Ethics panel clears Gallego as Luna declares, ‘Once a creep, always a creep’
The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed a complaint against Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., that alleged the lawmaker committed sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations. The probe was spurred by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who earlier this year charged that there were “very disturbing” allegations against a sitting senator in the wake of the scandal-filled downfall of former-Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a close friend of Gallego’s. But after a nearly monthlong investigation into the matter, the committee told Gallego in a letter on Monday that there wasn’t evidence to back up Luna’s claims. ‘DISTURBING’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UNNAMED SENATOR UNDER REVIEW IN WAKE OF SCANDALS ROCKING CONGRESS “We are writing to inform you that the Select Committee on Ethics (the Committee) dismissed a complaint filed against you by Representative Anna Paulina Luna,” the panel stated. “Specifically, the complaint alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.” “In response to your request for an investigation, the Committee referred these allegations to you and requested additional information on April 17 and May 15, 2026,” the letter continued. “Based on the investigation of the Committee, the Committee did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules, or related standards of conduct.” Gallego said in a statement that the Ethics Committee’s decision “reaffirms what I have said about these accusations from the beginning: they were right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House and their allies.” SENATOR GALLEGO SAYS LONGTIME FRIENDSHIP WITH SWALWELL ‘CLOUDED MY JUDGMENT’ AS RUMORS SWIRLED IN DC “I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families,” Gallego said. “In the meantime, I will continue fighting for Arizonans and holding Trump Republicans accountable for high costs and new wars.” But an apology from Luna is unlikely. The lawmaker shot back on X that the allegations “are not conspiracy theories. You’re a gross example of representation.” SWALWELL FRIEND GALLEGO DEFENDS CAMPAIGN-FUNDED SUPER BOWL, MIAMI TRIPS: ‘GO WHERE THE MONEY IS’ “Need I mention you leaving your pregnant wife during your campaign for Senate? There are plenty of people who know about your antics,” Luna said. “The good news about D.C. is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts,” she continued. “Do yourself a favor and keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep, always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.” Luna’s allegations against Gallego came shortly after Swalwell resigned from the House following a bombshell report from The San Francisco Chronicle that the ex-lawmaker allegedly sexually assaulted a former staffer. Gallego moved to quickly put distance between himself and Swalwell and argued that his tight-knit relationship “clouded my judgment,” regarding rumors that swirled about the ex-lawmaker for years in Washington, D.C. Gallego has recently come under scrutiny for a report from Politico that he spent thousands in campaign cash on luxury travel, Super Bowl tickets and childcare. “This is not breaking news,” Gallego told the outlet. “With the rising costs of childcare and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”
Conservatives revolt after Trump-appointed Barrett joins liberals in ‘shockingly wrong’ mail ballot ruling
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett faced the wrath of conservatives on social media on Monday after she authored the majority opinion ruling in favor of a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in elections even if they are received after Election Day. The court was split 5-4 on the ruling with Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump, writing the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett’s opinion held that Election Day, in the context of federal law, set a deadline for when voters must make a choice regarding their preferred candidate but said that relevant laws have no standard for when ballots must be received to be considered valid. Barrett was quickly criticized by conservative commentators and politicians. AMY CONEY BARRETT CALLS ROE V WADE ‘FREE-FLOATING’ DECISION THAT JUDGES ‘READ INTO’ CONSTITUTION “A shockingly wrong opinion,” Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt posted on X. “Justice Barrett joins with the liberal justices to hold that federal election law does not preempt states who allow late mail-in ballots to be counted. This is terrible for election integrity. Another reason we must pass the full SAVE American Act.” “Barrett is the biggest conservative judicial disaster since Souter,” conservative author Hans Mahncke posted on X. “The difference is that few conservatives expected much from Souter whereas Barrett was supposed to be the future of the Court. The worst part is that she’ll be there pushing leftist policies for another 40 years.” “Amy Coney Barrett continues to disappoint in far too many high-profile cases,” political commentator Josh Hammer posted on X. “Remember Election Day?” Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh’s office posted on X. “This disastrous SCOTUS decision, authored by Justice Barrett, guarantees we’ll keep drifting away from it — as our sacred elections get bogged down by endless mail-in ballots and never-ending counts.” “Amy Coney Barrett is the worst choice ever among all GOP justices,” retired U.S. Army captain Seth Keshel posted on X. “And that includes Roberts. What a disappointment she is.” REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP WEIGHS ‘NUKING’ FILIBUSTER TO PASS TRUMP’S SAVE ACT “She quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 59, speaks of the Framers’ intent, and repeatedly invokes history as its guide,” constitutional attorney Krisanne Hall posted on X. “But when the historical evidence becomes inconvenient, Barrett quietly sets it aside. Barrett engages in judicial activism disguised as selective originalism.” Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, said in a statement that the ruling is “deeply disappointing and misses the mark.” “Federal law is clear: all ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted,” Snead wrote. “The Court missed a major opportunity to reinforce election integrity and instead sides with California-style chaos. As Justice Alito makes clear in his dissent, watching ballots trickle in after Election Day and flip races does nothing but damage public trust in our system of government.” Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner and Senior Legal Fellow in AAF’s Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, said in a statement that the ruling is a “grave disappointment.” “As Justice Samuel Alito says in his dissent, joined by three other justices, not only is Justice Amy Comey Barrett’s opinion inconsistent with the plain text of those laws and historical practice and precedents, it ‘risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity,’” von Spakovsky wrote. The ruling prompted many to reiterate the importance of the SAVE Act, Trump’s long-sought voter ID and citizenship verification legislation, including Republican Rep. Greg Steube who posted on X, “The Senate filibuster is the only thing standing in the way. Nuke it!” Trump reacted to the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “tremendous loss” and stressing the importance that all voters must show a photo ID and proof of citizenship and that there should be “no mail-in” ballots except for specific exceptions. “There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” Trump wrote. “There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” Trump added, “The House of Representatives has approved this vital Act, THREE TIMES. The United States Senate seems unable to do so. In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th, all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. There can be no more excuses!” Fox News Digital’s Robert Schmad and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.
Trump voters say costs are crushing their wallets — but look past president for blame
Supporters attending President Donald Trump’s rally on the National Mall acknowledged feeling the pinch from higher gas prices, but they largely declined to blame Trump — instead pointing to the Iran conflict and lingering frustration with inflation under former President Joe Biden. “My least favorite president ran gas up to about $5 a gallon for no reason, and that was Mr. Biden,” said Billy of North Carolina. Fox News Digital spoke with Americans who gathered on the National Mall Wednesday evening for President Donald Trump’s rally kicking off the “Great American State Fair” celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary, where attendees weighed in on whether they are feeling pain in their pockets as affordability concerns loom over the war with Iran and midterm elections in November. “Affordability has a lot to do with just interest rates that went up the highest in 48 years under President Biden, so it’s going to take some time to get those prices back down to where we were before that,” said James McNair of Maryland. GAS SURGE TIED TO IRAN CONFLICT HITS SWING STATES, TESTING TRUMP’S LOW-PRICE PITCH “I’m not that concerned about the affordability thing. I think that our president is probably the best businessman to ever be president, and things will turn,” added James’ brother, David. “Being in Gen Z, everything’s very expensive now,” William of New York said in summary. Many attendees shared that while they recognize gas prices are high, they attribute the recent spike to the escalating conflict with Iran—a development they continue to support. TRUMP PROMISED LOWER COSTS; THE IRAN CONFLICT NOW THREATENS THAT PLEDGE “I don’t think the prices in general have gotten any worse than when Biden was in the administration,” said Lisa of Maryland. Before the war, the national average price of gasoline was $2.98 per gallon. Prices climbed to a peak of $4.56 per gallon in late May before gradually declining to $3.87 per gallon by the end of June. Lisa and her husband, Matt, both served in the Army and expressed diverging opinions on affordability and Trump’s handling of Iran. PENTAGON ESTIMATES IRAN WAR COST $11.3B IN THE FIRST SIX DAYS IN CLOSED-DOOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARING: REPORT “Prices have definitely gone up and they do get my attention,” said Matt of Maryland. Matt shared that his drill sergeants were warning him of being deployed to Iran back in 1985. “Here we are today in 2026, still dealing with this problem.” “If we’re worried about gas prices, we’re going to be worrying again and again and again until we get a handle on regimes that just don’t share our values,” said Matt. BLACKROCK CEO LARRY FINK ARGUES US-IRAN CONFLICT WON’T DERAIL ECONOMY AS GAS PRICES SURGE Norma Holm of Indiana also said she believed Iran would eventually have to be dealt with and that it was better to address the issue head-on than leave it for the next generation. “We are taking it for the team with the gas prices and everything else, but things are stabling, and President Trump, don’t underestimate him.” Washington and Tehran agreed to halt military strikes in the region with delegations scheduled to meet June 30 in Doha, Qatar for talks. Other attendees are hoping that a resolution to the Iran conflict will lead to lower prices. “As the Iran war comes to an end and the peace deal hopefully gels, we’ll see. I think gas prices are already coming down, not tremendously, not where we would like to see, but those things take time,” said James of New York.
