Texas AG Ken Paxton announces run for US Senate

Posted on April 8, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle Tuesday night that he will run for the U.S. Senate.

The announcement comes as Paxton no longer faces the cloud of a federal corruption investigation that loomed over him as he rose up the ranks in the Republican Party.

The announcement by Paxton, a close ally of President Donald Trump and a MAGA firebrand, comes two weeks after Republican Sen. John Cornyn officially launched his re-election campaign as he bids for a fifth six-year term serving Texas in the Senate.

EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR DETAILS SURFACE IN HISTORIC IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF TEXAS AG KEN PAXTON

"It's time for a change in Texas," Paxton told Fox News' Laura Ingraham, before acknowledging Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas' other Republican senator. "It's time that we have another great senator that will actually stand up and fight for Republican values, fight for the values of the people of Texas and also support Donald Trump in the areas that he's focused on in a very significant way."

On Sunday, Cornyn said he was looking forward to "the competition" amid rumors of Paxton's candidacy.

Paxton, who has been Texas' top prosecutor since 2015, criticized his GOP rival, pointing to Cornyn's position on a border wall and opposing Trump during the 2016 election.

"Ken Paxton is a fraud," Cornyn's campaign wrote on X after Paxton's announcement. "He talks tough on crime and then lets crooked progressive Lina Hidalgo off the hook. He says his impeachment trial was a sham but he didn’t contest the facts in legal filings which will cost the state millions."

"He says he’s anti-woke but he funnels millions of taxpayer dollars to lawyers who celebrate DEI," the post continued. "And Ken claims to be a man of faith but uses fake Uber accounts to meet his girlfriend and deceive his family."

Cornyn also previously came under criticism from conservatives after he helped push a bipartisan gun control bill after the 2022 mass shooting at a Uvalde, Texas elementary school that killed 19 students and two teachers.

TEXAS AG PAXTON ACQUITTED ON ALL IMPEACHMENT CHARGES: 'THE TRUTH PREVAILED'

Cornyn's campaign noted that the incumbent senator has voted with Trump more than 95% of current senators. Trump and Texas need a "battle-tested conservative" who knows how to protect his agenda in the Senate and won't be outsmarted by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, the campaign said.

"It sets the table for the most expensive primary in Texas. It will be a brutal battle," veteran Republican strategist Dave Carney told Fox News. Carney, the longtime top political adviser to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, noted that the announcement by Paxton also "opens up the attorney general’s race. There will probably be a very competitive primary for that and we’re going to have a lot of musical chairs down ballot."

Matt Mackowiak, a veteran Republican strategist and communications consultant based in Texas and Washington, D.C., said "this is going to be the most expensive, nastiest, most aggressive, most personal U.S. Senate primary in Texas history."

"You have two candidates who are going to raise significant funds, who are in significant positions, who do not like each and have not liked each other, whose teams do not like each other and the stakes could not be higher," he emphasized.

The announcement from Paxton puts the gears in motion for what may be an extremely expensive and bruising GOP primary battle, pitting the remaining establishment and business factions of the Republican Party versus the ascendant MAGA wing.

WILL DEMOCRATS ONCE AGAIN CHASE THE ‘GHOST OF A BLUE TEXAS’ IN NEXT YEAR'S SENATE RACE?

Paxton's announcement was not a huge surprise, as he has long claimed Cornyn does not represent the conservative values of Texans and has accused the senator of not being an ally of Trump.

He has also regularly labeled Cornyn a "RINO," a "Republican in name only" and an insult MAGA and "America First" Republicans have regularly used to criticize more mainstream or establishment members of the GOP.

And Paxton, for a couple of years, has flirted with a primary challenge against the 73-year-old Cornyn, a former state senator, former Texas Supreme Court justice, and former state attorney general, who first won election to the U.S. Senate in 2002.

FACING POSSIBLE PRIMARY CHALLNGE FROM A TRUMP ALLY, LONGTIME TEXAS SENATOR ANNOUNCES RE-ELECTION

"I can’t think of a single thing he’s accomplished for our state or even for the country," Paxton said in a September 2023 interview on the Fox News Channel. "Somebody needs to step up and run against this guy," adding, "everything’s on the table for me."

Fast-forward to earlier this year, and Paxton, at a county GOP meeting in Texas, told supporters that one of the things "we need to do, and I might play a role in this, is replace John Cornyn in the U.S. Senate."

And in a Fox News Digital interview in January, Paxton acknowledged that he was "looking potentially at the U.S. Senate."

Cornyn, during the early stages of the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race, had said he would prefer that the GOP take a new direction, which angered Trump. But the senator endorsed Trump in late January of last year, after the then-former president won both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the first two contests in the Republican presidential nomination calendar.

