NationalWatch

A leading domestic energy advocacy group praised EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s announcement that his agency would undo recent additions to the federal “mercury and air-toxics standards” (MATS) for coal-fired power plants.

Zeldin said removing the restrictions allows the already “robust” MATS standards to remain in effect, ensuring both public health and the health of America’s coal industry amid a push for U.S. energy dominance.

“The Biden-Harris Administration’s anti-coal regulations sought to regulate out of existence this vital sector of our energy economy. If implemented, these actions would have destroyed reliable American energy,” Zeldin said at the Mills Creek Power Plant in Kentucky, adding that protecting the environment and supporting industry and baseload power is not a “binary choice.”

In response, Power the Future founder Daniel Turner told Fox News Digital the move is a significant step toward revitalizing the American coal industry and, in turn, fueling economies in economically depressed industrial communities throughout Appalachia and beyond.

TRUMP DIRECTS MILITARY TO STRIKE NEW DEALS WITH COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS: ‘GOING TO BE BUYING A LOT OF COAL’

“Since the war on coal, we have weakened our grid, driven electricity prices through the roof, outsourced major industries to Mexico and China, but most of all driven tens of thousands of Americans into ruin because of a globalist agenda,” Turner said Friday, adding that the costs of a crippled coal industry went far beyond shuttered infrastructure:

“The cruel Obama-led war on coal ruined numerous towns across rural America, drove families into poverty, caused alcoholism, opioid addiction, domestic violence, and suicide to skyrocket.”

“Power The Future started because of coal miners, the acceptable casualties in the globalist climate change agenda,” said Turner, whose group is based in coal-heavy Virginia.

EPA CHIEF WRAPS NATIONAL TOUR AS CRITICS SLAM DEREGULATION AGENDA

“Restoring America’s coal dominance is good for our national security and economy, and it restores the dignity of small-town coal workers whose labor is vital to America’s survival.”

Many of America’s poorest counties are in what were once very wealthy coal communities — including McDowell and Mingo counties in West Virginia and Bell, Letcher, McCreary, and Breathitt counties in Kentucky, where Vice President JD Vance’s family is from.

During much of the 20th century, McDowell County — and its seat, Welch — was the No. 1 coal-producing county in the U.S. and home to 100,000 people — a population boom some credit with spurring construction of what became the nation’s first parking deck, which is still standing today in Welch.

TRUMP ADMIN RELAUNCHES KEY COUNCIL AFTER BIDEN ADMIN SHUTTERED IT: ‘IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE’

Now, about one-quarter of McDowell residents live in poverty while the median income is around $30,000.

Turner alluded to those conditions in comments to Fox News Digital, saying people must “never forget or forgive the drivers of the war on coal for their cruel attacks on a vital industry found only in rural America.”

“[Anti-coal politicians] fly private jets to attend global climate summits while they orchestrated an evil attack on the coal miner making America weaker and China richer.”

Turner quipped that any “anti-coal activist” is invited to join him in visiting coal-producing communities but may be unhappy to get dirt on their clothing and find lodging not up to “Four Seasons” standards.

“We need coal. There is not one product around you right now that was not touched by coal, and to lower prices, bring market stability and ensure economic growth, we need to dominate the coal industry,” Turner said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sadly, the liberal elite who launched the war on coal are too ignorant or too indifferent to know this. The ignorant can be educated, and that’s what I try to do at Power The Future. But the indifferent must be defeated, as they are a threat to our liberty, property and prosperity. I will never stop until I defeat them all,” he said, calling President Donald Trump the “greatest coal president in history.”

Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy fired back at the policy change, telling the AP that “by weakening pollution limits and monitoring for brain-damaging mercury and other pollutants, they are actively undermining any attempt to make America — and our children — healthy.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh called the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Trump’s emergency tariffs “illogical” in a fiery dissent on Friday and offered a roadmap of alternatives Trump could use to attempt to carry out his signature economic policy.

Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said the 6-3 majority cherry-picked ways in which Trump could regulate imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, making what he said was a textualist case that the law already allows similar forms of regulation on imports, including quotas and embargoes. Tariffs are not just in the same category as those but are a “far more modest” alternative to them, Kavanaugh said. 

“If quotas and embargoes are a means to regulate importation, how are tariffs not a means to regulate importation? Nothing in the text supports such an illogical distinction,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Trump last year bypassed Congress and unilaterally levied tariffs on nearly every country in the world by invoking IEEPA. The president argued that an influx of illicit drugs from China, Mexico and Canada and a trade deficit that has decimated American manufacturing constituted emergencies that justified the tariffs.

SUPREME COURT BLOCKS TRUMP’S TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE POWER

The majority held in a 6-3 opinion that while IEEPA allows a president to “regulate importation” during a declared national emergency, the statute does not clearly authorize tariffs — a core congressional taxing power. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that when executive action carries sweeping economic consequences, Congress must weigh in on the matter with unmistakable clarity, alluding to what is known as the major questions doctrine.

Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 upholding a vaccine mandate former President Joe Biden imposed on millions of healthcare workers “strongly supports” upholding Trump’s tariffs. Like tariffs, that executive action also carried major consequences even though Congress did not explicitly mention vaccines in the health and safety statute Biden used to justify his mandate.

In oral arguments in November, Solicitor General John Sauer, appearing on behalf of the government, said tariffs were an invaluable way for Trump to negotiate with foreign partners. Weakening his “suite of tools” by removing tariffs from it was a “bit unusual,” Sauer said.

Sauer also said tariffs were the same as embargoes, which block imports altogether. The solicitor general conceded, though, that tariffs had the “incidental and collateral effect” of raising revenue, but he said their primary purpose was to regulate rather than collect income. Kavanaugh agreed.

“As the [majority of justices] interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China,” Kavanaugh wrote.

AS TRUMP TOUTS TARIFF WINDFALL, BATTLEGROUND STATES SHOULDER BILLIONS IN COSTS

Kavanaugh referenced numerous other statutes he said Trump had in his toolbox, mapping out alternatives in the wake of the high court nixing IEEPA as an option. Kavanaugh said the majority “in essence” concluded that Trump “checked the wrong statutory box.”

Trump, in a speech remarking on the decision, praised Kavanaugh for “his genius and his great ability,” adding that the president was “very proud of that appointment.”

“We have very powerful alternatives,” Trump said.

The president referenced a quote from Kavanaugh’s dissent: “‘Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.’ So think of that … and it doesn’t. He’s right.”

Kavanaugh also raised a glaring question left unaddressed by the high court’s majority, that is, how the U.S. Treasury could go about refunding companies to the tune of billions of dollars that the government gained from the unlawful tariffs.

JONATHAN TURLEY: SUPREME COURT RULING ON TRUMP TARIFFS COMES DOWN TO A NUMBERS GAME

Kavanaugh said of the “serious practical consequences” of outlawing Trump’s ability to use IEEPA to levy global tariffs that the refund process could be a “mess” as lower courts are likely to see an influx of lawsuits from business owners looking for their money back.

“The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The majority opinion, authored by Roberts, found that the IEEPA’s language allowing a president to regulate imports intentionally omitted the word “tariff.”

Roberts wrote that the other words in the statute “cannot bear” the same weigh as the word tariff, which he said operates like a tax because it allows the government to collect revenue — which he said only Congress can authorize.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Kavanaugh’s dissent, while Thomas also wrote a separate dissent.

