Curtis Sliwa reportedly stiffed NYC campaign workers after failed mayoral bid
Guardian Angels founder and former New York City mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa is facing new accusations of failing to pay campaign workers after his third-place finish in the city’s chaotic 2025 mayoral race, according to a report from the New York Post. Several canvassers told the outlet they were promised wages that never materialized, leaving them owed thousands of dollars after weeks of door knocking and phone banking during the final stretch of Sliwa’s campaign against Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. One former worker interviewed by the Post said he is owed about $2,000, calling the situation “disappointing for someone who claimed to run on honesty and reform.” Another canvasser, Alonzo Henderson, said he felt misled. SPARKS FLY AS CUOMO, MAMDANI TEAR INTO EACH OTHER DURING FIERY DEBATE: ‘TOXIC ENERGY’ “When someone is promised something, you need to live up to that end of the promise — especially when you’re running on reform,” Henderson told the outlet. Republican operatives in the city told the paper the issue has become a major point of frustration among lower-level staffers. “The biggest source of complaints is from the hourly paid canvassers. They need the money,” one GOP insider said. Sliwa’s campaign is rejecting the allegation that workers won’t be paid. Spokesman Rob Cole told the Post “everyone is going to get paid,” insisting the process takes time because wages must be verified by the New York City Campaign Finance Board. Sliwa echoed that explanation when pressed by the outlet, saying any worker who can produce time sheets will be paid by Dec. 1. He described the verification process as “standard protocol” and denied that his campaign stiffed anyone. The controversy comes despite the campaign’s sizable budget. According to the Campaign Finance Board, Sliwa raised nearly $7 million, including more than $5 million in public matching funds, leaving roughly $1.7 million in cash remaining at the end of the race, the Post reported. NYC MAYORAL RIVALS UNITE AGAINST BILLIONAIRE ‘ELECTION INTERFERENCE’ AS CAMPAIGN ENTERS FINAL STRETCH Sliwa received just 7% of the vote in the Nov. 4 election, trailing Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent. The pay dispute has renewed attention to a series of financial controversies that have followed Sliwa in recent years. In 2023, The Daily Beast reported that Sliwa’s ex-wife, Mary Paterson, sued him for more than $530,000 in unpaid child support, alleging he unilaterally cut his court-ordered payments. Her attorney accused Sliwa at the time of “disregard for legal process.” CURTIS SLIWA VOWS TO BE ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S ‘WORST NIGHTMARE’ IF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST WINS NYC MAYORAL RACE Politico’s Playbook noted in October that a corporation registered under Sliwa’s name owes nearly $4,000 in unpaid state taxes, according to New York State tax warrants. Sliwa’s campaign blamed the issue on an old clerical error involving a dissolved company and said he has paid all personal taxes. The allegations have sparked anger among Republican activists still reeling from Mamdani’s upset victory. Some party officials told the Post the situation has “further eroded trust” in Sliwa’s populist messaging, arguing that stiffed canvassers undercut the image of a candidate who billed himself as a champion of ordinary New Yorkers. His former employer, billionaire WABC owner John Catsimatidis, has also blasted Sliwa for refusing to drop out of the race earlier this year, a move Catsimatidis believes split the conservative vote. Sliwa, who rose to fame in the 1970s as the founder of the red beret-wearing Guardian Angels, ran on a law-and-order platform promising to “take back New York.” Instead, he faces allegations from some of his own workers that his campaign broke its word. “Throughout the campaign, canvassers were paid weekly or biweekly,” Sliwa said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Many last-minute invoices were sent after Nov. 4. “Any time sheets submitted after Election Day must be audited, disclosed, and submitted to CFB by Dec. 1 to validate any post-election payments. This is standard protocol for the campaign. All valid invoices get paid before the final audit is due, with the remaining account funds and the final match payment. The campaign must verify everyone’s invoice to be compliant.”
Socialist mayor-elect reveals why she embraced her parents giving her money as a 43-year-old
Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson, 43, said now that she has been elected mayor and is earning more money as a result, she no longer needs to ask her parents for help to pay the bills. Wilson, who recently told CNN she thought embracing the help she got from her parents made her more “relatable” to Seattle voters, quipped on social media that, “after much deliberation and a grueling interview process,” she was “pleased” to announce that her higher salary as mayor will mean she no longer needs financial support from her parents. During Wilson’s campaign, she credited her parents’ financial support for allowing her to run. “My opponent’s campaign and the corporate PAC that tried to stop my election certainly cast it as a negative thing,” Wilson responded when asked whether she thought people in Seattle saw her parents’ financial support as a negative or a positive. MEET THE SOCIALIST MAMDANI-STYLE MAYOR JUST ELECTED TO RUN WEST COAST’S FIFTH-LARGEST CITY “Campaigning for office is stressful,” Wilson continued. “Seattle is one of the most expensive cities in the country, our childcare is off-the-charts expensive and, honestly, I think that a lot of people of my generation, and younger and older, found it very relatable that during this stressful campaign my parents chipped in to help pay for the cost of their granddaughter’s daycare.” Wilson added that it isn’t unusual for parents to help their children with money but also noted she recognized her “privilege.” “You know, families help each other out, and I certainly acknowledge that I’m lucky to be in a position where my parents were able to do that. Not all families have that privilege,” Wilson said. “And that’s why I’m going to fight for affordable childcare and affordable housing for every family in this city.” Wilson said during her campaign that the cost of childcare was about $2,200 per month for her and her reportedly unemployed husband. Wilson did not share precisely how much her parents contributed during the campaign, pointing out that she does not keep track. However, when pressed for more details, Wilson reportedly said the money comes in every few months. SEATTLE’S SOCIALIST MAYOR MAY BE ‘LESS CONSTRAINED’ THAN MAMDANI, WASHINGTON POST WARNS Prior to moving to Seattle in 2004, Wilson lived in upstate New York. After graduating from high school in Binghamton, Wilson studied physics and philosophy at Oxford University, thanks to financial assistance from her parents living in New York. Wilson left Oxford debt-free, which she credits to her parents. However, she also left without a degree, dropping out just six weeks before her graduation. Prior to earning her new mayoral salary, Wilson was getting paid by the nonprofit she founded in 2011, the Transit Riders Union. She began collecting paychecks from the group in 2019. Before that, Wilson worked a series of odd jobs, including barista, boatyard worker, apartment manager, lab technician, baker, construction worker and legal assistant. Tax records show that Wilson brought in $72,669 in 2022 as the president of the Transit Riders Union. There are no records of Wilson’s salary for 2023 or 2024, reportedly due to the fact the nonprofit changed tax preparers recently, according to PubliCola. The IRS does not require nonprofits to disclose salaries of employees making under $100,000 per year. Wilson reported earning between $60,000 and $99,000 in a financial statement to the city upon declaring her candidacy for mayor. Wilson also reported income “less than $30,000” from PubliCola, The Urbanist and The Stranger, respectively, for work as a “columnist” for the left-wing online news outlets.
War chest: RNC, fueled by Trump, Vance, tops rival DNC in fundraising race
FIRST ON FOX — The Republican National Committee (RNC) hauled in nearly $15 million in fundraising last month and continues to build a massive war chest for next year’s midterm elections, when the party will defend its House and Senate majorities. According to figures shared first with Fox News Digital on Thursday, the RNC brought in $14.7 million in October, bringing its fundraising total so far this cycle to $146 million. And the RNC reported $91 million cash on hand as of the end of October. That’s a massive advantage over the $18.2 million the rival Democratic National Committee (DNC) held in its coffers at the end of last month, according to public filings. And the DNC’s $7.5 million in fundraising last month was roughly half of the RNC’s haul. THE TRUE COST OF THE 2025 ELECTIONS “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump and Vice President Vance as our finance chair, the RNC is building a powerful war chest for the 2026 midterms,” RNC chair Joe Gruters said in a statement. And Gruters emphasized that “Vice President Vance has been a driving force for our fundraising efforts, and we’re entering 2026 with serious momentum and the funding we need to defend our Republican majorities in Congress.” WHAT THE NEWLY ELECTED RNC CHAIR TOLD FOX NEWS With Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the party has enjoyed a financial advantage over the Democrats this year as the minority party has faced sluggish fundraising among top-dollar donors and grassroots constituents still frustrated with last year’s election setbacks. The party is still crawling out of debt. It still owes roughly $15 million after former Vice President Kamala Harris‘ expensive 2024 White House campaign. And $15 million of the DNC’s cash on hand came from a loan the party committee took out, which was first reported by The New York Times. The DNC confirmed to Fox News Digital that it opened a $20 million line of credit, tapping $15 million in recent months for investments in the 2025 elections earlier this month, long-term party infrastructure and other priorities. SURVEY SAYS: ISSUE THAT HELPED TRUMP AND GOP IN 2024 HURTS THEM IN 2025 The loan helped boost DNC get-out-the-vote efforts in the two races for governor this year in New Jersey and Virginia. The loan appeared to pay off because Democrats won both of those elections by double digits and also scored big wins in ballot box showdowns in battlegrounds Georgia and Pennsylvania and left-leaning New York City and California. “We can’t win elections or fight back against Trump if the DNC downsizes operations like it often does after a presidential cycle. I made a bet that investing early would build power, rack up wins and rally supporters back to the table. That bet is paying off,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement. The DNC also highlights that it’s raised more money under Martin, who was elected in February, than any chair in party history nine months into a tenure. And the party also highlighted that its grassroots fundraising pace is far ahead of the 2017 and 2019 cycles, the previous election periods when Democrats didn’t control the White House.
Fate of Abrego Garcia hangs in the balance as judge grills DOJ on removal order
GREENBELT, Md. — Lawyers for Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia urged a federal judge in Maryland on Thursday to prohibit the Trump administration from deporting their client to Liberia, the latest twist in a nine-month legal fight that has garnered international attention and dominated headlines and court dockets for months. That effort appeared stunted Thursday after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis tried and failed to answer a more fundamental question of whether the government had obtained a final order of removal to deport Abrego Garcia from the U.S. Without that document, she said, Abrego Garcia is “at a minimum” entitled to certain relief under Supreme Court precedent, just as the Justice Department is free to seek relief from higher courts. “You’ve raised all these arguments, and they all depend on me having a withholding of removal order,” Xinis said Thursday. “You can’t ‘fake it ’til you make it.’” US JUDGE VOWS TO RULE ‘SOON’ ON ABREGO GARCIA’S FATE AFTER MARATHON HEARING Though she vowed to issue a ruling “soon,” Thursday’s hearing ended with little in the way of satisfactory answers for the parties or for Xinis, the federal judge who has presided over Abrego Garcia’s civil case and habeas cases since March. “Today was a zero in my view,” she noted at one point. Lawyers for the Trump administration had asked Xinis to dissolve an emergency order she handed down in August ordering Abrego Garcia to remain in U.S. immigration custody. They told her earlier this month that they planned to immediately deport him to Liberia pending the dissolution of her emergency order. They previously tried and failed to remove Abrego Garcia to the African countries of Eswatini, Uganda and briefly Ghana. During Thursday’s hearing, Xinis again upbraided the Justice Department for failing to tell the court why Costa Rica, a country that previously granted assurances to grant Abrego Garcia legal status in the country and not to return him to his home country of El Salvador, is now apparently off the table. She noted that the government is “saying Costa Rica has now rescinded” its original offer to accept Abrego Garcia but had not provided evidence to the court why. “If you are saying that … I’d love to see the evidence so that I can rest assured this is not just an empty ‘word salad’ of an affidavit,” she told lawyers for the Trump administration. ABREGO GARCIA REMAINS IN US FOR NOW AS JUDGE TAKES CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT Xinis used the rest of the hearing to bear down on the foundational question of whether the government had issued a notice of removal. “I want us to be clear,” Xinis said. “I am just interested in finding the notice of removal.” Without it, she is expected to order Abrego Garcia’s release, citing precedent set in Zadvydas v. Davis, a Supreme Court case that bars the government from indefinitely detaining migrants after removal issues have been ordered. This would ostensibly allow Abrego Garcia to remain in the U.S. with his brother pending trial in his criminal case in Nashville. Though the Justice Department would almost certainly seek relief from a higher court as Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign said in October that the government planned to do. The order of release would also likely allow Abrego Garcia to participate in a two-day evidentiary hearing next month in Tennessee centered on his motion to dismiss the case against him for “vindictive” and selective prosecution despite the stated objections of Ensign. Ensign suggested the immigration judge who ruled in 2019 that Abrego Garcia could not be removed back to his home country of El Salvador had “meant,” or implied a final order of removal. “This doesn’t look anything like” a final order of removal, Xinis said in response. “It’s not even close.” Before adjourning court, Xinis made clear that this would be the final hearing in Abrego Garcia’s habeas case, noting to both sides that she considers the record “closed” and will issue a ruling in the coming days. Xinis also took umbrage at the Justice Department’s failure to produce for the court a witness to testify “with knowledge of the case” and who could speak to the government’s plans to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia and why it had only provided temporary assurances to accept Abrego Garcia into the country. Still, she told the Justice Department, “I don’t even know if it matters here, frankly, because if I make a finding that a final order doesn’t exist, then we are done.”
DOJ sues Newsom over California giving illegal immigrants college tuition benefits
FIRST ON FOX: The Department of Justice sued Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday over a California measure that gives illegal immigrants access to in-state tuition benefits, marking the third lawsuit in one week that the department has brought against the high-profile Democratic governor. The lawsuit, brought in the Eastern District of California, alleged that California’s education code caused out-of-state U.S. citizens to pay higher tuition rates at California’s schools than people living in the country illegally. The attorneys called it “unequal treatment” that was “squarely” at odds with federal law, which states that people unlawfully living in the United States cannot be given tuition benefits based on their residence that U.S. citizens are not also entitled to. GAVIN NEWSOM DECLARED AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S 2028 ‘FRONTRUNNER’ BY POLITICO The DOJ has brought similar lawsuits in several other states, including Minnesota. That case there was put on hold for weeks because of the government shutdown. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, an elected Democrat, has moved to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing the DOJ is not properly reading the federal laws and that U.S. citizens do indeed have access to the same benefits as undocumented students. Newsom has been hit with two other federal lawsuits this week, signaling an escalation in the Trump administration’s scrutiny of the possible 2028 contender and the nation’s most populous state. “The DOJ has now filed three meritless, politically motivated lawsuits against California in a single week. Good luck, Trump. We’ll see you in court,” a spokesperson for Newsom’s office said in a statement. TRUMP ADMIN SUES OVER CALIFORNIA LAW BANNING ICE OFFICIALS FROM WEARING MASKS TO SHIELD IDENTITIES Last week, the DOJ brought a complaint over California’s newly passed ballot measure that clears the way for the state legislature to use a map that shifts five congressional districts in favor of Democrats. This week, it sued over the state’s passage of legislation in September that banned immigration officials from wearing masks that conceal their identities. “From racial gerrymandering, to undermining law enforcement, to discriminating against American students, Newsom has flagrantly disregarded federal law in his quest to ruin California,” a DOJ official told Fox News Digital. “We will see him in court as many times as necessary.”
Climate deadlines collide with politics as Dem-led states chase Big Oil in court but spare local refiners
Several Democrat-led states are facing conflicting forces in their efforts to transition to 100% green power, as leaders try to shore up the power grid while other officials sue fossil fuel companies in the same light activists did to tobacco firms in the 1990s. In that decade, dozens of states sued tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, alleging they knowingly endangered public health and misled consumers about nicotine’s addictiveness. The cases culminated in a $200 billion “master settlement” in 1998 that banned billboard advertising and reshaped corporate liability in the industry. Today, several jurisdictions in Colorado are suing ExxonMobil and Suncor in a similar fashion, accusing them of knowing their product harms the environment and public health. Boulder, Colorado, along with Boulder County and San Miguel County received the blessing of the Colorado Supreme Court in May to move forward with their suit, and officials claimed the energy companies “greatly contributed to an altered climate.” SUPREME COURT MUST FREEZE THE CLIMATE EXTORTION OF OUR ENERGY INDUSTRY “This case seeks to hold these companies responsible for knowingly contributing to climate change while concealing the dangers of their products,” Boulder city officials said in a statement. According to a release from Boulder City, Coloradans could face hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs needed to “adapt” to a climate changed by continued reliance on such companies. ExxonMobil countered that federal law preempts Colorado’s authority to apply state law to the alleged injuries. “We’ve maintained from the beginning this case is meritless and has no place before a state court,” the company said in an emailed statement to Climate in the Courts. NEWSOM PUSHES CLIMATE RECORD ABROAD AS CALIFORNIANS SHOULDER AMERICA’S HIGHEST GAS COSTS Meanwhile, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis set a 2040 goal for moving the Centennial State away from fossil fuels, but was questioned by critics for trying to maintain fossil fuel infrastructure at the same time. Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., previously asked the Trump administration to force Colorado to keep the Comanche power plant online to avoid an “energy emergency,” according to Colorado Public Radio (CPR). Last week, the Polis administration joined with Xcel Energy to petition state regulators to keep Comanche Unit 2 online for at least another year. The coal plant was supposed to close Dec. 31. Reached for comment, Polis spokesperson Eric Maruyama told Fox News Digital that a separate Comanche coal-fired unit is broken and that the state will benefit from keeping Unit 2 operational. NEWSOM VOWS TO BLOCK TRUMP’S REPORTED ENERGY PLAN IN CALIFORNIA, EXPERTS PUSH BACK “Colorado is well on its way to achieving 100% clean energy and reducing emissions while saving people money and ensuring energy reliability,” Maruyama said. “Renewable energy remains the least expensive form of energy, and thanks to Governor Polis’ leadership, in 2024, 43% of Colorado’s total electricity was produced by wind, solar or other renewable sources while maintaining among the lowest energy costs in the country.” Reports show Coloradans have the third-lowest electricity costs in the nation relative to income. Hawaii also sued oil firms in 2024, alleging they violated the state constitution’s “public trust doctrine,” claiming companies deceived the public regarding fossil fuels’ alleged harm done to the state’s resources. Back on the mainland, California is dealing with its own complex energy production situation, according to critics, who point to Democratic governors over the past decade-plus who have worked to set strict deadlines for moving the Golden State away from oil and gas. Former Gov. Jerry Brown and Gov. Gavin Newsom set a 2045 deadline for achieving carbon-free energy under SB-100. In July, the California Energy Commission under the Newsom administration held talks with “market players” to discuss the planned closure of two major oil companies’ refineries by 2026, according to Politico. BIDEN’S GREEN ENERGY FIASCO, NOT TRUMP’S REFORMS, IS JACKING UP YOUR ELECTRIC BILL Phillips 66 and Valero both are considering or have started the process of shutting down their operations, and a source familiar with the situation said that oil companies must regularly analyze whether costly maintenance cycles that occur on average every five years are worth funding. Chevron already moved out, shifting its headquarters from Contra Costa County to Houston, Texas – but it continues to support some California operations. With the state positioned against fossil fuels for the long term, these companies have to think seriously about investing in such maintenance cycles to keep their operations running smoothly, the source said. Valero told California officials earlier this year it plans to seriously consider idling or ending production by April, according to Politico. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the state energy commission told the outlet it has been “actively supporting conversations with a variety of market players to discuss pathways to address the impacts of the closure intent announcements of the Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington and Valero refinery in Benicia.” NEWSOM CLAIMS TRUMP IS ‘HANDING THE FUTURE TO CHINA’ AT BRAZILIAN CLIMATE CONFAB THAT WH SKIPPED The outlet described the dynamic as an “about-face after the past two years” of “Newsom focused on preventing gasoline price spikes by increasing regulations on refiners.” Over the summer, his administration proposed loosening permitting requirements for new oil wells in the Bakersfield area. California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego, criticized Newsom’s approach. “Social engineering and market manipulation on the part of government never end well,” he said. “We’re seeing that now in California and everyday citizens are the ones paying the price for Gavin Newsom’s political experiments: Gasoline prices are through the roof and rising, and the average family can’t afford to survive, much less thrive, here in the Golden State.” Jones said the affordability crisis in his state is “real” and is only exacerbated by recent and looming refinery closures. “We need a major course correction that puts working families over ideology. Absent that, I’m not sure this ends well.” Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom’s office for comment for purposes of this story.
Dem lawmaker sets litmus test for party with 5th Trump impeachment effort
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, announced that he would submit articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Thursday morning, framing the vote as a sort of litmus test for his party on its opposition to the administration. “There will be articles of impeachment filed before the Christmas break. This, I pledge,” Green said. “We have to participate. This is a participatory democracy. The impeachment requires the hands and the guidance of all of us.” ANTI-TRUMP NETWORK BEHIND MASS PROTESTS CRACKS OPEN WAR CHEST AGAINST DEMS WHO BACKED REOPENING GOVERNMENT He confirmed he would introduce the motion as privileged, a status that forces its consideration within two legislative days. The motion can be tabled before the impeachment itself comes to a vote. Green also said he and other advocates would hold a peaceful protest at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday. The announcement of Green’s impeachment effort — his fifth set of filed articles — comes as the Democrat base in Congress has wrestled with how to effectively fight Trump. Some in the more progressive wing of the party have spoken out against figures like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., over Senate Democrats’ failing to secure concessions out of a 43-day government shutdown. Even before the shutdown, other figures in the party, like Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, had called for new party leadership in Congress to more effectively put up resistance to Republican momentum in Congress. REPUBLICANS TORCH ANTI-TRUMP ‘NO KINGS’ PROTESTS, SAY DEMS FEAR ANGERING LEFTISTS IN SHUTDOWN FIGHT Dave Mytych, outreach lead at For Liberation and Resistance Everywhere (FLARE), called out congressional Democrat leadership by name on Thursday. He joined Green at the press conference. “This is what the American people want. They want fighters that hold the line. Democrats, are you listening? Leader Schumer, are you listening? Leader Jeffries, are you listening?” Mytych said. The House of Representatives has impeached Trump twice before — once in 2019 over abuse of power charges and again in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. In both cases, the U.S. Senate voted to dismiss the charges. When asked if he believed this most recent impeachment attempt would reflect poorly on Jeffries and Schumer if they failed to support the measure, Green dodged the question. He said that as many as 80 members have supported his efforts in the past. MIKE JOHNSON, INFURIATED BY DEMS, SAYS PARTY ‘PLAYING POLITICS’ WITH AMERICANS’ LIVES AS SHUTDOWN CONTINUES “Here’s my perspective. I believe in the Constitution,” Green answered. “People who vote to table the articles are voting against impeachment.” Green did not expound on what specific counts of impeachment he would file.
Zeldin, McCain hammer Crockett on Epstein donations claim
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin — who clapped back after House Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett said that he and others had taken money from someone by the name of Jeffrey Epstein — took to social media again after Crockett defended her comments and claimed that she was not seeking to “mislead” anyone. Zeldin began his Wednesday post on X with an exploding head emoji and then declared, “When you find yourself in a hole, it’s best to stop digging.” “The public FEC report Crockett referenced on the House floor very clearly states that the Jeffrey Epstein who donated to my past campaign was a physician, and the donation date was well AFTER the [drum emoji] other [drum emoji] Jeffrey [drum emoji] Epstein [drum emoji] WAS [drum emoji] ALREADY [drum emoji] DEAD!!!” he exclaimed. TRUMP OFFICIAL FIRES BACK AT DEM’S EPSTEIN DONOR CLAIM: ‘TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSON’ The dust-up originated because Crockett, during remarks on Tuesday, listed figures and entities she said had taken money from “somebody” with the name Jeffrey Epstein. Noting that she had her “team dig in very quickly,” she ran through the following list: “Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush, WinRed, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio.” Zeldin fired back on X, pointing out that the donation was not from the notorious Jeffrey Epstein, but from a completely different individual. “Yes Crockett, a physician named Dr. Jeffrey Epstein (who is a totally different person than the other Jeffrey Epstein) donated to a prior campaign of mine,” Zeldin wrote. “NO [clap emoji] FREAKIN [clap emoji] RELATION [clap emoji] YOU [clap emoji] GENIUS!!!” Meghan McCain, who is the daughter of the late Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, also fired back at Crockett. SOCIAL MEDIA ERUPTS AFTER FAR-LEFT FIREBRAND BOTCHES EPSTEIN CLAIMS: ‘INSANE ACCUSATION’ “My Dad has been dead 7 years @RepJasmine. He never met Jeffrey Epstein, let alone took money from him. The Jeffrey Epstein you are referencing is an entirely different human being. Do you have mashed potatoes for brains, you absolute joke?!” she wrote in a Wednesday post on X. When CNN’s Kaitlan Collins confronted Crockett on Wednesday about Zeldin’s Tuesday post that pushed back against the notion that he had accepted a donation from the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the Texas Democrat said that she “never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein.” FAR-LEFT FIREBRAND SPENDS EYE-POPPING AMOUNT OF CAMPAIGN CASH ON LUXURY HOTELS, ‘TOP-TIER’ LIMO SERVICES CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “Unlike Republicans, I at least don’t go out and just tell lies,” she later said. “So, number one, I made sure that I was clear that it was a Jeffrey Epstein, but I never said that it was specifically that Jeffrey Epstein,” Crockett said later during the interview.
Trump’s trillion-dollar Saudi deal could reshape markets — if the money ever materializes
President Donald Trump loves a deal and few partners have proven more willing or more powerful than Saudi Arabia. This week, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pledged to channel $1 trillion in investments from the oil-rich kingdom into the U.S. Trump embraced the announcement as validation of his close ties with Riyadh and proof that international money is eager to flow back into the U.S. economy. Yet beneath the impressive headline figure lies a familiar reality: much of the promised investment exists only on paper, and experts caution that the actual cash flow could take years to materialize. “The term investment implies long-term capital, but in this case it really means purchases like aircraft, tanks, even computer chips,” said Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “And those figures, $600 billion, a trillion, who really knows how accurate they are, or over what time frame?” SAUDI ARABIA IS ALREADY AMERICA’S TOP ARMS BUYER AND NOW TRUMP WANTS TO ADD F-35S “Perhaps the real story is that Saudi finances are in bad shape,” added Henderson, who specializes in the Gulf region and energy policy. “Oil prices are too low, they need about $100 a barrel, and extravagant spending on prestige projects like The Line and NEOM are being scaled back.” The Line is a proposed 105-mile car-free city and NEOM is a $500 billion futuristic mega-development on the Red Sea. Both are part of the crown prince’s “Vision 2030” plan to diversify the kingdom’s economy beyond oil. Others note that Saudi Arabia’s short-term fiscal strains don’t necessarily preclude large-scale investments over time. “It’s perfectly within the realm of possibilities that Saudi Arabia could make a $1 trillion investment into the United States over many years,” explained E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, citing the kingdom’s vast oil wealth and long-term economic ambitions. Antoni noted that much depends on how such an investment ultimately takes shape. For now, the White House has offered few details about what exactly the Saudi funds would be directed toward or when they might arrive. “What does it look like in practice? It could take a whole host of different forms,” he said. “We don’t know yet if this is going to look like an investment in infrastructure and even if it is, in what industry?” He pointed to petrochemicals as one possible fit but said other sectors could also attract Saudi money. “In terms of beneficiaries, clearly you have the American taxpayer, who’s going to benefit from a larger economy,” Antoni continued. “That broadens the tax base and reduces the overall tax burden on each individual. So that’s very, very positive.” SAUDI ARABIA’S 40-YEAR-OLD DISRUPTOR: HOW MBS REWIRED THE KINGDOM IN 10 SHORT YEARS He added that while such deals can stimulate confidence and markets in the short term, their most meaningful returns often unfold over years, well beyond a single presidential term. “Most of what President Donald Trump has done is to accrue benefits that will not appear until after he has already left office,” Antoni told Fox News Digital. “That’s not to say there are no initial gains, there clearly are. Every time another company announces more investment in the United States, it helps buoy the stock market, because equity prices are ultimately based on future earnings and those earnings rise when there’s additional investment coming.” For now, the pledge bolsters Trump’s economic narrative but also sets up a long-term test of U.S.–Saudi relations, one whose true impact may not be clear for years.
Survey says: Issue that helped Trump and Republicans in 2024 hurts them now
It was the issue that boosted President Donald Trump and Republicans in the 2024 elections, as they won back the White House and Senate majority and kept control of the House. But a year later, the economy, and everyday expenses in particular, are working against the president and his party. Democrats, with an across-the-board focus on affordability, outperformed at the polls as they enjoyed sweeping success at the ballot box in the 2025 elections earlier this month. And a new Fox News national poll released on Wednesday evening is another warning sign for Trump and the GOP. FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS SAY WHITE HOUSE IS DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD ON ECONOMY Three-quarters of voters questioned in the survey, which was conducted Friday through Monday, viewed the economy negatively, and large numbers of respondents, including Republicans, said their costs for groceries, utilities, healthcare and housing have gone up this year. The poll indicated that voters blame the president, with nearly twice as many pointing fingers at Trump than former President Joe Biden, when asked who is responsible for the current economy. Only 38% of those questioned gave the president a thumbs-up on how he’s handling the economy. And Trump’s overall approval rating, at 41%, is the lowest of his second term in office in Fox News polling. SETTING THE STAGE: WHAT THE 2025 ELECTIONS SIGNAL FOR NEXT YEAR’S MIDTERM SHOWDOWNS “The situation isn’t complicated,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps run the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson. “People are struggling to afford necessities and blaming those in charge. What’s interesting is watching Democrats gain politically from a problem they arguably caused — and that crushed them in 2024. But that’s politics.” Trump enjoyed some positive economic news on Thursday, with the release of a stronger-than-expected jobs report after several months of weakness. U.S. employers added 119,000 jobs in September, according to federal government data delayed for weeks due to the government shutdown. But the report also indicated the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4%. The Fox News survey is the latest national poll to point to political anxiety over the economy. Jack Heath, the host of a popular statewide news-talk morning radio program in swing state New Hampshire, told Fox News Digital when he interviews congressional candidates and asks them what’s on the minds of voters they meet on the campaign trail, they tell him voters are “talking about how they can’t afford anything. It’s affordability. It’s cost of living.” “I think there’s a very short window to the midterms where the president needs to . . . get back to the blue-collar people who are working. They feel optimistic, but they’re growing more pessimistic that ‘I’m not keeping as much money as I want to and I’m working hard,’” Heath said, as he referred to next year’s midterm elections, when the GOP will defend its congressional majorities. ELECTION REFLECTION: ‘DEMOCRATS FLIPPED THE SCRIPT’ ON AFFORDABILITY IN BALLOT BOX SHOWDOWNS Pointing to the 2025 election’s double-digit gubernatorial wins for Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as ballot box showdowns in battlegrounds Georgia and Pennsylvania and left-tilting New York City and California, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said his party’s candidates “are meeting voters at the kitchen table. . . . From New Jersey and Virginia and New York, to Georgia and beyond, Democrats ran campaigns relentlessly focused on costs and affordability.” Trump, in his first post-2025 election interview, told Fox News’ Bret Baier earlier this month that, on inflation, “We’ve done so much. . . . Energy is way down. . . . We’re going to have $2 gasoline. I did that. That brings everything else down. Groceries are way down, other than beef. Now, beef is going to come down . . . . The fact is, we have prices way down.” And the president argued in his “Special Report” interview that it’s more of a messaging problem for the GOP. “As Republicans, you have to talk about it.” But Trump and his team have turned the spotlight since the elections this month on battling high prices. “We’re making incredible strides to make America affordable again,” Trump said Wednesday. But the polls suggest Americans aren’t buying the message from the White House. “Voters are remarkably consistent in their priorities: the economy, the economy, the economy,” noted Wayne Lesperance, a veteran political scientist and president of New England College. “When you win an election, voters expect you are going to do something to address those concerns and the reality is that the questions of affordability remain unchanged in their importance to the everyday voter,” Lesperance emphasized.