NationalWatch

SUNLAND PARK, N.M. — As Border Patrol agents work to combat the movement of illegal immigrants across the southern border in the El Paso Sector, they say a multi-layered enforcement system that has been expanded in recent years and combines the use of barriers with technology and other forms of enforcement has helped thwart cartel smuggling operations and nab illegal immigrants moving into the U.S.

Wall/Fencing

Overshadowing the border in Sunland Park, New Mexico, is miles of border wall. Some of it is border fence built during the Obama administration, while other parts consist of Trump-era bollard wall. 

Fox News Digital was on the ground when agents nabbed illegal immigrants just feet from the fence they had cut a hole through. Even though they got through, it gave agents time to apprehend them. Agents generally prefer the bollard fencing, saying it is harder to cut through. And other parts of the fencing have been reinforced with bollards and, in some cases, filled with concrete.

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: FENCE-CUTTING MIGRANTS BUSTED BY FEDS

However, critics of barriers have noted that barriers are not a fix by themselves. Barriers, even those with bollards and filled with concrete, can be cut through. And strewn along the border were makeshift ladders and ropes, which migrants use to scale the barrier.

Along other parts of the border, wall construction isn’t possible. This is the case on the looming Mount Cristo Rey, a steep area where a wall cannot be built and the U.S.-Mexico border is marked only with obelisks. It is here that other layers of the enforcement strategy come into play.

Autonomous surveillance towers

The Biden administration stopped most border wall construction in 2021, although it has continued to make some repairs and moved forward with construction that had already been appropriated. Overall, however, it has instead emphasized the importance of technology. And in this area, agents say the administration has delivered.

There are now 24 autonomous surveillance towers (AST) in the El Paso Sector, and there are more than 50 deployed in the neighboring Big Bend Sector, officials say. The Biden administration’s fiscal 2025 budget includes an additional $127 million for “modernizing border security technology,” including additional deployments of towers.

The 24-hour-a-day towers, running on renewable energy, work by scanning the environment with radar. They use artificial intelligence to “hand off” from one another. So, if a group moves out of sight of one tower, the neighboring tower picks it up. The use of AST did not start with the Biden administration. It began during the Trump administration, but it has expanded dramatically under the current administration.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS

CBP says the technology comes into play even before migrants get into the U.S., allowing agents to plan before anyone even steps foot on U.S. soil. The AI technology can scan faces, differentiate between humans and wildlife and can send immediate alerts to agents in the field on their phones or tablets. It can also identify how many people are in a group. So, if agents are told to look for a group of eight migrants and find only five, they know there’s another three they still have to track down.

WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)?

The towers have been deployed throughout the border, but here they are especially useful given the treacherous terrain in the mountains. With the towers in place, agents don’t need to chase migrants up the mountain. They can monitor and track them via the towers and wait for the migrants to eventually emerge (often exhausted) on flat land. 

Choppers, agents and K-9s

Should migrants get through the border wall and become spotted by the surveillance towers, they still need to be apprehended. This is where the Border Patrol agents will make the apprehensions. 

But they have assistance. The CBP Canine Unit is headquartered in El Paso, and some Border Patrol agents are trained how to use specially trained dogs to track down migrants and smugglers, in addition to the unit’s roles in other fields throughout CBP’s jurisdiction.

The K-9s can also help apprehend those illegal immigrants who may become violent and try to attack agents. Fox saw Canu, one of the K-9s deployed in Sunland Park, work with his handler as he sniffed the terrain for a possible lead.

SPIKE IN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM THIS US ADVERSARY BLOWS LID OFF PREVIOUS YEAR’S RECORD

Meanwhile, Border Patrol is also aided by helicopters from CBP’s Air and Marine Operations (AMO). They swoop over the mountains to conduct additional surveillance, scaring off migrants who may be planning on making the run across, while also allowing AMO to help with rescues quickly if needed.  

In the fiscal 2025 budget, the administration wants to invest an additional $210 million in staffing, which includes Border Patrol, as well as $86 million for AMO support.

Rescue towers

Another deployment here in El Paso is the use of rescue towers, which allow migrants to press a button to call for help. The 21 towers in the sector warn migrants they are in danger and can call for assistance. The button triggers a sharp blue light on top of the beacon visible by agents miles around.

Fox viewed one rescue tower situated near where there was an infamous case in 2021 of two young girls, 3 and 5, dropped off by a smuggler over the wall. Luckily, agents spotted and rescued them. Other migrants have not been so lucky, and there are plenty of instances of agents coming across dead bodies. These towers are designed to help prevent that.

So far in fiscal 2024, agents in the El Paso Sector have rescued more than 300 migrants, but there have also been 34 migrant deaths.

Cooperation with state officials

While in nearby Texas there has been friction between the federal government and state officials, here in New Mexico, local authorities and CBP are working together. 

New Mexico state law enforcement will coordinate with Border Patrol to stop illegal immigrants coming across. Recently, officials in Dona Ana County announced a partnership to prosecute state offenses committed by smugglers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Overall, Border Patrol believe the multi-layered enforcement strategy is working. They point to a sharp decrease in apprehensions over the last year. There were 427,471 in fiscal 2023 by Border Patrol in the sector. So far in fiscal 2024, which began in October, there have been just over 150,000. 

Separately, officials point to the busting of more than 136 stash houses, with over 1,377 smuggled migrants by their interdiction teams so far in fiscal 2024.

High-stakes climate litigation being pursued across the country and worldwide, purportedly on behalf of children, can be traced to a single, left-wing public interest law firm with big-money backing and ties to longtime progressive activists, Fox News Digital has learned.

The Oregon-based firm Our Children’s Trust (OCT), which is classified as a 501(c)(3) public charity, was established more than a decade ago to provide youth with legal services “to secure their legal rights to a safe climate.” Since its founding, OCT has filed multiple federal lawsuits, spearheaded legal actions in all 50 states and is even involved in litigation in Canada, Mexico, Pakistan, India and Uganda.

“These young people are doing exactly what they’ve been taught by elders — when they see a wrong, they take steps to right it,” Mat dos Santos, OCT’s co-executive director and general counsel, said last week.

Dos Santos, who is tasked with overseeing OCT’s legal program, made the comments during a rally outside the White House where activists called for President Biden to take their side in Juliana v. United States, one of several cases the group is pursuing. According to OCT, the plaintiffs in the case are 21 young Americans who are concerned the government has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

LEFT-WING CLIMATE GROUP WITH SHADY BACKING TAKES PROMINENT ROLE AGAINST GAS STOVES

OCT filed its complaint in Juliana v. United States in 2015, arguing that the federal government has contributed to global warming for decades, despite being well aware of the cataclysmic impacts of climate change. The lawsuit — which is currently making its way through the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — takes aim at policies allowing fossil fuel extraction, transportation and combustion.

Days before the White House rally, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the original architects of the Green New Deal, released a podcast with dos Santos and some of the plaintiffs in the case. In the episode, the senior lawmaker lauded the children for “fighting against what preceding generations have done to pollute and to create this problem.”

The group’s growing suite of climate litigation, meanwhile, broadly follows the same format, asserting on behalf of a handful of youth that federal or state agencies are harming their future by allowing fossil fuel reliance. 

BIDEN ADMIN PRESSURED SNOPES TO CHANGE ITS FACT-CHECK RATING ON RUMORED GAS STOVE BAN, INTERNAL EMAILS SHOW

OCT’s most recent lawsuit was filed in December against the Environmental Protection Agency, and its most successful case so far has been Held v. State of Montana, which yielded a favorable judgment last year. The First Judicial District Court of Montana’s ruling, which has since been appealed by the state, struck down certain state laws promoting fossil fuels and concluded youth plaintiffs were harmed by said laws.

“Today, for the first time in U.S. history, a court ruled on the merits of a case that the government violated the constitutional rights of children through laws and actions that promote fossil fuels, ignore climate change, and disproportionately imperil young people,” Julia Olson, OCT’s chief legal counsel and co-executive director, said after the ruling in August 2023.

But, according to a Fox News Digital review of financial filings, career databases and recruitment documents, OCT has attracted the financial backing of major left-wing philanthropic nonprofits and is led by longtime activists. In its 2023 impact report, the group stated it receives pro bono legal support from people affiliated with Earthjustice and Oxfam America, two massive groups involved in climate lawsuits.