Victor Owen Schwartz never imagined he would one day find himself challenging a president in the highest court in the land. But after President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs threatened the survival of his wine importing business, Schwartz became a plaintiff in a case that would ultimately reach the Supreme Court and prevail.

With wines and spirits arriving from 16 countries across five continents, nearly every corner of Schwartz’s supply chain was touched by the new tariffs.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court dealt Trump a significant blow to his trade policy. Schwartz watched the decision unfold over Zoom with his lawyers, the fate of his nearly 40-year-old business hanging in the balance.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP’S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

“We are relieved and very excited to get back to doing what we love, bringing handmade authentic wines and spirits to American consumers,” Schwartz said. “It’s impossible to describe the feeling of elation, of seeing that, yes, we were right, and the court agrees with us, and a feeling that justice prevailed,” he told Fox News Digital.

Schwartz was a plaintiff in one of two cases brought before the Supreme Court. The challenges — Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections Inc. — were filed by an educational toy manufacturer and Schwartz’s family-owned wine and spirits importer, both contesting the legality of Trump’s tariffs. 

The disputes followed Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, a sweeping package of import duties he said would address trade imbalances and reduce reliance on foreign goods.

TRUMP’S TARIFF REVENUES HIT RECORD HIGHS AS SUPREME COURT DEALS MAJOR BLOW

“Last spring, thousands of American small businesses like mine were thrown into chaos,” Schwartz said, referring to the “Liberation Day” tariffs. “The administration’s unprecedented tariffs, which my business was forced to pay upfront, threatened our very existence,” he added.

Unlike previous tariffs enacted by Congress, which businesses could plan around, Schwartz said Trump’s sweeping duties felt unpredictable and arbitrary. He argued the new duties forced small companies to “gamble with our livelihoods by trying to predict the unpredictable,” calling them “an unconstitutional act of government overreach.”

Beyond the legal fight, Schwartz said the strain on cash flow was especially acute.

“A very important thing to realize in running any business, certainly a small business, is the impact on cash flow,” he said. “When you have to pay those tariffs up front before you have sold a single bottle of wine, that’s a major impact … cash flow is the lifeblood of a company.” 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has argued that aggressive tariffs are necessary to confront what it calls years of unfair global trade — underscoring how central trade policy is to Trump’s broader economic strategy.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump announced a 10% global tariff and vowed to use other avenues to keep the duties in place.

While questions remain about what comes next for U.S. trade policy, Schwartz said he is focused on moving forward and receiving the “government’s refund of these improperly collected taxes.”

The office of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., on Friday called a GOP-led investigation into her family’s finances a “stunt,” one day after a House deadline for her husband to turn over records tied to his companies’ rapid growth.

The House Oversight Committee had set Feb. 19 as a deadline for Tim Mynett, Omar’s husband, to provide information about the sudden success of two of his companies to the House Oversight Committee.

“This is all a political stunt. These sham accusations were referred to the Ethics Committee, and our office has not received any follow-up because this is a baseless, headline-generating speculation and a politically targeted attack on the Congresswoman,” a spokesperson for Omar told Fox News Digital.

Omar’s office declined to say whether it had submitted the business records as requested by lawmakers.

CONGRESS OPENS ‘INDUSTRIAL-SCALE FRAUD’ PROBE IN MINNESOTA, WARNS WALZ DEMANDS ARE ‘JUST THE BEGINNING’

eStCru LLC, a winery, and Rose Lake Capital LLC, a consulting firm, both owned partially by Mynett, increased sharply in reported value between 2023 and 2024, drawing questions from lawmakers about the source of the pair’s wealth.

In just one year, the two companies added roughly $30 million in combined value.

The Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., asked Mynett to produce communications regarding the companies’ latest audits and with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), correspondence with any other federal agencies, and travel records to or from the United Arab Emirates, Somalia or Kenya.

Omar’s office called the probe a GOP-led distraction from other hot-topic issues.

“If Republicans were interested in real oversight, they would be looking at Trump and his family enriching their net worth by billions of dollars, as well as their connections to their pedophile friend, Jeffrey Epstein,” Omar’s spokesperson said.

MINNESOTA GOV WALZ, AG ELLISON TO TESTIFY IN HOUSE INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED $9B WELFARE FRAUD

When asked if Omar and Mynett had turned in the requested documentation, a spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee told Fox News Digital that the committee has referred the matter to the House Ethics Committee, the body tasked with investigating financial disclosure statements and member misconduct.

“Americans have concerns about Rep. Omar’s skyrocketing wealth while in public office. The House Oversight Committee initiated a probe into these concerns and has asked the House Ethics Committee to do its job and review this matter,” a spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee told Fox News Digital.

In its letter to Mynett sent earlier this year, the Oversight Committee said it needed the business details to ensure Omar wasn’t being unduly influenced by her husband’s success.

MASSIVE MINNESOTA FRAUD CASE PUTS AG KEITH ELLISON UNDER MICROSCOPE AS CLIMATE TIES RESURFACE

“Financial disclosure forms, filed by your wife, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, show eStCru LLC and Rose Lake Capital LLC, which you hold ownership stakes in, went from being worth as much as $51,000 in 2023 to as much as $30 million in 2024,” the committee wrote.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Given that these companies do not publicly list their investors or where their money comes from, this sudden jump in value raises concerns that unknown individuals may be investing to gain influence with your wife,” the Oversight Committee added.

The House Ethics Committee declined to comment on whether it would open a probe into Omar or her husband.

Even before the Supreme Court handed a blow to President Donald Trump’s sweeping trade policy, Americans were already voicing strong disapproval in national polling of his handling of tariffs.

A Fox News survey conducted between Jan. 23 and 26 found 63% of registered voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs, while 37% approve, a 26-point deficit that ranks trade among his weakest-performing issues.

The results highlight resistance to the administration’s aggressive trade strategy. The White House has promoted tariffs as both an economic lever and a source of federal revenue, but the poll suggests that argument is not resonating with many voters.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP’S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

TRUMP’S TARIFF REVENUES HIT RECORD HIGHS AS SUPREME COURT DEALS MAJOR BLOW
 

This administration has repeatedly argued that tariff revenue can fund domestic priorities like lowering the nation’s $38 trillion debt and potentially delivering a $2,000 dividend check to Americans.

And collections have surged. 

Since Trump’s return to office, tariff revenue has climbed more than 300%. In January alone, duties totaled $30.4 billion, up 275% from a year earlier. So far this fiscal year, revenue has reached $132.6 billion.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Yet despite the windfall, public opinion has not followed the same trajectory.

Disapproval extends beyond trade. The poll found 59% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy and 65% disapprove of his handling of inflation, economic anxieties that may be shaping views of tariff policy.

Taken together, the numbers indicate that even before recent legal developments, the president’s trade agenda was facing significant public headwinds, raising questions about its political durability as cost-of-living concerns persist.

Democrats quickly applauded the Supreme Court’s decision Friday blocking President Donald Trump’s tariff strategy, calling the duties an unfair tax on Americans, even as some in the party have previously supported using tariffs as leverage in trade disputes.

