Dem congresswoman indicted for ‘particularly selfish’ alleged theft of FEMA relief funds for campaign use
A Miami grand jury indicted Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., on charges of allegedly stealing millions of dollars in disaster relief funds to make illegal campaign contributions, the Department of Justice said Wednesday. According to the indictment, the Florida Democrat allegedly conspired to steal $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds alongside her brother Edwin Cherfilus and numerous co-defendants. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants routed the funds through multiple accounts to disguise their source and that a significant portion of the misappropriated funds were used as candidate contributions to Cherfilus-McCormick’s 2021 congressional campaign or for their personal benefit. The Democrat could face up to 53 years in prison if convicted. UNEARTHED RECORDS TORPEDO CORI BUSH’S NEW CLAIM ABOUT ‘BILLIONS’ IN FUNDING SHE DELIVERED TO DISTRICT “Using disaster relief funds for self-enrichment is a particularly selfish, cynical crime,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “No one is above the law, least of all powerful people who rob taxpayers for personal gain. We will follow the facts in this case and deliver justice.” Both Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother worked through their family healthcare company on a FEMA-funded COVID-19 vaccination staffing contract in 2021, according to the indictment. The company received an overpayment of $5 million in FEMA funds in July 2021, prosecutors alleged. FBI Director Kash Patel immediately posted on X that Cherfilus-McCormick and her family “allegedly stole money from FEMA and then laundered it through friends toward her own personal benefits – including her campaign accounts.” DHS JUGGLES ‘MASS DEPORTATION’ PUSH WITH HELENE RELIEF, ADDS $124M AFTER BIDEN BACKLASH The indictment also states that Cherfilus-McCormick and Nadege Leblanc allegedly fixed contributions using straw donors and channeled funds from a FEMA-funded COVID-19 contract to their associates, who used it to make campaign donations. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., shared on X that he will be filing a motion to censure Cherfilus-McCormick and remove her from all committees. “This is one of the most egregious abuses of public trust I have ever seen,” he asserted. The Republican Party of Florida in an X post immediately called on Cherfilus-McCormick to resign writing, “This is absolutely disgusting. She must step down NOW!” Cherfilus-McCormick’s office did not immediately respond to Fox New News Digital’s request for comment. The Howard University graduate was initially hit by a probe in 2023 by the House Ethics Committee, who investigated allegations of campaign finance violations tied to her 2022 elections. Cherfilus-McCormi was re-elected to a third term in Congress in 2024. She currently serves on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Trump says he will meet NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani this week
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will meet with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani at the White House later this week. “Communist Mayor of New York City, Zohran ‘Kwame’ Mamdani, has asked for a meeting. We have agreed that this meeting will take place at the Oval Office on Friday, November 21,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday evening. “Further details to follow,” he added. THE SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT COMES TO NYC: MAMDANI’S VISION FOR A MORE AFFORDABLE CITY The meeting would mark the first encounter between Trump and Mamdani since the Democratic socialist’s victory in New York’s mayoral race earlier this month. Mamdani, a state assemblyman from Queens known for his progressive platform, is set to take office in January amid heightened anticipation from both political and business leaders. Throughout his campaign, Mamdani proposed measures such as free bus service, city-owned grocery stores, and rent freezes. MAMDANI SAYS HE WILL MEET JAMIE DIMON, OTHER FINANCIAL TITANS IN NYC Some of his more ambitious ideas have rattled Wall Street, drawing some of his fiercest critics. The clash underscores a widening divide between progressive visions for the city and the financial sector that has long powered it. Earlier this month, Mamdani said he was prepared to meet with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other finance titans as Wall Street braces for a new era of progressive leadership at City Hall. Dimon had previously said he would support Mamdani if he won the seat. Following the victory, billionaire Bill Ackman wrote on X that if he could help, Mamdani should “just let me know what I can do.” The Pershing Square chief had earlier pledged to finance an alternative candidate to Mamdani, should one emerge. He also warned that Mamdani’s financial plan would “destroy jobs and cause businesses and wealthy taxpayers” to leave New York. Whether Mamdani’s outreach to Trump and Wall Street will ease tensions or deepen divisions remains to be seen, but few doubt that his arrival at City Hall marks the beginning of a new political chapter for New York.
