Fox News RSS Feed

Bravo Sarah Isgur. And thank you.

The "bravo" is for Isgur’s new book: "Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court." Isgur is a superb communicator, a Harvard Law School-trained lawyer and a practiced observer of the Court as she and New York Times columnist David French demonstrate with every episode of their much listened-to podcast "Advisory Opinions." 

If Isgur has a discernible judicial philosophy/ideology, it’s probably best described as a merger of Chief Justice John Robert’s and Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s, with a dash of the other four "conservatives" on the Court thrown in. 

But as Isgur explains at length and in useful detail, every label used in every discussion of the Court is at least very oversimplified and usually misleading. She’s Sarah Isgur. She runs on common sense, good humor and an appreciation for the complexity of Supreme Court proceedings. If you want to know what she thinks, you’ll have to read her book. The same rule applies to the nine justices.

JONATHAN TURLEY: JUSTICE JACKSON'S 'CHILES' DISSENT REVEALS NARROW VIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Isgur is also not just "occasionally witty." She is very funny, and that helps a non-lawyer or even lawyers who aren’t focused on the Court to get the key themes into their heads. "Winsome" always wins when pitted against "loud and certain," and far too much Supreme Court chatter falls into the latter category. Not Isgur’s. 

Constitutional law is complicated stuff.  That’s why all law students have to spend at least two semester-long classes to get the basics down and those two courses don’t usually include the Court’s criminal law jurisprudence. Isgur takes all that great tumbleweed of complexity and makes it manageable. 

When justices write books, I try to read them and am always eager to interview them within the rules set the Court has quietly established. An interviewer of a justice should not ask about matters before the Court or likely to get there, and should not expect one justice to dish on another. In interviews with Justices Barrett, Gorsuch and Thomas and with now retired Justice Breyer, I’ve found it is not difficult to respect those rules and still have interesting conversations. The books by justices should be mandatory for journalists covering the Court. They write to be understood.

JONATHAN TURLEY: LIBERAL JUSTICE'S SWIPE AT KAVANAUGH LATEST SIGN OF SCOTUS' SLIPPING STANDARDS

But they don’t shoot for laughs. Isgur does and there are plenty to be had. Enjoy. 

The "thank you" is because Isgur’s book prompted me to finally put down in a column the simple propositions that (1) it is unconstitutional to expand the Court above its present number and (2) Republicans should support keeping the Senate’s legislative filibuster rules in place so that we need never have to test proposition one. 

Amateurs will be quick to point to the historical fact that the size of the Court has varied between 6 and 10 members since it was first established by the Constitution, and that only the most recent change came via the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, which fixed the Court’s membership at 9 — with one of the seats designated as the chief justice. On nine occasions total, Congress has tweaked the number of justices, beginning in 1789,  but it has not done so since 1869, though there have been many opportunities for super-majorities of both parties to try and do so. Franklin Roosevelt famously tried and failed to "pack" the Court in 1937 after a landslide win in 1936, but his proposed Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 failed even his own party’s smell test.

AMY CONEY BARRETT DISCUSSES HOW CATHOLIC FAITH KEEPS HER GROUNDED IN INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP BARRON

Why? It is guesswork to attribute motives to one or more legislators for what they did or did not do, especially legislators from a century and a half ago. But the fact should matter greatly that the last change to the Court’s numerical composition came after the upheaval of the Civil War and Andrew Johnson’s near-impeachment and on the heels of the ratification of the 14th Amendment with its guarantee of the "due process of law" should matter to those who believe in the rule of law. The last change to the composition of the number of justices came immediately after great threats to the Constitution and its repair after secession and civil war via the guarantee of "due process of law" from every state as well as the federal government.  

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I am prepared for Senate Democrats to refuse to confirm even one federal district court judge from President Trump must less any Supreme Court nominees should the Democrats regain the Senate majority in 2027. That’s the political process playing out and turnabout is fair — and constitutional — play. 

But piling five more Justice Brown Jackson’s on to the Court via court-packing legislation would mark a fundamental break with our past legal history and evolution. That would not be consistent with the rule of law. That would in fact be its abrogation and the beginning of a cycle impossible to predict in its outcome.

Which is why it is important for the Senate GOP to defend its filibuster rules. The filibuster is the one hurdle that must be crossed before any bill to mangle the Constitution via disfiguring the Court makes it to a final vote. Serious senators will defend it for the simple reason is that it preserves the stability of every institution but especially the Court. 