OCT also actively recruits children between the ages of 8 and 18 years old to serve as the face of their legal efforts. Children interested in serving as plaintiffs in OCT’s cases are directed to an online interest form, which asks applicants for a wide range of contact information, including their pronouns, and how climate change has impacted them personally.

US ENERGY GIANT SOUNDS ALARM ON BIDEN’S CLIMATE RULES TARGETING POWER PLANTS

“Our Children’s Trust exploits well-intentioned kids, using them as political cover to achieve its goal of shutting down responsible energy development in Montana and around the nation,” said Chase Scheuer, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. Knudsen has taken the lead in defending his state’s energy policies in Held v. State of Montana.

“Unable to implement policies through the normal processes of representative government, they are trying to override the will of the people and use the courts to impose their extremist climate agenda,” Scheuer continued.

Overall, OCT reports having more than $5.4 million in net assets and received $2.2 million in financial contributions in 2022 and $3.2 million in contributions a year prior, according to its tax forms. While the group’s donors are hidden from public view, a review of various liberal nonprofits’ tax forms shows the group routinely receives large grants.

For example, in 2022, it received $200,000 from the Amalgamated Charitable Foundation; $100,000 from the Alex C. Walker Foundation; $100,000 from Impact Assets; and donations worth $50,000 from the Jacob & Terese Hershey Foundation and Park Foundation, among others. Those grantmaking nonprofits generally contribute to progressive social and environmental causes.

BIDEN SET TO BLOCK MILLIONS OF ACRES IN ALASKA FROM OIL, GAS DRILLING IN EARTH DAY ACTION

The Amalgamated Foundation, OCT’s apparent largest financier, is the charitable arm of Amalgamated Bank, an operation focused on progressive issues and which is majority-owned and controlled by Workers United, a division of the massive labor union Service Employees International Union (SEIU). 

Under the leadership of its executive director Anna Fink, the Amalgamated Foundation spearheaded a campaign after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot to pressure organizations to divert donations for Republicans to the Amalgamated Foundation instead. That program received backing from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

In addition, dos Santos and Olson, OCT’s co-executive directors, have a long history of progressive activism. 

Dos Santos remains on the boards of the Transgender Law Center, Latino Network and the Chosen Family Law Center. He also previously served as legal director of the ACLU’s Oregon chapter, where he advocated for LGBT rights, immigrants and criminal justice reform. Dos Santos notably led a challenge against former President Donald Trump’s immigration actions and represented a transgender inmate demanding the state provide hormone therapy.

And Olson previously served as an attorney at Earthjustice before beginning her own firm, Wild Earth Advocates.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Other staff and members of OCT’s board of directors have ties to climate-focused organizations such as the Women’s Environmental and Development Organization, Western Environmental Law Center, Food & Water Watch and Columbia University’s Earth Institute.

OCT and the Amalgamated Charitable Foundation didn’t respond to requests for comment.

FIRST ON FOX: The GOP is blasting President Biden’s campaign over an “out-of-touch” memo warning that former President Trump’s re-election could mean the end of one of Washington’s most glamorous traditions.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner and the days leading up to it are an annual social event, frequently invitation-only, where D.C.’s elite in media, journalism and politics gather for a celebration of the press.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) warned Thursday evening that Trump returning to the White House could put a stop to the festivities.

BIDEN VOWS TO LET TRUMP-ERA TAX CUTS EXPIRE NEXT YEAR, MEANING HIGHER RATES FOR MANY

The Republican National Committee (RNC) on Friday told Fox News Digital in response, “The fact that Joe Biden is pandering to journalists by threatening their annual ego-stroking elites fest is pathetic and out of touch, but it goes to show that Democrats can’t win on the issues.”

“Biden can spend 2024 vacationing in Delaware and rubbing elbows with East Coast elites all he wants, but President Trump and Republicans will continue to talk about the issues that matter and present solutions to Biden’s failures on everything from the economy to the border,” RNC spokesperson Anna Kelly said.

Trump never attended the event as president. He held a rally with supporters in 2019 instead and even prohibited his administration officials from attending, according to Reuters. It was canceled in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

NEW POLL SHOWS BIDEN’S 2024 LEAD VANISHING WITH TRUMP ON TRIAL

Democrats’ Thursday evening statement criticized Trump for shunning the dinner, arguing it was another way Trump was showing contempt for journalists and the First Amendment.

“We hope everyone has a good time this weekend, because if Donald Trump wins in November, this Saturday could also be known as the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner. To state the obvious: Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist who – despite spending seemingly every waking moment glued to his seat consuming cable news – is constantly attacking the free press and unable to handle a little good-natured ribbing,” DNC rapid response director Alex Floyd said.

“He skipped the White House Correspondents’ Dinner every single year he was in office because of his deep-seated insecurities and pathetic desperation to be liked by the same people he rails against, and that was before he outright banned members of his administration from attending at all.

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Fun and jokes aside this weekend, Saturday is also a reminder of what’s at stake with an angry, vengeful Trump on the ballot. He may be a punchline, but he is also a sad, vindictive wannabe authoritarian who shows no respect for the First Amendment – or the Fourth Estate.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The DNC declined to provide additional comment.

The Biden administration abruptly announced Friday that it will delay regulations banning menthol cigarettes amid widespread opposition to the proposal.

In a statement, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra said his agency would not move to finalize the regulations and pointed to opposition from civil rights activists. Since they were first proposed by the HHS’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the regulations have sparked a contentious debate between health advocates and civil liberties and business groups.

“This rule has garnered historic attention and the public comment period has yielded an immense amount of feedback, including from various elements of the civil rights and criminal justice movement,” Becerra said in a statement. “It’s clear that there are still more conversations to have, and that will take significantly more time.”

Initiated 2 years ago

The announcement comes exactly two years after FDA initially proposed the regulations, paving the way for an historic ban on menthol cigarettes that the administration said would be a “critical” piece of President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative. FDA also argued at the time that the ban would broadly “reduce the appeal of cigarettes” and have substantial health impacts.

BIDEN ADMIN FACING CONGRESSIONAL PROBE OVER PROPOSED BAN ON MENTHOL CIGARETTES

FDA ultimately handed the regulations off to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval months ago after a lengthy public comment period. However, officials dragged their feet in moving forward with the regulations and missed multiple self-imposed deadlines to finalize them, igniting concerns among health advocates that the administration may change course.

“Unfortunately, the possibility of this administration making these rules a reality is shrinking with the passage of time, and ACS CAN is calling on the administration to not miss the opportunity to make a historic gain in the fight against cancer,” American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network CEO Karen Knudsen said in a statement on Friday ahead of Becerra’s announcement.

CONSERVATIVE GROUP UNLEASHES 6-FIGURE AD CAMPAIGN TARGETING BIDEN’S MENTHOL CIGARETTE BAN

‘Top priority’

OMB declined to comment and referred Fox News Digital back to Becerra’s statement. 

And an FDA spokesperson said the agency remains committed to issuing tobacco product standards for menthol in cigarettes and characterizing flavors in cigars.

“As we’ve made clear, these product standards remain at the top of our priorities,” the spokesperson said.

During the public comment period, associations representing convenience stores, police, consumers and minority groups warned the administration that a ban on menthol cigarettes could foster an illicit market for the product, while punishing small business owners and minorities who are the largest consumers of the product.

Groups representing minorities, like the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement and the nonprofit National Action Network — the latter of which was founded by civil rights leader the Rev. Al Sharpton — argued that banning menthol cigarettes while not restricting non-menthol cigarettes “puts a microscope on minority communities.” 

BIDEN ADMIN’S PROPOSED MENTHOL CIGARETTE BAN COULD BECOME LIABILITY IN 2024: ‘UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES’

White House meetings

The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement, National Action Network, National Newspaper Publishers Association and civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump met with Becerra, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden to discuss the proposal in November, according to White House records.

The White House also convened meetings with other stakeholders, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Lung Association, and the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). 

“The USHBC applauds President Biden for his leadership in delaying the menthol ban, recognizing the unintended consequences it would have had on convenience store sales nationwide and the livelihoods of over 600,000 workers,” Javier Palomarez, the president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Business Council, told Fox News Digital in a statement.

“Implementing a ban would have not only been ineffective but would also risk disproportionately criminalizing people of color, the very communities where menthol cigarettes are consumed,” Palomarez added. “We are delighted that the President has heard our concerns and we offer ourselves up as a resource to develop a comprehensive approach to public health.”

