Indicted Democrat Rep Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick one step closer to expulsion
A bipartisan panel of House lawmakers voted to kickstart a process that could lead to the expulsion of a congressional Democrat accused of laundering millions of disaster relief funds into her campaign account. A House Ethics investigative subcommittee approved a motion for summary judgment, effectively finding Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., guilty of nearly all alleged violations outlined by the committee earlier this year. The verdict came after a rare public ethics hearing on Thursday — the first since 2010 — that lasted more than six hours as lawmakers from both parties grilled Cherfilus-McCormick’s counsel. The eight-member adjudicatory subcommittee, helmed by Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., announced its decision in a written statement Friday morning. “After careful deliberation that lasted until well past midnight, the adjudicatory subcommittee found that Counts 1-15 and 17-26 of the SAV [statement of alleged violations] had been proven,” committee leaders said in a statement. EX-‘SQUAD’ DEM APPEARS TO BE LEANING ON RADICAL ACTIVIST AT CENTER OF DAMNING TLAIB REPORT IN COMEBACK BID The panel’s myriad charges against Cherfilus-McCormick, who is facing a separate federal criminal indictment, ranged from using ineligible funds to finance her campaign to repeatedly filing false financial disclosure forms and seeking “special favors” with recipients of earmark funding requests. The panel will meet after the Easter recess to determine its recommended punishment, which could be as severe as expulsion. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., has vowed to move forward with his resolution that would expel Cherfilus-McCormick regardless of the outcome. Under House rules, two-thirds of lawmakers have to agree to expel a member, meaning Steube’s resolution would need the support of some Democrats. House Democratic leadership has largely stood by Cherfilus-McCormick so far, though some congressional Democrats are signaling their discomfort with the allegations against their indicted colleague. “The allegations before us are extremely serious,” Rep. Mark Desaulnier, D-Calif., said at the start of the hearing Thursday. “They not only concern an individual member’s conduct, they also implicate the public’s confidence in the House’s integrity as an institution.” Cherfilus-McCormick, who first won election to Congress in 2021, is accused of stealing more than $5 million in disaster relief funds that were improperly paid to her family’s healthcare company, among other criminal allegations. She and her siblings allegedly used the illicit funds to jumpstart her congressional campaign and for personal use, including the purchase of a large diamond ring that Cherfilus-McCormick appeared to have worn in her official congressional portrait. Cherfilus-McCormick has pleaded not guilty to the stunning federal charges brought in 2025. If convicted in federal court, Cherfilus-McCormick, 47, faces up to 53 years in prison. WATCHDOG RELEASES SCATHING REPORT ON TLAIB’S ALLEGED TIES TO TERRORIST GROUPS WARNING OF ‘POTENTIAL RISKS’ The House ethics panel’s investigation into Cherfilus-McCormick preceded the 2025 federal criminal indictment by more than two years. During that time, Cherfilus-McCormick shifted between four different attorneys while largely refusing to cooperate with the bipartisan panel. On Thursday, Cherfilus-McCormick sought to use the fact of her new legal representation to further delay the committee’s proceedings until June — a request the eight-member panel promptly denied in a closed-door session. Her new attorney, William Barzee, repeatedly claimed a violation of Cherfilus-McCormick’s due process rights while maintaining her innocence. “For you to sit here and make the claim that we, the committee, is trying to trample upon the rights of your client. I take offense to that,” Guest told Barzee in a combative exchange. “For two years we’ve tried to get documents from your client. Not only have we requested documents, but we have subpoenaed those documents. Those documents were not provided for two years.” “I’m personally offended because I know the work that this committee goes to protect all members and to make sure that we go above and beyond,” Guest continued. Members of both parties appeared unconvinced by Barzee’s argument, attempting to claim that Cherfilus-McCormick was entitled to the millions of dollars she accepted from her family’s company that stemmed from the FEMA overpayments. When he claimed that an undated chart was evidence of a “profit-sharing agreement” showing her legal title to the money, the bipartisan panel appeared visibly perturbed. “I did a lot of business transaction law for a number of years before I came to Congress. I drafted a lot of profit-sharing agreements. Never saw one that was just a chart that was unsigned,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, told Barzee. Later in the hearing, Barzee argued that because Cherfilus-McCormick is of Haitian descent, it was not atypical to have a “handshake agreement” to divvy up millions of dollars between her and her family instead of a formal legal document. Cherfilus-McCormick faces an upcoming federal criminal trial this summer.
