Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., is urging U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to launch an investigation into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her attendance at the Grammy Awards on Sunday amid anti-ICE rhetoric from celebrities and artists at the event. 

Jackson was in attendance at this year’s politically-charged event because of her nomination for narrating the audiobook version of her memoir, ‘Lovely One.’ 

However, critics said Jackson clapped as various speakers criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

‘While it is by no means unheard of or unusual for a Supreme Court justice to attend a public function, very rarely—if ever—have justices of our nation’s highest Court been present at an event at which attendees have amplified such far-left rhetoric,’ Blackburn wrote in a letter to Roberts. 

Blackburn, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for an investigation into whether Jackson’s actions violate the high court’s Code of Conduct and would require her to recuse herself from certain cases. 

‘To that end, in the interest of a fair-minded, impartial, and independent federal judiciary, I urge you to initiate an investigation into Justice Jackson’s attendance at this event and if her participation in any way would require recusal from matters that will come before the Court,’ her letter states. 

Attendees at the awards were seen wearing ‘ICE Out’ lapel pins, and some winners spewed anti-ICE rhetoric such as ‘No one is illegal on stolen land’ and ‘F— ICE.’

Jackson’s appearance at the event raises questions considering the court is slated to take on cases revolving around the Trump administration, including birthright citizenship and immigration. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to Blackburn’s office and the Supreme Court. 

In her letter, Blackburn noted that Democrats and the news media have smeared Republican-appointed justices to the court as ‘corrupt’ and ‘partisan.’

She recalled how Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI., wrote a letter to Roberts urging him to ensure that conservative Justice Samuel Alito would recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election and Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot because his wife put up a Revolutionary War-era flag at their home.

‘Unlike these meritless claims against Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, there are serious questions regarding Justice Jackson’s participation in such a brazenly political, anti-law enforcement event and her ability to remain an impartial member of the Supreme Court,’ Blackburn wrote. 

The film ‘Melania,’ a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump, made nearly $8 million on its opening weekend, making it the highest-grossing documentary in a decade. It’s a huge win for the first lady and a crushing defeat for those rooting against her.

The director of ‘Melania,’ Brett Ratner, has previously helmed Hollywood blockbusters such as ‘Rush Hour’ and ‘X-Men: The Last Stand.’ The fact that Ratner is already an established brand in Hollywood is noteworthy. During the first Trump term, it would have been unlikely that a Hollywood director would take a chance on a documentary about Melania Trump. Ratner still took a risk making the film, because Hollywood is traditionally lockstep on politics and quick to cut off anyone who steps outside the line. It’s easier to make a film like this in 2026 than it was in 2017, but only marginally so.

The film is a soft-focus look at Melania Trump’s life as first lady, offering a glossy, feel-good glance into what people normally don’t get to see inside the private first lady’s life. Still, it wouldn’t have mattered what was in the film — the media would have hated it anyway.

The reviews in the mainstream press aren’t so much scathing as personal. Variety called the film a ‘cheeseball infomercial of staggering inertia,’ while The Guardian noted it was ‘dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing’ and ‘unredeemable.’

In the film, it’s true we see Melania in her beautiful outfits and flawless makeup, but we also see her as the woman behind the man.

In one scene in the film, Melania advises the president to include the word ‘unifier’ in his inaugural speech. On Jan. 20, as he said the words, ‘My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be: a peacemaker and a unifier,’ the president turned around to look at his wife. Of course, Melania wants her husband to be both a peacemaker and a unifier. She is rooting for him to succeed because it helps us all. A vicious media refuses to concede that she may want what is best for the country.

The film portrays a marriage where the first lady cares about her husband, worrying about his security on Inauguration Day and expressing relief when festivities are moved indoors. This portrayal flies in the face of the frequent commentary claiming the marriage is in name only. Why would the first lady care about her husband’s safety if she’s only in the union for glory or money? The New York Times counted how many days Melania has spent in the White House during this term, and Trump biographer Michael Wolff has claimed, without evidence, that they are separated. This film answers those accusations and rumors directly, in Melania’s own words.

In a 2018 interview with ABC, Melania was asked about her marriage and said, ‘I know people like to speculate and media like to speculate about our marriage. It’s not always pleasant, of course. But I know what is right and what is wrong and what is true or not true.’

She does, and she shows it in this film.

