Fox News Latest Headlines
Gabbard spotlights Fauci, COVID-origin questions in final act as intelligence chief amid succession fight
Just before leaving office amid a contentious battle over who will succeed her, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard used one of her final acts atop the U.S. intelligence community to spotlight Dr. Anthony Fauci's role in discussions surrounding the government's COVID-19 origins review.
While much of the material is familiar, Gabbard's release underscores her effort to make questions surrounding Fauci, COVID origins and federal support for virus research part of her closing legacy atop the intelligence community.
As Gabbard fired her final broadside, Bill Pulte, who has received bipartisan criticism over his lack of intelligence experience, is set to take the reins at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence while Trump’s permanent nominee remains stalled.
Jay Clayton, an attorney and former SEC chairman whom Trump nominated to permanently lead ODNI, has seen his confirmation process delayed after the president said he was holding up the nomination to pressure Congress to pass a voter identification measure.
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Pulte is a construction businessman and housing official who served as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. His tenure at the housing agency has drawn controversy over allegations that he used FHFA authority to target Trump’s political opponents, an allegation amplifying concerns among key senators that he may attempt to weaponize the intelligence community at the behest of the president during his interim tenure.
"We don’t need a weaponized DNI, we need professionals there," Senate Majority Leader Sen. John Thune said of Pulte. Other powerful congressional Republicans, such as Sens. Cornyn, Cassidy, Murkowski, Collins and Tillis, have also voiced opposition to or concern over Pulte taking over ODNI.
Senate Democrats share many of the same concerns as their GOP colleagues.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Gary Peters, Adam Schiff, Mark Warner and Ron Wyden have all expressed concerns that Pulte would weaponize America’s intelligence apparatus against Trump’s enemies. Similar to many Republicans, they’ve criticized him for a lack of intelligence experience as well.
TRUMP DNI PICK BRACES FOR SENATE GRILLING AS TEMPORARY STAND-IN FUELS DEM PRESSURE
Political observers believe that Clayton would face far less opposition from the Senate over his confirmation. However, the upper chamber has so far proven unwilling to move on the president’s voter identification legislation, complicating his advancement and setting the stage for a showdown between the White House and Congress.
While lawmakers and the president go back and forth over the fate of ODNI, Gabbard has sought to spotlight the Fauci documents on her way out.
The documents she released Thursday night include some information that was already known to the public as well as others that do not appear to have been publicly reported.
ANTHONY FAUCI MAY BE DEPOSED AS GOP INTENSIFIES COVID INVESTIGATIONS IN NEW CONGRESS
Gabbard’s release contains newly declassified documents that show intelligence officials considered but ultimately rejected Fauci as an outside reviewer of their COVID-19 origins assessment, warning he would be seen as having a conflict of interest.
In a different exchange, intelligence officials tasked with analyzing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic debated whether to take Fauci’s recommendations on who to interview for their study.
"For those who don’t know me, I’m the [REDACTED] and, as such, leading the [intelligence community’s] 90-day POTUS COVID origin study," one official wrote in an email. "Per below, Dr Fauci recommended that the IC reach out to the below individuals who were coauthors of the attached paper as part of the study."
TOP 4 EXPLOSIVE MOMENTS FROM CIA WHISTLEBLOWER'S TESTIMONY ON ALLEGED COVID-19 LAB LEAK COVER-UP
Another official questioned whether it was prudent for the intelligence community to take the advice of a "policymaker" like Fauci when conducting internal affairs, "particularly given the various strong views on the subject and statements regarding their own conclusions."
An intelligence official responded by arguing that Fauci should not be considered a policymaker in this context, but rather an important subject-matter expert.
"In this particular case, given Dr Fauci’s background we absolutely would like to follow-up on his outreach suggestions," they wrote. "In this case he’s not a policymaker….he’s a SME with a wealth of knowledge about current and historical research who probably knows better than most who the real Coronavirus experts are."
A CIA whistleblower previously claimed that Fauci exerted undue influence over the intelligence community’s assessment of COVID-19’s origins, claims that Gabbard now seeks to amplify with her release.
During the COVID-19 era, conservatives alleged that Fauci and other public health officials downplayed or helped steer scrutiny away from the lab-leak theory despite American financial links to coronavirus research in Wuhan, where the disease originated. Gabbard has framed her trove of documents as a look into how the intelligence community incorporated information from people like Fauci while investigating the virus' origins.
"Fauci worked with politicized career leadership in the Intelligence Community (IC) to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’ lab-leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for this dangerous research that caused immeasurable harm and countless lost lives," ODNI’s press release accompanying the documents asserts. "These documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19, and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024, when under oath he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research."
