Supreme Court ruling sparks race to kill a multibillion-dollar loophole in Congress
FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., has a plan to snuff out a multibillion-dollar global industry. Scott is one of several Republicans racing to ram birthright citizenship tweaks through Congress after the Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling blocking the Trump administration’s effort to limit the right and President Donald Trump’s call for lawmakers to quickly respond. Despite an increasingly crowded field of legislation, Scott argued in an interview with Fox News Digital that his approach to halt birth tourism could work, even with Democrats. TRUMP SUFFERS MAJOR SUPREME COURT DEFEAT AS JUSTICES UPHOLD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP “The whole concept of the 14th Amendment, that ‘under the jurisdiction thereof,’ if you are on vacation in America, you certainly should not have a child while you’re here and think in any way, shape or form that kid is going to somehow, some way be an American citizen,” Scott said. “That’s just illogical. I would just say look at it from the mirror perspective,” he continued. “If you did that in any other country, would that child in that country become a citizen of that country? The answer is no.” Scott’s legislation, which is still being drafted, would target tourism visas and any child born in the U.S. to a woman with said visa from becoming an American citizen. REPUBLICAN ACCUSES SCOTUS OF BETRAYING US, PUSHES BILL RESTRICTING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, PREGNANT VISITORS His legislation is “designed specifically to get to the president’s desk to sign into law,” a tacit acknowledgment that in the Senate, he will need Democratic support to put a dent into the issue. “That means that Democrats cannot have any opposition to this notion that thousands of companies having hundreds of thousands of women come to this country to have a baby so that they leave with an American citizen,” Scott said. “We should break that whole cycle, destroy it in its infancy by not allowing it to exist at all,” he continued. “And that to me is the best approach.” Trump said he would prefer legislation over a “long and unwieldy” constitutional amendment, which has been floated by a handful of Senate Republicans, including Sens. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., and Rand Paul, R-Ky. Tackling the 14th Amendment completely is something Scott said he’d do, but he acknowledged that it’s not “possible in the current political environment.” “What is possible is for us to recognize that if you’re here temporarily, and you know you’re here temporarily, you should not leave with an American citizen as your child just because you gave birth on our soil,” Scott said. Meanwhile, in the House, there’s another approach led by Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn. Ogles, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, unveiled legislation Wednesday that would allow the government to bar pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. SOROS NETWORK TARGETS DEEP-RED MISSISSIPPI IN BID TO FLIP SENATE SEAT The Tennessee Republican says the measure, dubbed the Anchors Away Act, is necessary to crack down on the birth tourism industry, in which foreigners give birth on U.S. soil so that their children obtain U.S. citizenship. However, the legislation faces steep obstacles to clearing Congress, and it is unclear whether the bill would get a floor vote in the House amid Republicans’ razor-thin majority. “This is a conversation that I’m starting that I’m a champion of,” Ogles told Fox News Digital in an interview. “I’m working with the White House. And as long as it takes to get it done, I’ll be here to fight for it.” Ogles has also authored the Assimilation Act, legislation that would impose vast changes to the legal immigration system by ending birthright citizenship, requiring employers to implement E-Verify and scrapping the green-card lottery, among other provisions. The Tennessee lawmaker’s recently introduced Remigration Act would allow the government to denaturalize individuals convicted of certain crimes, including defrauding the government. “What we’ve seen over the last several decades is that Congress, quite frankly, has delegated its right to legislate to the Supreme Court,” Ogles said. “So this actually creates the opportunity for Congress to do its job. To define what it is to be a naturalized citizen, to define who can and cannot come into this country, because as the legislative body, we are the ones that are supposed to make those decisions.”
