB1, and whether these laws are considered discriminating on the basis of sex or against a “quasi-suspect class,” thus warranting a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Both sides continued to battle over the level of scrutiny that the court should apply in reviewing laws involving transgender care for minors, including SB1. Petitioners argued that the court should use the test of heightened scrutiny, which requires states to identify an important objective that the law helps accomplish, while the state of Tennessee reiterated its claim that the rational basis test, or the most deferential test that was applied by the 6th Circuit Court in reviewing SB1, is sufficient. Petitioners, represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, argued that SB1 discriminates against individuals on the basis of sex, which itself warrants a heightened level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. They argued that SB1 “categorically bans treatment when, and only when, it’s consistent with the patient’s birth sex.” In Tennessee, petitioners argued, the way that the sex-based classification works is that, “from the standpoint of any individual who wants to take these medications, their sex determines whether SB1 applies.” Prelogar cited one of the unnamed petitioners in the case, whom she referred to only as John Doe. Doe “wants to take puberty blockers to undergo a typical male puberty. But SB1 says that because John sex at birth was female, he can’t have access to those medications,” Prelogar argued. “And if you change his sex, then the restriction under SB1 lifts, and it changes the result.” Petitioners also sought to assuage concerns raised by justices about the ability of states to pass legislation protecting minors, so long as the test meets a higher standard of scrutiny. Pressed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the impact the ruling could have on other states, Prelogar responded by noting that the court could write a very narrow opinion that states only that when a law prohibits conduct that is “inconsistent with sex, that is a sex baseline, so you do have to apply heightened scrutiny.” “But the court has made clear that that’s an intermediate standard,” Prelogar said. “And if the state can come forward with an important interest and substantiate that it needed to draw those sex baselines to substantially serve the interest,” it would still be permitted. TRUMP’S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’ Respondents for the state of Tennessee argued Wednesday that SB1 was designed to protect minors from what they described as “risky and unproven medical interventions.” The state, represented by Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice, argued that SB1 draws a “purpose-based line, not a sex-based line,” thus failing to meet the necessary requirement to trigger heightened scrutiny. The law, Rice said, turns “entirely on medical purposes, not a patient’s sex.” The only way petitioners can point to a sex-based line, he argued, “is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments.” “Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress associated with her body,” Rice said. Still, respondents faced tough questioning from justices on the classification and application of SB1. On issues of classification, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson cited parallels to the race-based case of Loving v. Virginia, which overturned Virginia’s law forbidding marriage between persons of different racial categories; in that case, a White man and a Black woman. She noted that under SB1, an individual can be prescribed puberty blockers or hormone treatments if doing so is consistent with their sex, but not if it is inconsistent, asking Rice, “So how are they different?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Rice about the application of SB1, noting the text of SB1 and one of its articulated purposes, which is to “encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex and to ban treatments ‘that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.’” “You’re spending a lot of time talking about what the classification is here,” Kagan told Rice. “And I think we’ve talked a good deal about that. But what produced this classification might be relevant
Pete Hegseth ramps up Pentagon pitch with back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, is ramping up his pitch to lead the Pentagon with back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill. Since his nomination, Hegseth has been meeting privately with senators in Washington, D.C., in an effort to earn their support ahead of his confirmation hearing next year. Hegseth was back on the Hill for a second day on Wednesday, meeting first with incoming Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who is set to be the Armed Services Committee chair, ahead of a crucial meeting with incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. The nominee has faced a series of drinking and sexual misconduct allegations, all of which he has denied, since being tapped for the top administration role. TRUMP FLOATS DESANTIS AS POTENTIAL DEFENSE SECRETARY REPLACEMENT IF HEGSETH FALTERS An email was recently leaked from Penelope Hegseth, Pete Hegseth’s mother, where she was critical of his past relationships with women. However, she joined “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning to set the record straight and “tell the truth to the senators on the hill, especially our female senators.” Penelope Hegseth said she wrote the email in an impassioned moment after her son’s divorce, but apologized hours after sending it. Hegseth’s mother also said she did not believe any of the accusations against him. TRUMP TRANSITION SIGNS AGREEMENT FOR FBI BACKGROUND CHECKS Multiple sources confirmed to Fox News that Trump is reportedly considering nominating Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as Defense Secretary in place of Hegseth amid the allegations