Dollars and cents

According to NACS, the rule would have led to a reduction of $72,285 a year in non-tobacco sundry sales and $160,107 a year in tobacco product sales for the typical convenience store nationwide. The organization projected that the convenience store industry could have collectively lost $2.16 billion in sales as a result of the regulations. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In addition, government watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) said the administration’s actions Friday confirmed its concerns it expressed last week when it sued HHS for withholding documents related to the regulations.

“This announcement appears to confirm the basis for our lawsuit a few weeks ago on the proposed menthol cigarette ban. Public health authorities following the polling rather than the science is not a good look. It’s also a major reason why trust in our public health officials is at an all-time low,” PPT Director Michael Chamberlain said. “This only heightens the need for transparency into what’s really driving decisions at the FDA.”

Former President Trump suggested the White House as the venue for a debate against President Biden, saying he “would be very comfortable.” 

The presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, after hours in a Manhattan courtroom for the eigth day of his criminal trial, has repeatedly said he will debate Biden “anywhere, anytime, anyplace.” 

Biden broke his silence on debating his 2024 opponent on Friday during an interview with radio host Howard Stern. Biden said he would be “happy” to debate Trump. 

TRUMP CAMPAIGN DEMANDS BIDEN DEBATE HIM ‘MUCH EARLIER’ AND MORE OFTEN

“I am, somewhere, I don’t know when,” Biden said, after Stern said he didn’t know whether Biden would participate in a debate. “I’m happy to debate him.” 

Trump, shortly after Biden’s interview, which he did during a visit to New York City Friday, posted to his Truth Social account inviting Biden to debate him at the courthouse in Lower Manhattan. 

“In the alternative, he’s in New York City today, although probably doesn’t know it, and so am I, stuck in one of the many Court cases that he instigated as ELECTION INTERFERENCE AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT – A CONTINUING WITCH HUNT!” Trump posted to Truth Social. “It’s the only way he thinks he can win. In fact, let’s do the Debate at the Courthouse tonight – on National Television, I’ll wait around!” 

Trump, after court ended Friday, came out and reflected on the day of testimony. 

“We sit here day, after day, after day, which is their plan,” Trump said of the Democrats, who he said hope to win the election. “But I doubt it because the poll numbers are very good for us.” 

Trump told reporters he had invited Biden to debate. 

TRUMP CALLS FOR DEBATES WITH BIDEN ‘ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE’

“He can do it anytime he wants, including tonight. He can do it tonight,” Trump said. “I invited him to the courthouse that he has us tied up in. This is a well coordinated attack on a political opponent.” 

Trump added: “But I’m here, I’m ready, willing and able.” 

Trump said “if he wants, I’ll do it on Monday night, Tuesday night and Wednesday night.” 

Trump said Wednesday night he will campaign in Michigan, saying it is a state that Biden “has destroyed because of the auto industry” and said auto jobs are “all going over to China with his ridiculous electric vehicle mandate.” 

“But we’re willing to do it Monday night, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night on national television,” Trump said. “We’re ready. Just tell me where.” 

“We’ll do it at the White House,” Trump said. “That would be very comfortable, actually. You tell me where. We’re ready.” 

Trump told reporters that Biden was “obviously not showing up now” to the courthouse.

BIDEN SAYS DEBATING TRUMP ‘DEPENDS ON HIS BEHAVIOR’

“We’ve heard nothing, but he said today he’d love to debate,” Trump said. “But he won’t debate. I don’t think he’ll debate. Maybe he will. Maybe he will. I’m not sure he has a choice.” 

He added: “We’re ready, willing and able. We don’t see him and I don’t think he’ll be here. Maybe next week he’ll do it.” 

“I doubt it,” Trump said. “But maybe next week.” 

Earlier this month, the Trump campaign called for additional 2024 presidential debates and for them to take place “much earlier” than initially proposed by the debate commission. 

Trump, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital shortly after, said he is “totally committed” to debating President Biden “anytime, anywhere, anyplace.” 

As for Biden, before today, he had not yet committed to debating his opponent. 

When asked last month if he would debate the former president, Biden said it was dependent on Trump’s “behavior.” 

“Depends on his behavior,” Biden said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Earlier this year, Biden addressed previous calls for earlier debates with Trump.

“If I were him, I would want to debate me, too,” Biden told reporters in Nevada when asked about Trump wanting to debate him earlier in the election cycle.

“He’s got nothing else to do,” Biden said.

Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail. 

What’s happening:

– Trump urges judge to lift gag order: Live updates from NY v. Trump…

– Terrorist-linked flag seen at Princeton demonstrations: Live updates on anti-Israel unrest…

– Biden makes rare live media appearance on Howard Stern’s show…

Squad members tour anti-Israel demonstrations to express support

New York Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman, both members of “The Squad,” were seen Friday mingling with anti-Israel agitators at Columbia University, where “support” was offered to those in the encampment established to protest the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza.

A smiling Ocasio-Cortez showed up in videos speaking to denizens of the encampment, and Bowman was seen cheerfully chatting with the demonstrators. Bowman also reportedly attended a Thursday evening Biden campaign fundraiser in Westchester County.

The visits by Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman to Columbia’s campus in New York City came one day after Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar traveled to the school with her daughter (who was arrested a week ago for trespassing as part of the demonstrations) to show her support for the protest of Israel’s war against Hamas.

Choosing Sides

‘PEACEFULLY PROTESTING’: Columbia anti-Israel agitators file civil rights complaint to Dept. of Education …Read more

CHOOSING SIDES: Flag used by terrorist group seen at ivy league anti-Israel encampment …Read more

WHO’S BEHIND IT?: Expert argues similarities in campus anti-Israel protests suggest foreign influence …Read more

UNSAFE SPACES: Columbia protest leader discussed ‘murdering Zionists,’ calling on them to die …Read more

‘WARMONGER’: Pelosi university speech interrupted by anti-Israel agitators …Read more

GUESS WHO: Anti-Israel protests nationwide fueled by left-wing groups backed by Soros, dark money …Read more

Capitol Hill

FOLLOW THE MONEY: House lawmakers urge major donors to cut off Columbia amid protests …Read more

NO WORDS: Republicans pushing for Johnson’s ouster silent on Trump support for speaker …Read more

SENATE SHOT: New Republican challenger to Elizabeth Warren says ‘no one has disappointed Massachusetts more’ …Read more

WELCOME TO SAN FRANCISCO: Schiff reportedly robbed in big city, forced to attend ritzy campaign dinner with no suit to wear …Read more

White House

POWER GRAB: Biden’s gas car crackdown faces major roadblock …Read more

UP THE ANTE: Biden’s latest tax hike could crush the economy, experts warn …Read more

LIGHTS OUT: Biden climate agenda threatening power grid, massive energy provider warns …Read more

‘UPHILL BATTLE’: Blue state in battle over AG’s illegal immigration dictate that ‘handcuffs’ police …Read more

Tales from the Campaign Trail

LET’S DEBATE: Biden tells Howard Stern he’s ‘happy’ to debate Trump this fall …Read more

SWING STATES SOURING: Biden adviser ducks poll showing swing state voters down on economy …Read more

‘HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE’: Surging GOP Senate candidate visits southern border as crisis rages …Read more

HANDS OFF: Republican makes major announcement aimed at keeping crucial voting bloc from Dems …Read more

HELPING HAND: Biden changes walking routine as questions about age continue …Read more

OPINION: DA Bragg’s legal strategy is filth by association …Read more

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

New York can move ahead with a law requiring internet service providers to offer heavily discounted rates to low-income residents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reverses a lower court ruling from 2021 that blocked the policy just days before it went into effect.

The law would force internet companies to give some low-income New Yorkers broadband service for as low as $15 a month, or face fines from the state.

BRAGG ‘ALLOWED POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS’ TO ‘INFECT’ PROSECUTION OF TRUMP, HOUSE JUDICIARY GOP SAYS

Telecoms trade groups sued over the law, arguing it would cost them too much money and that it wrongly superseded a federal law that governs internet service.

On Friday, the industry groups said they were weighing their next legal move.

