Author

Browsing

Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, has signed a new congressional map into law, securing an additional five Republican-leaning U.S. House districts ahead of competitive midterm elections expected in 2026. 

Abbott’s signature on Friday marks the culmination of a partisan redistricting debate that has captivated the country’s attention and inspired an eye-for-an-eye effort by California Democrats. 

‘Today, I signed the One Big Beautiful Map into law,’ Abbott said on X. ‘This map ensures fairer representation in Congress. Texas will be more RED in Congress.’

The Republican-controlled Texas House and Senate passed the new map through their respective chambers last week, following weeks of Lone Star State Democrats breaking quorum and fleeing the state to avoid a redistricting vote. 

And Republicans in the state were not shy about the reason why they wanted to tweak the map. 

Sen. Phil King, R-Texas, who carried the map in the Senate, contended that while the map created more competitive districts, he believed they would be won by Republicans during the 2026 midterm election cycle. 

‘[House Bill 4], I believe, should elect more Republicans to the U.S. Congress, but I’m here to tell you, there are no guarantees,’ he said.

Texas Democrats aren’t shy about their plans to challenge the map in court, either. 

Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder lauded state Democrats for their attempts to block the process and charged that Texas Republicans ‘have effectively surrendered Texas to Washington, D.C.’

‘This isn’t over — we’ll see these clowns in court,’ Scudder said. ‘We aren’t done fighting against these racially discriminatory maps, and fully expect the letter of the law to prevail over these sycophantic Republican politicians who think the rules don’t apply to them.’

Abbott pushed for the creation of a new map to adhere to President Donald Trump’s desire to not see a repeat of the 2018 election cycle, when Democrats handily regained the majority in the House and acted as a foil to the president’s legislative goals toward the end of his first term. 

The Texas map seeks to maintain the Republican majority in the U.S. House next year. Republicans managed to pass Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ through Congress this year, fulfilling many of his 2024 campaign promises, including immigration and green energy reform and tax cuts. Democrats are already using the megabill as fodder for their 2026 campaigns, particularly on Medicaid cuts. 

Repeating a similar legislative achievement for Trump would face even more hurdles if Democrats win control of the House. 

But Abbott and the Texas GOP’s effort could be in vain, given that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats passed their own new map, which added five new Democratic-leaning seats in a bid to cancel out Trump’s demands. 

However, the new California map is not yet official, and must be approved by voters in November to be enacted. 

‘The People of California will be able to cast their vote for a Congressional map. Direct democracy that gives us a fighting chance to STOP Donald Trump’s election rigging,’ Newsom said on X. 

While Republicans control a supermajority in deep-red Texas, Democrats were still needed to create a quorum in the House to actually move the process along.

Dozens of Texas Democrats fled the state to stall the process, creating a national media frenzy and generating support from Democratic donors, including groups linked to George Soros and Beto O’Rourke, to help pay for their fines, travel and lodging.

But Texas Republicans Attorney General Ken Paxton and House Speaker Dustin Burrows sought nationwide civil arrest warrants for the Texas House Democrats who broke quorum, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, requested the FBI track them down and the DOJ launch an investigation into the political action committees funding their escape.

Democratic leaders announced early last week they would return for the second special session following California’s plan to redraw its maps to soften the blow from the Lone Star State, ending the blockade and allowing Republicans to charge ahead. 

Texas House Democrats accused the GOP of crafting a map that was illegal and racially discriminatory, and they tried and failed on the House floor to add amendments to the bill that would have halted the process. Despite Democrats’ best efforts, Texas House Republicans shot down a dozen amendments to the bill and passed it last Wednesday evening.

‘Members, it breaks my heart to see how this illegal and rigged mid-decade redistricting scheme is dividing our state and our country,’ Rep. Chris Turner, a Democrat, said. ‘This is Texas, it’s not Washington D.C. The impulses of outside politicians and their billionaire backers shouldn’t dictate what we do in this chamber, in this House.’

Rep. Todd Hunter, a Republican who wrote the bill for the new map, countered that four of the five new districts were ‘majority-minority Hispanic,’ noting that each of the new districts now trended Republican. Still, he had no qualms as to why Republicans were pursuing changes to the congressional maps. 

‘The underlying goal of this plan is straightforward, [to] improve Republican political performance,’ he said. 

The Democrats’ blockade ended last week, when Abbott called for a second special session after their demands for California to also begin a redistricting cycle were met in an effort to nullify the map Texas Republicans were creating.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met with Ukrainian officials in New York City Friday for ‘very productive and constructive’ talks ahead of Kyiv’s emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, Fox News Digital has learned.

Witkoff met with Andriy Yermak, the head of Ukraine’s office of the president and chief of staff, and Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukraine’s ambassador extraordinary.

Senior administration officials familiar with the meeting told Fox News Digital that Yermak and Kyslytsya gave Witkoff a status update on the war with Russia and Moscow’s most recent attacks.

Russia launched a large-scale attack on Kyiv Wednesday night, killing at least 17 people, wounding 48 others and damaging buildings, officials in Ukraine said. 

The Ukrainian officials invited Witkoff to visit Ukraine in the future, a senior official told Fox News Digital.

Witkoff is continuing talks with Ukrainian officials, who say they are making progress.

The meeting, according to Trump administration officials, was a status update and a reaffirmation of the goal of getting both Ukraine and Russia to meet to ultimately reach an agreement to end the war.

Witkoff’s diplomatic approach in the highly sensitive talks has been met with praise by Trump Cabinet officials and foreign officials alike. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also touted Witkoff’s work, saying he is ‘a key member of President Trump’s team and plays an indispensable role in advancing the president’s priorities.’