“The Supreme Court decision striking down the harmful Trump tariffs is a big victory for the American people. And another crushing defeat for the wannabe king,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

“Trump’s illegal tariff tax just collapsed. He tried to govern by decree and stuck families with the bill. Enough chaos. End the trade war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in an X post of his own.

TRUMP SAYS TARIFFS CRITICAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY AS SUPREME COURT PREPARES LANDMARK DECISION

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump lacks power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that gives presidents powers to “regulate” transactions with foreign entities in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats.”

The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the law falls short of including tariff powers.

Yet several prominent Democrats have previously supported tariffs when wielded for their own policy goals.

Despite condemning Trump’s use of IEEPA in his second term, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., once urged Congress on the House floor to use tariffs to push back on China’s growing market power.

“In terms of tariffs, it’s interesting to note that the average U.S. MFN [Most Favored Nation] tariff on Chinese goods coming into the United States is 2%, whereas the average MFN tariff on U.S. goods going into China is 35%,” Pelosi said, referring to tariffs China had imposed on the U.S.

Further, former President Joe Biden largely left Trump’s first-term tariffs against China in place with little resistance from Democrats, who controlled both chambers of Congress at the time.

Trump, in his second term, has used tariffs as a point of leverage against other countries, threatening steeper trade costs with countries that didn’t see eye-to-eye with the goals of his administration.

6 HOUSE REPUBLICANS DEFY TRUMP ON KEY AGENDA ITEM IN DEM-PUSHED VOTE

Trump argued his policies would enable the country to bring in more revenue while also achieving more of its goals abroad.

According to data provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Trump’s tariffs brought in $30.4 billion in January alone. Over the past fiscal year, the Treasury indicated the tariffs had raked in $124 billion.

At least one House Republican argued that Democrats’ celebration was ironic given their opposition to tax breaks included in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.

“It is interesting how Democrats are upset that foreigners are being taxed yet they are promoting tax increases across the board, and they never reduced taxes on overtime, tips, or Social Security when they were in power in 2021 and 2022,” the House GOP lawmaker said. “If they truly believed in fair trade, they would’ve pushed harder on the Chinese especially, but they clearly failed to do so.”

That past and present political reality did little to slow the good times from rolling for several congressional Democrats on Friday.

Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, praised the Supreme Court’s decision, framing tariffs as an illegitimate way to increase the country’s revenue.

“This ruling is a victory for every American family paying higher prices because of Trump’s tariff taxes. The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s attempt to impose what amounted to a national sales tax on hardworking Americans,” Boyle said in a statement.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., the chairman of the New Democrat Coalition on Trade & Tariffs Task Force, echoed Boyle’s thinking. 

THE ECONOMIC POLICIES SHAPING TRUMP’S RETURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE

“[Trump] has repeatedly disregarded the Constitution to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs without credible reason or cause, crushing American consumers and small businesses under these new taxes to help pay for giveaways to his wealthy friends. Now, at last, the Supreme Court has ruled that he broke the law to do so,” Beyer said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said the court had sided with the longstanding criticisms from Democrats over concerns about Trump’s unilateral powers on tariffs.

“GOOD NEWS: The Supreme Court just ruled that Trump’s tariffs imposed under his ‘emergency authorities’ are unlawful. They affirmed what we’ve been saying this whole time: Only Congress has the power to impose taxes, which includes Trump’s reckless tariffs,” Jayapal said in a post to social media.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

Some Republicans are quietly cheering the Supreme Court’s decision blocking most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Friday, even as it deals a blow to a cornerstone of the commander-in-chief’s foreign policy and economic strategy.

One conservative House GOP lawmaker granted anonymity to speak freely, for example, said they were “relieved.”

“It’s the right result,” they said. “I am already seeing messages of relief and approval from other members of the Republican conference, as well. I expect that even more will express that relief. This helps to ensure Congress keeps its power over tariffs and preserves separation of power.”

Another Trump-aligned House Republican told Fox News Digital, “I think the Supreme Court rightfully decided that this was an Article I authority.”

GOP MUTINY FORCES HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON TO DELAY VOTE ON KEY PIECE OF TRUMP’S AGENDA

“Conservatives don’t like tariffs as a long-term strategy,” the second House Republican said. “The president was right to use them as a tool, and he was right to use them to get outcomes on certain things. But in a long-term way…it’s a tax on consumers.”

The conservative-majority high court ruled on Friday that Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The White House’s interpretation of the 1977 law was used as the basis for sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs that Trump first unveiled last year.

But Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the law would have more expressly mentioned tariff authority if that is what it was meant for.

Roberts said “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” which “he cannot.”

TRUMP’S TARIFF BOOM HITS RECORD HIGHS AS SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN LOOMS

The ruling, and subsequent wave of relief, isn’t the first time Republicans have bucked Trump and his tariffs. The Senate on several occasions has voted against specific parts of the strategy, and the House voted last week to end Trump’s emergency declaration on Canada aimed at ending tariffs there.

“Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., one of six House Republicans who voted against the Canada tariffs last week, told Fox News Digital. “Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics.”

One House GOP aide bluntly told Fox News Digital after the ruling, “Tariffs suck and are useless.”  

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., one of the most vocal opponents of tariffs in the Senate, contended in a post on X shortly after the ruling that the Supreme Court “struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes.”

“No future administration, including a socialist one, can use ‘emergency’ powers to get around Congress and tax by decree,” Paul said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

WHITE HOUSE ‘LASER FOCUSED’ ON AFFORDABILITY AS TRUMP SOFTENS TARIFF STRATEGY

But not every Republican was thrilled by the result, nor their colleagues’ attitude toward the hefty blow dealt to Trump’s agenda and the ripple effect it could have on his economic policies. One Republican source described the outpouring of relief or opposition as “50/50.”

A GOP Senate source told Fox News Digital, “If this is a relief to any Republican, then they clearly don’t care about their president’s agenda.” 

“The administration will find a way around this, and should, but anyone who’s celebrating right now is probably missing a part of their brain,” the source said. “I don’t understand how someone can see President Trump and the American people lose trillions of dollars and smile.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital that he was disappointed by the decision, but not surprised, and noted that the court was divided on the issue.

“President Trump’s tariffs were delivering results — bringing our trading partners to the table, securing ten trade agreements, and driving supply chains and manufacturing back to the United States,” Marshall said. “These tools were also advancing our national security interests, including pressuring countries like India to stop purchasing Russian oil.” 

A third House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly told Fox News Digital the Supreme Court decision was “a severe blow” because the tariffs “were making progress that we finally have on fair trade.”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright blasted European leaders in Paris on Tuesday, accusing the International Energy Agency of pushing “net zero” policies divorced from reality and warning the continent to abandon its green agenda or face economic catastrophe.

Wright’s comments before the 31-member global forum in Paris come just after Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered rousing speeches warning European leaders of the pitfalls of their current governing trajectory.

“This organization has been pushed off course, and for five years published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality,” Wright said in video obtained by Fox News Digital from an administration source.

“They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics, do whatever you want,” he said.

TRUMP TROUNCES BIDEN ENERGY RECORDS IN JUST MONTHS AS ADMIN CELEBRATES 1 YEAR OF ‘HISTORIC GAINS’: DATA

The Paris-based IEA was founded after the 1974 global oil crisis as an alliance focused on oil supply security but has shifted in recent years toward green energy and climate policy.

