Author

Browsing

President Donald Trump sought to dispel swirling social media rumors about his health Tuesday, saying he was ‘very active’ over the Labor Day weekend.

‘I didn’t do anything for two days, and they said ‘there must be something wrong with him,’’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, describing the speculation about his death as ‘fake news.’

Trump’s comments followed a wave of unfounded speculation that began Friday night and stretched into Saturday morning, fueled by an empty public schedule and recycled photos showing bruising on his hand. 

The online chatter subsided after Trump was seen leaving the White House with his grandchildren for his golf club in Virginia on Saturday. He was seen wearing a white polo shirt and red MAGA hat.

‘I was very active over the weekend. I went out to visit some people at the club that I own pretty nearby on the Potomac River. No, I’ve been very active, actually,’ Trump said, drawing a sharp comparison to his predecessor, President Joe Biden.

‘You wouldn’t see him (Biden) and nobody ever said there was ever anything wrong with him,’ Trump said. ‘And we know he wasn’t in the greatest of shape.’ 

In July, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump was experiencing bruising on his hands that was attributable to ‘frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin.’ 

She added that he also had mild swelling in his legs that stemmed from a ‘benign and common condition’ in individuals older than age 70.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., allowed a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission to keep her job, at least for now, as part of a lawsuit centered on President Donald Trump’s authority to remove members of independent agencies without cause.

A three-judge panel said Tuesday that a lower court’s decision that Trump unlawfully fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter could remain in place and that the firing was squarely at odds with Supreme Court precedent. 

‘The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent,’ the panel wrote in an order.

Slaughter was abruptly fired after Trump took office, rehired when Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in her favor last month, and then re-fired days later when the appellate court briefly paused Ali Khan’s decision.

The three-judge panel, comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee, lifted that pause on Tuesday, which allows Slaughter to return to work. The Trump administration can appeal the decision.

Department of Justice attorneys had argued for the appellate court to grant the Trump administration a stay, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision to do the same in a recent separate case involving other independent agencies.

‘The court’s reinstatement of a principal officer of the United States—in defiance of recent Supreme Court precedent staying similar reinstatements in other cases—works a grave harm to the separation of powers and the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution,’ the attorneys wrote.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The House Oversight Committee released a tranche of thousands of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case on Tuesday night.

The surprise file dump came ahead of an expected House-wide vote to formalize the committee’s Epstein inquiry on Wednesday afternoon.

That vote, while largely symbolic, would also direct the House Oversight Committee to release the Epstein files sent by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Nearly 34,000 pages are being released that include the DOJ’s interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and videos that appear to show the inside of Epstein’s Palm Beach home.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed the DOJ in early August for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Epstein and Maxwell. 

The subpoena was directed by a bipartisan vote during an unrelated House Oversight Committee hearing in late July.

‘This is the most thorough investigation into Epstein and Maxwell to date, and we are getting results,’ Comer said during a House Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday evening.

‘We have already deposed former Attorney General Bill Barr, the Department of Justice provided nearly 34,000 pages of documents and will produce more, which are being made public as we speak.’

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, claimed that some 97% of those documents were already public, however.

The sudden release appears to be a bid to neutralize an effort by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to force a vote on their own bill to make the DOJ release information on Epstein.

The bipartisan pair is spearheading what’s known as a discharge petition — a rare procedural move that allows lawmakers to circumvent leadership if a majority of House members sign on. 

Such a vote could put Republican lawmakers, who are also pushing for more transparency, in a difficult position, forced to decide between the political ramifications of bucking the vote or defying their own leaders.

Massie told Fox News Digital earlier this week he expected enough signatures to hit that threshold by the end of this week, however.

‘I think there’s a real good chance of that,’ he said.

But Comer said the committee was ‘way ahead’ of Massie and Khanna’s move.

‘We’re going to go beyond it. We’re already getting the documents from the administration,’ Comer said. ‘I don’t think [the discharge petition is] necessary at all.’

In addition to deposing Barr and subpoenaing the DOJ, Comer’s panel also sent subpoenas to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, ex-FBI Director James Comey, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Senate teed up a colossal package to authorize funding for the Pentagon on Tuesday, marking the first legislation to hit the floor since lawmakers returned from August recess.

Lawmakers advanced the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on a largely bipartisan 84 to 14 vote, setting up the bill for debate before a later vote to advance it from the Senate.