Explained: How Lisa Cook’s three home loans became central to Trump’s fight over her Federal Reserve seat
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s legal battle against President Donald Trump centered, in part, on a trio of mortgages she obtained before joining the nation’s central bank. The loans, tied to properties in Michigan, Georgia and Massachusetts, drew scrutiny regarding whether Cook misrepresented how the homes would be used — as primary residences or otherwise. Trump cited those allegations in his effort to boot her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, arguing they constituted cause for her removal. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 that Cook can remain on as a Fed governor while her separate lawsuit challenging her firing proceeds. WHO IS LISA COOK? THE FED GOVERNOR AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT FIGHT Cook challenged Trump’s attempt to oust her in federal court, arguing that the move was unlawful and threatened the Federal Reserve‘s independence. Her lawsuit, filed Aug. 28, did not address allegations that she listed two homes as a primary residence on mortgage documents. The allegations originated with Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee who oversees the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pulte, who is now acting Director of National Intelligence, linked Cook to the trio of properties in referrals sent to the Justice Department, which later confirmed it had opened a criminal investigation into allegations of mortgage application fraud. The mortgages cited in the Justice Department probe were issued in 2021, before former President Joe Biden nominated Cook to the Federal Reserve Board. At issue were the preferential terms that come with primary-residence loans, which lenders typically view as lower risk than mortgages for vacation homes or rental properties. Cook disclosed all three mortgages in a financial filing with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in June 2025, listing them alongside her income, retirement accounts and investments. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OPENS CRIMINAL PROBE INTO FED’S LISA COOK The filing also showed that Cook earned more than $50,000 a year in rental income from her Cambridge, Massachusetts, condominium. Pulte alleged in his DOJ referral that Cook represented the Cambridge condominium as a second home rather than an investment property, despite reporting rental income from the unit. Cook bought the condo in 2002 when she was a professor at Harvard University. For this property, she obtained a 15-year loan for $361,000 at a rate of 2.5% in April 2021. Two months later, Cook secured a mortgage for a three-bedroom home in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The 15-year loan for $203,000 at a 2.87% rate through the University of Michigan Credit Union covered the 1,800-square-foot property. At the time, she taught economics and international relations at Michigan State University, roughly an hour’s drive away. She also obtained a $540,000, 30-year mortgage for a luxury condo above the Four Seasons Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. The loan, issued by the Bank Fund Staff Federal Credit Union, carried a 3.25% interest rate. A RARE FILING IN THE LISA COOK–TRUMP CASE COULD SWAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES In that loan agreement, Cook “affirmed that this property would serve as her primary residence within 60 days of the execution of the mortgage and would serve as her primary residence for a full year,” according to Pulte’s referral letter to the Justice Department. Cook has not publicly explained why both the Michigan and Georgia properties were designated as her primary residence. Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, denied the allegations in a Sept. 2 filing, writing that Cook “did not ever commit mortgage fraud.”