“We are disappointed by the court’s decision and New York state’s move for rate regulation in competitive industries. It not only discourages the needed investment in our nation’s infrastructure, but also potentially risks the sustainability of broadband operations in many areas,” a statement read.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

New York state lawmakers approved the law in 2021 as part of the budget, with supporters arguing that the policy would give low-income residents a way to access the internet, which has become a vital utility.

A Democrat representative who is now running for Senate in battleground state Michigan is facing scrutiny over a Limited Liability Company she started in 2017 just weeks prior to announcing her congressional bid.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., established the LLC, called Pinpoint Consulting, weeks before announcing in 2017 that she was running for Congress to unseat an incumbent Republican. According to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, the business is “Not in Good Standing,” as of 2020. 

The last annual report for the business was filed in 2019. 

TOP SENATE DEM CALLS FOR PROBE INTO MUSLIMS PROSECUTED BY DOJ FOR ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS

“I’m a third-generation Michigander and spent my early life on a farm in Holly, Michigan where I currently live and run a small consulting business,” Slotkin’s campaign website, ElissaForCongress.com, stated in October 2017, according to an internet archive snapshot. 

In an ad launched by End Citizens United advocating for Slotkin in May 2018, the organization claimed, “she is a small business owner in Holly.” 

In a financial disclosure report filed with the House clerk in August 2023, Slotkin is still listed as the founder and CEO of Pinpoint Consulting. However, a comment on the document states, “Business has been inactive since 2017 and generates no income/revenue.”

Slotkin’s campaign did not say whether she ever had any clients, revenue, or employees. The congresswoman’s various disclosures don’t reveal any income coming from her firm at any time. 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for her said, “Rep. Slotkin set up a consulting firm after leaving the Department of Defense, when she was considering a number of different job opportunities. She ultimately decided to run for Congress.”

JEWISH DEMOCRAT CALLS OUT BERNIE SANDERS OVER OPPOSITION TO ISRAEL AID: ‘NOW DO ANTISEMITISM’

Slotkin served as an acting assistant secretary of defense until January 2017, per her official biography. The LLC was established with the state of Michigan on June 21, 2017. By July 10, she had announced her campaign for Congress to unseat then-Republican Rep. Mike Bishop. 

Her campaign further pointed to comments made in May 2018 to local outlet Lansing City Pulse. “I was looking for my next step after being in government for 14 years, and I was asked to do some work on an Iraq-related matter,” Slotkin said of her departure from the DOD at the time. “Every time I’ve had a sort of life change, I’ve come back to Michigan to reset, to find out what’s going on. That’s always the place I come back to figure out what my next steps [are].”

But some critics don’t think the company’s establishment and apparent inactivity are that simply explained.

“She was running against a sitting member of Congress in a Republican-leaning district and … everybody was wrapping their arms around small businesses” at the time, said Jason Cabel Roe, who led the Congressional Leadership Fund’s effort to support Bishop in the 2018 race.  

“What she tried to do in 2018 was make herself look like a moderate Republican to Republican voters that did not like Donald Trump,” he said. 

HELP CHAIRMAN BERNIE SANDERS AVOIDS AGREEING TO CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM HEARINGS

Roe explained the business “was a talking point that she relied on in 2018. But once she got elected, I bet she never talked about it again after 2019.”

Slotkin’s business is not mentioned in her Senate campaign. It’s also not featured in her official biography. “I mean, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” Roe said. 

“Elissa Slotkin created a consulting business on paper, so she could call herself a small business owner when she ran for Congress,” National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesperson Maggie Abboud told Fox News Digital in a statement.

“However, it does not appear that she ever actually had any clients. Slotkin’s misrepresentation of her experience in business could be a major issue for her campaign,” she added. 

GOP LAWMAKERS DEMAND BIDEN ADMIN PROSECUTE ‘PRO-TERRORIST MOBS,’ HOLD SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not provide comment to Fox News Digital in time for publication.

Slotkin is considered the front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination in Michigan to replace outgoing Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Actor Hill Harper is also running for the nomination but is far behind the congresswoman in polls of the primary race and with endorsements. Additionally, a Lebanese-born businessman from Dearborn is also running. Nasser Beydoun, an advocate for Gaza civilians amid the war between Israel and Hamas, was recently the chairman of the Arab American Civil Rights League in Michigan, which is home to one of the largest Arab populations in any state. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Senate primary in Michigan takes place on Aug. 6. The general election race is considered competitive by non-partisan political handicapper The Cook Political Report, which rated it “Lean Democratic.” 

On the Republican side, the likely nominee is less clear. However, former Rep. Mike Rogers boasts the endorsement of former President Trump, giving him an edge. Former Reps. Peter Meijer and Justin Amash are also running, as well as businessman Sandy Pensler, who was previously endorsed by former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. 

The three House Republican rebels pushing to oust Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are silent on former President Donald Trump’s support for the embattled congressional leader.

Roughly just six months after winning the speaker’s gavel following three weeks of chaos over the ouster of ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Johnson is already under threat of losing it after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., filed a resolution for a House-wide vote on his leadership, known as a motion to vacate the chair.

Two more lawmakers, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., signed onto her resolution in protest of Johnson’s $95 billion foreign aid plan, which included funds for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific but nothing on the U.S. border, much to some conservatives’ chagrin.

Johnson got some key backup earlier this week when Trump came to his defense, arguing Johnson is doing the best he can with a razor-thin House GOP majority.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE CALLS JOHNSON’S FOREIGN AID PACKAGE HIS ‘3RD BETRAYAL’ OF AMERICAN PEOPLE

“It’s not like he can go and do whatever he wants to do. I think he’s a very good person. You know, he stood very strongly with me on NATO when I said NATO has to pay up,” Trump told radio host John Fredericks after his Monday court appearance. “It’s a tough situation when you have what, I think, is a very good man. I think he’s trying very hard. And again, we’ve got to have a big election.”

Gosar’s office told Fox News Digital he had “no comment” on Trump’s defense of Johnson. Gosar has been one of Trump’s most ardent supporters in Congress.

Spokespeople for Greene and Massie similarly had nothing to share — Fox News Digital attempted to reach both offices multiple times for comment on Trump’s remarks but did not get responses.

3RD REPUBLICAN CALLS FOR SPEAKER JOHNSON’S OUSTER OVER $95B FOREIGN AID PLAN

Like Gosar, Greene has been a top Trump ally in Congress and a popular surrogate for him on the campaign trail. She’s also been one of Johnson’s fiercest critics over his bipartisan work on issues like government spending and foreign aid.

Massie has had a significantly frostier relationship with the former president, having supported his GOP primary rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, before DeSantis dropped out of the race earlier this year.

The Kentucky Republican has most recently accused Trump of “bullying” fellow Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla., when he called for a primary challenger to take her down.

TENSIONS ERUPT ON HOUSE FLOOR AS CONSERVATIVES CONFRONT JOHNSON ON $95B FOREIGN AID PLAN

Both Greene and Massie, however, have signaled that they’re unrepentant about their threats against Johnson in the days since Trump’s defense.

“It’s baffling hearing the establishment complain that it’s too much drama, too hard, and too risky to go through another Speaker race. Meanwhile, Americans are getting kicked in the teeth from the ridiculous drama inflicted on them from pathetic politicians in Washington,” Greene wrote Tuesday on X. “You know what Americans think is hard? Paying their bills. You know what Americans think is risky? Doing absolutely nothing but pass messaging bills about the daily deadly border invasion.”

Massie wrote on X that same day, “The weakest argument in defense of Speaker Johnson is ‘It’s a razor thin majority; you can’t get everything you want.’ We don’t expect to get everything, but we also won’t tolerate complete & total surrender.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

All eyes are on Greene; for now, there’s nothing compelling House leaders to bring her motion up for a vote. If she declares it a “privileged resolution,” lawmakers would be forced to take it up within two legislative days.

A majority of House Republican lawmakers have already signaled that they don’t have the appetite for another period of upheaval like what followed McCarthy’s ouster.

Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson’s office and the Trump campaign for comment.

EXCLUSIVE: A Republican running for re-election in a race key to a possible GOP Senate majority made a major announcement Friday aimed at keeping a crucial voting bloc away from the Democrats.

Florida Sen. Rick Scott announced the latest ad installment of a multimillion-dollar investment in Hispanic outreach, one that his campaign hopes will continue the demographic’s swing toward the GOP and further solidify the state as deep red.