House votes to repeal controversial Arctic Frost provision from government shutdown bill
The House of Representatives unanimously voted against a provision that allows Republican senators whose phone records were seized by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to sue the federal government. The provision was included in the recently passed bill to end the 43-day government shutdown, which President Donald Trump signed into law last week. Despite supporters saying the provision is necessary to give senators recourse when the executive branch oversteps its constitutional bounds and reaches into congressional communications, the last-minute inclusion of the measure outraged both Republicans and Democrats, underscoring the ever-present tensions between the House and Senate. The repeal passed 426 to 0, with 210 Democrats and 216 Republicans in the tally. JACK SMITH INVESTIGATORS NEED TO ‘PAY BIG’ FOR JAN. 6 PHONE RECORDS PROBE, WARNS SEN. GRAHAM Dubbed “Requiring Senate Notification for Senate Data,” the provision would allow senators directly targeted in former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., who was involved in crafting part of the successful funding deal, told Fox News Digital he had even been afraid it could derail the final vote to end the shutdown. “It had been added in the Senate without our knowledge,” Cole said. “It was a real trust factor … I mean, all of a sudden, this pops up in the bill, and we’re confronted with either: leave this in here, or we pull it out, we have to go to conference, and the government doesn’t get reopened.” It was placed into the bill by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sources confirmed to Fox News Digital last week. REPUBLICANS FEUD OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT CRITICS OFFER NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE Thune put the provision into the bill at the request of members of the Senate GOP, a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News Digital, which included Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. It was a big point of contention when the House Rules Committee met to prepare the legislation for a final vote last Tuesday night. Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, Austin Scott, R-Ga., and Morgan Griffith, R-Va., all shared House Democrats’ frustration with the measure, but they made clear it would not stand in the way of ending what had become the longest shutdown in history. Even Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared blindsided by the move. “I had no prior notice of it at all,” Johnson told reporters last week. “I was frustrated, as my colleagues are over here, and I thought it was untimely and inappropriate. So we’ll be requesting, strongly urging, our Senate colleagues to repeal that.” Those Republicans agreed with the motivations behind their Senate counterparts wanting to sue but bristled over the notion that it would come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital the senators “have been wronged, no doubt in my mind” but added its scope was too narrow. GOP UNITY SHATTERED BY CONTROVERSIAL MEASURE IN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BILL “This provision does not allow other Americans to pursue a remedy. It does not even allow the President of the United States, who was equally wrongfully surveilled and pursued by the Justice Department — they didn’t even include President Trump in this,” Rose said. And while several senators who would be eligible for the taxpayer-funded lawsuits have distanced themselves from the issue amid uproar, others have stuck to their guns. “My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue,” Graham said on “Hannity” Tuesday night. He said he would be seeking “tens of millions of dollars.” Cruz also told Fox News Digital that he did not support repealing the provision. And Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., defended the provision in comments to Politico. “I’d like for us to be able to defend our branch when DOJ gets out of control,” he said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., similarly suggested to reporters on Wednesday that he was in favor of the measure. “I would just say, I mean, you have an independent, co-equal branch of government whose members were, through illegal means, having their phone records acquired — spied on, if you will, through a weaponized Biden Justice Department,” Thune said. “That, to me, demands some accountability.” He added, “I think that in the end, this is something that all members of Congress, both House and Senate, are probably going to want as a protection, and we were thinking about the institution of the Senate and individual senators going into the future.”