Wife of Louis Farrakhan dead at 90
Khadijah Farrakhan, the wife of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, died at the age of 90. The two had been married for 72 years. “The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan with deep sadness yet with profound gratitude to Allah informs you that his beloved wife of 72 years, the First Lady of the Nation of Islam, Mother Khadijah has returned to Allah (may Allah be pleased),” a Saturday statement by The Executive Council of the Nation of Islam from Student Minister Ishmael R. Muhammad said. WHAT IS THE NATION OF ISLAM? “We thank Allah for the precious life of a loving wife, mother, a faithful devoted follower of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Mother Khadijah will forever be cherished and remembered. May Allah give His unequaled comfort to the family as we mourn this tremendous loss and lift the family in our prayers and thoughts,” the statement continued. “Allah, there is no God but He, He gives life and to Him is our eventual return. Funeral (Janazah) services will be sent as soon as it’s available,” the statement concluded. Farrakhan, who survives his wife, is 93. WHO IS LOUIS FARRAKHAN? WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL NATION OF ISLAM LEADER Born Betsy Ross, Khadijah Farrakhan married her husband, then named Louis Walcott, in Boston on Sept. 12, 1953. DEM CANDIDATE CAUGHT ON CAMERA APPLAUDING NOTORIOUS ANTISEMITE’S VIOLENT RHETORIC: ‘YOU BREAK HIS NECK’ The couple had nine children — sons Louis Farrakhan Jr. and Joshua Farrakhan passed away in 2018 and 2023 respectively. The Associated Press contributed to this report .
Who is Lisa Cook? The central bank governor at the heart of the Supreme Court’s Trump-Fed showdown
Lisa Cook’s ascension to the Federal Reserve was historic from the start. Appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2022, she became the first black woman to serve as a governor on the Fed board — a seven-member panel that sets national interest rates and oversees the banking system. Now, she stands at the center of another historic moment, as the Supreme Court ruled Monday against President Donald Trump’s effort to fire her, preserving long-standing protections around the central bank’s independence. TRUMP VS THE FEDERAL RESERVE: HOW THE CLASH REACHED UNCHARTED TERRITORY Cook’s legal fight traces back to late August, when Trump said he was firing her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the seven-member body that helps set monetary policy and oversee the U.S. banking system. He alleged she misrepresented information tied to a trio of mortgages she obtained before joining the central bank. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. She sued Trump in federal court in Washington, D.C., to block her removal from the nation’s most powerful central bank. On Sept. 9, a district court judge barred Trump from firing her while the case proceeds, a decision later upheld by a federal appeals court. A RARE FILING IN THE LISA COOK–TRUMP CASE COULD SWAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Before joining the Fed board, the Oxford alumna and UC Berkeley-trained economist built a career in academia, including faculty roles at Harvard University and Michigan State University. A graduate of Spelman College, Cook has been described by American economist Barry Eichengreen as “part economist and historian,” with command of several languages, including French, Russian, Spanish and Wolof — a widely spoken language in Senegal. Cook has also held senior roles in government, serving as a senior economist on then-President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2011 to 2012. Before that, she served as a senior adviser on finance and development in the Treasury Department’s Office of International Affairs. She joined the Fed board in May 2022 and was reappointed in September 2023 for a term that runs through January 2038.
