Category: fox-news/person/donald-trump

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

Posted on 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 The White House later rescinded the memo on Jan. 29.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 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 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.

Republicans, Democrats trade barbs in heated hearing on activist judges blocking Trump agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democrats and Republicans repeatedly clashed on Tuesday during a lengthy hearing on what the GOP calls "activist judges" blocking President Donald Trump's agenda.

The House Judiciary Committee's subcommittees on the Constitution and on courts held the joint hearing in preparation for a House-wide vote on legislation that would limit district judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That bill is currently stalled, however, after an unrelated fight on proxy voting paralyzed the House floor.

During the hearing, Democrats repeatedly tried to press Republicans on the issue of judicial impeachments — something pushed by conservatives but that House GOP leaders have shown little appetite for pursuing.

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

"Some guy I've never heard of, he, might be in Congress, introduced an impeachment resolution, and he's not here," Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said of an impeachment resolution targeting U.S. district Judge James Boasberg by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas.

"He hasn't been here for at least the last hour, and every witness here is in agreement that we really shouldn't be impeaching judges. I haven't heard a single colleague on the other side say we should be impeaching judges."

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who was co-chairing the hearing alongside Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, asked Swalwell to yield his time — but the California Democrat refused.

"I don't think they have anything to talk about with the bills, since they offered a similar bill, and even the solicitor general, as late as October of last year in the Biden administration, wanted exactly what we're moving out of committee today," Issa told Fox News Digital about Democrats' ploy.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., compared conservatives' push to impeach judges to House Republicans' impeachment inquiry efforts into former President Joe Biden — which ultimately did not end in any such proceedings.

"I guess we're taking a page out of [House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer's] playbook, we're just doing fake impeachments," Moskowitz told Fox News Digital.

But Roy, who co-led the hearing with Issa, told Fox News Digital it was about "trying to make clear that you've got a handful of judges acting, clearly politically, to stop the administration from acting."

"It's pretty clear that my Democratic colleagues prefer to defend the right of an MS-13 gang member, clearly here illegally, from being deported," Roy said.

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

But Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., another member of the committee, said at least one goal was to "raise the profile of the issue."

"Maybe the more headlines a hearing like this gets, it clearly sets it on the plate of Chief Justice Roberts, right, to take action and try to get control of the courts again," he said.

It's not immediately clear when Issa's bill will get a vote, after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced House floor activity was canceled for the rest of this week.

Wave of court orders blocking Trump’s agenda are a ‘judicial coup d’etat,’ Gingrich says

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich condemned the wave of federal judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda as a "judicial coup d'etat" on Tuesday.

Gingrich made the comments while testifying at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing focused on "judicial overreach" by U.S. district court judges across the country. The former lawmaker highlighted that the vast majority of judges filing injunctions or restraining orders against Trump's executive actions have been appointed by Democrats.

"Mr. Gingrich, I'm told that 92% of the judges who have issued blanket injunctions against the administration have been appointed by Democrats. That at least suggests a partisan tilt to all of this… doesn't that undermine public confidence in our courts?" Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., asked at the hearing.

"If you look at the recent reports from various polling firms, clearly a majority of Americans believe that no single district judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction," Gingrich responded.

"Look, my judgment is as a historian. This is clearly a judicial coup d'etat. You don't have this many different judges issue this many different nationwide injunctions – all of them coming from the same ideological and political background – and just assume it's all random efforts of justice," he continued.

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

"This is a clear effort to stop the scale of change that President Trump represents," he added.

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

Gingrich went on to argue that it is unacceptable for "random" judges to micromanage the president of the United States.

"They put both Americans and the nation at risk when they intervene to become basically alternative presidents. You now have potentially 677 alternative presidents, none of whom won an election," he said.

The best solution for the wave of injunctions is for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to intervene, Gingrich said. Roberts could ensure that any such rulings from lower federal courts could move straight up to the Supreme Court.

At the center of the court controversy is District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to block the Trump administration from deporting members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador. Other judges have placed injunctions on Trump's efforts to trim down the federal government.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met privately with Republican judiciary committee members last week for what sources called a "brainstorming" session on how to respond to judges like Boasberg.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Ideas raised by lawmakers included a fast-tracked appeals process, wielding Congress’ spending power over the judiciary, and limiting the ability to "judge shop."

And some conservatives are eager to target specific judges they believe are abusing their power via the impeachment process, but House Republican leaders are wary of that route and believe it to be less effective than other legislative avenues.