Gabbard left her role at ODNI to care for her husband, who has a rare form of cancer, Fox News Digital first reported.
China's brain chip breakthrough raises big questions
A coin-sized brain chip in China could help people with paralysis control devices using their thoughts. China has approved a brain-computer interface called NEO for commercial medical use in certain patients with paralysis caused by spinal cord injuries. That moves brain-chip technology out of research trials and closer to real-world medical care.
Developed by researchers at Tsinghua University and Shanghai-based Neuracle Technology, NEO sits under the skull but rests on the brain's protective outer layer rather than piercing deep into brain tissue. That design could make it less invasive than some competing implants.
For patients who have lost movement, this kind of technology could be life-changing. It could help restore a level of independence that once felt out of reach. But here's where we need to slow down a bit. If a brain chip can turn your brain signals into digital commands, we need to ask who controls that data and how well it is protected.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
BRAIN IMPLANT ENABLES ALS PATIENT TO COMMUNICATE USING AI
NEO is a brain-computer interface, often called a BCI. These systems read brain activity and translate it into commands for an external device. In this case, the implant uses sensors placed near the brain's motor-control area. Those signals can help a patient operate equipment such as a robotic glove or computer interface.
What makes NEO especially notable is its placement. Brain-computer interfaces can be designed in different ways, and some go deeper into the brain than others. The company most people know in this space is Neuralink, the brain-chip startup co-founded by Elon Musk. Its implant uses tiny threads that enter the brain's cortex. NEO takes a less invasive approach by placing electrodes on the dura mater, which is the protective membrane around the brain.
That design matters because every brain implant carries medical risk. Surgery can cause bleeding, swelling, infection or tissue damage. Even a small complication in the wrong part of the brain can affect speech or movement.
China's approval does not mean brain chips are suddenly available for anyone who wants one. This remains a medical device for a narrow group of patients. Right now, the focus centers on helping people with severe paralysis regain some digital or assisted movement control.
The medical upside here is hard to deny. More than three billion people worldwide live with neurological conditions, according to the World Health Organization. That includes people dealing with stroke, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other serious conditions.
For someone who has spent years unable to move freely or communicate easily, even a small amount of restored control could feel enormous. That is why brain-computer interfaces are getting so much attention. They could give some patients a new way to interact with the world around them.
Neuralink has already shown what that can look like in real life. Audrey Crews, a Neuralink trial participant who has been paralyzed for years, publicly shared that she wrote her name using the implant by controlling her computer.
ELON MUSK SHARES PLAN TO MASS-PRODUCE BRAIN IMPLANTS FOR PARALYSIS, NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE
Elon Musk's Neuralink has attracted most of the public attention in the U.S. brain-chip race. Musk has talked openly about restoring movement, helping people communicate and one day addressing vision loss.
Neuralink received approval to begin human trials, and more than 20 people have reportedly received its implant through testing. However, it has not received broad FDA approval for general commercial use.
China's NEO approval puts a different kind of pressure on the field. It shows that China wants to move brain-computer interface technology into its health system and build a major industry around it.
This also fits a larger pattern. China has made BCI development part of its strategic technology push. The country wants breakthroughs by 2027 and a globally competitive brain-computer interface industry by 2030.
We already worry about phones listening, apps tracking location and smart TVs collecting viewing habits. Brain-computer interfaces take that concern to another level.
A BCI collects signals from the nervous system. Today, that may mean decoding movement intent, such as whether a patient wants to move a cursor left or right. But as the technology improves, the data could become more sensitive.
That raises some big questions. Who owns the brain data? Can it be sold, shared or used to train AI systems? Could an insurer, employer or government ever demand access? What happens if a company changes its privacy policy after the implant becomes part of someone's daily life?
Those questions sound dramatic until you remember how many connected devices began as conveniences and turned into data pipelines.
A brain chip designed for medical help should not become another ad platform, another surveillance tool or another database waiting to be breached.
YOUR HEALTH DATA IS BEING SOLD WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT
This is where the whole brain-chip conversation gets very serious. Any device that connects to a computer raises security questions. A brain-computer interface raises even bigger ones because it deals with signals from your body and, in some cases, the devices that help you move or communicate.
The concern here is someone getting access to neural data, device settings or the commands moving between the implant and outside equipment. Think about that for a second. If a brain chip helps someone control a robotic hand, a wheelchair or a communication device, a security failure could affect far more than privacy. It could affect that person's independence and safety. That to me is scary.
Companies building these devices need to treat cybersecurity like part of the surgery, not some software update they figure out later. Encryption, strict access controls, medical-grade testing and clear update policies should be baked in from day one.