Since Trump returned to the White House three months ago, Cornyn has been supportive of the president's Cabinet nominees and agenda.

ONLY ON FOX NEWS: SENATE REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN CHAIR REVEALS HOW MANY SEATS HE'S AIMING FOR IN 2026

And in the senator's campaign launch video last month, the announcer highlighted that during Trump's first term in office, "Texas Sen. John Cornyn had his back."

As he gears up for what will most certainly be his roughest re-election of his decades-long career, Cornyn has the backing of the top Republican in the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

And Republican sources confirm to Fox News that Thune, as well as National Republican Senatorial Committee chair Sen. Tim Scott, have personally asked Trump to back Cornyn.

The president's grip on the GOP is stronger than ever and any endorsement Trump may make in the emerging Republican Senate primary in Texas would be extremely influential.

Making Cornyn's path to renomination even more difficult is a possible Senate bid by Rep. Wesley Hunt, who represents a Houston area district.

The third-term 43-year-old Texas Republican and rising MAGA star has made his case to the president's political team, sources confirm to Fox News. Hunt's argument is that he's the only person who can win both a GOP primary and a general election, a source familiar with the discussions confirmed to Fox News.

An outside group supportive of Hunt is currently spending seven figures to run ads across the Lone Star State to increase the lawmaker's name ID.

CORNYN'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN SPARKS QUESTIONS ON BOTH PARTY FLANKS AS DEMS CHASE 'THE GHOST OF A BLUE TEXAS'

Some Republican operatives and strategists worry that a primary battle in Texas could cost up to $100 million, potentially diverting much-needed resources from other races.

While Paxton is very popular with the conservative base of the party, it's not clear at this point what Trump will do regarding the race. And political strategists note that toppling Cornyn in a GOP primary will likely be a very expensive proposition, and it's not clear if Paxton can raise the money needed for victory.

"This says two things. One, Paxton sees an opportunity. And two, him getting in this early shows he needs the maximum time possible to try to raise money," Mackowiak said, He added that Paxton "has received some negative feedback on fundraising."

Paxton grabbed national attention in 2020 for filing the unsuccessful Texas vs. Pennsylvania case in the Supreme Court that tried to overturn former President Joe Biden’s razor-thin win over Trump in the Keystone State, and for speaking at the Trump rally near the White House that immediately preceded the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing extremists aiming to disrupt congressional certification of Biden’s Electoral College victory.

During Biden's four years in the White House, Paxton took the administration to court numerous times.

While Paxton, who's in his third four-year term as Texas attorney general, has long been a legal warrior in the MAGA movement, he also has plenty of personal political baggage.

Paxton was indicted on securities fraud charges soon after taking office in 2015, and more recently came under investigation by the FBI over bribery and corruption allegations from former top staffers. And in 2022, he survived a bruising primary amid his many legal difficulties.

In 2023, Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives, but he was later acquitted of all charges by the state Senate.

The charges in the long-running federal corruption probe were dropped during the final weeks of the Biden administration.

The attorney general also faced an investigation by the Texas State Bar for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

While Paxton for years has denied any wrongdoing and has survived his legal fights, he would likely continue to face tough optics and plenty of incoming fire over his past predicaments during a Senate showdown.

The eventual winner of next year's GOP primary will be considered the favorite in the general election against whomever the Democrats nominate.

Former Rep. Colin Allred has said he'll decide by this summer if he'll mount a 2026 Senate campaign.

Allred, a former Baylor University football player and NFL linebacker who later represented Texas' 32nd Congressional District (which includes parts of Dallas and surrounding suburbs), was last year's Democratic challenger in the race against Cruz.

Boasberg contempt showdown looms after Supreme Court hands Trump immigration win

Posted on April 8, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal judge is weighing whether to hold Trump administration officials in civil contempt after they defied a court order blocking deportation flights last month – even as the Supreme Court on Monday handed the administration a temporary legal victory, allowing it to resume use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants.

President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda is colliding with the federal judiciary as his administration races to fulfill a central campaign promise: mass deportations. The aggressive pace – which has included the removal of alleged members of violent transnational gangs – has triggered a wave of legal challenges from critics who claim the administration is unlawfully ejecting migrants from the country.

The high court’s 5–4 decision, which Trump praised on X as a "great day for justice in America," lifted a lower court’s injunction and allows deportations to resume for now, though with added due process protections. The unsigned, four-page ruling focused narrowly on the lower court’s order and permits the administration to invoke the wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to expedite removals.