On the review site Rotten Tomatoes, the film ‘Melania’ is setting another kind of record: the largest discrepancy between the scores of film reviewers and filmgoers in the site’s history. It makes sense, since most of the reviewers went into the film with a rating in mind, whether or not they actually enjoyed the movie. The people who spent their money to go watch their first lady on the screen were going to be more honest, even if some were swayed by their enthusiasm for their president.

The media has three more years of the Trump administration and Melania Trump. They can stop having outbursts about the first lady and give her a fair hearing — something more than half the country would commend. Or they can continue to descend into irrelevance, as everyone knows even their panning of a film will be political. The choice is theirs.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday that some cartel drug traffickers operating in the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility have halted narcotics activity following recent U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean.

‘WINNING: Some top cartel drug-traffickers in the @SOUTHCOM AOR have decided to cease all narcotics operations INDEFINITELY due to recent (highly effective) kinetic strikes in the Caribbean,’ Hegsth wrote in a post on X.

Hegseth credited President Donald Trump with directing the military actions, calling the effort a lifesaving deterrent.

‘This is deterrence through strength. @POTUS is SAVING American lives,’ he wrote.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina praised the military action, writing on X, ‘Well done @SecWar and to all under your command. We must continue to verify and monitor. We can’t trust drug cartels.’

The Trump administration has been pursuing a policy of conducting deadly attacks against vessels of alleged ‘narco-terrorists.’

SOUTHCOM announced a strike that killed two on Thursday.

‘On Feb. 5, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations. Two narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No U.S. military forces were harmed,’ Southern Command noted in a post on X.

President Donald Trump said he spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping Wednesday to discuss a range of issues, including the war between Ukraine and Russia, while stressing that their relationship ‘is an extremely good one’ that will bring ‘many positive results’ in the coming years.

The president and Xi also discussed Trump’s upcoming trip to Beijing in April, which he said he ‘very much’ looks forward to.

‘I have just completed an excellent telephone conversation with President Xi, of China. It was a long and thorough call, where many important subjects were discussed, including Trade, Military, the April trip that I will be making to China (which I very much look forward to!), Taiwan, the War between Russia/Ukraine, the current situation with Iran, the purchase of Oil and Gas by China from the United States, the consideration by China of the purchase of additional Agricultural products including lifting the Soybean count to 20 Million Tons for the current season (They have committed to 25 Million Tons for next season!), Airplane engine deliveries, and numerous other subjects, all very positive!’ Trump posted to his Truth Social.

‘The relationship with China, and my personal relationship with President Xi, is an extremely good one, and we both realize how important it is to keep it that way,’ he continued. ‘I believe that there will be many positive results achieved over the next three years of my Presidency having to do with President Xi, and the People’s Republic of China.’

The president’s call with Xi comes on the same day the Chinese president announced that he had a separate conversation Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

Congressional Republicans, President Donald Trump and their shared base of support want to see voter ID legislation become law, but the last barrier is the Senate, where political reality has turned the notion into a pipe dream. 

The GOP’s legislative push to codify more requirements and restrictions surrounding voter registration nearly derailed Congress’ attempt to end the latest partial government shutdown on Tuesday. 

In an unlikely turn of events, like Senate Democrats’ push to save expiring Obamacare subsidies’ during the last funding battle and House Republicans’ desire to attach election integrity legislation, dubbed the SAVE America Act, to the Trump-backed package this week brought the issue back into focus. 

Trump, who encouraged House Republicans to stand down from their do-or-die demands, renewed his call to pass voter ID legislation while signing the funding package into law Tuesday.

‘We should have voter ID, by the way,’ Trump said. ‘We should have a lot of the things that I think everybody wants to see. Who would not want voter ID? Only somebody that wants to cheat.’ 

While several Senate Republicans support what the bill could accomplish, they acknowledge the legislation would die on the floor without a handful of Senate Democrats, who nearly unanimously despise the move.  

‘Democrats want to make it easy to cheat,’ Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital. ‘They don’t want to do anything to secure elections.’

The issue at hand, as has often been the case during Trump’s second term, is the 60-vote filibuster. The president has called on Senate Republicans to eviscerate it several times throughout the last year as the precarious threshold has time and again impeded his agenda. 

Some Senate Republicans, including Johnson, are mulling turning to the precursor to the modern filibuster — the talking, or standing, filibuster.