against him. But Hegseth brushed off the potential replacement, telling reporters that he spoke with Trump on Wednesday morning, who reportedly told him to “keep going, keep fighting.” “Why would I back down?” Hegseth said. “I have always been a fighter. I am here for the war fighters.” Hegseth added that he would be “meeting all day with senators.” In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, published Wednesday afternoon, Hegseth outlined his military service and his time working with veterans after leaving the Army. “I’ve been through a lot: combat tours, job changes, divorces and family challenges,” Hegseth wrote, before bashing the press for using “anonymous sources to try to discredit” him. “Talk to those who served with me in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan or the National Guard. They support me, and I’m honored by that,” Hegseth wrote. “I have never backed down from a fight and won’t back down from this one. I am grateful President-elect Trump chose me to lead the Defense Department, and I look forward to an honest confirmation hearing with our distinguished senators—not a show trial in the press. Fox News’ Bret Baier, Paul Steinhauser and Bill Melugin contributed to this report.
Dems renew push for limiting presidential clemency powers after Hunter Biden pardon
Several House Democrats are renewing calls to put more guardrails on the executive branch’s clemency powers after President Biden’s sweeping pardon for his son, Hunter. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who has introduced a constitutional amendment limiting presidential pardon powers in several congressional terms, defended Biden’s decision but said he hoped those who were critical of the decision would co-sponsor his measure. “The pardon power is supposed to be a safety valve against injustice, and I understand why President Biden thought it appropriate in this instance,” Cohen said earlier this week. “But to all those who find this pardon distasteful, I encourage you to cosponsor and support the constitutional amendment I have introduced in the last several Congresses to reform the pardon power. The measure would eliminate pardons for the President’s self, the President’s family, Administration officials and campaign staff, and those who commit crimes on behalf of, for the benefit of, or at the direction of the President – all instances with inescapable perceptions of conflicts of interest.” LAWMAKERS HARSHLY CRITICIZE BIDEN’S DECISION TO PARDON HUNTER It comes as a wave of Democrats have expressed unease with the pardon, arguing its broad nature sets a precedent for future abuse. A spokesperson for Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who previously backed Cohen’s amendment, said the lawmaker’s position has not changed. “If Republicans reconsider their willingness to overlook rampant abuses of pardon powers by the President-elect, and drop their opposition to pardon reform, that would be a good thing – especially given his promises to pardon violent criminals who brutally assaulted police officers on January 6th,” the spokesperson said. Several Democrats who spoke with Fox News Digital signaled openness to some limitations on pardons. HUNTER BIDEN SAYS HIS MISTAKES WERE ‘EXPLOITED’ FOR POLITICAL SPORT, HE WILL NEVER TAKE PARDON FOR GRANTED Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., did not reject supporting the amendment but doubted there would be enough political momentum for such a change. He also urged Biden to extend his clemency powers to people jailed on minor charges. “It’s something that we could look at. But I’d be more interested in sort of focusing on uses of the pardon power. Thousands of people that should be pardoned or have their sentences commuted are in jail for minor offenses,” Ivey said. “I’d love to see them focus on that.” Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, said, “I think we need to look at presidential pardons. The Congress needs to look at presidential pardons, generally. And it’s a large conversation regarding different issues – for example, when a president can pardon somebody whose crimes may have been related to the president.” “Cohen’s bill is worth talking through. I think he mentioned that there weren’t any Republican co-sponsors, so hopefully he gets them now,” said Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio. Republicans, however, were skeptical. “What we have now has been in place for hundreds of years. And you know, we’re not always going to agree with things that one party does or another party does, but I think it’s something that needs to stand,” Rep. Mike Ezell, R-Miss., told Fox News Digital. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said limiting pardon powers would be “a slippery slope” but accused Biden of “abusing” the responsibility. BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE House GOP Policy Chairman Gary Palmer, R-Ala., meanwhile, did not comment on limiting pardon powers but said they must not go away altogether. “The fact that Joe Biden is basically protecting a crime family and has overstepped his authority, and basically exposed himself to be a liar, would not be justification for eliminating it across the board,” he said. Hunter Biden’s pardon covers any and all possible crimes between 2014 and December 2024. It came as he was facing possible jail sentences over separate firearms and tax charges. The 82-year-old president accused Republicans of weaponizing the justice system against his son, who he said was “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.” Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., promised “reform” during his weekly press conference on Wednesday but did not go into further detail. “This pardon is a perversion of justice, and it is an utter disregard for the rule of law. And it undermines, further undermines the people’s faith in our system of justice,” Johnson said. “So we have reform on the way, and it cannot happen soon enough.”