This year’s version of the bill isn’t as divisive as its predecessor, given the lack of provisions targeting ‘woke’ policies at the Pentagon, which became a major target for Republicans when they gained power in the House during the latter half of former President Joe Biden’s first term.

Instead, the measure focuses on military contracting reforms and lasers in on the Pentagon’s failure to complete, let alone pass, an audit for the last several years. It also includes a bump to service members’ pay, though not as high as in recent years. It also includes an extension to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through 2028, and increases authorized funding to $500 million. 

Still, the measure would authorize about 3% more funding for the Pentagon when compared to last year’s NDAA in the midst of the GOP and White House’s push to cut costs in the government.

It also comes on the heels of a $150 billion injection of defense spending passed in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said after the bill glided through committee in July that the ‘United States is operating in the most dangerous threat environment we have faced since World War II.’

‘The bill my committee advanced today is a direct reflection of the severity of that threat environment, as well as the rapidly evolving landscape of war,’ he said. ‘My colleagues and I have prioritized reindustrialization and the structural rebuilding of the arsenal of democracy.’

And Sen. Jack Reed, the Democrat on the panel, similarly agreed that the U.S. ‘faces a global security environment unlike any in recent memory.’

‘This legislation invests in the service members, technology, and capabilities we need to deter our adversaries and defend our national interests,’ the Rhode Island Democrat said. ‘I thank Chairman Wicker and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for advancing this bill to prioritize the safety and security of the American people.’

The Senate and House have offered competing versions of the bill, too. Lawmakers in the upper chamber leapfrogged their colleagues in the House, where their iteration of the NDAA is expected to be considered next week.

Overall, the Senate’s version of the legislation would tee up nearly $925 billion in defense spending. That total is split among the Department of Defense at over $878 billion, the Department of Energy at over $35 billion with another $10 billion allocated for ‘defense-related activities’ outside of the bill’s jurisdiction.

The House version of the bill clocked in at just over $848 billion, well below the Senate’s product but more in line with the Pentagon’s budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday accused Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un of conspiring against the U.S. after the three world leaders met in Beijing during a military parade.

‘The big question to be answered is whether or not President Xi of China will mention the massive amount of support and ‘blood’ that The United States of America gave to China in order to help it to secure its FREEDOM from a very unfriendly foreign invader,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.

‘Many Americans died in China’s quest for Victory and Glory,’ he continued. ‘I hope that they are rightfully Honored and Remembered for their Bravery and Sacrifice! May President Xi and the wonderful people of China have a great and lasting day of celebration. Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.’

The parade attended by the three U.S. adversaries commemorated the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II, highlighting Beijing’s efforts to showcase military power and deepen alliances at a time of heightened global tensions.

Kim’s attendance at the parade was his first trip to Beijing since 2019, as Pyongyang seeks to bolster ties with both China and Russia.

The military parade in Beijing featured thousands of troops marching through Tiananmen Square in a 70-minute display showcasing China’s latest weaponry.

Meeting ahead of the event in Beijing, Putin championed the ‘unprecedentedly high’ ties between himself and Xi amid the Russia-Ukraine war that began with a Moscow invasion in February 2022.

The meeting reaffirmed the increased unity the two countries have pursued following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Fox News’ Caitlin McFall and Emma Bussey contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Business magnate Elon Musk suggested that anti-white male propaganda is ‘a major driver of’ members of that demographic adopting transgender identity.

‘My observation is that a major driver of white males becoming trans is the relentless propaganda portraying white men as the worst human beings,’ Musk wrote in a post on X. 

‘If those lies land, especially during vulnerable teen years, and they are given an option to be a ‘celebrated’ group, some will do it,’ he added.

Someone responded to Musk’s post by writing, ‘Interesting theory. It may also explain why so many white women support trans mania despite the harm it causes them and their children.’

Musk replied with the 100 emoji, apparently expressing agreement.

One of Musk’s children identifies as transgender.

‘They call it deadnaming for a reason,’ Musk previously said during an interview with Jordan Peterson, saying, ‘my son Xavier is dead, killed by the woke mind virus.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

For decades, Democrats have clung to James Carville’s mantra: ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ It became the default excuse for every campaign message, every strategy and every setback.  

We need to retire that phrase from our political lexicon. 