“If the European industrial powers want to continue to become ‘former industrial powers,’ that’s your choice. I don’t think it’s a great choice, but that is your choice.”

Wright said the energy policies of many Western governments have little grounding in the realistic demands of their citizens, power grids and national security needs.

He said nearly every IEA report mentions a “Net Zero by 2050” case.

SEN MCCORMICK: SECRETARY RUBIO SETS THE COURSE FOR NATO’S FUTURE. WILL EUROPE LISTEN?

“There is a zero percent chance of the world hitting ‘Net Zero 2050’.”

He said attempts by states and nations to comply with that goal have not made them stronger or more energy-rich but instead have resulted in a collective $10 trillion expenditure to add about 2.6% of wind, solar and battery-powered energy to the global transmission grid.

Wright went on to say that jurisdictions that have deployed such strict green standards have seen electricity rates skyrocket, pointing to test cases within the U.S. itself.

WHITE HOUSE QUESTIONS NEWSOM’S UK CLIMATE PACT, BLASTS ‘GREEN ENERGY SCAM’

“Every state within the renewable portfolio standard, on average, [has] 50% higher electricity prices than the other states that didn’t adopt that.”

“We don’t want to move industries out of Europe. We don’t want to make life more expensive and impoverish our people. We don’t want to have two million people still dying because they don’t have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world – that’s what the IEA was founded for.”

Wright credited IEA Director Fatih Birol of Turkey with appearing to take a “step in the right direction” in his latest published policy scenario after what the secretary described as five years detached “from reality.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He said that “climate-political stuff” should be saved for politicians, not energy policymakers, and voiced hope that the IEA and its member nations would see the error of their ways and return to what energy policy should be about: “Humans – and math.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the IEA for comment.

President Donald Trump said Friday he is “considering” a limited military strike on Iran to pressure its leaders into a deal over its nuclear program.

“I guess I can say, I am considering that,” Trump said at a breakfast with governors at the White House.

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

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, delivering a blow to the president in a case centered on one of his signature economic policies — one he characterized as “life or death” for the U.S. economy.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices invalidated Trump’s tariffs. 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November in the case, which centered on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his “Liberation Day” tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff and a set of higher, so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on certain nations.

In April, Trump declared the U.S. trade deficit a “national emergency,” and lawyers for the administration have cited that declaration as the legal basis for invoking IEEPA, which allows the president to respond to “unusual and extraordinary threats” when a national emergency has been declared.

BATTLEGROND STATES SHOULDER BURDEN OF TRUMP’S TARIFFS AS MIDTERM MESSAGING RAMPS UP

The high court agreed to take up the case last fall after lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, blocked Trump’s attempt to use IEEPA to enact import duties.

Lower courts pressed the Justice Department to explain why Trump invoked IEEPA when other, more narrowly tailored statutes enacted by Congress more specifically address tariffs — including laws that cap tariffs at certain levels or set timeframes subject to congressional review.

The law authorizes the president to “regulate … importation” during a declared national emergency, but it does not mention the word “tariffs” — an omission that was at the heart of the hours-long arguments before the high court in November.

During oral arguments in November, justices pressed administration lawyers on whether IEEPA applies to tariffs or taxation powers and what guardrails — if any — would limit the executive branch should the high court rule in Trump’s favor.

TRUMP DENOUNCES COURT’S ‘POLITICAL’ TARIFF DECISION, CALLS ON SUPREME COURT TO ACT QUICKLY

In arguments, lawyers for the administration told justices that IEEPA allows a president to “regulate” “importation” of goods, which they said is the practical equivalent of a tariff.

But justices, including Trump’s conservative appointees, appeared skeptical, pressing the administration on whether there has “ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power” Trump seeks.

Other conservative justices questioned whether an “economic equivalent” to tariffs — such as sanctions, embargoes, licenses and quotas — could be used by the president under the law.

Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued in lower courts that the IEEPA allows a president to act in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” and in cases where a national emergency has been declared.

TRUMP TARIFF PLAN FACES UNCERTAIN FUTURE AS COURT BATTLES INTENSIFY

Trump has claimed that deep and “sustained” trade deficits amount to a national emergency that is sufficient to trigger his executive powers under the emergency law.

The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to allow the tariffs to remain in place, warning that denying Trump the tariff authority under IEEPA “would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses.”

Plaintiffs countered that in the 50 years since its passage, the law has never been used by a president to impose tariffs. They also argued that, by the administration’s own admission, the trade deficit cited by Trump has persisted for nearly 50 years — a fact they said undermines his claim that there is an “unusual and extraordinary” trade emergency.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

They argued that authorizing Trump’s use of IEEPA to continue his universal tariffs would drastically expand executive power at the expense of the other branches of government.

Judges on a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade voted unanimously earlier this year to block Trump’s tariffs from taking effect, ruling that as commander in chief, Trump does not have “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs under the emergency law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also rejected the administration’s use of IEEPA.

The U.S. military has assembled one of its most substantial concentrations of naval and air power in the Middle East in decades, a force built near Iran not for a limited strike, but for sustained combat operations if ordered. 

While diplomats in Geneva trade proposals, the Pentagon has moved beyond a “show of force” to an operational footing that represents the largest concentration of U.S. air power in the region since the Iraq War.

Two-carrier war

Two carrier strike groups now anchor the alignment.

The USS Abraham Lincoln is operating in the Arabian Sea, supported by Arleigh Burke–class destroyers, including the USS Spruance, USS Michael Murphy, USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. and USS Pinckney.

WORLD’S LARGEST AIRCRAFT CARRIER HEADS TO MIDDLE EAST AS IRAN NUCLEAR TENSIONS SPIKE DRAMATICALLY

Transiting the Mediterranean is the USS Gerald R. Ford strike group, escorted by the USS Bainbridge and USS Mahan. Once the Ford arrives in theater, the Navy will establish a dual-carrier strike posture rarely seen outside major conflict.

Under high-tempo conditions, a single carrier air wing can generate more than 100 sorties in a 24-hour period depending on tanker support and target distance. With two carriers operating in parallel, planners can sustain continuous strike cycles — rotating decks so that aircraft are launching from one carrier while the other rearms and recovers.

That posture allows for sustained pressure over multiple days rather than isolated waves.

Hardened targets, repeated strikes

The buildup comes as satellite imagery reveals Tehran, Iran, accelerating defensive preparations.

Commercial imagery published in a report by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) shows Iran reinforcing the Taleghan 2 facility at Parchin with fresh concrete and overburden. Similar hardening is underway at tunnel entrances near Natanz.

“The core issue is all these efforts would complicate the battle damage assessment (BDA) in a post-strike environment,” defense analyst Can Kasapoğlu said. Hardened subterranean targets require repeated “drill” strikes, multiple munitions on the same coordinates, followed by confirmation missions to determine whether facilities have been disabled.

That kind of campaign demands sustained sortie generation and deep munitions reserves.

Suppression and strike depth

While the Department of War has not released exact aircraft numbers, the regional air presence has expanded significantly.

Advanced fighter jets, including F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs, have been repositioned at regional hubs. These stealth platforms are designed to suppress air defense systems such as Iran’s S-300 and Bavar-373 batteries.

Once air defenses are degraded, aircraft such as F-15E Strike Eagles and carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornets would conduct follow-on strikes against missile infrastructure, command nodes and IRGC facilities.