Trump keeps Whatley at Republican National Committee following ‘OUTSTANDING and HISTORIC JOB’
President-elect Trump on Wednesday invited Republican National Committee chair Michael Whatley to continue steering the GOP’s national party committee. And Whatley quickly accepted, saying he is “honored for the opportunity to continue as Chairman of the RNC and work nonstop to help President Trump Make America Great Again!” The former and future Republican president, pointing to his convincing White House victory in last month’s elections, as well the GOP’s flipping of the Senate and holding onto its fragile House majority, said Whatley had done “an OUTSTANDING and HISTORIC JOB in running” the RNC. And Trump announced that “I have asked Michael to return as Chairman of the RNC to continue to build our Party, and be a trusted partner as we Make America Great Again, and ensure Free and Fair Election.” HEAD HERE FOR FULL FOX NEWS RESULTS FROM THE 2024 ELECTIONS In March, as he clinched the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, Trump named Whatley to succeed Ronna McDaniel as RNC chair. Whatley, a longtime ally of the former president and a major supporter of the former president’s election integrity efforts, had served as RNC general counsel and chair of the North Carolina Republican Party. Trump also named his daughter-in-law Lara Trump as RNC co-chair. After first winning the White House in 2016, Trump picked McDaniel to steer the national party committee, and she became the longest serving chair in modern times. But earlier this year, Trump essentially pushed McDaniel out the door by repeatedly urging changes at the committee – after lackluster party fundraising and his opposition to the RNC’s presidential primary debates. DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR FRONT-RUNNER OFFERS ‘UNCOMFORTABLE’ ADVICE Trump, in his social media post, said Whatley “is a smart, tough lawyer who put together a completely unprecedented ELECTION INTEGRITY OPERATION that protected the Vote all across America, and a GET OUT THE VOTE CAMPAIGN that delivered the Votes we needed in every Battleground State.” And he argued that “Michael and Lara transformed the RNC into a lean, focused, and powerful machine that will empower the America First Agenda for many years to come.” Trump, whose immense grip over the GOP is stronger than ever, urged that “Republicans everywhere should support him [Whatley] as he continues his mission at the RNC.” Whatley, responding minutes later in a social media post, thanked Trump “for the trust he has placed in me to continue our important work at the @GOP.” “As long as I am Chairman, the RNC’s priorities will remain the same: get out the vote, protect the ballot, and raise the money we need to elect Republicans up and down the ticket,” he pledged. Whatley pointed to the “crucial fights ahead,” which he said included “supporting President Trump’s cabinet nominees and preparing for the 2026 midterms, to our ongoing fight for election integrity across America.” But Trump, in last month’s elections, outperformed many down-ballot Republicans in key Senate and House races. And the RNC, going forward, will need to work to ensure that Trump voters continue to support the party’s candidates even though the term-limited Trump won’t appear on the ballot ever again.