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
AT&T gave Jack Smith then-House Speaker McCarthy’s personal cellphone records amid J6 investigation
EXCLUSIVE: AT&T turned over private, personal cellphone records belonging to then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy to then-Special Counsel Jack Smith in January 2023 amid his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Fox News Digital has learned. Fox News Digital first reported Thursday that Smith subpoenaed AT&T for McCarthy’s records, but AT&T had indicated to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that the company had not shared any of the former speaker’s phone records. JACK SMITH TARGETED THEN-HOUSE SPEAKER MCCARTHY’S PRIVATE PHONE RECORDS IN J6 PROBE, FBI DOCS REVEAL But Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a letter AT&T sent to Grassley, R-Iowa, citing the previous reporting, which led the telecommunications company to review the case and change its response. Smith, on Jan. 24, 2023, allegedly sought the “toll records for the personal cell phones of U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (AT&T) and U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (Verizon.)” The information was included as part of a “significant case notification” drafted by the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division May 25, 2023. AT&T, though, notified Grassley that the company received a subpoena for McCarthy’s records in January 2023 — separate from the May 2023 subpoena for other toll records, and allegedly inadvertently supplied those personal cellphone records to Smith. “AT&T is producing today a January 23, 2023 grand jury subpoena issued by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to AT&T, also accompanied by a non-disclosure order relating to the subpoena,” AT&T wrote. AT&T referenced Fox News Digital’s exclusive reporting on the subpoena. “We identified (the subpoena) yesterday as such based on the phone number in the subpoena,” the company continued. “Based on this newly found record, we write to correct our October 24, 2025 response, which was based (on) a reasonable review of our records at that time.” “AT&T’s Global Legal Demand Center receives hundreds of thousands of legal demands each year, and unlike the May 2023 subpoena discussed in our October 24 response, the subpoena we produced today did not seek records from a campaign account,” AT&T explained. “Rather, as confirmed from press accounts, the subpoena sought records for a personal cellular phone number,” AT&T continued. “It also did not in any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress. As a result, the subpoena processing center had no reason to believe that the phone number was associated with a member of Congress, and AT&T did not make further inquiries to the Special Counsel and produced the information as required by the subpoena.” Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told Fox News Digital that “Jack Smith broke the law and seized my phone records as Speaker of the House.” “If corrupt justice will do it to the Speaker, they’ll do it to anyone,” he said. “The DOJ has the authority and responsibility to hold him accountable.” JACK SMITH TRACKED PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS, CALLS OF NEARLY A DOZEN GOP SENATORS DURING J6 PROBE, FBI SAYS Lawyers for Smith declined to comment. AT&T had initially told Grassley that when the company received the May 2023 request for records it “raised questions with Special Counsel Smith’s office concerning the legal basis for seeking records of members of Congress, the Special Counsel did not pursue the subpoena further, and no records were produced.” AT&T had also stressed that the company “has not produced any records or other information to Special Counsel Jack Smith” relating to “any member of Congress.” The revelations come after Fox News Digital exclusively reported in October that Smith and his “Arctic Frost” team investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots were tracking the private communications and phone calls of nearly a dozen Republican senators as part of the probe, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. An official told Fox News Digital that those records were collected in 2023 by Smith and his team after subpoenaing major telephone providers. GOP SENATOR DEMANDS FBI REVEAL IF SURVEILLANCE WENT BEYOND JACK SMITH’S PHONE TRACKING Smith has called his decision to subpoena and track Republican lawmakers’ phone records “entirely proper” and consistent with Justice Department policy. “As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,” Smith’s lawyers wrote in October to Grassley. Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are investigating “Arctic Frost.” “Arctic Frost” was opened inside the bureau April 13, 2022. Smith was appointed as special counsel to take over the probe in November 2022. An FBI official told Fox News Digital that “Arctic Frost” is a “prohibited case,” and that the review required FBI officials to go “above and beyond in order to deliver on this promise of transparency.” The discovery is part of a broader ongoing review, Fox News Digital has learned. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Smith, after months of investigating, charged President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request. Smith’s case cost taxpayers more than $50 million.