Rubio told Fox News Digital that Witkoff’s ‘unique perspective and innovative approach open new opportunities for diplomacy that were previously unavailable.’ 

‘It’s been remarkable to see him in action and a privilege to call him a colleague,’ Rubio told Fox News Digital.

National Security Advisor to the United Kingdom Jonathan Powell also praised Witkoff’s style.

Powell reflected on his more than 30 years of experience in peace negotiations, telling Fox News Digital that ‘there is a lot of snobbery in diplomacy — that peace can only be made in grand chandelier rooms, with a delegation of tens of officials and decades of diplomatic experience.’

‘But in my experience, the people who are actually successful at making peace operate on their own and concentrate on building trust between key leaders on either side and moving quietly to cut a deal,’ Powell said. ‘Steve Witkoff is exactly that sort of person.’

Powell told Fox News Digital that Witkoff’s experience of ‘making deals in a completely different field,’ along with his ‘charm and optimism, unburdened by the tens of reasons why an initiative cannot work, and a steely focus on getting to a lasting agreement.

‘In the court of this year, Steve has been able to open doors that no one else could and make peace possible in a series of different conflicts which would otherwise have remained insoluble.’

And Jared Kushner, a former senior adviser to Trump during his first administration, told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration’s ‘small, focused teams with the right leadership can achieve great results.’

‘Coming from the deal world, managing several complex deals at the same time is not uncommon,’ Kushner said, touting Witkoff’s ‘commitment, creativity and determination to solve some of the world’s most complex problems.’

‘Steve is quick to seek out advice and expertise when he is assessing a situation and evolves his perspectives as the facts change,’ Kushner said.

Reports this week, however, quoted anonymous sources who said Witkoff didn’t have enough experience to handle the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Vice President JD Vance, though, told Fox News Digital that Witkoff has ‘made more progress toward ending the bloodshed in Ukraine than all his critics combined.’

‘He’s a natural diplomat, an experienced negotiator and a true humanitarian,’ Vance said.

Vance blasted those who have criticized Witkoff for simply being ‘threatened.’ 

‘These smears are coming from lifelong bureaucrats who are threatened by Steve’s success and who are basically opposed to a productive peace process,’ Vance said.

Meanwhile, Witkoff’s meeting with officials in New York City comes just hours after Ukraine requested an emergency open briefing at the U.N. Security Council following Russia’s overnight aerial attacks on Kyiv and other cities across Ukraine. 

Council members Denmark, France, Greece, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia and the United Kingdom supported the meeting request. 

Reports say Russia used nearly 600 drones and more than 30 ballistic and cruise missiles in the attack this week. 

Russia’s continued attacks come after Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska earlier in August. Putin proposed Ukraine cede some territory in exchange for peace. 

Days later, Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and several European heads of state at the White House, and he urged Ukraine to accept a land swap deal with Russia. Trump has argued that it is the most efficient way to end the war. 

Trump hosted Zelenskyy along with French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. 

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also attended the meeting at the White House. 

Trump is coordinating the next steps in brokering an end to the war and is encouraging Putin and Zelenskyy to meet. 

Trump has said that after Putin and Zelenskyy meet, he will host a ‘trilat,’ which will be a meeting between Putin, Zelenskyy and Trump. 

‘After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself,’ Trump said last week. ‘Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine.’ 

But after the latest attack, Zelenskyy blasted Putin, saying Russia ‘chooses ballistics instead of the negotiating table. It chooses to continue killing instead of ending the war.

‘And this means that Russia still does not fear the consequences,’ Zelenskyy added. ‘Russia still takes advantage of the fact that at least part of the world turns a blind eye to murdered children and seeks excuses for Putin.’ 

Zelenskyy added that it is ‘definitely time for new, tough sanctions against Russia for everything it is doing.

‘All deadlines have already been broken, dozens of opportunities for diplomacy ruined,’ he said. ‘Russia must feel accountable for every strike, for every day of this war. Eternal memory to all victims of Russia.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Bipartisan anger is brewing over the drama that unfolded at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), with the top members of the Senate’s healthcare panel forming a united front in the midst of the turmoil.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., and the panel’s ranking member, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., dove head first into the issues stemming from the firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez, which spurred a string of departures from the agency.

Monarez was abruptly fired from her position by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), less than a month after being confirmed by the Senate. Her removal, which her lawyers rejected, appeared to stem from disagreements over vaccines with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a vaccine skeptic.

Cassidy was the deciding vote during Kennedy’s confirmation hearing earlier this year.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the president and Kennedy were ‘committed to restoring trust and transparency and credibility to the CDC.’ 

‘We’re going to make sure that folks that are in positions of leadership there are aligned with that mission,’ she said. 

Cassidy agreed with that sentiment. 

‘The president and secretary are right,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘We need radical transparency. We need to protect the health of our children. The two go together. I am committed to the president’s vision, which is why the HELP Committee will conduct oversight.’

Monarez has since refused to leave the post, with her lawyers arguing that she had neither resigned nor been fired and had not received notification from the president of her removal.

Following news of her ouster, a string of top officials at the CDC announced their resignations, too, including National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Daniel Jernigan, Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Director Demetre Daskalakis and Director of Public Health Data, Science, Technology Jennifer Layden.

In response to their resignations, Cassidy demanded that the federal government’s vaccine advisory panel, which was filled with Kennedy’s handpicked replacements after he recently booted the original panel members, postpone its scheduled meeting in September.

His demand marks the second time this year that Cassidy called on the panel to halt its meeting.

Cassidy argued Thursday that there were ‘serious allegations made about the meeting agenda, membership, and lack of scientific process being followed for the now announced September [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] meeting.’