The modern filibuster is less strenuous, literally, than the standing filibuster. While today’s standard requires that senators hit at least 60 votes, the standing filibuster demanded that lawmakers debate on the floor, consuming one of the Senate’s most valuable commodities — time.

‘The only way that’s going to get passed is if we do a talking filibuster or we end the filibuster,’ Johnson said.

There’s little appetite among Senate Republicans to nuke the filibuster given that it could play right into the desires of Senate Democrats, who tried and failed to modify the procedure when they controlled the upper chamber under former President Joe Biden. 

And many acknowledge that the votes simply aren’t there to do so. 

One Senate Republican told Fox News Digital that the ‘filibuster is not on the table’ as pressure mounts to move on the SAVE America Act, but that the legislation would likely get a shot in the upper chamber and earn 51 Republican votes. But, the lawmaker contended, the question was what happened next in the likely event the bill fails.

The notion of turning to the standing filibuster, the physical and original version of the filibuster, was also swiftly sidelined by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who said while there was interest among Republicans to discuss the option, ‘there weren’t any commitments made.’

Forcing the standing filibuster would come with its own ramifications in the Senate, given that the most valuable commodity in the upper chamber is floor time.

That’s because of rules that guarantee any senator gets up to two speeches on a bill. That, coupled with the clock being reset by amendments to the bill, means that the Senate could effectively be paralyzed for months as Republicans chip away at Democratic opposition.

‘There’s always an opportunity cost,’ Thune said.

‘At any time there’s an amendment offered, and that amendment is tabled, it resets the clock,’ he continued. ‘The two-speech rule kicks in again. So let’s say, you know, every Democrat senator talks for two hours. That’s 940 hours on the floor.’

Still, some Republicans hope that the bill gets its moment in the Senate.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who was an original co-sponsor of the bill, told Fox News Digital he hoped it got a chance on the floor and contended that it was a ‘very important thing to do.’

‘I don’t know,’ Schmitt said. ‘I mean, we’ll never know unless it happens.’

The top congressional Democrats appear to have mended their rift over the controversial Homeland Security spending bill and presented a revamped list of demands to earn the party’s support to fund the agency.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., presented a unified front on Wednesday to unveil a retooled wish list of reforms for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the top House Democrat bucked his colleague’s deal with President Donald Trump.

‘We’re united as House and Senate Democrats,’ Schumer said. ‘We’re going to have tough, strong legislation. We hope to have it within the next 24 hours that we will submit together. And then we want our Republican colleagues to finally get serious about this.’

Schumer laid out congressional Democrats’ requirements for their support of a full-year DHS funding bill, which varied little from the same list of demands he unveiled last week. The only difference now is that he had a buy-in from House Democrats.

Among the demands are an end to roving patrols, oversight by state and local governments where ICE and DHS are operating, along with the right to sue. Lastly, Schumer demanded that there be ‘no secret police.’

‘I find it amazing that the Speaker of the House, [is] saying… they should be allowed to have masks,’ Schumer said. ‘This group, which needs to be identified more than any other group, should have a standard much more lenient and hidden than other police forces?’

‘I would bet when Speaker Johnson goes down to Louisiana, the sheriffs and the police deputies are well identified as they are in almost every city,’ he continued.

Jeffries spurned Schumer and Senate Democrats just a day earlier when he and the vast majority of House Democrats rejected the funding deal that the top Senate Democrat struck with Trump that allowed Congress more time to negotiate over the DHS funding bill.

That divide, for now, appears to have been bridged.

The negotiations over the funding bill are expected to largely take place in the Senate, and Republicans are skeptical that Democrats will negotiate in good faith, given that they abandoned an already bipartisan bill and Jeffries’ defection from Schumer over the Trump-backed spending deal.

But Democrats argue that their demands aren’t too burdensome, and should be accomplished with legislation, not through executive action at the White House.

‘These are just some of the commonsense proposals that the American people clearly would like to see in terms of the dramatic changes that are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before there is a full-year appropriations bill,’ Jeffries said.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clashed on Wednesday over President Donald Trump’s economic agenda, with the irate congresswoman asking at one point if someone could ‘shut him up.’

The fiery exchange occurred during Bessent’s testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. Waters, the committee ranking member, posed a series of questions about the inflationary impact of Trump’s tariffs on American consumers — and demanded a yes-or-no answer.