Pentagon consolidates drone oversight as Trump administration pushes rapid unmanned warfare expansion
The Pentagon announced Wednesday it is consolidating oversight of all military drones and autonomous systems under a newly created office as the Department of War moves to accelerate development and fielding of the technology across the armed forces. According to a War Department memo, the newly established Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems will report directly to Deputy Secretary of War Stephen Feinberg, and oversee unmanned and autonomous systems across the land, sea and air domains. The office also will oversee funding, acquisition and policy for unmanned systems programs currently spread across the military services, the Defense Innovation Unit, Joint Interagency Task Force 401 and the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group. CHINA’S GRIP ON RARE-EARTH MAGNETS COULD CRUSH US DRONE INDUSTRY BEFORE IT GROWS The move is intended to centralize oversight of the Pentagon’s rapidly expanding drone and autonomous systems programs. “Drones and autonomous systems represent the most consequential battlefield innovation of this generation,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement announcing the reorganization. “Adversaries collectively produce millions of unmanned systems each year across all domains,” he continued. “While global military production has skyrocketed over the last three years, the United States must move at the speed this moment demands to field these capabilities at scale and secure our tactical and strategic edge.” ‘A NEW KIND OF WAR’: INSIDE UKRAINE’S HIDDEN FACTORIES MASS-PRODUCING COMBAT DRONES The announcement follows the Trump administration’s broader push to expand the military’s use of drones and autonomous systems. In December, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth touted the administration’s “Drone Dominance” initiative, calling it “a billion-dollar program funded by President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill.” “We cannot afford to shoot down cheap drones with $2 million missiles. And we ourselves must be able to field large quantities of capable attack drones,” Hegseth said in a video message. ARMY TRAINS FOR MODERN BATTLEFIELD WITH TEXAS EXERCISE FOCUSED ON SPEED, TECHNOLOGY Hegseth said the Pentagon plans to deliver tens of thousands of small drones to U.S. forces in 2026 and hundreds of thousands more by 2027 while reshaping warfighting doctrine to integrate unmanned systems throughout combat units. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has also repeatedly argued that drones will dominate future battlefields. “Drones are the future of warfare. Manned aircraft are not,” Musk wrote in a post on X last year. The department said the new office will consolidate specialized expertise under a single leadership structure to speed the development, procurement and fielding of autonomous capabilities and help preserve the U.S. military’s tactical and strategic advantage over potential adversaries. Fox News’ Liz Friden contributed to this report.
DOJ targets Spanberger, Newsom gun laws with twin lawsuits after SCOTUS affirms Second Amendment rights
The Justice Department escalated its push against state gun restrictions Wednesday, filing lawsuits against California and Virginia just a week after the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right” in its decision in Wolford v. Lopez. The coordinated legal challenges target Democratic-backed firearm laws in both states, with the department seeking to block California’s restrictions on the sale of new Glock-style semiautomatic pistols and Virginia’s ban on the manufacture, sale, transfer and purchase of certain semiautomatic firearms classified as assault weapons. The California lawsuit was filed hours after the state’s new handgun restrictions took effect, following Attorney General Rob Bonta’s refusal to negotiate with the Justice Department over what federal officials contend are unconstitutional limits on gun rights. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said the administration is taking alleged infringements of the Second Amendment seriously. COMER PROBES ALLEGED BIDEN COLLUSION WITH GUN CONTROL ACTIVISTS IN GLOCK LAWSUIT “This lawsuit is yet another example of this Justice Department enforcing the Second Amendment by protecting citizens against unconstitutional state regulation of firearms,” Dhillon said in a press release. Bonta revealed Tuesday that the Justice Department had sent California a notice of intent to sue, arguing the law violates the Second Amendment. In a response letter, Bonta rejected the Department’s legal position and refused to negotiate. “The Unsafe Handgun Act and Penal Code section 27595 are commonsense handgun design safety laws that help to prevent accidental discharges by experienced and non-experienced firearm users as well as the conversion of semiautomatic pistols into deadly automatic firing weapons,” Bonta wrote. “If the U.S. Department of Justice decides to file the lawsuit described in your letter, it will not be breaking any new ground.” Dhillon responded on X with a brief message: “See you in court.” The Justice Department soon afterward announced its lawsuit against California, naming Dhillon and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jesus Osete as counsel. SPANBERGER’S LATEST ‘GUN-GRABBING NONSENSE’ PROMPTS ACTION FROM TRUMP DOJ: ‘STAY TUNED!’ Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s office accused the Trump administration of attempting to dismantle California’s gun safety laws. “Our response is simple — these laws save lives,” Newsom spokeswoman Diana Crofts-Pelayo said. “California has proven that strong, evidence-based gun safety measures can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners.” Crofts-Pelayo said California would not be “intimidated” by what she called politically motivated litigation and would continue enforcing laws designed to keep dangerous weapons off the streets. California has some of the nation’s strictest firearm regulations, which state officials credit with helping produce one of the country’s lowest gun death rates. The Golden State’s top elected Republican, however, appeared to agree with the DOJ that the law erodes Californians’ rights. “The Second Amendment applies to every American, even those living in California. Unfortunately, California Democrats find that fact inconvenient, so they ignore it in their efforts to erode and ultimately eliminate Californians’ lawful access to firearms,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego. “For decades, the Democrats in California have trampled the constitution with complete disregard for the rights of everyday Californians and banning the most popular firearm on the market is just the latest example,” he told Fox News Digital. “That’s why action like this is needed and I’m grateful that the DOJ has decided to join the fight and help preserve our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in California.” The California lawsuit came shortly after the Justice Department sued Virginia over a newly enacted ban on so-called assault firearms. The lawsuit challenges Senate Bill 749, sponsored by state Sen. Saddam Salim, D-Dunn Loring, and signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger in May. The ban took effect Wednesday, making it a misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase or transfer certain semiautomatic firearms defined as assault weapons under state law. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN BLUE STATE’S ‘VAMPIRE RULE’ IN MAJOR WIN FOR GUN RIGHTS Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Constitution “is not a suggestion” and that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.” Dhillon said she warned Spanberger in April that the Justice Department would sue if she signed the legislation and said Wednesday the administration was following through on that pledge. A spokesperson for Spanberger defended the law, saying the governor “firmly believes that firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong in our communities, near our kids and schools, or on Virginia’s streets.” “The Governor signed this commonsense legislation to save lives and protect law enforcement officers, kids, and families from gun violence — and the Governor remains committed to making the Commonwealth a safer home for every family,” the spokesperson said. Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, welcomed the lawsuit, saying the state is now using taxpayer dollars to defend “an unconstitutional gun ban against the United States itself.” “That is where the Richmond Democrats’ agenda has led — into court, on the wrong side of the Constitution,” Kilgore told Fox News Digital. “House Republicans said this law could not stand. A Virginia court has already blocked it, and now the Justice Department agrees. It should be repealed.” SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER The National Association for Gun Rights also praised the department’s actions. “Thank God a small number of committed individuals in DC realize we only have a few years of opportunity to make moves like this, and they’re seizing it,” the group said. Hannah Hill, executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, said the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, which she said strengthened Second Amendment protections, gave the Justice Department additional legal support for its latest lawsuits against California and Virginia. “The timing is perfect for the Department of Justice to begin to be filing these lawsuits to strike out gun bans all across the country, it’s a really bad time to be a gun grabber,” Hill told Fox News Digital. The lawsuits came the same day the Supreme Court agreed to hear two Second Amendment cases next term challenging state and local
Alleged Cuban influence operative, family in federal custody after Rubio revokes legal status
Three Cuban nationals, including a man the Trump administration says spent more than a decade working for a Cuban government influence organization in the United States, were apprehended by federal agents this week after Secretary of State Marco Rubio terminated their legal status. The State Department announced Wednesday that Carlos Antonio Lloga Dominguez, along with his wife and son, are in federal custody pending removal from the U.S. Lloga Dominguez spent more than a decade as a “foreign subversive” employed by the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the People (ICAP), the communist Cuban regime’s “premier influence and intelligence front group in the United States,” according to the State Department. He is accused of continuing to maintain ties to the transnational communist subversion network throughout his time residing in the U.S. “This is America First leadership in our region,” a senior State Department official told Fox News Digital of the apprehensions. FEDS INVESTIGATE NONPROFITS AND LEADERS ALLEGEDLY COORDINATING WITH CUBA IN INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN ICAP was sanctioned earlier this month. The group has denied any wrongdoing and says it’s a civil society organization. The State Department maintains that ICAP “maintains an outsized footprint across the United States, trafficking in vile anti-American propaganda, cultivating pro-Havana regime activists and politicians, and lobbying federal, state and local politicians on behalf of the Cuban dictatorship.” FIRST ON FOX: POWERFUL HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS CHAIR THROWS HAMMER DOWN ON ‘FOREIGN-ALIGNED INFLUENCE NETWORK’ ICAP, which was founded in Fidel Castro in 1960 to spread Marxism all over the world, was accused of working with far-left groups in America to “export Cuba’s Communist revolution to the United States.” The State Department describes ICAP as the “the central node in a sprawling Cuban intelligence and influence operation, claiming to span more than 2,000 organizations across more than 150 countries.” The sanctions against ICAP, enacted by Rubio, froze all its U.S.-based assets and generally banned Americans from doing business with the organization. “America will never become home for foreign communists who peddle propaganda, run subversive influence operations, or support radical anti-American movements within the United States,” Rubio said in a statement on social media. “Transact with ICAP and you will be sanctioned, prosecuted or deported from our country.” A Fox News Digital investigation found that over the last decade, ICAP officials have closely coordinated with American nonprofits to support the Communist Party of Cuba. PROBE INTO ‘SUBVERSIVE’ ANTI-AI SINGHAM NETWORK IS ‘ENORMOUS,’ FORMER TREASURY ADVISOR SAYS These nonprofits — many of them funded by businessman and far-left activist Neville Roy Singham — include the People’s Forum, Breakthrough News, Tricontinental, CodePink, the ANSWER Coalition and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Altogether, there are 145 nonprofits, labor groups, advocacy organizations and activist collectives across the U.S. that are mobilizing in support of the Cuban government, Fox News Digital reported. The organizations report about $1 billion in combined revenue. The DOJ and the Treasury Department is investigating this alleged influence campaign. CodePink, founded by Jodie Evans, Singham’s wife, led a convoy to Cuba earlier this year to deliver aid to the country. The trip came after President Donald Trump imposed an oil blockade on Cuba earlier this year. The convoy has since attracted federal scrutiny, with CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin confirming she received questions from federal officials who were investigating whether she violated American sanctions on Cuba. Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace and Asra Nomani contributed to this report.