Jeffries’ socialism dilemma: New York victories expose Democratic Party divide
The man looks tired. Veteran observers of Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries know at a glance when the fellow isn’t catching his Zs. Some politicians bark gruffly when they are under pressure. Others become wildly frenetic. Some pick fights. Others go quiet, and retreat. Jeffries gets puffy. It has been one of those tells that longtime Empire State and Washington, D.C. hands have noticed for years. When the Brooklyn Democrat appears on morning television looking a little baggy, a tad swollen around the eyes; when he speaks in his trademark measured cadence but stumbles over the elucidation; when he presents the unmistakable glaze of someone who has squeezed three hours of sleep into what should have been a seven-hour night, it usually means he spent the evening on the phone. HAKEEM JEFFRIES CONFRONTED ON ‘YOU’RE NEXT’ CHANTS FOLLOWING NY DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST VICTORIES Counting votes. Putting out fires. Trying to solve a problem. Since Tuesday, the problem has been coming from inside his own party. Not Donald Trump. Not Republicans. Not the economy. Not the spending bill. The Democratic Party. More specifically, the Democratic Socialists of America inside the Democratic Party. For much of the last week, Jeffries has found himself staring transfixed at perhaps the most difficult political challenge of his career — immobilized not because he does not know what he thinks, but because he knows exactly what he thinks. He believes Democrats need to look mainstream to win swing districts. He believes affordability is a stronger message than ideology. He believes most Americans don’t want a political revolution. And he surely believes that Republicans — from President Donald Trump on down — cannot wait to compel every rival candidate to answer for the most controversial voices inside the Democratic Party. That has always been the danger of ideological movements. They rarely stay quaintly confined to the neighborhoods where they first emerge. They spread. They redefine brands. They force everyone wearing the same jersey to bear responsibility for the teammates they did not recruit. This week, such a menace landed squarely on Jeffries’ desk. The source of the headache was New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s stunning Democratic victory last November now has staged a second, hugely consequential act, as three candidates backed by Mamdani — Brad Landler, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier — won congressional primaries. Valdez and Chevalier are both members of the Democratic Socialists of America. The victories are significant for reasons that resonate far beyond New York. For years, the Democratic establishment has comforted itself with the belief that support for democratic socialism was limited to a handful of safe districts represented by colorful personalities who generated cable-news segments but exercised limited influence over the broader direction of the party. Tuesday suggested something different. Democratic socialists did not merely sustain their corner of the party with fringe support, they expanded it — and expanded it in Jeffries’ own backyard. It is difficult to overstate the implications of such a predicament for the Democratic leader. Jeffries is not Bernie Sanders, nor is he Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rather, Jeffries has spent years carefully cultivating an image as a disciplined institutionalist — a modern Democratic leader capable of appealing to progressives without frightening suburban moderates. His personal politics always have been considerably closer to the political center than to those of the raucous activists in his coalition. He is, by temperament and instinct, a coalition builder. Coalition builders do not enjoy civil wars. It is a major hurdle for Jeffries to explain and finesse the ballooning faction without detonating a timebomb inside his party. Almost immediately after Tuesday’s results, reporters and anchors began asking Jeffries his opinion of the new nominees — not whether he supported them, but whether he supported what they unequivocally endorsed. It was an impossible line of questioning precisely because everyone already knew the answer. Jeffries does not believe America should abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prisons or the police force. He has never argued for dismantling capitalism, nor has he embraced many of the wider ideological positions associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. So, he did what experienced political leaders often do when trapped between principle and practicality. He tried to change the subject. In interview after interview, Jeffries gently, nebulously, acknowledged that he did not share every position or previous statement made by the nominees. He steered the conversation toward affordability, alternate Democratic victories and the overarching national map. It was classic Hakeem Jeffries: polite, measured, disciplined and careful. But politics rarely allows careful people to remain above the fray forever, and, before long, one of the nominees, Chevalier, became a national story. Opposition researchers — and increasingly, reporters — began to dredge up years of Chevalier’s social-media posts and public statements, staunchly expressed