So I ask you, Secretary Bessent, will you be the voice of reason in this administration and urge President Trump to stop waging a war on American consumers, harming housing affordability, and putting the economy at risk? Yes or no. You don’t have to explain.

Representative—

Will you be the voice of reason? Will you be the voice of reason?

A study from Wharton University has shown—

Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chair, will you let him know when I ask to reclaim my time—

The time does belong to the gentlewoman from California.

Ten to twenty million immigrants—

Can you shut him up?

What about the housing stock for working Americans? And can you maintain some level of dignity?

The gentlewoman’s time has expired.

No, my time has not expired.

Your time has expired. The gentleman—

The gentleman took up my time. I think you should recognize that, Mr. Chair.

The gentlewoman’s time has expired.

Bessent’s testimony comes as the Trump administration awaits a Supreme Court ruling on whether some of the trade duties imposed in 2025 exceeded presidential authority, a decision that could have broad implications for current tariff actions. 

Tariffs are taxes levied on imported goods. Although they are paid by companies at the border, the costs are often passed along through higher prices, leaving consumers to bear much of the burden.

Alleged fraud schemes plaguing Minnesota’s social services systems have elevated scrutiny surrounding childcare centers. 

But fraud can be challenging to identify for states – especially when agencies are using outdated systems that make it difficult to spot trends and red flags that could point to potential fraud, according to Chris Bennett, the CEO and founder of a Wonderschool, a platform that provides technology support to child care providers and states. 

‘When you have all this data living in different place, it’s really difficult for a state to identify where there is risk and where there is fraud,’ Bennett recently told Fox News Digital during an interview. ‘Additionally, a lot of states are using pen and paper still to collect information. So it makes it really difficult for an administrator and the administrator’s team to go through all of that and make sure that they’re keeping up with things on a regular basis.’

Streamlining systems is key to identifying any atypical trends in billing behavior and attendance data that could point to fraud, Bennett said.

‘The best practice is moving to a modern system, moving to a system where all of the data is in one place and it’s all connected,’ Bennett said. ‘So you can use that to identify risk, flag unusual patterns early, and then have humans go and investigate. Oversight should support child care providers, not punish them.’ 

To help do this, Bennett spearheaded Wonderschool Oversight in January – building upon Wonderschool’s existing partnerships with states including Florida, Michigan and Illinois – that aims to centralize state agencies’ program data to evaluate enrollment, attendance, billing and licensing information in the same place. 

Having this information in one spot allows for Wonderschool Oversight to flag unusual patterns that could require human review, Bennett said.

‘For example, we can analyze daily attendance data to flag cases where billed attendance exceeds recorded attendance,’ Bennett said. ‘We review billing behavior for anomalies — such as sudden spikes in billing corrections — which can indicate potential issues. Or, in another example, we compare reported attendance against licensed capacity, age-band limits, and required staffing ratios to surface possible regulatory or safety violations.’ 

Childcare fraud has come under a microscope after right-wing influencer Nick Shirley shared a video in December detailing alleged fraud involving Minnesota childcare and learning centers. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced in January that it would put a hold on access to some federal childcare and family assistance funding for five states – including Minnesota – due to ‘serious concerns about widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in state-administered programs.’ 

Days later, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from halting the funding freeze for at least two weeks. Fox News Digital reached out to HHS for comment. 

That’s not the only alleged fraud scheme the state is facing. Lawmakers have spearheaded investigations into Minnesota’s alleged ‘Feeding Our Future’ $250 million fraud scheme that allegedly targeted a children’s nutrition program the Department of Agriculture funded and that Minnesota oversaw during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At least 77 people have been charged in that scheme, which took advantage of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision to waive certain Federal Child Nutrition Program requirements.

Likewise, another alleged fraud scheme in the state stems from the Housing Stability Services Program, which allegedly offered Medicaid coverage for housing stabilization services in an attempt to help those with disabilities, mental illnesses and substance-use disorders receive housing.

A historic nuclear arms reduction treaty is set to expire Thursday, which will thrust the world into a nuclear situation it has not faced in more than five decades, one in which there are no longer any binding limits on the size of Russia’s or America’s nuclear arsenals and no inspection regime to verify what Moscow does next.

