House Dem to force Trump impeachment vote on 2 articles

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday and will force the House of Representatives to vote on the measures this week.

Green made his resolution to impeach Trump privileged on Wednesday, meaning the House must vote on the issue within two legislative days. Green has introduced articles of impeachment against Trump at least five times this year, but he has not before tried to force a vote on the issue.

Green's impeachment filing accuses Trump of "calling for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers" and of making threats of violence against judges. The former refers to Trump's reaction after Democratic lawmakers urged members of the military to "refuse illegal orders."

"President Trump is an abuser of presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote violence, engender invidious hate, undermine our democracy, and dissolve our Republic," Green said in a statement.

SIX DEMOCRATS URGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO 'REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS' IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS

Green has failed several times to gather support among Democrats for impeaching Trump. House Democrats voted to kill a Green impeachment effort in June, that one based on Trump ordering airstrikes on Iran.

Trump is not the only member of his administration to face impeachment efforts, however. House Democrats also filed articles against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and War Secretary Pete Hegseth this week.

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., announced the move against Kennedy on Wednesday, arguing he has failed in his role. Stevens had previously vowed to file the articles in September.

ANTI-TRUMP NETWORK BEHIND MASS PROTESTS CRACKS OPEN WAR CHEST AGAINST DEMS WHO BACKED REOPENING GOVERNMENT

"Today, I formally introduced articles of impeachment against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. RFK Jr. has turned his back on science and the safety of the American people. Michiganders cannot take another day of his chaos," she wrote in a statement posted on social media.

Meanwhile, Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., targeted Hegseth, pointing to reports that he issued orders to "kill everybody" onboard a small vessel that was allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

"Pete Hegseth has been using the United States military to extrajudicially assassinate people without evidence of any crime," said Thanedar. "Former military attorneys have come out and asserted that his conduct constitutes war crimes. We cannot allow his reprehensible conduct to continue, which is why I have filed these articles to impeach him."

House Democrat introduces impeachment articles against RFK Jr

A House Democrat filed articles of impeachment against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday.

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., announced the move on Wednesday, arguing Kennedy has failed in his role. Stevens had previously vowed to file the articles in September.

"Today, I formally introduced articles of impeachment against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. RFK Jr. has turned his back on science and the safety of the American people. Michiganders cannot take another day of his chaos," she wrote in a statement posted on social media.

HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon reacted to the impeachment effort in a statement to NBC News.

NOEM TEASES 'NEXT BIG ANNOUNCEMENT' THAT MAY CHANGE AIRPORT SECURITY RULE

"Secretary Kennedy remains focused on the work of improving Americans’ health and lowering costs, not on partisan political stunts," Nixon said.

The move comes just days after Stevens' fellow Democrat, Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., filed articles of impeachment against War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

NEW TSA PROGRAM LAUNCHED TO ELIMINATE DOUBLE SCREENINGS FOR INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS

Thanedar pointed to reports that Hegseth issued orders to "kill everybody" onboard a small vessel that was allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

DUFFY URGES SENATE TO PASS BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL'S $12.5B AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM FIX

"Pete Hegseth has been using the United States military to extrajudicially assassinate people without evidence of any crime," said Thanedar. "Former military attorneys have come out and asserted that his conduct constitutes war crimes. We cannot allow his reprehensible conduct to continue, which is why I have filed these articles to impeach him."

Both Michigan Democrats are facing hotly contested Democratic primaries for the upcoming 2026 elections.

This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.

Trump dismisses calls for Alito, Thomas to step down from Supreme Court, calling them ‘fantastic’

President Donald Trump pushed back on calls for Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to step down, calling them both "fantastic."

Trump made the remark to Politico this week as the outlet reported that some members of the Republican Party are hoping the court's two oldest conservatives consider stepping down before the midterm elections. That would enable Trump to nominate conservatives to take their place while the Republican Party is still guaranteed control of the Senate.

"I hope they stay," Trump said, adding, "'Cause I think they’re fantastic."

Alito, 75, has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court anytime soon, a source close to the justice told The Wall Street Journal in November 2024 after Trump was elected.

SCOTUS POISED TO SIDE WITH TRUMP ON FTC FIRING – A SHOWDOWN THAT COULD TOPPLE 90-YEAR PRECEDENT

"Despite what some people may think, this is a man who has never thought about this job from a political perspective," a person close to Alito said to the newspaper.