Reporter’s Notebook: The hitchhiker’s guide to what’s next to end the DHS shutdown
When will the House vote on the Senate deal? Frankly, we do not know. Last night’s Senate measure was not pre-baked with the House. And we talked to dozens of House Republicans yesterday who did not want to just fund parts of DHS. They wanted to fund everything. We also don’t know the disposition of the president on this. When asked about a GOP proposal earlier this week to just fund parts of DHS and leave out ICE, President Donald Trump replied, “I’m pretty much not happy with it.” DHS SHUTDOWN BREAKTHROUGH COMES AT COST FOR REPUBLICANS AS FUNDING FIGHTS NEARS END And, if it is to pass the House, it’s about the math. Lawmakers will need a robust combination of Democrats and Republicans to approve this bill. Democrats failed to secure the bona fide reforms they wanted for ICE. So do liberals defect? This bipartisan parliamentary algebra will be exceedingly interesting. In short, this was a jam job by the Senate. The Senate has left. Either the House takes the bill or leaves it. In Congress, there are only so many exit ramps off the highway. The Senate saw one. There was the growing crisis at the airports. TSA workers were about to miss paychecks again. And that’s to say nothing of lawmakers — potentially being mired in Washington and missing their two-week-plus recess for Easter and Passover. SCHUMER, DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AGAIN AS TRUMP INTERVENES TO PAY TSA AGENTS The House could expedite the bill and pass it quickly via “suspension of the rules.” But that requires a two-thirds vote. A slightly longer process is the conventional track with bringing a rule to the floor to manage debate on the bill. But eventual passage of the bill only needs a simple majority. Also, no one really “won” this shutdown. There are rarely winners from a shutdown. Yes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., may have scored some points from the liberal base by going to the mat over ICE following the Minnesota shootings. He needed to do that after caving and averting a government shutdown last March. That ignited a firestorm among liberals. Also, the charge last night for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was not to get support to pass the bill — but to secure guarantees from senators that they wouldn’t try to block it. That’s partly why the Senate voted by voice vote. There is no specific record of any senator “voting” for the bill. The Senate ran a “hotline” last night, checking in with all 100 senators to make sure there were no objections to what Thune proposed doing. No one objected. And thus, the Senate passed the bill in the dead of night.
DOJ probes California, Maine over transgender inmate housing policies
The Department of Justice on Thursday launched civil rights investigations into prison systems in California and Maine over policies allowing transgender inmates to be housed in women’s facilities, citing concerns about female inmates’ safety. The probes will examine whether the states are engaged in a “pattern or practice” of violating inmates’ rights, part of a broader federal push targeting what officials call a growing national issue. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said keeping “men out of women’s prisons [was] not only common sense – it’s a matter of safety and constitutional rights.” The investigations focus on two California facilities and the Maine Correctional Center. Officials cited allegations of sexual assault, rape and a “pervasive climate of sexual intimidation.” TRUMP ADMIN FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN ON NOTIFYING PARENTS OF GENDER TRANSITIONS VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW The DOJ said the probes are being conducted under federal civil rights law and will examine potential violations of inmates’ constitutional protections. In California, the policy stems from a 2020 law allowing inmates to be housed based on gender identity. The issue gained attention after a transgender inmate housed in a women’s prison was later charged with multiple counts of rape. In Maine, officials are investigating allegations that a male inmate remained housed with women despite complaints of assault or harassment. FBI LAUNCHES PROBES INTO 3 CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS FOR ALLEGED GENITAL MUTILATION OF MINORS Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the DOJ will not allow women in custody to face “unconstitutional risks of harm.” “These investigations will uncover whether the dangerous national trend of housing men in women’s prisons has resulted in violations of women’s constitutional rights,” Dhillon said. California officials say they are committed to inmate safety, while a spokesperson for Maine’s governor has called the probe politically motivated. Fox News Digital has reached out to the DOJ and state officials for comment. The investigations are ongoing and could lead to legal action if violations are found.