Epstein files to go public as Trump says he signed law authorizing release of records
President Donald Trump said on Wednesday evening that he signed legislation greenlighting the Justice Department to release files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” Trump wrote in a lengthy message on the Truth Social platform. “As everyone knows, I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to pass this Bill in the House and Senate, respectively. Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor of passage. “At my direction, the Department of Justice has already turned over close to fifty thousand pages of documents to Congress. Do not forget — The Biden Administration did not turn over a SINGLE file or page related to Democrat Epstein, nor did they ever even speak about him.” WHITE HOUSE SLAMS DEMS’ ‘BAD-FAITH’ EPSTEIN DOC RELEASE AS DEMAND FOR FILES INTENSIFIES Trump’s ties to Epstein had faced increased attention after Trump’s Justice Department and FBI announced in July it would not unseal investigation materials related to Epstein, and that the agencies’ investigation into the case had closed. But Sunday Trump announced that he backed releasing the documents, asserting that he had “nothing to hide.” “As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown,’” Trump wrote. The House voted Tuesday to release the files by a 421–1 margin, following pressure for months from the measure’s ringleaders, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and other Democrats. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., was the only House member to vote against the release, and said he didn’t back the measure because “this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.” Although Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., ultimately voted in favor of the measure, he also voiced similar concerns during a Tuesday press conference. EPSTEIN REFERENCED TRUMP IN PRIVATE EMAILS TO GHISLAINE MAXWELL AND OTHERS, NEW RECORDS SHOW “Who’s going to want to come forward if they think Congress can take a political exercise and reveal their identities? Who’s going to come talk to prosecutors? It’s very dangerous. It would deter future whistleblowers and informants,” he said. “The release of that could also publicly reveal the identity, by the way, of undercover law enforcement officers who are working in future operations.” After the House’s approval of the measure, the bill headed to the Senate and passed hours later Tuesday by unanimous consent. The Epstein Files Transparency Act specifically directs the Justice Department to release all unclassified records and investigative materials related to Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell, as well as files related to individuals who were referenced in Epstein previous legal cases, details surrounding trafficking allegations, internal DOJ communications as they relate to Epstein and any details surrounding the investigation into his death. Files that include victims’ names, child sex abuse materials, classified materials or other materials that could threaten an active investigation may be withheld or redacted by the DOJ. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters Wednesday that she would comply with the law after it was signed, which directs the Justice Department to release the files online in a searchable format within 30 days. The Epstein files received fanfare among supporters of the president in the early days of the administration as they rallied around the Trump DOJ to release details on Epstein’s alleged “client list” and death. The DOJ and FBI said in a joint memo obtained by Fox News in July that the two agencies had no further information to share with the public about Epstein’s case and suicide in 2019, sparking outrage among some MAGA supporters as they demanded the DOJ release more documents. Trump has since railed against the Epstein case as a “Democrat hoax,” before calling for their release Sunday. The push to release the files gained increased momentum after Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released three emails Wednesday that Epstein’s estate provided to them that mentioned Trump. In turn, Republicans released their own stash of 20,000 pages of Epstein documents that same day. EPSTEIN ESTATE TO BEGIN HANDING FILES TO HOUSE INVESTIGATORS AFTER ‘BIRTHDAY BOOK’ SUBPOENA Included in the tranche of documents are emails between Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and correspondence with author Michael Wolff, former President Barack Obama‘s White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, among others, where Epstein mentions Trump. “i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.. (VICTIM) spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75 % there,” Epstein said in an email to Maxwell in April 2011, which was provided with other correspondence to the committee by Epstein’s estate in response to a subpoena request. “I have been thinking about that…” Maxwell said in response. Epstein told Wolff in a separate email in 2019 that “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop” — a reference to Trump. Trump has said that he barred Epstein from his Florida Mar-a-Lago golf club because Epstein kept “taking people who worked for me.” While the documents themselves are authentic, Epstein’s statements in the emails remain unverified and uncorroborated. The documents do not claim that Trump committed any wrongdoing, and only portray Epstein mentioning the president. Likewise, Trump has not faced formal accusations of misconduct tied to Epstein, and no law enforcement records connect Trump to Epstein’s crimes. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 as he was awaiting trial on federal charges. Maxwell was convicted on charges including sex trafficking of a minor and is currently serving a 20-year sentence. Fox News’
Senators rail against ‘cash grab’ spending bill provision as House preps repeal vote