and clearly defined. She did indeed call for abolishing police and prisons, and argued for eliminating borders and ICE. She harshly, profanely, criticized Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, and decried America as “a f—— disgrace.” Her many posts involving race, white women, and interracial relationships spread rapidly, first across conservative media and then on MSNOW and CNN. For many, it does not matter that she has deleted and repudiated some of the posts. One Democratic Party stalwart told me ruefully, “Chevalier is our David Duke. She is poisoning the possibility of a Democratic majority.” AOC ISSUES WARNING TO HER FELLOW DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS IN THE WAKE OF SOCIALISTS WINNING BIG IN NYC But another Democrat familiar with the House caucus, who has been aligned with the progressive wing, offered me an opposing view. “The reality is that the energy of the party in primaries is anti-genocide, anti-billionaire and for Medicare-for-all. Many centrists and House Democratic members are having a hard time coming to terms with this. But that’s where voters primary are. They are unfortunately jamming Jeffries unnecessarily instead of letting him embrace the progressive wing.” Whether Chevalier’s comments are viewed as youthful activism, sincere ideological conviction or political malpractice, they guarantee one thing: the questions
Supreme Court rules on mail-in ballots received after Election Day
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in elections even if they are received after Election Day. The court was split 5-4 on the ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett’s opinion held that Election Day, in the context of federal law, set a deadline for when voters must make a choice regarding their preferred candidate. Relevant laws, however, impose no standard for when ballots must be received to be considered valid. SCOTUS TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received,” she wrote. “Election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.” Justice Samuel Alito, writing his dissent, took a different view of what it means for the electorate to have made a choice. “If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day,” he wrote. “The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made.” SUPREME COURT HANDS TRUMP TWO MAJOR IMMIGRATION VICTORIES If the Supreme Court had ruled that ballots received after election day were invalid, 14 states, three U.S. territories and Washington, D.C. would have been forced to change their voting laws ahead of the midterm elections. Military ballots, which often arrive after election day, took center stage as the case played out. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the federal law governing military and overseas absentee voting, makes repeated reference to ballot-receipt deadlines under different state laws, something the majority argued would not be the case if Congress had already established a national standard for when ballots need to be received. “I disagree with counting ballots after election day, but Barrett’s argument is persuasive that federal statutes recognize state leeway in counting ballots after election day and the plaintiffs themselves struggled to agree on the parameters,” conservative broadcaster Erick Erickson said of the decision. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., meanwhile, called Barrett’s opinion “shockingly wrong” and “terrible for election integrity.” During oral arguments for the case, Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who ultimately joined the dissent, voiced concerns that counting large quantities of ballots after Election Day could shake the public’s trust in election results. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN ‘VAMPIRE RULE’ IN MASSIVE SECOND AMENDMENT WIN “If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode,” Kavanaugh noted. Referring to this possibility, Alito argued that “confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined” when large numbers of later-arriving ballots impact the results of elections. The majority, however, did not address these arguments, stating that they were outside the scope of what the court had authority to rule on. “Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results,” Barrett wrote. “As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts.” “The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code,” she added. This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.
What to know about the Newsom-linked charities reportedly caught in DOJ’s sights