"The idea that he’s going to retire for political considerations is not consistent with who he is," this person added. 

Alito was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2006 by President George W. Bush.

'THE VIEW' CO-HOST 'SCARED' OVER SOTOMAYOR RESPONSE ON TRUMP POTENTIALLY SEEKING A THIRD TERM

Thomas is 77 years old. He was appointed to the court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.

Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama in 2009, is 71. 

In 2022, a handful of House Democrats demanded that Thomas step down or be impeached because he would not recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Investigators on the Jan. 6 select committee revealed that the justice's wife, Ginni Thomas, sent text messages to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging him to challenge Donald Trump's 2020 election loss.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.

FBI to be under harsh new microscope as Stefanik scores victory in annual defense bill

A Republican-backed measure in this year's annual defense policy bill is aimed at significantly expanding FBI transparency in American elections.

A provision in the 3,000-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would force the bureau to disclose the initiation of a "counterintelligence assessment or investigation" against a candidate for federal office or a current elected official within 15 days of its launch.

Specifically, it would mandate that the FBI notify the top four congressional leaders in the House and Senate as well as the top Republican and top Democrat on both chambers' judiciary and intelligence committees.

An exception would be granted if one of those people was the target of such a probe, however.

PATEL SAYS COMEY CASE IS 'FAR FROM OVER,' VOWS TO RESTORE 'ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY' TO FBI

The provision was spearheaded by House GOP Leadership Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who told Fox News Digital on Monday that it was "a win that I am proud to deliver for transparency and accountability and against the illegal weaponization of the deep state."

"I am the only remaining House Republican who served on the House Intelligence Committee during the dark Schiff impeachment era," Stefanik said.

"Congress owes the American people long overdue accountability after the unprecedented illegal weaponization of our federal government, whether it was the illegal Crossfire Hurricane targeting of President Trump in 2016 or more recently the sweeping Operation Arctic Frost."

FBI FIRES AGENTS, DISMANTLES CORRUPTION SQUAD AFTER PROBE UNVEILS MONITORING OF GOP SENATORS, PATEL SAYS

The measure is also backed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. A Jordan spokesman told Fox News Digital that the conservative leader has "always been 100% supportive of this provision."

Its inclusion came after some fireworks between Stefanik and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., last week. 

Stefanik had publicly accused the speaker of kowtowing to Democrats and allowing that provision to be removed. Johnson said he was blindsided by Stefanik's anger and was unaware of her concerns when she had made them public.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE BIDEN'S FBI OF RETALIATING AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWER WHO EXPOSED MISCONDUCT

Johnson also said at the time that it had been removed from the final bill during normal procedural discussions between Democrats and Republicans, although he himself supported the measure.

Stefanik later claimed victory on X, however, announcing the provision had been reinstated after a conversation between herself, Johnson and President Donald Trump

"I had a very productive conversation with Speaker Johnson last night and I shared my views that House Republicans need to focus on delivering results to the American people," she said last week.

House Republican leadership aides said in answer to a question by Fox News Digital on Monday night that there was "some miscommunication and misunderstandings" related to the provision at first but "we've worked through those."

Aides said House GOP leaders "worked closely with Stefanik's office and with the committees of jurisdiction to find a way to accomplish her intent and what she was hoping to get out of the provision in a way that that fit with the priorities of the committees of jurisdiction and address some of the concerns that they'd had."

Jeremy Paul, a professor of law at Northeastern University, told Fox News Digital on Monday that he did not believe there were legitimate concerns over separation of powers with the provision.

HOUSE VOTES TO REPEAL CONTROVERSIAL ARCTIC FROST PROVISION FROM GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BILL

"If it is enacted into law, the executive branch could argue that this is an intrusion on executive power," he said. "But it's very tough, because there are no crimes unless the Congress makes something a crime. So Congress really ultimately has control over what is and is not investigated."

"As far as constitutional arguments, it's not easy for me to think of one that would derail this statute. That doesn't mean the statute is a good idea."

"If people are breaking the law, then they should be investigated. And if the investigation reveals that their campaign, for example, is being funded by foreign governments, then that ought to be stopped. And this is gonna make it harder for that to happen," he said.

But conservatives in Congress argue that the provision is critical.

"We support that 110%. I hope it stays in the NDAA in light of what we've seen in the last 10 years, particularly what the weaponized Justice Department did to President Trump," Jordan told FOX Business host Maria Bartiromo last week. "This is definitely needed. I totally support what Elise is trying to get done."