‘These decisions directly impact children’s health, and the meeting should not occur until significant oversight has been conducted,’ Cassidy said in a statement. ‘If the meeting proceeds, any recommendations made should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in CDC leadership.’

Daskalakis posted his reason for resigning on X, where he charged that he was ‘unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.’

Meanwhile, Sanders demanded a congressional investigation be opened into the Trump administration’s decision to fire Monarez.

‘We need leaders at the CDC and HHS who are committed to improving public health and have the courage to stand up for science, not officials who have a history of spreading bogus conspiracy theories and disinformation,’ Sanders said Thursday.

HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.  

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Russia isn’t backing off from attacking Ukraine and pummeled it with missiles and drones Thursday — just weeks after President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, in an attempt to advance a peace deal. 

The attack could be a signal Putin is utilizing diplomacy to buy himself more time to advance his goals and continue to attack Ukraine, all while avoiding secondary sanctions that the Trump administration has threatened to impose, according to experts. 

The time to act is now, according to Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on cyber issues.  

‘Putin is stringing President Trump along and the added time is helping Russia to continue the bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities,’ Bacon said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. ‘The longer Trump refuses to impose secondary sanctions against Russia and send high-end weapons to Ukraine, the more he looks like a simp for Putin. It is beyond time for Trump to have moral clarity and come in strong to help the democracy that is being attacked by the Russian thug.’ 

Bacon, a retired Air Force brigadier general who is not seeking reelection in 2026, said that discussions with Putin have proven futile and have indicated Putin isn’t serious about a deal. 

‘We’ve seen zero results from the talks as far as Putin being willing to compromise,’ Bacon said. ‘Although I think seeking negotiations was worthwhile initially, it showed Putin does not want peace.’ 

The White House has maintained that Trump has made more progress in two weeks to resolve the conflict than his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, did in more than three years, and pointed to Trump’s meeting with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy within days of each other.  

‘President Trump’s national security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials toward a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war,’ White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. 

Trump announced July 14 that he would sign off on ‘severe tariffs’ against Russia if Moscow failed to agree to a peace deal within 50 days. He then dramatically reduced the deadline to only 10–12 days — which ended Aug. 8. But rather than lay on additional sanctions against Russia, Trump met with Putin a week later in Alaska and hailed the meeting a great success. 

Still, progress stemming from the meeting appears limited. Russia did not agree to a ceasefire, and while Trump initially said a trilateral meeting with both Putin and Zelenskyy was in the works, Russia has shown disinterest in such a meeting. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with NBC News Aug. 22 that no meeting had been scheduled and Putin would only agree to one if certain terms were approved beforehand. That’s not the case, he said. 

‘Putin is ready to meet with Zelenskyy when the agenda is ready for a summit, and this agenda is not ready at all,’ Lavrov said. 

Meanwhile, Russia launched a massive attack employing nearly 600 drones and decoys against Kyiv Thursday, killing more than 20 people. In response, the U.N. Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting for Friday, per the urging of Ukraine and several other European allies. 

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia during former President Barack Obama’s administration, said in a post on X that Putin has only escalated attacks against Ukraine following the Alaska meeting, and said Putin is ‘openly mocking’ Trump. 

‘I hope Mr. Trump and his team understand how Putin is spitting in their faces,’ McFaul said in a Thursday post on X. 

Additionally, Putin is onto the fact he can bypass economic consequences, and won’t seriously negotiate a deal unless he must, according to Steven Pifer, who previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during former President Bill Clinton’s administration. 

‘I think that Putin is, in fact, stringing the president along,’ Pifer told Fox News Digital. ‘Putin still believes he can achieve his goals, vis a vis Ukraine, on the battlefield. And we’re not going to see a serious negotiating attempt by the Russians until Putin is convinced he cannot win on the battlefield, and that continuing to try is only going to mean greater and greater cost — first and foremost, a lot more dead Russian soldiers.’

‘I just don’t see any really serious steps the administration has taken to inflict any punishment on Putin,’ Pifer said. ‘I think Putin’s figured that out, and until Putin is disabused of that notion, he’s going to keep missing deadlines.’ 

Historically, Russia’s demands for a peace deal have included barring Ukraine from ever joining NATO, along with concessions on some of the borders that previously were Ukraine’s.

Peter Rough, a senior fellow and director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute think tank, said that because Putin knows the U.S. is eager to end the war, Putin’s peace deal requirements are an attempt to turn up the heat on Ukraine. 

Following Trump’s meeting with Putin and ahead of his meeting days later with Zelenskyy, the U.S. president put the onus on Ukraine to end the war – and said that Ukraine could end the war immediately if it agreed to cede Crimea to Russia, and abandon its bid for NATO membership.

‘Putin managed to sidestep U.S. sanctions in Alaska and is content slogging away in Ukraine,’ Rough told Fox News Digital Monday. ‘But he also recognizes that the U.S. wants this war to come to an end, so he has put forward a proposal intended to appeal to Washington in the hopes that the U.S. will put pressure on Ukraine to accept its terms. If he can divide the transatlantic alliance along the way, all the better. At the very least, it helps him stave off additional U.S. sanctions.’ 

John Hardie, Russia program deputy director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that Putin isn’t interested in agreeing to a deal unless his terms are included in it. In the meantime, Putin is utilizing diplomacy to avoid economic consequences, Hardie said. 

‘I think Putin does want a deal — but only if it’s on his terms,’ Hardie told Fox News Digital Monday. ‘Until that happens, he’s bent on continuing the war, and Russia seeks to use diplomacy to forestall tougher U.S. economic pressure and redirect Trump’s ire from Moscow to Kyiv.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

House investigators’ plan to grill former FBI Director Robert Mueller has hit a snag. 