And because a brain implant may stay inside a person's body for years, long-term support has to be part of the deal. No one should end up with an outdated implant in their head because a company moved on to the next big product launch.
For now, this technology is geared toward patients with serious medical needs. So, no, most of us are not lining up for a brain chip anytime soon. But this should still get your attention.
We already give up a lot of personal data through our phones, watches, cars and smart home devices. A brain implant takes that to a whole different level because the data comes from inside the body. That is about as personal as it gets.
Before this technology moves beyond hospitals and medical trials, patients need plain answers before they agree to anything. They should know who can access the data, how long it gets stored, whether it can be shared and whether it can help train AI systems.
The medical potential here is incredible. Helping someone regain control or communicate again could change a life. But the privacy protections need to be just as strong as the technology itself.
NEURALINK BRAIN IMPLANT HELPS ARIZONA MAN REGAIN CONTROL OF HIS LIFE
Your phone holds your email, passwords, photos, banking apps and personal data. In this free CyberGuy Live replay, Kurt the CyberGuy walks you step by step through simple phone security fixes you can do at your own pace. You’ll learn how to improve your privacy settings, spot the latest phone scams, use trusted security tools and walk away with a simple checklist to stay protected. Watch the replay and get our checklist here: CyberGuyLive.com
China's NEO brain chip could be a huge step forward for people living with paralysis. If this technology helps someone regain control or communicate again, that is powerful. But I also think we need to be very careful here. Once a device connects your brain signals to outside technology, the privacy stakes change fast. We are talking about data tied to your nervous system. That to me is the line we need to watch closely. Brain chips could do incredible good. But companies and governments need clear limits before this technology moves any further into everyday life. The promise is real. So are the risks. And when the data comes from inside your own head, "trust us" will never be enough.
Would you ever consider a brain implant if it could restore movement or communication, or does the privacy risk feel too personal to accept? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
Exclusive: Harmeet Dhillon says MLB might face legal consequences for warning Giants players: 'Un-American'
The San Francisco Giants have made themselves the center of the baseball world over the last week since their Pride Night game on June 12. As they've done the past few seasons, the Giants wore specific hats with a rainbow-colored logo.
This season though, several players, in some fashion, objected. One, Sam Hentges, apparently refused to wear it at all, appearing in the traditional cap the Giants wear the other 161 games. Several others wrote Bible verses on the hat in a form of silent protest.
Starting pitcher Landen Roupp, as well as relievers Ryan Walker and J.T. Brubaker, wrote Genesis 9:12-16 on their hats. Those verses discuss the rainbow representing God's covenant. After the game, Roupp said the message was meant as a statement of his faith, "That's just kind of something I believe in, and I stand firm in that. And I'm thankful we live in a country where, you know, we have the freedom to believe what we want...and express what we want."
Except the reaction from Major League Baseball didn't seem to suggest that's true. At least for some.
The league issued a warning to the three players who wrote on their caps that any further writing would be subject to punishment. Immediately, several prominent figures noticed that this warning had seemingly not been applied to other, similar, situations where players altered uniforms to make specific statements. Particularly with pro-Black Lives Matter messages during the 2020 season.
Two of those prominent figures were Sen. Josh Hawley and Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon.
Dhillon on Tuesday posted on X about the league's warning, saying, "The USEEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and state labor laws govern private employer disputes such as these. Time to lawyer up!"
Then, on Thursday, she took action. In a letter to Commissioner Rob Manfred, Dhillon said that the USEEOC will be investigating whether the league's warnings constitute religious discrimination.
"Swing and a miss!" the post reads. "Major League Baseball encouraged players to wear 'Black Lives Matter' on their uniforms but reportedly threatened Christians who write Bible verses on their hats. USEEOC will investigate whether this amounts to religious discrimination."
After the blowback to their warning, the league issued a new statement claiming that this type of warning is commonplace and not specific to the text or meaning of the writing.
"To be clear, this routine verbal warning not to wear the hat in future games is not disciplinary and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message," the updated statement reads. "We respect players’ right to free expression. However, writing of any kind, with any message, is prohibited per Major League Baseball’s uniform regulations which provides in part that, ‘(a) player may not write, attach, affix, embroider or otherwise display nicknames or messages on apparel or playing equipment…’
"We have given the same warning numerous times in the past to players for messages such as ‘Dad,’ ‘Happy Mother’s Day, I Love Mom’ and names of family members."
In the letter, though, Dhillon explains how MLB's conduct may have been a violation of the Civil Rights Act. And that their explanation might not stand up to scrutiny.