Boasberg plans to move quickly on Trump contempt inquiry in major immigration case
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said Wednesday he will move quickly on a contempt inquiry centered on whether senior Trump administration officials knowingly defied his court order in March when it deported hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador despite an emergency order he handed down hours earlier. He also signaled the court’s strong interest in hearing from two current and former Justice Department officials as witnesses in the revived contempt inquiry, which could be met with fierce opposition by Trump officials if the hearing was any indication. WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S DEPORTATION EFFORTS? At issue is President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime immigration law, to deport more than 250 Venezuelan migrants from the U.S. to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador earlier this year and whether Trump officials acted in defiance of a March 15 emergency order he issued attempting to block the flights. The fresh action on the contempt issue — and Boasberg’s role at the center of it — is almost certain to spark fresh ire from Trump and his allies in Congress. Boasberg, for his part, seemed unfazed for the duration of Wednesday’s hearing. “This has been sitting for a long time,” Boasberg said of the stalled contempt inquiry, “and I believe justice requires me to move promptly on this.” He told both parties at the outset he plans to move on the contempt inquiry “promptly” and ordered lawyers for the Justice Department and for the class of Venezuelan migrants to submit to the court by Monday in writing their proposals for how the case should proceed. “Your honor, the government objects to any further proceedings of criminal contempt,” Justice Department lawyer Tiberius Davis noted. Boasberg, in response, told Davis he “certainly intends to determine what happened” on the day the government either intentionally or unintentionally violated his emergency order intended to halt the Alien Enemies Act removals. The government, he said, “can assist me to whatever degree it wishes.” “I am authorized to proceed, just as I intended to do in April, seven months ago,” Boasberg noted. Boasberg also indicated the court’s strong interest in hearing witness testimony from Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign and Erez Reuveni, who had represented the government in the case in March. EX-JUDGES BLAST TOP TRUMP DOJ OFFICIAL FOR DECLARING ‘WAR’ ON COURTS Reuveni, a whistleblower and former DOJ lawyer, testified after leaving the department earlier this year that he and other government attorneys were advised by senior department officials in March that they “may have to consider telling that court, ‘f— you’” if they were barred from deporting migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. “It seems to me that a factual inquiry is in order,” Boasberg said Wednesday. At issue is the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants in March from the U.S. to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador and whether officials complied with the court’s emergency order that blocked the removals temporarily and ordered all flights to “immediately” return to U.S. soil, which did not happen. The migrants were detained at the country’s maximum-security prison, CECOT, until July, when they were removed to Venezuela as part of a broader prisoner exchange that involved the return of at least 10 Americans detained in Venezuela. In April, Boasberg ruled that the court had found “probable cause” to move on criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for failing to return the migrants to U.S. soil, citing what he described as the administration’s “willful disregard” of the court. TRUMP FOE BOASBERG ORDERS DOJ TO DETAIL STATUS OF CECOT MIGRANTS SENT TO VENEZUELA For months, the contempt case remained on ice. But, on Friday, judges for the full court of appeals rejected a request to reconsider the case and instead remanded to Boasberg to revive the contempt inquiry. The back-and-forth has landed the presiding judge squarely in the crosshairs of Trump and some of his Republican allies in Congress, some of whom attempted an unsuccessful eleventh-hour bid to seek his interim suspension from the bench before Wednesday’s hearing. Both parties also addressed the request for injunctive relief sought by the class of migrants deported under the Alien Enemies Act law. Boasberg’s emergency order in March touched off a complex legal saga that spawned dozens of federal court challenges across the country, though the one brought before his court was the very first. In July, he ordered the Trump administration to provide all noncitizens deported from the U.S. to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador to be afforded the opportunity to seek habeas relief in court and challenge their alleged gang status before they were removed again to Venezuela as part of the prisoner exchange. Efforts to ascertain the identities and locations of the class of migrants remain ongoing, though ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said Wednesday the “overwhelming” number of the plaintiffs deported to El Salvador in March still want to have the chance to have their due process claims heard. The question of what that process entails, or how it will play out, remains to be seen, and Boasberg indicated plans for the court to consider that more fully in the weeks to come.