Further depth is provided by long-range bombers. 

B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, operating from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri with aerial refueling, are capable of 30-hour round-trip missions. They are the only platforms configured to deliver the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) against deeply buried targets.

The logistics backbone: A weeks-long window

Senior U.S. officials have disclosed that the Pentagon is preparing for “sustained, weeks-long operations” if conflict erupts — different from the in-and-out Operation Midnight Hammer strikes conducted in June 2025.

Defense analysts say that timeline reflects the realities of munitions burn rates and forward-positioned stockpiles.

In high-intensity conflict simulations, forward-positioned precision munitions can be significantly depleted within roughly three to four weeks depending on sortie tempo and target density. After that point, forces would rely increasingly on resupply from the continental United States, a process that can take additional weeks to scale into a full maritime logistics bridge.

Operations may not come to a halt, but campaign duration would depend heavily on replenishment cycles and industrial production, not just aircraft availability.

SCOTT BESSENT SAYS IRAN UNDERSTANDS ‘BRUTE FORCE’ AS TRUMP WEIGHS OPTIONS AMID NUCLEAR STANDOFF

No ground invasion posture

Notably absent is the kind of troop buildup associated with a ground invasion.

There are no large-scale Army combat formations staging in Kuwait or Iraq for an occupation. The emphasis remains on stand-off strikes and precision airpower, a campaign designed to degrade targets from a distance rather than seize and hold territory.

That distinction carries political weight.

A January 2026 Quinnipiac University poll found that 70% of American voters oppose a direct war with Iran, with even higher resistance to deploying ground troops. 

“Talk of the U.S. military potentially intervening in Iran’s internal chaos gets a vigorous thumbs down, while voters signal congressional approval should be a backstop against military involvement in any foreign crisis,” said Quinnipiac analyst Tim Malloy.

Retaliation risk: ‘All-out war’

Iranian officials have warned that U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey would be targeted if Washington launches an attack. Senior Iranian military figures have said any U.S. strike would be treated as “all-out war.”

In response, the U.S. has distributed Patriot and THAAD missile defense batteries across regional hubs to shield its assets from potential missile retaliation.

Diplomacy still on the table

Despite the military posture, talks are ongoing. Iranian officials have said they will return within weeks with additional proposals aimed at narrowing gaps in negotiations.

President Donald Trump has framed the moment in blunt terms.

“We have to make a deal, otherwise it’s going to be very traumatic, very traumatic,” Trump said recently, warning that Iran would face consequences if diplomacy collapses.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The presence of so much firepower in the region creates a momentum of its own,” said Susan Ziadeh, a former U.S. ambassador. “Sometimes that momentum is a little hard to just put the brakes on.”

The force now in position — from dual carriers to stealth bombers — is structured not for a single weekend strike, but for endurance.

Whether it is used, and for how long, will depend on decisions made at the negotiating table.

Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, who is running in the Illinois Democratic U.S. Senate primary, posted a campaign video that features footage of multiple people saying, “F— Trump.”

“They said it. We’re all thinking it,” Stratton wrote in a post on X when sharing the video.

The video kicks off by showing three different people saying, “F— Trump, vote Juliana.”

ILLINOIS GOV PRITZKER DONATES $5M TO SUPER PAC BACKING LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S SENATE CAMPAIGN

The candidate then appears and declares, “They said it, not me. I’m Juliana Stratton, and I’m proud to have lived my whole life on the South side of Chicago. I’m not scared of a wannabe dictator. I’m running for Senate to stand up to Donald Trump.”

Referring to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, she declares, “I’ll abolish ICE and hold Trump accountable for the crimes he’s committed.”

She then says, “Just like they said,” before three more people declare, “F— Trump.”

DUFFY GIVES ILLINOIS 30-DAY ULTIMATUM AFTER AUDIT FINDS 1 IN 5 NONCITIZEN TRUCK LICENSES ISSUED ILLEGALLY

One of the people to drop the f-bomb on the president is Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who has endorsed Stratton. Gov. JB Pritzker, who has also endorsed the Senate candidate, then appears next to the lieutenant governor and says, “Vote Juliana.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois announced last year that he would not seek re-election in 2026.

ILLINOIS DEM SENATE CANDIDATES SPLIT ON BACKING SCHUMER AS LEADER

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

U.S. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly are also running in the Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary.

The Pentagon is deploying the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East, creating a rare two-carrier presence in the region as tensions with Iran rise and questions swirl about possible U.S. military action.

The Ford will reinforce the USS Abraham Lincoln already operating in theater, significantly expanding American airpower at a moment of heightened regional uncertainty.

While officials have not announced imminent action, the dual-carrier presence increases the Pentagon’s flexibility — from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations — should diplomacy falter.

The largest aircraft carrier in the world

The Gerald R. Ford is the largest and most advanced aircraft carrier ever built.

Commissioned in 2017, the nuclear-powered warship stretches more than 1,100 feet and displaces more than 100,000 tons of water. It serves as a floating air base that can operate in international waters without relying on host-nation approval — a key advantage in politically sensitive theaters.

Powered by two nuclear reactors, the ship has virtually unlimited range and endurance and is designed to serve for decades as the backbone of U.S. naval power projection.

WORLD’S LARGEST AIRCRAFT CARRIER HEADS TO MIDDLE EAST AS IRAN NUCLEAR TENSIONS SPIKE DRAMATICALLY

How much airpower does it carry?

A typical air wing aboard the Ford includes roughly 75 aircraft, though the exact mix depends on mission requirements.

Those aircraft can include F/A-18 Super Hornets, stealth F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets, E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft and MH-60 helicopters.

In a potential conflict with Iran, several of those platforms would be central. 

The F-35C is designed to penetrate contested airspace and carry out precision strikes against heavily defended targets. The Growler specializes in jamming enemy radar and communications — a critical capability against Iran’s layered air defense systems. 

The E-2D extends surveillance hundreds of miles, helping coordinate air and missile defense.

Together, they give commanders options ranging from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations.

Built for higher combat tempo

What separates the Ford from earlier carriers is its ability to generate more sorties over time.

Instead of traditional steam catapults, it uses an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, or EMALS, allowing aircraft to launch more smoothly and at a faster pace. The system is designed to reduce stress on jets and increase operational tempo.

The ship also features advanced arresting gear and a redesigned flight deck that allows more aircraft to be staged and cycled efficiently.

In a high-intensity scenario — particularly one involving missile launches or rapid escalation — the ability to launch and recover aircraft quickly can be decisive.

How it compares to the Lincoln

While both the Ford and the Abraham Lincoln are 100,000-ton, nuclear-powered supercarriers capable of carrying roughly 60 aircraft to 75 aircraft, they represent different generations of naval design.

The Lincoln is a Nimitz-class carrier commissioned in 1989 and part of a fleet that has supported decades of operations in the Middle East. The Ford is the Navy’s next-generation carrier and the lead ship of its class.

The key difference is efficiency and output. 

The Ford was built to generate a higher sustained sortie rate using its electromagnetic launch system, along with a redesigned flight deck and upgraded power systems. In practical terms, both ships bring substantial strike capability — but the Ford is designed to launch and recover aircraft faster over extended operations, giving commanders greater flexibility if tensions escalate.