"The Civil Rights Act prohibits MLB and its franchises from unreasonably burdening the rights of players with religious objections to serving as the League’s vehicle for pro-Pride messages. Federal law is clear: employers must modify their uniform requirements to reasonably accommodate their employees’ exercise of religion," it reads."
"MLB has asserted that its warning to the Giants players 'had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message' and that it merely is enforcing a policy that prohibits writing on uniforms. Yet, MLB has allowed players to wear uniform patches reading 'Black Lives Matter.' This double standard—under which players may not inscribe Bible verses on hats for one game only but may wear 'Black Lives Matter' patches for one game only—calls MLB’s true motives into question and raises serious concerns about MLB’s compliance with Title VII. Employers may not use facially neutral policies as 'a pretext for discrimination.'"
OutKick exclusively spoke to Dhillon on Friday morning about the letter, MLB's actions, and what happens next.
When asked whether she'd received a response to her letter highlighting the apparent difference in policy depending on the message in question, Dhillon said nobody from MLB has answered. And they likely won't. Though she clarified that the letter was intended to warn the league that the Civil Rights Division does not approve of how they handled this situation.
"No, and I would not expect Major League Baseball to respond to me. The reason I put out a letter is, I have parallel jurisdiction over Title VII by statute with the EEOC. We kind of share that responsibility and I focus on public employers and they focus on private employers. But I had a number of United States senators and prominent lawyers, public and private practice, reach out to me concerning this matter, and I wanted to make it clear that we disapprove of this practice, we believe it's illegal, and also that the EEOC has the primary jurisdiction over this.
"So we did refer it to the EEOC, as they have the primary jurisdiction since it's a private employer. You know, I can publicly say I referred something. The EEOC has a little different rules. They cannot say whether they're investigating anything or not. But, I think this is a sufficiently high level of interest, that you have senators engaging on it. And so I thought it was important to make the public and sports franchise aware that their workers have rights, just like other American employees have rights."
If a potential EEOC investigation finds that MLB has violated the players' Title VII rights, there would be an immediate case for a lawsuit.
"So first of all, any individual player whose rights were violated, could have a private employment lawsuit," she said. "This Title 7 has a particular statutory scheme that says that you first have to file a claim with a local — that is to say, a state employment agency, and/or the EEOC, and then they do an investigation. They do an investigation, and then they give you a right to sue letter if they're not going to pursue it themselves. If the EEOC is going to pursue it themselves, on behalf of an individual or a group, then they start a negotiation process — a discovery process, negotiation process — with the employer. And then the case either resolves or there's a lawsuit by the EEOC or by the private party. So there are a number of different options."
If the players did decide to file a lawsuit in the state of California, it could be done through a state employment agency in a matter of weeks. Even while the EEOC continues a potential investigation.
"That's the risk for them," she continued. "The penalty for the Major League Baseball employer that is discriminating on the basis of religion against its employees is attorney's fees, back pay if any, and there can be punitive damages under some statutes. So that's what it would be for private party litigation, and in the case of the EEOC, it's typically more of a back pay type of remedy.
"And so at this point, nobody has been fired, nobody has been fined, so that might be premature, and I hope nobody gets fired or fined, because they shouldn't be forced to utter phrases that are at odds with their religious beliefs. And they shouldn't be punished for doing behavior that in a different context, i.e. Black Lives Matter, employees were allowed to put whatever messages they wanted that the leagues preferred and liked. But then they're not allowing them to do so on this message. That means they're enforcing their uniform rules — which is what they're relying on in this case, unevenly, and that is illegal."
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON'T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
Whether teams are allowed to tell employees to wear a specific symbol that could be viewed as a political statement as part of their uniform, Dhillon said it's a "novel area" under the law. But that the players having a religious objection to making those statements opens the league up to legal consequences.
"This is kind of a novel area because, you know, it is appropriate for an employer in a job where a uniform is required to have certain messaging on the uniform. But forcing them to utter phrases about homosexuality...I think it goes beyond a little bit, and particularly, I don't think employees generally have a free-flowing right to not go along with their employer's preferred messaging unless they have a good reason, like a religious objection. And that is a good reason under the law.
"So I think think that is why you're seeing these players who have these bona fide objections. You know, they're stating very clearly what their objection is by the phraseology that they're, I think, very discreetly applying to their hats. So, my prediction here is that Major League Baseball is going to do nothing to discipline these players, frankly, because they're going to get sued if they do. And that will be very foolish and it will cause a PR backlash, because I think the number of Americans who think it's appropriate to force players to fly political propaganda on their hats is smaller than the number of Christians who watch Major League Baseball."
Between this warning and how the Washington Nationals handled the Trevor Williams case, it seems like the league has created a clear pattern of disparate treatment for people of faith. And Dhillon said this is a growing problem across elite American institutions.
"Oh yeah, I think there's a contempt for people of faith, generally in this country among elites, and, not among most Americans, but among the elites," she said. "And, it is unfortunate, it is foolish, it is un-American. So that's a problem for them, for sure."
This investigation is long overdue, and ideally, would lead to changes in policy for the league and teams like the Giants and Dodgers who've created Pride Night hats. Players should not be a vehicle for organizations to make political statements. And despite the warnings, it wouldn't be surprising if these types of "protests" become more frequent moving forward.
Reporter's Notebook: How Trump's surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was "cancelling the Senate hearing" for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from "going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney."
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
"Yeah. I don't think that's his call," said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was "undetermined."
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
"Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?" yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
"Do you know the answer?" I followed up.
"Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?" I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
"I have never seen anything quite like this," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. "Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while."
It was Washington whiplash.
"Things change around here pretty quick, Chad," quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
"To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?" I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
"Chad, you have our statement," said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
"It's regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today," said Cotton in a new statement on X. "While today's hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future."
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
"I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn," mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. "I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn."
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats' votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
"Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse," vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. "It's frustrating."
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
"To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it," Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to "remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence" and declared that "Republicans fell into a trap."
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
"We've got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
"You can't always get what you want," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. "I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I'm not going to get it."
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
"We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don't," said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. "This has become a complete debacle and now it's up to the White House to figure out a path forward here."
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire becomes first test of Trump Iran framework after talks delay
A U.S.-backed ceasefire between Israel and Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah was set to take effect Friday afternoon, as Washington tried to salvage a broader regional framework with Iran after talks scheduled for Switzerland were abruptly postponed.
The Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire was set to take effect 9 a.m. Eastern Time/4 p.m. local time, both a senior U.S. and an Israeli official told Fox News Digital, but whether the ceasefire formally took effect remains disputed.
The White House has not publicly commented on whether the ceasefire has formally taken effect.
A Hezbollah spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the group would abide by the ceasefire if Israel does, but "reserves the right to respond" to any violation. The spokesperson said Hezbollah did not yet view the ceasefire as having taken effect, claiming Israel was still carrying out strikes in southern Lebanon more than an hour after it was supposed to begin.
ISRAEL MOVES TOWARDS CEASEFIRE DEAL WITH HEZBOLLAH: REPORTS
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted a video after the 4 p.m. local start time that he said showed Israel Defense Forces striking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. It is unclear when those reported strikes took place, and Fox News Digital could not independently verify their timing.
"As I instructed - the IDF struck powerfully 150 Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and eliminated dozens of terrorists," he wrote on X.
IDF spokesperson Effie Defrin said Hezbollah had killed four Israeli soldiers in overnight strikes early Friday.
Still, an Israeli official said Israel intends to honor the ceasefire agreement.
"If Hezbollah doesn’t shoot, we won’t shoot. If they shoot — we will respond," the official told Fox News Digital.
The agreement came after negotiations between the U.S. and Iran scheduled to take place this weekend in Switzerland were abruptly postponed. The White House has not publicly provided a reason for the delay.
Trump has expressed increasing frustration with Netanyahu over the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
"Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," Trump said to reporters Tuesday at the G7 conference in France. "Too many people are being killed, and you don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they’re not all Hezbollah, that I can tell you."
"I’m not saying they shouldn’t protect themselves," he added Wednesday during separate remarks to reporters. "I’m saying when two drones are shot into the desert and drop harmlessly, you don’t have to knock down buildings in Beirut. They could behave better, and frankly, they could do a better job."
Hezbollah is an Iran-backed Shiite militant group and political movement based in Lebanon that the U.S. has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Its conflict with Israel dates back decades, but the latest fighting has centered on Hezbollah rocket and drone attacks from Lebanon and Israeli strikes aimed at pushing the group back from the border and protecting northern Israeli communities.
"As the Vice President said at his press conference, the plans for the upcoming technical talks have not been finalized, and the U.S. delegation has been prepared to depart at the first available opportunity," a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital. "But the logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable. As of now the Vice President is not departing tonight. We will let you know as soon as we have a concrete update about next steps."
The Iranian foreign ministry on Friday denied reports claiming Iran had once again closed the Strait of Hormuz.
"The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have taken the necessary measures to ensure the safe passage of commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding on the End of the War dated 18 June 1405, and shipping is underway in this route," foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said in a statement posted to Telegram.