Federal investigators are reportedly probing nonprofits linked to California first lady Jennifer Siebel Newsom, putting renewed scrutiny on two organizations that conservative watchdogs and media reports have criticized over alleged conflicts of interest tied to their proximity to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political orbit. Newsom has accused President Donald Trump’s Justice Department of launching a politically motivated “fishing expedition” against him and his wife, but the DOJ has not publicly confirmed any probe. The reported inquiries have revived questions about The Representation Project and California Partners Project, two nonprofits connected to Siebel Newsom that have received donations from corporations, tribes and other entities with interests before California state government. While Newsom has cast the purported investigation as a political witch hunt, the DOJ has yet to publicly confirm that a probe is even taking place, though internal sources speaking to media outlets have confirmed as much. Most recently, a source speaking to the California Post claimed that the FBI was looking into Siebel Newsom’s taxes. “The sheer amount of cash, combined with the nature and timing of government activity, is eye-catching — especially when unexpected windfalls are benefiting the contributors,” Americans for Public Trust executive director Caitlin Sutherland told the Washington Free Beacon in July 2025, around the time sources claim the probe into Newsom’s wife began. “It’s past time for this cash flow to fall under intense scrutiny.” FEDERAL PROSECUTOR CALLS NEWSOM ‘KING OF FRAUD’ AS TRUMP LAUNCHES CALIFORNIA CORRUPTION PROBE Siebel Newsom’s finances first came under major scrutiny in 2021 when the Sacramento Bee reported that TRP had received more than $800,000 from a dozen corporations that frequently lobby the state of California for policy concessions. The outlet also found that many of the companies that donated to TRP later received favorable treatment from Newsom. Data analyzed by the Sacramento Bee showed that Siebel Newsom’s charity saw its revenue spike whenever her husband’s political career advanced between 2011 and 2019. FORMER SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LEADER ACCUSED OF ‘SELF-DEALING,’ PUBLIC CORRUPTION Siebel Newsom pays herself directly from TRP, pulling a salary of over $160,000 a year. TRP also cuts six-figure checks to a media production company owned by Siebel Newsom each year, tax documents show. Newsom claims federal investigators have questioned people connected to his wife, including those affiliated with her nonprofits, as part of an inquiry involving their finances. The California governor has called the investigation a politically motivated “fishing expedition” by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department and said he and his wife have “nothing to hide.” He said the inquiry is aimed at him because he is considering running for president and that “to get me, he’s coming after my wife.” The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed the investigation and has declined to comment. Sources speaking to CNN on the condition of anonymity insist that the investigation was not requested by DOJ leadership in D.C. but was instigated by local officials after they received whistleblower reports. NEWSOM’S FREE-PHONE GIVEAWAY TO STATE BUSINESS LEADERS PAID FOR BY NONPROFIT RUN BY EX-STAFFERS Years after the Sacramento Bee report, the Washington Free Beacon released a follow-up investigation in 2025 that reportedly uncovered a similar pattern. California has a unique system through which politicians can “behest,” basically request, that a given individual or organization make a contribution to a charity. Through this system, Newsom routed roughly $4.3 million to TCPP between February 2020 and March 2026. Cross-referencing California state records and nonprofit tax documents shows that behests made by Newsom accounted for over 80% of the TCPP revenue between 2020 and 2024. NEW EXPOSÉ CLAIMS CALIFORNIA LOST AT LEAST $180B TO FRAUD UNDER GAVIN NEWSOM Critics have pointed to several donors to Siebel Newsom-linked nonprofits that later benefited from actions by Newsom’s administration, though Newsom has denied any connection between the donations and state decisions. Newsom made headlines in 2024 for opposing the construction of a casino project north of San Francisco, writing a letter to the Biden administration urging it to block the project, then suing the federal government when development was allowed to continue. Just months before Newsom sent his letter to the Biden administration, however, he requested that an American Indian tribe give $500,000 to TCPP. He asked for another half a million dollars just before suing the federal government in April 2025. The American Indian tribe agreed to both requests. EX-NONPROFIT BOSS ALLEGEDLY SWIPED $1.2M MEANT FOR HOMELESS PROGRAMS TO FUND LAVISH LIFESTYLE, DA SAYS The payments are significant because the proposed casino project would have competed directly with a casino run by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria just 15 miles away. Entities that have donated to Newsom’s family charities typically deny that their contribution had political strings attached, stating instead that they cut the checks because they genuinely believed in feminist mission statements of the groups. Multiple conservative media outlets, however, have characterized the arrangement as a “pay for play” scheme. While, unlike TRP, Newsom’s wife doesn’t draw a salary from TCPP, the funds transferred to it at the request of her husband nonetheless provide her with resources to spend on activist causes she cares about. JOURNALIST WHO EXPOSED ALLEGED MINNESOTA FRAUD SAYS NEWSOM, CALIFORNIA ARE HIS NEXT TARGETS The Newsoms have also been hit with allegations of self-dealing. Many of the films produced by Siebel Newsom’s enterprise are shown in California public schools, generating revenue for California’s first family by routing tax dollars to their personal enterprises. Following the public scrutiny, Siebel Newsom’s charity appears to have become less transparent. A TRP spokeswoman told the Sacramento Bee in 2021 that the charity discloses all donors over $5,000 on its website; however, as of publishing, no such webpage exists. COMER TELLS NEWSOM TO ‘LAWYER UP’ AS HOUSE OVERSIGHT LAUNCHES CALIFORNIA FRAUD PROBE Newsom has separately faced scrutiny over whether donors received state benefits after contributions. After donating to Newsom, wealthy contributors have secured multimillion-dollar public contracts, access to large tax credits, favorable executive action and appointments to prestigious public posts, a 2025