The Senate is once again finding a moment of bipartisan unity in its fury over a recently passed law that would allow lawmakers to sue the federal government and reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money as a reward. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to grapple with the inclusion of a provision in a package designed to reopen the government that would allow only senators directly targeted by the Biden-led Department of Justice (DOJ) and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000. Both Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ ire at the provision is multipronged. Some are angry it was tucked away into the legislative branch spending bill without a heads-up. Others see it as nothing more than a quick payday for the relatively small group of senators targeted in Smith’s probe. REPUBLICANS FEUD OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT CRITICS OFFER NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE “I think it was outrageous that that was put in and airdropped in there,” Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital. “It’s outrageous. It’s basically just a cash grab for senators to take money away from taxpayers. It’s absolutely outrageous and needs to be taken out.” The provision was included in the spending package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on request from lawmakers in the GOP. And it was given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The provision is narrowly tailored to include only senators and would require they be notified if their information is requested by the DOJ, be it through the subpoena of phone records like in the Arctic Frost investigation or through other means. The idea is to prevent the abuse of the DOJ to go after sitting senators now and in the future. Thune pushed back on the notion that lawmakers weren’t aware the provision was in the bill, given that the entire package was released roughly 24 hours before it was voted on. But he acknowledged their frustration over how it was added was warranted. “I think I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process, but I think, on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,” Thune said. Schumer, when asked about the anger brewing on both sides of the aisle, heaped blame on Thune but noted it was an opportunity to get protection for Democrats, too. GOP UNITY SHATTERED BY CONTROVERSIAL MEASURE IN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BILL “Look, the bottom line is Thune wanted the provision, and we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bondi and others who might go after them,” Schumer said. “So, we made it go prospective, not just retroactive, but I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it. And I hope that happens.” The House is expected to vote on legislation that would repeal the language, and many in the upper chamber want to get the chance to erase the provision should it pass through the House. Whether Thune will put it on the floor remains unclear. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was one of the eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe. He told Fox News Digital he was neither asked about the provision nor told about it and, like many other lawmakers, found out about it when he read the bill. “I just think that, you know, giving them money — I mean making a taxpayer pay for it, I don’t understand why that’s accountability,” he said. “I mean, the people who need to be held accountable are the people who made the decisions to do this, and, frankly, also the telecom companies. So I just, I don’t agree with that approach.” LINDSEY GRAHAM VOWS TO SUE OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ INVESTIGATION TARGETING GOP LAWMAKERS’ PHONE RECORDS He also took issue with the fact the provision was narrowly tailored to only apply to the Senate and argued it could be reworked to only provide for declaratory judgment in court rather than a monetary one. “I could see the value of having a court say this was illegal and ruling against the government,” Hawley said. “I think it’s the monetary provisions that most people, including me, really balk at. Like, why are the taxpayers on the hook for this, and why does it apply only to the Senate?” The provision set a retroactive date of 2022 to allow for the group of senators targeted in Smith’s Arctic Frost probe to be able to sue. That element has also raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital he supported repealing the provision but wanted to fix it. “The best way to be able to handle it, I think, is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,” he said. “The initial target of this whole thing was to make sure this never happened again.” Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., told Fox News Digital the provision was a “total mess” and raised concerns on a bipartisan basis. Not every senator was on board with ditching the provision, however. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made clear that he intends to sue the DOJ and Verizon, his phone carrier, and argued that he didn’t believe that the provision was self-dealing but rather to deter future, similar actions. He also wants to take the provision, or the core idea of it, a step further. Graham said he wanted to open up the process to others, including dozens of groups, former lawmakers and others affected by the investigation. “Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me? Is it wrong if a Post Office truck hits you, what do you do with the money? You do whatever you want to do with the money,” Graham said. “If
Dem veterans break silence after viral video causes backlash on social media: ‘Frustrated’
