What to know about the Supreme Court’s blockbuster birthright citizenship case
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in what could be one of the most significant cases of the 21st century: birthright citizenship. Before the Court is whether the Trump executive order that ends birthright citizenship complies with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, after multiple judges blocked the order from taking effect as it was litigated. In plain speak, the Court will look at whether someone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen irrespective of their parents’ status. ALITO BLASTS LAWYER’S WORD-SALAD BLURRING ASYLUM LAW Given that courts have routinely upheld birthright citizenship for over a century now, the Trump administration faces an uphill battle. However, the current Court has not shied away from overturning high-profile decisions: think Dobbs overturning Roe (abortion), and Loper overturning Chevron (the administrative state). The mere fact the Court decided to take up this issue at all is very interesting. As always, the devil will be in the details in terms of how broadly, or narrowly, they decide the case – or if they find some way to punt it altogether. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Its history: The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 in response to 1) the end of the Civil War and 2) the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which concluded that enslaved people (and their children) were not American citizens and thus had no rights and couldn’t sue in federal court, among other things. Notably, Michigan Senator Jacob Howard wrote the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause and said in speeches at the time that the clause did not include “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Why this matters: In the upcoming arguments, expect a lot of discussion about what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, especially because the subsequent Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment – that a citizen is someone who is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. DC COURT RULINGS STALL TRUMP AGENDA ACROSS IMMIGRATION, POLICING, FED — RAISING STAKES ON EXECUTIVE POWER Wong Kim Ark: The 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave us birthright citizenship as we know it today. The case involved the U.S.-born adult child of Chinese nationals – who had been permanently domiciled in the U.S. – who was denied reentry into the U.S. after returning from a trip to China. At the time, it was generally difficult for Chinese nationals to become citizens. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that children born on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship with very few exceptions, such as children of diplomats. It interpreted the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to mean subject to the laws of the U.S. The Court reasoned that citizens and non-citizens alike are subject to the laws of the nation they are in. The Court emphasized that Ark’s parents were “permanently domiciled” in the U.S. This decision was controversial at the time because it ignored previous Supreme Court language that had found children born to alien parents were not citizens. However, in Wong Kim Ark, the Court dismissed that argument in its opinion, finding that previous language was mere “dicta,” i.e., language that was not necessary to those decisions, and thus, did not create binding precedent. The bottom line: This is the blockbuster case of this Supreme Court term. A decision is expected late June.
Senators defend two-week recess as record-breaking government shutdown drags on
While thousands of Department of Homeland Security employees have gone seven weeks without a paycheck, some lawmakers are defending a planned recess as the funding stalemate drags on. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., objected Monday to the idea that senators should have stayed in session until lawmakers come to an agreement to fund DHS. The Democratic lawmaker traveled to the U.S. Capitol to block potential floor action related to ending the partial government shutdown from Republicans during a planned “pro forma” session. “How do you justify being off for the next two weeks?” CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion asked Coons. “We’re 45 days in. Can Democrats and Republicans keep affording to play this play game?” “You know very well that we’re not off,” Coons responded. “We’re working every day in our home states. For most of us, this is when we have time to go up and down our state and to meet with our constituents and listen to their concerns.” DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AFTER