Former Dolton, Illinois ‘super mayor’ pushes for federal troops in Chicago after father shot in neck
Former Dolton Mayor and Thornton Township supervisor Tiffany Henyard urged Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to accept federal assistance to help clean up crime, noting in a statement that her father had become a gun violence victim. Henyard opened her statement by calling herself “SuperMayor Tiffany A. Henyard.” “Yes, it is true, my family has been directly affected by the senseless gun violence that continues to plague Illinois. Yesterday, my father, my hero was an innocent victim of this random and heartbreaking violence,” she noted in a statement shared on social media on Thursday. FORMER SCANDAL-PLAGUED ILLINOIS ‘SUPER MAYOR’ EYES POLITICAL COMEBACK AS A REPUBLICAN IN GEORGIA “At this time, I am calling on Governor JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson to seriously reconsider federal assistance from President Donald J. Trump to help address this crisis and better protect the residents of Illinois, particularly in Chicago,” she noted in the statement. “Across the country, communities that have welcomed federal support have experienced measurable reductions in crime. Cities such as Memphis, Tennessee; Washington, D.C. and New Orleans, Louisiana during the 2026 Mardi Gras period have all seen positive outcomes through collaboration efforts.” President Donald Trump notably deployed the National Guard to all three cities as part of federal intervention geared toward crime reduction and public safety. Henyard said the residents of Illinois “deserve to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods,” adding that the “difference between Illinois and those other states is simple, their leadership chose collaboration, and that collaboration produces results.” “I respectfully urge Governor Pritzker to reconsider working in partnership with President Donald J. Trump to ensure the safety and well-being of the people you were elected to serve. Once again, thank you for your prayers, your support, and your compassion. Please continue to keep my family lifted in prayer during this extremely difficult time,” she wrote. SUPREME COURT RULES ON LEGALITY OF TRUMP NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT TO ILLINOIS WLS-TV reported that Henyard’s father was wounded in a shooting that happened around 5:54 p.m. Wednesday in the 1300 block South Kedzie Avenue in North Lawndale. According to the outlet, Chicago police said a 65-year-old man was in an alley when he was shot in the neck and was taken to the hospital in serious condition. OUSTED DEM ‘SUPER MAYOR’ CHARGES WHOPPING PRICE TAG FOR TELL-ALL BOOK WHILE DODGING LEGAL TROUBLES Henyard, who lost the 2025 Democratic Dolton mayoral primary, is now running for Fulton County board of commissioners District 5 in Georgia as a Republican.
Appeals court pauses orders limiting federal agents’ use of tear gas at protests near Portland ICE building
An appeals court paused a pair of lower court rulings in Oregon that restricted federal agents’ use of tear gas and other crowd-control munitions during protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request for temporary administrative stays in two cases in a 2-1 ruling. Anti-ICE demonstrators have held protests at the building since June, as part of protests across the country challenging President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. Two lawsuits were filed over federal agents’ crowd control tactics — one brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon on behalf of protesters and freelance journalists and another brought by the residents of an affordable housing complex across the street from the ICE building. OREGON JUDGE LIMITS FEDERAL AGENTS’ TEAR GAS USE AT PORTLAND PROTESTS The complaints argue that federal agents’ use of chemical and projectile munitions has violated the rights of plaintiffs — including a demonstrator known for wearing a chicken costume, a married couple in their 80s and two freelance journalists who said federal agents used chemical spray and projectile munitions against them. The Department of Homeland Security has previously said that the agents have “followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property.” Earlier this month, the federal judges in Portland overseeing the separate cases both issued preliminary injunctions limiting federal agents’ use of tear gas, pepper spray and other chemical munitions unless someone poses an imminent threat of physical harm. The agents were also ordered not to fire munitions at the head, neck or torso “unless the officer is legally justified in using deadly force against that person” and were told not to use pepper spray against a group in an indiscriminate way that would affect bystanders. Additionally, they were told to only target people who were engaging in violent unlawful conduct or actively resisting arrest, noting that trespassing, refusing to move and refusing to obey an order to disperse are acts of passive resistance, not active resistance. “Plaintiffs provided numerous videos, which were received in evidence and unambiguously show DHS officers spraying OC Spray directly into the faces of peaceful and nonviolent protesters engaged in, at most, passive resistance and discharging tear gas and firing pepper-ball munitions into crowds of peaceful and nonviolent protestors,” U.S. District Judge Michael Simon wrote in his ruling on March 9 in the case brought by the ACLU. “Defendants’ conduct — physically harming protestors and journalists without prior dispersal warnings — is objectively chilling,” he added. JUDGE RULES