“As parents, we teach values to our children, the difference between right and wrong, truth and lies. But then we send our kids to school where some radical socialist teacher doesn’t teach them math or English. No, they’re taught that men can have babies and become women, and that we should worship the god of government, not the God who created us. That is socialism,” Scott says in the ad, titled “Verdad,” which will run in both Spanish and English.

NEW POLL REVEALS HOW VOTERS’ VIEWS ON ABORTION HAVE CHANGED AS DEMS SEEK TO MAKE ISSUE A CENTRAL 2024 THEME

TRUMP LEADS BIDEN AMONG HISPANICS, REGISTERED VOTERS OVERALL: POLL

The ad will run in multiple TV and radio markets across Florida, as well as statewide on multiple digital platforms.

Socialism has been a major theme in Florida elections in recent years, especially considering the Hispanic population in the state has significant Cuban and Venezuelan heritage. 

Some election experts argue that has been one of the major factors in the shift of Hispanics toward the Republican Party, which has expanded into other Hispanic groups, such as the Puerto Rican community.

According to the Americas Society/Council of the Americas, 55% of Florida’s Hispanics supported Republican Sen. Marco Rubio in his 2022 re-election bid, as well as Miami-Dade County — traditionally a Democratic stronghold that Hillary Clinton won by 29 percentage points in 2016.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Scott, who is expected to sail to victory in the Republican primary on Aug. 20, will likely face Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the former representative of Florida’s 26th Congressional District ousted in the 2020 election.

Elections analysts rate the race as either “likely” or “solid” Republican.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

The prosecutor whose opening statement kicked off the historic trial of Former President Donald Trump left a lofty perch in the Biden administration Justice Department for his current comparatively modest New York City job – a career move that legal analysts describe as puzzling and one that’s prompted questions regarding motivation.

Even though Matthew Colangelo is only now sitting in a courtroom formally opposing the former president, his work has for years involved investigating Trump and his businesses, despite working for different prosecutorial offices at varying levels of government. Colangelo’s sudden switch from top DOJ official to a role with the DA’s office in the Big Apple has particularly raised eyebrows.

“It’s very odd. It’s usually the other way around. . . . And frankly, that sounds to me like somebody who thought, ‘Ah, here’s an opportunity to go and get Donald Trump,'” attorney and former member of the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky, told Fox News Digital in a phone interview this month. 

It’s rare to see successful, ambitious attorneys willingly climb several steps down the career ladder, experts note.

“It is a little unusual,” Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zack Smith said of Colangelo’s career moves. “Particularly, the position he had at the Justice Department was a fairly high ranking one . . . he spent some time in the New York Attorney General’s office, he also spent some time as a career staffer in the DOJ Civil Rights Division. He was in leadership in the Justice Department, and then immediately from that leadership position – an acting leadership position – went to the DA’s office.”

NY PROSECUTORS REVEAL ‘ANOTHER CRIME’ TRUMP ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO CONCEAL WITH FALSIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS

Colangelo’s current case marks the first time a former president has stood trial on criminal charges. It stems from payments made by Trump’s former personal attorney to a former pornographic actress ahead of the 2016 election and was brought forth last year by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The trial began in earnest this week – after a week of jury selection – as Colangelo delivered his opening on Monday, seeking to make the prosecution’s case that Trump had illegally falsified business records to conceal another crime. 

Trump is no fan of Colangelo’s. He has slammed the attorney as a “radical left [prosecutor] who was put into the state working for Letitia James and was then put into the District Attorney’s office to run the trial against Trump.” That comment came before the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, imposed a gag order that prevents Trump from speaking publicly about witnesses or the prosecution team. 

Colangelo has a lengthy government resume, working in a variety of legal roles that date to the Obama administration. He most recently served nearly two years in Biden’s DOJ, including as acting associate attorney general and overseeing the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Environment and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions.

Colangelo’s background includes time spent clerking for Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and seven years at the NAACP’s legal defense and educational fund. Afterward, Colangelo worked for three years in the DOJ’s civil rights division during the Obama administration. He also served as deputy director of the Obama-Biden Administration’s National Economic Council and as chief of staff at the Labor Department under the Obama administration, the DA’s office detailed in a press release. 

Colangelo’s decision in 2017 to take a job in the New York Attorney General’s Office – filling a role left vacant by the departure of his future boss, Bragg – led to the first in a series of cases against Trump. 

Colangelo assisted a case in 2018 that dissolved Trump’s former NY-based charity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, after prosecutors alleged that it had illegally coordinated with Trump’s 2016 campaign. The charity was dissolved after a judge found that Trump had “breached his fiduciary duty.”

That same year, Colangelo worked as lead prosecutor in a case involving the Trump administration’s push to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census. The Justice Department ultimately decided to print the 2020 Census without the citizenship question due to lengthy court battles that included having the Supreme Court weigh in that the question could not be added for the time being. 

“I think given his time at the AG’s office, in the Justice Department, and now at the district attorney’s office, it certainly appears like his career path in the past several years has been designed to target and essentially try to bring charges against Donald Trump in whatever form or fashion he can do so,” Smith said.

TRUMP URGED TO IGNORE SUPREME COURT, PRINT CENSUS QUESTION: ‘BECAUSE WE SHOULD,’ GOP LAWMAKER SAYS

Von Spakovsky cited Colangelo’s previous employment with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division as a potential concern, calling the DOJ department a home for “some of the most unethical lawyers” he’s ever met. Von Spakovsky worked in the Civil Rights Division from 2001 to 2005 but did not overlap with Colangelo. He spoke to Fox Digital about what he had personally experienced in the office and how he viewed the operation of the office in the years that followed. 

“I’ve now been a lawyer for four decades. I work at Heritage. I’ve worked in the federal government. I was in private practice. I was in-house corporate counsel,” he said. “I have never in my entire career met lawyers more partisan, more far-left radical ideologues than I met in the Civil Rights Division in the career ranks. 

“I was in the voting section to start with . . . they had about 100 people – half lawyers, about half support staff. I have never in my life been met with the kinds of hostility I was met with when I started my job there.”

Von Spakovsky said he believes the reason for his chilly reception was “because they knew that politically I was a conservative,” though noting he was a career employee, and not a political appointee.

He pointed to an IG report published in 2013 that detailed concern that the office predominantly hired from “liberal” civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, NAACP and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law, and noted that the report showed “political and ideological hiring going on into the career ranks, which is not supposed to happen.”

“Because they’re all hired from these liberal advocacy organizations, they never make the transition to understanding that they now are a government lawyer and that their client is the public,” he said. “What they all think is, ‘Oh, I used to work for the ACLU. Well, now I can continue doing that work for the ACLU, but I have the power of the government behind me.'”

After moving from the New York AG’s office to the DOJ and then finally to Bragg’s office, Colangelo now finds himself at the heart of the New York v. Trump case unfolding in Manhattan criminal court. 

TRUMP TRIAL: FORMER PRESIDENT ‘INNOCENT,’ DEFENSE SAYS AS DA ALLEGES ‘CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’

The trial’s origins reach back to October of 2016, when Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, paid former pornographic actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to allegedly stop her claims about an alleged extramarital affair she had with the then-real estate tycoon in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels. 

Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen, and fraudulently logged the payments as legal expenses.   

“During the election, TRUMP and others employed a ‘catch and kill’ scheme to identify, purchase and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects,” Bragg said last year. “TRUMP then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.”

“Catch-and-kill” schemes are understood as tactics used by media and publishing companies to buy the rights to a person’s story with the intention of burying the information.

BRAGG SAYS HE WILL TRY TO ‘DISCREDIT’ TRUMP IF HE TESTIFIES IN HIS DEFENSE DURING CRIMINAL TRIAL

Bragg was elected district attorney in 2021, succeeding Cyrus Vance, who did not run for re-election. Vance left the office with the massive case hanging in the air despite saying he was “committed to moving the case as far along in the decision-making as I can while I’m here.” 

Bragg officially took office in January 2022, with the nation wondering whether he would indict Trump. 

By March of that year, however, two prosecutors in the office who were investigating Trump’s net worth, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, resigned. Pomerantz charged that Bragg had stopped pursuing the case against Trump and suspended the investigation “indefinitely.”

“You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time,” Pomerantz wrote in his resignation letter, Fox Digital previously reported. “The investigation has been suspended indefinitely.”