The House Oversight Committee was set to have Mueller appear before the panel on Tuesday as part of the House’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein. However, a source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital that lawmakers ‘learned that Mr. Mueller has health issues that preclude him from being able to testify.’ 

‘The committee intends to withdraw its subpoena,’ the source said. 

Mueller was one of many notable figures, including the Clintons, who House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed to testify before the panel. 

He would have been the second witness appearing in-person before the House Oversight Committee after former Attorney General Bill Barr did so last month.

His closed-door deposition was expected to see at least some lawmakers on both sides attend, with the investigation so far seeing wide bipartisan support in an otherwise highly divided era for Congress.

Mueller was most recently in the headlines for his role as special counsel investigating whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump.

That probe, which did not find Trump to have committed any wrongdoing, saw 34 people indicted and eight convictions or guilty pleas, including several people associated with the president.

House investigators were expected to dive into Mueller’s time as director of the FBI. He led the bureau under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, from September 2001 until September 2013.

It was during that window that the federal government first investigated Epstein, something Comer pointed out in his letter subpoenaing Mueller.

‘When you were FBI Director, an FBI investigation of Mr. Epstein led to an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida preparing a draft 60-count indictment of Mr. Epstein in 2007,’ Comer wrote.

‘However, the next year, Mr. Epstein pled guilty in Florida state court to two prostitution offenses, and, in exchange, he and his co-conspirators received immunity from federal prosecution through a non-prosecution agreement.’

That non-prosecution agreement has been widely criticized and is now the basis for Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell to appeal her conviction and 20-year prison sentence before the Supreme Court.

It’s not clear how much of a role Mueller would have had in that agreement. Alexander Acosta, the former Trump labor secretary and U.S. attorney in Florida who signed off on the deal, is sitting down with the House Oversight Committee for a voluntary transcribed interview later this month.

Comer sent out a flurry of subpoenas last month in relation to the Epstein probe. 

Other figures also compelled to appear after Mueller are former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday grilled lawyers for the Justice Department and Lisa Cook over President Donald Trump’s historic attempt to fire her from the Federal Reserve.

The landmark case is almost certain to be kicked to the Supreme Court for review. Despite the high-stakes nature of the legal dispute, Friday’s hearing ended after more than two hours without clear resolution. 

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, declined to immediately grant the temporary restraining order sought by Lisa Cook’s attorneys, which would keep her in her role on the Fed’s Board of Governors for now. 

Cook’s lawyers included the request for the temporary restraining order in the lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday, challenging Trump’s attempt to fire her from her position on the independent board due to allegations of mortgage fraud. 

Instead, Judge Cobb ordered both parties to submit any supplemental briefs to the court by Tuesday, shortly before she dismissed the lawyers for the long weekend.

Cobb noted the novelty of the case before her, which involves the first attempt by a sitting president to oust a Federal Reserve governor ‘for cause.’ 

The fraud allegations were first leveled by Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He accused Cook of claiming two primary residences in two separate states in 2021, with the goal of obtaining more favorable loan conditions. 

Trump followed up by posting a letter on Truth Social earlier this week that he had determined ‘sufficient cause’ to fire Cook, a dismissal he said was ‘effective immediately,’ prompting her attorneys to file the emergency lawsuit.

The crux of Friday’s arguments centered on the definition of what ‘for cause’ provisions must entail for removal from the board under the Federal Reserve Act, or FRA, a law designed to shield members from the political whims of the commander in chief or members of Congress. 

The arguments also centered on Cook’s claims in her lawsuit that Trump’s attempt to fire her amounts to an illegal effort to remove her from the Fed well before her tenure is slated to end in January 2038 to install his own nominee. 

Lawyers for Cook argued that her firing was merely a ‘pretext’ for Trump to secure a majority on the Fed board, a contention that Cobb admitted made her ‘uncomfortable.’

They also attempted to poke holes in the mortgage fraud allegations, which they said were made on social media and ‘backfilled.’

The case ‘obviously raises important questions’ about the Federal Reserve Board, Cobb said shortly before adjourning court.

She also noted that she had not yet made a determination about the alleged ‘irreparable harm,’ prompting her to set the Tuesday filing deadline.

Cook’s attorneys argued Friday that Trump’s attempt to fire her violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the Federal Reserve Act. 

Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, noted on several occasions that there was no ‘investigation or charge’ from the administration prior to Trump’s abrupt announcement that he would fire Cook.  

Lowell also vehemently disputed the Justice Department’s allegations that Cook had an ‘opportunity’ to respond to the mortgage fraud accusations leveled by Bill Pulte, noting that they were made just 30 minutes before Trump called for Cook to be removed.  

He told Cobb that it was the latest attempt by the Trump administration to ‘litigate by tweet.’

Lawyers for the Trump administration, for their part, argued that the president has broad latitude to determine the ‘for cause’ provision.

Justice Department attorney Yakoov Roth told Cobb that the determination of when to invoke the provision should be left to the president, regardless of whether it is viewed by others as ‘pretextual.’

‘That sounds to me like the epitome of a discretionary determination, and that is when the president’s power is at [its] apex,’ Roth said.

DOJ lawyers also noted that Cook, to date, has not disputed any of the allegations in question and argued there is ‘nothing she has said’ about the allegations that would cause her to not be fired.

‘What if the stated cause is demonstrably false?’  Cobb asked, going on to cite hypothetical concerns that a president could, theoretically, use allegations to stack federal boards with majorities.

As for the issue of ‘irreparable harm,’ Justice Department attorneys argued that it would be more harmful for Cook to remain in office, arguing that the ‘harm of having someone in office who is wrongfully there … outweighs the harm of someone being wrongfully removed from office.’