FEDERAL AGENTS MUST LIMIT TEAR GAS AT PROTESTS NEAR PORTLAND ICE BUILDING The Ninth Circuit panel said on Wednesday that oral arguments in the two cases will be consolidated and scheduled for April 7. Earlier this year, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson called on ICE to leave the city after federal agents deployed tear gas at a crowd of demonstrators outside the agency’s building. The mayor described the protests as peaceful and criticized federal officers’ use of pepper balls, flash-bang grenades and rubber bullets. “Federal forces deployed heavy waves of chemical munitions, impacting a peaceful daytime protest where the vast majority of those present violated no laws, made no threat, and posed no danger to federal forces,” he said in a statement at the time. “To those who continue to work for ICE: Resign. To those who control this facility: Leave,” he added, accusing federal officials of “trampling the Constitution.” The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Schumer, Dems block DHS funding again as Trump intervenes to pay TSA agents
The Senate was again unable to end the Homeland Security shutdown on Thursday despite signs of a possible breakthrough to end the long-running closure, which prompted President Donald Trump to make a move. Senate Democrats blocked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding for a seventh time as the partial shutdown entered its 41st day on Thursday after Senate Republicans made a new offer earlier in the day after late-night negotiations. Trump then ordered DHS to pay airport workers and accused “their ‘Leader,’ Cryin’ Chuck Schumer,” of making it clear where Democrats stand, “and that is, ON THE SIDE OF CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS, AND NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.” DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AFTER GOP REJECTS THEIR COUNTER, THUNE SAYS SCHUMER ‘GOING IN CIRCLES’ “I am going to sign an Order instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, to immediately pay our TSA Agents in order to address this Emergency Situation, and to quickly stop the Democrat Chaos at the Airports,” Trump said on Truth Social. “It is not an easy thing to do, but I am going to do it!” Still, several other components of the agency, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are still without funding. The vote stayed open for several hours to allow for talks between both sides to continue, but, by the fifth hour, Trump pulled the trigger on funding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). “We’ve held the vote open for five hours to give the Democrats an opportunity to come to the table,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told reporters. “They have not. And now, time is up.” Earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he believed talks between the sides were making progress. And despite Thune saying just a day earlier that there was “no point” in sending Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Democrats another compromise proposal, Republicans did just that. “Dems are in possession of what I think is our last and final [offer],” Thune said. “So, let’s hope this gets it done.” Thune remained mum on the details of the offer. When asked if the White House backed it, he said, “They’ve been involved in the back-and-forth that has occurred overnight and all morning, so we’ll see.” DHS DEAL IN LIMBO AS DEMOCRATS DEMAND TOUGHER ICE CRACKDOWN DESPITE GOP COMPROMISE Several Senate Democrats leaving their closed-door lunch meeting said they had yet to see or be briefed on the latest proposal and that the GOP’s new offer wasn’t discussed during the meeting. A source familiar with negotiations told Fox News Digital, “Schumer needs to grow a pair of b—- and make a decision.” The quick shift in mood in the upper chamber, despite the latest failure, came after the prospect of a deal to end the second-longest shutdown in history appeared even further out of reach. Republicans had offered Democrats a framework that would carve out Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) funding but lacked the reforms Schumer and his caucus want. “I think our caucus remains united around the same premise: We’re not going to fund an immigration enforcement operation that doesn’t obey the law,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital. “And I don’t think we’ve seen a proposal from them yet that meets that very simple priority.” SENATE REPUBLICANS MOVE TO REOPEN DHS WITH NEW PLAN, WAIT FOR DEMOCRATIC BUY-IN The ICE carve-out is also a proposal Democrats have made before, one Republicans previously blocked. Given that, many Senate Republicans were frustrated that Democrats appeared to back away from an idea they once supported. “They go on the floor, they shoot their mouths off and say we’ll fund everything but ICE,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital. “We took them at their word. So, you know, they need to agree to ‘yes.’” It has also forced Republicans to grapple with the idea of not funding immigration enforcement, which has been a sore subject throughout the week. Still, they are eyeing budget reconciliation — the same party-line tactic used to pass Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” last year — to fund immigration operations and several other priorities. “I will not support legislation that doesn’t pay ICE agents. However, there’s a mechanism, by way of reconciliation, where we can front-load multiple years of that,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. “The Democrats, I think, just handed us more certainty moving forward.”