Fox News' Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

Trump allies scrutinize Judge Boasberg’s DC connections as high-stakes legal battles escalate

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Federal Judge James Boasberg is facing mounting criticism from President Donald Trump and his allies as he presides over multiple high-profile lawsuits targeting the Trump administration – cases that have now brought the judge’s personal and professional ties under fresh scrutiny. 

Boasberg, who was previously appointed to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and reportedly once roomed with Justice Brett Kavanaugh at Yale, has become a flashpoint for conservatives who accuse the judiciary of bias against the Trump administration. Now the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Boasberg's recent orders halting deportations of violent illegal immigrants and overseeing cases tied to leaked internal communications have amplified claims of partisanship and drawn fierce rebukes from Trump and his allies.

"The Chief Justice handpicked DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg to serve on the FISA court," said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. "The DC federal judges are in a cozy little club, and they protect their own." His comments echo a broader sentiment on the right that Boasberg’s judicial decisions – and his close ties within the legal establishment – reflect a partisan tilt against the president.

Boasberg, a Washington, D.C., native, earned an advanced degree in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 and later attended Yale Law School, where he lived with Kavanaugh, according to multiple reports.  

TRUMP UNLOADS ON JUDGE BOASBERG, 'RADICAL LEFT JUDGES' FOR HALTING DEPORTATIONS OF VIOLENT ILLEGAL ALIENS

He graduated in 1990 and clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before joining Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco as a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. He later worked at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in Washington from 1995 to 1996.

After serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Boasberg was appointed in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush to serve as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the local trial court for the District. In 2011, then-President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where he was confirmed by the Senate and received his commission on March 17, 2011.

Boasberg was appointed to serve a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA Court, by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. 

The FISA Court is made up of 11 federal judges, all of whom are hand-selected by the chief justice. After undergoing rigorous background checks, FISA Court judges are then responsible for approving surveillance requests and wiretap warrants submitted by federal prosecutors, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Most of the court's work remains classified.

Boasberg served as the court’s presiding judge from 2020 to 2021 before returning to the D.C. District Court.

After Boasberg on March 15 ordered the Trump administration to halt its deportations of illegal immigrants under a 1798 wartime authority, Trump took to Truth Social to call for his impeachment. The president’s remarks echoed a growing chorus of conservatives who have recently called for the impeachment of federal judges overseeing his administration’s legal battles.

JUDGE IN CROSSHAIRS OF TRUMP DEPORTATION CASE ORDERS PRESERVATION OF SIGNAL MESSAGES

"I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" Trump wrote in the post.

In an unprecedented move by the nation's high court, Roberts released a public statement shortly thereafter, denouncing impeachment as an appropriate response to judicial disagreements. 

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

Trump once again unloaded on Boasberg in a March 30 Truth Social post after the judge extended his restraining order on March 28. The extension will run through April 12. 

"People are shocked by what is going on with the Court System. I was elected for many reasons, but a principal one was LAW AND ORDER, a big part of which is QUICKLY removing a vast Criminal Network of individuals, who came into our Country through the Crooked Joe Biden Open Borders Policy! These are dangerous and violent people, who kill, maim and, in many other ways, harm the people of our Country," Trump wrote on the social media platform. 

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

"The Voters want them OUT, and said so in Record Numbers. If it was up to District Judge Boasberg and other Radical Left Judges, nobody would be removed, the President wouldn’t be allowed to do his job, and people’s lives would be devastated all throughout our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!," he continued. 

Boasberg came under additional fire after he was randomly assigned to preside over a lawsuit involving the Trump administration's leaked Signal chat. 

After Boasberg was assigned to the case, Trump again took to Truth Social and accused Boasberg of "grabbing the 'Trump Cases' all to himself."

Davis also took to social media, writing, "Judge Jeb Boasberg is lighting on fire his legitimacy over an unnecessary, lawless, and dangerous pissing match with the President Jeb will lose. 

"Let’s hope the Chief Justice doesn’t light the entire federal judiciary’s legitimacy on fire by siding with his personal buddy Jeb," Davis wrote. 

At the start of the March 27 hearing, Boasberg emphasized that he was randomly assigned to the case through a docket computer system.

"That's how it works, and that's how all cases continue to be assigned in this court," Boasberg said during the hearing. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House, the Supreme Court, and the D.C. District Court for additional comment.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch, Emma Colton and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report. 

