Federal judge delivers one-two punch to Trump in Abrego Garcia case
A federal judge granted a request Wednesday from more than a dozen major news outlets and publishers to unseal certain records in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the Salvadorian migrant and alleged MS-13 member who was deported from Maryland to El Salvador in March in what administration officials have acknowledged was an administrative error. Separately on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis granted a request from Abrego Garcia’s legal team to file a motion for sanctions against the Trump administration. That filing is due June 11, she said in an order. The one-two punch from Xinis could give plaintiffs new ammo to pursue more formal punishments against the Trump administration if officials are found to have been acting in bad faith or knowingly defying court orders. It will also give new access to media outlets covering the case. Xinis agreed to grant in part a request from a group of 14 major media outlets and publishers – including Fox News, NBC News, CBS News, New York Times, the Washington Post and NPR – who filed a motion to unseal records in the Abrego Garcia case, citing concerns over the lack of public access, as well as over government efforts, or lack thereof, to facilitate his return to the U.S. JUDGE PRESSES TRUMP DOJ ON ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION; ANSWERS LEAVE COURTROOM IN STUNNED SILENCE In her order, Xinis agreed with the contention of the news outlets – referred to jointly as the “Press Movants” – that the public “enjoys a presumptive right to access court records, overcome only when outweighed by competing interests.” As such, Xinis ordered the Trump administration to unseal a handful of documents that have so far been filed under seal, as part of a protracted legal battle over the status of Abrego Garcia. Xinis also ordered them to unseal a transcript from an April 30 hearing in his case. “The right to public access of court records remains critical to promoting ‘trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of fairness,’” she said Wednesday. The order comes amid a months-long court fight over the status of Abrego Garcia, who remains in El Salvador. Xinis in April ordered the Trump administration to comply with an expedited discovery schedule to determine whether they were complying with the directive to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S., which was upheld by the Supreme Court earlier this year. Since then, she has struggled to ascertain the status of Abrego Garcia, or efforts made to return him to the U.S. TRUMP’S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLE Trump officials, for their part, have repeatedly alleged that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, though any formal ties remain unproven. Lawyers for the government and Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have sparred with Xinis in court over what exactly it means to “facilitate” his return – a months-long fight that Xinis most recently described as beating a “frustrated and dead horse.” Xinis previously took aim at what she deemed to be the lack of information submitted to the court as part of an expedited discovery process she ordered last month, describing the government submissions as “vague, evasive and incomplete” responses, and which she said demonstrated “willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations.” The order is the latest development in the ongoing feud between Trump officials and the courts over the use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime immigration law used earlier this year to quickly deport migrants from the U.S. To date, the Trump administration has not knowingly complied with any court orders to return migrants who were removed and sent to El Salvador in the early wave of deportation flights, despite earlier court orders from Xinis, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and others. It is unclear whether Xinis plans to begin contempt proceedings against the administration, though the federal judge in D.C. said earlier this year that he had found probable cause to do so.
Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the ‘big beautiful bill’ and its Obamacare freeze
Two top Democrats claimed the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill and its proposal to let enhanced Obamacare credits expire will cause the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced findings that an estimated 51,000 Americans could die each year due to Republican-led changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation bill. The national debt — which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors — fell to $36,214,400,664,854.53 as of June 3rd, according to the latest numbers published by the Treasury Department. That is down about $1.4 billion from the figure reported the previous day. Wyden called the “stakes” of the ‘big, beautiful bill’ debate “truly life and death,” as a statement from his office read that “a new analysis estimates that more than 51,000 people will die per year as a direct result of the Republican reconciliation bill, and their refusal to extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits.” “Taking away health insurance and benefits like home care and mental healthcare from seniors, people with disabilities, kids, and working families will be deadly,” Wyden said. “This analysis shows the dire consequences of moving ahead with this morally bankrupt effort,” he said, referring to a study he and Sanders asked the University of Pennsylvania and Yale to conduct. LIBERALS BLAME BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL’S LOSS ON DYING DEMS The Democrats employed the Philadelphia college’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, as well as the Yale School of Public Health’s Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. “Let’s be clear,” Sanders said in a statement, “The Republican reconciliation bill which makes massive cuts to Medicaid in order to pay for huge tax breaks for billionaires is not just bad public policy.” “It is not just immoral. It is a death sentence for struggling Americans.” “[N]ot only will some of the most vulnerable people throughout our country suffer, but tens of thousands will die. We cannot allow that to happen,” Sanders added. WINNERS, LOSERS AND GRAB-BAGS FROM HOUSE GOP’S NARROW PASSAGE OF ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ In a copy of the study posted on UPenn’s website, economics and health-centric academics found 7.7 million people would be estimated to lose Medicaid or Obamacare coverage by 2034, and 1.38 million “dual-eligible beneficiaries” would find themselves “disenroll[ed].” In a statement, Wyden cited figures of 11,300 deaths from the loss of Medicaid or Obamacare coverage, 18,200 deaths from the loss of Medicaid coverage among low-income beneficiaries and 13,000 deaths of Medicaid enrollees in nursing homes due to the rollback of a “nursing home minimum staffing rule” from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Wyden attributed an additional projected 8,811 deaths per year to the “failure to extend the enhanced [Obamacare] premium tax credits,” citing the academics’ analysis. Fox News Digital reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., — who spearheaded the “big, beautiful bill” in the House — for comment. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP A representative for UPenn told Fox News Digital the university sent the results of their analysis to Wyden and Sanders in response to a request on the matter. “The estimates of mortality that are contained in the letter were based on peer-review research that was done independently and well before their request,” the UPenn representative said. “The senators’ request was to take the research results and translate into the estimated number of deaths.”
Massie calls on Elon Musk to fund primary challenges against Republicans who backed Trump tax bill
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said Elon Musk should fund primary challenges against almost every Republican who voted for President Donald Trump‘s “big, beautiful bill” last week. “I don’t primary my colleagues, but I feel pretty good about him doing it,” Massie told Fox News Digital on Wednesday. “There’s a few others that should be spared,” when asked to clarify if he meant all 215 House Republicans who supported the legislation. “But people want term limits, right? Elon can bring term limits.” Musk came out against the massive Trump agenda bill that House Republicans passed last week. MIKE JOHNSON, DONALD TRUMP GET ‘BIG, ‘BEAUTIFUL’ WIN AS BUDGET PASSES HOUSE “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,” Musk first posted. It was followed by several posts on the national debt, and one that read, “In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.” Massie said on Wednesday, “I just think he made one mistake when misstatement – he said take them out in November. I would take them out in primaries if I were Elon Musk.” Both House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and the White House have closed ranks around the legislation. Johnson issued a rare forceful response to Musk from the podium of his weekly press conference on Wednesday, calling the billionaire “flat wrong.” SCOOP: HOUSE GOP MEMO HIGHLIGHTS REPUBLICAN WINS IN TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ “Elon and I left on a great note. We were texting one another, you know, happy texts, you know, Monday and then, and then yesterday, you know, 24 hours later, he does a 180, and he comes out and opposed the bill,” Johnson told reporters. “And it surprised me, frankly. And, I don’t take it personal…I think he’s way off on this, and I’ve told him as much, and, I’ve said it publicly and privately.” The massive budget reconciliation bill is aimed at advancing Trump’s priorities on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the debt limit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would add $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, but House GOP leaders have dismissed that modeling as inaccurate representations of economic growth. Massie was one of three House Republicans to vote against the bill. Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, also voted “no,” while House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., voted “present.” Massie is also no stranger to clashing with both Trump and Johnson. He has faced primary threats from the former and led an unsuccessful bid to remove the latter from House leadership. Massie has been consistent, however, in his opposition to legislation that would have any chance of adding to the federal debt – now currently nearly $37 trillion. Republican supporters of the bill, however, have contended that it is the best possible vehicle to radically reform government programs plagued with waste, fraud and abuse, and restore much-needed funding to the border, while extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. However, the legislation is now in the Senate, where Republicans have already signaled they would want to see changes to the final bill. Fox News Digital reached out to the National Republican Congressional Committee for comment on Massie’s remarks.