Cook’s attorneys said Friday that in reviewing the lawsuit, the court need not itself establish a definition of what ’cause’ means under the Federal Reserve Act.

Instead, Lowell suggested, the court should instead work backwards to determine whether the accusations leveled by Pulte were in fact ‘backfilled’ by Trump to form the basis of her removal.  

‘It’s very difficult to come up with an 11-page definition of what it is,’ Lowell said Friday of the ’cause’ definition, adding that it is far easier to come up with a one-page definition of ‘what it’s not.’ 

‘Whatever it is, it’s not this,’ Lowell said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

America First Legal (AFL) sued the Food and Drug Administration on Friday to obtain Biden-era records related to the government’s internal guidance for the recommended use of puberty blockers for kids.  

The Trump-aligned legal group previously uncovered communications from the former administration through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which reportedly showed the FDA knew that these drugs increased mental health risk but still recommended approving them for kids.

Following those uncovered communications, AFL followed up with a separate FOIA requesting documents specifically pertaining to the FDA’s internal guidance for the off-label use of these drugs. Despite acknowledging the federal information request, the FDA has not cooperated, and the deadline to produce documents is up.

 

‘The Biden administration pushed gender-denying treatments on American kids. Now, it’s time to expose what officials really knew,’ AFL counsel Will Scolinos, said. 

Similar to AFL’s current FOIA request, the group was required to engage in litigation to compel the release of the first set of documents. 

But, eventually, documents were released that seemed to show the Biden-era Division of General Endocrinology at the FDA recommended the agency approve puberty blockers for children despite the knowledge that there were negative impacts associated with them, such as increased depression, suicidality and seizure risks.

‘There is definitely a need for these drugs to be approved for gender transition,’ an FDA official from the agency’s endocrinology division stated in an email uncovered by AFL. In the same communications, the FDA official also explicitly states that studies found ‘increased risk of depression and suicidality, as well as increased seizure risk.’

Such findings have been confirmed by other studies as well.

Researchers at the University of Texas sampled 107,583 patients 18 and older who had gender dysphoria, including some who underwent gender surgery, and concluded that ‘gender-sensitive mental health support … to address post-surgical psychological risks’ is a ‘necessity.’

 

Males who received surgery had depression rates of 25% compared to males without surgery, who had rates slightly below 12%. Anxiety rates among that group were 12.8% compared to 2.6%.

The same differences were seen among females as well. Those with surgery had 22.9% depression rates compared to 14.6% in the non-surgical group. Females who did get surgery also had a rate of anxiety of 10.5% compared to 7.1% for girls who had not gotten surgery.

Fox News Digital reached out to the FDA for comment but did not immediately receive a response. 

Fox News’ Melissa Rudy and Michael Dorgan contributed to this report

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso is ready to go nuclear on Senate Democrats and their blockade of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., to their respective home states, Senate Republicans were on the verge of a deal with their colleagues across the aisle to hammer out a deal to ram through dozens of Trump’s picks for non-controversial positions.

But those talks fell apart when Trump nuked any further negotiations over funding demands from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Currently, there are 145 pending nominations on the Senate’s executive calendar, with that number expected to balloon when the upper chamber reopens for business.

Lawmakers are set to return on Tuesday, and Barrasso, R-Wyo., wants to immediately tackle the nomination quandary. He’s engaged in a public pressure campaign, writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal directly calling out Schumer.

Meanwhile, he’s facilitated talks among Senate Republicans on the best path forward, and told Fox News Digital in an interview that, at this point, he’s willing to do anything necessary to see the president’s picks confirmed.

‘We need to either get a lot of cooperation from the Democrats, or we’re going to have to roll over them with changes of the rules that we’re going to be able to do in a unilateral way, as well as President Trump making recess appointments,’ he said.

Senate Democrats, under Schumer’s direction, are unlikely to play ball, however.

Schumer, in response to Barrasso’s public jab against him and Senate Democrats, contended in a statement that ‘historically bad nominees deserve a historic level of scrutiny by Senate Democrats.’

‘Anybody nominated by President Trump is, in Schumer’s words, ‘historically bad.’ Why? Because they were nominated by President Trump,’ Barrasso shot back. ‘That is his sole criteria for which these people are being gone after and filibustered, each and every one of them, even those that are coming out of committee, many, many of whom are with bipartisan support.’

Unilaterally changing the rules, or the nuclear option, would allow Republicans to make tweaks to the confirmation process without help from Democrats, but it could also kneecap further negotiations on key items that would require their support to advance beyond the Senate filibuster.

Barrasso was not worried about taking that route, however, and noted that the nominees that he and other Republicans were specifically considering would be ‘sub-Cabinet level positions’ and ambassadors.

Up for discussion are changes to the debate time, what kind of nominee could qualify for a speedier process and whether to give the president runway to make recess appointments, which would require the Senate to go into recess and allow Trump to make appointments on a temporary basis.

‘When you take a look at this right now, it takes a 30-minute roll-call vote to get on cloture, and then two hours of debate time, and then another 30-minute roll-call vote,’ Barrasso said. ‘Well, that’s three hours, and it’s time when you can’t do legislation, you can’t do any of the other things.’

But there is a menu of key items that Congress will have to deal with when they return, particularly the deadline to fund the government by Sept. 30.

Barrasso acknowledged that reality, and noted that it was because of the hefty schedule that he wanted a rules change to be put front and center.

‘There’s not going to be any time to — or there’s going to be limited time, I should say, to actually get people through the nominations process, which is just going to drag on further, and you’ll have more people having hearings and coming out of committees,’ he said.  