A separate Iranian official told Fox News Digital Friday that traffic was moving "slowly" through the strait due to mine-clearing operations.
HORMUZ CHOKE POINT PERSISTS AS IRAN HALTS OIL TRAFFIC DESPITE TRUMP CEASEFIRE
U.S. officials have described the memorandum signed Wednesday as a 60-day framework for negotiations toward a final agreement largely focused on Iran's nuclear program.
They have said any U.S. force withdrawal from areas near Iran would be tied to a final deal, not required immediately under the initial agreement.
The agreement also declared the "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon," according to U.S. officials.
U.S. officials have said the memorandum also includes immediate oil sanctions waivers for Iran, an end to Iranian threats to the Strait of Hormuz and a process for lifting the U.S. blockade, and future talks over Iran’s nuclear program, including the fate of its enriched uranium stockpile.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Pentagon, Israeli Prime Minister's Office and Iranian Foreign Ministry for additional comment and had not received responses by publication.
Jazz Chisholm Jr. exits Yankees game after fouling pitch directly into his groin in painful scene
Jazz Chisholm Jr. might be a little sore.
The New York Yankees second baseman had found his groove following early-season struggles, but now, he might not have any type of groove at all.
Chisholm's night was cut short in the fourth inning on Thursday after he fouled a pitch off that took a direct shot in his man area.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
He fouled a breaking ball off that hit the dirt surrounding home plate and bounced directly back at him. After the ball made contact, he collapsed and was tended to by trainers while clearly in some serious pain.
Apparently, the injury was not a quick fix, as Anthony Volpe took his spot in the lineup.
In his first 21 games, Chisholm struggled after boldly claiming he'd hit 50 home runs and steal 50 bases, hitting .164 with a .498 OPS and zero homers.
But in his last 49 games, while 50-50 might be a far cry, he is hitting .254 with an .811 OPS, both of which are above his career numbers and extremely similar to last year's .242/.813.
The Yankees have been hit with the injury bug this season, as Aaron Judge is out with a broken rib, and Giancarlo Stanton "reinjured" a bothersome calf recently. Trent Grisham was also placed on the injured list, while Cy Young candidate Max Fried is also on the shelf.
However, the team has been able to more than tread water without them and are in first place in the American League East by 3.0 games.
The Yankees, Tampa Bay Rays, Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Guardians and Seattle Mariners are the only teams in the American League that are above .500, so New York has been able to take advantage.
But they can only survive so many injuries to All-Stars.
Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
World Cup Betting Preview: Team USA faces Australia in World Cup clash that should be low scoring
Happy Juneteenth to everyone out there. I'm sure those words will irk a few readers, but to be honest, I'll take any federal holiday, as it means we get some time to enjoy anything we want. I know not every company is observing, but who doesn't want a day off in the middle of June? Today is even a bit more special because we get a USA World Cup game as well.
My first-ever soccer article was about the USA World Cup team, and not only did the team win, but we won. I was wrong about the final score, but I was correct about Team USA winning. They were able to take down Paraguay. What I think was most enjoyable about the game -- aside from the victory -- was that the crowd was genuinely into the game. I know it is easy when goals are being scored and the team is winning, but America is not a soccer country. So, seeing the crowd going crazy and giving the team more energy was fun to watch.
Now they have a test against Team Australia. This should be a win for Team USA if we are going to base it on a recent game they've had in an international friendly competition. They played back in October, so the teams are largely the same. Those games aren't always predictive, though. In order to keep the momentum coming, Team USA will need to remain aggressive in its attack. If they can strategically push the ball downfield, they should get a few good looks at a goalie that can be beaten.
Team Australia had a nice outcome in their first game as well, having won the first contest against Turkey. I don't hate the Turkish team. They have some decent talent as well. Some games of the World Cup can just be dismissed because there is a huge mismatch. That isn't the case here. Australia was methodical in its attack and won the game 2-0.
If you look at the stats from their first game, there is a big argument that Australia got lucky to win the game. They had half the shots on goal of Turkey, and they had possession of the ball for just 28% of the time. So, they were able to make the most of their opportunity. They had 12 fouls compared to just four on Turkey. I suppose there should be a fair amount of credit given to the Australian defense, considering they were able to stop all eight shots on goal, and if their opponent had the ball that often, it means they had to consistently stop the pressure.
If Australia can slow the game down against America, they might have another chance. I don't think this is the most impressive team in the tournament, but they look like they don't make a lot of mistakes. Will the kangaroo clan be able to capitalize on the USA's mistakes today?