Democrats and Republicans heard two very different takeaways when a group of Democratic lawmakers called on U.S. service members not to carry out certain orders in a video that went viral on social media Tuesday. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., one of the lawmakers featured in the video, expressed exasperation with how critics had framed the message. “I’m not telling people to ignore orders,” Houlahan said Wednesday. “I’m enormously frustrated with the way that this very sensible video is being interpreted in a really insidious way.” AS ‘SQUAD’ TURNS ASSIMILATION INTO ‘DIRTY WORD,’ EXPERT URGES US LEADERS TO RENOUNCE FOREIGN LOYALTIES Houlahan and five other Democrats with military or intelligence experience had encouraged service members not to carry out unlawful orders. “The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” the lawmakers said. “Don’t give up the ship,” the video added, a reference to a phrase used by the Navy. Houlahan was joined by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., and Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H. PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER CALLS ON NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS TO DEFY DEPLOYMENT ORDERS The video did not give an example of what specific kinds of orders service members might have to refuse. In a separate post to X, Slotkin hinted that service members asked to carry out airstrikes off the coast of Venezuela might be engaging in illegal strikes and said that some pilots had expressed concern about their involvement. Republicans responding to the exhortation mocked it as an example of Democratic paranoia toward Trump. “[It’s] Stage 4 TDS,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a post to X, referring to Trump Derangement Syndrome, a moniker for the Democrats’ fixation on the president. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said the call sounded politically charged. “At the end of the day, they’re mad the American people chose Trump, and now they’re calling on the military and intelligence community to intervene. Sounds a little ‘subversive to democracy’-ish,” Schmitt said. When asked about the video, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supports the exhortation in principle but noted that it’s sometimes difficult to parse what’s permissible and what isn’t. “You can’t disobey the Constitution,” Reed said. “The issue though, on a practical sense to me, is that determination is often very difficult to make.” The Democrats who made the video believe the video said they had a very specific standard in mind. When asked what kinds of orders service members should ignore, Crow, one of the lawmakers in the video, pointed to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). “The purpose is to remind people of their oath and their obligation to the Constitution and their obligations under the UCMJ, which are very clear,” Crow said. SEN. BLACKBURN FIRES BACK AT DEMOCRATS OVER ‘DISTURBING’ VIDEO URGING TROOPS TO DEFY ‘ILLEGAL’ ORDERS The UCMJ, passed by Congress in 1951, governs a gamut of issues service members may be penalized for, ranging from desertion to committing war crimes. The video posted by the lawmakers Tuesday does not mention the UCMJ by name. Houlahan said that code should clearly delineate what’s permissible and what isn’t. “Well, as an example, we are not supposed to use our military against our own citizens. Full stop. This is why the Uniform Code of Miliary Justice exists,” Houlahan said. She noted that there are ways for service members to appeal orders they are concerned about. “You have an obligation to know and respect your chain of command. You do have, however, a chain of command that you can go through where you can elevate those requests if you believe them not to be either lawful or appropriate, and that’s what I’m encouraging, and my colleagues are encouraging people to do,” Houlahan said. The Department of War did not immediately respond to a request for comment. — Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report
Fox News Poll: Voters say White House is doing more harm than good on economy
Unhappy with the economy. Pain with prices. Unsure about Trump administration policies. It adds up to high disapproval among the president’s loyal constituencies. Here are six takeaways from the latest Fox News national survey. — Some 76% of voters view the economy negatively. That’s worse than the 67% who felt that way in July, and the 70% who said the same at the end of former President Biden’s term. — Large numbers, overall and among Republicans, say their costs for groceries, utilities, healthcare, and housing have gone up this year. — Voters blame the president. About twice as many say President Donald Trump, rather than Biden, is responsible for the current economy. And three times as many say Trump’s economic policies have hurt them (note, they said the same about Biden’s last year). Plus, approval of how Trump is handling the economy hit a new low, and disapproval of his overall job performance hit record highs among core supporters. — After the government shutdown, the GOP and the Democratic Party have lower favorable ratings, and roughly 6 in 10 say the president and lawmakers on both sides don’t care about people like them. — Voters think Republicans have a better plan for border security, immigration, and crime, while Democrats are seen as better on affordability, wages, healthcare, and climate. — Views are divided on Trump’s peace deals making the world safer and the administration’s strategy for dealing with alleged drug-traffickers. Here are the numbers behind those findings. FOX NEWS VOTER POLL – CHANGE CANDIDATE MAMDANI DEFEATS LEGACY POLITICAL FIGURES Trump’s job performance garners career-high disapproval among men, White voters, and those without a college degree. Eighty-six percent of Republicans approve, down from 92% in March. Among all voters, 41% approve of the job Trump is doing, while 58% disapprove. Only once have his ratings been lower and that was during his first term: 38-57% in October 2017. Two months ago, it was 46-54%. For comparison, Biden’s marks were a bit better at the same point in his presidency: 44% approved and 54% disapproved in November 2021. Forty percent of voters rate their personal finances as excellent/good, while 60% say only fair/poor, which is about where things stood a year ago. Ratings are notably bad (roughly 70% negative), among non-college voters, Hispanics, Blacks, independents, and those under age 45. For those with household income below $50K, fully 79% rate their finances negatively. FOX NEWS VOTER POLL: NEW JERSEY GOVERNORSHIP REMAINS DEMOCRATIC WITH SHERRILL WIN When it comes to the national economy versus personal finances, evaluations are also negative, as most say conditions are only fair/poor (76%), and fewer than one in five thinks inflation is completely/mostly under control (18%). Compared to a year ago, voters say costs have increased for utilities (78%), healthcare (67%), housing (66%), and gasoline (54%). It’s 85% who say their groceries went up