Here are Biden’s most controversial pardons, with most signed using AutoPen
The Justice Department is reviewing the list of people that were granted pardons by former President Joe Biden, amid new concerns about his use of an AutoPen to automatically sign documents, as well as concerns about his state of mind and mental acuity in his final months in office. TRUMP DOJ INVESTIGATING BIDEN-ERA PARDONS AMID CONCERNS OVER STATE OF MIND Biden used his final weeks as commander-in-chief to grant clemency and pardon more than 1,500 individuals, in what his White House described as the largest single-day act of clemency by a U.S. president. But critics blasted Biden for some of the pardons and preemptive pardons for members of his family, inner circle, and some allies, amid concerns that the Trump administration would investigate and attempt to punish their actions. WHAT IS AN AUTOPEN? THE SIGNING DEVICE AT THE HEART OF TRUMP’S ATTACKS ON BIDEN PARDONS Biden signed the pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, by hand. But the others appear to have been signed by AutoPen. Here is a list of the former president’s most controversial pardons: Former President Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden in December 2024—after vowing to the American people for months that he would not do so. Hunter Biden was found guilty of three felony firearm offenses stemming from Special Counsel David Weiss’ investigation. The first son was also charged with federal tax crimes regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. Before his trial, Hunter Biden entered a surprise guilty plea. Biden, in December, announced a blanket pardon that applies to any offenses against the U.S. that Hunter Biden “has committed or may have committed” from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024. HUNTER BIDEN: A LOOK AT HOW THE SAGA SPANNING OVER SIX YEARS UNFOLDED “From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,” Biden said. “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.” Biden added, “I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.” Just a day before leaving office on Jan. 20, 2025, Biden signed an Executive Grant of Clemency for his brother James Biden and his wife Sarah Jones Biden; his sister Valerie Biden Owens and her husband John T. Owens; and his brother Francis W. Biden. The “full and unconditional” preemptive pardon for his family members covered “any nonviolent offenses against the United States which they may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, through the date of this pardon,” which was signed on Jan. 19, 2025. The pardon appears to have been signed with AutoPen. Members of the Biden family had fallen at the center of the congressional investigation into their business dealings. The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry against Biden, finding that Biden committed “impeachable conduct” during his time as vice president and “defrauded the United States to enrich his family.” PRESIDENT BIDEN PARDONS HIS SIBLINGS JUST MINUTES BEFORE LEAVING OFFICE During the inquiry, congressional investigators heard testimony from James Biden, who ultimately was referred to the Justice Department for prosecution for making false statements to Congress about “key aspects” of the impeachment inquiry. The House of Representatives found that the Biden family and its associates received more than $27 million from foreign individuals or entities since 2014. They also alleged that the Biden family leveraged Biden’s position as vice president to obtain more than $8 million in loans from Democrat benefactors. The loans “have not been repaid and the paperwork supporting many of the loans does not exist and has not been produced to the committees.” The Republicans said the alleged conspiracy took place while Biden was serving as vice president. Biden, on Jan. 19, 2025, pardoned Milley, after an administration marred by the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted the withdrawal where 13 U.S. troops lost their lives was a “strategic failure.” BIDEN COMMITTED ‘IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT,’ ‘DEFRAUDED UNITED STATES TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY’: HOUSE GOP REPORT “My family and I are deeply grateful for the President’s action today,” Milley said in a statement, accepting the pardon. “After forty-three years of faithful service in uniform to our Nation, protecting and defending the Constitution, I do not wish to spend whatever remaining time the Lord grants me fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights.” The pardon appears to have been signed with AutoPen. Biden, also on Jan. 19, 2025, pardoned former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci also served as Biden’s chief medical advisor and oversaw the U.S. public health response and research on the COVID-19 virus and vaccine development. Fauci accepted the pardon in a statement shortly after Biden announced the move, claiming he was subject to “politically motivated threats of investigation and prosecution.” DR. FAUCI SAYS HE APPRECIATES PRESIDENT BIDEN’S PARDON BUT INSISTS ‘NO CRIME’ WAS COMMITTED “Let me be perfectly clear: I have committed no crime and there are no possible grounds for any allegation or threat of criminal investigation or prosecution of me. The fact is, however, that the mere articulation of these baseless threats, and the potential that they will be acted upon, create immeasurable and intolerable distress for me and my family. For these reasons, I acknowledge and appreciate the action that President Biden has taken today on my behalf,” Fauci said. Fauci’s pardon also appears to have been signed with AutoPen. Biden, also on Jan. 19, 2025, used AutoPen to sign a pardon for members of Congress who served on the House Select Committee to