Elon Musk demands judge’s recusal after latest flare-up over alleged bias
Elon Musk demanded on Wednesday that a Delaware judge recuse herself from Tesla lawsuits, arguing she recently demonstrated her bias against him when she liked an anti-Musk LinkedIn post. Musk’s lawyers filed a motion for recusal in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, which included a screenshot of Judge Kathaleen McCormick liking the social media post celebrating Musk’s $2 billion court loss in a separate case. The attorneys noted that the incident did “not exist in a vacuum.” The lawyers were referring to McCormick previously presiding over high-stakes cases involving Musk and the tech billionaire accusing the judge of bias stretching back years. The ongoing friction with the judge follows hostility Musk has faced from the left in recent years, most notably when he became a close ally of President Donald Trump in 2024 and through the early months of the administration. Musk’s lawyers said McCormick appeared to cheer on a lawyer on LinkedIn who made a post mocking Musk’s legal defeat in a California fraud case. McCormick is currently presiding over separate derivative litigation brought by Tesla shareholders who have alleged Musk harmed the company by overpaying himself and board members. The lawyers said one of McCormick’s staff members also liked another anti-Musk post related to Musk’s pending litigation. TRUMP NOT INTERESTED IN TALKING TO MUSK: ‘ELON’S TOTALLY LOST IT’ “This post to which the Court reacted and another to which a Court staff member reacted are not simply negative criticism of Mr. Musk and his attorneys, they are inflammatory,” Musk’s lawyers wrote. The lawyers said that “the very facts underlying the litigation celebrated in the posts are squarely at issue in the consolidated and coordinated actions.” McCormick later deactivated her LinkedIn account, and in a letter to attorneys in the case she denied supporting the anti-Musk post. “I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally,” McCormick wrote. “I do not believe that I did it accidentally.” McCormick in 2022 presided over a separate, high-profile lawsuit brought by Twitter, now called X, against Musk to force him to complete his $44 billion acquisition of the company after Musk attempted to back out over allegations the company misled him about the number of bots on the platform. Musk ended up moving forward with the acquisition and later testified that he felt forced to because he believed McCormick was biased against him. “We were unlikely to win the [Twitter] case in Delaware because the judge was extremely biased against me,” Musk said this month, according to the recusal motion. “This was, in fact, the same judge that struck my Tesla option grant that was subsequently overturned by the Delaware Supreme Court. So it’s accurate to say she was, that judge was not favorably inclined to me. Not objective.” In another lawsuit, McCormick in 2024 twice voided a multibillion-dollar pay package for Musk and the Tesla board, saying they had breached their fiduciary duties and that Musk effectively controlled the board. The Delaware Supreme Court reinstated the pay package but upheld McCormick’s underlying findings. Musk responded that year to an X post from a conservative influencer about McCormick, writing “absolute corruption” after the influencer noted that she had previously worked at a Delaware law firm that donated to former President Joe Biden. Musk’s grievances with McCormick began amid a national push against the tech billionaire as he began weighing in on politics, speaking out against the Democrat Party ahead of the 2022 midterms and endorsing Trump in the 2024 election. He became the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency in 2025, serving in the role as a special government employee as he sought to identify government overspending and fraud, which raised his status as a political target by the left. Democrat lawmakers condemned Musk’s DOGE efforts in protests, while Tesla locations were targeted by rioters last year as critics characterized Musk as an unelected billionaire working in the administration. Trump and Musk had a public falling out last spring, when Musk openly opposed the president’s signature budget bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The pair have since been spotted chatting at various public events.