GOP REJECTS THEIR COUNTER, THUNE SAYS SCHUMER ‘GOING IN CIRCLES’ The fiery exchange comes as tens of thousands of DHS employees have been furloughed or are reporting to work without pay during the record-breaking funding lapse. Though President Donald Trump has taken executive action to pay the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workforce with existing funds, many other DHS employees have not received a full paycheck in over seven weeks. With both chambers of Congress scheduled to be in recess until mid-April, those individuals will continue to have their pay withheld as the funding impasse drags on. Lawmakers, however, continue to be paid during the shutdown, but have the option to defer their salary during a government shutdown. The House of Representatives approved a two-month DHS funding extension measure largely along party lines late Friday evening after rejecting a bipartisan Senate deal that would have funded the whole department except for DHS and parts of the Border Patrol. Republicans advanced the measure despite Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., arguing the bill would be “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber due to opposition from Democrats. Though no Senate Republican attempted to ask for unanimous consent Monday to approve the House bill, Coons voiced frustration that lawmakers could pursue that approach during the Senate’s recess. “It is incredibly inconvenient for members to have to come back to Washington just to be there for five minutes,” Coons said. “But ultimately, if that’s what it takes, I’m willing to be the one who comes in again.” Senate Democrats have consistently refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) without sweeping reforms to rein in President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. House Republicans, conversely, have fiercely objected to not including DHS and CBP money in a DHS funding bill. “Republicans are not going to be any part of any effort to reopen our borders or to stop immigration enforcement,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Friday. TSA WARNS OF ‘LONGSTANDING’ SHUTDOWN FALLOUT EVEN AFTER FUNDING CLEARS, AND A MAJOR EVENT COULD MAKE IT WORSE Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., also defended the planned recess on Monday, telling reporters that lawmakers are continuing to negotiate as the shutdown enters its seventh week. The North Dakota lawmaker chaired a “pro forma” session during which no Senate business was considered. “TSA is getting paid, because of the president’s action, and we appreciate that very much,” Hoeven said. “Also, ICE and CBP, there is funding there from the Big Beautiful Bill. So they’re getting paid as well. Third, we’re working to set up the reconciliation bill and continuing negotiations.” Both ICE and CBP are relying on an unprecedented amount of cash from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. However, certain civilians and support staff employed by these agencies have not received a paycheck during the funding lapse. CORNYN TARGETS LAWMAKERS’ AIRPORT FAST PASS AS TSA LINES GROW DURING DHS SHUTDOWN When asked by Fox News about the thousands of DHS employees who are not being paid, Hoeven said Republicans are considering a second “big, beautiful” bill that could make DHS shutdown proof for the remainder of Trump’s presidency. “We want to now do reconciliation for three years,” Hoeven said, referring to a three-year DHS funding extension. “So the Democrats can’t do this to us again.” A second budget reconciliation package is likely to be an arduous task in an election year and could take several months to accomplish. The approach also risks dividing Republicans. House GOP Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain, R-Mich., told Fox News Digital on Friday that she would prefer funding DHS through the normal appropriations process. Amid the funding stalemate, some Senate Republicans are calling on their colleagues to return to Washington and cancel the recess. “We can’t reward unprecedented obstruction with two-week recesses,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote on social media on Sunday evening, referring to Senate Democrats. The Utah Republican was not present during the upper chamber’s pro forma session Monday.
Scorned ex-lover accuses Sinema of ‘malicious’ marriage interference