However, the ruling does little to halt the escalating feud between the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has signaled he may hold administration officials in contempt for defying his order last month to ground deportation flights. Boasberg is set to preside over a hearing Tuesday to address the administration’s use of the state secrets privilege to block the court from accessing information about the flights. It will mark the judge’s first opportunity to respond since the Supreme Court sided with Trump.

JUDGE BOASBERG POISED TO HOLD TRUMP ADMIN IN CONTEMPT, TAKES DOWN NAMES OF DHS OFFICIALS: 'PRETTY SKETCHY'

Though Trump and his allies celebrated the Supreme Court’s intervention, the decision offers only a narrow and potentially short-lived reprieve.

The ruling requires the administration to provide detainees slated for removal with proper notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation in court. However, the justices said those legal challenges must be filed in Texas – not in Washington, D.C. – a jurisdictional shift that injects fresh uncertainty into the lower court proceedings. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the ruling would make it significantly harder for individuals to contest their removals on a case-by-case basis.

"We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this," she said.

Boasberg blocked the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for a 14-day period last month to allow the court time to review the case on its merits. The order drew scathing criticism from Trump, who labeled Boasberg an "activist judge" and called for his impeachment – prompting a rare warning from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Boasberg has said he will decide as early as this week whether to pursue civil contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials for defying his order.

Three planes carrying 261 migrants – including more than 100 individuals slated for removal solely under the Alien Enemies Act – were flown to El Salvador last month from the U.S., around the same time Boasberg issued an emergency order blocking the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals for 14 days.

Boasberg also issued a bench ruling ordering that all migrant flights be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. The administration did not comply, and hours later, the planes arrived in El Salvador.

At a show-cause hearing last week, Boasberg instructed Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign to determine who in the administration knew about the restraining order and when. He also demanded to know who made the decision not to comply, saying that information could be relevant if he moves forward with contempt proceedings.

Boasberg contested Ensign's suggestion that the administration may not have violated the emergency restraining order.

"It seems to me there is a fair likelihood that that is not correct," Boasberg told Ensign. "In fact, the government acted in bad faith throughout that day," he added.

SUPREME COURT GRANTS TRUMP REQUEST TO LIFT STAY HALTING VENEZUELAN DEPORTATIONS

Boasberg asked follow-up questions about agency affiliation, titles and the spelling of officials' names – suggesting he would be examining their roles in the case very closely as he weighed whether there was probable cause to move on civil contempt. Ensign repeatedly told the court he did not know and was not privy to the information himself. "I made diligent efforts to obtain that information," he told Boasberg.

The Trump administration’s repeated failure to meet court deadlines may give Boasberg grounds to proceed with civil contempt proceedings, even if jurisdictional questions limit his ability to rule on the plaintiffs’ broader request for a preliminary injunction.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that federal judges have the authority to compel parties to act and hold them accountable for defying court orders in both civil and criminal cases.

The potential contempt proceedings come amid soaring tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as Trump administration officials clash with federal judges overseeing a flood of lawsuits and emergency requests to halt administration actions. While contempt findings against executive officials are rare, they are not without precedent.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

In civil cases, a judge will often reiterate the original order and set clear steps and deadlines for the party to demonstrate compliance. If those deadlines are missed, the court can take further action to compel obedience – consistent with the basic principle that "all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly."

Boasberg sharply criticized Trump officials for failing to comply with his bench order requiring deportation flights to return to the U.S. and for refusing to provide basic information about the individuals who were removed. During last week’s hearing, it became clear the administration had not been withholding classified materials, as previously implied — a revelation that appeared to undercut its national security justification and drew further frustration from the judge. He also noted that the administration may have violated multiple court deadlines, including one that allowed sensitive information to be filed under seal.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? Boasberg asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

The judge, visibly frustrated, pressed further. "You standing here have no idea who made the decision not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival?" He then continued to question Ensign about the names, locations, and agencies of the individuals involved in the removals.

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and could survive a court challenge, I can't believe you ever would have operated in the way you did," Boasberg said.

Now comes Tuesday’s pivotal hearing, as Boasberg weighs whether the administration’s national security claims are justified or merely an attempt to shield misconduct from judicial scrutiny.

‘Enough is enough’: House Republican touts GOP effort to pass bill cracking down on ‘rogue’ judges

Posted on April 8, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

As House Republicans move forward with legislation this week that they say would wrangle "rogue" judges across the country who have been blocking President Trump’s agenda, Fox News Digital spoke to GOP Rep. Abe Hamadeh about the importance of that quest.

"If you look at what President Trump has been going through compared to previous presidents, it's unheard of," Hamadeh told Fox News Digital about the dozens of injunctions already issued against Trump since taking office.