IRAN SIGNALS NUCLEAR PROGRESS IN GENEVA AS TRUMP CALLS FOR FULL DISMANTLEMENT

How it defends itself

The Ford does not sail alone. It operates as the centerpiece of a carrier strike group that typically includes guided-missile destroyers, cruisers and attack submarines.

Those escort ships provide layered air and missile defense, anti-submarine protection and additional strike capability.

The carrier itself carries defensive systems including Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, Rolling Airframe Missiles and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System — designed to intercept incoming threats at close range.

That defensive posture is especially relevant in the Middle East.

Iran has invested heavily in anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, armed drones, naval mines and fast-attack craft operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Gulf region presents a dense and complex threat environment, even for advanced U.S. warships.

Why two carriers matter

With both the Ford and the Lincoln in theater, commanders gain more than just added firepower. Two carriers allow the U.S. to sustain a higher tempo of operations, distribute aircraft across multiple areas, or maintain continuous presence if one ship needs to reposition or resupply.

Dual-carrier deployments are relatively uncommon and typically coincide with periods of heightened regional tension.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The timing — as negotiations with Tehran continue — underscores the strategic message. Carriers are often deployed not only to fight wars, but to prevent them.

By positioning both ships in the region, Washington is signaling that if diplomacy falters, military options will already be in place.

Ex-Victoria’s Secret mogul Les Wexner’s lawyer was caught on a hot mic jokingly threatening to “kill” him if he continued giving long answers to questions during his deposition on Jeffrey Epstein by the House Oversight Committee.

The moment was caught after the committee released its full, nearly five-hour deposition of 88-year-old Wexner as part of its ongoing probe into Jeffrey Epstein’s network.

Several hours into the deposition, while Wexner was giving a particularly long-winded answer, Wexner’s attorney leaned over to him and whispered in his ear, “I’m going to f—ing kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, okay?”

Both Wexner and his attorney laughed after this statement, indicating Wexner understood it as a joke. The lawyer proceeded to instruct Wexner to “answer the question,” laughing more.

Shortly before this exchange, the attorney had urged Wexner to “answer the question,” saying, “I’m sure we all appreciate the stories, we’re just trying to answer questions that they actually want answered,” referring to the House committee.

EPSTEIN PROBE LEADER COMER SAYS ‘NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW’ AFTER EX-PRINCE ANDREW ARREST

The Oversight Committee heard from Wexner, a billionaire fashion mogul best known for his work in revolutionizing the Victoria’s Secret store chain, about his involvement with Epstein, whom Wexner characterized as strictly a business associate rather than a close friend.

Despite being named a co-conspirator in a recently uncovered FBI document from 2019, Wexner said that he has never been directly contacted by either the FBI or the Department of Justice. He maintained his total innocence during the deposition, saying, “I was naïve, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein. He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar.”

The committee stated it was releasing the full deposition with “no spin,” saying, “The American people deserve to see the testimony for themselves—transparency matters.”

Wexner is the founder of L Brands, formerly called The Limited, through which he acquired well-known companies Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Express, and Abercrombie & Fitch, among others. He is no longer associated with Victoria’s Secret. He was one of Epstein’s first major clients as a financial advisor, with Epstein being granted power of attorney over Wexner’s vast wealth. Wexner also sold his Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, which was later discovered to be one of the locations where federal authorities accused Epstein of abusing young women and girls under 18.

Despite this, Wexner stated that he always kept his relationship with Epstein as strictly professional, saying, “I don’t think I ever went to lunch, or dinner, a movie or had a cup of coffee with Jeffrey,” adding, “My focus was on my business and on community.”

EXCLUSIVE: EPSTEIN EMAILS RELEASED AS DOJ SAYS NO CRIMINAL OR INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT BY TRUMP

Wexner said he severed ties with Epstein in 2007 after learning of an investigation and discovering that Epstein had misappropriated funds from him and his family. He said a substantial amount of the money was returned. 

Wexner also testified that he was not aware of Epstein ever staying at a guesthouse on his New Albany, Ohio, estate, where Maria Farmer is said to have been abused by Epstein and associate Ghislaine Maxwell. He maintained that he only had knowledge of Epstein staying at a nearby neighbor’s residence. Pressed on whether he denies Farmer’s testimony that she was abused on his property, he stated, “I never met her, didn’t know she was here, didn’t know she was abused.”

He categorically denied any knowledge of either Epstein or Maxwell arranging women for prominent individuals. He also categorically denied ever having a sexual encounter with anyone introduced by Maxwell and Epstein or having any sexual relationship with Epstein himself.

He further denied any sexual contact or knowledge of another prominent Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre.

AG PAM BONDI ANNOUNCES ‘ALL’ EPSTEIN FILES HAVE BEEN RELEASED, LISTING OVER 300 HIGH-PROFILE NAMES

Wexner was also asked about his knowledge of Epstein and President Donald Trump’s relationship. He said that he does not think they were friends, but said Epstein “held him out as a friend.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Committee members also questioned Wexner on a note he wrote in a birthday book to Epstein in which he drew breasts with the caption, “Dear Jeffrey, I wanted to get you what you want, so here it is … Your friend, Leslie.”

Wexner confirmed that he wrote the note but dismissed it, saying, “He was a bachelor, so I drew a pair of boobs as kind of a joke, offhandedly, I would say.”

Wexner is the fourth person appearing before the House Oversight Committee in its Epstein probe.

Fox News Digital’s Liz Elkind contributed to this report.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, widely believed to have presidential ambitions, is standing by his account of his family’s history of fleeing the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina in the face of a report questioning the details about that story. 

“It’s hurtful, and it’s offensive,” Moore told Fox News Digital when asked about the report. 

Earlier this month, the Washington Free Beacon published an article that disputed a story Moore told about his family’s background, in which his grandfather and great-grandfather were forced to flee the state of South Carolina due to threats from the Ku Klux Klan. 

“I know my family’s history, I know that James Joshua Thomas was born in South Carolina, and when he was a toddler, when he’s just a child, was run out by the Ku Klux Klan, that his family picked up and they moved to Jamaica, but that he came back to this country, and he became the first black minister in the history of the Dutch Reformed Church,” Moore said.

Moore has frequently referenced his maternal grandfather, James Thomas, as the figure in the story, including during a 2020 appearance on the Yang Speaks podcast titled “Wes Moore on how the KKK ran his family into exile,” where he detailed how his great-grandfather was a minister in Winnsboro, South Carolina, who fled to Jamaica with his son after being threatened by the Klan.

MARYLAND GOV WES MOORE IN HOT SEAT AFTER REPORT QUESTIONS CLAIM ABOUT GRANDFATHER AND KKK

However, the Free Beacon report cast doubt on the specifics of that story, claiming that historical records from the Protestant Episcopal Church and contemporary newspaper reports indicate that Thomas’s departure was not a secret, middle-of-the-night escape, but an orderly and public professional transfer after he was appointed to replace a deceased pastor in Jamaica.

Additionally, archival data and the diocese’s own historical accounts suggest that the White community in Pineville, S.C., actually held Thomas’s church in high regard for its medical services, with no mention of racial animus or Klan interference during his tenure.

“The irony,” Moore said, “is that when he became the first black minister in the history of the Dutch Reformed Church, threats started coming to him because not everybody was happy, and he stuck because this is a man who had a deep Jamaican accent his entire life and was maybe the most patriotic American I’ve ever met.”