Kyrsten Sinema could be forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars in damages for an affair she had with her former bodyguard after his estranged wife sued the former senator under a 19th century law that allows jilted spouses in a handful of U.S. states to sue for a broken heart. The so-called “alienation of affection” lawsuits are currently recognized in just six U.S. states — including North Carolina, where Sinema’s former bodyguard, Matthew Ammel, had lived with his now-estranged wife, Heather Ammel, for roughly a decade. The complaint against Sinema accused her of engaging in “intentional and malicious interference” in Ammel’s marriage and sought $25,000 in damages from Sinema as a result of the allegedly “willful and wanton” conduct. KYRSTEN SINEMA RIPS SENATE DEMOCRATS FOR APPARENT FLIP-FLOP ON FILIBUSTER NOW THAT THEY NEED IT In order to succeed in the lawsuit, plaintiffs must satisfy a difficult burden of proof. First, that the marriage had real affection and a viable relationship before any third-party involvement; second, that the “love and affection” were destroyed, or significantly diminished; and third, that the defendant in question directly “caused the destruction of that marital love and affection.” Perhaps for this reason, the complaint spares no detail: it ticks through an extemporaneous timeline of Ammel’s relationship with Sinema, as a member of her security detail, a member of her staff, and later, as her romantic partner. According to the complaint, Sinema sent suggestive messages to Matthew Ammel repeatedly over Signal, the encrypted messaging app, months before he and his wife officially split. “I keep waking up during my sleep and reaching over for your arms to hold me,” Sinema told Ammel via Signal in June 2024, according to the complaint — around the same time Ammel allegedly stopped wearing his wedding ring. On another occasion, Sinema offered to “work on” Ammel’s back with a Theragun, and allegedly suggested that he bring MDMA on a work trip and offered to “guide him through a psychedelic experience,” though Sinema said she has “no recollection” of those messages. KYRSTEN SINEMA’S SWITCH TO INDEPENDENT DESCRIBED AS ‘GUT PUNCH’ TO DEMOCRATS: ‘NO WIGGLE ROOM’ At times, Heather was herself a party to the relationship, before and after the affair allegedly began. In 2023, she traveled to Las Vegas to attend a U2 concert with her husband and Sinema where they drank Dom Pérignon wine in Cindy McCain’s suite, according to the lawsuit. The two also traveled to Miami for a Taylor Swift concert in October 2024 — which the three attended out of “concern” for Ammel’s children, according to copies of the affidavit reviewed by Fox News Digital. It was the same month that Heather Ammel allegedly confronted Sinema directly by responding to one of her Signal messages. “Are you having an affair with my husband? You took a married man away from his family,” she wrote, according to the complaint. Sinema has since acknowledged having received the message. The lawsuit accuses Sinema of acting with “deliberate” interference in the marriage of her bodyguard and his now-estranged wife, who argued that the former lawmaker seduced him and thus “wrongfully and maliciously” deprived her of the “warmth, companionship” and love of their marriage. The relationship between the two is not in dispute: Sinema, who served in the Senate from 2019 to 2025, has since acknowledged her relationship with her former bodyguard, though she argued the case should be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction, since the affair in question took place “exclusively outside” the boundaries of the Tar Heel state, according to her lawyers. While these lawsuits have become increasingly rare in the 21st century, they are not unheard of — and plaintiffs in the state have at times won eye-popping payouts for such claims. In 2010, a jury in North Carolina awarded plaintiff Cynthia Shackelford a total of $9 million in compensatory and punitive damages for an “alienation of affection” lawsuit brought against her husband’s alleged mistress. More recently, 2018, a Durham County judge ordered some $8.8 million in damages be paid out to BMX show owner Keith King from the man he said stole his wife — and ruined his company. TRUMP-BACKED AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERHAUL CLEARS SENATE, WHILE HOUSE GOP RAISES RED FLAGS Sinema, for her part, says the relationship between the two became “romantic and intimate” beginning in May 2024, during a trip to Sonoma, California, and said they were subsequently “physically intimate” in the months that followed, including in Phoenix, Arizona; Aspen, Colorado; and New York City. They were not, her lawyers stressed, intimate within the physical bounds of North Carolina prior to the dissolution of Ammel’s marriage. The judge presiding over the case ordered the plaintiff, Ammel, to file a response to Sinema’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit by mid-April. Matthew Ammel filed for divorce from his wife earlier this year.