this year, including 60% who say costs increased “a lot.” Majorities of Republicans agree with majorities of Democrats and independents that costs have gone up on each of these items except gas. FOX NEWS VOTER POLL: CALIFORNIA VOTERS OK CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PLAN At the end of Biden’s term, voters said by a wide 30-point margin that his economic policies had done more to hurt than help their family, driven by three-quarters of Republicans saying they had been harmed. The new survey shows almost identical results, as voters say by a 31-point margin that Trump’s economic policies have hurt rather than helped them, driven by the three-quarters of Democrats saying they have been harmed. In December 2018, during his first term, only 21% overall said they had been hurt by Trump’s policies, including just one-third of Democrats. By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, voters say Trump is more responsible for the current economy than Biden (62% vs. 32%). Unsurprisingly, there’s a large partisan gap, as Democrats are nearly 40 percentage points more likely than Republicans to blame Trump. Somewhat surprisingly though, 42% of Republicans blame him, while a 53% majority says Biden is responsible. Among independents, 62% say Trump and 29% Biden. A larger share believes the Republicans have a better plan on securing the border, dealing with illegal immigrants, reducing crime, and reducing the federal budget deficit. Democrats are preferred on addressing climate change, reducing the cost of healthcare, raising wages, and making things more affordable. The parties are about equal on the issue of job creation. Congressional Democrats said the shutdown was about extending subsidies for Obamacare. The 2010 healthcare law remains popular, as 54% have a favorable opinion of it — although much of that comes from nearly 9 in 10 Democrats viewing it positively. Not only do voters think Democrats have a better plan for reducing healthcare costs, but also Trump receives his lowest approval on the issue of healthcare. “The situation isn’t complicated,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps run the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson. “People are struggling to afford necessities and blaming those in charge. What’s interesting is watching Democrats gain politically from a problem they arguably caused — and that crushed them in 2024. But that’s politics.” While many families say the government shutdown caused them severe (10%) or moderate hardship (35%), more than half say it was not a hardship at all (54%). The shutdown wasn’t a political winner for anyone: nearly two-thirds disapprove of how Trump (62%), Congressional Republicans (63%), and Congressional Democrats (64%) handled it. A record low 39% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, down from 42% in July. Another 39% have positive views of the GOP, down from 44% this summer. For Trump, it’s 40% positive, down from 43% in September and 50% in January. But it’s Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer whose marks have deteriorated the most, as a record low 22% view him favorably vs. 54% unfavorably, for a net rating of -32 points. His ratings were underwater by 16 points in January. Among Democrats, positive views of Schumer went from 51% in January to 38% today.
‘Stone-cold liar’: Top House Dem lashes out at Comer for accusing him of soliciting Epstein donations
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., fired back at accusations that he may have had dinner with Jeffrey Epstein or solicited donations from the disgraced financier on Wednesday. “He’s a stone-cold liar,” Jeffries said of James Comer, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. The day before, Comer had said the Committee had uncovered communications where fundraisers had tried to arrange a private meeting between Jeffries and Epstein in 2013. According to Comer, the emails had been discovered among the 65,000 pages of recently disclosed documents from the Department of Justice, or DOJ. EPSTEIN ESTATE HIT WITH NEW HOUSE SUBPOENA FOR ‘CLIENT LIST,’ CALL LOGS “I have no idea what James Comer is talking about in terms of anything any prior consultant may have sent,” Jeffries added. Jeffries’ remarks come on the heels of congressional passage of a bill that would require the DOJ to release its files on Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein, who died in 2019 while incarcerated on suspicion of having sex-trafficked underage victims, had amassed an impressive social circle including figures like President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton and others. The public has demanded further transparency on whether Epstein used his connections to facilitate illegal sexual encounters for the rich and powerful in return for favors or to secure leverage over them. HAKEEM JEFFRIES REFUSES THREE TIMES TO ANSWER QUESTION ABOUT APPROPRIATENESS OF PLASKETT’S EPSTEIN MESSAGES The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act on Tuesday evening in a 427-1 vote. Moments later, the Senate unanimously adopted the bill, sending it to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature. The files disclosed by the House Oversight Committee aren’t public because of Tuesday’s transparency act. They are materials produced by the DOJ in cooperation with requests from the committee. The Transparency Act is expected to release far more files than what the committee has received so far. Circulation has swirled about what prominent figures might get caught up in those more extensive revelations. Jeffries, who voted for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, expressed anger at the suggestion his name might surface in further disclosures. “Was that a serious statement from malignant clown James Comer? That I had Jeffrey Epstein over for dinner? That I accepted money from Jeffrey Epstein?” KHANNA, MASSIE, GREENE URGE SENATE TO PASS EPSTEIN BILL UNCHANGED, WARN OF ‘RECKONING’ “This is all part of an effort to deflect from their failures as a House Majority to deal with the issues of importance to everyday Americans,” Jeffries said. The Epstein Files Transparency Act gives the DOJ 30 days to comply with the bill’s disclosure requirements.