My fellow Democrats forget that Carville’s first rule on his whiteboard in Little Rock wasn’t the economy, stupid. It was ‘Change vs. more of the same.’ Voters still want change — not numbers, not excuses. And if President Donald Trump offers change while Democrats defend the system as it is, Democrats will lose. 

Today, my party is jumping onto a shiny substitute considered to be the winning message that unites all — ‘affordability’ — as if the idea that lower prices are better than higher ones is a revelation. Has a candidate ever campaigned on the reverse? 

During the Biden administration, consumer costs inflated on our watch, but now we are asking midterm voters to give us the keys back to the car anyway.  

When is my party going to learn that politics is about culture and connection, not charts and spreadsheets? It’s about being relevant to the lives of ordinary people, not proving to them that we are right. 

Voters aren’t sitting in some academic economics lecture. They don’t care about GDP growth, labor-force participation rates, or the Bureau of Labor Statistics when they feel prices are too high. They don’t want to hear that homicides, robberies and carjackings have decreased according to the latest stats, when they feel unsafe. Sending in the National Guard won’t be a solution to ending crime in our inner cities, but it does make communities feel protected.  

Are Democrats so disconnected from reality that we’ve unlearned the most basic political principle of all, that perception and politics go hand-in-glove?  

Voters are not looking to be informed by candidates, especially when they sound like human calculators, vomiting out numbers. Being informed isn’t the same as feeling informed and telling voters that how they feel isn’t real, because numbers say otherwise, isn’t a winning message. Shaming Trump voters for their choice last year or lecturing them that this isn’t what they voted for, offends them rather than persuades them. Patronizing voters is not a strategy. 

What voters in this midterm election want is some cultural common sense, and to borrow a bullet from the Democratic talking points, Democrats have not been meeting voters where they are — yet.  

Voters want to hear us acknowledge that crime is bad and say we need more cops on the street, but not necessarily troops. They want our candidates to give a straight answer and plainly state that boys shouldn’t compete in girls’ sports as a matter of fairness. It’s okay for Democrats to say they believe in merit-based hiring instead of DEI and box-checking quotas.  

Most Americans feel this way — and Democrats lose credibility when they dodge these conversations or give evasive answers.  

Democrats avoid going where the news and conversations are happening. Our leaders and candidates too often duck and cover. When issues turn culturally sensitive, they play hide and seek. We need to run straight into the culture war fires, not away from them. Those are the conversations voters are having and we need to join them.  

My old boss, President Joe Biden, learned this lesson the hard way. Biden’s presidency illustrates this danger for Democrats on the ballot everywhere in 2026. At the very moments when Americans were craving leadership — like a national debate over college campus unrest and violent antisemitism — Biden was absent. Scranton Joe, who built his career on a chip-on-the-shoulder authenticity that connected with ordinary people, became the first non-Ivy League president in decades. Yet, he was silent when he could have drawn the sharpest contrast from the elites.  

Biden told Americans the economy was the envy of the world, and then his Baghdad Bobs in the White House told us he was as sharp as ever. Polls said Americans felt otherwise, still his instinct was to retreat further.  Voters saw fewer unscripted moments, such as interviews or news conferences, smaller steps off Air Force One and a greater reliance on teleprompters. In a political age where imagery shapes public opinion, Biden looked feeble, distant and disconnected. He followed an outdated media strategy that led him into a political death spiral.  

Trump, by contrast, dives headfirst into every news cycle and runs into every cultural fire — from campus protests to celebrity dust-ups like Sydney Sweeney’s jeans or Cracker Barrel’s new logo. He doesn’t hesitate, he doesn’t duck, he doesn’t wait for the perfect poll-tested phrase. Love him or hate him, voters can’t miss that he shows up with an opinion and a position. He doesn’t keep them guessing.  

Democrats don’t need to copy Trump’s style. But they do need his guts. If voters are talking about trans athletes, immigration, DEI or crime — and they stay silent or pivot — then they’re absent from the conversations Americans outside the Beltway are having with friends, family and their neighbors. It’s these social conversations that are shaping political identity, not stats and charts. 

Voters will tune out any type of hell Democrats try to raise about prices, tariffs or cuts to Medicare if they think we don’t ‘get’ them on culture. 

The way out of the wilderness isn’t another slogan about affordability. It’s courage and common sense. Stop hiding behind statistics. Start running into the fire. Only then will Democrats earn back voters’ trust. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A new push by states to tax the real estate of the wealthy has sparked a backlash among brokers and potential buyers, who say the taxes punish the most important local spenders.