‘Weapons of mass reproduction’: Watchdog unveils action plan to curb birth tourism after Supreme Court ruling
A top government watchdog group released a multipoint plan to protect the homeland and the integrity of U.S. citizenship after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling affirming birthright citizenship as enshrined in federal law. Conservatives across the country criticized Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, along with the court’s three liberal justices, arguing that the ruling opens the door to citizenship for children born to foreign nationals illegally present in the U.S. and dilutes American citizenship. The Oversight Project shared its “Keeping Families Together Plan” with Fox News Digital, arguing the ruling did not grant legal status to the parents of so-called anchor babies, a premise central to its proposal. “Now that the illegal alien community has achieved weapons of mass reproduction… you need to turn off that multiplying effect. And if the goal of mass deportation is quantitative, which of course it is, you need go [to] places where legal immigration spreads the most or is concentrated the most,” said Mike Howell, an attorney and president of the Oversight Project. SUPREME COURT’S LATEST IMMIGRATION RULING WILL CAU.S.E AMERICANS TO ‘DIE AND SUFFER’ ATTORNEY WARNS “That’s why I’ve advocated so long for worksite enforcement,” he said, noting farms and factories need enforcement rather than “playing onesies and twosies” in sanctuary cities. An increase in deportations, particularly of the parents of potential anchor babies, is key now that unfettered naturalization is a real possibility, he added. BIDEN JUDGE OVERRULED ON KEY TRUMP IMMIGRATION POLICY “Go to ‘red’ places and deport.” By deporting parents of so-called “anchor babies,” in most cases the child would be deported with the parent — and if not, that parent would have the “moral onus” of abandoning the child, Howell said. “If you are truly committed to the idea that birthright citizenship is absurd in its application, then it should be preventative,” he added, saying part of the plan to keep foreign families together would entail throwing roadblocks up to pregnant foreigners having children in the U.S. Positioning ICE at certain hospitals would help prevent that, he said. Turning to combating “birth tourism” — in which organizations help foreign nationals travel to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth to U.S.-citizen children — Howell said China is the biggest source of the practice and other economic threats. Asked how to thread the needle with the U.S.’ economic reliance on Beijing, Howell said Tuesday’s ruling shows it is time to play “hardball.” He criticized President Donald Trump’s blessing of thousands of Chinese students continuing to study in America, which, in Howell’s words, would “prop up our failing university system.” “The elite regions of [China’s] upper class love access to the U.S. financial system and coming here and taking advantage of it. And so if you’re negotiating and it’s the art of the deal… take away the thing they want.” Howell claimed one Chinese billionaire has been “shipping his sperm” to California to inseminate women, resulting in children being born with U.S. citizenship. “What kind of serious country allows [that]?” he said. Reports from outlets, including Fortune, have described wealthy Chinese businessmen engaging in repeated surrogacy arrangements involving American women. Howell said that despite talk of Trump’s “mass deportation” agenda, the numbers don’t match the boasts so far. “The fact remains there isn’t a mass deportation campaign underway. And that’s why we’ve been pushing this Mass Deportation Coalition, which has so many members across the country and a policy framework for them to do it,” he said, acknowledging that Trump has had “special interests” buffeting his attempts because they don’t want their workforces deported, and setbacks like the public outcry over agent-involved shootings in Minneapolis that led to “cold feet.” Asked about the Oversight Project’s plan and Howell’s comments, the White House said Trump remains “totally committed” to protecting the “value of natural-born citizenship.” “[That] is why, following yesterday’s ruling, he directed Congress to take immediate action to address this. Simultaneously, the administration will double down on our efforts to keep the border secure and deport illegal aliens.” Spokesperson Abigail Jackson added that the DOJ will prioritize birth-tourism schemes, some of which Howell laid out. Howell’s plan also includes a veiled shot at Roberts — who, despite being a Republican’s appointee, is often the swing vote in favor of the court’s liberal minority as he was Tuesday. The George W. Bush appointee famously roiled Republicans after deeming Obamacare constitutional by defining its no-insurance penalty as a “tax,” while writing in the same 2012 ruling that Congress could not force Americans to buy insurance. “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one,” Roberts wrote in NFIB v. Sebelius. Howell said lawmakers could therefore create a mechanism through congressional reconciliation to punish birth-tourists — but define the penalty as a “tax.” “Much like the Obamacare plan being upheld as a tax by the Supreme Court, this would survive constitutional scrutiny,” the Oversight Project’s plan read. The plan also goes further, calling on DHS to suspend all visas for countries like China that engage in birth tourism. SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER The key, Howell said, is to start ignoring the noise from the left and from critics and power through the end of the congressional term with attainable goals in mind no matter how controversial critics say they are. “We took a hit today, a big hit, but the damage can be mitigated and the overall problem can be solved with a lot of political backbone and using the money from the Big, Beautiful Bill quickly and without fear of what the left-wing media might say about it,” he said. “Reconciliation is a beautiful vehicle to achieve those kind of cost-cutting measures. Obamacare was a tax. The rule is a tax, so why can’t we use a tax here? I’m sure the legal pundits will have much to say about that one,” Howell remarked. “But by any