‘This backlog is going to worsen this traffic jam at the Schumer toll booth. So, we are going to do something, because this cannot stand.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

It’s been a busy week for Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s marketing team.

The restaurant chain announced a rebrand and new logo last week, faced widespread criticism from social media users, including President Donald Trump, and proceeded to walk back its plan to change the logo.

In that span of time, the company lost and regained almost $100 million in market value, bringing it about back to where it started. The stock gained 8% on Wednesday.

The Cracker Barrel saga is just the latest example of a consumer-facing company making big branding decisions, then pulling back after alienating its customer base.

“It’s very tricky to be a brand for everyone today,” Carreen Winters, president of reputation at the global public relations firm MikeWorldWide, said in an interview. “Legacy brands are particularly tricky, because you have to figure out what is cherished and authentic from the old and marry it with the new.

“In Cracker Barrel’s case, they’re trying to attract a new, younger customer [which] is no longer sufficient,” she continued. “You need to actually think about all of your stakeholders and how they will react, respond, feel about what you’re doing or the direction you’re taking. And you need to be sure that what you’re doing is consistent with shared values.”

Rebranding failures are not a new phenomenon. One of the most famous marketing blunders of all time happened in 1985 when the Coca-Cola company introduced “New Coke” with a new formula. After a firestorm of outrage from its customers, the company returned to its classic formula a few months later.

But social media has made backlash from consumers faster and more widespread, meaning businesses are usually quicker to walk back on their branding failures.

In 2010, retailer Gap ditched its decades-old blue box logo for a more minimalist design. It faced intense backlash on social media through thousands of engagements and, within less than a week, the company said it was reverting to its original logo.

More recently in May, Warner Bros. Discovery announced its streaming platform would undergo another name change, after switching from HBO to HBO Max to Max and then back again to HBO Max.

Major rebrands don’t always go awry. For example, Kentucky Fried Chicken successfully rebranded to KFC in 1991. Its customers already used the acronym and the rebrand signified that the restaurant chain offers more than just fried chicken.

Dunkin’ Donuts also successfully underwent its name change to Dunkin’ in 2019. It did face some criticism from its loyal customers at the time, but Winters said today the “Dunkin’” name and branding are widely accepted over its original name.

“Dunkin’ rebranded in accordance with the behavior that the customer created,” she said. “It aligned with their strategy of being more than Donuts and really building their coffee business.”

She also mentioned IHOP as an example of a brand that has been able to freshen up its look and stay relevant in culture. She said IHOP’s change has been an “evolution, not a revolution.”

Beth LaGuardia Cooper, chief marketing officer at Advantage, The Authority Company, added during an interview that Starbucks had subtle changes to its logo over time, which allowed it to hold the base of its identity close.

While some social media users disliked Cracker Barrel’s new branding simply because they said it lacked substance and was too “sterile” or “soulless,” others, especially conservatives, claimed the new logo leaned into “wokeness” and diversity efforts.

Cracker Barrel is widely considered a classic American restaurant chain. It began in Tennessee in 1969 and its branding evokes Southern charm and nostalgia for its consumer base.

Eric Schiffer, chairman of the firm Reputation Management Consultants, said the new branding, without the iconic “Uncle Herschel” figure, suggested to conservatives that having a white man featured on the logo was wrong or politically incorrect.

He said that pushback represents a larger trend where conservatives are feeling under attack by diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

“I think the perspective of conservatives is, don’t ruin Cracker Barrel with the Bud Light meets Jaguar marketing playbook,” said Schiffer, adding that those brands “attempted to disrupt positively and what they did was they nuked brand sentiment and shareholder confidence.”

In November, Tata Motors-owned Jaguar Land Rover announced a rebrand that removed its “leaper” big cat imagery from its logo and changed the brand’s font. Its new promotional materials included brightly dressed models, but no cars. The brand faced significant pushback, including tens of thousands of responses on social media.

Elon Musk criticized the company on X at the time, asking Jaguar’s official account: “Do you sell cars?”

Earlier this month, Trump piped in with his insults, calling Jaguar’s ad campaign “stupid” and “seriously WOKE.”

The Telegraph reported in May that Jaguar was searching for a new advertising agency after the public backlash.

Similarly, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Bud Light faced heavy criticism from conservatives in 2023 after a collaboration between the beer brand and social influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who is transgender.

“If you’re trying to be a tough, male-focused, football fan-oriented beer, the last thing you want to do is put the wrong spokesperson in front of the brand,” Schiffer said. “It will turn off that audience and it allows competitors to capture that market share.”

“The throughline in all of this is, don’t rip apart and disrespect audiences that brought you to the dance,” Schiffer said. “Find a way, if you’re going to want to expand, do it in a way that doesn’t cut at the core of what the brand stands for — and in the process, create cognitive dissonance and blow up market cap.”

Branding experts told CNBC that at the end of the day, people are talking about Cracker Barrel, which is a win for the company by itself.

“Everybody loves a comeback in America,” LaGuardia Cooper said. “So I would root for them to make this happen, make something good out of it.”

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

The de minimis exemption, an obscure trade law provision that has simultaneously fueled and eroded businesses across the globe, officially came to an end on Friday following an executive order by President Donald Trump.

For nearly a decade, shipments valued under $800 were allowed to enter the country virtually duty free and with less oversight. Now, those shipments from the likes of Tapestry, Lululemon and just about any other retailer with an online presence will be tariffed and processed in the same way that larger packages are handled.

In May, Trump ended the exemption for goods coming from China and Hong Kong, and on July 30 he expanded the rollback to all countries, calling it a “catastrophic loophole” that’s been used to evade tariffs and get “unsafe or below-market” products into the U.S.