Fetterman dismisses questions as another top staffer reportedly jumps ship
Another member of Sen. John Fetterman’s staff is reportedly leaving his office, and the maverick lawmaker doesn’t want to talk about it. Fetterman’s office has been plagued by a string of departures since he came to Washington in 2023, and his alleged erratic behavior, concerns over his health and decision to skip certain votes have led to a wave of scrutiny in recent weeks. FETTERMAN DEFIES ‘PUNITIVE’ PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING WITH DEMOCRATIC PARTY DURING BIPARTISAN DISCUSSION And now, Fetterman, D-Pa., is set to lose another top staffer. Axios first reported that Krysta Sinclair Juris, who has been the lawmaker’s chief of staff since April 2024, is set to leave his office. Fox News Digital reached out to Juris and Fetterman’s office for comment. When pressed about the situation in his office, Fetterman didn’t want to talk about it. “Well, have you, have you spoken to the significant number of my colleagues that have much higher staff turnover?” Fetterman asked Fox News Digital. FETTERMAN ADDRESSES CALLS TO STEP ASIDE, SAYING RECENT ALLEGATIONS ARE ‘NOT ACCURATE’ He doubled down when asked again if Axios’ reporting was accurate. “I think you should talk to my colleagues that have much higher turnover,” he said after ducking into an elevator. Politico later reported that Cabelle St. John would take over the chief of staff position. SCHUMER, DEMOCRATS PLOT COORDINATED RESISTANCE TO TRUMP’S ‘ONE UGLY BILL’ The latest departure is not the first instance where staffers have left this year. Two aides left last month after a bombshell report from New York Magazine detailed rising concerns among his staff about his health. And in February, his deputy chief of staff and communications director hit the exits, too. Fetterman has been no stranger to controversy since winning his seat two years ago and has made a name for himself by often bucking his party’s marching orders and siding with Senate Republicans on thorny policy issues. For example, Fetterman has often broken with Democrats on Israel and immigration, saying his party has lost the argument on both issues. The lawmaker acknowledged his unique brand of bipartisanship during a forum alongside fellow Pennsylvania Sen. David McCormick, a Republican, moderated by Fox News’ Shannon Bream on Monday. “That’s part of the bipartisanship where, you know, it’s getting more and more kind of, punitive to just agree with some of these things in the middle of the party right now,” he said.
Vance compares Harvard to North Korea as he takes aim at school’s ‘ideological diversity’
Vice President JD Vance accused Harvard University of having a lack of “ideological diversity,” comparing the academic institution to North Korea amid the Trump administration’s continuing battle against the school. Vance said Tuesday that he estimated, without evidence, that “probably” 95% of Harvard’s faculty voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, and said that universities have become these “almost quasi-theocratic, or quasi-totalitarian societies.” “Right. Very brilliant. Kamala Harris, of course,” Vance said at the American Compass anniversary gala in Washington. “But if you ask yourself a foreign election, a foreign country’s election, you say 80% of the people voted for one candidate, you would say, ‘Oh, that’s kind of weird, right? That’s like, not a super healthy democracy.’ If you said, ‘Oh, 95% of people voted for one party’s candidate,’ you would say, ‘That’s North Korea, right… That is impossible in a true place of free exchange for that to happen.’” Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. TRUMP ADMIN ASKING FEDERAL AGENCIES TO CANCEL REMAINING HARVARD CONTRACTS The Trump administration has been at odds with Harvard as it’s pushed for the academic institution to install changes to its governance and admissions process in response to incidents of bias on campus targeting Jewish students since October 2023. But Harvard University President Alan M. Garber said in April that the Trump administration included additional requests for reform that go beyond addressing antisemitism on campus, and the institution would not comply because the demands were unconstitutional. WHITE HOUSE SLAMS IVY LEAGUE INSTITUTIONS FOR ‘EGREGIOUS ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR’ AMID TRUMP FEUD WITH HARVARD Specifically, Garber said the new requests “direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard,” including auditing viewpoints of students, faculty and staff members on campus, and eliminating all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices and initiatives at Harvard. “It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” Garber wrote in an April letter. “We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement.” Since then, the Trump administration has warned it will pull all federal funding from the school, amounting to a total of $100 million in contracts. That’s on top of the $3.2 billion in grants and contracts the administration has previously frozen. TRUMP ADMIN SLASHES OVER $2.2B IN FUNDING TO HARVARD AFTER SCHOOL DEFIES DEMANDS
US judge dismisses DNC election commission lawsuit, in a victory for Trump