Internet erupts over ‘disqualifying’ leaked audio from Democrat in key Senate race discussing Khamenei’s death
A Michigan Democrat running for U.S. Senate is facing backlash after a report on leaked audio showing him explaining why he shouldn’t take a public position on the death of former Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei because of people in Dearborn, Michigan, who are “sad.” Progressive Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, according to a report from the Washington Free Beacon, was recorded in a staff meeting strategizing about how to address the Iranian leader’s death after he was killed during U.S. and Israel’s military action in the country. “I’m just gonna go straight to pedophilia, frankly,” El-Sayed is heard saying about his response if pressed by a reporter. “I’ll just be like, ‘Pedophile president decides that he doesn’t like the front page news, so he decides to take us into another war.’” El-Sayed also told his team, in reference to the significant Muslim population in Dearborn, “I also want to remind you guys that there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today. So, like, I just don’t want to comment on Khamenei at all. Like, I don’t think it’s worth even touching that.” SANDERS-ENDORSED SENATE CANDIDATE KNOCKED FOR ALLEGED FLIP-FLOP TO ‘HAVE IT BOTH WAYS’ ON KEY ISSUE The report sparked immediate backlash from Republicans and conservatives on social media. “Speaks volumes about the level of extremism within the El-Sayed coalition here,” Fox News radio political analyst Josh Kraushaar posted on X. “Democrats have an abundance of riches to choose from when selecting which one of their Senate candidates is the craziest, most radical, and most anti-American,” GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno posted on X. “Beyond parody,” conservative communicator Steve Guest posted on X. “Well this is insane,” GOP adviser Nathan Brand posted on X. TLAIB-BACKED SENATE CANDIDATE IN THE HOT SEAT AFTER DELETING ‘DEFUND THE POLICE’ SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS “Anyone who is sad that the Ayatollah is dead should be deported,” Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Jason Bedrick posted on X. “Disgraceful,” the Republican Jewish Coalition posted on X. In a post on X, former Biden-Harris surrogate Kevin Walling called the news “disqualifying.” Fox News Digital reached out to El-Sayed’s campaign for comment. In a statement to the Washington Free Beacon, campaign lawyers at the Sandler Reiff law firm said the recording was “obtained without the campaign’s permission” and “without knowledge that individuals were being recorded.” “The campaign is considering its legal options against the individual in question,” the statement added. El-Sayed, who is Muslim, recently faced controversy for agreeing to team up with Hasan Piker, a far-left streamer who once said “America deserved 9/11.” Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary will be held on Aug 4 as El-Sayed squares off against Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens to replace outgoing Sen. Gary Peters. The Cook Political report ranks the race as a “toss up” heading into November’s consequential midterms.
States demand power to stop drones delivering drugs, weapons into prisons
FIRST ON FOX: A coalition of more than 20 state attorneys general is urging the Trump administration to expand state authority to combat drones, warning that current federal limits and legal uncertainty are allowing contraband to be flown into prisons with little ability for local officials to stop it. “We have a situation where drones are being used to drop drugs, cellphones, weapons, razors, knives, whatever it may be behind the wire in a prison,” Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr told Fox News Digital. “It’s causing all kinds of problems.” In a Friday letter to the White House’s Task Force to Restore American Airspace Sovereignty, Carr led a group of more than 20 state attorneys general from across the country asking for “carefully defined authority” for states to detect, monitor and mitigate unauthorized drones, including stopping them before contraband is delivered. Airspace in the United States traditionally has been controlled by the federal government, leaving state and local officials with limited authority to respond to drones involved in illicit activity. UNAUTHORIZED DRONES DETECTED OVER U.S. AIR FORCE BASE HOUSING NUCLEAR-CAPABLE B-52 BOMBERS: MILITARY The task force was created by President Donald Trump to review drone threats and recommend changes to U.S. airspace policy. In recent years, however, states and law enforcement groups have increasingly pushed for expanded authority, arguing that federal restrictions have left them able to detect drone threats but not stop them in real time. Congress has started to respond, including through provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow trained state and local agencies to take limited counter-drone actions in certain circumstances, such as near prisons and critical infrastructure. But those authorities remain restricted, and many state officials say they do not go far enough. US MILITARY SHOT DOWN PARTY BALLOON NEAR EL PASO AFTER SUSPECTING DRONE, OFFICIAL SAYS Carr said the limitations have created uncertainty for officials responding to drone activity over prisons. “There is a lot of question as to whether federal law preempts state law,” he said. “It doesn’t say specifically what you’re allowed to do nor what you are prohibited from doing.” The attorneys general argued in their letter that this lack of clarity has left correctional officials — who often are the first to detect drone activity —without the tools to intervene before contraband is delivered. Georgia’s Department of Corrections averages around 58 drone incidents per month, but that figure is “just what we know and see,” Carr said. “That’s the problem.” State officials recorded roughly 500 drone-related incidents over Georgia correctional facilities in 2025, according to Carr, resulting in the seizure of nearly 1,200 cellphones. “We need to give corrections and law enforcement the tools they need to stop it before it becomes a mass casualty event.” PENTAGON WATCHDOG WARNS DRONE INCURSIONS REQUIRE ‘IMMEDIATE ATTENTION’ AT US MILITARY BASES The push from state attorneys general comes amid a broader effort by state and local officials to gain greater authority over drones, particularly as their use in criminal activity has increased. Law enforcement groups and corrections officials have in recent years urged Congress to expand counter-drone powers, arguing that while agencies can often detect unauthorized drones, they lack the legal authority to stop them. “Detection without mitigation is not a viable strategy for public safety,” a group of 17 law enforcement groups wrote in a letter to Congress in August 2025. “Now is the time to act to provide law enforcement with the authority and tools necessary to meet this moment.” “We commend Congress for supporting proposals that provide funding for drone detection and tracking systems. But without corresponding legal authority to mitigate threats, that funding cannot be fully leveraged to protect our people.” The 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2028 Summer Olympics, which will be hosted in Los Angeles, bring added urgency to the matter. The White House could not immediately be reached for comment on the letter.