Melania Trump says AI will reshape war more profoundly than nuclear weapons during visit with Marines
In her first joint visit with Second Lady Usha Vance, First Lady Melania Trump met with troops and military families, praising the Marine Corps’ 250 years of service while warning that artificial intelligence (AI) will redefine modern warfare and America’s defense. In her Wednesday remarks at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Mrs. Trump emphasized AI’s role in her husband’s administration as a pillar of American defense strategy. “Technology is changing the art of war,” Trump said. “Predictably, AI will alter war more profoundly than any technology since nuclear weapons.” The First Lady’s remarks come as the Trump administration expands its focus on AI. The president posted to Truth Social earlier this week, saying, “We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes.” FIRST LADY MELANIA TRUMP AND USHA VANCE VISIT TROOPS’ FAMILIES IN FIRST JOINT VISIT President Trump’s AI push aligns with his broader “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” published in July. The First Lady acknowledged the service and 250-year legacy of the Marine Corps, including two Marines she welcomed on stage, Sergeant Blake Donoher and Corporal Daishamari Cannon. Trump said that the “most significant change will be speed” when it comes to AI, adding that “artificial intelligence will take center stage in the theater of war… but of course, it is the Marine who will always play the most critical role in realizing mission success.” GOOGLE CEO, MAJOR TECH LEADERS JOIN FIRST LADY MELANIA TRUMP AT WHITE HOUSE AI MEETING The First Lady noted that AI is taking America’s military “from soldiers to machines.” “Artificial intelligence is propelling America’s military into a new era,” Trump said. “We are moving from human operators to human overseers – fast. The shift from soldiers to machines is already underway: autonomous helicopters, swarming drones, and recon aircraft are here now. Fighter-less jets and autonomous bombers are on the way.” The First Lady was introduced by Second Lady and Marine Corps spouse Usha Vance, who greeted the Marines by relaying a “Happy birthday” message from Vice President JD Vance. The Marine Corps birthday is Nov. 10. MELANIA TRUMP ‘PEACE LETTER’ TO PUTIN HAILED BY USHA VANCE, WHO CALLS HER A ‘TRAILBLAZER’ The event coincided with national Thanksgiving preparations, where both the First and Second Lady visited classrooms at Camp Lejeune. Students showcased AI projects as part of the Presidential Artificial Intelligence Challenge during the visit. Trump hugged a shy student in a sweet moment caught on camera in a first-grade class where kids read aloud and joined in a lively game of “Heads Up,” wearing a matching notecard on her head. “Don’t be shy,” the First Lady said before embracing the boy who seemed nervous to meet her. The First Lady concluded her remarks with heartfelt thanks to service members and their families. “To every Service Member — thank you for standing watch so others can celebrate in peace. And to every military spouse and child — thank you for your strength and love,” Trump said. “You serve our country, too.” “As we give thanks this season, let us remember what unites us — our shared love of country, our faith in one another, and our pride in those who serve,” Trump concluded. The Office of First Lady Melania Trump referred Fox News Digital to her prepared remarks. Fox News Digital’s Emma Bussey contributed to this report.