"It's unprecedented the amount of injunctions trying to stop President Trump's America First agenda, which, overwhelmingly, the American people support, and to have one district court judge be able to determine the direction of our country is not what the judiciary is meant for."

The No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., would limit district court judges' ability to issue orders blocking Trump policies nationwide, and Republicans are expected to advance the legislation out of the House Rules Committee and vote this week.

GOP REP REVEALS AFTER F-16 RIDE WHY TRUMP'S LEADERSHIP IS ALREADY PAYING OFF FOR MILITARY

Hamadeh says he supports Issa’s bill, which Issa told Fox News Digital when he introduced it was introduced in February, will push back on the current judge-shopping climate in the United States that he says represents "judicial tyranny" and "weaponization of courts."

Hamadeh explained that he has signed onto several efforts to impeach some of the judges who have issued nationwide injunctions, knowing that the efforts are unlikely to succeed but to send the message that the sentiment in Congress and with Trump voters is one that believes "enough is enough."

One of those judges facing impeachment calls, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, issued an emergency order temporarily halting the Trump administration's deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act, which Hamadeh took particular issue with.

JUDGE TARGETED BY GOP FOR IMPEACHMENT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP'S FEMA OBJECTIVES

"The federal bench right now has to be very careful, they're losing legitimacy constantly every single day, when you see the constant pushbacks, I mean, it's amazing," Hamadeh said. "What President Trump wants to do is deport illegal immigrants who are terrorists, who are murderers, who are rapists, and they're trying to stop that."

"They're trying to keep them in our country. Well, what happened when Biden was importing so many of these illegal immigrants, literally flying them in from their countries of origin into the United States? They never weighed in on that issue. So it's shocking to see that the judiciary, sadly, has been in the way of what President Trump is trying to accomplish. but we are going to limit them, here in the House, and I'm sure it's gonna pass the Senate as well and make its way to the president's desk."

Many prominent Democrats have praised Boasberg’s ruling after years of either silence or indifference about the border crisis, which Hamadeh told Fox News Digital is evidence that they "don’t know what they’re fighting for."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Democrats are in a world of trouble, especially knowing who is on the bench and what they're actually fighting for has been really opposed to what the American people want," Hamadeh said.

"We want to save communities, we want to stop fentanyl, and we want to deport these terrorists, illegals, and the rapists and murderers who have come into our country because of Joe Biden's disastrous border. I'm from Arizona. To see President Trump, literally in two months, get the border encounters to a 97% decrease, it's shocking. It's amazing to see that type of result. That's why the American people voted for President Trump. And unfortunately, you see these judges trying to stop them."

The House is also expected to move forward with the SAVE Act this week, which requires proof of citizenship in the voter registration process.

Fox News Digital spoke to Hamadeh about his efforts working with Republicans to push election integrity, an issue that saw a Republican victory recently when voters in Wisconsin voted to enshrine voter ID into the state's constitution.

Hamadeh, along with GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney, recently introduced legislation to codify Trump's recent executive order on election integrity that mandates voter ID into law.

"I want everybody to know that there's never been a disenfranchised voter because of election integrity," Hamadeh said. "Disenfranchisement is because of election fraud and President Trump is trying to prevent that."

Fox News Digital’s Liz Elkind contributed to this report

Here’s how Trump could pull off an authoritarian third term

Posted on April 6, 2025 by kos

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

Seems pretty clear-cut, right?

But read carefully—”no person shall be elected” to the office. And therein lies the keys to Donald Trump’s fantasies of a third term, saying to NBC’s Kristen Welker on Sunday, “There are methods which you could do it.”

So how exactly would Trump become president without being elected president?

Is Vance loyal enough to give up his hard-earned power were he to win the presidency?

One way, Trump said, would be to swap tickets with Vice President JD Vance. He would run on a ticket with Vance and get elected vice president. Then, Vance would give up the office out of the goodness of his heart and resign, or maybe Trump would just shiv him, who knows. Trump wouldn’t care either way. Regardless, he would then become president.

Except that won’t work.

The 12th Amendment says, “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

Well, that seems pretty clear-cut, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, that’s not the only avenue for Trump to try and sneak in.

The current order of presidential succession is:

Vice President

Speaker of the House

President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Secretary of State

We’ve already noted that the first is clearly off the table. However, the rest are not.

The Constitution doesn’t actually set requirements for speaker of the House, saying only, “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

While every speaker has been a member of the House, it’s clear that there’s nothing requiring that to be the case. Hence, a Republican House could simply elect Trump as speaker, and then elevate him after both the president and the vice president resigned to pave his return to power.