Trump commutes prison sentence of Hunter Biden’s ‘fall guy’ Jason Galanis

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Donald Trump commuted the sentence of Jason Galanis, a convicted ex-business associate of Hunter Biden, whom Trump officials described as the "fall guy" for the former first son’s business dealings. 

Galanis was sentenced in 2017 to 189 months, or 14 years, in prison, after pleading guilty to securities fraud based on bonds issued by a company affiliated with a Native American tribe in South Dakota. 

The funds were reportedly supposed to be used for certain projects, but were instead used for his personal finances. 

HUNTER BIDEN: A LOOK AT HOW THE SAGA SPANNING OVER SIX YEARS UNFOLDED

A Trump administration official told Fox News Digital that Galanis served eight years and eight months of his sentence and had an "unblemished record while in prison." The official also said Galanis was sexually assaulted by a security guard while in prison. 

The Trump official told Fox News Digital that Galanis "basically was the fall guy for Hunter Biden and Devon Archer." The official noted Galanis was "extremely cooperative" during the 2024 House impeachment inquiry into the Biden family. 

"After serving eight years and eight months in prison on good behavior, the administration felt it was time for him to regain his liberty and go on into his private life," the official told Fox News Digital. 

Congressional investigators interviewed Galanis while he was in prison to gather information on the Biden family’s business dealings and any "access" to then-Vice President Joe Biden. 

Galanis testified that Joe Biden was considering joining the board of a joint venture created by Hunter Biden and his business associates with ties to the Chinese Communist Party after he left the vice presidency.

JOE BIDEN ALLEGEDLY CONSIDERED JOINING BOARD OF CCP-LINKED COMPANY, WITNESS TESTIFIES FROM PRISON

Galanis said Joe Biden's involvement would have brought "political access in the United States and around the world." 

Galanis testified that he worked with Archer and Hunter Biden between 2012 and 2015. Their business together, he said, included the acquisition of Burnham & Co, a division of Drexel Burnham Lambert, combined with "other businesses in insurance and wealth management." Galanis testified the three "owned and acquired with total audited assets of over $17 billion."

"Our objective was to build a diversified private equity platform, which would be anchored by a globally known Wall Street brand together with a globally known political name," Galanis testified. "Our goal — that is, Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and me — was to make billions, not millions." 

Galanis testified that "the entire value-add of Hunter Biden to our business was his family name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden.

EXCLUSIVE: BIDEN COMMITTED ‘IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT,’ ‘DEFRAUDED UNITED STATES TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY’: HOUSE GOP REPORT

"Because of this access, I agreed to contribute equity ownership to them — Hunter and Devon — for no out-of-pocket cost from them in exchange for their ‘relationship capital,’" he told investigators.

Hunter Biden served as vice chairman of the Burnham group "and brought strategic relationships to the venture, including from Kazakhstan, Russia and China."

Meanwhile, Archer was tied to the scheme that put Galanis in prison and was convicted in 2018 for defrauding the Native American tribal entity and various investment advisory clients of tens of millions of dollars in connection with the issuance of bonds by the tribal entity and the subsequent sale of those bonds through fraudulent and deceptive means. 

The president pardoned Archer in March. 

TRUMP PARDONS FORMER HUNTER BIDEN BUSINESS ASSOCIATE DEVON ARCHER

"Many people have asked me to do this. They think he was treated very unfairly. And I looked at the records, studied the records. And he was a victim of a crime, as far as I'm concerned. So we're going to undo that. … Congratulations, Devon," Trump said ahead of signing the pardon. 

Archer thanked Trump ahead of officially receiving the pardon Tuesday, arguing he was "the victim of a convoluted lawfare effort."

"I want to extend my deepest thanks to President Trump," Archer said in a comment to the New York Post regarding the pardon. "I am grateful to the president for recognizing that I was the victim of a convoluted lawfare effort intended to destroy and silence me.

"Like so many people, my life was devastated by the Biden family’s selfish disregard for the truth and for the peace of mind and happiness of others. The Bidens talk about justice, but they don’t mean it," he said. "I am grateful that the American people are now well aware of this reality."

Galanis and Archer testified as part of the House impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden. The House of Representatives found, after months of investigating, that Biden had engaged in "impeachable conduct." In their nearly 300-page report, House lawmakers said he had "abused his office" and "defrauded the United States to enrich his family."  

BIDEN PARDONS SON HUNTER BIDEN AHEAD OF EXIT FROM OVAL OFFICE

Republicans said there is "overwhelming evidence" that Biden had participated in a "conspiracy to monetize his office of public trust to enrich his family." They alleged that the Biden family and their business associates had received tens of millions of dollars from foreign interests by "leading those interests to believe that such payments would provide them access to and influence with President Biden." 

Before leaving office, President Biden announced a blanket pardon that applied to any offenses against the U.S. that Hunter Biden "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014 to Dec. 1, 2024. 

"From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted," President Joe Biden said. "There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough."

Biden added, "I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision." 

House Republicans to go to war with ‘rogue judges’ blocking Trump’s agenda: Here’s their plan

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

House Republicans are going all out this week to signal their support for the Trump administration amid multiple legal standoffs over White House policy.

A bill to limit U.S. district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions sailed through the House Rules Committee – the last gatekeeper for bills before a chamber-wide vote – in a party-line vote Monday evening, as expected.

On Tuesday morning, meanwhile, two high-profile panels on the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing at 10 a.m. ET on "judicial overreach and constitutional limits on the federal courts."

"Clearly, our members are as angered as President Trump about some of these rogue judges," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., the No. 2 House Republican, told Fox News Digital in a brief interview. "So we're doing a number of things."

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

The hearing will be held by the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and its subcommittee on courts, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Notably, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is expected to testify, as is a woman described as a victim of criminal activity perpetrated by the terrorist organization Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado.

Her appearance is likely linked to the ongoing legal showdown between the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after he issued an emergency 14-day pause on the White House’s deportation flights of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador.

"We share the president's concern that you've got some judges that have overstepped their boundaries," Scalise said. "I mean, you have a plane flying with hardened criminals ... and Judge Boasberg orders the plane to turn around in mid-flight … and bring hardened criminals back to America who were already here illegally. That's clearly judicial activism and a judge trying to become the executive. That's not his role."

Issa is also spearheading the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA Act) to get a House-wide vote this week, which would limit the ability of Boasberg and other district court judges from issuing rulings that affect Trump policies across the country, beyond their direct jurisdiction.

That legislation is likely to pass with little if any Republican dissent. Two people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital this month that Capitol Hill aides were told Trump "likes" the bill.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., the No. 3 House Republican, also made clear leadership is united behind this week’s strategy.

"Judges cannot act as pseudo-legislators to advance their political agenda; that’s not how our government works," Emmer told Fox News Digital exclusively in a written statement. "I’m grateful for Chairman Jordan and Congressman Issa’s leadership in House Republicans’ efforts to ensure impartiality on the bench."

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

But it’s clear there’s an appetite among Republican judiciary hawks and conservatives to go further.

Scalise would not go into specifics but vowed, "Everything's being looked at, and all options are on the table."

Democrats are vowing to push back, with Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, accusing Trump of using judges as "scapegoats" for his policy setbacks.

"This week's efforts to distract from Trump’s serial violations of the Spending Clause, the separation of powers, the Birthright Citizenship Clause, Equal Protection, the First Amendment freedom of speech, Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment right to counsel will include a House hearing made for Trump’s viewing pleasure and a vote on a Republican bill to ban nationwide injunctions," Raskin told Fox News Digital.

"As my colleagues embark on this embarrassing diversion, Judiciary Democrats will remind them at every turn: it's not the courts' fault that Trump keeps losing these cases. No amount of finger pointing will shift responsibility from this rogue president who keeps deliberately trashing the Constitution and violating the rights and freedoms of the people of the United States."

There have been over a dozen injunctions levied against various Trump policies across the country, from birthright citizenship reform to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met privately with Republican judiciary committee members last week for what sources called a "brainstorming" session.

Ideas raised by lawmakers included a fast-tracked appeals process, wielding Congress’ spending power over the judiciary, and limiting the ability to "judge shop."

And some conservatives are eager to target specific judges they believe are abusing their power via the impeachment process, but House Republican leaders are wary of that route and believe it to be less effective than other legislative avenues.

Conservatives could still force Johnson’s hand by filing a "privileged" impeachment resolution, meaning the House would have to at least hold a procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital is not aware of any current plans to do so, and Johnson assured Republicans at their closed-door meeting last week that he was in contact with the White House every step of the way.

Trump’s GOP Senate allies are rolling out their own strategy to push back on activist judges in the coming days, with the Senate Judiciary Committee teeing up a similar hearing to the House’s Tuesday event.

Trump announces plan to chop down magnolia tree purportedly planted by Andrew Jackson: ‘Must come to an end’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Donald Trump announced plans to chop down a tree that was said to have been planted by former President Andrew Jackson.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said that he was working with "the wonderful people at the National Park Service" to make "tremendous enhancements to the White House, thereby preserving and protecting History!"

"One of the interesting dilemmas is a tree planted many years ago by the Legendary President and General, Andrew Jackson," Trump described. "It is a Southern Magnolia, that came from his home, The Hermitage, in Tennessee. That’s the good news!"

"The bad news is that everything must come to an end, and this tree is in terrible condition, a very dangerous safety hazard, at the White House Entrance, no less, and must now be removed," he continued. 

TRUMP NOMINATES SUSAN MONAREZ TO BECOME THE NEXT CDC DIRECTOR, SAYS AMERICANS 'LOST CONFIDENCE' IN AGENCY

The historic tree will be chopped down in coming days, and Trump wrote that it will be replaced "by another, very beautiful tree."

"The Historic wood from the tree will be preserved by the White House Staff, and may be used for other high and noble purposes!!!" the president added.

Jackson, who served as president from 1829 to 1837, reportedly planted two magnolia trees near the White House in honor of his wife Rachel, who died in 1828. But according to the National Park Service's (NPS) website, the trees' connection to Old Hickory is debatable.

"Historical photographic documentation shows that magnolias first appeared at this location near the South Portico in the 1860s, still the trees are attributed to President Jackson," the agency explained.

IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

"In 2006, the trees were designated as Witness Trees by the National Park Service, having borne witness to many ‘significant historic and cultural events,’" the NPS described. "The base of the trees also took the brunt of a Cessna airplane crash which targeted the White House in September 1994 and were subject to significant branch removal and pruning in December 2017."

Initial reactions to Trump's announcement were mixed on social media, though supporters of the president largely supported the decision.

"I am a tree expert by trade, I’ve worked with trees for three decades now… these [magnolia] trees have notoriously soft wood that can become dry and brittle with age," one X user wrote. "I wouldn’t be anywhere near that thing."

"Be prepared for the left to treat this like WW3," another joked.

"He is trying to lie his head off and rewrite or destroy history!" a Trump critic wrote. "The tree is much more important than Trump will EVER be!"

How Mike Johnson and Jim Jordan could hit back at judges blocking Trump’s agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Congressional Republicans are looking at a variety of options to stand up against what they see as "activist judges" blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Many of those options will likely be discussed at the House Judiciary's hearing on the matter next week, which sources expect to be scheduled for April 1.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., huddled privately with Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon to coalesce lawmakers around a bill up for a vote next week that would limit federal district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

One source familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital that Johnson suggested Republicans could look at other options as well, something conservatives are looking for. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital that the legislation was a "good start."

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

The No Rogue Rulings Act has support from both the White House and House GOP leadership. It’s expected to get a House-wide vote Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

Led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the legislation would force most district court judges to narrow most orders to the most relevant scope, therefore blocking them from pausing Trump’s policies across the U.S.

No Republican lawmaker has publicly expressed doubts about the bill, but conservatives have warned they want to see more from Congress on activist judges.

Both Johnson and top members of the House Judiciary Committee have floated using Congress’ power of the purse to rein in activist courts.

"We do have authority over the federal courts," Johnson said at his weekly press conference. "We do have power over funding, over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."

But Congress controls government spending through several different mechanisms. Lawmakers have the power to set annual appropriations levels, to rescind that funding via a rescission package, and even leverage funding outside of Congress' yearly appropriations via the budget reconciliation process.

"I think we need to look at… funding scenarios. Now, that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital last week – while stressing he was not "for or against" any specific scenario.

Several Republicans have introduced resolutions to impeach various federal judges for blocking Trump's agenda, but there appears to be little appetite within the House GOP to pursue that lane.

Johnson signaled he was against the move during a closed-door meeting with Republicans on Tuesday morning, noting just 15 federal judges have been impeached in U.S. history.

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

"There was some innuendo there that, you know, impeachment has been reserved for judges with high crimes and misdemeanors, not because you disagree with his decisions," one House Republican said of Johnson's message. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Conservatives could attempt to force House GOP leaders to act by classifying their impeachment legislation as a "privileged resolution," meaning the House must hold at least a chamber-wide procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

But it's not clear that will be pursued, either. Two Republicans who filed such resolutions – Reps. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis. – said they did not have current plans to make their resolutions privileged.

It's not a totally dismissed option, however, as leaders, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, continue to insist nothing is off the table.