MANHATTAN DA BRAGG SUSPENDED TRUMP INVESTIGATION ‘INDEFINITELY,’ STOPPED PURSUING CHARGES

His letter continued: “Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely.”

He added, however, that “a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong.”

Months later, in December, Bragg announced a new hire: Colangelo. 

“Matthew Colangelo brings a wealth of economic justice experience combined with complex white-collar investigations, and he has the sound judgment and integrity needed to pursue justice against powerful people and institutions when they abuse their power,” Bragg said at the time. “Those who would harass tenants, steal wages, endanger workers or defraud the public should know that the Manhattan D.A.’s Office has never had a stronger, more dedicated team in place to enforce our laws and hold them accountable.” 

Four months after Colangelo left the DOJ for the DA’s office, Trump was indicted on 34 counts of “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.”

NY VS TRUMP: THE EVIDENCE PROSECUTORS CAN PRESENT IF FORMER PRESIDENT TESTIFIES

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. Prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which would be a felony. This week, prosecutors revealed that the other crime in the case is “conspiracy to promote or prevent election,” a violation of New York election law. 

​​Colangelo said during his opening argument on Monday that the case against Trump “is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up.” He argued that Trump, Cohen and the then-CEO of American Media Inc., David Pecker, had “conspired to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Prosecutors say that Pecker had helped to facilitate “catch-and-kill schemes” by purchasing exclusive rights to stories that could have damaged Trump’s run for the White House and then not publishing the stories. 

TRUMP TRIAL: OPENING ARGUMENTS TO BEGIN AS TRUMP FLOUTS GAG ORDER AND ATTORNEY PREVIEWS DEFENSE

“Some of the charges he’s trying to bring are false-records charges against Donald Trump, which are ordinarily misdemeanors, unless they were done in furtherance of another felony, simply to cover up another felony,” Smith told Fox News Digital. 

Prosecutors say that Trump violated a New York election law, though he had already been examined by federal bodies that oversee elections. The Justice Department in 2019, for example, “effectively concluded” its investigation into Trump’s payments. In 2021, the Federal Elections Commission, the agency dedicated to enforcing campaign finance laws, announced that it had dropped a case looking into whether Trump had violated election laws with the payment to Daniels. 

Von Spakovsky also underscored to Fox News Digital that both the FEC and DOJ had declined to pursue the case. 

“The [FEC] looked at this and said that this settlement was not a violation of federal law. The Justice Department also has criminal enforcement authority over federal campaign finance laws, and the Justice Department has also not considered this a crime,” he said. 

Von Spakovsky added that he couldn’t speculate whether Colangelo had been hired by the DA’s office for the purpose of prosecuting Trump, but argued that he believed no “objective lawyer” would have carried through with the case. 

“I think any objective lawyer, without any kind of partisan goals, would have taken a look at the facts and the law in this case and would not have decided to go forward,” he said. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump’s trial is ongoing and anticipated to last at least six weeks. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the district attorney’s office, the White House and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division for comment but did not receive responses.

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

After a marathon debate over whether former President Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by Special Counsel Jack Smith, legal experts tell Fox News Digital that most of the Supreme Court justices appear concerned with how the ruling will impact the future functioning of the executive branch. 

In nearly three hours of debate on Thursday, the high court wrestled with this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while it appeared the majority wasn’t sold on the idea of absolute immunity, they could determine that Trump, and any future former presidents, should be granted a qualified version of it.

“I think the court recognizes that it would be a dangerous precedent if future presidents can prosecute their political rivals,” Mark Brnovich, former attorney general of Arizona, told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED

“They will set a limiting principle because, under the prosecutor’s theory, future prosecutors would have a lot of power to persecute their political rivals,” Brnovich said. 

Over the course of questioning, the justices seemed generally split along ideological lines. 

“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked in an exchange with Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer.

“Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office,” Jackson said. 

LIVE UPDATES: TRUMP NY TRIAL TESTIMONY RESUMES AS SUPREME COURT HEARS IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

Conversely, Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether limiting immunity for a former president would send the country into a destabilizing cycle.

“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” Alito remarked. 

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch later stated. 

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN ‘THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT’ AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

John Shu, a constitutional scholar and former official in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital that the justices indicated “they believe this case isn’t really about Trump per se. It’s about the Office of the President, what future presidents can do, and whether they’ll be prosecuted for their choices.”

“It’s a very important issue and the Biden administration set a very bad precedent to go after not only a former president, but one who also is challenging Biden’s re-election,” he said.

“What the Biden administration has done here gives the terrible appearance of vindictiveness, and on an international or foreign policy level, it makes us look like just another banana republic that we generally criticize for prosecuting or trying to jail their political opponents,” he stated. 

Shu added that “many of the justices perhaps find what Trump did after the 2020 election distasteful.” 

“But they also seem uncomfortable with either granting blanket immunity on the one hand, or no immunity at all on the other. As often happens, the middle ground is where the discussions will be,” he said. 

John Yoo, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley, said Trump’s argument “had much more success than many court watchers expected.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“Only the three liberal justices seemed to reject the idea of immunity outright. The six conservative justices recognized the need to prevent future presidents from criminalizing policy and constitutional differences with their predecessors,” Yoo said. 

He added that a possible outcome could be that the justices punt the question back to the lower courts and ask them to first determine whether Trump’s actions amounted to “official” or “private” acts, before they decide whether immunity might extend to official acts.

A decision in the case is expected early this summer. 

The special counsel’s office declined to comment when reached by Fox News Digital.

Fox News’ Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report. 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday asked Justice Department attorneys whether presidents would have to fear prosecution by a “bitter political opponent” if justices reject former President Trump’s immunity claims.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of presidential immunity, which could set a precedent for whether former presidents have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution.  

SCOTUS SEES ‘DANGEROUS PRECEDENT’ IN TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE IF PRESIDENTS CAN PROSECUTE RIVALS: EXPERTS

Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday, during arguments from Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben — who presented arguments on behalf of Smith — questioned the repercussions of charging a former president. 

“Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent,” Alito asked. 

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED

“Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail,” he said. 

“I think it’s exactly the opposite,” Dreeben replied. “There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election.” Dreeben went on to discuss Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election in the courts.

The official question the Supreme Court is considering is: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

The question stems from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged former President Trump. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argues he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the U.S. 

It’s unclear how soon the Supreme Court will rule on the presidential immunity issue. 

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents, but raised sharply different concerns.

“If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden, asked.

“If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country,” she said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes for the court’s decision: “This will have huge implications for the presidency.”

“I’m not talking about the present, so I’m talking about the future,” Kavanaugh said. 

And Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed during questioning: “We’re writing a rule for, yes, for the ages.“

TRUMP BLASTS ‘BIDEN TRIALS,’ SAYS PRESIDENT IS WEAPONIZING DOJ TO ‘TRY TO KNOCK OUT’ HIS ‘POLITICAL OPPONENT’

As for Alito’s question, the former president has repeatedly claimed that he is being prosecuted by his political opponents, warning Americans and voters that all cases against him, in all jurisdictions, are being brought by his opponent — President Biden — and being done in coordination with the White House. 

Trump says his opponents want to keep him confined to the courtroom during the 2024 election cycle to prevent him from campaigning. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The former president, who was prohibited by New York Judge Juan Merchan from attending the Supreme Court arguments Thursday, instead sat in a Manhattan courtroom for his criminal trial out of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. 

Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump pleaded not guilty. 

Democratic Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser is refusing to meet with a father who lost three sons to violent crimes in the city despite his continued quest for answers from officials concerning the crime crisis plaguing him and his fellow residents.

“No,” Bowser abruptly told a local Fox affiliate when asked if she planned to meet with John Evans, who has been asking for a meeting with city officials since the death of his third son, Avion Evans. Authorities say Avion was shot and killed at D.C.’s Brookland Metro station on April 4.

Avion’s older brother, Johnny Evans III, was stabbed to death at D.C.’s Deanwood Metro station eight years earlier in April 2016, and his half brother, John Coleman, was reportedly shot to death while doing handiwork for a neighbor last May.

SEC. BUTTIGIEG SAYS HE CAN ‘SAFELY’ WALK DOG, BUT DC NATIVE IS MORE FRIGHTENED: ‘PRISONER IN YOUR OWN HOME’

According to Fox 5 DC, the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement contacted the family, but Evans wants to speak with city leadership about his concerns over crime. He has yet to hear from anyone despite three weeks passing since his latest son’s death.