Trump declares national emergency at airports, to sign order instructing DHS to ‘immediately pay’ TSA officers
President Donald Trump said he will sign an executive order to address airport disruptions, announcing the move in a Truth Social post Thursday that framed the situation as a national emergency. “Because the Democrats have recklessly created a true National Crisis, I am using my authorities under the Law to protect our Great Country,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, I am going to sign an Order … to immediately pay our TSA Agents in order to address this Emergency Situation.” WHY SOME US AIRPORTS ARE DODGING TSA SHUTDOWN CHAOS WHILE OTHERS GRIND TO A HALT The White House said funding from legislation backed by Trump will be used to ensure TSA officers are paid during the disruption. “Not unlike actions taken during the first Democrat-shutdown (i.e., paying the troops), President Trump has determined that congressional Democrats have created an emergency situation that cannot be allowed to continue,” White House Office of Management and Budget Communications Director Rachel Cauley said in a statement to Fox News Digital. SCHUMER, DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AGAIN AS TRUMP INTERVENES TO PAY TSA AGENTS Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin praised the move, writing on X that he “want[s] to thank @POTUS for his leadership in finding a way to pay our TSA officers to end this chaos at our airports.” “These hours long lines and thousands of Americans missing their flights was caused solely by the Democrats reckless @DHSgov shutdown,” Mullin added, calling on Democrats to “stop playing political games with our national security” and reopen the department. The move comes as a 41-day partial government shutdown has disrupted the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), causing long lines at airports nationwide amid a standoff over DHS funding and immigration enforcement. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Trump accused Democrats of “refusing to fund Immigration Enforcement” and creating “Chaos at the Airports,” while thanking TSA officers for their work.
Treasury to place Trump’s signature on paper currency to mark nation’s 250th anniversary
U.S. dollar bills will bear President Donald Trump’s signature to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence, the Treasury Department said, a first for a sitting president. Trump’s signature will be placed on all U.S. paper currency and will replace the Treasurer of the United States’ signature on U.S. money for the first time in 165 years. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the move will recognize the Trump administration’s “historic achievements.” “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are on a path toward unprecedented economic growth, lasting dollar dominance and fiscal strength and stability,” Bessent said in a statement. “There is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President Donald J. Trump than U.S. dollar bills bearing his name, and it is only appropriate that this historic currency be issued at the Semiquincentennial.” TRUMP LAUNCHES MASSIVE ‘FREEDOM 250’ PUSH TO IGNITE AMERICA’S 250TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION The first $100 bills with the signatures of Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will be produced in June, followed by other denominations in the coming months, Reuters reported. Fox News Digital has reached out to the Treasury Department for comment. MAGA COUNTRY VOTERS SOUND ALARM OVER ‘RIDICULOUS’ NATIONAL DEBT AMID DEBATE OVER TRUMP-BACKED BILL The Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing is still producing notes bearing the signatures of former President Joe Biden’s Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, and Treasurer Lynn Malerba, Reuters reported. In a statement, Treasurer Brandon Beach said placing Trump’s signature on U.S. currency is “not only appropriate, but also well-deserved,” given his “mark on history as the architect of America’s Golden Age economic revival.” Thursday’s announcement came as Trump makes efforts to put himself on a coin. The design of a commemorative gold coin with his image was approved by a federal arts panel. Trump’s name has also been placed on buildings, government programs and institutions.
‘Orwellian’ Biden-era censorship reined in; red states celebrate ‘historic’ settlement
Republican attorneys general are hailing a First Amendment victory in a censorship lawsuit against the Biden administration after two red states secured a settlement restricting federal government agencies from influencing social media companies’ moderation practices. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital the settlement, a 10-year consent decree blocking several agencies from pressuring social media companies over their content, was “simply historic in nature.” “Being able to set a precedent like this will help everybody in the future be able to show that this conduct is wrong,” Murrill said in a phone interview. “It was Orwellian in nature from the beginning. It still is, and I’m grateful that the government is acknowledging that it shouldn’t have been doing it.” Missouri, Louisiana and several individual plaintiffs brought the high-profile jawboning lawsuit in 2022, alleging the Biden administration and officials in the first Trump administration inappropriately pressured social media companies to censor conservative viewpoints about COVID-19, election security and Hunter Biden’s laptop. FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PENTAGON POLICY RESTRICTING PRESS ACCESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HANDS VICTORY TO NEW YORK TIMES Under the settlement, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are barred for the next decade from threatening or coercing social media companies to remove or suppress protected speech. The agreement also blocks officials from giving directions on or vetoing platforms’ content moderation decisions. “This is the first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who brought the lawsuit when he served as his state’s attorney general. “The deep state just got checked.” Murrill and U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer helped with the case when they were solicitors general of Louisiana and Missouri, respectively. Murrill reflected on conversations she had at the time about “the line between coercion and government speech.” “It was so clear to me that what the government was doing went way beyond appropriate boundaries in terms of deliberately throttling people’s speech, taking down protected, truthful speech and forcing these corporations to bend to the White House’s will,” Murrill said. “That was a very scary precedent, and I think that’s why this agreement is so important.” GOOGLE TO REINSTATE BANNED YOUTUBE ACCOUNTS CENSORED FOR POLITICAL SPEECH The lawsuit alleged that federal government agencies and officials pressured YouTube; Twitter, now X; Facebook, now Meta; and other platforms to censor content, arguing the actions amounted to coercing the companies to remove constitutionally-protected speech. Republicans’ outrage about social media censorship gained momentum in 2020 after Twitter fully restricted and Facebook suppressed the New York Post’s bombshell report about the Biden family and Ukraine that was based on contents from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Discovery in the lawsuit and subsequent congressional investigations revealed that FBI officials during the first Trump administration met with social media companies and warned them just before the story was published of a possible Russian “hack and leak” operation designed to interfere with the 2020 election, which the companies later said influenced their decision to block the story. President Donald Trump told Fox Business in October 2020 the censorship efforts were “out of control” and intended to derail his election prospects. “It’s like a third arm, maybe a first arm, of the DNC — Twitter, and Facebook, they’re all — like really, it’s a massive campaign contribution,” Trump said at the time. An infamous open letter signed by 51 former top intelligence officials in the weeks before the election fueled the fire by alleging the New York Post’s story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Trump, when he took office in 2025, revoked their security clearances in an executive order and accused them of using their powerful former job titles to help discredit the story to swing the election for Joe Biden. Judge Terry Doughty, a Louisiana-based federal judge appointed by Trump, initially issued an injunction against the Biden administration in 2023, saying evidence in the case “depicts an almost dystopian scenario” in which the federal government “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” Biden administration officials were found, for instance, to have aggressively demanded in emails to social media companies that they remove anti-vaccine content, which they said was disinformation. One Biden White House official told Facebook that “internally, we have been considering our options on what to do about it,” while another warned Twitter to take down content “ASAP” and “immediately.” The injunction limited the government from having certain interactions with social media companies, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed that injunction, and the Supreme Court fully vacated it on appeal, finding the plaintiffs did not show they had standing. The high court punted on addressing the underlying merits of the case, leading to this week’s consent decree. GOOGLE’S DECISION TO WALK BACK BIDEN-ERA YOUTUBE ACCOUNT BANS HAILED AS ‘HUGE DEVELOPMENT’ FOR FREE SPEECH The settlement allows government officials to continue communicating with social media companies, including by flagging content or expressing disagreement, so long as the communication does not involve threats, such as implying that the companies will suffer regulatory or legal consequences. In the settlement, the federal government did not admit any wrongdoing, and the agreement noted that the government still had authority to address criminal activity or national security threats on the platforms. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway applauded the consent decree in a statement, saying her state “will NOT allow politicians to police speech.” Attorney John Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented individuals who were named as plaintiffs in the case alongside the two states, emphasized their winding path to the consent decree. “This case began with a suspicion, that blossomed into fact, that led to congressional hearings and an executive order that government censorship of Americans’ social media posts should end,” Vecchione said. “Freedom of speech has been powerfully preserved by our clients, past and present, who initiated this suit.”