If you care about the Constitution, read Sarah Isgur’s new book and realize the Court isn’t meant to move quickly or to be broken beyond repair in a fit of partisan excess. "We must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding," Chief Justice Marshall famously wrote in the 1819 decision McCulloch v. Maryland. Whether that restraint is still within the whole of the Republic depends not a little on serious people of the center-right to the center-left keep their eyes on the prize: The rule of law. 

Hugh Hewitt is a Fox News contributor and host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show" heard weekday afternoons from 3 PM to 6 PM ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh drives Americans home on the East Coast and to lunch on the West Coast on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel’s news roundtable, hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6 p..m ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law since 1996, where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcasting. This column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM HUGH HEWITT

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/ryJRpBc
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Two people were taken into custody on Wednesday after a shooting that killed a 15-year-old and wounded two others in what police described as a gang-related shooting at Eisenhower Park on Long Island in New York.

The shooting occurred around 8:20 p.m. near Hempstead Turnpike and Merrick Avenue, the Nassau County Police Department said.

Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder told reporters that gang members saw an invitation on social media for a barbecue at the park, according to CBS New York.

MAN CHARGED IN FATAL SHOOTING OF US MARINE IN NORTH CAROLINA HAD CRIMINAL RECORD SPANNING THREE DECADES

Two people then became involved in an argument and shots were fired, Ryder said.

Three people, including the 15-year-old boy, were struck by gunfire. The three victims were transported to a local hospital, where the teenager was pronounced dead.

TEEN GIRL GUNNED DOWN IN POSH CHICAGO ENCLAVE AS POLICE RUSH TO NAB HER KILLER

The two other victims were listed in stable condition, and Ryder said they underwent surgery late Wednesday. Their ages were not immediately known.

Two people who were both carrying weapons were taken into custody. Police did not release the suspects' identities or specify what charges they may face.

The shooting remains under investigation.

After the shooting, responding officers flooded the area. Patrol cars were seen lining the roadways and a police helicopter was observed circling the park as officers investigated the incident.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/eIJ0HXg
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

The critics erupted again the moment President Trump ordered a naval blockade, cutting off oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz that Iran has been controlling access to. Brinkmanship, they said. Dangerous escalation. These are the same critics who condemned the war from day one. But here is the truth they keep avoiding: the United States, Europe, the Gulf states and Israel have all been in a shadow war with Iran for decades. Every administration before this one too often chose to manage the threat rather than resolve it. Sanctions here, a diplomatic communiqué there, a weak JCPOA that kicked the can down the road. The regime did not moderate. It never was going to.

The Islamabad talks did not fail because of a trust deficit, a phrase analysts deploy to suggest the problem is one of communication rather than intention. Enemies do not trust each other. That is the definition of the situation, not an obstacle to overcome. The talks failed because Iran believes it is winning. Despite the extraordinary achievements of the United States and Israel, which significantly degraded Iran's nuclear program and dismantled key elements of its leadership and military infrastructure, the regime has not broken. You cannot fully defeat an enemy willing to burn the house down around itself.

Following those devastating strikes, one Iranian analyst, Nasser Torabi, declared on state television: "We have now entered a new stage in the history of Iran as an international superpower, and we will be recognized as a global superpower." Iran came to those talks not to make peace but to press its advantage. It seized the Strait of Hormuz as its most powerful weapon, betting that cheap drones, proxy networks and control of 20 percent of the world's oil supply gave it enough leverage to outlast a president it believes is watching the midterms. It rejected zero enrichment on Iranian soil and refused to relinquish control of the world's most critical waterway. The two sides were not close.

TRUMP DETAILS SWEEPING 'ALL OR NOTHING' BLOCKADE OF STRAIT OF HORMUZ AFTER FAILED IRAN TALKS

President Trump did not arrive here without exhausting every alternative. A personal letter to the supreme leader. Four rounds of Oman-mediated talks. Back channels through Pakistan and Egypt. Extended deadlines. Muscat, Rome, Geneva, Islamabad. Iran made clear at every stage that it would not concede diplomatically what it believed could not be taken from it militarily. Diplomacy without leverage is a wish. President Trump applied both.

The blockade is the logical next step between failed talks and resumed strikes. Some say it will be difficult to sustain. That is an argument for execution, not retreat, because the alternative is worse. Some say Iran has asymmetric tools and the risks are real. True. Does that mean the most powerful military force on the planet, fighting alongside a stalwart ally in Israel, should stand down? Are we so weakened in our thinking that we cower from every hard option because hard options carry risk?

Europe deserves particular mention. European governments have opposed escalation, declined to join the blockade and offered defensive escort missions instead. That protects individual ships. It leaves Iran in possession of the Hormuz card, free to play it again at will. Applying a bandage and squeezing saline at a wound that requires surgery does not make you a peacemaker. It makes you part of the problem.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

This is a game of chicken and a test of endurance. Iran is betting on President Trump's impatience. They do not know the man I know. I worked alongside him for 23 years. He does not walk away from a mission he believes in because a poll moves, a journalist writes a hostile column or a handful of supposed MAGA influencers cry foul. He moves forward. To do what is right. To do what is necessary. To protect what is worth protecting.

The two issues that broke the talks in Islamabad are binary. Either Iran enriches uranium on its soil or it does not. Either the Strait is open and uncontrolled or it is not. One side will have to win.

My assessment is that it will be President Trump's side. Not because the path is easy, and we should not pretend otherwise. But because the alternative is unacceptable. And because Donald Trump is one tenacious, iron-willed negotiator who does not know the meaning of the word quit.

Stop calling this brinkmanship. Call it what it is: the only play left. What plan achieves denuclearization without pressure? The pressure is the point. The discomfort is the point. None of this is easy. War never is. But the only thing harder than solving this problem now is explaining to the next generation why we chose to let it grow.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JASON GREENBLATT

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/9CF7Svd
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Donald Trump is nothing if not impulsive – and there’s often a method to his seeming madness.

At times that means going way over the line – consciously, deliberately – and at others it’s just rash.

Whether he’s dealing with Iran, the Epstein files, mass deportation or the leader of the Catholic Church, the president busts through the usual guardrails of decency and compassion.

I know this is often intentional, because the president has acknowledged it to me. Ripping others may bring him negative publicity, but Trump doesn’t mind that if it gets the pundits and the public chattering about the issue he wants driving the media agenda.

EX-TRUMP ALLY MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE JOINS LEFT-WING CALLS FOR THE 25TH AMENDMENT AS IRAN DEADLINE NEARS

Trump posting a user’s AI image of himself as Jesus Christ, healing a patient with glowing hands – and adding a demon in the background – was such a fiasco that he deleted it 12 hours later, which he almost never does. It was striking to hear him blaming it on "fake news" – which certainly covered it – when it was Catholic leaders, along with prominent conservative hosts and podcasters, who led the chorus of condemnation.

Isabel Brown, a Catholic podcaster with the Daily Wire and a Trump supporter: "This post is, frankly, disgusting and unacceptable, but also a profound misreading of the American people experiencing a true and beautiful revival of faith in Christ in the midst of our broken culture." 

Riley Gaines, a conservative podcaster and anti-trans activist who has spoken at Trump rallies: "I cannot understand why he’d post this…Two things are true…"a little humility would serve him well" and "God shall not be mocked."

HOUSE DEMS UNVEIL BILL TO EXAMINE REMOVING TRUMP USING 25TH AMENDMENT

Megan Basham, a conservative Protestant Christian writer: "He needs to take this down immediately and ask for forgiveness from the American people and then from God."

Rev. James Martin, editor-at-large of the Catholic magazine America, told CNN: "I don’t know too many doctors that have glowing hands. That’s the most Jesus-looking picture I think I could imagine."  

The posting came shortly after Trump got into a rhetorical battle with Pope Leo, calling him "weak on crime" and "terrible on foreign policy." The first American-born pontiff replied that "I have no fear of the Trump administration."

LAWMAKERS PUT EXPULSION THREATS ATOP HOUSE AGENDA AS RETURN SETS UP HIGH-STAKES WEEK

But that was being covered as a straight he said/he said news story and probably would have faded after a day. By quickly following up with the fake image that so many found blasphemous, he created a furor that will dominate the news for days.

Nobody bought his attempt at an explanation: "I thought it was me as a doctor, and had to do with Red Cross, as a Red Cross worker, which we support. It’s supposed to me as a doctor, making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better." Trump is pictured in the red and white robes commonly used to depict Christ.

JD Vance told Fox’s Bret Baier: "I think the president was posting a joke. And, of course, he took it down because he recognized that a lot of people weren’t understanding his humor in that case."

TRUMP'S THREAT TO END IRANIAN 'CIVILIZATION' SPARKS UPROAR ON CAPITOL HILL

Just a joke. That’s their default defense. Except it wasn’t. 

Nearly a year ago, the president took heat for posting an image of himself dressed as the Pope.

In February, Trump was widely denounced as racist, for an image at the end of a minute-long video of Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. He claimed to have missed that part and did not apologize.

TRUMP IRAN THREAT SPARKS CALLS FOR HIS OUSTER, BUT ONE DEM SAYS EFFORT ‘NOT REALISTIC’

Sometimes it would be better if he said nothing at all. After Rob Reiner and his wife were brutally murdered in their home, Trump posted a message lambasting the famed director as having Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

On the war, the president took immense flak for saying a week ago Tuesday, his deadline for unleashing hell upon Iran’s energy facilities: "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." 

Of course he gave the Iranians a two-week extension, which was hardly the first delay, and now says the U.S. will fire upon any vessel that tries to challenge his blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran has used to choke off a fifth of the world’s oil supply.

SWALWELL OUT AMID SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AFTER 13 YEARS IN CONGRESS

This has basically destroyed the so-called ceasefire, but also plays into criticism that Trump, under pressure from Israel, launched the war without a clear exit strategy. He keeps saying America has already won and he can pull out at any time, but that would be far short of his original goal of getting Iran to stop enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons. 

The president and his team say his threats and delays are a way of keeping the terror state’s leaders off balance.

The confluence of these events has prompted talk about removing the president through the 25th Amendment–despite the fact that this is a fantasy, requiring a majority vote in the Cabinet and a two-thirds majority of Congress.

HOUSE DEM LEADERS OPEN DOOR TO 25TH AMENDMENT AFTER RANK-AND-FILE PUSH FOR TRUMP'S REMOVAL

 In an obvious stunt, 50 Democrats filed legislation yesterday to create a commission to assess Trump’s mental health. The majority Republicans will obviously ignore it.   

But as the president approaches 80, more concerns, fairly or unfairly, are being openly raised about his stability, as in yesterday’s New York Times piece:

"President Trump’s erratic behavior and extreme comments in recent days and weeks have turbocharged the crazy-like-a-fox-or-just-plain-crazy debate that has followed him on the national political stage for a decade.

TRUMP'S THREAT TO END IRANIAN 'CIVILIZATION' SPARKS UPROAR ON CAPITOL HILL

"The White House rejected such assessments, saying that Mr. Trump is sharp and keeping his opponents on edge. But the president’s eruptions have raised questions about America’s leadership in a time of war. While the country has had presidents whose capacity came under question before, most recently the octogenarian Joseph R. Biden Jr. as he aged demonstrably before the public’s eyes, never in modern times has the stability of a president been so publicly and forensically debated — and with such profound consequences."

First, I think the "dementia" arguments, mostly from people who have never met Trump, are BS. He handles reporters’ questions with ease and at length, whether you agree with the substance or not. 

WHY MELANIA TRUMP IS DENYING ALLEGED SMEARS RELATED TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN–AND WANTS VICTIMS TO TESTIFY

But he is clearly stepping up his inflammatory rhetoric and making big unforced errors like the Jesus image.

Second, the mental decline of Joe Biden was obvious to everyone, even as he was shielded from the press, o the point of declining two Super Bowl interviews. And there did come a point when the media were forced to cover it. But some prominent pundits said they had spoken to Biden privately and he was sharp as a tack.

The talk about Trump is now coming from retired generals, diplomats, and onetime media allies on the right, who the president has lambasted as having "low IQs." And it also includes such ex-appointees as Ty Cobb, a White House lawyer in the first term, who calls him "clearly insane."

A Reuters/Ipsos poll in February found 61 percent believe he has become more erratic with age, and 45 percent saying "he is mentally sharp and able to deal with challenges."

WHY ERIC SWALWELL WAS FORCED TO QUIT CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S RACE AFTER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

Liz Peek, a Hill columnist and Fox News contributor, defended him: "Trump knows exactly what he is doing," adding "Trump will continue to use maximalist (and sometimes outrageous) military and diplomatic pressure in his campaign to rid the Middle East of Iran’s near 50-year campaign of terror." 

The question now is whether Donald Trump can tone things down a bit or even whether he wants to, since that has not exactly been his style.

Footnote: Now that Eric Swalwell has resigned his House seat in the face of near-certain expulsion, after abandoning his campaign for California governor, a new accuser has emerged.

Lonna Drewes accused the California Democrat of rugging and raping her during a Los Angeles news conference yesterday.

Drewes said they met in 2018 when she was a Beverly Hills fashion model and owner of a fashion software company. told reporters she met Swalwell in 2018 while working as a model in Beverly Hills. Drewes said they met two times socially after Swalwell offered to help her with connections.

On the third occasion, Drewes said, "I believe he drugged my drink. "I only had one glass of wine. We were supposed to go to a political event and he said he needed to get paperwork from his hotel room. When I arrived at his hotel room I was already incapacitated and couldn’t move my arms or my body."

She added: "He raped me and he choked me. And while he was choking me I lost consciousness and I thought I died."

Now that Swalwell is no longer a congressman, two of his accusers, Ally Sammarco and Annika Albrecht, went on the record with CBS. "He thought he was untouchable," Samjmammarco said. He acted with total impunity. He never thought that the consequences of his actions would follow him."

CNN had earlier interviewed one of the accusers but shot her in shadow to conceal her identity.

Also yesterday, Democratic Rep. Tony Gonzales said he would resign his House seat, also in the face of virtually certain expulsion. "There is a season for everything and God has a plan for us all," he said.

Sexual text messages made public in 2024 made clear that he had an affair with Regina Santos-Aviles while she was working for him.

She killed herself in September by setting herself on fire.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/Yp2xWwg
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

The U.S. Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Connecticut and its city of New Haven, arguing that their sanctuary policies interfere with federal enforcement of the nation's immigration laws.

The lawsuit names Connecticut, its Gov. Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong, as well as New Haven and its Mayor Justin Elicker as defendants.

The complaint takes issue with the state’s "so-called Trust Act" and other state and local sanctuary policies that the DOJ argues are illegal under federal law.

The DOJ claims these policies have allowed "dangerous criminals" to be released into communities in the Nutmeg State. It also alleges that Connecticut and New Haven have made "intentional efforts" that the lawsuit argues obstruct federal law enforcement, put people at risk and are preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

DOJ SUES NEW JERSEY OVER EXECUTIVE ORDER LIMITING ICE COOPERATION, EXPANDING SANCTUARY STATUS

"For years, Connecticut communities have paid the price of these misguided sanctuary policies," Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ's Civil Division said in a statement. "This lawsuit seeks to end such open defiance of federal law."

But Elicker contends that the lawsuit misrepresents the city's immigration policies. He said the city will fight the lawsuit and that he is confident they did nothing wrong.

"The complaint that’s been submitted by the federal government has untruths in it and is misleading. There’s actually quotes from the executive order that have ‘dot dot dot’ where they don’t finish the sentence and the last part of the sentence of the executive order actually clarifies the beginning part," Elicker told Fox 61.

After Elicker was elected mayor in 2020, he signed an executive order barring law enforcement from asking for the immigration status of anyone they are working with.

READ THE FULL COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DOJ BELOW

The mayor said his city and its employees have not taken any action to obstruct the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration laws.

"Our employees are abiding by both city, state, and federal law with the executive order that we have, and we will continue to do that," Elicker said.

HOCHUL ENDORSES LEGISLATION TO ALLOW NEW YORKERS TO SUE ICE AGENTS: 'POWER DOES NOT JUSTIFY ABUSE'

Lamont said in a statement that state laws "do not prevent federal authorities from enforcing immigration law," adding that they instead "reflect a longstanding principle: the federal government cannot require states to use their personnel or resources to carry out federal enforcement responsibilities."

"We will defend Connecticut’s laws vigorously against the complaints outlined in the federal government’s lawsuit. Our Trust Act and related policies are consistent with the Constitution and reflect our responsibility to govern responsibly, protect public safety, and uphold the rights of all residents," the governor said.

"Connecticut respects the rule of law and the constitutional roles of both federal and state governments," he added. "Connecticut law enforcement prioritizes serious criminal activity and works every day to keep our communities safe, while also respecting constitutional protections afforded to residents and maintaining trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve."

Tong, in a statement of his own, said the "sovereign people of Connecticut have exercised our right to pass state laws like the Trust Act that prioritize public safety and ensure that all people can trust and rely on law enforcement to keep us safe." 

"It is a shame that the President and the Department of Justice are not focused on public safety but are wasting federal resources on attacking Connecticut with a baseless lawsuit that has no foundation in law or fact. Connecticut is not a 'sanctuary' state, whatever that means. This term is meaningless and has no basis in Connecticut law. We will defend Connecticut and Connecticut families and fight this lawless attack with every fiber of our being," he said.

This is the latest effort by the DOJ to target sanctuary policies in cities and states across the country.

Last month, a federal judge threw out a DOJ lawsuit accusing Colorado and Denver of interfering with the federal enforcement of immigration laws.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/yUm62r4
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

From the moment the talks between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran commenced in Islamabad, Pakistan on Saturday, only one of three results could follow: Munich, 1938 with the U.S. appeasing Iran; Reykjavík, 1986 with diplomatic deadlock; or Appomattox, 1865 with the exhausted and broken Iranians surrendering to the reality of hard power.

Turns out it was Reykjavik 2.0 with Vice President J.D. Vance instead of President Reagan exiting the meetings looking stone-faced and irritated as he announced an end to the talks and the departure of the United States delegation.

A blockade of all shipping from all Iranian ports commenced Monday at 10 AM pursuant to President Trump’s order to the U.S. Navy. The Navy has already commenced mine-clearing operations in the international waters in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday — during the talks. Quite a signal, that.

President Trump has indicated that renewed strikes on the teetering Islamic Republic of Iran are possible as well. Israel continues to pummel Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon.

TRUMP VOWS TO HIT IRAN 'VERY HARD' AFTER OBLITERATING NEARLY '90 PERCENT' OF REGIME MISSILES

It was a very bad weekend for terrorists in the Middle East as well as for the mother ship regime that supports them all in Tehran. The ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that prop them up are down to their fifth string "generals," and the impotent "elected officials" of Iran who have never had other than the power the IRGC allocated to them.

The Iranian regime has survived on terror and bluster for 47 years. Now it’s on the edge of collapse because of Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The fact the these two men are orchestrating the strategic defeat of a sinister, lunatic regime that as recently as January 8-9 murdered more than 30,000 of its own people in two days has the left in America and around the world working through cognitive dissonance. It would be amusing were the Iranian people not suffering so under the boot of the Islamist fanatics and the cost in American and Israeli lives in the dozens.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM TRUMP’S IRAN ADDRESS

Our domestic left know they should actually cheer the ongoing collapse of the power of the theocrats in Tehran and the threat they present to the world. But the fact that the cartoon villains living in their collective heads rent-free 24/7/365 — Trump and Netanyahu — are the pair deconstructing the baddies leaves the lefties in legacy media and the Democratic Party stuttering and mumbling.

Many of them are also carrying the (very heavy) sunk costs of the absurd "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" from the halcyon days of peak Obama in 2015. The JCPOA was indeed the worst deal America ever made but the held it up as an achievement for the ages. Trump blew it up. They haven’t recovered.

Like super-seniors pining for their glory days during the Elvis craze, the political equivalent of the 1950s teeny boppers from Team Obama and his supporters in the legacy media are downcast, feeling left behind and increasingly certain that no one will ever fall for their "echo-chamber-leading- from-behind" schtick again.

IRAN WAR NEARS ‘COMPLETION’ AS TRUMP EYES DEADLINE — WHAT THE ENDGAME COULD LOOK LIKE

Not only has their beloved JCPOA revealed as idiocy, but now Trump and Netanyahu have also revealed the Islamic Republic to have been less than the mighty superpower Team Obama built them up to be or at least put them on the path towards being.

More danger is ahead but clarity is a wonderful thing. Serious people have always had the Iranian regime’s number. Silly podcasters and successive Democratic presidents may not have understood the depth of the evil they faced in Tehran, but the center-right and national security hawks never saw anything but menace. A reminder that it was Senator Tom Cotton who first and loudly blew the whistle on the fraud that was the JCPOA, just as he did on the Wuhan lab leak. Perhaps listen to Cotton next time an international crisis arises and not Beltway sharpies with podcasts?

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Team Obama may not have just been dense. They may simply have been afraid of confronting the killers in Iran.

No matter. Their era of appeasement is over now. The Vice President gave the Iranian regime a third chance to back away from the edge. The Iranians missed their first chance during 60 days of negotiation in 2025 which was followed by Midnight Hammer.

They missed on the second swing as well, just before the start of Epic Fury.

Now they have swung and missed…again. Three strikes and you are out. And blockaded. Not to mention broke and broken.

Bravo to the American military for the swift and nearly complete devastation of the Iranian military. And thanks to our superb ally Israel. Prayers continue for the families of the fallen in this battle, those who have been wounded and those still in harm’s way.

It’s not over, but the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic has arrived.

Hugh Hewitt is a Fox News contributor and host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show" heard weekday afternoons from 3 PM to 6 PM ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh drives Americans home on the East Coast and to lunch on the West Coast on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel’s news roundtable, hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6 p..m ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law since 1996, where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcasting. This column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM HUGH HEWITT

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/n7Halmq
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Artificial intelligence has quickly become part of everyday life, helping people search for information, complete schoolwork, and make decisions. But what many users don’t realize is that AI systems are not neutral. They are shaped by hidden design choices that influence how they respond — and, ultimately, how people think.

The concern is not just theoretical. A recent Fox News Digital report highlighted the controversy surrounding Google’s Gemini chatbot after the system identified multiple Republican senators as violating its hate speech policies — while naming no Democrats. 

The findings, based on a prompt evaluating all 100 U.S. senators, raised fresh questions about whether AI systems can reflect ideological assumptions embedded in their training data and design.

GOOGLE GEMINI DECLARES ONLY GOP SENATORS VIOLATE HATE SPEECH POLICY, ZERO DEMOCRATS, AUTHOR CLAIMS

That episode is not an isolated case.

A new report from America First Policy Institute (AFPI) reveals that many AI systems consistently lean in particular ideological directions.

These biases can affect how political issues, social topics and news sources are presented. Because users often trust AI as an objective tool, these subtle influences can shape opinions over time without users realizing it.

Matthew Burtell, a senior policy analyst for AI and Emerging Technology at AFPI, said the pattern appears across the industry — not just in isolated cases.

"What we found was a general ideological bias, not just in a particular model, but across the spectrum," Burtell told Fox News Digital, adding that the models tend to lean center left.

The implications go beyond bias alone. Research shows that AI systems are not just reflecting viewpoints — they can actively influence them.

That combination — bias and persuasion — raises deeper concerns about AI’s role in shaping public opinion. "AI is persuasive and it also leans left," Burtell said. "So if you combine these two things, it may certainly have an influence on people’s beliefs about different policies." 

Recent examples have fueled those concerns. OpenAI’s ChatGPT has faced criticism from some researchers who argue its responses on political and cultural issues can skew in a particular ideological direction, while Microsoft’s AI tools have drawn scrutiny for how they frame controversial topics and limit certain viewpoints.

Those concerns have been reflected in testing as well. In 2024, Fox News Digital evaluated several leading AI chatbots — including Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot and Meta AI — to assess potential racial bias.

NEW AI COALITION TARGETS WASHINGTON, BIG TECH AS GROUP WARNS CHILD SAFETY RISKS OUTPACING SAFEGUARDS

The report also raises serious safety concerns.

AI systems have, in some cases, engaged in harmful interactions — especially with younger users. Without clear transparency about how these systems are designed and what safeguards are in place, parents and users cannot make informed decisions about which platforms are safe.

To address these risks, the report calls for greater transparency from tech companies. This includes disclosing how systems are designed, what values they prioritize, how they are tested for bias and safety, and what incidents occur after deployment.

WHITE HOUSE AI CZAR BLASTS BLUE STATES FOR INSERTING 'WOKE IDEOLOGY' INTO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The goal is not to control what AI systems say, but to give the public enough information to evaluate them critically.

Ultimately, the report makes it clear that AI is not just a tool — it is a powerful force shaping how people access information and understand the world.

Without transparency, users remain in the dark about the biases embedded in these systems. And as AI becomes more influential, that lack of visibility may have far-reaching consequences for individuals and society alike.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/zD0W6Je
via IFTTT