A plain text reading of the Constitution makes this absolutely possible, though the courts would have to wrestle with the intent of both the 12th and the 22nd Amendments—which collectively make clear that really, two presidential terms is enough. But in this case, Trump wouldn’t be elected to the presidency, he would be elevated to the job.

The more practical impediment to this scenario is that two people would now need to surrender their chances to be president of the United States so fucking Trump could continue trashing the country and the world. People don’t want that, not even Republicans, and that’s before Trump’s policies really do a number on our economy.

Not to mention, those two people will both have gone through a grueling national campaign, won the votes of tens of millions, and for what? To quit and give it all up right after taking the oath to office?

Moving down the list, president pro tempore of the Senate is supposed to preside over the Senate in the absence of the vice president (hence the Latin “for the time being”), which the Constitution pretends is the president of the Senate (and in practice, just means a tie-breaking vote if necessary).

Like the House speaker, the Constitution doesn’t provide any qualifications for the role, so by tradition, the majority party picks its oldest member for the mostly ceremonial position. It is currently Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Presumably a Republican Senate could pick Trump as president pro tempore. But that would require the House to be in Republican hands as well, otherwise a Democratic speaker would ascend to the top. At that point, assuming the whole Republican Party is singing from the same choir book, it would just be easier for the House to make him speaker.

And finally, there’s that secretary of state job. Imagine Trump as secretary of state? Dear god. In any case, it would be a short-term charade. But now you’re talking about four people giving up their chance to be president—the elected president, the elected vice president, the speaker of the House, and the president pro tempore of the Senate. Trump may be deluded enough to think that many people would clear the path for him, but that would fly in the face of human nature. A not-president Trump would have zero leverage over an actual president.

And of course, that’s still assuming that the effort would survive legal challenges based on the 22nd Amendment. After all, it’s clear what the framers of that amendment intended—to prevent another Franklin D. Roosevelt from happening. That is, to prevent another president from entrenching themselves in the Oval Office.

But it does say a lot about Trump that rather than focus on the job at hand, he’s obsessing over a third term. He wants power for the sake of power itself, jealous of despots like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Of course, he’s going to indulge in these sorts of fantasies.

Trump calls himself a king. But we know we are not a nation of kings—and we never will be. Get your Daily Kos T-shirt or hat to spread the message and wear it with pride: No Kings.

GOP congressman says Signal leak was ‘obviously’ a mistake, defers to president to determine consequences

Posted on April 6, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

GOP Rep. Marlin Stutzman told Fox News Digital that the recent Signal leak debacle was "obviously" a mistake, but he expressed confidence in the Trump administration's national security officials and said he trusts the president to determine whether any consequences should be handed down.

"Yes, obviously, we don't want those things to happen," Stutzman. R-Ind., told Fox News from inside the Capitol. "We all know that President Trump is America First. He supports our military, he supports security – I mean, he is the law and order president, so he's going to make sure that he takes care of this… he's going to be the one to make this decision and I support whatever decision he makes."

RUBIO BREAKS SILENCE ON LEAKED SIGNAL CHAT: ‘SOMEONE MADE A BIG MISTAKE’

Stutzman's comments came amid a reported attempt by Democratic Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar to introduce articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, national security advisor Michael Waltz and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, each of whom were involved in the Signal chat leak.

Trump confirmed Thursday aboard Air Force One that multiple employees within the National Security Council were fired, but did add that it was not many. So far, no consequences have been handed down to Hegseth, Waltz or Ratcliffe, three of the highest-ranking officials who allegedly participated in the leaked Signal chat.

PENTAGON WATCHDOG OPENS PROBE INTO HEGSETH'S USE OF SIGNAL TO DISCUSS HOUTHI ATTACK PLANS

Republicans have said there was no classified material shared or discussed in the leaked Signal chat, but Democrats have insisted the manner in which sensitive information was handled was still "reckless," potentially illegal and constituted the need for repercussions.

But Stutzman expressed confidence in the administration's national security officials and the president, noting that "so far" everyone involved has taken appropriate responsibility and "they're going to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

"I think they'll analyze every communication channel that they have," Stutzman said. "I think that they're going to be sure, especially this soon in the administration – this will be a top priority for them… we all know that there are folks all around the world trying to get into American leaders' conversations all the time, and so they're going to be just as diligent."

Judge awards $6.6M to whistleblowers who were fired after reporting Texas AG Ken Paxton to FBI

Posted on April 6, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

A district court judge awarded $6.6 million combined to four whistleblowers who sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on claims he fired them in retaliation for reporting him to the FBI.

Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, Mark Penley and Ryan Vassar notified Paxton and his office on Oct. 1, 2020, that they had reported him to the FBI for allegedly abusing his office. The four were all fired by mid-November.