Congress melts down: Members unleash personal attacks after weeks of shutdown drama

Let’s face it: Politics is personal. And you cannot separate the two on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers may not have missed legislating during the government shutdown. But they sure missed attacking one another.

Yes, both chambers of Congress voted to reopen the government. That’s legislating. There were certainly a few bills of consequence on the House and Senate floors in September before the shutdown. 

There was a little bit in the Senate, which remained in session during the shutdown. There was the adoption of the measure to compel the release of the Epstein files.

EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS RAISE NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONDUCT AS HE DENOUNCES DEMOCRATS

But prior to that, one must hustle all the way back to the Senate’s approval of the "big, beautiful bill" in June and the House in early July — plus the plan to defund foreign programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — to find Congress really engaging in legislation of consequence in 2025. 

So, what has the House of Representatives resorted to since it’s been back in session? Members taking on members. Even fellow lawmakers of their own party.

It’s gotten personal. And you don’t even have to be a voting member of the House to face the wrath of your colleagues.

There was an effort by Republicans to censure the non-voting Democratic member from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Congress, Del. Stacey Plaskett, for exchanging messages with Epstein in preparation for President Donald Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.

Trump loyalists in the House would find revenge on Paskett sweeter than Caribbean sugar cane. Plaskett served as one of the House’s impeachment "managers," prosecuting the House’s second impeachment case of Trump before the Senate in early 2021.

The measure to rebuke Plaskett failed. And, as a result, Democrats refrained from a similar censure effort for Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla.

That said, Democrats and some Republicans want to discipline Mills for two alleged transgressions. Democrats prepped a resolution in September to censure Mills for allegedly harassing and assaulting an ex-girlfriend in Washington, D.C. 

Mills contends he did nothing wrong.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., wants to censure Mills now. Mills provided a key vote earlier in 2025 to block the censure of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., over her remarks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Some lawmakers also want House discipline for Mace after authorities claim she cursed and berated TSA workers and other employees at the Charleston, South Carolina, airport recently.  

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., is one of the most centrist members in the House. She prepped a rebuke of Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., in November. 

Garcia is retiring at the end of his term in early 2027. He filed for re-election but then decided at the last moment to step aside. 

The Illinois Democrat cited family-related health reasons and his family’s recent adoption of an 8-year-old boy. However, the only person who apparently knew about the Congressman’s plans was Patty Garcia, his chief of staff. 

Chuy Garcia is not related to Patty Garcia. However, she filed paperwork to run for the House seat with just moments to spare before the deadline. It turns out that Patty Garcia is the only one to file for the seat. That means Patty Garcia is practically a shoo-in for victory in the heavily Democratic seat. 

JOHNSON SAYS HE'S 'OPEN' TO CHANGING HOUSE CENSURE RULES AFTER WEEK OF POLITICAL DRAMA

The audacious move by Patty Garcia and Chuy Garcia gave critics fodder to chew on. They believed that the outgoing congressman pre-baked the ballot, delivering a political Walter Payton stiff-arm that blocked anyone else from running except his chief of staff.

Old-style Chicago machine politics haven’t been this brutal in the Windy City since they originally brewed Old Style beer.

Gluesenkamp Perez and others excoriated the sitting congressman, voting 236-183 to sanction him. Including Gluesenkamp Perez, 23 Democrats voted with all Republicans to dock Chuy Garcia.

So, it’s likely that voters will elect Patty Garcia as congresswoman-elect in the fall of 2026. But after the vote to sanction her old boss, winds blowing off of Lake Michigan would provide a warmer welcome for Patty Garcia to Capitol Hill when she prospectively takes office in January 2027.

Now there’s a move to sanction Rep. Shelia Cherfilus-McCormick D-Fla., after she was indicted for allegedly stealing $5 million in COVID-related health aid. 

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., prepped a resolution to expel Cherfilus-McCormick even though there’s been no trial. Cherfilus-McCormick says the indictment is a sham.

And we haven’t even discussed efforts earlier in 2025 to expel Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., after she was charged with allegedly assaulting ICE agents at a detention center in Newark, New Jersey, in the spring. McIver continues to serve and pleaded not guilty. 

This may only get worse.

Sens. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; and Reps. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa;, Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; and Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., faced criticism over a video in which they instructed service members to defy illegal orders. 

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has now launched an investigation into Kelly and threatened to recall the former astronaut to active duty to face military discipline.

And it’s not just member on member. The president also excoriated his arch-nemesis on the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., for getting married 16 months after the congressman’s first wife, Rhonda, died.

"Did Thomas Massie, sometimes referred to as Rand Paul Jr., because of the fact that he always votes against the Republican Party, get married already??? Boy, that was quick!" Trump posted to Truth Social in November. "Anyway, have a great life Thomas and (?). His wife will soon find out that she’s stuck with a LOSER!"

It’s now officially the holiday season. And few on Capitol Hill are truly extending tidings of good cheer to their congressional colleagues. It surely can’t get any worse, can it?

Well, we’re not even halfway through the 119th Congress. And after lengthy recesses in July, all of August, a portion of September — and for the House, all of October and some of November — lawmakers are just making up for lost time. The recriminations will keep coming.

Politicians have decided to make it personal. It’s easier to attack one another and score political points than legislate.

It’s not practical politics. Lawmakers just prefer personal politics.

Court says Boasberg didn’t know Arctic Frost subpoenas hit lawmakers, Grassley calls that ‘deeply troubling’

FIRST ON FOX: A top federal court official defended Judge James Boasberg’s gag orders that hid subpoenas related to the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation, saying this week that the chief judge in Washington would likely have been unaware that the subpoenas' intended targets were members of Congress.

The administrative office for the federal courts indicated that the chief judge in D.C. routinely blindly signed gag orders when the Department of Justice requested them, including during Arctic Frost, the investigation that led to former special counsel Jack Smith bringing election charges against President Donald Trump.

The administrative office's director, Robert Conrad Jr., provided the explanation on behalf of Boasberg to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital.

REPUBLICANS FEUD OVER 'ARCTIC FROST' ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT CRITICS OFFER NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE

The letter came in response to Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, demanding an explanation from Boasberg about why he authorized the one-year gag orders, which barred phone companies from telling Republican Congress members that their records were subpoenaed by Smith in 2023.

Conrad said he could not address those specific subpoenas and gag orders, in part because some of the material was sealed, but that he could help the lawmakers "understand relevant practices" in place during Arctic Frost.

The DOJ’s requests for gag orders, also known as non-disclosure orders, "typically do not attach the related subpoena; rather they identify the subject accounts only by a signifier — e.g., a phone number," Conrad wrote. "As a result, [non-disclosure order] applications would not reveal whether a particular phone number belonged to a member of Congress."

Grassley reacted to the latest correspondence from the court by faulting the Biden DOJ for seeking the gag orders from Boasberg without notifying the judge that they pertained to Congress members.

Grassley noted that the DOJ's Public Integrity Section gave Smith's team the green light to subpoena lawmakers' phone records but had also told the prosecutors to be wary of concerns lawmakers could raise about the Constitution's speech or debate clause, which gives Congress members added protections in prosecutorial matters.

"Smith went ahead with the congressional subpoenas anyway, and it appears he and his team didn’t apprise the court of member involvement," Grassley told Fox News Digital. "Smith’s apparent lack of candor is deeply troubling, and he needs to answer for his conduct."

The DOJ revised its policy in response to an inspector general report in 2024 so that prosecutors were required to notify the court if they were seeking a gag order against a Congress member so that judges could take that into consideration when deciding whether to authorize the orders. Smith's subpoenas pre-dated that policy shift.

The subpoenas, and the gag orders that kept them concealed, have drawn enormous criticism from the targeted lawmakers, who alleged that the Biden DOJ improperly spied on them over their alleged involvement in attempting to overturn the 2020 election and that Boasberg was complicit in allowing it. Among the top critics is Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who was set to lead a since-postponed hearing Wednesday examining the case for impeaching Boasberg. Impeachment of judges is exceedingly rare and typically has only occurred in response to crimes like corruption and bribery.

TRUMP FOE BOASBERG HIT WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

Johnson said he remained unsatisfied with Boasberg after the letter from the administrative office.

"Judge Boasberg’s refusal to answer questions from Congress about his approval of unlawful gag orders is an affront to transparency and an obvious attempt to deflect any responsibility for his awareness of or involvement in Jack Smith’s partisan dragnet," Johnson told Fox News Digital. "Judge Boasberg must immediately lift the seal that is apparently preventing him from addressing Congress’ questions and provide the public a full explanation for his actions."

Public documents reveal that as chief judge of the D.C. federal court, Boasberg authorized numerous gag orders that blocked phone companies from telling about a dozen House and Senate lawmakers that Smith had subpoenaed their phone data.

Smith had sought a narrow set of their records, which included details about when calls and messages were placed and with whom the Congress members were communicating. The records did not include the contents of calls and messages. Smith has defended the subpoenas, saying they were in line with department policy and "entirely proper."

A look back at the biggest presidential Thanksgiving scandals, surprises

Thanksgiving typically slows the news as Americans gather with family and friends. But the holiday also has a habit of amplifying Washington, D.C.'s political drama and surprises.

Americans are no strangers to controversy and scandals, including a handful that have played out across the decades as citizens gathered around the dinner table for Thanksgiving or headed out for Black Friday shopping. 

Fox News Digital took a look back at the biggest scandals and political events that rocked Washington, D.C., around the fall holiday. 

5 FACTS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THANKSGIVING YOU CAN SHARE BETWEEN BITES OF TURKEY THIS HOLIDAY

The Saturday before Thanksgiving in 1973, President Richard Nixon held a press conference in Orlando, Florida, where he famously said he was not a "crook" as the Watergate break-in and subsequent scandal came to light. 

At the heart of the scandal were Nixon’s efforts to obstruct justice by directing a cover-up of the Watergate office complex break-in, including suppressing the FBI’s investigation, paying hush money and misusing federal agencies to shield his administration from scrutiny.

As the scandal surrounding the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters heated up, Nixon defended himself in a televised Q&A with newspaper editors gathered at Walt Disney World for a convention. 

"Let me just say this, and I want to say this to the television audience: I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent," Nixon said, initially answering questions about his personal finances. "And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice.

"And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got." 

Nixon resigned in August 1974 with an impeachment process underway and a grand jury prepared to indict him on charges of bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal investigation related to the Watergate cover-up. 

Nixon was later pardoned and did not face any federal prosecution in the matter. 

Details unraveled about the Iran–Contra affair in the early days of November 1986 before crescendoing the week of Thanksgiving, including then-President Ronald Reagan dismissing Lt. Col. Oliver North and announcing the resignation of National Security Advisor John Poindexter two days before the holiday. 

News began to percolate overseas in early November 1986 that the U.S. made a secret arms sale to Iran to secure the release of American hostages held in Lebanon. U.S. officials later divulged the funds from the deal were used to fund an anti-communist rebel group in Nicaragua called the Contras. 

Two days before Thanksgiving, Reagan announced he had dismissed North from the National Security Council, with Poindexter resigning that same day. On Thanksgiving eve, Reagan announced the creation of a Special Review Board to review the National Security Council’s role in the deal, later known as the Tower Commission. 

MEET THE AMERICAN WHO GAVE THE NATION OUR FIRST THANKSGIVING ORIGIN STORY: PILGRIM EDWARD WINSLOW

The fallout from the report continued over the holiday and even into the George H.W. Bush administration, when the president granted pardons to a handful of individuals involved on Christmas Eve 1992. 

While many Americans were out shopping on Black Friday in 1998, the Clinton White House delivered President Bill Clinton's written responses to 81 questions from House Judiciary related to his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky as part of an impeachment inquiry. 

Clinton already had declared to the nation that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" in January 1998, and the House authorized an impeachment inquiry in October that intensified around the Thanksgiving holiday. The Judiciary had sent Clinton 81 questions that focused on his relationship with Lewinsky based on independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report that included evidence related to the affair allegations. 

Clinton returned the 81 questions on Black Friday, which included questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his conduct in the Paula Jones case, which accused him of sexual harassment in 1994. Judiciary Republicans accused Clinton of playing "word games" in his responses, which included Clinton denying he committed perjury or obstructing justice, and the impeachment inquiry continued. 

TRUMP, DEMOCRATS LOCKED IN ENDLESS CYCLES OF PAYBACK AFTER COMEY INDICTMENT AND TARGETING PRESIDENT'S ENEMIES

The House ultimately impeached Clinton on charges of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice related to his efforts to conceal the affair with an intern, while the Senate voted to acquit Clinton on both articles of impeachment. 

In a more light-hearted Thanksgiving political event, President George W. Bush quietly traveled to Iraq in 2003 to meet with the troops stationed in Baghdad. The visit, cloaked in secrecy until he was there, marked the first time a sitting president visited Iraq. 

AMERICA'S 'UNIQUE' THANKSGIVING STUFFING PREFERENCES STATE-BY-STATE

"Our planners worked to answer every question," Bush said at the time about the intense planning for the trip. "I had a lot of questions."

Bush was on the ground for over two hours before he made the trip back to the U.S. The trip set off some claims that the president was working for a political gain ahead of the 2004 election, while the administration brushed off such claims while stressing the commander in chief's visit was focused on supporting the troops amid a war. 

Just after 4 p.m. on the eve of Thanksgiving in 2020, Trump announced he delivered a full pardon to his former national security advisor, retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn.

The White House later in the day released a statement saying Flynn "should never have been prosecuted" and that the pardon ends "the relentless, partisan pursuit of an innocent man."

TRUMP ISSUES SWEEPING PARDONS FOR 2020 ELECTION ALLIES — WHAT THE MOVE REALLY MEANS

"While today’s action sets right an injustice against an innocent man and an American hero, it should also serve as a reminder to all of us that we must remain vigilant over those in whom we place our trust and confidence," the statement continued.

The pardon ended a yearslong legal battle stemming from then-special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Flynn’s pardon was preceded by his 2017 guilty plea for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia. He also had admitted to filing paperwork under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. His sentencing, however, was stalled due to his cooperation with authorities. 

In 2019, Flynn claimed he was innocent in the case and sought to withdraw his guilty plea, citing alleged government misconduct. 

The Department of Justice was in the midst of moving to dismiss the case when Trump pardoned Flynn. 

Vindman’s call to release Trump–MBS transcript reopens old questions in US–Saudi relationship

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., is demanding that President Donald Trump release a 2019 call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, saying the American people "deserve to know what was said" in the aftermath of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

Vindman, a retired Army colonel who once served on Trump’s National Security Council, said the call was one of two that deeply concerned him — the other being the 2019 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that triggered Trump’s first impeachment. 

Standing beside Hanan Alter Khashoggi, the slain journalist’s widow, Vindman said Trump "sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader" and that transparency is owed to both the Khashoggi family and the country.

"The Khashoggi family and the American people deserve to know what was said on that call," Vindman said Friday. "Our intelligence agencies concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder of Mr. Khashoggi’s husband. When the president sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader, America’s credibility was at stake."

TRUMP SECURES RELEASE OF AMERICAN TRAPPED IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR YEARS OVER ONLINE POSTS

Vindman’s name is already polarizing in Trump-era politics. 

He and his twin brother, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, became central figures in the first impeachment, when their internal reporting of Trump’s Ukraine call led to accusations from conservatives that they had undermined an elected president. To Trump’s allies, Eugene Vindman’s demand to release the 2019 Saudi call feels like a replay of that fight — another attempt by a former National Security Council insider to damage the president under the banner of transparency.

Still, his comments land at a revealing moment. Washington’s embrace of Mohammed bin Salman underscores a familiar trade-off in U.S. foreign policy: strategic security and economic interests over accountability and human rights.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: "The U.S.-Saudi friendship is now a partnership for the future. President Trump's historic agreements with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from defense to investment, will create quality jobs for Americans and will grow our economy. No virtue-signaling. No lecturing. Only results for the American people."  

Trump’s latest visit with bin Salman brought sweeping defense and investment deals, even as questions over 9/11 and Khashoggi’s murder continue to test that balance. The United States granted Saudi Arabia major non-NATO ally status, formally elevating the kingdom’s defense and intelligence partnership with Washington and clearing the way for expedited arms sales and joint military programs.

Bin Salman also pledged nearly $1 trillion in new Saudi investments across U.S. industries, including infrastructure, artificial intelligence and clean energy. The commitments were announced alongside a Strategic Defense Agreement that includes purchases of F-35 fighter jets, roughly 300 Abrams tanks and new missile defense systems, as well as joint ventures to expand manufacturing inside Saudi Arabia.

Administration officials said the initiatives would create tens of thousands of American jobs and strengthen the U.S. industrial base.

During his appearance with Trump at the White House, reporters shouted questions about Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2018 killing of  Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul — marking a rare moment of public pressure on the crown prince, who typically avoids unscripted exchanges with the press.

Trump accused the press of trying to "embarrass" his guest, but the crown prince offered what sounded like regret for the killing of Khashoggi, even as he denied involvement.

"A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about," Trump said. "Whether you like him or don’t like him, things happen, but he knew nothing about it … We can leave it at that. You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that."

ABC reporter Mary Bruce had told bin Salman that U.S. intelligence determined he’d signed off on the killing and that 9/11 families were "furious" about his presence in the White House. "Why should Americans trust you?"

"It’s been painful for us in Saudi Arabia," bin Salman said of the killing, calling it "a huge mistake." "We’ve improved our system to be sure that nothing happens like that again," he added.

TRUMP DESIGNATES SAUDI ARABIA AS MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY DURING CROWN PRINCE WHITE HOUSE VISIT

A 2021 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated: "We assess that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey, to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi." Bin Salman has repeatedly denied approving the killing, though he said in 2019, "It happened under my watch, I take full responsibility as a leader."

The question of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks remains one of the most sensitive and unresolved issues in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. While 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, the U.S. government has never concluded that the Saudi state or senior Saudi officials had prior knowledge of or directed the attacks.

Families of 9/11 victims condemned bin Salman after he invoked Osama bin Laden during his White House remarks, saying the al-Qaeda leader used Saudi nationals to drive a wedge between Washington and Riyadh.

"We have to focus on reality," the crown prince said. "Reality is that Osama bin Laden used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose: to destroy the American–Saudi relationship. That’s the purpose of 9/11."

"The Saudi crown prince invoking Osama bin Laden this afternoon in the White House does not change the fact that a federal judge in New York ruled a few short months ago that Saudi Arabia must stand trial for its role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks that murdered 3,000 of our loved ones," said Brett Eagleson, president of 9/11 Justice, a group representing victims’ families.

In August 2025, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels issued a landmark ruling bringing Saudi Arabia under U.S. federal jurisdiction for a 9/11 trial. The court found evidence of a network of Saudi officials inside the U.S. who allegedly provided logistical support to the hijackers, citing "prior planning" and "constant coordination." Among the materials described in the ruling was a drawing seized from a Saudi government operative showing an airplane with flight-path equations — evidence prosecutors said suggested advance knowledge of the attacks.

Saudi Arabia has denied any role, calling the allegations "categorically false." 

But for bin Salman, who came to Washington seeking to highlight new security and economic ties, the families’ sharp rebuke was a reminder that the 9/11 case still looms large in the public eye, even as the Trump administration deepens its partnership with Riyadh.

California governor hopeful Eric Swalwell embraces role as Trump’s loudest critic amid new DOJ probe

As he launches a bid to become the next governor of California, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., has embraced his most recent conflict with the Trump administration, touting himself as the president's "most vocal critic."

Throughout his congressional career, highly visible clashes with President Donald Trump have given Swalwell a national profile. He looks poised to continue that streak, repeatedly highlighting his tensions with the president as the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new investigation against him this month.

"Nancy Pelosi selected me to lead the impeachment of a corrupt president. Californians will never bow the knee," Swalwell said in a video posted on his website. 

California's current governor, Gavin Newsom, is term-limited in 2026. 

TRUMP DOJ OPENS MORTGAGE FRAUD PROBE INTO ERIC SWALWELL AS CONGRESSMAN VOWS TO KEEP FIGHTING BACK

The DOJ opened a probe into Swalwell over alleged mortgage fraud and, according to reporting by NBC, may also be under investigation for tax fraud and insurance fraud. Swalwell denies any wrongdoing. 

"The only thing I am surprised about is that it took him this long to come after me," Swalwell said in a statement following the news of the investigation.

Swalwell first came to Congress in 2013 after serving as a county deputy district attorney in California from 2006 to 2012. He briefly ran for president in 2020 but dropped out just three months after launching his bid. 

In media interviews since the DOJ announced its probe, Swalwell has embraced his role as a target of the administration.

"This is really about Donald Trump going after his political enemies. No one has been a more vocal critic than me. I have one of the only remaining lawsuits against Donald Trump for his role in Jan. 6," Swalwell said in an interview with MSNBC, referring to pending litigation over whether Trump encouraged protesters to storm the U.S. Capitol building in 2021. 

"I’m not going to change a single thing about what I do to stand up against Donald Trump when he gets in the way of me fighting for Californians," Swalwell said. "I am not going to shrink one bit because of Donald Trump trying to intimidate me, and it’s not working with the other colleagues he’s gone after." 

UNEARTHED RECORDS EXPOSE SWALWELL CAMPAIGN'S 'BIZARRE INCONSISTENCY' IN PAYMENTS TO CALIFORNIA MAN

In a post to X, Swalwell listed himself alongside other Democrats facing similar charges from the DOJ.

"Like James Comey and John Bolton, Adam Schiff and Lisa Cook, Letitia James and the dozens more to come — I refuse to live in fear in what was once the freest country in the world," Swalwell said.

His opposition to Trump stands out even as his record in the 119th Congress doesn’t jump off the page.

Notably, Swalwell has missed 16% of his votes since the beginning of the year, making him the 10th-most-absent member of the House of Representatives. He rarely breaks with the party, having voted against a majority of Democrats on just eight occasions since the outset of the session. He also hasn’t made much noise in fundraising this year, reporting a respectable yet unexceptional $1.4 million in the first three quarters of 2025. 

SWALWELL THREATENS 'ACCOUNTABILITY' TO PRIVATE ACTORS WHO DEAL WITH TRUMP, HOPE IT 'DETERS PEOPLE'

But Swalwell’s yearslong record against Trump stands out.

As referenced in his video, Swalwell was a House impeachment manager against Trump in 2021 and, in addition to his lawsuit, has used his position on the House Oversight Committee to criticize the president’s policies and behavior.

"Next week, when we hear about someone else who is an opponent of Donald Trump being investigated, it will also be nonsense," Swalwell said in an interview with CNN. "Of course, I am one of the most vocal critics against Donald Trump. I have the only lawsuit that survived him becoming president — me and the other Jan. 6 officers." 

The investigation into Swalwell is in its early stages. The DOJ has not announced if or when it would pursue a grand jury trial. Swalwell's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Fox News Politics Newsletter: Trump not invited to Dick Cheney funeral

Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content. Here's what's happening…

-Climate deadlines collide with politics as Dem-led states chase Big Oil in court but spare local refiners

-NYC mayor-elect Mamdani says he’ll work with Trump ‘to make life more affordable’ despite policy clashes

-Trump labels 6 Democrats who told troops to refuse unlawful orders 'traitors' who should be arrested

President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were not invited to the funeral for former Vice President Dick Cheney, Fox News has confirmed.

Cheney's funeral is scheduled for mid-morning on Thursday at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. It is traditional for sitting U.S. presidents to attend funerals for past presidents and vice presidents, but Trump has had a uniquely poor relationship with Cheney's family in recent years. News of the president's exclusion was first reported by Axios.

Cheney's daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., helped lead the House investigation into Trump's role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021…READ MORE.

MAJOR MOVE: Trump administration eyes sweeping federal power over AI, draft order shows

JOBS JAB: Jobs report revision flips Trump-era gain to loss — and it’s fueling bad poll numbers

NO RELATION: Zeldin, McCain hammer Crockett on Epstein donations claim

'POLITICS BE DAMNED': Vance says Trump admin has ‘great’ healthcare plan coming, wants to work with Dems: ‘Politics be damned’

PRICE TAG REVOLT: Survey says: Issue that helped Trump and Republicans in 2024 hurts them now

PEACE TREATY: Trump teases Musk at forum as once-frosty dynamic seems to take a turn

GAME OVER: ICE deports MS-13 gang leader who tried to 'game our immigration system' under Biden administration, DHS says

THE LONG GAME: Trump touts trillion-dollar Saudi investment, but it will take years for cash to start flowing

ROUND FIVE: Dem lawmaker sets litmus test for party with 5th Trump impeachment effort

SKIPPING CENSURE: House Republican to move to expel Dem accused of stealing disaster relief money for campaign

SHOW YOUR WORK: Graham demands Democrats explain 'refuse illegal orders' message to troops

TERROR ON WHEELS: Shapiro slams ICE, GOP over illegal immigrant terrorist trucker fiasco, says he's still in fed database

'RADICAL POLICIES': Byron Donalds' gubernatorial campaign to deploy trolling video trucks outside of Kamala Harris Miami event

JUDICIAL SHOWDOWN: Reagan-appointed judge torches colleagues in Texas map fight, calls ruling ‘fiction,’ ‘judicial activism’

'DELIBERATELY CUT': Former aide to House rep accused of faking political attack

Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.