GOP bill brewing in House reforming civil litigation sparks opposition from conservative groups
Republican legislation brewing in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing civil litigation transparency is sparking concern from some conservative organizations that fear it could chill donor participation and make it more difficult for Americans of modest means to hold “woke” companies accountable. In a letter sent earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots Action urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject HR 1109, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald, and Mike Collins, which is known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 and is aimed at ensuring greater transparency in civil litigation, requiring parties receiving payment in lawsuits to disclose their identity. The letter warns that “sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.” “This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements, such as litigation funding agreements, independent from the discovery process and without any finding of relevance by a judge,” the letter, signed by over a dozen conservative groups including America First Legal, Defending Education, Heartland Institute, former treasurer of Ohio Ken Blackwell, and American Energy Institute, states. VAN JONES ADMITS WOKE ACTIVISM AT WORK GOT ‘RIDICULOUS’ AND ‘WE NEED TO MOVE ON’ “The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights. “If adopted, H.R. 1109 will have a chilling effect on free speech and association and directly threaten the privacy rights of Americans,” the letter warns. “The end result will be fewer Americans having the resources or willingness to bring legitimate claims, which threatens to undermine future legal battles over issues critical to our movement.” “The privacy interests at stake here are not abstract. We have seen how disclosure regimes can be easily weaponized by bad actors, particularly those seeking to attack and intimidate political opponents.” Issa told Fox News Digital on Thursday afternoon that there is “misinformation” circulating about what the bill actually does and there will be a “small update tomorrow to clarify one item.” “What’s actually happened is language has been put in to assure groups that we’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama or any of the other historical 501c privileges that you don’t turn over your donor list and so on,” Issa said. “That was something that Obama and Biden tried to do a couple of times. We want nothing to do with that. We’re only asking that if there is a material funder slash partner in a lawsuit, that they be disclosed.” “I fully respect and appreciate the concerns of people who want to make sure that this does not turn into a burdensome discovery of, for example, a nonprofit’s hundreds, thousands or millions of donors,” Issa explained. PALANTIR CEO CLAIMS COMPANY IS FIRST TO BE ‘COMPLETELY ANTI-WOKE,’ BACKS TRUMP ADMIN’S BOMBING OF DRUG BOATS “We share the concern of all these groups that we wanted to make sure we believed we were on solid ground as written but in an abundance of caution, my staff and all the parties worked to try to come up with the most straightforward, effective way to say, of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.” Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, call it a “vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.” In his press release announcing the legislation in February, Issa said, “Our legislation targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system that distort our system of justice by obscuring public detection and exploiting loopholes in the law for financial gain.” “Our approach will achieve a far better standard of transparency in the courts that people deserve, and our standard of law requires. We fundamentally believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world and left absent from the facts of a case.” The press release explained that hundreds of cases a year involve civil litigation funded by undisclosed-third-party interests as an investment for return from hedge funds, commercial lenders and sovereign wealth funds through shell companies and that there are often investor-backed entities who seek hefty settlements from American companies that end up “distorting the free market and stifling innovation.” The conversation about the legislation reignites an ongoing showdown between insurers and large corporations who have made the case that third-party funding drives abusive suits and inflated settlements therefore needing more visibility into funders of litigation and limits to speculative investment in lawsuits against advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks, who argue they are the only mechanism for those without deep pockets to take legal action against well funded companies. Many advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks don’t simply hand over charitable donations to a lawsuit but instead use structured litigation vehicles, limited liability companies, donor-advised funds, or legal-defense trusts, that front the costs of a case and are reimbursed, sometimes with interest, if the case wins or settles. The process is known as non-recourse or outcome-contingent funding, meaning the funder only gets money back if the case succeeds. BOMBSHELL REPORT SHOWS FOREIGN CHARITIES DUMPED BILLIONS INTO US POLITICAL ADVOCACY GROUPS, ‘ERODE’ DEMOCRACY Nonprofits like Consumers’ Research have been using litigation finance in recent years to push back against “woke capitalism” to counter ESG and DEI policies and the group’s executive director, Will Hild, told Fox News Digital that it has been “all too easy for major companies to use their outsized influence and powerful market shares to push an ideological agenda with little to no recourse.” Hild told Fox News Digital he views the legislation an “attack” on one of the “few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.” Hild added, “Even worse, it imposes dangerous disclosure mandates that would force plaintiffs to expose confidential litigation funding agreements. This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of