The de minimis exemption had previously been slated to end in July 2027 as part of sweeping legislation passed by Congress, but Trump’s executive order eliminated the provision much sooner, giving businesses, customs officials and postal services less time to prepare.

“The ending of that under-$800-per-person-per-day rule, from a global perspective, is about to probably cause a bit of pandemonium,” said Lynlee Brown, a partner in the global trade division at accounting firm EY. “There’s a financial implication, there’s an operational implication, and then there’s pure compliance, right? Like, these have all been informal entries. No one’s really looked at them.”

Already, the sudden change has snarled supply chains from France to Singapore and led post offices across the world to temporarily suspend shipments to the U.S. so they can ensure their systems are updated and able to comply with the new regulations.

It’s forced businesses both large and small to rethink not just their supply chains, but their overall business models, because of the impact the change could have on their bottom lines — setting off a panic in board rooms across the country, logistics experts said.

“Obviously it’s a big change for operating models for companies, not just the Sheins and the Temus, but for companies that have historically had e-com and brick-and-mortar stores,” Brown said.

The change also means consumers, already are under pressure from persistent inflation and high interest rates, could now see even higher prices on a wide range of goods, from Colombian bathing suits to specialty ramen subscription boxes shipped straight from Japan.

The end of de minimis could cost U.S. consumers at least $10.9 billion, or $136 per family, according to a 2025 paper by Pablo Fajgelbaum and Amit Khandelwal for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The research found low-income and minority consumers would feeling the biggest impact as they rely more on the cheaper, imported purchases.

Popularized by Chinese e-tailers Shein and Temu, use of the de minimis exemption has exploded in the last decade, ballooning from 134 million shipments in 2015 to over 1.36 billion in 2024. Prior to the recent change to limit its use, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it was processing over 4 million de minimis shipments into the country each day.

A 2023 House report found more than 60% of de minimis shipments in 2021 came from China, but because the packages require less information than larger containers, very little information is known about their origins and the types of goods they contain. That opacity is one of the key reasons why both former President Joe Biden and Trump sought to curtail or end the exemption.

Both administrations have said the exemption was overused and abused and that it’s made it difficult for CBP officials to target and block illegal or unsafe shipments coming into the U.S. because the packages aren’t subject to the same level of scrutiny as larger containers.

“We didn’t have any compliance information … on those shipments, and then that is where the danger of drugs and whatnot being in those shipments” comes in, said Irina Vaysfeld, a principal in KPMG’s trade and customs practice.

The Biden administration particularly focused on how the exemption allowed goods made with forced labor to make it into the country in violation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act. Meanwhile, Trump has said the exemption has been used to ship fentanyl and other synthetic opioids into the U.S. In a fact sheet published on July 30, the White House said 90% of all cargo seizures in fiscal 2024, including 98% of narcotics seizures and 97% of intellectual property rights seizures, originated as de minimis shipments.

Across the globe, it’s common for countries to allow low-value shipments to be imported duty-free as a means to streamline and facilitate global trade, but typically, it’s for packages valued around $200, not $800, said EY’s Brown.

Until 2016, the U.S.’s threshold for low-value shipments was also $200, but it was changed to $800 when Congress passed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which sought to benefit businesses, U.S. consumers and the overall U.S. economy, according to the Congressional Research Service. It said higher thresholds provide a “significant economic benefit” to both business and shoppers and thus, the overall economy.

While well-intentioned, the law came with unintended consequences, said Brown.

The “rise in value, from $200 to $800, just made it kind of like a free for all to say, OK, everything come in,” she said.

Eventually companies designed supply chains around the exemption: They set up bonded warehouses, where duties can be deferred prior to export, in places like Canada and Mexico and then imported goods in bulk to those regions before sending them across the border one by one, duty free, as customer orders rolled in, said Brown.

“Companies have really laid out their supply chain in a very specific way [around de minimis] and that’s really the crux of the issue,” said KPMG’s Vaysfeld. “The way that the supply chain has been laid out now may need to change.”

Until the rise of Shein and Temu, the de minimis exemption was rarely discussed in retail circles. Soon, the e-commerce behemoths began facing widespread criticism for their use of what many called a loophole.

In 2023, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party released a report on Shein and Temu and said the two companies were “likely responsible for more than 30 percent of all packages shipped to the United States daily under the de minimis provision, and likely nearly half of all de minimis shipments to the U.S. from China.”

The revelation sparked widespread consternation among retail executives, lobbyists and government officials who said the companies’ use of the exemption was unfair competition.

However, behind closed doors, companies large and small began mimicking the same model after realizing how it could reduce the steep costs that come along with selling goods online.

Direct-to-consumer companies that only have online presences have relied on it more heavily, so much so that their businesses may not work without it, said Vaysfeld.

“Some of the companies we’ve spoken to, they’ve modeled out, if the tariffs continue for one year, for two years, how does that impact their profitability, and they know how long they can last,” said Vaysfeld. “These aren’t the huge companies, right? These are the smaller companies … Depending on what country they’re sourcing from or where they’re manufacturing, it could really impact their profitability that they can’t stay in business for the long term.”

While smaller, digital companies are more exposed, “pretty much most companies that you can think of” had been using the exemption in some form before it ended, said Vaysfeld.

Take Coach and Kate Spade’s parent company Tapestry: About 13% to 14% of the company’s sales were previously covered under de minimis and will now be subject to a 30% tariff, according to an estimate by equity research firm Barclays.

On the company’s earnings call earlier this month, Chief Financial Officer Scott Roe said tariffs will hit its profits by a total of $160 million this year, including the impact of the end of de minimis. That amounts to about 2.3% of margin headwind, he said.