Court keeps ‘Decoy Dan’ on Alaska ballot as expert warns ranked-choice system creates voter ‘traps’
Alaska’s highest court ruled that a same-name Republican challenger to Sen. Dan Sullivan can remain on the ballot, a decision an election expert says exposes glaring flaws in Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system and top-four primary. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Monday that Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, is eligible to appear on the Republican primary ballot alongside incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan, affirming a lower court’s decision keeping him on the ballot despite Republicans and the Division of Elections arguing that Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy is a “sham” attempt orchestrated by Democratic operatives to potentially trip up voters and siphon off votes from the incumbent. “It very clearly is an attempt to mislead voters,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told Fox News Digital. “When you look at the facts, they’ve been pretty clearly established.” Snead pointed to Alaska’s ranked choice voting (RCV) and jungle primary as especially vulnerable to any nefarious tactics with same-name candidates because, unlike a traditional partisan primary, Alaska advances the top four finishers from a single primary election to the general election, regardless of party. DAN SULLIVAN ACCUSES SAME-NAME CHALLENGER OF TRYING TO ‘RIG’ ALASKA SENATE RACE Snead argued that under a conventional Republican primary, a candidate he described as a “decoy” would be unlikely to eliminate a legitimate contender before the general election. Instead, he said, voters face a crowded top-four primary ballot in this year’s Alaska Senate race, roughly 16 candidates are running, and confusion over nearly identical names could have significant consequences. GOP FIGHTS TO STOP MULTIPLE DAN SULLIVANS FROM APPEARING ON ALASKA BALLOT, CALLS CANDIDACY A ‘SHAM’ “You’ve really got two problems in one,” Snead said. “You don’t have any party primary. There’s no Republican nominee or Democratic nominee. You have this jungle primary where everybody runs together, and the top four candidates advance to the general election.” Snead argued that under a traditional partisan primary, a candidate he described as a decoy would have little chance of preventing a legitimate Republican nominee from advancing to the general election. Instead, he said, Alaska’s crowded all-party primary creates more opportunities for voter confusion. “If enough of them pick the wrong Dan Sullivan, then he makes it into the general,” Snead said. “Now you’ve got two people named Dan Sullivan on the ballot.” Snead said the ranked-choice system can compound the problem because ballots are redistributed as candidates are eliminated. “If you only rank one person, then your ballot is eliminated if that person is eliminated,” he said. ALASKA’S BLOCKBUSTER SENATE RACE THROWN INTO CHAOS AS SAME-NAME CHALLENGER FIGHTS DISQUALIFICATION IN COURT He said another possibility is that voters could mistakenly rank the wrong Dan Sullivan first and Democrat Mary Peltola second, causing those votes to transfer to Peltola if the decoy candidate is eliminated during tabulation. “There are lots of different traps here,” Snead said. “At a minimum, I think this speaks to the fact that ranked-choice voting plus jungle primaries is especially vulnerable to these sorts of games.” “It is definitely not an idea that is ready for prime time, no matter what the people that push ranked choice are trying to sell us on.” The Alaska Supreme Court did stipulate that election officials could add additional identifying information to the ballot to distinguish between the two candidates, leaving those design decisions to the Division of Elections. Dan J. Sullivan, known to his critics as “Decoy Dan,” has come under scrutiny over ties to Democratic consultant Amber Lee, who was revealed as the author of his campaign launch announcement in metadata reviewed by Fox News Digital. Lee has notably supported Peltola’s prior runs for office and expressed optimism to The Hill in January that the Alaska Democrat would unseat the incumbent Sullivan. According to Alaska Director of Elections Carol Beecher, Dan J. Sullivan requested to appear on the primary ballot under the name “Dan Sullivan” despite previously registering as “Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.” Beecher also noted that his campaign materials are visually similar to the incumbent Republican’s campaign and that he had no affiliation with the GOP prior to jumping into the race shortly before the filing deadline. The fate of his candidacy could prove decisive in the state’s hotly contested Senate race in which Sen. Dan S. Sullivan is seeking a third term in the Republican-leaning state. Democrats are hoping that former Rep. Mary Peltola, D-Alaska, whom Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., helped recruit into the race, will unseat Sullivan in November. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Dan J. Sullivan’s campaign said, “Mr. Sullivan has been buoyed by yesterday’s decisive victory at the Alaska Supreme Court. To the extent that the Division of Elections is still grappling with how it will properly effectuate ballot design in a manner consistent with Alaska law and past practice, he has no comment, and looks forward to running his campaign.” Fox News Digital’s Adam Pack contributed to this report.