Travis County Judge Catherine Mauzy ruled Friday that by a "preponderance of the evidence," the whistleblowers proved liability, damages and attorney's fees in their complaint against the attorney general's office.

The judgment says the former aides made their reports to federal law enforcement "in good faith" and that Paxton's office did not dispute any claims or damages in the lawsuit.

FBI FLOODED WITH RECORD NUMBER OF NEW AGENT APPLICATIONS IN KASH PATEL'S FIRST MONTH LEADING BUREAU

"Because the Office of the Attorney General violated the Texas Whistleblower Act by firing and otherwise retaliating against the plaintiff for in good faith reporting violations of law by Ken Paxton and OAG, the court hereby renders judgment for plaintiffs," Mauzy wrote in her judgment.

The court found that the four former aides of the attorney general were fired in retaliation for reporting allegations that he was using his office to accept bribes from Austin real estate developer and political donor Nate Paul, who employed a woman with whom Paxton was having an extramarital affair.

Paxton has denied allegations that he accepted bribes or misused his office to help Paul.

"It should shock all Texans that their chief law enforcement officer, Ken Paxton, admitted to violating the law, but that is exactly what happened in this case," Tom Nesbitt, an attorney representing Brickman, and TJ Turner, an attorney representing Maxwell, said in a joint statement.

Paxton said in a statement that the judge's ruling is "ridiculous" and "not based on the facts or the law." He said his office plans to appeal the ruling.

The attorney general was probed by federal authorities after eight employees reported his office to the FBI in 2020 for bribery allegations. He agreed to settle the lawsuit for $3.3 million that would be paid by the legislature, but the state House rejected his request and conducted its own investigation.

Paxton was impeached in the House in 2023 before he was later acquitted in the Senate.

TEXAS AG PAXTON ACQUITTED ON ALL IMPEACHMENT CHARGES: 'THE TRUTH PREVAILED'

In November, the state Supreme Court overturned a lower-court ruling that would have required Paxton to testify in the lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department declined to pursue its investigation into Paxton in the final weeks of the Biden administration, according to The Associated Press.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Judge targeted by GOP for impeachment deals blow to Trump’s FEMA objectives

Posted on April 4, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

A Rhode Island federal judge targeted for impeachment dealt the Trump administration a legal blow on Friday, ordering it to lift a freeze on federal funds.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to unfreeze federal funds to states after plaintiffs alleged the agency had failed to comply with an earlier court order.

The lawsuit was originally launched by 22 states and the District of Columbia, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to block funding for programs like the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grant and other environmental initiatives.

LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP'S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS

Plaintiffs in the suit, including the states of New York, California, Illinois and Rhode Island, argued that FEMA's implementation of a manual review process for payment requests violated a previous preliminary injunction issued by McConnell. The states argued that the review "constitutes 'a categorical pause or freeze of funding appropriate by Congress.'"

The defendants, which include President Donald Trump and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), responded that the review did not violate the order because "FEMA is relying on its own independent authorities to implement the process rather than the OMB Directive."

McConnell concluded that the plaintiffs had "presented evidence that strongly suggests that FEMA is implementing this manual review process based, covertly, on the President's January 20, 2025 executive order."

COURTROOM COMBAT: INSIDE THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY SYSTEM WHERE TRUMP'S AGENDA IS UNDER ASSAULT

"The Court reaffirms its preliminary injunction order," McConnell wrote.

McConnell had issued a restraining order in late January that enjoined the defendants from freezing federal funds. This came after OMB released a memo on Jan. 27 announcing the administration's plans to temporarily pause federal grants and loans. The White House later rescinded the memo on Jan. 29.

However, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the move didn’t equate a "recission of the federal funding freeze."

‘CORRUPT, DANGEROUS’: GOP REP MOVES TO IMPEACH JUDGE WHO BLOCKED TRUMP FEDERAL FUNDS FREEZE

After McConnell ordered the administration to comply with the restraining order, the government appealed to the First Circuit — which refused to stay the orders.

McConnell also recently made headlines after becoming one of several federal judges hit with impeachment articles.

Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde formally introduced his articles of impeachment against McConnell on March 24, after his initial announcement in February.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The articles, first shared with Fox News Digital, charged McConnell with abuse of power and conflicts of interest, stating he "knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs."

"The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in November, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient," Clyde told Fox News Digital. "Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people. Judge McConnell’s actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment."

Fox News Digital's Diana Stancy contributed to this report.

Judge Boasberg poised to hold Trump admin in contempt, takes down names of DHS officials: ‘Pretty sketchy’

Posted on April 3, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Thursday grilled Trump administration lawyers over whether they defied a court order blocking deportations under a wartime immigration law — a potential step toward holding the administration in contempt.