Shares of the company fell nearly 16% the day that Tapestry reported the profit hit.

In a statement, Roe said Tapestry used de minimis to help support its strong online business, adding it is a practice that “many companies with sophisticated supply chains have been doing for years.”

To help offset its termination, he said Tapestry is looking for ways to reduce costs and is leaning on its manufacturing footprint across many different countries.

Canadian retailer Lululemon is another company that uses de minimis, according to Wells Fargo. Last week, the bank cut its price target on the company’s stock from $225 to $205, citing the end of de minimis. In the note, Wells Fargo analyst Ike Boruchow said the equity research firm sees a potential 90 cent to $1.10 headwind to Lululemon’s earnings per share from the de minimis elimination.

Lululemon declined to comment, citing the company’s quiet period ahead of its reporting earnings.

The National Retail Federation, the industry’s largest trade organization, has not taken a position in favor of or against the exemption. It has members who both supported and opposed the policy, said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at NRF.

Retailers of all sizes, including independent sellers with digital storefronts, have used the approach as “a convenient way to get products to the consumer” for less, Gold said.

“Their costs are going to go up and those costs could be passed on to the consumer at the end of the day,” Gold said.

The most acute impact of the end of de minimis is expected to be felt on online marketplaces where millions of small businesses sell goods like Etsy, eBay and Shopify and used de minimis to defray costs when sending online orders from other parts of the globe to the U.S.

American shoppers have gotten used to buying artwork, coffee mugs, T-shirts and other items from merchants outside the country without paying duties. With that tariff exemption gone, consumers could face higher costs and a more limited selection of items to choose from.

Etsy, eBay and some other retailers sought to defend the loophole prior to its removal, submitting public comments on proposed de minimis regulation by the CBP. An eBay public policy executive said the company was concerned that restrictions to de minimis “would impose significant burdens on American consumers and importers.”

Etsy’s head of public policy, Jeffrey Zubricki, said the artisan marketplace supports “smart U.S. de minimis reform,” but that it was wary of changes that could “disproportionately affect small American sellers.”

“These exemptions are a powerful tool that help small creators, artisans and makers participate in and navigate cross-border trade,” Zubricki wrote in a March letter to CBP.

An Etsy spokesperson declined to comment on the policy change. Etsy CFO Lanny Baker said at a Bernstein conference in May that transactions between U.S. buyers and European sellers comprise about 25% of the company’s gross merchandise sales.

EBay didn’t immediately provide a comment in response to a request from CNBC. The company warned in its latest earnings report that the end of de minimis outside of China could impact its guidance, though CEO Jamie Iannone told CNBC in July that he believes eBay is generally “well suited” to navigate the shifting trade environment.

Some eBay and Etsy sellers based in the UK, Canada and other countries are temporarily closing off their businesses to the U.S. as they work out a plan to navigate the higher tariffs. Blair Nadeau, who owns a Canadian bridal accessories company, was forced to take that step this week.

“This is devastating on so many levels and millions of small businesses worldwide are now having their careers, passions and livelihoods threatened,” Nadeau wrote in an Instagram post on Tuesday. “Just this past hour I have had to turn away two U.S. customers and it broke my heart.”

Nadeau sells her bespoke wedding veils, jewelry and hair adornments through her own website and on Etsy, where 70% of her customer base is in the U.S. The de minimis provision had been a “lifeline” for many Canadian businesses to get their products in the hands of American consumers, Nadeau said in an interview.

“This is really hitting me,” Nadeau said. “It’s like all of a sudden 70% of your salary has been removed overnight.”

In the absence of de minimis, online merchants are faced with either paying import charges upfront and potentially passing those costs on to shoppers through price hikes, or shipping products “delivery duty unpaid,” in which case it’s the customer’s responsibility to pay any duties upon arrival.

Alexandra Birchmore, an artist based in the Cotswolds region of England, said she expects to raise the price of her oil paintings on Etsy by 10% as a result of paying the duties upfront.

“At the moment every small business forum I am on is in chaos about this,” Birchmore said. “It looks to me to be a disaster where no one benefits.”

The disruption could end up being a boon for the likes of Amazon and Walmart. U.S. consumers may turn to major retailers if they face steeper prices elsewhere, as well as potential shipping delays due to backlogs or other issues at the border.

Amazon, in particular, has already proven resilient after the U.S. axed the de minimis provision for shipments from China and Hong Kong in May. The company’s sales increased 13% in the three-month period that ended June 30, compared with 10% growth in the prior quarter. Amazon’s unit sales grew 12%, an acceleration from the first quarter.

Both Amazon and Walmart have fulfillment operations in the U.S. that allow overseas businesses to ship items in bulk and store them in the companies’ warehouses before they’re dispatched to shoppers. Shein and Temu largely eschewed the model in the past in favor of the de minimis exception, but they’ve since moved to open more warehouses in the U.S. in the wake of rising tariffs.

Since the exemption ended on Chinese imports in May, the impact on Shein and Temu has been swift. Temu was forced to change its business model in the U.S. and stop shipping products to American consumers from Chinese factories.

The end of de minimis, as well as Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports, also forced Temu to raise prices, reign in its aggressive online advertising push and adjust which goods were available to American shoppers.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that Temu has resumed shipping goods to the U.S. from Chinese factories and will also increase its advertising spend following what it called a “truce” between Washington and Beijing.

Temu didn’t return a request for comment.

Meanwhile, Shein has been forced to raise prices and daily active users on both platforms in the U.S. have fallen since the de minimis loophole was closed, CNBC previously reported. Temu’s U.S. daily active users plunged 52% in May versus March, while Shein’s were down 25%, according to data shared with CNBC by market intelligence firm Sensor Tower.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS