Fox News Latest Headlines
CNN's Dana Bash spars with RFK Jr over vaccine efficacy, demands he 'look into the camera' and push vaccines
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sparred with CNN host Dana Bash over the rise in measles cases in the United States as well as vaccine efficacy on Sunday's "State of the Union."
Though the interview grew heated after Kennedy accused Bash of committing "press malpractice" based on what he said was a failure to challenge public health authorities during the COVID pandemic, Kennedy and Bash's contention continued after Bash asked him about the record number of measles cases and whether he accepts "some responsibility."
"Absolutely not," Kennedy said. "First of all, this is an international outbreak. So, we're doing better at handling it than any country in the world. Mexico has 15 times the amount of measles per capita that we have. Canada has four times the amount of measles. England has two times the amount of measles. Did I cause those measles outbreaks?"
RFK JR ACCUSES NYT OF PUBLISHING 'HIT PIECE' SOURCED BY 'DISGRUNTLED' EMPLOYEES HE PURGED
Bash suggested he bears some responsibility as the "most famous vaccine skeptic on the planet," though Kennedy countered that former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci himself has said in his private diaries that COVID lockdowns were more responsible for children not being vaccinated for measles.
The CNN host, however, continued to demand Kennedy use his position to advocate for people to take the measles vaccine.
"What I want you to do is please use your bully pulpit to, right now, as we're getting close to back to school, say — are you willing to say to parents who have not vaccinated their kids that they should vaccinate their kids for measles because it is safe, and it will help them save their children's lives?" Bash asked.
"I tell people on my websites, my public..." Kennedy began.
"Right now. Look into the camera," Bash interrupted.
"I will say it right now, that people, parents should get their children vaccinated for measles. A measles vaccine is effective. It stops measles in about 97% of the cases. So, people should get vaccinated," Kennedy said.
Bash went on to ask Kennedy about efforts to investigate connections between vaccines and autism. While Kennedy was explaining his position, he stopped to call out Bash for "rolling [her] eyes" at the issue.
"I don't want to have you use our air to say this," Bash said.
Bash then accused Kennedy of promoting vaccine skepticism by suggesting vaccines could cause autism, despite his previous support for the measles and MMR vaccine. Kennedy remarked that Bash appeared "flustered."
"I am frustrated. The reason I'm frustrated is because I… you are the HHS secretary, and you are talking about things that lead to vaccine hesitancy in this country. And it is something that causes problems for people when there is not anything..." Bash said.
RFK JR SAYS FAUCI PRIORITIZED 'GETTING ON TV' OVER PUBLIC HEALTH AFTER REVEALING DIARY RELEASE
"Let me ask you something. Do you see your job as ending vaccine hesitancy, or do you see your job as telling the truth to the American people?" Kennedy asked.
"I see my job as telling the truth," Bash responded.
CNN defended Bash's performance in a statement to Fox News Digital after it aired.
"Dana Bash is a veteran journalist who conducted a newsmaking interview with Secretary Kennedy in which he stated that he supports parents getting their children vaccinated against measles and addressed President Trump’s push for further study into autism and vaccines," a CNN spokesperson said.
"Asking tough, substantive questions to those in power is the job of every journalist, and Dana did hers incredibly well today. We stand behind Dana, her reporting, and CNN’s overall coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic," the spokesperson added.
CNN stood by the statement when reached for further comment.
Riley Gaines says Target Center staffer tried to shut down her Sophie Cunningham sign
Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve was permitted to wear a "Trans kids belong" shirt on the sideline during Sunday’s game against the Indiana Fever.
Fans throughout Target Center held signs supporting their favorite WNBA players.
But when Riley Gaines displayed a small sign reading, "Sophie, thank you — a girl mom," an arena staffer tried to make her put it down.
According to Gaines, the staffer told her the problem was that the sign contained Fever guard Sophie Cunningham’s name.
"I checked all the sign policies before I went in there," Gaines told OutKick. "I made sure it was like 11 by 17. That’s the sign size you could have. So, I got a ruler out. You better believe I was measuring it."
TRANS ACTIVISTS HARASS, HURL SLURS AT SOPHIE CUNNINGHAM SUPPORTERS BEFORE FEVER GAME IN MINNESOTA
Gaines attended Sunday’s Fever-Lynx game to support Cunningham, who has faced intense criticism since publicly stating that women’s sports should be reserved for women.
Cunningham was loudly booed throughout Indiana’s 108-100 loss in Minneapolis, while Reeve used the game to make her opposing position clear.
ESPN’s broadcast highlighted Reeve’s shirt and encouraged viewers to listen to the Lynx coach’s previous comments on transgender athletes.
Meanwhile, a staffer inside the arena apparently decided Gaines’ simple message of support for Cunningham needed to disappear.
Gaines arrived at Target Center around 11:40 a.m. local time, approximately 20 minutes before tipoff.
She had initially planned to attend a rally outside the arena but remained at her hotel after her personal security team advised her that the situation had become too hostile.
Gaines was not present for a confrontation outside that was was described by some social media users as an "assault." Video reviewed by OutKick showed one person ripping a T-shirt from another person’s hands, but did not appear to show anyone being struck or injured.
As Gaines entered the arena, however, she said a protester stationed near the entrance put a bullhorn near her face, sounded it and shouted at her.
Once inside, the response was mixed.
Gaines said some people directed insults and hostile looks toward her, but many others requested photographs, thanked her, offered fist bumps and quietly expressed support for her position. She said some people even brought copies of Gaines' book into the arena and asked her to sign them.
Around halftime, Gaines said families and young girls formed something resembling a photo line near her seat.
"There were so many people stopping me, asking me for photos, ‘Thank you for doing what you’re doing,’ winks and whispers and fist bumps, people buying me drinks," Gaines said.
At some point during the game, she held up her sign.
"I see an arena staffer, someone who’s on the court wearing the all-black official clothing, who points at me and mouths something," Gaines recalled. "I can’t hear him because he’s so far away, but he appeared to say, ‘Put your sign down.’"
At first, Gaines wasn’t sure the staffer was addressing her. Numerous other people in the arena were holding signs, including signs containing the names of players.
The staffer eventually approached her and repeated the instruction.
"He comes over and he says, ‘You have to take your sign down.’ I’m like, ‘No, I don’t. I checked all the sign policies before I went in there,’" Gaines said.
Gaines asked why her sign was prohibited.
"He said, ‘Well, because it has her name on it. It has Sophie’s name on it, so you can’t have that,’" Gaines recalled.
The explanation immediately drew objections from other spectators in Gaines’ section.
"My whole section at that point, they were outraged," Gaines said. "They were like, ‘You can’t tell her she can’t have that. There’s a hundred signs right here with people’s names on it. What do you mean she can’t have it?’"
Gaines refused to lower the sign.
"What are you going to do, kick me out?" Gaines recalled thinking. "Go for it."
She said the staffer eventually returned after the game and apologized. Gaines interpreted the apology as a possible indication that he had been directed by someone else to confront her, though she did not know who may have issued that instruction.
Target Center’s published poster and signage policy does not prohibit signs merely because they contain a player’s name.
The policy states:
"As a general rule, posters/signage under 11 x 17 inches are allowed in Target Center, pending individual tour/promoter approval. All posters/signage must be handheld, may not be mounted on sticks or poles, may not be lit or constructed using lighting elements, may not contain offensive language or graphics and may not prevent other guests from seeing the stage/event."
The venue reserves the right to confiscate signs it considers inappropriate and says the policy may change based on requirements for a particular event. But the policy does not state that a sign is prohibited simply because it includes a player’s name.
Gaines said her sign was handheld, smaller than the maximum dimensions and contained no offensive language or graphics. She also said she made certain it complied with the published size restriction before bringing it to the game.
More importantly, Gaines said the staffer didn't tell her that the sign was oversized, offensive, obstructing another fan’s view or violating an event-specific restriction.
He allegedly told her she could not display it because it contained Cunningham’s name.
OutKick contacted the Minnesota Lynx and asked whether an event-specific signage policy was in place, why Gaines was instructed to lower her sign, whether any policy prohibited Cunningham’s name and whether the direction originated with the Lynx, Target Center, arena security or the WNBA.
The Lynx did not respond to our email.
Cunningham was booed when she entered the game and frequently when she touched the basketball.
But Gaines said the public hostility didn't match many of the private interactions she had with fans inside Target Center and said she believes many people inside the arena agreed with Cunningham but didn't feel comfortable expressing that support openly.
"I absolutely think she had more fans there, or people who at least support her sentiment, than are willing to admit," Gaines said.
Cunningham eventually made a 3-pointer late in the third quarter and received a noticeable cheer despite playing for the visiting team.
Gaines viewed that reaction as another sign that the loudest people in the arena didn't necessarily represent everyone in attendance.
After the game ended, Cunningham came out to meet Gaines near the tunnel.
Most of the players had already left the court, but Gaines said several young girls remained nearby calling Cunningham’s name.
Cunningham spent approximately 15 minutes with Gaines and posed for a photograph while holding the same sign the arena staffer had attempted to make Gaines lower.
Gaines described Cunningham as completely unshaken by the hostile reception.
According to Gaines, Cunningham said she knew her position was right and remained confident that she could defend it intellectually and morally. Because of that confidence, Cunningham said the reaction did not bother her.
While the loudest voices inside Target Center spent the afternoon condemning Cunningham, young girls waited near the tunnel chanting her name. Fans quietly approached Gaines to thank her. And Cunningham came back out after the loss to greet them.
The arena allowed Reeve to promote her message from the sideline. Fans were free to boo Cunningham every time she touched the ball. But when Gaines held up a small sign thanking Cunningham, a staffer told her it had to come down because it contained the player’s name.
Gaines refused.
By the end of the afternoon, Cunningham was holding the sign herself.
King Charles makes risky move toward Prince Harry as Prince William 'remains wary': experts
Prince Harry's return to the United Kingdom could be King Charles' biggest gamble yet — and Prince William may not like it.
The claim was made by multiple royal experts who spoke to Fox News Digital following reports that the Duke of Sussex is expected to visit the U.K. in September. The Sun reported that the monarch plans to offer his younger son a room at Buckingham Palace in London during his stay.
Fox News Digital reached out to Buckingham Palace and Archewell, which oversees the offices of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, for comment.
"Prince Harry has been invited to stay at Buckingham Palace to coincide with the annual WellChild Awards, which he attends each year," British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard told Fox News Digital. "This is perceived as an olive branch by King Charles to slowly rebuild their relationship. However, will Prince Harry accept the invitation? There are murmurs that he has accepted it. Time will tell."
"My sources say staff at Buckingham Palace are against Harry staying," Chard said. "They feel immensely betrayed by Harry's explosive claims against the royal family. Also, my sources say there has been no hint of contrition from the Sussexes. People are not going to forget that they hurled the royal family under the bus, creating lasting damage to the crown. Many wonder why King Charles is appeasing Harry."
The olive branch came after the Sussexes had a rare reunion with Charles during their visit to the U.K. in July. The private meeting, which took place at Charles' country estate, Highgrove House, marked the first time the king had seen his grandchildren, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, since 2022.
WATCH: PRINCE WILLIAM UNLIKELY TO RECONCILE WITH PRINCE HARRY SOON: EXPERT
Harry's recent visit to the U.K. was marked by problems.
After reports that the prince would visit his home country with his family, the British government declined his request for police protection outside royal residences, prompting him to travel alone on July 6.
The Sussexes lost their taxpayer-funded security after they stepped back as senior working royals. Harry was later denied the restoration of that security by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC).
The couple previously lived at Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace in London before moving to Frogmore Cottage in Windsor shortly before Archie was born in 2019. After they stepped back as working royals in 2020 and relocated to California, the Sussexes were asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage.
People magazine reported that ahead of Harry's trip, his team spent several days exploring ways to make the visit safe through enhanced private security arrangements. Palace sources told the outlet Harry initially declined an invitation to stay at a royal residence before later accepting it.
Harry's spokesperson told the outlet that an offer for the Duke of Sussex to stay at Buckingham Palace during his London visit was withdrawn after he had formally accepted it. Palace sources, however, disputed that account, saying Harry failed to respond by the deadline and that his later acceptance came only after arrangements could no longer be made.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
A source close to the Sussexes told the outlet that, behind the scenes, the drama surrounding the visit was "quite stressful."
"What was billed as a big homecoming ... turned into a nightmare," Russell Myers, author of "William & Catherine," told the outlet. "It was further evidence of the fractiousness of Harry's relationship with the institution."
Katie Nicholl, Vanity Fair's royal correspondent, reported that, according to sources, "not even the Prince and Princess of Wales were made aware" that a meeting would take place on July 10 between the Sussexes and the king.
She also reported that Charles, "who has sworn his youngest son and daughter-in-law to secrecy," insisted that nothing about their July 10 meeting be leaked. Only palace aides were permitted to confirm the reunion had taken place after the Sussexes left Highgrove House without being seen.
Royal experts told Fox News Digital that while Charles is open to reconciling with his younger son and reconnecting with his California-based grandchildren, not everyone is welcoming the Sussexes with open arms.
Prince William is said to remain wary of his estranged brother, many of them shared. According to the experts, the brothers have not spoken since 2022, when their grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, died.
"King Charles, from all indications and all feedback from courtiers, obviously wants to maintain an open dialogue and ongoing relationship with his 'dear boy,'" British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital. "Prince William, meanwhile, remains wary and won't want Harry at the palace. However, it's better that Harry stays at Buckingham Palace than in Windsor, which is too close to William and his family."
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
If Charles hopes to bring Harry back into the royal fold, he'll first need the blessing of the future king, royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams said.
"The attitude of the Waleses, since they are the monarchy's future, is pivotal," Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital. "And with good reason, they don't trust the Sussexes. King Charles' approach could prove incendiary."
Still, Chard believes Charles appears willing to risk fresh royal tensions in pursuit of something he's long wanted: reconciliation with Harry.
"Don't get me wrong, reconciliation within the British royal family would be good as it makes the monarchy stronger," Chard said. "However, why invite Harry to Buckingham Palace, the iconic royal residence that's the administrative heart of the monarchy? Harry is no longer a working royal and shouldn't be offered a room at Buckingham Palace."
"I guess the optics of inviting Harry to Buckingham Palace are seen as a goodwill gesture, easing tensions with small steps forward, peace-wise," Chard said. "It also skates over the endless divide within the family."
Chard previously told Fox News Digital that William is known for being stubborn behind palace doors and isn't one to forgive easily.
"William believes the monarchy must be seen to do the right thing, even when it's painful. From what I understand, he felt his father didn't handle that firmly enough. He also believes in protecting it by drawing hard lines. But he's not the king yet."
During part of their U.K. visit, the Sussexes stayed at Althorp, Princess Diana's ancestral home, where they were hosted by Harry's uncle, Earl Charles Spencer. It was there that Archie and Lilibet learned more about their grandmother, who died when Harry was 12, according to People.
Meghan later shared photos of Harry and their children at the estate on Instagram.
Fordwich previously told Fox News Digital that William was likely "livid" over the photos.
"Not only is Prince William likely to be livid regarding the commercialization of Althorp in such a tacky, tasteless media post, but it'll fuel his disgust, so he [would] thwart any major re-entry," she said. "Likewise, Camilla, courtiers, palace aides, security officials and other institutional gatekeepers who are duty-bound to protect the monarchy will all do their utmost to thwart Meghan and Harry's attempts."
Trump v. Smithsonian: A timeline of how the White House fight over 'woke' history unfolded
President Donald Trump's effort to root out what his administration calls "woke" ideology at the Smithsonian has grown into one of the most extensive White House reviews of the institution in decades.
The Smithsonian oversees 21 museums, the National Zoo and nearly 157 million objects and specimens while receiving more than $1 billion annually in federal funding outside of private-side dollars.
The administration's campaign has placed the taxpayer-supported institution at the center of a broader debate over patriotism, historical interpretation and the role of federally funded cultural institutions amid a growing divide over how people view and retell America's story.
GOP LAWMAKER DEMANDS ANSWERS AFTER SMITHSONIAN CHIEF URGED MOVING BEYOND 'AMERICA FIRST MENTALITY'
Over the past 16 months, the administration has examined museum exhibits, educational programming, internal records and leadership statements, issued multiple document requests, interviewed curators and conducted on-site museum walkthroughs.
The effort culminated in a 162-page White House report recommending sweeping reforms and announcing new executive actions aimed at implementing those recommendations.
Here's a timeline of the major developments.
Trump signed an executive order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" two months into his second term. The order argues that federal cultural institutions, including the Smithsonian, have promoted "divisive" ideological narratives.
The executive action directs the Trump administration to restore what it describes as a more patriotic presentation of American history. And it tasks the White House Domestic Policy Council and Vice President JD Vance, in his role as a Smithsonian Regent, with reviewing Smithsonian exhibits and programs.
Following Trump's executive order, the White House Domestic Policy Council kicked-off an investigation of the Smithsonian, focusing primarily on the National Museum of American History.
Officials reviewed exhibits, educational materials, strategic plans, leadership speeches, museum programming and public statements. During that review, the council documented examples they argue prioritize divisive ideological narratives over a so-called patriotic telling of American history.
White House officials sent Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch a letter formally launching the review ordered by Trump.
The letter directs the institution to turn over exhibition plans, educational materials, internal policies and other records while outlining a review of eight Smithsonian museums to ensure exhibits "celebrate American exceptionalism" and remove what the administration calls divisive narratives.
It also sets deadlines for document production, curator interviews and on-site reviews, with museums instructed to begin revising public-facing content within 120 days.
The White House criticizes the museum for holding no special Independence Day programming in 2025 despite being open on July 4, discontinuing its traditional Flag Day ceremonies, and planning 250th anniversary exhibits and events.
According to the administration, those 250 installations emphasize flaws of the United States while giving insufficient attention to the Founders, the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.
The White House tells Smithsonian Secretary Bunch in a letter that the institution has failed to provide most of the records requested during its review.
Among other things, the review requested exhibition plans, curatorial documents and governance materials be turned over.
At this time, the administration gives the Smithsonian until Jan. 13, 2026, to produce the requested records. It also reminds the institution that federal funding must be used in a manner consistent with Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" executive order.
White House investigators complete on-site walkthroughs of Smithsonian museums. During the visits, they reviewed exhibits, educational materials, digital content and internal planning documents as well as interviewed museum staff as part of the administration's review.
Investigators found during those visits exhibits that they argue emphasized restorative history, decolonization, immigration activism, DEI initiatives and social justice. Meanwhile, it claimed that the institution was downplaying America's Founders, the nation's achievements and patriotic themes.
The report ultimately concludes the Smithsonian project has undergone a significant shift away from its original mission, arguing exhibits increasingly emphasize social justice activism and ideological narratives rather than focus on America's founding principles and national achievements.
The museum debuts its signature exhibition commemorating America's 250th anniversary, featuring 250 objects from its collection, including Thomas Jefferson's writing desk, George Washington's uniform and the Star-Spangled Banner.
The White House said just two months before the country's 250th celebration that the exhibition repackages existing displays rather than creating a new founding-era exhibit. It also criticized the installation for failing to meaningfully celebrate America's Founders, the Declaration of Independence or the American Revolution during the nation's 250th birthday.
The Trump administration also said the exhibit's promotional materials and programming downplayed patriotic themes and national symbols.
The White House Domestic Policy Council releases its 162-page "Saving America's Story" report, concluding that the National Museum of American History has undergone "ideological capture."
The report recommends removing what it describes as political activism from museum exhibits and restoring displays that emphasize America's founding principles, national achievements and patriotic history. It says the findings stem from the Smithsonian review ordered by Trump's March 2025 executive order.
The expansive report included images of exhibits, images of exhibits and placards, as well as curators and leaders of the museum.
It spent much of the report focusing on how the museum classified and portrayed illegal migration in its exhibits.
Hours after the report's release, Trump signs the "Restoring Trust in the Smithsonian Institution" executive order, directing the Interior Department, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), General Services Administrator (GSA) and the White House Domestic Policy Council to use available authorities to encourage the Smithsonian to address the report's findings.
TRUMP ORDERS SIGNS OUTSIDE SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM AMID ROW OVER ITS DEPICTION OF AMERICAN HISTORY
Trump's order also instructs the National Park Service (NPS) to install temporary signs outside the National Museum of American History directing visitors to the report and describing the administration's concerns with the museum's presentation of American history.
The administration says its effort is intended to restore a more patriotic presentation of American history at the Smithsonian. The institution, meanwhile, has long said its mission is to preserve and present the nation's history through scholarship, research and public education, setting the stage for continued debate over how America's story should be told.
The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
First showdown in race for Lindsey Graham's Senate seat puts GOP hopefuls to the test
Candidates eyeing the late Sen. Lindsey Graham’s seat of power in the Senate will get a chance to define themselves on the debate stage Monday.
Untested fresh blood, lawmakers eager to ascend and candidates who have failed to launch are set to share the same stage and will get an equal opportunity to convince South Carolinians that they have what it takes to take over for Graham.
While nearly 10 candidates have jumped into the race for the suddenly vacant seat, politicos in South Carolina contend that only a few are true contenders and have the most to prove during the televised sales pitch to voters as campaign materials darken voters' doorsteps.
TRUMP ENDORSEMENT FAILS TO CLEAR GOP FIELD AS FORMER GOVERNOR JOINS SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE RACE
"This debate is the opportunity for South Carolinians to have a moment to hear from these candidates directly," Dave Wilson, a South Carolina-based political consultant, told Fox News Digital.
"The mail is already coming in," he continued. "The emails are already going out, but this is a time to see whether the candidates can handle the job in what is in essence the only job interview that we will see ahead of the primary."
The key candidates to watch are Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., who was appointed to take her brother’s seat and has since received President Donald Trump’s endorsement. Behind her are Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., and Russell Fry, R-S.C., and former Gov. Mark Sanford.
MACE SNUBS TRUMP'S PREFERRED SENATE CANDIDATE, BACKS RALPH NORMAN INSTEAD
And that same group, along with Graham's former primary opponent Mark Lynch, have all qualified for the debate stage under the South Carolina GOP's criteria.
Wilson contended that both Norman and Sanford have statewide name recognition — Norman unsuccessfully ran for the GOP nomination for governor this year and Sanford has been a known entity in South Carolina politics for nearly two decades.
Graham could ride on the wave of her brother’s last name, but she doesn’t have the record to push like the others in the race. While she’ll be making a pitch about who she is, Fry could stand to gain the most among the other competitors.
That’s because, unlike Norman, Sanford and Graham, he doesn’t have the same statewide campaign infrastructure and name recognition, despite being handpicked by Trump to run for Congress years ago.
"I think Russell Fry needs this debate more than any other person on that stage right now because, while he has been a staunch Trump supporter, he is the one person who could benefit the most from a really strong debate performance," Wilson said. "Because he has to do what it takes to establish himself statewide and demonstrate that what he’s done for the 7th Congressional District, he can do for the entire state."
Lindsay Clancy jurors visit crime scene in Karen Read-style move to test timeline: Retired judge
This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, contact the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
Jurors in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial retraced her ex-husband’s route Friday before walking through the Massachusetts home where the couple’s three children were killed, a court-supervised visit a retired Massachusetts judge said could help the panel understand the timeline and setting at the center of the case.
The move was reminiscent of another high-profile Massachusetts murder trial that recently captured headlines, when Karen Read was acquitted of the top charge during her 2025 retrial.
In Clancy's case, the 18-member jury panel was driven past ThreeV restaurant in Plymouth and the CVS pharmacy in Kingston that Patrick Clancy visited on Jan. 24, 2023. Jurors were then escorted in groups of six through the family’s former home in Duxbury during a roughly 40-minute visit.
They also saw the basement where Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, were found, as well as the yard beneath the second-story window where Lindsay Clancy was discovered seriously injured after attempting suicide. The fall left the woman paralyzed and in a wheelchair.
Jack Lu, who served 16 years as a Massachusetts Superior Court judge and five years as a Boston Municipal Court judge, said that, in his experience, a view is expected in a Massachusetts homicide trial, particularly a case involving multiple deaths.
"The reality is, on a homicide case, they’re always, always going to do a view," Lu, now a Boston College law professor, told Fox News Digital.
LINDSAY CLANCY’S EX-HUSBAND DETAILS PILL USE AS EXPERT SAYS EVIDENCE COULD SHAPE MURDER TRIAL
Lu said the clearest benefit may be helping jurors assess how long Patrick was away from the home and understand the locations discussed throughout testimony.
"They’re going to dissect the amount of time involved in the husband’s trip to CVS," Lu said, adding that the visit could help jurors understand "what kind of time that Ms. Clancy had" after Patrick left.
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS
Still, Lu cautioned against assuming the view necessarily favored either side or would become decisive.
KAREN READ SAYS SHE GETS FREE MEALS AND DISCOUNTS EVERYWHERE AFTER NOT GUILTY VERDICT
"The view is perhaps not obviously crucial to this case," he said. "It gives them context."
WATCH: Jurors retrace Patrick Clancy’s errands before finding slain children
A similar procedure was used during Read’s 2025 retrial in Massachusetts, where she was charged with killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe.
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE
Jurors were bussed to 34 Fairview Road in Canton, where O’Keefe was found, and viewed the property and Read’s Lexus. Prosecutors and defense attorneys directed jurors’ attention to different details from the case.
WATCH: Jurors in Karen Read's trial visit scene of John O'Keefe's death
In Clancy's case, prosecutors allege she intentionally sent Patrick on the errands to get him out of the house before strangling the children.
Her attorneys do not dispute that she killed her children but argue she lacked criminal responsibility because she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis.
After returning to Plymouth Superior Court on Friday, jurors heard emotional testimony from emergency room doctors who treated Dawson and Callan.
Dr. Mark Tenerowicz testified that hospital staff tried for about 40 minutes to revive Dawson, who arrived without a pulse and was not breathing. He was pronounced dead at about 7:28 p.m.
Dr. Benjamin Kaufman said medical workers restored Callan’s pulse, but the infant remained unable to breathe independently.
LISTEN TO THE NEW 'CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO' PODCAST
"At no point did he exhibit any brain function," Kaufman testified.
During testimony, Clancy covered her face and appeared to sob and shake during the doctors’ testimony. Lu described the emotional weight of the proceedings as "exceptional," even among heavily publicized trials.
"Even among high-profile cases, the emotionalism of this case is extraordinary," he said, adding that Massachusetts judges are trained to privately address jurors after a verdict about processing the emotional toll of what they went through.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
Judge William Sullivan dismissed the panel on Friday afternoon, saying the trial was "well on schedule, if not ahead." Testimony is scheduled to resume Monday at 9 a.m.
What to order instead: Lettuce-free meals at McDonald's, Burger King, Chick-fil-A, Taco Bell and more
As the restaurant industry navigates the ongoing fallout from the cyclospora outbreak, many menu items at fast-food chains don't contain shredded lettuce — the ingredient the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has linked to the outbreak.
Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite known to cause cyclosporiasis, the most common symptom of which is diarrhea. The FDA said it traced the outbreak to shredded iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico.
A McDonald's standard hamburger does not contain lettuce, though the Big Mac, McChicken and deluxe burgers do.
IS LETTUCE STILL SAFE TO EAT AMID TACO BELL ILLNESS PROBE? DOCTORS ANSWER
The standard hamburger contains a beef patty, ketchup, mustard, chopped onions and dill pickle slices on a bun.
Other McDonald's items that don't contain lettuce include the Filet-O-Fish, a breaded and fried fish filet served with tartar sauce and a slice of American cheese on a bun.
The Double Cheeseburger, Quarter Pounder with Cheese and Chicken McNuggets are other lettuce-free options.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
Only a few menu items at KFC contain lettuce. They include the chicken wrap and the chain's chicken sandwiches.
KFC's signature items, including the original recipe for fried chicken, chicken tenders, nuggets and the Famous Bowl (mashed potatoes, corn, chicken, cheese and gravy), are lettuce-free.
Several items on Chick-fil-A's menu lack lettuce. The chain's signature chicken sandwich only contains a pickle, as does the spicy version.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE NEWS
Chick-fil-A Nuggets, which can be ordered fried or grilled, as well as the Chick-n-Strips and Chicken Biscuits, are also all lettuce-free.
Though many burgers include lettuce at Wendy's, items that don't come with them include the Baconator, Son of Baconator and the chain's chili.
The Baconator is made with two beef patties, six strips of bacon, two slices of American cheese, ketchup and mayonnaise on a toasted bun. The Son of Baconator is a smaller version of the signature burger and contains four pieces of bacon.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER
At Burger King, many of the burgers and sandwiches include lettuce, but the nuggets, Chicken Fries and Rodeo Burger come without it. Chicken Fries are breaded and fried chicken strips in the shape of a french fry. The Rodeo Burger is a beef patty on a bun topped with onion rings and barbecue sauce.
Taco Bell has been offering limited-time promotions on items that do not contain shredded lettuce, including the Mexican Pizza, the Enchirito and regular Nacho Fries.
An Enchirito is made with a warm flour tortilla filled with seasoned beef, refried beans and diced onions and is smothered in red sauce and melted shredded cheddar cheese.
Other lettuce-free options at Taco Bell include the Bean Burrito, Beefy 5-Layer Burrito, Cheesy Roll Up, Cheesy Bean and Rice Burrito and the Quesadilla (cheese, chicken and steak).
Fox News Digital reached out to Chick-fil-A, Burger King, KFC, McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wendy's for comment.
JASON CHAFFETZ: Democrats desperately need Nancy Pelosi to take charge
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is no Nancy Pelosi.
The 85-year-old former House speaker from California is retiring, and the Democratic Party is baffled about its future. "Expand the tent" is its current trajectory, but at what cost? Turn it over to some who are not even registered Democrats?
Democrats lack message discipline. DNC fundraising is anemic. Traditional party gatekeepers have been sidelined as the flow of money and energy has been rerouted through the less regulated and less transparent NGO sector. Gone are the days when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer could direct the flow of donor dollars away from the radical fringe.
DEBT-RIDDEN DEMOCRATS TAP A SURPRISING ASSET AS COLLATERAL FOR $15M LOAN
Say what you will about Pelosi’s iron grip on power. At least she understood how to cloak her party’s radicalism. She didn’t dance to New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tune, refusing to grant the committee assignments that would elevate AOC’s fringe views. With her influence on the wane, Democrats at every level of government are having a messaging free-for-all.
The anti-American messaging of the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) has infiltrated the Democratic Party, potentially forcing every candidate to answer uncomfortable questions. They’ll have to choose between alienating their base or alienating their swing voters.
The DSA platform seeks to replace, not just reform, the key pillars of American stability and prosperity, explicitly rejecting the Constitution. DSA seeks to abolish the Senate, the Electoral College, the presidency, the Supreme Court and other key features of federalism that check the balance of power.
DEM REP HENRY CUELLAR REJECTS DSA AGENDA, SAYS SOCIALISTS ARE TRYING TO 'USE' DEMOCRATIC PARTY
These are positions that would make any 1990-era Democrat shudder. Democrats now have to own DSA demands to eliminate the Department of War, leaving America defenseless. They demand we open our borders to unvetted and unlimited migration and pay for the healthcare costs of any global citizen who wishes to come to America.
It’s not just the federal races that are at risk for Democrats. Even at the state level, governors like Minnesota’s Tim Walz and California’s Gavin Newsom have incentivized unimaginable levels of fraud that they now seek to conceal.
At the local level, Sanders-endorsed New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani attempted to meet with America’s Iranian enemies during wartime. Mamdani calls out Israel while refusing to acknowledge the crimes of Hamas. He represents a wing of the party that hates America, hates law and order and hates punishment.
Who among Democrats can rein in the party’s excesses? Former Vice President Kamala Harris? Hardly. Her unsuccessful billion-dollar presidential campaign is likely a key source of the current donor fatigue. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin has had to spend so much political capital cleaning up that mess that he has little to spare for 2026 races.
House and Senate Minority Leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Schumer do not wield the power that Pelosi once did. Their roles are precarious enough without offending the socialist wing of their party. AOC, though wildly popular with the far-left segment of the base, hasn’t shown the leadership skill to call out her own party when the waters get rough.
Poor candidate vetting continues to plague Democrats. The rape allegations against Sanders-endorsed Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner led to a repeat of President Joe Biden’s replacement primary process in which Democrats placed a candidate on the ballot without a single primary vote.
Without a unified message, a respected leader who can speak the truth internally, or a motivated donor base, Democrats will have only themselves to blame for their current chaotic state with no apparent way to abandon ship.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The Democrats/socialists/communists claim to be a big tent party, but that’s a lame excuse and explanation to the electorate who wants to know where they stand on specific issues. Those are questions no candidate in the Democratic Party truly wants to answer.
Expose the radical truth and they lose the general public. Dismiss the socialists/communists, and they lose their base.
What they really want is for Nancy Pelosi to raise the money, tell them what to do and say, and deny a place for the radicals among them. But today, the radicals far outnumber the remnants of yesterday’s Democratic Party.
Our enemies found a weakness in essential technology. We must fix it … fast
In July, Iran attempted to make good on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Yet the strait had already ceased functioning as reliable commercial infrastructure long before. Since the conflict started, more than 1,100 vessels recorded GPS and AIS interference in a single day, ships appeared on tracking systems at airports or deep inside Iranian territory, and ship crews navigated one of the world’s busiest waterways by radar alone because satellite navigation could no longer be trusted. Iran did more than threaten a choke point. It demonstrated what a determined adversary can do to the satellite infrastructure the modern world has taken for granted.
America depends on a second, invisible choke point: the Global Positioning System. GPS timestamps every credit card swipe and equity trade, synchronizes the power grid and cellular networks, and guides combines through fields, container ships into port and infantry through contested terrain.
That faint signal – engineered in the 1970s in a different time when our enemies weren't as savvy – now carries the weight of the entire global economy and our military edge. That world is gone. Global aviation logged roughly 430,000 jamming and spoofing incidents in 2024, a sharp 62% increase in a single year. A basic jammer can be built from off-the-shelf parts for a few hundred dollars.
GEN. JACK KEANE WARNS AGAINST TRUSTING IRAN ON STRAIT OF HORMUZ
I know what reliable navigation means in combat. As a Ranger, I never thought about GPS in combat. It located my team, guided the aircraft above us, and synchronized fires without ever announcing itself. We took it for granted. Today’s service members enjoy no such luxury. We are sending American forces into contested spaces with a vulnerable system designed half a century ago.
No incremental upgrade can fix GPS. Its weakness is physics, not engineering oversight. A satellite in medium Earth orbit broadcasting at limited power will always produce a faint signal at the receiver. A nearby jammer will always overpower it. Military M-Code offers marginal improvements but does not change the fundamental math.
China has drawn the obvious conclusion. The Chinese Communist Party is rapidly expanding next-generation navigation satellites, including low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations that operate closer to Earth, broadcast far stronger signals and are designed with electronic warfare in mind.
Beijing aims to dominate the navigation layer of the 21st-century economy. Congress has noted this shift in unusually blunt terms, stating in last year’s defense authorization that the United States is falling behind China in satellite navigation.
The solution is not another slow government program. It is emerging from American commercial industry. U.S. companies have designed and launched navigation satellites in domestic factories using private capital. These systems now operate in LEO, delivering signals up to 100 times stronger than GPS.
They resist spoofing by design, provide centimeter-level accuracy, and work with the GPS receivers already installed in millions of aircraft, vehicles, vessels and weapons. A software update is often all it takes to transition equipment America already owns to navigation that can survive attacks.
The Space Force understands this. Earlier this year, it canceled plans for a government-owned "Resilient GPS (R-GPS)" constellation in favor of leveraging commercial services. The fiscal year 2027 defense bill now advancing in the House would require the Air Force to demonstrate capabilities with commercial LEO providers – testing operation without GPS, resistance to jamming and spoofing, and rapid restoration if satellites are lost.
The demonstration is a good start, but it is not enough. Three concrete steps would turn congressional direction into deployed capability: first, fund what Congress has already directed. The 2027 defense appropriations bill should create a dedicated budget line for the commercial LEO demonstration and follow-on services. This investment would cost a fraction of a single GPS III satellite – and far less than the $1 billion once earmarked for R-GPS.
Second, procure operational services, not more studies. Commercial providers are already placing production satellites into orbit with private capital. The Department of Defense should contract for resilient navigation as a service – just as it does for launch services – and pay for proven performance in orbit.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Third, set resilience standards for critical infrastructure. Merchant crews navigating the Strait of Hormuz by radar this spring used receivers roughly 15 years out of date. Farmers, utility operators, and airline pilots face the same exposure. Federal regulators should establish minimum resilience requirements that legacy GPS can no longer meet on its own.
In 1973, the United States wagered that a constellation of navigation satellites would transform warfare and the global economy. That wager succeeded beyond any planner’s dreams, and it taught our adversaries precisely what to hold at risk. Iran disrupted a strait the world assumed would remain open. Our more capable adversaries intend to disrupt a signal America assumes will always be overhead.
The next era of navigation will belong to the first nation to focus on fielding resilient capabilities. American industry has already placed them in orbit. Whether the U.S. government moves at the speed of relevance will determine if America retains the decisive advantage it has held for 50 years – or cedes it to another power.
Trump is winning every battle in Iran—and risking the war that matters
Five months into the Iran war, America is winning almost every battle. The harder question is whether we are winning the war.
No one should minimize what the U.S. military has accomplished. American air and naval power have inflicted extraordinary damage on Iran's military infrastructure. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has lost command centers, missile launchers, drone facilities, air defenses, coastal installations, logistics hubs, and key personnel. Our servicemen and women have once again demonstrated unmatched professionalism, precision, and courage.
Those are genuine tactical successes.
I'VE STUDIED MILITARY STRATEGY. TRUMP NOW FACES IRAN'S OLDEST BATTLEFIELD TRICK
But military history teaches a hard lesson: tactical success does not necessarily produce strategic success.
That distinction matters because the strategic center of gravity in this conflict is shifting. In the opening weeks, the focus was rightly on degrading Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. Today, the consequences increasingly extend beyond the battlefield to American credibility at home and abroad.
Iran has shown greater resilience than many anticipated, dispersing forces, hardening underground facilities, shifting to mobile launchers, and continuing to launch missiles and drones despite sustained bombing. Determined adversaries often adapt faster than expected when fighting for regime survival.
IRAN REGIME CHANGE TALK RESURFACES AS TRUMP SAYS TEHRAN 'WANTS TO MEET' AMID US STRIKES
Washington’s campaign appears to assume that destroying Iran’s senior leadership could cause the system to collapse. But the regime’s real source of endurance may run deeper, rooted in a revolutionary Islamist ideology reinforced by the clerical establishment, the IRGC, security organs, patronage networks, and a culture of martyrdom. Leaders can be killed and command posts destroyed, but bombs cannot extinguish an ideology that treats suffering as validation. This doesn't mean American intelligence failed. It may mean Washington's theory of victory placed too much faith in decapitation and physical destruction, when ideologically committed regimes often absorb punishment that planners assume will compel surrender. The real question is whether repeated battlefield success is producing the political outcomes Washington seeks.
That answer is becoming less clear.
Each day brings another successful strike, another destroyed missile site, another IRGC facility reduced to rubble. Yet Iran keeps fighting. The danger isn't that America cannot destroy targets. It is appearing trapped in a cycle of retaliation without a defined political end state.
TRUMP REVEALS THE LINE IRAN HAS TO CROSS FOR US TO RESTART OFFENSIVE MILITARY CAMPAIGN
For President Trump, converting military success into political results is now the central challenge.
Like it or not, President Trump's credibility, and increasingly America's credibility, is becoming the strategic center of gravity. Every warning, every red line, every promise of retaliation is now evaluated not only by Tehran but also by Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Brussels, and voters here at home.
Credibility is one of America's most valuable strategic assets. It is earned when military action consistently advances defined political objectives. It is weakened when adversaries conclude they can absorb punishment while waiting for Washington's patience, or its public support, to erode.
That domestic support deserves careful attention.
An AP-NORC survey found that roughly two-thirds of Americans believe the war has not been worth fighting, while only about one-third believe it has. Support has softened even among Republicans. Americans increasingly doubt the campaign has a clear destination and worry about its duration, cost, and expansion.
In a democracy, that matters.
Public opinion should never dictate military strategy, but neither can elected leaders indefinitely sustain a costly conflict if Americans lose confidence in its objectives. If these trends continue, Iran could become a consequential midterm issue, especially if voters link it to rising energy costs, strained resources, or distraction from border security, inflation, and China.
America's allies are watching just as closely.
Israel focuses on immediate security. Gulf Arab partners want energy infrastructure and Hormuz navigation protected. NATO allies want assurance that Washington can manage multiple crises without weakening deterrence elsewhere. Indo-Pacific allies are asking whether a war consuming American attention and resources changes Washington's long-term commitment to Asia.
That same question is being studied most carefully in Beijing.
China is analyzing American logistics, missile defense, intelligence, precision strike capability, naval operations, industrial capacity, public opinion, and political endurance, watching how quickly the United States replenishes munitions and how democratic governments sustain support during prolonged conflict.
China is learning about America's strengths.
It is also searching for America's limits.
Beijing may conclude that America can destroy fixed targets but cannot easily convert firepower into political submission, and that dispersed missiles, hardened facilities, and prolonged conflict can strain American inventories and erode domestic consensus. China could apply those lessons in a confrontation over Taiwan.
Russia and North Korea are conducting similar assessments, but China has the greatest stake. Every month Washington remains heavily engaged in the Middle East is another month Beijing gains time to strengthen its own position in the Indo-Pacific. That should concern every American because China, not Iran, poses the greatest long-term challenge to American security and prosperity.
None of this argues for American retreat.
Quite the opposite.
President Trump now has an opportunity to restore strategic momentum by matching military power with a more clearly defined political strategy.
First, define a limited, achievable end state: deny Iran a nuclear-weapons capability, stop attacks on American forces and regional shipping, and make clear that renewed nuclear-weapons activity or attacks on U.S. interests trigger predictable consequences. Regime change should not be the unstated standard for victory.
Second, replace open-ended retaliation with clear deterrence. Washington should state plainly what triggers U.S. strikes, what would produce a pause, and what could open the door to negotiations.
Third, continue denying Iran access to its hardened nuclear infrastructure without committing large American ground forces. Rather than attempt an extraordinarily risky seizure of sites such as Pickaxe Mountain or Fordow, repeatedly deny access by collapsing entrances, cratering routes, maintaining surveillance, and striking renewed excavation.
Fourth, broaden the coalition. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open should not remain primarily an American responsibility. Gulf partners, NATO allies, and other maritime nations share a vital interest in protecting Hormuz and should contribute more visibly. The burden, and the credibility, should be shared.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Finally, restore strategic focus. Iran is a dangerous regional power, but China remains America's principal long-term competitor. Washington must contain Tehran without letting the Middle East consume the resources and attention the Indo-Pacific requires.
American military power remains second to none. But bombs can destroy launchers, command centers, and tunnel entrances; they cannot alone compel a revolutionary regime to abandon its purpose.
President Trump’s task is not to bomb Iran until it becomes something it is not. It is to define an achievable objective, deny Tehran its most dangerous capabilities, share the burden with allies, and restore America’s strategic focus.
Military victories are remembered. History judges presidents by whether those victories produce political results, strengthen American credibility, and leave the nation safer.