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) claiming President Donald Trump’s executive orders had threatened the independence of the Federal Election Committee (FEC), a significant – albeit rare – court victory for the president. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, said the DNC failed to demonstrate “concrete and imminent injury” – or the burden needed to justify their request for a preliminary injunction. He said that the concerns raised by the party about the FEC’s independence as a result of Trump’s executive order were far too speculative to satisfy the court’s higher bar for emergency relief. At issue in the case was the executive order Trump signed on Feb. 18, titled, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies.” JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA Democrats filed the lawsuit just 10 days after the order was signed, arguing that the order threatened to encroach on the independence of the FEC and risked subjecting it to the whims of the executive branch. The lawsuit focused largely on the claim that the FEC is an independent regulatory agency and argued that the credibility of the entire regulatory enterprise would be “fatally undermined if the party controlling the White House can unilaterally structure campaign rules and adjudicate disputes to disadvantage its electoral competitors.” WHO IS JUDGE AMIR ALI? THE BIDEN-APPOINTED FEDERAL JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S USAID BATTLE Notably, Ali said Tuesday that he had not found any evidence to date that the White House or the Trump administration had taken steps to change or undermine how the FEC interprets federal election law, or target its independent role. The “possibility that the president and attorney general would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury,” Ali said Tuesday. Should that change, however, Ali said the DNC was welcome to submit an amended filing to the court to reconsider the case. “This Court’s doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC’s or its Commissioners’ independence,” Ali said.
Trump tax leaker takes 5th in House inquiry into Biden DOJ plea deal
FIRST ON FOX: A man serving in prison for leaking President Donald Trump’s and thousands of others’ confidential tax records recently asserted his Fifth Amendment right to the House Judiciary Committee and declined to testify before the panel, Fox News Digital has learned. A public defender wrote to the Republican-led committee on behalf of Charles Littlejohn, a former IRS contractor serving out a five-year sentence in Illinois, that because Littlejohn was appealing his sentence, he did not have to testify before Congress. “The testimony that you seek from Mr. Littlejohn directly implicates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,” the public defender wrote on Saturday. “Mr. Littlejohn validly exercises that Constitutional right in declining to testify.” EX-IRS CONTRACTOR WHO LEAKED TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON The Republican-led House committee is investigating a plea deal Littlejohn reached with the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2023. Littlejohn admitted to prosecutors as part of the plea bargain that he carried out an elaborate scheme to access and disclose Trump’s tax information and the tax returns of thousands of the wealthiest U.S. citizens to the New York Times and ProPublica. Among those targeted were Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett. In return, Littlejohn was charged with and pleaded guilty to a single count of unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and received the maximum 60-month sentence for the charge. At the time, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, questioned the wisdom of DOJ’s decision to charge Littlejohn with one charge when thousands had been affected by his actions, saying she was “perplexed” and “troubled” by the plea deal. “The fact that he is facing one felony count, I have no words for,” Reyes said during his sentencing hearing. IRS LEAKER SOUGHT CONSULTANT ROLE WITH EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LEAKING TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS, DOJ SAYS Many Republicans also piled onto the Biden DOJ for the perceived leniency of the plea agreement. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said during the sentencing hearing it “makes no sense” and “should be called the plea deal of the century.” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) criticized prosecutors for failing “to deter future IRS employees from leaking sensitive taxpayer information.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) wrote a letter Tuesday to the Trump administration’s DOJ, obtained by Fox News Digital, requesting all communications and other records surrounding Littlejohn’s prosecution and accusing the prior administration’s DOJ of failing to provide “any substantive” information. Jordan said he learned from the IRS that Littlejohn’s breach was far more expansive than what had been established in court. “After President Trump took office, the IRS disclosed to the Committee that over 405,000 taxpayers were victims of Mr. Littlejohn’s leaks and that ‘89 [percent] of the taxpayers [we]re business entities,’” Jordan wrote. “While it is now clear that Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct violated the privacy of hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers, it remains unclear why the Biden-Harris Justice Department chose to allow him to plead guilty to only a single felony count.” A DOJ spokesman declined to comment on Jordan’s request.
Trump DOJ takes ‘unprecedented’ step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent an unprecedented letter to a Brazilian Supreme Court justice in May, admonishing the judge for ordering American-based video platform Rumble to restrict the free speech of a user on U.S. soil, describing the orders as international overreach that lack enforceability. Rumble, a popular U.S.-based video-sharing platform that bucks censorship efforts frequently found on other video and social media platforms, is at the center of an international battle to protect free speech that has been ongoing for months. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble in the South American country back in February over claims the U.S. company did not comply with court orders, including removing the accounts of a Brazilian man living in the U.S. and seeking political asylum. “If you look at what’s happening around the world, it’s clear we’re living through a perilous moment for anyone who believes in freedom of expression — a fundamental human right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and recognized globally, even by the United Nations,” Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski exclusively told Fox News Digital Tuesday following the DOJ’s May letter. RUMBLE, TRUMP MEDIA DECLARE ‘COMPLETE VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH’ IN WIN AGAINST BRAZILIAN JUDGE “The fact that Rumble has become a central player in this global fight for free speech is a powerful validation of our mission. We’re proud to stand at the front lines of this effort and grateful that President Trump and his administration have made this battle a foreign policy priority.” Moraes is now in the U.S. government’s crosshairs after the DOJ sent a letter to him in May outlining his reported international overreach into U.S. law affecting the First Amendment, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealing in a congressional hearing that the Brazilian judge could face U.S. sanctions. Moraes had ordered Rumble to remove a user from its platform as he stands accused of spreading false information online and is considered a fugitive in Brazil. Rumble refused and was threatened with financial penalties for the lack of cooperation. TRUMP-BACKED MEDIA COMPANY SUES BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, CLAIMS HE’S ILLEGALLY CENSORING FREE SPEECH The DOJ letter, dated May 7 and made public Thursday, argued that Moraes’ orders are not enforceable in the U.S. “These purported directives to Rumble are made under threat of monetary and other penalties,” the letter, signed by DOJ official Ada E. Bosque, reads. “We take no position on the enforceability of the various orders and other judicial documents directing Rumble to act within the territory of Brazil, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, to the extent that these documents direct Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully advise that such directives are not enforceable judicial orders in the United States.” The DOJ did not have additional comment to provide when approached about the letter Tuesday. Pavlovski described to Fox Digital that the letter is “unprecedented” and draws a clear line to foreign nations that they cannot attempt to thwart U.S. laws and the First Amendment. “The letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to a foreign judge over censorship orders is unprecedented,” Pavlovski said. “It draws a bright red line: foreign officials cannot issue censorship orders that violate the First Amendment or bypass U.S. law. That kind of extraterritorial overreach is incompatible with American sovereignty. And that’s good news, not just for Americans, but for free societies everywhere.” RUMBLE REVEALS CENSORSHIP DEMANDS FROM SURPRISING LIST OF COUNTRIES AS CEO TO TESTIFY ON FREE SPEECH THREATS The letter continued that there are established channels for international legal proceedings, which the DOJ said the judge bypassed, and directed the Brazilian judge to various proper procedures he could take regarding the court orders. Rumble facing restrictions in foreign nations is hardly new, with the platform currently disabled in China, Russia and France, as well as Brazil. It has also previously received censorship demands in nations such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, but has maintained its free speech objective. The DOJ’s letter comes as Rubio revealed in a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in May that the State Department is considering sanctions against Moraes under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act authorizes the U.S. government to sanction individuals overseas if determined responsible for human rights abuses or corruption. “We’ve seen pervasive censorship, political persecution targeting the entire opposition, including journalists and ordinary citizens,” Republican Florida Rep. Cory Mills asked Rubio at the hearing in May. “What they’re now doing is imminent, politically motivated imprisonment of former President Bolsonaro. This crackdown has extended beyond Brazil’s borders, impacting individuals on U.S. soil., the 2023 Financial Times article actually talked about this. What do you intend to do? And would you be looking at Supreme Court justice sanctioning of Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act?” BRAZILIAN EX-PRESIDENT BOLSONARO ORDERED TO STAND TRIAL OVER ALLEGED COUP PLAN Rubio responded, “That’s under review right now, and it’s a great, great possibility that will happen.” Days later, Rubio posted to X that the State Department will roll out visa restrictions on foreigners found “complicit” in censoring Americans. “For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio wrote on X. “Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.” “Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country,” Rubio added, not naming specific individuals responsible for such actions. “Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over.” Moraes is also overseeing the upcoming trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of allegedly attempting
Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., clashed Tuesday with a University of Pennsylvania law professor over the number of nationwide judicial injunctions imposed by district judges against President Donald Trump’s executive actions on matters including deportations, tariffs, and cuts to federal funding and the federal workforce. During the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled “The Supposedly ‘Least Dangerous Branch’: District Judges v. Trump,” Hawley displayed a bar chart to argue that nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, which had not been used until the 1960s, surged when Trump came into office for his first term and then dramatically dropped again during former President Joe Biden’s time at the White House. “Now, you don’t think this is a little bit anomalous?” Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. TRUMP CRITICIZES RAND PARL OVER TAX BILL OPPOSTION: ‘VOTES NO ON EVERYTHING’ Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News who previously worked for former President Barack Obama’s White House Counsel’s Office, responded, “A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents. Right?” “This was never used before the 1960s,” Hawley said. “And suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction. And then when Biden comes office, no, no.” Shaw cited Mila Sohoni, a Stanford Law School professor, as suggesting that the first nationwide injunction came in 1913 and others were issued in the 1920s. “The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago,” she said. “There’s many things that have changed in the last hundred or the last 50 years.” “So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions?” Hawley shot back. “If it’s a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for? How can our system of law survive on those principles?” Shaw said she believes a system where there “are no legal constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law,” but the Republican from Missouri contended that’s not what the law professor believed when Biden was president. “You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law,” Hawley said. “You said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide injunction was a politician, just judges looking like politicians in robes. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law. But you’re fine with all of that if it’s getting the result that you want.” JUDGE TO BLOCK TRUMP ADMIN’S HARVARD FOREIGN STUDENTS BAN Hawley cited Shaw’s stance in a specific abortion pill ruling during Biden’s presidency. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the Biden Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone rules, which Shaw described at the time as “a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law.” Hawley said she had failed to offer a legitimate principle for issuing nationwide injunctions now. “I understand you hate the president,” the senator told Shaw. “I understand that you love all of these rulings against him. You and I both know that’s not a principle. You’re a lawyer. What’s the principle that divides when issuing a nationwide injunction is OK and when it is not? When the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunctions, you said that they were travesties for the principle of democracy.” “When it’s Biden, it’s OK. When it’s Biden, oh, it’s a travesty. When it’s Trump in office, it’s a no holds barred, whatever it takes,” the senator added. Hawley said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues were raising “very principled injunctions” to nationwide injunctions issued against Biden just nine months ago and “all that’s changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” “I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle very much dislike that individual,” Hawley said, referring to Trump. “And I realize that you think that the rulings that he has lost are fundamentally sound.” “I disagree with all of that, but we can put that to one side. The question we’re talking about here is, ‘Should judges, single judges, district court judges be able to bind nonparties who are not in front of them?’ And you used to say no. Now you say yes,” he said. “Let’s be consistent. I would just suggest to you our system of government cannot survive if it’s going to be politics all the way down.” Shaw responded that “democracy is not as simple as majority rule,” but Hawley interjected, saying, “You would have it as simple as majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you’re for the nationwide injunction. When you don’t, you’re not.”