“And so to hear now him and his story being attacked by a right-wing blog. It’s just deeply hurtful and deeply offensive. And I said it before, but if they have questions about the Ku Klux Klan’s activities in the 1920s in South Carolina, then don’t ask me, ask the Ku Klux Klan.”

TRUMP SLAMS MARYLAND GOVERNOR, LAUNCHES FEDERAL EFFORT TO PROTECT POTOMAC AFTER HISTORIC SEWAGE SPILL

The Washington Free Beacon has publicly stood by its reporting on Moore’s life story.

Moore has previously faced other questions about misrepresenting his past, including on Sunday when CBS’ Norah O’Donnell pressed the governor on another Washington Free Beacon report alleging discrepancies about his claims about his tenure at Oxford University. 

“Oxford says it does not have a copy of your thesis,” O’Donnell asked. “Did you submit it? Any idea why it’s missing?”

Moore responded, “”I think Oxford has said that I have completed my degree. There is no denying that. And that I received a Master’s degree at Oxford University in international relations after being the first African American Rhodes Scholar in the history of Johns Hopkins University. And so, there is no denying that.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In September, Moore said he is “not running for president” in 2028 and is “excited” about serving a full term if he wins re-election in November, although many still believe he has presidential ambitions at some point in the future.

A top Democrat in Maryland’s state legislature threw cold water on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ campaign to oust the state’s lone Republican from Congress.

Jeffries, D-N.Y., was in Annapolis on Wednesday meeting with state leaders to discuss redrawing Maryland’s congressional map before the November 2026 midterms.

He’s one of the highest-profile Democrats pushing the state to join the growing redistricting war, which could see Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., effectively drawn out of the one Republican-leaning district in the state.

That would require both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly to approve a new map recommended by Gov. Wes Moore’s redistricting commission earlier this year. But Senate President Bill Ferguson is resisting pressure from fellow Democrats.

BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE

“It’s precisely because we want Leader Jeffries in the majority that most members in the Maryland Senate Democratic Caucus do not support moving forward with mid-cycle redistricting that will backfire in our State courts and lose Democrats in Congress,” Ferguson said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital.

It’s a position he’s held since last year, when he wrote a letter to state Democrats warning that “mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined.”

Ferguson said they also discussed “the importance of responding to the lawless Trump Administration through economic, social, and immigration policies” and how they could cooperate in those areas.

SCOTUS ALLOWS TEXAS TO USE TRUMP-PUSHED REDRAWN CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING MAP FAVORING REPUBLICANS

But redistricting remains a sticking point dividing Democrats in the Old Line State.

Moore, who spoke with Fox News Digital on Wednesday, called for Ferguson to at least allow a vote to be held on the new map.

“As someone who fought for this country and someone who fought for democracy, I just believe in fighting for democracy, and I think that requires a vote, no matter how the vote turns out,” Moore said. “It frankly doesn’t matter, but just vote. And so I think that was also the message that Leader Jeffries shared with the Senate President.”

Jeffries has met with Democrats in various states about redistricting across the country, but it’s rare for him to wage such a public pressure campaign on a fellow party leader.

He told reporters on Wednesday that he shared with Ferguson, “It’s our view, and I believe this is the view that has been clearly and decisively shared by Governor Wes Moore, that the best course of action at this moment is to allow an up-or-down vote in the Maryland State Senate so that we have an opportunity to move forward in a transparent way and see where things will land.”

Jeffries also suggested Ferguson’s decision was not final and that there were still ongoing conversations on the matter.

REDISTRICTING BATTLES BREWING ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS PARTIES COMPETE FOR POWER AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS

Harris, Maryland’s lone Republican representative, is the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

He told Fox News Digital last month that he would bring a lawsuit to challenge the new map if it somehow did get approved.

“Wes, we’ll see you in court,” the conservative caucus leader said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Redistricting is normally a process seen every 10 years, after a new census calls for the modification of congressional districts based on changes in population.

But a redistricting war has broken out ahead of the November midterms that could upend electoral maps across the country.

Both Texas and California have moved to redraw their congressional maps in favor of Republicans and Democrats, respectively.

A similar effort by Indiana Republicans, backed by President Donald Trump, was shot down by members of their own party while pushes in Ohio and North Carolina prevailed in favor of the GOP. But states like Virginia and Florida and could follow suit.

A top Senate Republican demanded that if former Prince Andrew is found to have broken American laws with respect to his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, he should stand trial in the U.S.

“If he’s violated American law, absolutely,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital.

Scott’s comments came after the news that the former prince, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who is linked to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office in the United Kingdom Thursday.

EPSTEIN PROBE LEADER COMER SAYS ‘NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW’ AFTER EX-PRINCE ANDREW ARREST

British authorities were reportedly investigating whether Mountbatten-Windsor had shared confidential trade information with Epstein while acting as Britain’s special envoy for trade over a decade ago, The Associated Press reported.

Mountbatten-Windsor has denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein despite being one of his most well-known associates. He was also accused by the late Virginia Giuffre — one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers — in her memoir of having sex with her when she was a minor.

The list of co-conspirators and those connected to Epstein continues to grow after Congress’ move to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release millions of documents related to him known as the “Epstein Files.”

MASSIE, TOP OVERSIGHT DEMOCRAT CALL FOR SECRETARY LUTNICK TO RESIGN FOR ‘LYING’ ABOUT ALLEGED EPSTEIN TIES

But criminal action against those alleged to have ties with Epstein has remained scarce, given that appearing in the files doesn’t directly translate to criminal charges. Scott argued that if people “violate the law, you should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

“It’s as simple as that. It’s despicable what Epstein did,” Scott said. “I can’t imagine these people who had relationships with Epstein, especially after he was convicted the first time, and they kept their relationship.

“If they’ve done anything wrong, they should be held accountable,” he continued. “I don’t know if Prince Andrew has done anything wrong, but everybody who has should be held accountable. What you read that happened to these young girls is just like — I’ve got two daughters, I’ve got a granddaughter, and I can’t imagine, you know, the position that Epstein and, it seems like, some other people put these young women in.”

The Senate voted unanimously last year in favor of legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law that required the DOJ to release all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials “publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format” related to the late financier and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

STARMER CALLS ON EX-PRINCE ANDREW TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS AFTER LATEST EPSTEIN RELEASE

Several names of prominent Americans, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, were revealed in the trove of unredacted documents.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., when asked if Lutnick or others should face consequences, said earlier this month that “transparency is something we all ought to aspire to here.”

“And if there are folks who are, you know, named in there or discussed in there in some way, they’re going to have to answer for that,” Thune said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Millions of files and a handful of months later, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced earlier this week that the DOJ had unloaded all the documents. But lawmakers have said it’s not enough.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., charged that the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files “is a travesty.”

“But in France, the Paris prosecutor’s office just opened two investigations based on new leads from the released files,” Schumer said on X. “And in Britain, former Prince Andrew has been arrested over ties to Epstein. When will there be justice in America?”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, had a stark warning for Texans as he fights to keep his job in the Senate, saying a vote for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton could mean a Democrat wins the Lone Star State seat for the first time in three decades.

“Ken Paxton will be the kiss of death for Republicans on the ticket in November of 2026,” Cornyn said.