It is possible. The USA was the beneficiary of an own goal to start the scoring, then they got two more in the first half. They did create some great opportunities, but missed some of those chances. Their defense only faced one real attack, and their goalie stopped the ball. Australia needs to be more aggressive than they were in the first game, but I don't think that's their nature. I expect Team USA to win, but I think this is going to be a lower-scoring game. Give me the under 2.5.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
For more sports betting information and plays, follow David on X/Twitter: @futureprez2024
Kevin O'Leary warns China is winning the AI race because U.S. states are slowing data center production
As data center projects continue to get shut down across the country, "Shark Tank" star Kevin O'Leary and other investors are warning that the facilities are needed to compete with China in the artificial intelligence race.
Data centers are at the forefront of the continued development of AI, serving as the hardware for the large amount of electricity and infrastructure needed to improve response time and data storage. But opponents cite utility costs to local residents and environmental concerns in their efforts to block development of new centers.
"If everybody talks about data centers, too much heat, too much noise, too much water, all that, that was 20 years ago," O’Leary told Fox News Digital. "Today's technology is completely different in terms of the heat profile, in terms the water profile, in terms how big these buildings have to be and where they have to be, because we've got air-cooled technology and obviously the chip technology's advanced."
TRUMP SAYS EVERY AI PLANT BEING BUILT IN US WILL BE SELF-SUSTAINING WITH THEIR OWN ELECTRICITY
O’Leary said China is focused on improving its power grid, which is needed in order to support the massive electricity demands of running a data center. He noted that data centers can function using varied energy sources.
"Most of it is coming from burning nat[ural] gas, which is very clean now, with turbines," he said. "Hopefully nuclear power one day, some solar, some battery, all of it together. I think the key is that they're beating us because they're getting more power sooner, and then they're building these data centers to train their own AI. The country that has the best AI will have the best economy and the best defense, the best military, and win all the wars because it's going robotically."
President Donald Trump has pushed hard for new data center production. Last July, he signed an executive order titled "Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure" which directed agencies to reduce the regulatory burdens that have been slowing data center development.
Earlier this week, Fox News Digital obtained a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., calling for federal investigators to examine whether foreign actors are attempting to shape U.S. public opinion and policy against data centers and AI development as Washington and Beijing compete for dominance in artificial intelligence.
"Recent reports show that Communist China is attempting to influence our policy and public opinion on data centers. The reason is obvious: They want to kneecap our processing power to win the AI race," Cotton told Fox News Digital.
SEN BERNIE SANDERS: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS COMING FOR THE WORKING CLASS. WE MUST FIGHT BACK
Despite the push to put U.S. production ahead of Beijing, some liberals in Congress have been reluctant to get on board with data center development. In March, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., introduced the Intelligence (AI) Data Center Moratorium Act.
"Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of these data centers until we have a framework to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to our society," Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement about the legislation. "We must choose humanity over profit."
But some experts tie data center production to economic gains, saying that the jobs created from the facilities benefit communities and local economies.
STEVE FORBES: THE AI COLD WAR HAS BEGUN AND AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE
"In the first six months Trump was in office, over 90% of all economic growth came from new computer and AI investment, and much of it came from data centers," Judge Glock, director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital. "Without continued growth in data centers, we would have higher unemployment and lower incomes. Data centers also bring big gains to local communities."
Leading voices in AI also noted China’s ability to construct data centers at a much faster rate than the U.S. Last November, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said the communist country’s building capabilities far exceed that of the U.S.
"If you want to build a data center here in the United States, from breaking ground to standing up an AI supercomputer is probably about three years... they can build a hospital in a weekend."
O’Leary said the competition with China should alarm Americans, adding that if the U.S. falls too far behind, Beijing could gain the ability to devastate the U.S. economy and national security.
While production capabilities are in question, widespread data shows that the U.S. currently has a significantly higher number of functional data centers already built compared to the number reported in China.
According to Statista, the U.S. has more than 4,000 facilities as of April, while China has just over 300 — fewer than the United Kingdom and Germany. Still, O’Leary warned that China could outpace the U.S. over the long term if the U.S. slows development.
WATCH: Would-be second-term President Biden left searching for family on stage after Obama Center opening
Former President Joe Biden was caught in an awkward moment when he drifted back toward the stage as the dedication ceremony for President Barack Obama’s presidential library wrapped up Thursday.
Video shows Biden pulling down his sunglasses and peering into the crowd as his wife, Jill Biden, and Obama exited the stage, leaving him behind.
At one moment, Biden shouted, "where’s my granddaughter?’"
A person familiar with the situation told Fox News Digital that Biden was searching for his granddaughter, who was sitting in the audience.
OBAMA LEADING BIDEN OFF STAGE BY THE HAND 'REALLY PISSED ME OFF,' HUNTER BIDEN SEETHES
The moment came at the conclusion of a star-studded event celebrating the opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago, which brought together Obama, Biden, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Kamala Harris and a host of entertainers and political figures.
The incident also follows renewed scrutiny of Biden's health and his initial decision to seek a second term in 2024.
During an appearance at New York's 92nd Street Y this week, Hillary Clinton called Biden's re-election bid a "terrible mistake," arguing that Democrats may have been better positioned had there been a competitive primary process before the 2024 election.
"Very sadly, I believe whoever emerged from that contest, whether it was the vice president or a governor or a senator or anybody else, would have beaten Donald Trump," Clinton said. "So I think it was a terrible miscalculation on the part of President Biden."
Biden faced major pressure from Democratic Party leadership to drop out of the presidential race following his disastrous debate performance against Trump. Despite opinion pieces and public calls for him to exit the race, Biden remained in the contest for more than three weeks after the debate.
Meanwhile, former first lady Jill Biden recently wrote that she feared her husband may have been suffering a stroke following his widely criticized debate performance against then-candidate Donald Trump in June 2024, and suggested he should not have continued his re-election campaign.
The former president is also locked in a legal battle with the Justice Department over the release of audio recordings from his interviews with former special counsel Robert Hur, whose investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents fueled additional questions about his age and memory. In those audio recordings, Hur described then-sitting President Biden as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," a characterization that became a flashpoint in the debate over Biden’s mental fitness for the job.
The 83-year-old former president is currently battling Stage 4 prostate cancer that has metastasized to his bones.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces potential leadership challenge from newly-elected Andy Burnham
Andy Burnham has officially won his special election and regained a seat in Parliament, setting him up to challenge the deeply unpopular Keir Starmer as the leader of the Labour party and as prime minister.
Burnham, currently the mayor of Greater Manchester in northwest England, won a seat in Makerfield and came away with 55% of the vote in a field of more than a dozen candidates, according to The Associated Press. The runner-up was Rob Kenyon of Reform UK, a right-wing populist party, who received more than 9,000 fewer votes than Burnham.
Burnham last served as a member of Parliament in 2017 but strongly implied in his victory speech that he is returning with the intention to lead the United Kingdom.
"Everyone knows that politics isn’t working. Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could, just could, be the turning point," he said, according to the AP. "This result will bring about a country that works fairly for everywhere and for everybody."
TRUMP ALLY NIGEL FARAGE DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO STARMER IN LOCAL UK ELECTIONS AS RESIGNATION CALLS MOUNT
This special election, called by-elections in Britain, was unusually significant because the area's Labour MP, Josh Simons, intentionally resigned to allow Burnham to win the seat and pursue leadership.
The potentially outsized impact of this election was juxtaposed with the strange scene that unfolded when all the candidates gathered on Friday morning to hear the results. Burnham stood in between an independent candidate dressed in a fox costume and another candidate known as "Count Binface".
As his name suggests, "Count Binface," whose real name is Jonathan David Harvey, was wearing a trash can on his head and regularly runs in U.K. elections to advocate for increased voter turnout.
Starmer congratulated Burnham in a social media post on X, saying voters "chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate."
When asked about Burnham's intentions to oust him as leader, Starmer said he will fight to remain prime minister, a position he has held for nearly two years.
"I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that," Starmer told reporters.
Starmer led the Labour party to a landslide victory in July 2024 and ever since, his popularity has been eroding thanks to a persistently high cost of living, an anemic economy and a scandal over his willingness to accept gifts from wealthy donors.
Last September, Starmer was slammed for appointing Peter Mandelson as the British ambassador to the United States, when it was known as early as 2019 that Mandelson had a friendship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Following an enormous public backlash, Mandelson was quickly dismissed from his post.
With Starmer as leader, Labour is increasingly losing liberal-minded voters to the Green Party, while also facing stronger challenges by Reform UK, a Nigel Farage-led party that advocates against mass migration and in favor of tighter border controls. Farage, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, said he was disappointed by Burnham's victory.
Burnham is expected to head to London to be sworn in as soon as Monday. Under the British parliamentary system, the governing party can hold leadership elections in the middle of the term. The winner of such a contest can become prime minister without there having to be a national election.
Under Labour rules, a lawmaker can challenge the leader if they win the backing of a fifth of their party's members in the House of Commons. Burnham has enough lawmakers on board to trigger a leadership contest, according to a report from The New Statesman.
According to the AP, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Burnham and Starmer will "have a conversation about what comes next" in the next few days.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.