Social media erupts after far-left firebrand botches Epstein claims: ‘Insane accusation’
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, is facing backlash on social media and labeled the “worst candidate possible” after she botched her facts while trying to tie Republicans to donations from Jeffrey Epstein during remarks on the House floor. After a tranche of Epstein-related documents were released earlier this week, Delegate Stacey Plaskett, the non-voting congressional representative for the U.S. Virgin Islands, came under fire for texting with the disgraced financier during a 2019 congressional hearing about Donald Trump’s potential conflicts of interest. Plaskett was fervently defended by several of her Democrat colleagues in the House after Republicans tried to censure her, including Crockett, who sought to accuse Republicans of their own ties to Epstein but failed miserably. Crockett said she had her team “dig in” to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, which she claimed showed Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator and former member of Congress from New York, had accepted campaign donations from the disgraced financier in the past. However, the donations were from a different Jeffrey Epstein, prompting backlash from both parties against Crockett. FAR-LEFT FIREBRAND SPENDS EYE-POPPING AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN CASH ON LUXURY HOTELS, ‘TOP-TIER’ LIMO SERVICES “If you’re looking for a good way to light $50 million on fire and lose by 15 points, then Jasmine Crockett is your candidate,” a Democratic strategist told Fox News Digital following Crockett’s floor remarks. Crockett has indicated she will decide by the Dec. 8 filing deadline whether she will throw her hat in the ring to challenge Republican incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “She’s got no shot to win that Texas Senate race, and screw-ups like this show why she’s probably the worst candidate possible,” the Democratic strategist continued. Republicans did not hold back on their criticism of Crockett. “Crockett should get censured for this and staff should be fired,” GOP strategist Matt Whitlock posted on X. “What a shocking embarrassment to go to the floor with this kind of insane accusation, and have the WRONG JEFFREY EPSTEIN.” “Crockett getting this so badly wrong is I guess why politicians usually outsource their oppo research to the professionals,” Chuck Ross, a Washington Free Beacon investigative reporter, wrote on X. “But you also would expect a member of Congress to know more about FEC filings.” “Jasmine Crockett completely misrepresented, indeed outright lied, about various GOP politicians’ potential past donor relationships with Epstein,” former New York GOP Congresswoman Nan Hayworth said. Zeldin was also quick to respond to the inaccuracy, noting the person he received campaign donations from was a physician also named Jeffrey Epstein. HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS BID TO CENSURE DEMOCRAT OVER EPSTEIN LINKS GOES DOWN IN FLAMES “NO [clapping emoji] FREAKIN [clapping emoji] RELATION [clapping emoji] YOU [clapping emoji] GENIUS!!!” In addition to Zeldin, Crockett sought to claim other Republicans, such as Mitt Romney, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), George Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin and others also received donations from the disgraced financier. “This is a distraction. … Why are y’all more interested in talking about Stacey Plaskett than Trump’s relationship with the man?” Crockett asked on the House floor, calling Trump and Epstein “besties” amid a resolution to censure Plaskett. “Miss me with your moral high ground. Folks who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I had my team dig in very quickly: Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin. George Bush, Win Red, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio. … If this is the standard that we are going to make, just know we’re going to expose it all and just know that the FEC filings are available for everybody to review,” Crockett said. Crockett had to be fact-checked just a few weeks ago for comments that attempted to make Republicans look like they were trying to hide facts about President Trump as it pertains to Epstein’s crimes. During an interview on CNN, Crockett attempted to claim Republicans redacted important information from documents about Epstein’s crimes. However, the hosts of the segment jumped in to correct the record, telling Crockett that it was actually Democrats who decided to black out the name of one of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, who did not accuse President Trump of any wrongdoing. “Her recitation of the facts is simply, that, ‘I’m not going to trust Republicans. They probably made that up. And, by the way, we would never redact the name of somebody who is deceased anyway,’” conservative radio host Vince Coglianese said of Crockett’s CNN debacle. “Jasmine Crockett was trying to — literally, on the spot — come up with a conspiracy theory in order to defend the callous and disgraceful behavior of Democrats. Where have we seen this before? Well, I don’t know, every Democrat made-up scandal about Donald Trump we’ve seen ever. They’re constantly trying to defame him. It’s the wrap-up smear constantly delivered over, and over, and over again.” Fox News Digital reached out to Crockett for comment but did not receive a response.