GOP lawmaker draws line on Iran ground war as Pentagon weighs options
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said the Iranian people will have to “grab the bull by the horns” amid their fight against the Iranian regime because U.S. lawmakers don’t have “a will for ground conflict between America and Iran.” Burchett’s comments came during an appearance on NewsNation on Sunday in response to exiled Iranian Prince Reza Pahlavi’s speech at CPAC. Pahlavi urged American military leaders to “stay the course” and to continue to “pave the way for the Iranian people to finish the job” to ensure a free Iran. “I don’t think there’s a will for a ground conflict between America and Iran,” Burchett said. “I know a lot of Republicans don’t support that, and I know all the Democrats won’t support it.” IRAN VOWS ENEMIES WON’T ESCAPE WITHOUT A “LESSON” AMID WARNING OF ‘MAJOR WORLD WAR’ AND MORE TOP HEADLINES Last Wednesday, Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., posted on X that she “walked out of a House Armed Services briefing on Iran.” “Let me repeat: I will not support troops on the ground in Iran, even more so after this briefing,” Mace posted on X. IRAN’S INTERNET BLACKOUT HIDING STRIKE DAMAGE AND SUPPRESSING DISSENT, ISRAELI OFFICIALS SAY The United States is now more than a month into its war with Iran, and the Trump administration is deciding its next moves. The Pentagon has deployed 2,500 Marines and 2,500 to the Middle East, equating to 50,000 American troops in the region. This is roughly 10,000 more than usual. The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon is drawing up plans for weeks of ground strikes in Iran, but the White House press secretary said in a statement to the outlet that it “does not mean the President has made a decision.” NewsNation host Anna Kooiman asked Burchett whether a Pentagon ground invasion would become a “red line” for some Republicans. “I think it is, but I don’t think we’re there yet,” Burchett said. “I don’t think we’re at the point. I think we need to encourage Middle East partners to engage if a land conflict does take place. I think there’s a clear divide, though. You know, Iran, when this thing started, Israel was allowed to fly over Saudi airspace, which, to me, sent a very clear message to Iran. They’re tired of this. The Middle East is tired of it.” Fox News Digital reached out to Burchett’s office for comment.
Legal powerhouse accused of bailing on panel exposing their ‘monopoly’ over law school accreditation
FIRST ON FOX: The American Bar Association’s expected panelist from its council on law school accreditation ended up no-showing at a conservative Federalist Society event about the ABA’s “monopoly” on law school accreditation. The Trump administration has accused the ABA of acting as a politicized gatekeeper, executive agencies have restricted their members from attending ABA events, and its diversity-related law school accreditation standards have been regarded as unlawful. Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi later escalated that effort by telling the ABA it would no longer receive special access to the judicial vetting process, which followed concerns its rating process for federal judicial nominees was biased as well. . At the Thursday event, which was held across the street from where the ABA was holding its spring antitrust conference, America First Legal President Gene Hamilton suggested the ABA no-showed because the group’s position on the matter is “indefensible.” “I don’t know all the backstory. I mean, I’m just a moderator, but I think that there’s a certain amount – if I was a betting man – my suspicion is that the ABA’s status quo and their position and their involvement in the process is indefensible from the perspective of somebody who tries to present themselves as being an unbiased, uninterested party that is just simply involved in accrediting law schools,” said Hamilton. DOJ BLASTS ‘PARTISAN’ DC BAR COMPLAINT AGAINST SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIAL “When they’re confronted with hard facts and evidence and data and actual experiences from real people, multiple people, not just one person, but multiple people, it doesn’t make for a great environment if you’re trying to maintain an image that does not match reality.” The panelists at Thursday’s event pointed to what they described as concrete, firsthand clashes with the ABA and the legal institutions tied to it. First Assistant Attorney General of Texas, Brent Webster, for example, argued that the politicization of the legal establishment became real for him when the State Bar of Texas sought to strip him and Attorney General Ken Paxton of their law licenses over litigation Texas had filed after the 2020 election. Webster said that fight, which ended with the Texas Supreme Court vindicating him, helped expose to Texas officials how deeply bar institutions had been “radicalized” and contributed to the state’s decision to loosen the ABA’s hold over law-school approval. Meanwhile, David Dewhirst, Solicitor General for the State of Florida, made a parallel argument through the experience of St. Thomas University’s law school in Miami, which he said was left in prolonged uncertainty by the ABA over whether its Catholic identity could coexist with the ABA’s nondiscrimination standards, especially on sexual orientation and gender identity. TRUMP LAWYER IN JACK SMITH CASE DRAWS CONSERVATIVE BACKING AFTER DOJ PRAISE RATTLES ‘ELITE’ LEGAL CONFERENCE Together, those stories were presented as real-world examples of the broader complaint underscored at the Thursday event – that the ABA is no longer acting as a neutral professional body, but as an ideological gatekeeper with the power to shape who gets trained, licensed and recognized in the legal profession. A representative from the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar said former Colorado Supreme Court Justice and Chair-elect of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Bar Admissions, Melissa Hart, was not even aware she had been listed as a panelist. They added that the invitation, sent to them on March 13, according to the Federalist Society, was “last-minute” and no one was available to attend, despite the Federalist society telling Fox News that their open invite to the ABA had been confirmed about a week after it was sent. “From the perspective of the ABA, when they’re under significant pressure right now from both the federal administration, the states and a lot of people waking up to their shenanigans – it makes it a tough time to be in an environment that is a little bit more direct and blunt and to the point,” Hamilton added about the ABA’s absence at the event. At the event, Hamilton unveiled a new report from America First Legal, which showed ABA’s Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs, over the last decade, has produced 80% of left-leaning liberal arguments, 20% neutral and zero that are conservatively aligned. In all six cases, the ABA has filed amicus briefs involving Trump, the ABA went against the president or his allies. “The ABA requires that amicus briefs be authorized by its board of governors and must be consistent with existing ABA policy or involve matters of ‘special significance to lawyers or the legal profession,’” a press release from AFL argued. “Briefs on birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors and the Texas heartbeat law fall well outside that mandate,” AFL said in a press release announcing the new research.