Ex-CIA chief accused of orchestrating ‘Russia hoax’ sues Trump admin for ‘vindictive prosecution’
Former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan is suing the Trump administration and demanding a court order to require officials to preserve records of the criminal investigations against him. Brennan served as CIA director under former President Barack Obama from 2013 to 2017. In a court filing reviewed by Fox News Digital, Brennan asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to issue preliminary injunctive relief to “protect his constitutional rights as the current target of two federal investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice.” Attorneys for Brennan assert that the DOJ has launched its investigations “at the direct urging of President Trump” and that the investigations amount to searching for “phantom criminal conduct.” The filing states that “regrettably, some in the current DOJ and Federal Bureau of Investigation leadership have acceded to that direction, and are converting the Justice Department into a tool of retribution against Director Brennan and the President’s other perceived adversaries.” FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS BLUE STATE’S LAW PROHIBITING ICE AGENTS FROM WEARING MASKS ON THE JOB Fox News Digital reported this May that the FBI had begun questioning current and former CIA officials as part of a Justice Department probe into Brennan and his role in the intelligence community’s 2017 assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Brennan has previously denied wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation and has defended the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election. According to sources familiar with the matter, as of May, agents had interviewed roughly a dozen officials involved in drafting the assessment, with investigators focusing on how its conclusions were reached and whether Brennan may have misled Congress during his 2023 testimony. At the center of the probe is whether the intelligence assessment, which concluded Russia sought to boost Trump’s candidacy, was influenced by the controversial Steele dossier, a collection of largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump’s supposed ties to Russia that was funded by political opponents. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has tapped former Trump attorney Joseph diGenova to spearhead the probe, putting a former Trump attorney in a key role in the high-profile probe. DOJ LAUNCHES GRAND JURY PROBE INTO MARXIST MOGUL NEVILLE ROY SINGHAM’S FUNDING OF LEFTIST GROUPS Brennan has previously said the CIA opposed including the dossier in the assessment, though a summary was ultimately attached to a classified version of the report. In his filing, attorneys for Brennan accuse the administration of “overreaching actions” that “have violated Director Brennan’s constitutional rights and will serve as the basis for challenges to any resulting charges, including motions to dismiss any indictment on the grounds that it is the result of selective and vindictive prosecution.” Brennan argues that during the course of these “presidentially-driven investigations,” certain DOJ officials have “taken steps that clearly violate well-established norms and limitations on prosecutorial conduct.” According to the filing, these include “issuing pronouncements that evince a pre-conceived belief in Director Brennan’s guilt; making statements that disclose matters relating to open grand jury investigations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); removing or sidelining career prosecutors who have balked at using the criminal process to promote the President’s retribution agenda; engaging in forum-shopping by moving the investigations from federal district to federal district in an effort to find a sufficiently pliant United States Attorney; and engaging in judge-shopping.” DEM SENATOR FACES DOJ PROBE AFTER ALLEGATIONS OF SPENDING CAMPAIGN FUNDS ON LUXURY LIFESTYLE Brennan’s filing also accuses the Trump administration of having a “disdain for records preservation” and administration officials of “routinely flout[ing] their preservation obligations.” In light of this accusation, he asked the court to issue an order requiring the Trump administration to preserve “any and all materials and communications that are potentially relevant to the consideration of Director Brennan’s legal and constitutional challenges to any future criminal charges.” The motion was filed by Brennan’s attorneys on Wednesday. It names Blanche as the defendant. A spokesperson for the DOJ responded to the suit by telling Fox News Digital, “While we cannot comment on the existence, or lack thereof, of an investigation, it is certainly rich that John Brennan is accusing anyone of a “retribution campaign.” Fox News Digital also reached out to the White House for comment. Fox News’ Jake Gibson and Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz, Robert McGreevy and Amanda Macias contributed to this report.
Mamdani ripped for claiming victory over capitalism after NYC’s multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded bailout
New York City‘s mayor is again under fire after spewing outlandish claims that his socialist policies are to credit for a balanced budget in the Big Apple, just after the city received a multi-billion dollar bailout from the state. “In January, our administration inherited a $12 billion budget deficit — a fiscal crisis greater than the Great Recession,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a Tuesday post on X announcing that the debt had been cleared. “We balanced the budget by taxing the rich and making government more efficient,” Mamdani continued. “We did not balance this budget on the backs of working people, and we never will.” MAMDANI ALLOCATES $500K FOR REPARATIONS TALKS AS NYC FACES $5.4B DEFICIT But the real reason the budget it balanced is because the city was handed $1.5 billion by the state of New York in January — funded by working class taxpayers across the state — as part of a multi-year plan to bail out the fiscally-challenged city. In late May, the city received another $4 billion. Of the combined $8 billion provided to the city’s bailout fund under former Mayor Eric Adams’ tenure and now Mamdani’s mayorship, $5 billion was directly earmarked for the city to address fiscal measures. This includes allowing city government to defer pension contributions to close the budgetary gap. Mamdani’s claims about socialist policies producing results — and his failure to mention the massive bailouts provided by taxpayer dollars — did not fly on social media. MAMDANI ALLOCATES $500K FOR REPARATIONS TALKS AS NYC FACES $5.4B DEFICIT “This is a lie,” independent journalist Nick Shirley said in a reply to the mayor. “You balanced the budget by borrowing billions from the NY state government which pushed back pension payments, so you literally took money from ‘the backs of hardworking people.’ Don’t get it twisted,” he added. Commentator and journalist Nick Sortor also flamed the mayor over the loan and his classification of the bailout. “Are you saying New Yorkers can ‘balance their budgets’ by taking out massive credit card loans?” he asked sarcastically. BROADCAST NETWORKS TOUT MAMDANI’S VICTORIES, PROCLAIM SOCIALISM IS ‘RESONATING’ “Mamdani balanced the budget by taking money from Albany, who in turn taxed Rochester and Buffalo” another social media user said. “That’s who is paying for all of Mamdani’s free crap.” In a press conference earlier in the day, Mamdani claimed victory over capitalism. “Throughout this process I have been reminded of the words of the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek: ‘if socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.’” After the Republican National Convention (RNC) posted that clip, Mamdani also faced ridicule for that. “It always looks good at first until the chickens come home to roost,” one person replied. “He’ll soon ‘deliver’ bread lines instead,” said another. Mamdani’s office did not return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Melat Kiros becomes 28th far-left candidate to win a Democratic primary this year as socialists amass power
Melat Kiros has become the 28th candidate endorsed by a far-left group to win a Democratic primary election this cycle, according to a Fox News review. The 29-year-old Democratic socialist is now in the same company as Graham Platner, the scandal-plagued Democratic Senate nominee in Maine, as well as the trio of Zohran Mamdani-backed House nominees — Brad Lander, Claire Valdez, and Darializa Avila Chevalier. Kiros ran for Colorado’s 1st congressional district and was supported by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Working Families Party (WFP) and the Justice Democrats. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS SEIZE THE MOMENT WITH EXTREME, ANTI-AMERICAN VIEWS THAT BADLY TARNISH THE PARTY Although not all 25 far-left House candidates who won Democratic primaries this year are guaranteed to win their general election bids in November, many of them, including Kiros, are in solidly blue districts where Republican challengers have little chance of being successful. If all the far-left House candidates tracked by Fox News were to win, they’d join another 18 like-minded colleagues, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. In the best case scenario for the far left, they’d have a 43-member bloc in the House of Representatives come January 2027. WATCH: PELOSI, OMAR STAY SILENT AS MAMDANI-BACKED SOCIALIST VICTORIES SHAKE DEMOCRAT PARTY Seeing as there are just 10 Blue Dog Democrats, a left-wing sweep would substantially tip the balance of power in the Democratic Party, which is favored to retake the House majority next year. The Blue Dog Caucus is a coalition of House Democrats who describe themselves as fiscally responsible and focused on bipartisan dealmaking. They also support a strong national defense. With her victory on Tuesday, Kiros also became the sixth insurgent candidate this year to oust an incumbent. CARVILLE WARNS DEMOCRATS ANTI-ISRAEL ‘LOUDMOUTHS’ COULD COST ELECTIONS Kiros defeated Rep. Diana DeGette, who served 15 terms in Congress, by a nearly 10-point margin, according to The Associated Press. DeGette was sworn into the House in January 1997, four months before Kiros was born. DeGette supported abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and implementing Medicare-for-All, two key priorities of her opponent and leftists at large. Largely aligned on domestic policy priorities, Kiros and DeGette diverged on the issue of Israel. DeGette is a strong supporter of the Jewish nation and has also advocated for a two-state solution. Kiros took a harsher stance, accusing Israel of committing a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Kiros, who supports a full U.S. arms embargo on Israel, criticized DeGette for backing continued U.S. military aid to the country, including funding for defensive systems like the Iron Dome. Kiros’s other foreign policy ideas have drawn significant criticism, including her view that the U.S. shares culpability in the horrific 9/11 terror attacks. 9News journalist Kyle Clark asked Kiros in a June 22 interview whether she believed 9/11 was an “inevitable consequence” of American intervention. “Inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the Middle East, which led people to believe that another act of violence was the only response. And again, just like I said before, our responsibility is to get rid of those conditions that lead to violence in the first place,” Kiros said. Before her campaign, Kiros was fired from her position at the Sidley Austin law firm in 2023 after publishing an open letter criticizing law firms, including her own, that called for action against antisemitism on college campuses. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Harris reaches out to socialist mayor Mamdani in latest sign she’s shoring up support for possible 2028 bid
Former Vice President Kamala Harris is courting New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and other progressive power players as 2028 speculation builds around another possible White House bid. The phone call with Mamdani last week, first reported by Axios and confirmed by Fox News Digital, along with other closed-door meetings with progressive groups, suggests Harris is trying to shore up support from factions of the party that didn’t support her during her 2024 run. Additionally, Harris met with progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., behind the scenes at a Black women empowerment summit in Chicago, Axios first reported, and Fox News Digital confirmed. Harris reportedly has also been reaching out to pro-Palestinian groups after she faced pushback from those groups during her 2024 presidential run. Harris reached out to at least one group that was part of the “Uncommitted Movement” that developed as a result of President Joe Biden’s handling of the Israel and Gaza conflict. KAMALA HARRIS DROPS BIGGEST HINT YET ON 2028 WHITE HOUSE RUN Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani and Harris’ office for comment. News of the Harris and Mamdani call sparked criticism from conservatives online. “Kamala Harris 2020 was desperate, Kamala Harris 2024 was pathetic, Kamala Harris 2028 will be unhinged,” GOP political strategist Nathan Brand posted on X. Mamdani’s influence in the party has only grown since he was sworn into office in January, as highlighted by a clean sweep of socialist-aligned candidates he endorsed winning their races in the New York Democratic primary last month. CARVILLE WARNS DEMOCRATS ANTI-ISRAEL ‘LOUDMOUTHS’ COULD COST ELECTIONS “The fact that she’s courting people like Mamdani, these socialists and communists, it goes back to the radical leftists, because the Democrats are in big trouble as a party,” RNC chair Joe Gruters exclusively told Fox News Digital on Wednesday. “They’re in the death spiral, because now they have these people inside their tent,” he continued. “This is who the Democratic Party is today: these radical leftists that want to fundamentally transform our country. And that’s why we have to fight. That’s why we have to come together, unite, and we have to win. We have to win to save the country. We have to win to move our policies forward. There’s a lot at stake. Certainly, Kamala Harris, the meeting with Mamdani and these radicals shows you where the left continues to go where they want to go, but listen, she has to kowtow to these radicals to try to win.” Earlier this year, Harris made stops in the crucial primary state of South Carolina less than a week after she dropped a tantalizing comment at the first major cattle call of Democratic presidential contenders. “I might. I might. I’m thinking about it… I’ll keep you posted,” Harris said in April at the National Action Network’s 35th Anniversary Convention, when asked by the event founder, the Rev. Al Sharpton, if she would seek the presidency in 2028. Harris, who replaced President Joe Biden as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee but later lost the election to President Donald Trump, was greeted by the crowd with chants of “run again.”