At issue is the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang. Boasberg pressed Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign on why the government appeared to ignore an emergency injunction last month halting those deportations.

The administration has appealed the underlying case to the Supreme Court. But for now, Boasberg is weighing whether there is probable cause to move forward with contempt proceedings — a question that remained open after a tense exchange in court.

Boasberg said he would issue a decision as early as next week on how to proceed if he finds grounds to hold the administration in contempt.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

During the hearing, Ensign was repeatedly questioned about who in the Trump administration had information about the flights and when the three deportation flights left U.S. soil for El Salvador. At least 261 migrants were deported that day, including more than 100 Venezuelan nationals who were subject to removal "solely on the basis" of the law temporarily blocked by the court.

"You maintain that the government was in full compliance with the court’s order on March 15, correct?" Boasberg asked Ensign.

Ensign said yes, to which the judge responded: "It seems to me the government acted in bad faith that day."

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and would survive a court challenge, you would not have operated the way that you did," Boasberg said.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

He repeatedly questioned Ensign about his knowledge of the flights and whether any related materials were classified, which could have triggered state secrets protections.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights, and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections.

But according to Ensign, that may not have been an issue. He told Boasberg the flight information likely wasn’t classified, prompting the judge to wonder aloud why it hadn’t been shared with him in an ex parte setting.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? he asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

Another focus of Thursday’s hearing was timing — both when President Donald Trump signed the proclamation authorizing use of the Alien Enemies Act, and when federal agents began loading planes with migrants bound for El Salvador.

Boasberg noted that the Trump administration began loading the planes the morning of March 15, hours before the flights left the U.S.

"So then it’s not crazy to infer there was prior knowledge and actions ahead of the Saturday night deportations?" he asked Ensign.

The judge pressed the lawyer over the names, locations and agencies of individuals who were privy to the removals, as well as internal conversations with other administration officials who may have been listening in to the court proceedings.

"Who did you tell about my order?" Boasberg asked. "Once the hearing was done, who did you tell?"

Ensign says he relayed the information to Department of Homeland Security contacts and State Department officials, among others.

He listed the names of the individuals, at Boasberg's request, which the judge then carefully transcribed onto a pad of paper, interjecting at times to clarify the spelling or ask for their job titles.

The hearing is the latest in a flurry of legal battles over the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. It follows Boasberg’s order requiring officials to explain why they failed to comply with his directive to return the deportation flights — and whether they knowingly defied the court.

Boasberg told both sides he would see them again next week for arguments on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, set for Tuesday.

The hearing also marks the latest clash between Trump and Boasberg, whom the president has publicly denounced as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment.

Trump faces Judge Boasberg over migrant deportation flights defying court order

Posted on April 3, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal judge will hear from government lawyers Thursday to determine whether the Trump administration defied court orders when it deported hundreds of migrants to El Salvador last month.

The hearing marks the latest clash between President Donald Trump and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who Trump has publicly attacked as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment. At issue is whether the administration knowingly violated Boasberg’s emergency order, which temporarily blocked the deportations and required that any individuals removed under a centuries-old immigration law be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. Flights carrying migrants, including those deported under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, still landed in El Salvador that same night.

"Oopsie…" El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, wrote on X after they landed in his country. "Too late."

Boasberg, who issued the emergency orders at the center of the controversial and complex case, has said he intends to find out whether the administration knowingly violated them, and who, if anyone, should be held accountable.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"The government isn’t being forthcoming," Boasberg told Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign during an earlier hearing. "But I will get to the bottom of whether they complied with my order, who violated it and what the consequences will be."

At Thursday's hearing, Boasberg is expected to revisit many of the same questions he raised earlier, including how many planes left the U.S. carrying individuals deported "solely on the basis" of the Alien Enemies Act. Other questions include how many individuals were on each plane and what time and from which location each plane took off.

Although the administration has already appealed the case twice – first to the D.C. Circuit, which upheld Boasberg’s order, and then to the Supreme Court – the judge is still pressing for answers. Thursday’s hearing is part of his effort to determine whether the government defied the court when it carried out the deportation flights.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, has been used only three times in American history – during the War of 1812 and the two world wars – making its modern application by the Trump administration a rare legal maneuver.

Trump officials have argued invoking the law is necessary to expel dangerous individuals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who were flown to El Salvador under the administration’s new deportation policy.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs have pushed back on the administration’s use of the 1798 law, calling its use during peacetime "unprecedented."

In a brief filed to the Supreme Court earlier this week, plaintiffs argued the law permits immediate deportations only in cases of a "declared war" or an "invasion or predatory incursion" by a foreign nation, conditions they say don’t apply to the Venezuelan nationals targeted for removal.