The affiliate asked Bowser about the shooting on April 10, but she replied, “I’m not going to talk about their concerns with you. I’ll talk to them about it because, obviously, that’s troubling to us.”

It asked Bowser again on Wednesday if she had spoken with the Evans family.

HARRIS TEETER IS COMBATING DC THEFT SURGE WITH NEW POLICIES, INCLUDING BAG RESTRICTIONS

“I don’t talk about my discussions with families,” she responded, but the reporter pressed her, clarifying that she was asking whether she planned to meet with Evans, and not about the nature of any conversation.

After saying she was not, the reporter asked why. “I’ve answered your question. Any other questions?” Bowser said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Bowser’s office for comment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Crime dipped in some major cities across the country in recent years, but the nation’s capital has faced a surge, ending 2023 with 274 murders – the most in over two decades, according to Metropolitan Police Department data. 

Robberies and thefts spiked 67% and 23%, respectively, while motor vehicle thefts almost doubled.

Fox News Megan Myers contributed to this report.

Alabama lawmakers on Thursday advanced legislation that could see librarians prosecuted under the state’s obscenity law for providing “harmful” materials to minors, the latest in a wave of bills in Republican-led states targeting library content and decisions.

The Alabama House of Representatives voted 72-28 for the bill that now moves to the Alabama Senate. The legislation comes amid a soaring number of book challenges — often centered on LGBTQ content — and efforts in a number of states to ban drag queen story readings.

ALABAMA LAWMAKERS ADVANCE BILLS ENSURING BIDEN APPEARS ON NOVEMBER BALLOT

“This is an effort to protect children. It is not a Democrat bill. It’s not a Republican bill. It’s a people bill to try to protect children,” Republican Rep. Arnold Mooney, the bill’s sponsor, said during debate.

The Alabama bill removes the existing exemption for public libraries in the state’s obscenity law. It also expands the definition of prohibited sexual conduct to include any “sexual or gender oriented conduct” at K-12 public schools or public libraries that “exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd or lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities.”

Under the process laid out in the bill, a librarian in a public library or public K-12 school could face a misdemeanor charge if the librarian fails to remove material or cease conduct that violates the state’s obscenity law within seven days of receiving a written complaint from the public.

Opponents argued that proposal would threaten librarians with criminal prosecution at the whims of community members who disagreed with their decisions on books and programs.

“This process will be manipulated and used to arrest librarians that you don’t like, and not because they did anything criminal. It’s because you disagree with them,” Rep. Chris England, a Democrat from Tuscaloosa, said during debate.

Craig Scott, president of the Alabama Library Association, said libraries already have longstanding procedures for reviewing the suitability of content and for the public to submit challenges if they disagree with a decision.

“Why are they coming into libraries or thinking that they can come in and run the place better than us as professionals?” Scott said in a phone interview. He predicted the state will lose “lawsuit after lawsuit” if the bill becomes law.

A judge in July temporarily blocked Arkansas from enforcing a similar law that would have allowed criminal charges against librarians and booksellers for providing “harmful” materials to minors.

Scott, who began his career in 1977, said he has never seen anything like the current climate. He said the Gadsden Public Library where he works has seen one person — who eventually obtained a role in library governance — challenge 30 books. Most of the book challenges are related to books with content about gender identity. But they also have included a book about a boy who wants to become a ballet dancer, he said.

“We are for the entire community. We have to be. We’ve got some books in here that are far right. We’ve got some books on the far left. But the library is for the entire community. We’ve got to stay in the middle as best we can, and they want to push us way off to the far right,” Scott said.

Republican Rep. David Faulkner, who worked on a substitute version of the bill that was approved by the House, disputed that the bill could have wide-ranging impact. He said courts have long interpreted what is obscene material.

The law takes away immunity that K-12 and public libraries had under the obscenity law, but it puts limits on when prosecutions could occur, Faulkner said.

“It’s only going to be a misdemeanor, and it’s only if, after knowing about the material, they didn’t do anything about it,” he said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Neil Rafferty, a Democrat from Birmingham, said he was concerned that the bill’s language would allow someone to “target and harass people who might be dressed up in a Halloween costume” or wearing summer clothing that someone considered too revealing.

“I feel like this is a violation of the First Amendment, and it’s easily going to be abused,” he said.

Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail. 

What’s happening? 

-Fauci to testify for first time since retirement 

-New poll reveals insight on abortion views as 2024 looms

-Trump attorney clashes with Supreme Court Justice over coup question

After a marathon debate over whether former President Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by Special Counsel Jack Smith, legal experts tell Fox News Digital that most of the Supreme Court justices appear concerned with how the ruling will impact the future functioning of the executive branch. 

The Supreme Court heard arguments for nearly three hours Thursday the issue of presidential immunity, which could set a precedent for whether former presidents have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution.  

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether this could set off a cycle of retributive prosecutions for presidents, and whether future chief executives would have to fear “bitter political opponents” would throw them in jail after a close election.

White House

FISTICUFFS: Secret Service agent on VP Harris’ detail removed from assignment after physical fight while on duty …Read more

FIRED UP: Biden cracks down on power plants that fuel nation’s grid …Read more

Capitol Hill

RETURNING TO THE SCENE: Ilhan Omar and daughter visit Columbia anti-Israel encampment — one week after daughter’s arrest …Read more

RETURN OF THE FAUCH: Former top infectious disease doc to testify publicly for first time since retirement …Read more

‘WHY SO QUIET?’: Bernie Sanders called out by Jewish Democrat on antisemitism amid vote against Israel aid …Read more

TIDAL WAVE: Dems pounce on Johnson after Columbia speech condemning anti-Israel protests …Read more

‘POLITICAL PROSECUTION’: House GOP says Bragg ‘allowed political motivations’ to ‘infect’ prosecution of Trump …Read more

Tales from the Campaign Trail

RECORD HIGH: New poll reveals how voters’ views on abortion have changed as Dems seek to make issue a central 2024 theme …Read more

‘DISGUSTING INSULT’: Religious org hits out at Biden for making sign of the cross at abortion rally …Read more

‘MAKING A MISTAKE’: Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate says Republicans should be doing more on health care …Read more

SOCIAL MEDIA SWIPE: Trump has this reaction to former AG Bill Barr’s endorsement …Read more

‘AMAZING SHOW OF AFFECTION’: Trump greets supporters, union workers at NYC construction site …Read more

‘GOOD CHANCE’: Trump says he could win liberal stronghold, slams ‘Bidenomics’ …Read more

LACKING CONFIDENCE: Majority of voters doubt Biden’s physical, mental capabilities, Trump’s ethics: poll …Read more

Across America

‘MOST CONSEQUENTIAL’: Pennsylvania legislators ask Supreme Court to let them challenge Biden’s election EO …Read more

SQUAD VS. ‘SQUAD’: NYPD responds to AOC, says officers ‘have to teach’ anti-Israel mobs the ‘consequences of their actions’ …Read more

‘SURE SOUNDS BAD’: Trump attorney clashes with SCOTUS justice over hypothetical ‘coup’ question …Read more

MOTION REJECTED: Federal judge rejects Trump request for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case, says he must pay $83.3 million …Read more

PAW-SITIVE ENERGY: New plan would train shelter dogs as therapy animals for border agents …Read more

HORROR CRIME: Illegal immigrant charged with child sex crimes, home invasion …Read more

FAKERS: Arizona alleged ‘fake electors’ who backed Trump in 2020 indicted by grand jury …Read more

Subscribe now to get Fox News Politics newsletter in your inbox.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

Former President Donald Trump lauded the first witness in his trial in Manhattan, former tabloid publisher David Pecker, as a “nice guy” earlier Thursday ahead of court. 

“He’s been very nice. David’s been very nice. He’s a nice guy,” Trump told the media while meeting with construction crews in the city early Thursday morning. 

Pecker is the prosecution team’s first witness in the NY v. Trump case, where the 45th president is facing 34 charges of falsifying business records. 

Pecker is the former CEO of American Media Inc., the parent company of publications such as the National Enquirer, who has known Trump stretching back to the 1980s. The former media publisher took the stand earlier this week, where he testified regarding “catch and kill schemes” to allegedly bury negative information about Trump ahead of the 2016 election. 