From tax hikes on pricey second homes in Rhode Island and Montana to Cape Cod’s proposed transfer tax on homes over $2 million and the L.A. mansion tax, state and local governments see a revenue gold mine in the pricey properties of the wealthy.

“It’s a smack in the face to people who just spend money here,” said Donna Krueger-Simmons, sales agent with Mott & Chace Sotheby’s International in Watch Hill, Rhode Island.

The tax hikes are being driven by tighter state budgets and populist anger over housing costs. States are looking to offset budget cuts expected from the new tax and spending bill in Washington. At the same time, the housing market has become a tale of two buyers, with the middle class and younger families struggling to afford homes while the luxury housing market thrives from wealthy all-cash buyers.

The solution for many states: tax the homes of the rich.

Rhode Island’s new levy, nicknamed “The Taylor Swift Tax,” is among the most extreme. The popstar bought a beach house in the state’s elite Watch Hill community in 2013.

The measure imposes a new surcharge on second homes valued at more than $1 million. For non-primary residences, or those not occupied for more than 182 days a year, the state will charge $2.50 for every $500 in assessed value above the first $1 million. That charge is on top of existing property taxes and will add up to big increases for luxury homes in Newport, Watch Hill and other well-heeled, summer communities in the state.

A version of this article appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

Swift’s house, for instance, is assessed at around $28 million, according to local real estate records. Her current property taxes are estimated at around $201,000 a year. The new charges will add another $136,442 to her annual taxes, bringing her yearly total to $337,442 — even though locals say she rarely visits.

Real estate brokers say the increase targets the very taxpayers who already contribute the most. Wealthy second-homeowners pay hefty property taxes but don’t use many local services, since their primary residences are in New York; Boston; Palm Beach, Florida; or other locales. Their kids typically don’t attend the local schools, and they’re infrequent users of the police, fire, water and other municipal services since most stay for only 10 to 12 weeks out of the year.

“These are people who just come here for the summer, spend their money and pay their fair share of taxes,” said Krueger-Simmons. “They’re getting penalized just because they also live somewhere else.”

Brokers and longtime residents say the summer residents of Newport, Watch Hill and other seasonal beach towns are the economic engines for local businesses, restaurants and hotels.

“You’re just hurting the people who support small business,” said Lori Joyal, of the Lila Delman Compass office in Watch Hill. “You’re chasing away the people who spend most of the money in these towns.”

Rhode Island is also hiking its conveyance tax on luxury real estate starting in October. The tax on real estate sales will be an additional $3.75 for each $500 paid above $800,000 for a real estate purchase. At the same time, the state’s steep estate tax deters many of the ultra-wealthy from living there full-time.

Brokers say some second-home owners are considering selling and many would-be buyers are pausing their purchases. While the tax hike alone isn’t expected to lead to any significant wealth flight, Joyal said potential buyers in Rhode Island are already looking at coastal towns in Connecticut as alternatives.

“It’s always about choices,” she said. “At the end of the day it’s about how they can choose to spend their discretionary dollars. Connecticut has some beautiful coastal towns without some of these other high taxes.”

Montana has passed a similar tax. The influx of Californians and other affluent newcomers who poured into the state during Covid has led to soaring home prices and growing resentment over gentrification. Meanwhile, the state’s low income tax rate and lack of a sales tax has left it little room for revenue increases to handle the necessary increase in services.

In May, the state passed a two-tier property tax plan, lowering rates for full-time residents and raising taxes on second homes and short-term rentals. For primary residences and long-term rentals valued at or below the state’s median home price, the tax rate will be 0.76%. Homes worth more than that will face a tiered-rate system of up to 1.9% on any value over four times the median price.

The Montana Department of Revenue expects the changes, which will start next year, will hike second-home taxes by an average of 68%. Brokers say some buyers are waiting to see the tax bills next year before making any decisions about whether to buy or sell.

“I’ve heard about some buyers who have put on the brakes to wait for the dust to settle and see what happens,” said Valerie Johnson, with PureWest Christie’s International Real Estate in Bozeman, Montana.

Johnson said that while the tax was touted by legislators as hitting wealthy second-home owners, it will also hit longtime locals who own investment homes and rent them out for income.

“These are small businesses for many people,” she said.