Government lawyers have declined to disclose key details about the deportation flights, including whether any planes departed after Boasberg’s order, citing national security protections.

Boasberg had previously warned the administration of consequences if it violated his order and criticized earlier filings as "woefully insufficient," noting the government also refused his offer to submit information under seal.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The case has become a political flash point over the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch. Trump allies dismiss much of the judiciary’s involvement as the work of "activist" judges seeking to rein in the president and overstep their constitutional role.

Trump's demand for Boasberg to be impeached prompted a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in a statement. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The White House has kept up its criticism of the lower courts, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt last month accusing judges of overstepping their bounds and infringing on the president’s authority.

"The administration will move quickly to pursue Supreme Court review, defend the Constitution, and protect the American people," Leavitt said in a statement.

6 populist leaders facing lawfare around world

Posted on April 2, 2025 by Latest Political News on Fox News

Vice President JD Vance condemned European countries last month for a lack of commitment to democracy as many of them lash out with lawfare attacks against populist leaders.

Vance's critique applies to more than just Europe, however, as populist leaders across the globe are facing legal troubles from outright election bans to criminal convictions.

Here are the top populist leaders facing the most pressure.

Right-wing French politician Marine Le Pen and several members of her ascendant National Rally party were convicted of embezzlement on Monday, and she herself has been banned from running in the 2027 presidential election.

Populist leaders from across Europe condemned the verdict, pointing to her significant lead in the polls.

"Those who fear the judgment of voters often seek reassurance from the courts. In Paris, they have condemned Marine Le Pen and would like to remove her from political life," Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini said following Le Pen's verdict.

"We are not intimidated," he added. "Full speed ahead, my friend!"

ROMANIA ANNULS FIRST ROUND OF PRESIDENTIAL VOTE WON BY RIGHT-WING CANDIDATE

Brazil’s Supreme Court accepted charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro last week over an alleged attempt to remain in office after his 2022 election defeat, ordering the former leader to stand trial.

All five justices ruled in favor of accepting the charges leveled by Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet, who accused Bolsonaro and 33 others of attempting a coup that included a plan to poison his successor, current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and kill a Supreme Court judge.

The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and says he’s being politically persecuted.

Under Brazilian law, a coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, it could result in a sentence of decades behind bars.

Calin Georgescu won the first round of Romania's presidential elections earlier this year, only for the election to be canceled due to allegations of Russian collusion in Georgescu's favor.

Georgescu was then taken into custody and has since been banned from running in the election, despite leading in polls.

ROMANIAN FAR-RIGHT PRESIDENTIAL FRONTRUNNER TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AFTER JD VANCE'S REBUKE OF EUROPEAN ELECTIONS

Italian Vice Premier Matteo Salvini faced years of legal trouble due to accusations that he had illegally detained roughly 100 migrants during his term as interior minister in 2019.

GERMANY BRACES UNDER COLLAPSING GOVERNMENT AND LOOMING TRUMP TRADE WAR

The 2019 incident saw migrants held offshore on a humanitarian rescue ship. Italian courts dropped the charges against Slavini in December.

"Protecting our country’s borders from smugglers is not a crime," Salvini said shortly after the verdict. "This is a victory for the League and for Italy."

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan was jailed last month on corruption charges, though many of his supporters have compared his situation to that of President Donald Trump and the charges he has faced.

A Pakistani court sentenced Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, to 14 and seven years in jail after finding them guilty of corruption. They were convicted for allegedly accepting land as a bribe through the Al-Qadir Trust, which they had set up while Khan was in office. Khan, however, maintains his innocence, describing the events as a "witch hunt" in exclusive comments to Fox News Digital. It is just one of the more than 100 cases he is facing.

Khan’s plight has also been highlighted by longtime Trump ally and adviser Richard Grenell, who took to social media late last year when he tweeted, "Free Imran Khan!"

President Donald Trump has faced waves of legal trouble from his political opponents stretching back nearly a decade to his first administration.

First he faced down the now-discredited Russia collusion claims before once again facing impeachment for negotiating aid for Ukraine. Once out of office, federal and state governments targeted his business dealings with investigations, eventually resulting in his conviction for falsifying business records, a verdict his allies say was bogus.

Trump has acknowledged that populist leaders like him are facing challenges across the globe. He remarked on Le Pen's "very important" situation in a statement Tuesday.

"She was banned for five years and she was the leading candidate," Trump said. "That sounds like this country, that sounds very much like this country."

Fox News' Avi Kumar, Benjamin Weinthal and the Associated Press contributed to this report.