Trump admin launches Gen Z hiring push as officials warn of federal youth gap
EXCLUSIVE: The Trump administration is launching a new effort to “make government cool again” by hiring Gen Z workers to rebuild the federal talent pipeline after a year of Department of Government Efficiency cuts and to compete more aggressively with the private sector, Fox News Digital has learned. Officials told Fox News Digital that only about 7% of the federal workforce is under age 30 — something Trump administration officials want to change, saying it “poses long-term risks to government readiness and institutional strength.” That 7% is compared to about 22% of the non-government workforce. “By a factor of 3:1, the federal government is massively under-indexed on early career talent,” an official said. FLASHBACK: DOGE’S GREATEST HITS: LOOK BACK AT THE DEPARTMENT’S MOST HIGH-PROFILE CUTS DURING TRUMP’S FIRST 100 DAYS The focus on hiring is a shift from this time last year, when OPM was part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Last year, more than 75,000 federal employees accepted a deferred resignation program—with more than 280,000 layoffs of federal workers and contractors. Officials defended the new hiring move as one focused on competing with the private sector, explaining the number of DOGE reductions among younger employees was minimal. “DOGE helped cut back where government was too large or inefficient,” an administration official told Fox News Digital. “This focus is on hiring—rebuilding the federal workforce with skilled early-career talent who can help tackle the challenges facing our country.” DOGE SLASHES ‘WASTEFUL’ ‘PROBLEM-SOLVING’ CONTRACT WORTH $50K IN LATEST ROUND OF ELIMINATIONS The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in partnership with the White House, is launching a new “Early Career Talent Network” designed to connect emerging professionals with full-time career opportunities across the federal government. The cross-agency, early career talent network can be found at Earlycareers.gov — where officials are encouraging young people to apply as they seek to bring a “broad cohort of full-time employees into the federal workforce.” Officials say they are starting with five categories where they see current demand for early career talent— finance, human resources, engineering, project management and procurement. Individuals will be hired “based on demonstrated talent,” not based on where or whether they went to college or how long they have been in a job, Fox News Digital learned. “Building a strong pipeline of early-career talent is essential to the future of the federal workforce,” OPM Director Scott Kupor said. “We are making it easier for talented individuals to connect with meaningful careers in public service while helping agencies efficiently identify the talent they need to deliver results for the American people.” BEN CARSON POINTS TO GEN Z CHURCH REVIVAL AS YOUNG AMERICANS PUSH BACK ON SECULAR CULTURE An official told Fox News Digital that Kupor wants to “get the word out that folks early in their career can come to government, work on critically important, unique projects where they learn skills that will be marketable to both the private and public sector in the future.” “He wants to make government cool again,” the official said. Officials plan to visit college and university campuses later this year to expand their recruitment efforts.
New AI coalition targets Washington, Big Tech as group warns child safety risks outpacing safeguards
As artificial intelligence expands into classrooms, workplaces, and homes, a new coalition warns that risks to children and workers are growing faster than efforts to control the new technology. The newly formed Alliance for a Better Future (ABF) is pushing for AI safeguards as Washington debates regulation. “We know that we’ve got to decide, is this great new technology going to be something that propels kids into the future or something that causes harm to them?” ABF CEO Janet Kelly told Fox News Digital. JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT SLAMS BIG TECH FOR SEXTORTION, THREATS TO CHILDREN WHILE CALLING FOR KEY INTERNET REFORM “We are on the side of families who want to make sure that it is done well and that it is good for kids, and we believe that that is possible,” Kelly added. The group is launching as AI spreads quickly into everyday life with little oversight, even as Washington scrambles to catch up. Supporters warn the decisions being made now will shape whether the technology protects families or puts them at risk. ABF debuted with a striking video featuring congressional testimony from parents whose children were harmed, some driven toward suicide, after interacting with AI chatbots. NEW PRO-AI GROUP BACKED BY TRUMP ALLIES PLANS $100M MIDTERM SPENDING PUSH Positioning itself as both pro-innovation and pro-family, ABF argues AI can deliver enormous benefits but only if developed responsibly. “We believe that it’s possible to make great AI with American values, not just Silicon Valley values,” said Kelly, a mother of three. She added that policymakers must focus on the interests of children, workers and creators, not just the companies building the technology. ABF plans to engage aggressively at both the federal and state levels, equipped with targeted ads and public education campaigns. The group expects to spend at least eight figures this year to elevate the voices of concerned parents and workers. The organization builds on earlier battles over online child safety, bringing multiple groups under one umbrella. Its policy council is chaired by Dr. Brad Littlejohn of American Compass and includes representatives from the Family Policy Alliance, National Center on Sexual Exploitation, Institute for Family Studies, Heritage Foundation, and American Principles Project.
Federal election complaint alleges AOC misused campaign funds for psychiatrist services
A watchdog group filed a federal election complaint alleging Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., improperly used campaign funds to pay nearly $19,000 to Boston-based psychiatrist Dr. Brian Boyle for what her campaign reported as “leadership training and consulting.” The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) alleged in a March 27 complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC) that Ocasio-Cortez, her campaign committee and its treasurer should be investigated over three 2025 payments to Boyle totaling $18,725. “NLPC alleges that AOC’s expenditure of almost $19,000 of campaign funds in 2025 to psychiatrist Dr. Brian W. Boyle ostensibly for ‘leadership training and consulting’ was expended instead for personal psychiatric services provided to AOC or members of her campaign staff,” NLPC counsel Paul Kamenar wrote in the complaint. “Accordingly, those expenses were also misreported by the campaign committee with the FEC. “NLPC requests that the FEC and OCC immediately investigate the facts and circumstances of these payments and impose appropriate penalties and disciplinary sanctions against AOC.” INDICTED DEMOCRAT REP SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK ONE STEP CLOSER TO EXPULSION Boyle is an “interventional psychiatrist” who specializes in treating depression, PTSD and anxiety, specifically through ketamine therapy. “Nowhere does Dr, Boyle advertise offering ‘Leadership Training’ or ‘consulting’ services to candidates or their campaign,” the letter added. “Communications to Dr. Boyle and AOC’s campaign to comment on these expenditures went unanswered.” JEFFRIES DECLINES TO BREAK WITH INDICTED DEMOCRAT AFTER ETHICS PANEL’S GUILTY VERDICT According to the complaint, the payments were made on March 10, May 15 and Oct. 1, 2025, and were disclosed as “Leadership Training and Consulting.” On page 2, the filing lists those payments as $11,550, $2,800 and $4,375, totaling $18,725. The complaint, citing federal election law and House ethics guidance, contends campaign money cannot be used for personal expenses and argues the key question is whether the expense would exist regardless of candidacy. It says that if the services were therapeutic rather than campaign-related, they could amount to prohibited personal use. On pages 5 through 7, the filing quotes FEC and House standards requiring campaign expenditures to be both bona fide and verifiable. “There is reason to believe that AOC’s use of campaign funds to pay for a psychiatrist who has no experience in ‘leadership training’ was not for a ‘bona fide campaign or political purpose,’ but rather for personal psychiatric therapy for AOC or her campaign staff,” Kamenar wrote. AOC SPENT OVER $53K IN CAMPAIGN FUNDS ON LUXURY HOTELS IN 2025: ‘CARPETBAGGER’ The allegations follow reporting by the New York Post, which noted Boyle is known for interventional psychiatry and as “a leading authority on ketamine” — the controlled substance that was given to late “Friends” star Matthew Perry. The complaint itself does not establish wrongdoing, but asks regulators to determine whether the payments were misreported and whether any campaign-finance or House rules were violated. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign or office has not yet responded to Fox News requests for comment. AOC SAYS POLITICIANS, ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATS, SHOULD PROMISE NOT TO ACCEPT ‘AI MONEY’ Ocasio-Cortez has in the past spoken publicly about needing therapy. “Oh yeah, I’m doing therapy but also I’ve just slowed down,” Ocasio-Cortez told People in 2021. She has in the past been an advocate for reviewing Schedule I drugs to remove barriers to scientific research and promote the therapeutic potential of psychedelic substances like marijuana, psilocybin and MDMA. “Right now our law says these drugs have zero medical application but the science says something else,” Ocasio-Cortez said last week during a House Health Subcommittee hearing. “Not only that, but the wealth of medical research shows that these are potential treatments for treatment resistant PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, but the schedule classification really prevents researchers from continuing to do work on this.” She argued that increasing Schedule 1 prohibitive drugs and criminal penalties has not slowed overdoses, but has doubled them in the state of Florida.