Cornyn made his comments as he crisscrossed the state in a mad dash to shore up support as early voting began in Texas earlier this week. He’s deadlocked in a battle for political survival in a grueling three-way primary with Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas.

TRUMP WITHHOLDS ENDORSEMENT IN FIERY GOP SENATE PRIMARY AS EARLY VOTING BEGINS IN TEXAS

Nick Maddux, an advisor for Paxton, fired back in a statement to Fox News Digital that the current Texas attorney general won his election by double digits in 2022, “and the same thing is going to happen in 2026, because Republican voters are fired up to go to the polls and support him.”

Maddux charged that Cornyn “is the worst possible choice” for turning out “low-propensity, Trump-supporting America First voters.”

“There’s a reason that he’s stuck in the mid-20s even after $70-plus million’s been lit on fire to help him instead of going to races in NC, MI, ME and GA,” Maddux contended. “Texas voters don’t like him, don’t trust him, and won’t show up to vote for him in November.”

CORNYN TORCHES DEMOCRATIC FIELD AS HE SEEKS RE-ELECTION IN TEXAS 

With the March 3 primary election less than two weeks away, Cornyn wanted to remind voters that their decision could have direct consequences on the GOP’s grip in Texas.

The last time a Democratic candidate won a statewide election in Texas, Cornyn noted, was in 1994. And on the opposite side of the playing field, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, and Texas state Rep. James Talarico are salivating at the chance to snatch the seat.

“I think the attorney general, if he’s the nominee, could very well lose the seat,” Cornyn said. “But if he doesn’t lose the seat, he’s not going to win except by the hair of his chin. And, unfortunately, that will not help the down-ballot races.”

EARLY VOTING UNDERWAY IN TEXAS PRIMARY 

Congressional Republicans hold a trifecta in Washington, D.C., which has been instrumental in advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda, particularly his marquee tax bill, the “big, beautiful bill.”

But midterm elections often serve as a referendum against the sitting president, and though Republicans in the state redistricted last year to give GOP candidates a better chance come November, Cornyn believes a Paxton win in their three-way primary battle would have a negative trickle-down effect.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump, however, has not yet endorsed a candidate in the contest, telling reporters earlier this week that he “liked all three of them.”

“I know President Trump feels very strongly not only about Texas but also about the congressional races,” Cornyn said. “We’ve got five new congressional seats in Texas, and I know the president wants to carry the majority for the House into the midterms and beyond, because, as he said himself, if Democrats win the majority in the House of Representatives, they will impeach him for the third time.”

The United Kingdom is blocking the Trump administration from using its military air bases for a possible attack on Iran over concerns that a strike could violate international law. 

A report by The Times said the U.S. was drawing up a report to use Royal Air Force base Fairford in England, which is home to America’s fleet of heavy bombers in Europe.

President Donald Trump reportedly spoke with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Tuesday about the plans. U.K. officials were reportedly worried that giving the United States permission to use the RAF bases for a military attack could breach international law, according to The Times.

MORNING GLORY: WHAT WILL PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DECIDE TO DO WITH IRAN?

“Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday.

“An attack that would potentially be made on the United Kingdom, as well as other friendly countries. We will always be ready, willing, and able to fight for the U.K., but they have to remain strong in the face of Wokeism, and other problems put before them.”

Trump has pressed for Tehran to make a deal with the U.S. over its nuclear program. 

“President Trump’s first instinct is always diplomacy, and he has been clear that the Iranian regime should make a deal,” a White House official told Fox News Digital. “Of course, the President ultimately has all options at his disposal, and he demonstrated with Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Absolute Resolve that he means what he says.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the use of British military bases against Iran is a “necessity for an attack — it would be beyond surprising.”

“The bottom line is the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet is the weakest it’s been because the people of Iran have risen up by the millions to end their oppression and the United States and Israel have delivered crushing blows to the regime’s military infrastructure,” Graham wrote on X. 

“To my friends in Britain, sitting this one out puts you on the wrong side of history and is yet another example of how much our alliances throughout Europe have degraded.”

KHANNA AND MASSIE THREATEN TO FORCE A VOTE ON IRAN AS PROSPECT OF US ATTACK LOOMS

On Thursday, Trump told reporters Iran has a maximum of 15 days to make a deal or “it’s going to be unfortunate for them.”

Washington and Britain have been in a rift over the use of Britain’s air bases. Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, the bases can only be used for military operations against third countries that have been agreed in advance with the government, according to The Times. 

On Wednesday, Trump withdrew his support for Starmer’s deal to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. However, a deal would allow the U.K. to keep control of Diego Garcia and its strategically important air base.

“Our relationship with the United Kingdom is a strong and powerful one, and it has been for many years, but Prime Minister Starmer is losing control of this important island by claims of entities never known of before. In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature,” Trump wrote Wednesday. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Prime Minister Starmer should not lose control, for any reason, of Diego Garcia, by entering a tenuous, at best, 100-year lease,” he added. “This land should not be taken away from the UK and, if it is allowed to be, it will be a blight on our great ally.”

The U.S. uses Diego Garcia for bombers operating in the Middle East and Asia.

Iran has a short window to agree to a deal with the U.S., President Donald Trump said Thursday, before warning that the situation could soon shift if negotiations fail.

The talks focus largely on curbing Tehran’s advancing nuclear program, which U.S. officials say has moved closer to weapons-grade enrichment.

The U.S. and Israel also want Iran to give up its long-range ballistic missiles, stop supporting groups around the Middle East and stop using force against protesters inside Iran.

“We’re going to make a deal, or we’re going to get a deal one way or the other,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, signaling determination to secure an agreement.

VANCE WARNS IRAN THAT ‘ANOTHER OPTION ON THE TABLE’ IF NUCLEAR DEAL NOT REACHED

While declining to specify whether the ultimate goal is the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, Trump made clear there would be consequences if diplomacy falls short.

“We’re either going to get a deal, or it’s going to be unfortunate for them,” he said.

Trump suggested the window for a breakthrough is narrowing, indicating Iran has no more than “10, 15 days, pretty much maximum” to reach an agreement.

Trump spoke as negotiation efforts with Tehran remain ongoing.

MORNING GLORY: WHAT WILL PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DECIDE TO DO WITH IRAN?

Although Trump has repeatedly expressed hope for a deal, indirect talks in Geneva have yielded mixed feedback.

Trump said “good talks are being had,” and a senior U.S. official said Iran would make a written proposal on how to address U.S. concerns, Reuters reported.

“I believe we made good progress,” said Abbas Araghchi, the head of the Iranian delegation in Geneva. “The path toward an agreement has started, but we will not reach it quickly.”

Vice President JD Vance, however, said in an interview with Fox News that “red lines” were set.

IRAN SIGNALS NUCLEAR PROGRESS IN GENEVA AS TRUMP CALLS FOR FULL DISMANTLEMENT

“In some ways, it went well. They agreed to meet afterward,” Vance said. “But in other ways, it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through. So, we’re going to keep on working it.”

According to The Associated Press, Iran has resisted broader U.S. and Israeli demands to curb its missile program and cut ties with armed regional groups.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump’s comments also coincided with Iran’s annual military drills with Russia on Thursday as a second U.S. aircraft carrier moved closer to the Middle East.

Similarly, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned of military action despite ongoing talks.