LIVE UPDATES: TRUMP NY TRIAL TESTIMONY RESUMES AS SUPREME COURT HEARS IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

“Catch-and-kill” schemes are understood as tactics used by media and publishing companies to buy the rights of a person’s story with no intention of publishing it. The NY v. Trump case specifically revolves around a payment of $130,000 given to former pornographic actress Stormy Daniels by former Trump personal attorney in 2016 to allegedly silence her claims she had an extramarital affair with Trump in 2006. 

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE

Pecker testified Thursday that he first heard of Daniels’ claims of a sexual affair with Trump after the notorious “Access Hollywood” tape was unearthed ahead of the election in 2016. He said that Daniels was selling rights to her story for $120,000, which Pecker said the media company could not afford. 

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO ‘ORDERED’ A ‘COUP’ COULD BE PROSECUTED

“I am not a bank,” Pecker said he told National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard of the tip and sale of Daniels’ story. Howard then told Pecker he would contact Cohen about the matter, Pecker said. 

Prosecutors allege that after Cohen paid Daniels in exchange for silence on the alleged affair, Trump fraudulently logged reimbursements to the personal lawyer as legal expenses. Prosecutors in the case are trying to prove that Trump falsified business records in “furtherance of another crime.” The DA’s office said the other crime is the violation of a New York law against “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN ‘THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT’ AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

Simultaneous to the trial Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for another Trump case: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference charges. The case charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. The case stems from Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of Trump breached the U.S. Capitol. 

The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether Trump has presidential immunity in the case. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“We have a big case today — this judge wouldn’t allow me to go, but we have a big case today at the Supreme Court on presidential immunity,” Trump said to the press, referring to the Supreme Court weighing whether Trump is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case. 

“A president has to have immunity,” he added. “If you don’t have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.”

“We want Trump,” supporters of the president said during the event. 

A former tabloid publisher and key witness for the prosecution testified that he purchased stories about professional golfer Tiger Woods, former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, among others during questioning by defense attorneys for former President Trump. 

Prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office brought David Pecker, their first witness, to the stand for the third day Thursday. 

Pecker is the former CEO of American Media Inc., the parent company of publications such as the National Enquirer, who has known Trump stretching back to the 1980s. Prosecutors allege that Pecker worked closely with the Trump campaign to bury negative information about Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Trump is accused of falsifying records related to the alleged “catch and kill” scheme.

Pecker testified that he purchased negative stories about Trump before the 2016 election and did not publish them — known as a “catch and kill” scheme. The stories included allegations from adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal about affairs with Trump. 

NY PROSECUTORS REVEAL ‘ANOTHER CRIME’ TRUMP ALLEGEDLY TRIED TO CONCEAL WITH FALSIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS

With regard to negative stories coming out about Trump before the election, Pecker testified that Trump was concerned about what his family would say about it, specifically about how it would impact his wife Melania Trump and daughter Ivanka Trump. 

Pecker also testified that Trump was concerned about what the impact would be on his campaign in 2016. 

But under cross-examination by Trump defense attorney Emil Bove, Pecker testified he purchased stories about other high-profile individuals besides Trump. 

Pecker testified he purchased a story about professional golfer Tiger Woods, and a story about Rahm Emanuel in 2009 after he left the Obama White House. Pecker said he purchased the story about an alleged affair Emanuel had so that it would not be published. Emanuel also later served as ambassador to Japan. 

TRUMP TRIAL: FORMER PRESIDENT ‘INNOCENT,’ DEFENSE SAYS AS DA ALLEGES ‘CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’

Pecker also testified that he worked with Trump attorney Michael Cohen in his capacity as the former president’s personal attorney — not as part of the 2016 campaign. 

Pecker testified that American Media Inc., the owner of the National Enquirer, testified that before purchasing stories, the company would vet them for truthfulness. He also testified that there were instances AMI would purchase a story to use as leverage. 

When asked if this was standard, Pecker testified: “Yes.” 

Pecker also said Thursday that Trump “was my mentor.” 

“He helped me throughout my career,” Pecker said, saying Trump was often the first person to call him when he needed help. 

“Even though we haven’t spoken, I still considered him a friend,” Pecker said. 

Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Bragg alleges that Trump ex-attorney Michael Cohen orchestrated hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to prevent them from sharing their stories about alleged affairs with Trump. Bragg is trying to prove that Trump was aware of those payments, and allegedly falsified records of payments to Cohen as “legal expenses” rather than repayments for the hush money. 

NY VS TRUMP: THE EVIDENCE PROSECUTORS CAN PRESENT IF FORMER PRESIDENT TESTIFIES

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts and told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview on Thursday that he was simply paying Cohen legal fees because Cohen was his lawyer. 

Bragg also alleged American Media Inc., which Pecker was the CEO of, allegedly employed the “catch and kill” strategy to bury stories — specifically Karen McDougal’s. Bragg and prosecutors sought to convince the jury that Pecker’s work to do this was made with the blessing of Trump’s 2016 campaign. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Pecker, though, testified that he worked with Cohen in his capacity as Trump’s personal attorney. 

Pecker’s cross-examination is expected to continue Friday morning.

Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on Thursday visited the southern border in McAllen, Texas, as he campaigns for the open Maryland Senate seat — and as the ongoing crisis at the southern border remains a top political issue.

Hogan met with law enforcement and public safety officials and told Fox News in an exclusive statement that he visited the border to “get a firsthand understanding of this crisis, and what I’ve seen should appall every American.”

“This is a humanitarian catastrophe that is harming our communities and wreaking havoc across the country,” he said. “Every day Washington lets this crisis continue without bipartisan action, they are failing the American people.” 

GOP SENATE CANDIDATE LARRY HOGAN LAUNCHES MARYLAND BUS TOUR AS DEM CANDIDATES FACE OFF

“For decades, the politicians have played campaign politics with this issue instead of actually just solving the problem. Enough is enough,” he continued. “The solutions are not complicated. In the Senate, I will fight to make both parties finally put the politics aside and get this done.” 

The U.S. is in the grip of a border crisis now into its fourth year. There were a record 2.4 million migrant encounters at the southern border in FY 23. Thus far in FY 24, there have been more than 1.3 million, with six months still to go. 

VIDEO SHOWS SECRET METHODS USED TO SNEAK MIGRANTS INTO US BY ‘COYOTES’

Republicans and Democrats have struggled to find solutions that can pass both chambers of Congress. The Biden administration has called for more resources and immigration reform, while Republicans have largely blamed the rollback of Trump-era policies by the Biden administration for the crisis.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Hogan served as Maryland governor from 2015 to 2023 and made history when he became only the second Republican to win two terms in the state upon his re-election in 2018. The last Republican to do that was elected in 1954.

A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll last month showed the former governor defeating both top Democrats in the running, Rep. David Trone, D-Md., and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks. Hogan beat Trone 49% to 37%, while he bested Alsobrooks 50% to 36%. 

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Fox News’ Julia Johnson contributed to this report.

Former President Trump reacted to the “monumental” hearing on presidential immunity at the Supreme Court Thursday, saying he thinks it was “made clear” that a president “has to have immunity.” 

The former president spoke to reporters after sitting in a Manhattan courtroom for hours Thursday—the seventh day of his criminal trial stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 34 charges of falsifying business records in the first degree. 

While Trump sat in court listening to witness testimony, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of presidential immunity, and whether he is immune from prosecution in a separate case—Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case related to 2020 election interference. 

Trump had requested to attend arguments in Washington D.C., but was rejected by New York Judge Juan Merchan, who has required the former president to be in court for each day of his criminal trial. 

“I was forced to be here, and I’m glad I was, because it was a very interesting day in a certain way,” Trump told reporters. 

“The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity,” Trump said. “And I think it was made clear, I hope it is very clear that a president has to have immunity.” 

Trump echoed his past argument that without immunity, the president would be reduced to just a “ceremonial” position. 

“That’s not what the founders had in mind,” he said. “We want presidents that can get quite amazing—quite amazing.” 

The former president said the Supreme Court justices “were on their game.” 

“So let’s see how that turns out,” he said. “But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.” 

The Supreme Court heard arguments from John Sauer, who delivered arguments on the matter on behalf of the former president and 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Michael Dreeben, a Justice Department prosecutor, delivered arguments on behalf of the government and Special Counsel Jack Smith. 

The high court is expected to rule on the matter by mid-June.