Matt Korda, associate director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the expiration of the New START treaty forces both countries to rethink assumptions that have guided nuclear planning for more than a decade. 

‘Up until now, both countries have planned their respective nuclear modernization programs based on the assumption that the other country is not going to exceed those central limits,’ Korda said. ‘Without those central limits … both countries are going to be reassessing their programs to accommodate a more uncertain nuclear future.’

Russia had already suspended its participation in New START in 2023, freezing inspections and data exchanges, but the treaty’s expiration eliminates the last legal framework governing the size of the two countries’ nuclear arsenals.

With no follow-up agreement in place, the administration has insisted it cannot agree to arms control without the cooperation of China. 

‘The president has been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,’ Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday.

A White House official told Fox News President Donald Trump will decide the path forward on arms control ‘on his own timeline.’ ‘President Trump has spoken repeatedly of addressing the threat nuclear weapons pose to the world and indicated that he would like to keep limits on nuclear weapons and involve China in arms control talks.’

Experts are skeptical that China would ever agree to limit its nuclear stockpile until it’s reached parity with the U.S., and Russia has said it would not pressure China to come to the table. 

China aims to have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, but even that figure pales in comparison to the aging giants of the Cold War. As of early 2026, the global nuclear hierarchy remains top-heavy, with the U.S. and Russia holding roughly 86% of the world’s total inventory. Both the U.S. and Russia hold around 4,000 total warheads, with close to 1,700 deployed by each. Global nuclear stockpiles declined to about 12,000 in 2025, down from more than 70,000 in 1986.

In February 2023, Russia announced it was suspending its participation in the New START treaty, halting inspections and data-sharing under the pact while saying it would continue to respect the numerical limits. But, more recently, it floated the idea of extending the treaty by another year.

Korda said that proposal reflected shared constraints rather than a sudden change in Russian intentions. 

‘It’s not in Russia’s interest to dramatically accelerate an arms race while its current modernization programs are going so poorly and while its industrial capacity is tied up in Ukraine,’ he said.

Korda said that without inspections and data exchanges, countries are forced to rely on their own intelligence, increasing uncertainty and encouraging worst-case planning. 

‘Without those onsite inspections, without data exchanges, without anything like that, all countries are really left with national technical means of being able to monitor each other’s nuclear forces,’ Korda said.

With New START’s limits gone, experts said the immediate concern is not the construction of new nuclear weapons but how quickly existing warheads could be deployed. Ankit Panda, a Stanton senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Russia could move faster than the United States in the near term by ‘uploading’ additional warheads onto missiles already in service. 

‘Uploading would be a process of adding additional warheads to our ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles,’ Panda said. ‘The Russians could be much faster than the United States.’

Korda said a large-scale upload would not happen overnight but could still alter force levels within a relatively short window. 

‘We’re looking at maybe a timeline of about two years and pretty significant sums of money for each country to execute a complete upload across the entire force,’ he said, adding that, in a worst-case scenario, it could ‘roughly result in doubling the sizes of their deployed nuclear arsenals.’

That advantage, however, is constrained by longer-term industrial realities. Panda noted that the U.S. nuclear weapons complex lacks the production capacity it once had, limiting how quickly Washington could sustain a larger arsenal over time. 

‘The United States is currently unable to produce what is going to be a target for 30 plutonium pits,’ a fraction of Cold War output, he said.

Nicole Grajewski, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Russia’s ability to produce nuclear weapons may be faster than the U.S. in some, but not all, parts of the development chain. 

‘Russia is very good at warhead production,’ she told Fox News Digital. ‘What Russia is really fundamentally constrained on is the delivery vehicle side of it.’

Grajewski added that this is particularly true as the war in Ukraine continues. Russia’s production of missiles and other delivery systems relies on facilities that also support conventional weapons used in the war, limiting how quickly Moscow could expand the intercontinental missiles, submarine-launched weapons and bombers that made up the core of New START.

As a result, Grajewski said she is less concerned about a rapid buildup of those treaty-covered forces than about Moscow’s continued investment in nuclear systems that fall outside traditional arms control frameworks. 

‘What is more concerning is Russia’s advances in asymmetric domains,’ she said, pointing to systems such as the Poseidon nuclear-powered torpedo and nuclear-powered cruise missiles, which are not covered by existing treaties.

President Donald Trump has previously said he wants to pursue arms control with both Russia and China before suggesting the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

‘If there’s ever a time when we need nuclear weapons like the kind of weapons that we’re building and that Russia has — and that China has, to a lesser extent, but will have — that’s going to be a very sad day,’ Trump said in February 2025. ‘That’s going to be probably oblivion.’

But, in October, he declared, ‘Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.’

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who criss-crossed the country last year on a ‘Fight Oligarchy’ tour with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., spent over $550,000 in 2025 on private jet travel for himself using campaign funds, a Fox News Digital review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings found.

The majority of the spending came in the first two quarters, which cover up until July. That is also when Sanders and AOC had the majority of their tour stops across the country. 

In April, between stops on the tour, Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a photo of Sanders boarding a luxury Bombardier Challenger private jet at the Meadows Field Airport in Bakersfield, California. The source also indicated that they had spotted the New York congresswoman boarding the private jet as well. 

The pair were subsequently also seen in footage obtained by Fox News Digital exiting the plane in Sacramento later that evening, near where the self-identified Democratic socialists hosted a second rally in one day.  

The Bombardier Challenger private jet the pair flew on was operated by Ventura Air Services, which touts ‘one of the widest cabins of any business jet available today’ and provides ‘superior cabin comfort for its passengers.’ According to their website, the private jet can cost up to $15,000 an hour.

In 2025, according to Sanders’ FEC filings, he spent at least $354,000 in campaign funds to pay for private jet services through Ventura Jets. The other private jet companies Sanders spent campaign funds on included N-Jet and Cirrus Aviation Services. 

According to N-Jet’s website, the company pieds itself on their ‘personal touch,’ adding that customers will ‘arrive in style with your luxury, comfort, and safety always top of mind.’

Sanders, who has been a vocal supporter of the Green New Deal, the aggressive climate change policy targeting carbon emissions and fossil fuel production, and has called climate change an ‘existential threat’ to the world, was pressed about his private jet use last year, prompting him to tell Fox News’ ‘Special Report’ host Bret Baier that ‘that’s the only way to get around.’

‘You run a campaign, and you do three or four or five rallies in a week. [It is] the only way you can get around to talk to 30,000 people. You think I’m gonna be sitting on a waiting line at United…while 30, 000 people are waiting?’ Sanders said.

‘That’s the only way to get around. No apologies for that. That’s what campaign travel is about. We’ve done it in the past. We’re gonna do it in future.’

Sanders has a long history of using private jets on the campaign trail. During his failed 2020 presidential campaign, the Sanders campaign spent over $1.9 million on private jets, including Apollo Jets and the Advanced Aviation Team, a Virginia-based private jet company.

Private jets have faced the ire of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow climate activists. According to the 2021 Transport and Environment report, private jets are up to 14 times more polluting than commercial planes.

‘For real, how many private jets do these CEOs need? It is insatiable. It is unacceptable,’ Ocasio-Cortez said in 2023, in one example of the New York congresswoman herself railing against private jets. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Sanders’ office and his campaign for comment on the spending but did not receive a response in time for publication.

‘You don’t expect a socialist to fly commercial do you?’ quipped conservative political communications consultant Matt Gorman. ‘There’s no bigger hypocrite than the liberal who chastises us for eating meat and using gas stoves, yet flies in private jets.’ 

In addition to Sanders’ hefty private jet spending that came during his tour with AOC, the New York Democratic socialist also spent big sums of campaign dollars at luxury and ’boutique’ hotels in states where the pair held their ‘Fight Oligarchy’ Tour. 

For example, AOC’s campaign paidThe Leo Kent Hotel, a boutique high-rise in Tucson, $3,165.76, around the time of a ‘Fight Oligarchy’ rally that was held there, according to an FEC filing from April 25. In 2025, AOC also spent thousands at luxury hotels like the Asher Adams Hotel in Salt Lake City, the Hotel Vermont in Burlington, The Langham-Huntington hotel in Pasadena, Calif., Hotel El Convento in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the Lansdowne Resort & Spa in rural Virginia, and more. 

Fox News Digital asked representatives for AOC if the congresswoman felt like she needed to explain her more than $53,000 in campaign spending on upscale hotels across the country in 2025, but did not receive a response.

Fox News Digital’s Cameron Cawthorne, Andrew Mark Miller and Deirdre Heavey (formerly) contributed to this report.