Manish Bhatt, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said tax hikes aimed at wealthy second-home owners may be popular politically, but they rarely make for successful or efficient tax policy. Real property tax reform should be broad based, rather than focused on taxpayers who are singled out just because they don’t live in a community full-time, he said.

“There is a grab to find revenue right now,” he said. “But taxing second-home owners could have the opposite impact — dissuading people from owning a second home or continue to own in those communities.”

While the new taxes alone might not drive out the wealthy, “we do know that taxes are important to businesses and individuals and could cause people to make a decision to buy in another nearby state,” Bhatt said.

The projected revenue from the new taxes may also disappoint. When Los Angeles passed its so-called “mansion tax” in 2022, proponents touted revenue projections of between $600 million to $1.1 billion a year. The tax, imposed on real estate sales over $5 million, has only raised $785 million after more than two years, according to the Los Angeles Housing Department.

Higher interest rates that hurt the housing market have played a role, experts say. Yet Michael Manville, professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said wealthy buyers and sellers also reduced transactions in response to the tax.

“The lower revenue is a reason to be concerned because it suggests that the tax might actually be reducing transactions, which in turn can reduce housing production and property tax revenue,” he said.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Kraft Heinz will split into two companies, reversing much of the blockbuster $46 billion merger from a decade ago that created one of the biggest food companies in the world.

The first of the two new companies, which are not yet named, will primarily include shelf-stable meals and will be home to brands such as Heinz, Philadelphia and Kraft mac and cheese. Kraft Heinz said that company on its own would have $15.4 billion in 2024 net sales, and approximately 75% of those sales would come from sauces, spreads and seasonings.

Kraft Heinz said the second new company would be a “scaled portfolio of North America staples” and would include items such as Oscar Mayer, Kraft singles and Lunchables. That company will have approximately $10.4 billion in 2024 net sales.

“Kraft Heinz’s brands are iconic and beloved, but the complexity of our current structure makes it challenging to allocate capital effectively, prioritize initiatives and drive scale in our most promising areas,” said Miguel Patricio, executive chair of the board for Kraft Heinz. “By separating into two companies, we can allocate the right level of attention and resources to unlock the potential of each brand to drive better performance and the creation of long-term shareholder value.”

The deal that created Kraft Heinz in 2015 was the brainchild of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and private equity firm 3G Capital. While investors originally cheered the merger, the luster began to fade as the combined company’s U.S. sales faltered.

Then came a disclosure in February 2019 that Kraft Heinz had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission related to its accounting policies and internal controls. The company also slashed its dividend by 36% and took a $15.4 billion write-down on Kraft and Oscar Mayer, two of its biggest brands. Days later, Buffett told CNBC that Berkshire Hathaway had overpaid for Kraft.

A leadership shakeup and more write-downs of iconic brands, like Maxwell House and Velveeta, followed. Kraft Heinz also began divesting some of its businesses, selling off most of its cheese unit to French dairy giant Lactalis and its nuts division, including the Planters brand, to Hormel.

In recent quarters, the company has invested in boosting some of its brands, like Lunchables and Capri Sun. Despite turnaround efforts, shares of Kraft Heinz have slid roughly 60% since the merger closed in 2015.

The split comes as more big food companies pursue breakups to divest from slower-growth categories and impress investors again.

In August, Keurig Dr Pepper announced that it will undo the 2018 deal that merged a coffee company with the 7 Up owner. Keurig Dr Pepper plans to separate after it closes its $18 billion acquisition of Dutch coffee company JDE Peet’s. And two years ago, Kellogg spun off its snacks business into Kellanova and renamed itself as WK Kellogg.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Alphabet’s Google must share data with rivals to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington ruled on Tuesday, while rejecting prosecutors’ bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser and Android operating system.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the U.S. Department of Justice could enable Google‘s rivals to reverse-engineer its technology.

Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta also barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements that would prohibit device makers from preinstalling rival products on new devices.

Google had argued that loosening its agreements with device makers, browser developers and mobile network operators was the only appropriate remedy in the case. Its most recent deals with device makers Samsung Electronics and Motorola and wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon allow them to load rival search offerings, according to documents shown at trial in April.

The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world’s most profitable companies and its home country, the U.S., where Mehta ruled last year that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.

At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence.

Google said the proposals would go far beyond what is legally justified and would give away its technology to competitors.

In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets.

The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games.

And Google is scheduled to go to trial in September to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology.

The Justice Department’s two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the U.S. on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump’s first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS