More than 100 former Justice Dept officials urge Senate to confirm Pam Bondi as AG
FIRST ON FOX — Dozens of former Justice Department (DOJ) officials sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday urging confirmation of President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi, later this month— praising both her commitment to the rule of law and her track record as Florida’s former attorney general that they said makes her uniquely qualified for the role.
The letter, previewed exclusively to Fox News Digital, was signed by more than 110 senior Justice Department officials who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including former U.S. attorneys general John Ashcroft, Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr and Edwin Meese.
Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, deputy attorneys general Rod Rosenstein and Jeffrey Rosen, and Randy Grossman, who served as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California under the Biden administration, are among the other notable signatories.
The DOJ alumni expressed their "strong and enthusiastic support" for Bondi, Florida’s former attorney general, who also spent 18 years as a prosecutor in the Hillsborough County State Attorney’s office.
"It is all too rare for senior Justice Department officials—much less Attorneys General—to have such a wealth of experience in the day-to-day work of keeping our communities safe," they wrote.
TRUMP'S AG PICK HAS ‘HISTORY OF CONSENSUS BUILDING’
"As a career prosecutor, Attorney General Bondi will be ready from the first day on the job to fight on behalf of the American people to reduce crime, tackle the opioid crisis, back the women and men in blue, and restore credibility to the Department of Justice," they wrote in the letter sent to Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
The letter praised Bondi's work as Florida's attorney general, where she led an aggressive crackdown on opioid drugs and the many "pill mills" operating in the state when she took office. They also praised what they described as Bondi's "national reputation" for her work to end human trafficking, and prosecuting violent crime in the state.
Officials also emphasized Bondi's other achievements in Florida, where she secured consumer protection victories and economic relief on behalf of residents in the Sunshine State. After the 2008 financial crisis, her work leading the National Mortgage Settlement resulted in $56 billion in compensation to victims, the letter said — and in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Bondi's lawsuit against BP and other companies responsible resulted in a $2 billion settlement in economic relief.
The letter also stressed Bondi's commitment to the rule of law, and what the former officials touted as her track record of working across the aisle during the more than two decades she spent as a prosecutor.
'UNLIKELY COALITION': A CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM ADVOCATE SEES OPPORTUNITIES IN A SECOND TRUMP TERM
"Some of us have worked directly with Attorney General Bondi during her time in office and can personally attest to her integrity and devotion to the rule of law," they wrote. "Many more of us know and admire her well-earned reputation from her long and accomplished career in government service in Florida, her litigation and advocacy on the national stage, and her demonstrated courage as a lawyer."
"As former DOJ officials, we know firsthand the challenges she will face as Attorney General, and we also know she is up to the job."
Those close to Bondi have praised her long record as a prosecutor, and her staunch loyalty to the president-elect, alongside whom she has worked since 2020—first, helping to represent him in his first impeachment trial, and, more recently, in her post as co-chair of the Center for Law and Justice at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) a think tank set up by former Trump staffers.
She also served in Trump's first presidential term as a member of his Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission.
Bondi's former colleagues have told Fox News Digital they expect her to bring the same playbook she used in Florida to Washington—this time with an eye to cracking down on drug trafficking, illicit fentanyl use, and the cartels responsible for smuggling the drugs across the border.
"We firmly believe the Justice Department and the Nation will benefit from Attorney General Bondi’s leadership," the DOJ officials said in conclusion, adding: "We urge you in the strongest manner possible to confirm her as the next Attorney General of the United States."
Gingrich warns Freedom Caucus to study his era as conservatives issue demand letter following Johnson vote
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who led Republicans to their first House majority in four decades in 1994, said Saturday the House Freedom Caucus should recall how his own caucus led conservatives to power within the party.
Gingrich tweeted that he and other conservatives had developed "positive action principles" in 1983 as part of what they called the Conservative Opportunity Society.
"[Those] led 11 years later to the Contract with America and the first GOP House Majority in 40 years."
"If the Freedom Caucus would study them, they could be dramatically more effective," Gingrich said, going on to cite and agree with a sentiment from political reporter Mark Halperin’s "Wide World of News" newsletter.
"[T]he Freedom Caucus is a bunch of rebels with a series of causes but no coherent path to achieving said causes," Halperin wrote.
In the 1980s, although Ronald Reagan was in the White House, Boston Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill wielded strong control of the House. O’Neill and Reagan had a notably friendly but ideologically disparate relationship.
Coinciding with the early days of C-SPAN televising live floor proceedings, Gingrich would often take to the well of the House in the late-night hours and address conservatives’ issues to a mostly empty chamber but with a captive audience on the new TV format.
GINGRICH BLASTS HARRIS' ‘RAMBLING’ SPEECHES
Gingrich biographer Craig Shirley told Fox News Digital on Saturday that the Freedom Caucus should study the work of their comparative predecessor, the Conservative Opportunity Society, as well as the path Gingrich led from a low-profile congressman to speaker.
"I guess the word brilliant is thrown around so, so cavalierly. So let me just say, it was extremely smart politics to make the case for conservative governance," Shirley said of Gingrich’s work in the 1980s and 1990s.
"Reagan had already blazed that path eight years before Gingrich did."
While critics say the GOP has shifted hard to the right on some issues and softened on others, Shirley said it’s essentially the same as it was during Gingrich’s rise.
"Less government, more freedom, less taxes, strong national defense, pro-life."
Former Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn., another top member of Gingrich’s conservative group, said in a PBS interview that there have not been too many groups like the Conservative Opportunity Society (or the Freedom Caucus, which hadn’t been formed at the time of the interview) and that there was the same issue with apprehension over angering their party leaders.
Weber said there had been a few small intra-caucus conservative groups prior to the Reagan era, including one in the 1960s led by then-Rep. Donald Rumsfeld, R-Ill. – who would go on to serve as Pentagon chief two times.
On the last day of the 1982 session, Gingrich approached Weber and asked, "What are you doing next year and for the next 10 years after that?."
"I thought that was interesting and I said, ‘I expect to be back here, but nothing special other than that,’" Weber recalled.
"What he was saying was that he, as one person, was not being effective…. He identified me in the [GOP] conference as somebody [who] had been supportive of his point of view and maybe had some ability to organize things," Weber said.
MIKE JOHNSON RE-ELECTED HOUSE SPEAKER
Shirley said the current Freedom Caucus has the rare opportunity to achieve their goals if they play their cards right, with full Republican control of Washington.
"They don't have a ‘contract,’ but they have the next best thing there. They have a core set of issues and an ideology that they can easily follow," he said, adding that "no one should ever doubt" Speaker Mike Johnson’s commitment to "Reaganite" principles.
In additional comments to Fox News’ "Hannity," Gingrich said the one-round vote Friday was a "great victory" for Johnson, R-La.
"[He’s] just a decent, hardworking, intelligent human being.… I could not have been the kind of speaker he is. I don't have the patience. I don't have that ability to just keep moving forward. It's really very extraordinary."
Meanwhile, Freedom Caucus member Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News the group met with Johnson earlier and that he "just didn't come away with the feeling that the ‘umph’ or the willingness to fight for Trump's agenda was there."
"And I use as a backdrop what’s happened the last 14 months, we had 1500-page omni-bills that you couldn’t read – where you had no spending cuts to offset $100 billion in new spending."
"And I know we had a slim majority, but that's over with now. What we wanted to impress with [Johnson] yesterday was, are you going to fight for these things that we've been asking for, like a balanced budget? Like offsets? Like getting behind all of the Trump agenda?"
Norman, along with Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, initially did not vote for Johnson, which would have set up a second round of speaker votes.
But, Norman told "The Story" that that action was the "only way to let my voice be heard."
He said Johnson "gave his word" to fight for the things he mentioned to Fox News, and that agreement, plus a message from Trump that Johnson was the only speaker candidate with support in the caucus, guided his decision to ultimately support the Louisianan.
In a "Dear Colleague" letter released Friday, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., and his members expressed several policy points that Johnson should commit to in order to "reverse the damage of the Biden-Harris administration," as well as achieve long-standing conservative goals.
The letter indicated they had voted for Johnson because of their "steadfast support" of Trump and ensuring the Jan. 6 elector certification can run smoothly.
"We did this despite our sincere reservations regarding the Speaker’s track record over the past 15 months."
The caucus called for Johnson to modify the House calendar so its schedule is as busy as the Senate’s, ensure reconciliation legislation reduces spending and deficits in "real terms," and halt violations of the "72-hour-rule" for debate on amendments to bills.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
They also demanded Johnson not rely on Democrats to pass legislation that a majority of his own caucus won’t support.
In comments on "The Story," Norman said he believes Johnson now understands – through the initial silence of several Republicans during the first roll call and his and Self’s initial non-Johnson-vote – that he will have to work to consider the conservative bloc’s demands.
How Trump nominees could make Project 2025 a reality
It starts with Russell Vought, his pick to lead the little-known Office of Management and Budget.
by Amanda Becker, for The 19th
Republican President-elect Donald Trump spent the closing months of his campaign trying to distance himself from a blueprint for his second term known as Project 2025.
Then, in the days after his victory, Trump picked major architects of the Heritage Foundation’s vision for key posts in his next administration, setting the stage for them to implement a conservative Christian agenda that has the potential to reshape the federal government and redefine rights long held by all Americans, though likely to disproportionately impact women, LGBTQ+ people and vulnerable populations like the elderly and disabled.
One of these architects is Russell Vought, whom Trump has again tapped to lead his Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, an under-the-radar entity to most Americans that wields immense influence over the federal government by crafting the president’s budget. If confirmed by the Senate, a very likely outcome, Vought will be optimally positioned to inject Project 2025’s priorities — many of which reflect his career-long push to dismantle programs for low-income Americans and expand the president’s authority — across the federal agencies and departments that OMB oversees.
Ben Olinsky, who advised Democratic former President Barack Obama on labor and workforce policy before joining the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, where he works on issues related to the economy and governance, said that Vought’s vision for OMB as presented in Project 2025 is “to basically change the plumbing so they can do whatever they want without any meaningful checks and balances” during Trump’s second term.
“I think that it's important to really make sure [Americans] understand what the plans are for changing the plumbing,” Olinsky said.
Vought has firsthand knowledge of the OMB’s wide-ranging scope. During Trump’s first term, he was OMB’s deputy director, acting director and, finally, confirmed director. In those roles, he helped then-President Trump craft a plan to jettison job protections for thousands of federal workers and assisted with a legally ambiguous effort to redirect congressionally appropriated foreign aid for Ukraine.
In the years since, as Trump staved off legal threats and convictions to build a winning bid to return to the White House, Vought has refined his thinking and strategies about how to best force agencies to “come to heel and do what the president has been telling them to do,” as he put it in a recent interview.
Vought has used two pro-Trump groups he founded — the nonprofit Center for Renewing America and its advocacy arm, America Restoration Action — to discredit structural racism as a driver for inequality and attempt to stymie diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. In August, he told a pair of British journalists posing as potential donors that the Center for Renewing America is “an organization I helped turn into the Death Star,” the fictional Star Wars space station that can destroy planets, and it “is accomplishing all of the debates you are reading about.”
The chapter that Vought wrote for Project 2025 details how the Office of Management and Budget could be a vehicle to advance the Christian nationalist agenda he favors — and he has not hesitated to talk about it.
“I think you have to rehabilitate Christian nationalism,” Vought told the British journalists at the Centre for Climate Reporting, which released video of the conversation that was recorded using hidden cameras.
In an interview with conservative activist Tucker Carlson shortly after Trump’s reelection, Vought likened OMB to the “nerve center” through which a president can ensure their policy directives trickle down to the multitude of federal agencies and a civilian workforce of more than two million people.
“Properly understood, [OMB] is a President’s air-traffic control system with the ability and charge to ensure that all policy initiatives are flying in sync and with the authority to let planes take off and, at times, ground planes that are flying off course,” Vought wrote in Project 2025.
He sees two primary ways to ground wayward planes: by eliminating potential dissent within agencies and withholding money appropriated by Congress for projects and programs the president does not support.
Both would clear the way for Trump’s next administration to implement many of the priorities detailed in Project 2025, which could essentially redefine rights, systems and cultural norms for all Americans.
Some of Project 2025’s recommendations include restricting abortion access and supporting a “biblically based” definition of family, because the “male-female dyad is essential to human nature,” by replacing policies related to LGBTQ+ equity with those that “support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
It also suggests transforming the FBI into a politically motivated entity to settle scores and barring U.S. citizens from receiving federal housing assistance if they live with anyone who is not a citizen or permanent legal resident, which would serve Trump’s campaign promise to take extraordinary measures to crack down on illegal immigration. During remarks in September titled “Theology of America’s Statecraft: The Case for Immigration Restriction,” Vought justified the separation of families and condemned so-called sanctuary cities, or those that pass laws that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. “Failing to secure the border is a complete abdication of [the government’s] God-given responsibility,” he said.
Olinsky explained that while many of the policies in Project 2025 have been floating around Republican circles in Washington for years without gaining much traction, the document is a detailed roadmap that shows how its authors believe they can finally deliver on key pieces of their conservative Christian agenda.
“One, it says all of the quiet parts out loud about the full scope of the agenda. And then the second thing, which I think is something folks should really pay attention to, is it says how they're going to accomplish it, practically, by using executive action,” Olinsky said.
In many ways, Vought’s approach to bending the federal government to a president’s will began taking shape during Trump’s first administration. In late 2020, as Trump’s first term drew to a close, Vought helped him craft an executive order known as “Schedule F,” which reclassified thousands of civil servants and, with that, stripped them of their job protections; Vought recommended that close to 90 percent of OMB’s workforce be reclassified.
President Joe Biden rescinded the executive order on his third day in office. Project 2025 recommends reinstating it.
Former Trump officials, campaign advisers and others in his orbit have already identified as many as 50,000 federal employees who could be fired, according to published reports. And just last month, Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to codify protections for these workers ahead of Trump’s — and likely Vought’s — return.
Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation to protect federal employees, warned of a “loyalty-based system that would impede the work of the federal government, expose people to intimidation and bring people into jobs that are not qualified to do them, thus risking the American public’s safety and quality of life.”
Vought is among the Trump loyalists who have been open about their desire to slash the federal workforce — as a route to purge critics, improve efficiency or both.
In the interview with Carlson, Vought said, “There certainly is going to be mass layoffs and firings, particularly at some of the agencies that we don’t even think should exist.” His language appeared to communicate an effort to ensure obedience and compliance. With the firings and layoffs, Vought said he wants to avoid having “really awesome Cabinet secretaries sitting on top of massive bureaucracies that largely don’t do what they tell them to do.”
Trump’s transition team did not respond to requests to discuss Vought’s selection for OMB or the chapter he wrote for Project 2025 about the agency. The 19th reached out to Vought through his Center for Renewing America, which likewise did not respond to a request for comment.
Power of the Purse
During Trump’s first term, OMB helped find money to begin building a small section of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — a key campaign promise Trump made in 2016 — “because Congress wouldn’t give him the ordinary money,” Vought told Carlson.
Trump also enlisted OMB to withhold $400 million in military aid that Congress approved for Ukraine, as Trump and his associates tried to pressure the country to investigate Biden and his family. The move prompted the abuse-of-power case House Democrats made against Trump during his first impeachment, when Vought defied a subpoena to testify. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan watchdog, concluded that the scheme violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. Days later, the Republican-led Senate acquitted Trump. (Trump had eventually released the aid.)
When Trump subsequently nominated Vought to lead OMB in 2020, Democrats opposed him because of his approach to impoundment authority. He was nonetheless confirmed.
Vought’s path to confirmation is all but certain this time around: Republicans control the Senate, the congressional chamber charged with approving presidential nominations. Very likely to feature in his confirmation hearings is Vought’s belief that the OMB can help Trump overcome opposition and implement policy priorities, possibly including those contained in Project 2025, by redirecting or refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress, which under the Constitution holds the power of the purse.
“Making Impoundment Great Again!” Vought wrote in June on X, riffing on the “Make America Great Again” slogan that has come to define Trump’s movement.
Trump spent his campaign insisting that he had not read Project 2025 and did not know its authors. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote in a July post on his Truth Social platform.
But of the more than 350 people who contributed to Project 2025, at least 60 percent are linked to the incoming president, according to a list of contributors and their ties reviewed by The 19th. They range from appointees and nominees from Trump’s first administration, like Vought, to members of his previous transition team and those who served on commissions and as unofficial advisers.
Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris, seized on Project 2025 during their campaigns to highlight the dangers they believe are posed by a second Trump presidency. At 920 pages, it offers a vision of government that is far more detailed and specific than the policy proposals put forward by Trump directly. The “Agenda 47” on Trump’s campaign website was a list of 20 bullet points that included vague policies like “end the weaponization of government against the American people” and “unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success.”
When Trump announced Vought as his OMB pick, he said Vought “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government.” His other selections for OMB leadership posts include anti-abortion activist Ed Martin and Vought’s colleague at the Center for Renewing America, Mark Paoletta, whom the president-elect praised as a “conservative warrior.”
One question as Trump takes office on January 20 and Vought, if confirmed, helps him control the government’s workforce and purse strings, is which version of the country they will promote and whose rights are — and aren’t — protected.
Campaign ActionFox News host’s description of Jan. 6 rioters will make your blood boil
Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy described the insurrectionists who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “political dissidents” during a rant about federal law enforcement on Friday.
Campos-Duffy, who is perhaps best known for appearing on MTV’s “The Real World” in the 1990s, made her claim during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.”
“We have an FBI, a DOD, and a Homeland Security that has given us zero confidence. They've said nothing with a border open and terrorists flowing over the borders. They've been directing agents to go after political dissidents from J6, from January 6, instead of going after terrorists,” Duffy said while commenting on the New Orleans attacker who was reported to be inspired by ISIS.
Campos-Duffy’s sympathetic description of the insurrections echoes that of Donald Trump, who has floated the idea of pardoning them and has referred to the armed attack as a “day of love.”
In reality, the attackers violently forced their way into the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from fulfilling one of its longest-running and most important functions: certifying the presidential election results.
At least seven people died as a result of the Jan. 6 attack, a direct contradiction to the casual language that Campos-Duffy used to describe the rioters. More than 1,200 people have been arrested and charged in connection with the insurrection, with some charges including sedition against the United States. In fact, Trump was also charged—and even impeached—for his role in inciting the attack.
Campos-Duffy’s underlying argument that the U.S. government fails to go after terrorists is also faulty. Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in 2022 that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, who, alongside Osama bin Laden, led the terrorist group Al Qaeda and assisted in the planning of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The drone strike was a continuation of policy from Trump’s predecessor President Barack Obama, who ordered the operation that successfully killed bin Laden in 2011.
Looks like the latest Fox News rant was just that—a rant.
Campaign Action6 top winners and losers who emerged in politics in 2024
Several "winners" and "losers" emerged in 2024 as the year comes to a close after Republicans took control of Congress in the November election and several prominent Democrats ended up on the losing side.
WINNER - President-elect Donald Trump
Pundits in the media largely wrote Trump off after he left office and argued his political career was over in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and House impeachments. That critique intensified after he found himself facing indictments in several different jurisdictions and battling with several prominent Republicans during the GOP primary.
However, Trump weathered the political storm while surviving two assassination attempts and won back the White House in November in what many described as the greatest political comeback in American political history.
Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20 for a term that will be bolstered by Republican control of the House and Senate for at least the next two years.
LOSER - VP Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz
President Biden made history this summer when he dropped out of the presidential race amid pressure from many within his own party and essentially handed the reins to his vice president despite calls to hold an open primary process.
After several months of campaigning along with a spending blitz of $1 billion, Harris ultimately failed to make the case to voters that the Biden-Harris administration policies should be continued with four years of a Harris presidency.
Harris lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College to Trump, and Republicans down the ballot secured enough seats to keep control of the House and retake control of the Senate.
2024’S MOST ANNOYING PEOPLE. LEFT AND RIGHT CAN AGREE ON AT LEAST 2
Harris was widely criticized for her decision to select Walz as her running mate, with many political experts making the case that Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was the optimal choice. Walz had been labeled by many media outlets as a personable and popular governor who brought "Midwestern charm" to the ticket but also consistently brought negative attention to the campaign with a series of gaffes and controversial statements about his past military service.
"Historically, vice presidents have little impact on a presidential candidate’s fate," Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of the Daily Signal, told Fox News Digital last month.
"But in the case of Tim Walz, it proved to be a disastrous decision that doomed Kamala Harris from the moment she made it. Not only was Walz ill-prepared for the national spotlight and media scrutiny, but Harris passed over several better options. Given how little Americans knew about Harris or her policy positions, they were right to question her judgment on this big decision."
WINNER - Elon Musk
The Tesla and SpaceX CEO officially threw his support behind Trump shortly after the former president survived being shot during a failed assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July.
Musk quickly became a fixture on the campaign trail and spoke at a rally at the site of the assassination attempt.
"As you can see, I am not just MAGA. I am Dark MAGA," Musk joked at the rally in October, a nod to the Dark Brandon meme. He called the upcoming Nov. 5 election "the most important election of our lifetime."
Over the past few months, Musk has positioned himself as a key voice in the Trump administration and has been seen at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida several times – some outlets have reported that he is living on the property – and his influence has grown to the point that liberal pundits are accusing him of being the "co-president."
Musk, along with former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, was appointed by Trump to lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, which has already made waves in Washington, D.C., with elected officials on both sides of the aisle supporting the agency's stated goal of slashing government waste.
LOSER - George Soros
2024: THE YEAR PRO-TRUMP CELEBRITIES BECAME MAINSTREAM
The Soros money machine that has propped up progressive lawmakers and district attorneys across the country suffered significant losses in blue California on election night as voters overwhelmingly rejected progressives on the issue of crime.
California voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of Prop 36 that rolled back key provisions of Proposition 47, which was advertised by Democrats in the state as progressive crime reforms that would make the state safer.
When Proposition 47 passed in 2014, it downgraded most thefts from felonies to misdemeanors if the amount stolen was under $950, "unless the defendant had prior convictions of murder, rape, certain sex offenses, or certain gun crimes."
Progressives suffered another major loss in Los Angeles, where District Attorney George Gascón, who co-authored Prop 47 and was backed by Soros, was defeated by former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman as crime was seen as a top issue of the election cycle.
In another loss for Soros-backed prosecutors in the Golden State, Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price was recalled, less than two years after taking office, after backlash for her alleged soft-on-crime approach.
Oakland Democrat Mayor Sheng Thao, who faced heat from her constituents amid rising crime, was also ousted from office after her recall effort passed with 65% of the vote.
In San Francisco, where crime has been a major concern with voters, Democrat Mayor London Breed lost her re-election campaign.
"I think that this is broader than just a message from people who care about crime," Cully Stimson, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-author of the book "Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America's Communities," told Fox News Digital.
"This is a massive mandate and cry for help from the general population that we want our state back, we want our counties back, and we want our cities back and that our failed social experiments have had enough time, and they're an absolute, abysmal failure."
WINNER - Vice President-elect JD Vance
TRUMP’S CONVINCING 2024 VICTORY SETS HOUSE GOP UP FOR HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE IN 2026 MIDTERM ELECTIONS
The popular narrative among left-wing pundits during the presidential election cycle was that Trump's VP pick, Ohio GOP Sen. JD Vance, would alienate voters with a personality they deemed to be unlikable.
Contrary to that narrative, Vance solidified himself as a formidable force in conservative politics, appearing on a variety of podcasts, holding frequent press conferences and putting forward a debate performance that several polls suggested he won.
Vance held a 34% favorability rating when he joined Trump on the ticket. That number shot up over the next few months, and Real Clear Politics reported in mid-November that his favorability rating had shot up to 44%.
"I thought people would be more unnerved by JD Vance," MSNBC host Rachel Maddow told Semafor this week.
Vance, 40, will be the third-youngest vice president in American history when he is sworn in next month. As Trump is prevented by the Constitution from seeking another term in office, Vance is already viewed as a front-runner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination.
"We are getting four more years of Trump and then eight years of JD Vance," Donald Trump Jr. said in October on the campaign trail.
The younger Trump, who's a powerful ally of the vice president-elect, is extremely popular with the MAGA base.
"The vice president will be in the catbird seat, no question about it," longtime Republican consultant Dave Carney recently told Fox News Digital.
LOSER - Democrat Senate incumbents
On their way to taking control of the Senate, Republicans successfully unseated several Democrats who had spent decades in the chamber.
Sen. Sherrod Brown had represented Ohio in the Senate since 2007 before falling in November to his Republican challenger, businessman Bernie Moreno. Brown, considered one of the most vulnerable members of the Senate heading into the election, had attempted to paint himself as a moderate to Ohio voters who ended up voting for Moreno in a state that Trump carried by 11 points.
Democrat Sen. Bob Casey, who comes from a prominent family in Pennsylvania politics, has represented the state in the Senate since 2007 and had long been considered one of the toughest incumbents to defeat until he lost to GOP challenger Dave McCormick in November.
McCormick, a 59-year-old businessman, defeated Casey by a razor-thin margin of 0.2% after riding Trump's endorsement and dissatisfaction with the economy that Biden and Harris presided over for four years.
"We heard a common refrain. The one message we heard over and over again is we need change. The country is headed in the wrong direction. We need leadership to get our economy back on track to get this horrific inflation under control," McCormick said after the election.
Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who also joined the Senate as a Democrat in 2007, met a similar fate in November after losing his seat to former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy.
Tester had taken up more moderate stances in recent years, openly breaking with the Biden-Harris administration on several issues throughout the years, but it was not enough to persuade voters in Montana, where Trump won by almost 20 points.
Fox News Digital's David Rutz, Paul Steinhauser and Cortney O'Brien contributed to this report.
Trump’s team has this ironic request of Cabinet nominees
Susie Wiles, Donald Trump’s pick for chief of staff, issued a memo Sunday to Trump’s Cabinet nominees ordering them to stop making social media posts without approval ahead of the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.
“All intended nominees should refrain from any public social media posts without prior approval of the incoming White House counsel,” the memo said, according to the New York Post.
Wiles also noted, “I am reiterating that no member of the incoming administration or Transition speaks for the United States or the President-elect himself.”
The missive comes after the spectacular flame out of former Rep. Matt Gaetz’s nomination for attorney general and the ongoing controversies of several other nominees, including Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mehmet Oz, and Tulsi Gabbard.
Gaetz’s nomination was withdrawn after the resurfacing of sordid allegations of illicit drug use and sexual behavior, including sending money to multiple women via PayPal and Venmo. Gaetz’s activity on social media was a key part of the controversy, as the House Ethics Committee's report notes.
“From 2017 to 2020, Representative Gaetz made tens of thousands of dollars in payments to women that the Committee determined were likely in connection with sexual activity and/or drug use,” the report states.
Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, has been accused of financial mismanagement, sexual assault, and public drunkenness. In response to reporting on these allegations, Hegseth has taken to social media to complain about “anti-Christian bigotry” in the media, the “lying press”, and the “Left Wing hack group” ProPublica.
Anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has also made strange social media posts. He recently posted a meme on X characterizing the medical industry as “financially dependent on you being sick,” as well as a video of himself with CGI-generated electric eyes and a link to his merchandise site.
An anonymous source with the Trump transition team claimed that the order to stop social media posts is not related to the recent online infighting between Trump megadonor Elon Musk and anti-immigration MAGA supporters. But the timing of the edict, coming directly from Trump’s right-hand woman, is extremely convenient.
Musk recently went on a posting frenzy, calling MAGA fans “upside-down and backwards” in their understanding of immigration issues, while telling one person to “take a big step back and FUCK YOURSELF in the face.”
The controversy generated international headlines, and Trump was dragged into commenting on the discussion—a less-than-ideal situation as he prepares for his inauguration.
Trump of all people telling others to be more mindful about social media posts is an ironic development. Trump made a name for himself as a political figure largely due to constantly posting inflammatory messages online. Most notoriously, he called on his supporters to protest the results of the 2020 election after losing to President Joe Biden.
“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” he wrote.
In the aftermath of his post, more than a thousand were arrested (including Trump), several related deaths occurred, and Trump was impeached for a second time.
But, hey, Trump’s Cabinet nominees won’t be posting on social media for a little while.
Campaign ActionTrump’s win means less scrutiny for shady sugar daddy Elon Musk
Winning the 2024 election didn’t just return Donald Trump to power. It also allowed him to dodge multiple criminal cases. And while his unofficial vice president, Elon Musk, didn’t need a Trump win to stay out of jail—at least under any existing charges—the victory likely freed Musk and his companies from regulatory oversight. That’s an exceedingly lucky break for Musk, currently being scrutinized by multiple government agencies for everything from his inflated claims about self-driving Tesla cars to his SpaceX rocket launches polluting wetlands to his purchase of social media platform X—just to name a few.
To be perfectly fair, Trump’s victory means a far friendlier atmosphere for all greedy billionaires who hate regulations, not just Musk personally. But Musk is the one sitting next to Trump at Thanksgiving and the one who threw roughly $260 million at Trump’s campaign while fawning over him on X and in person.
So which pesky investigations and regulations is Musk probably free of now that his bestie is headed to the White House?
For starters, perhaps he’ll get out from under the alphabet soup of agencies looking into Tesla’s so-called full self-driving system, or FSD. Musk has promised a vision of a completely autonomous hands-free Tesla since 2013. It’s not a vision that has ever come true. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has twice required Tesla to recall FSD because of the system’s bad habit of ignoring traffic laws, including being programmed to run stop signs at slow speeds. In October, the agency opened another inquiry after the company reported four crashes, one of which killed a pedestrian, when FSD was used in low-visibility conditions like fog.
The issue isn’t just that FSD is unsafe. It’s also that Tesla hoovered up cash by selling a product that basically doesn’t exist. Tesla owners filed a class-action lawsuit in 2022 alleging the company defrauded them by charging $15,000 for an FSD package that didn’t result in a Tesla being able to drive itself successfully. Tesla’s defense? Full self-driving is merely an aspirational goal, so a failure to provide it isn’t a deliberate fraud—just bad luck. Perhaps that’s the same excuse Tesla would have trotted out in response to the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into whether the company committed wire fraud by deceiving consumers about FSD’s capabilities and securities fraud by deceiving investors.
Trump named former reality show star and former Congressman Sean Duffy to head the Department of Transportation, of which NHTSA is a part, and tapped one of his impeachment defense attorneys, Pam Bondi, to head the DOJ after Matt Gaetz’s nomination flamed out. There’s no reason to think either of these people will grow a spine and continue investigating “first buddy” Elon Musk or Tesla.
Trump’s election also probably gives SpaceX breathing room. Musk’s private space company, which receives literal billions in government money, hasn’t been terribly interested in following government rules.
In September, the Environmental Protection Agency fined SpaceX $148,378 for dumping industrial wastewater and pollutants into wetlands near its Texas launch site. The company paid that fine, albeit with some whining about how it was “disappointing” to pay when it disagreed with the allegations, but it’s planning on challenging the recent $633,000 fine from the Federal Aviation Administration. The regulatory agency proposed the fine after two launches in 2023 where the company allegedly didn’t get FAA approval for launch procedure changes and didn’t follow license requirements.
This isn’t SpaceX’s first run-in with the FAA. The aerospace company paid a $175,000 fine in October 2023 over not submitting required safety data to the agency before a 2022 launch of Starlink satellites. After an April 2023 launch where one of the company’s rockets blew up shortly after takeoff, sending debris over South Texas, the FAA required the agency to make dozens of changes before another launch.
Like the NHTSA, the FAA is part of the Transportation Department. Sean Duffy’s past as an airline industry lobbyist doesn’t inspire confidence that he’ll take a hard line against SpaceX.
And as far as whether the EPA will continue to pose any problems for Musk? Under Trump, that agency will be run by former GOP Rep. Lee Zeldin, whose primary qualification seems to be hating EPA regulations. He’s voted against replacing lead water pipes and cleaning up brownfields and sees his mission at the EPA as pursuing “energy dominance.” Again, not exactly someone who will bring the hammer down on Musk or his companies.
Musk is also in hot water with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the possibility he delayed disclosing his acquisition of Twitter stock in 2022. Investors must disclose when they accumulate 5% of a publicly traded company, a requirement that ostensible super-genius Musk says he misunderstood somehow. Under President Joe Biden, current SEC chair Gary Gensler has aggressively pursued enforcement efforts, a trend in no way expected to continue under whoever Trump picks.
Lightning round! Musk tried hard to violate a consent order with the Federal Trade Commission by giving “Twitter Files” writers improper access to user data, but he was thwarted by Twitter employees who actually followed the order. He’s faced numerous unfair labor practices claims and been investigated multiple times by the National Labor Relations Board, so he’s suing to have the board declared unconstitutional. He lost out on $885 million in government subsidies after the Federal Communications Commission found that Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet service, couldn’t meet the speed metrics for the government’s rural broadband program.
Luckily for the multibillionaire, the incoming head of the FCC is a pal of Musk’s who thinks it is “regulatory harassment” to require Starlink to meet program requirements.
Musk will also have the advantage of helming a newly invented entity, the cringily titled Department of Government Efficiency (aka DOGE—ugh), that can put his rivals under a microscope. DOGE’s co-head, fellow tech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, has already said he’ll examine a government loan to Rivian, a competing electric vehicle manufacturer, calling the loan “a political shot across the bow at Elon Musk and Tesla.” Though DOGE is not an actual department—you need Congress to create one of those—and cannot slash spending directly, Musk could still suggest to Trump that government funding of fiber optic cables in rural areas be gutted. This would leave satellite services like Starlink as the only option for some rural consumers—an option either those consumers or the government would then have to pay for.
Until Trump was elected in 2016, it was impossible to imagine giving billionaires like Musk so much opportunity to use the levers of government to openly and directly benefit themselves. Now that Trump has won a second term in office, Musk is just one of many oligarchs looking forward to an extremely lucrative four years. It’s lucky for them—but terrible for the rest of us.
Campaign Action13 late-night moments that helped us survive the 2024 sh-tshow
Whether poking fun at politicians or simply trying to make the best of a bad Donald Trump, the writers and comedians of late-night shows lightened the load for us this year.
Hosts like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, and Jimmy Kimmel appealed to our funny bones in the face of a ludicrous Republican Party, whose billionaire clown-king leader makes it a lot harder to be funny four to five days a week.
Here are 13 notable moments from late night, in what may have been the longest year on record.
Seth Meyers tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump, in 90 seconds
One of the more frustrating things about Trump’s electoral success is how transparently deranged and corrupt he is. Meyers synthesized it perfectly back in March, after former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley gave up her bid for the Republican nomination.
Jon Stewart breaks down exactly how Trump is a fraud
In late March, Jon Stewart, back in his old seat at “The Daily Show,” broke down the $364 million civil fraud judgement against Trump. “We all do it. I mean it. On my license, I'm not listed as 5’7, you know, I'm listed as 30,000 square feet.”
Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of yabba dabba doofus Donald Trump
In April, shortly before Trump’s hush money criminal case kicked off, Kimmel went after Trump and his cowardly Republican supporters, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whom Kimmel described as “a little bitch.”
Stephen Colbert makes fun of GOP’s disastrous impeachment attempt
In April, the Republican Party was wasting tax-payer money in one of their many impeachment stunts against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Colbert had some fun with the House Republicans’ general crapitude.
Jimmy Kimmel jabs at Trump and ‘puppy killer’ Kristi Noem
Jimmy Kimmel has fun at Trump’s and RFK Jr.'s expenses before turning his attention to the story that ensured South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem would not be chosen as Trump’s running mate.
"Just to recap for those who were horrified: she shot a puppy and a goat, and she would like you to know she also shoots horses," he said. "She has at least a dozen people working for her, probably more. Not one of those dozen or dozens of people raised a hand, 'Governor, do you think maybe it's not a great idea to share that story about shooting a whole petting zoo at your house?'"
Jon Stewart debunks the mythology of so-called liberal cancel culture
Stewart went at the right-wing’s slander-apparatus, showing that there is only one “cancel culture” and it lives inside conservatism.
"They're so full of shit that Sean Hannity can say with a square head, 'I'm not the kind of guy who gets outraged,'” Stewart exclaimed. “Sean Hannity! He's basically just a meat-bag support system for a forehead vein."
Jon Stewart on how justice is the right’s kryptonite
There’s a reason why election deniers don’t want to go to court. “It's not a fraud case in court where I would need evidence. It's only a fraud case out there amongst the sod and the mulch—where I can say whatever I want,” Stewart joked. “The difference between in court and out of court is that in court, someone can say ‘prove it.’”
Sen. Bernie Sanders stops by to talk with Stephen Colbert
It was July and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders came by Colbert’s show to talk about Trump and the policy-free Republican National Convention.
‘The Daily Show’ tackles Trump’s appearance on stage with Black journalists
It may feel like a million years ago, but remember when Trump spoke to the National Association of Black Journalists and then unleashed a racist rant during a Q&A?
Seth Meyers gives America 3 hilarious minutes of terrible Trump
Meyers returned on air after a summer hiatus and realized Trump had made all kinds of terrible news worth recapping. But three human weeks is the equivalent of three Trump-news-cycle years, and Meyers took a deep breath and gave it his best shot.
Jimmy Kimmel loses the Emmy but wins our hearts
After losing an Emmy Award to Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show,” Kimmel channeled all of Trump’s election denialism into a fun opening monologue, filled with faux-grievances.
Jon Stewart consoles Americans in the face of a second Trump term
Stewart offered up some hope on election night, after it became clear Trump had defeated Vice President Kamala Harris.
“We have to continue to fight and continue to work, day in and day out, to create the better society for our children, for this world, for this country, that we know is possible,” he said.
Stephen Colbert takes on Trump’s election win
"Well, fuck! It happened again,” Colbert began his monologue.
"As we're all about to plunge back into the Trump hole, here's what occurs to me,” Colbert added. “The first time Donald Trump was elected, he started as a joke and ended as a tragedy. This time, he starts as a tragedy. Who knows what he'll end as. A limerick?"
Campaign ActionFALQs: South Korean Martial Law
The following is a guest post by Sayuri Umeda, a foreign law specialist who covers Japan and other countries in East and Southeast Asia in the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress. Sayuri has previously authored numerous posts for In Custodia Legis, including Food Delivery in Japan – History and Current Regulation; Tradition vs Efficiency: ‘Hanko’ Affects Workplace Efficiency and Telework in Japan; The History of the Elimination of Leaded Gasoline; The Law Library’s New Report on Public Prosecution Reform in South Korea; Law Library’s New Report Reviews Foreign Ownership of Land Restriction in Major Economies; FALQs: The Conscription System of South Korea; and many more!
At 10:30 p.m. on December 3, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared emergency martial law for the first time in 40 years and lifted it at 2:30 a.m. on December 4, 2024, after the National Assembly voted to recommend its lifting to the president.
1. What is martial law?
South Korea’s Constitution (Constitution No. 10, Oct. 29, 1987) and the Martial Law Act (Act No. 3442, Apr. 17, 1981, as amended) do not define martial law. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is “the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety.” The constitution states “[w]hen it is required to cope with a military necessity or to maintain the public safety and order by mobilization of the military forces in time of war, armed conflict or similar national emergency, the President may proclaim martial law.” (Constitution, art. 77, para. 1.)
Korean laws provide two types of martial law: extraordinary martial law and precautionary martial law. (Constitution art. 77, para. 2; Martial Law Act, art. 2, para. 1.):
- Emergency martial law is to fulfill military necessity or maintain public security and order when there are belligerents or serious disturbances of social order that considerably impede the performance of the administrative and judicial functions of the state in time of war, incident, or other equivalent national emergency.
- Precautionary martial law is to maintain public security and order when the social order is so disturbed that civil administrative authorities cannot preserve public peace in times of war, incident, or another equivalent national emergency. (Martial Law Act, art. 2, para. 2, 3.)
Under extraordinary martial law, arrest and search without a warrant, and restriction of freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association may be allowed. (Constitution, art. 77, para. 3.) In this case, President Yoon declared emergency martial law, “accusing the nation’s opposition of paralyzing the government with ‘anti-state activities plotting rebellion.’”
2. What is the procedure for declaring martial law?
Before the president declares martial law, he or she must deliberate the matter with the State Council. (Constitution, art. 89, item 5; Martial Law Act, art. 2, para. 5.) The State Council, usually referred to as the cabinet, consists of the president, the prime minister, and other ministers. (Constitution, art. 88, para. 2.) The prime minister is appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly. (Id. art. 86, para. 1.) The members of the State Council are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the prime minister. (Id. art. 87, para. 1.)
3. What power does the National Assembly have over the imposition of martial law?
When the president has proclaimed martial law, he or she must notify the National Assembly without delay. (Constitution, art.77, para. 4; Martial Law Act. art. 4, para. 1.) When the National Assembly requests the lifting of martial law with the concurrent vote of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly, the president must comply. (Constitution, art.77, para. 5.) In this case, the main opposition called in its lawmakers urgently to the National Assembly building after the martial law declaration. “Of the 300 members of parliament, 190 were present and all 190 voted in favor of a motion demanding the lifting of martial law.”
4. Is this the first time in South Korea that Martial law was used?
This is the first time in 44 years since the Gwangju Uprising in May 1980. An NPR article cites Professor Charles Kim’s statement that South Korea “saw authoritarian rule starting from its founding after gaining independence from Japanese colonialism all the way to the 1980s.” According to another article on the Asia Media Center website, “[m]artial law has been declared some 16 times in the country’s history, with the first instance being in August 1948 when the Korean Republic was established.”
5. What other countries have recently been under martial law or emergency law?
Ukraine has been under martial law since February 2022. Though it is not nationwide, Myanmar’s three townships of Shan State are currently under martial law. In 2022, Canada invoked the Emergencies Act “for the first time in Canada’s history to give the federal government temporary powers to handle … blockades and protests against pandemic restrictions.” It gave “police more tools to restore order in places where public assemblies constitute illegal and dangerous activities.” The emergency measures were applied in a limited area. Egypt was placed under a state of emergency in April 2017. It was suspended on October 25, 2021.
6. What is the procedure for impeachment of the President?
The first motion to impeach President Yoon over imposing martial law against the constitution failed on December 7, 2024, due to a lack of quorum. A motion for the impeachment of the president can “be proposed by a majority of the total members of the National Assembly and approved by two-thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly.” (Constitution, art. 65, para. 2.)
The second motion was successful. The National Assembly voted on December 14, 2024, to impeach the president, suspending him from his duties. (Id. art. 65, para. 3.) Prime Minister Han Duck-soo immediately began his duties as the acting president. Next, the Constitutional Court will examine whether Yoon violated the Constitution and the Martial Law Act. (For further information on impeachment, see South Korea: President May Be Impeached.)
Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.