Newsom under fire as California gas tax hike sends pump prices even higher
FIRST ON FOX: California motorists are set to pay even more at the pump starting Wednesday as another gas tax increase takes effect, prompting some of the state’s Republican lawmakers to warn that added costs will further squeeze residents already shouldering some of the highest fuel prices in the nation. California’s GOP congressional delegation, led by Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., is urging Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., to suspend the planned 2.2-cent-per-gallon hike, which would raise the state’s excise gas tax to 63.4 cents per gallon. The lawmakers say that figure doesn’t include the state’s sales tax and other local fees, bringing the total surcharge burden to about $1.15 per gallon at California pumps. “According to AAA, the average price of gasoline in California is currently $5.58 per gallon—the highest in the nation and $1.65 above the national average,” the lawmakers wrote Friday in a letter sent to Newsom. “Instead of further unaffordable increases to California’s gasoline excise tax, we urge you to prioritize commonsense energy policies that will provide meaningful relief for all Californians.” STEVE HILTON: GAVIN NEWSOM’S $9 GAS NIGHTMARE LOOMS OVER THE GOLDEN STATE Of the average $5.58 price per gallon cited by the lawmakers, about $4.43 reflects the cost of gasoline, with the rest going toward taxes and fees. California GOP Reps. James Gallagher, Tom McClintock, Vince Fong, Jay Obernolte, Young Kim, Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, and Kevin Kiley, I-Calif., also signed the letter. Valadao has repeatedly urged Newsom to suspend California’s gasoline excise tax increases in recent years, which are indexed to inflation and rise annually. The policy dates back to a 2017 California transportation law that raised the state’s fuel taxes to help fund road, highway and transit projects. Voters rejected a 2018 ballot measure to repeal the law, allowing the annual excise tax increases to remain in effect. Newsom has balked at scrapping the fuel tax hikes, arguing a temporary gas tax holiday or repeal effort would jeopardize the state’s road repair programs, and he blamed President Donald Trump’s war against Iran for sending fuel prices higher. He has also dismissed the idea that suspension efforts would lead to lower prices at the pump. “Repealing gas taxes wouldn’t lower prices at the pump — it would hand oil companies a massive tax break with no guarantee that a single cent would be passed on to drivers,” Newsom’s office wrote in a March press release. NEWSOM KNOCKED FOR ‘INSANE’ CALIFORNIA GAS PRICES AFTER BLAMING TRUMP FOR RISING COSTS Republicans have sharply criticized Newsom for pursuing policies they argue have raised energy prices in the state, which in turn can make everyday life more expensive. Two major California oil refineries operated by Valero and Phillips 66 closed down this year in part due to the adoption of stringent climate regulations and fuel standards that threatened the economic viability of their operations. Less fuel-making capacity means the state has to purchase more crude oil and gasoline outside California — often from abroad at a higher price. Because California lacks pipeline connections to the major oil-producing parts of the country, it imports roughly three-fourths of its crude oil, while domestic production continues to decline. About one-third of those imported barrels come from the Middle East, leaving the state especially vulnerable to fuel price spikes as the war against Iran disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Chevron moved its headquarters to Houston in 2024 after operating for more than 140 years in the Golden State — a decision that was attributed to Texas’ more business-friendly corporate environment and California’s aggressive environmental policies that pushed fossil fuel companies out of the state. Newsom has also backed a goal for California to halt all oil extraction in the state by 2045. “California drivers pay almost $2 more per gallon than the national average, yet Governor Newsom continues to advance policies that will drive prices even higher,” Valadao said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Central Valley families are already feeling the strain of California’s high cost of living, and they can’t afford to pay an extra 71 cents per gallon every time they fill up their tanks.” “It’s past time for Sacramento to stop these harmful price hikes, prioritize domestic energy production, and ease the burden on hardworking Californians instead of adding to it,” he added. A Fox News poll released earlier in June found that just 23% of voters approve of Trump’s handling of gas prices. A spokesperson for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.