A conservative watchdog group is adding fodder to the debate over whether the American Bar Association has become a politicized institution favoring the left.

A new report released by Trump-aligned lawfare group America First Legal, co-founded by one of the president’s top advisors, Stephen Miller, claims the ABA’s Standing Committee on Amicus Curiae Briefs over the last decade has produced 80% of left-leaning liberal arguments, 20% neutral and zero that are conservatively-aligned. 

Meanwhile, in all six cases the ABA has filed amicus briefs involving Trump, the ABA went against the president or his allies.

President Donald Trump’s second term has included attacks against the ABA, arguing it has politicized its accrediting power and has favored Democratic Party-backed candidates when vetting judicial nominees. The ABA’s size and legacy make it the premier trade association for the legal sector, but some conservatives fear the group’s power is becoming a “monopoly.”

REPUBLICANS CALL FOR TRUMP TO CUT OFF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

“The ABA requires that amicus briefs be authorized by its board of governors and must be consistent with existing ABA policy or involve matters of ‘special significance to lawyers or the legal profession,’” a press release from AFL argued. “Briefs on birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare for minors and the Texas heartbeat law fall well outside that mandate.”

According to AFL’s audit, which scanned briefs filed between April 2016 and February 2026, there were a total of 87 filed. Seventy of them “favored a liberal or progressive outcome,” AFL argues, while none it came across were “conservative-aligned,” the group added. The remaining covered what AFL described as neutral issues, such as a patent law case.

“The ABA does not categorize its amicus briefs as conservative or liberal but base them on the law. The ABA files amicus briefs that take positions that reflect official ABA policy that has been debated and adopted by the House of Delegates,” the ABA told Fox News Digital.

“The House is the ABA’s policy-making body comprising hundreds of delegates from state bars across the country and a wide range of ABA subject-matter entities and adopts policy only after engaging in a deliberative and representative process. Throughout it all, defending the rule of law is our North Star. “

TRUMP LAWYER IN JACK SMITH CASE DRAWS CONSERVATIVE BACKING AFTER DOJ PRAISE RATTLES ‘ELITE’ LEGAL CONFERENCE

The audit also found in cases where Trump, or a Trump official, was named, and the ABA filed an amicus brief, they argued every time in the direction contrary to the Trump official or Trump himself.

“The ABA presents its amicus program as advancing the interests of the legal profession and the rule of law,” said Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal.

“The data tells a different story,” Hamilton continued. “More than four in five briefs push a progressive agenda, immigration advocacy has become the program’s dominant focus and the organization has not once — in ten years and across two Trump administrations — filed a brief that could be characterized as supportive of a conservative legal position. The ABA is not a neutral arbiter and should be treated no differently than any other liberal advocacy group.”

In President Trump’s second term, the Trump administration has taken several steps to push back against what it says is bias at the ABA. In February 2025, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced a new policy prohibiting FTC political appointees from holding leadership roles in the American Bar Association (ABA), participating in ABA events or renewing their ABA memberships. 

That early action was also followed by several others, such as a May letter to the ABA’s president from Attorney General Pam Bondi indicating the Department of Justice would no longer be engaging in its traditional partnership related to vetting judicial nominees, citing “refusal to fix the bias in its ratings process, despite criticism.”

In April, Trump signed an executive order that singled out the ABA and other powerful accrediting groups, warning that anyone engaging in unlawful discrimination would be refused federal recognition.

Elon Musk’s attorney is urging a federal judge to scrutinize a recent jury verdict that found Musk liable for misleading investors, arguing that the panel’s decision was compromised by bias and even “mocked” the judicial process. 

“Mr. Musk came into this trial concerned that he could not have a fair trial decided by an impartial jury, that he would be deprived of the counsel of his choice, and that he could not present the full testimony of one of the key witnesses to his defense,” Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, wrote in a letter sent to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, the judge presiding over the case. “Unfortunately, and as evidenced by the record and expressed on the jury’s verdict form, each of those fears were realized.”

A jury this month found Musk had misled investors in his 2022 effort to purchase Twitter — now known as ‘X’ — in a lawsuit that focused on allegations that he had misrepresented impacted stock prices. 

Spiro argued that the jury’s conduct raises “a serious issue” about whether Musk received a fair trial — citing what he described as a deliberate and symbolic use of the number 420 — one that he argued has been long associated with Musk — in the verdict form.

META, GOOGLE FACE MASSIVE LIABILITY AS ‘ADDICTED KIDS’ TRIAL CONTINUES IN LA

Musk has repeatedly leaned into internet jokes and references to the “420” number, long associated with marijuana culture. The SEC in 2018 accused Musk of choosing a $420 price point for Tesla shares because it was a reference to pot, which Musk described as “unjustified.”

Spiro noted in the letter that the jury had “emphasized” the $4.20 figure in blue ink and larger font, and described it as a “numerical joke” meant to “send a message” to Musk, in his view, rather than reflect a neutral application of the law. 

He also argued that presentation of the damages number, which stood out from other figures on the form, further underscored his concerns that the verdict was influenced by “bias,” rather than by evidence.

The filing from Spiro comes amid a broader push from Musk’s legal team to make the case that their client was denied a fair trial. He also cited alleged widespread juror hostility and what he described as misconduct by opposing counsel, as well as procedural decisions that limited Musk’s ability to present key testimony.

DOGE’S MEDICAID DATA DUMP AIMS TO EXPOSE FRAUD — BUT PRIVACY AND LEGAL HURDLES LOOM

According to Spiro, juror questionnaires revealed “deep” negative views of Musk, and the court was unable to fully screen out biased jurors due to the prevalence of those opinions. He also claimed opposing counsel engaged in “gamesmanship” that sidelined him from a central trial role and introduced prejudicial arguments unrelated to the core claims.

EX-FBI AGENTS INVOLVED IN ARCTIC FROST PROBE SUE FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Despite those concerns, jurors in the case rejected the plaintiffs’ primary allegation — that Musk had orchestrated a deliberate scheme to manipulate Twitter’s stock price during his acquisition effort in 2022. Jurors did, however, still find Musk liable on a narrower issue, stemming from statements he made about the status of the deal.

Spiro, for his part, argued the mixed outcome further underscores the problem — suggesting the liability finding was driven less by the evidence and more by a desire to penalize Musk personally.

“The inescapable conclusion,” he wrote, is that the jury used its verdict to express views about Musk rather than to apply the law impartially.

The court has not yet ruled on the claims, though the filing in question could set up further legal challenges to the verdict, including potential efforts to overturn or revisit the outcome.

Senate Democrats blocked an amendment to Trump-backed voter ID legislation that would have done something they publicly support and require photo identification to vote in federal elections.

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have shown interest in photo voter ID, which has grown in popularity among voters across the country.

“Democrats support voter ID,” Schumer said on a press call earlier this month. “In fact, we included it, and it is included, in our Freedom to Vote legislation several years ago.”

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES ERUPT OVER SENATE GOP, WHITE HOUSE DEAL AMID SAVE ACT FIGHT

Several others have also come out in support of a voter ID bill in recent weeks.

When asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins whether he would support a clean voter ID bill, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said, “Yes.”

“And New Jersey has voter ID laws,” Booker said. “I’ve got to show my driver’s license.”

Still, Democrats blocked an amendment to the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act from Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, meant to put them on record for that position.

DEMS BLOCK GOP AMENDMENT TYING VOTER ID BILL TO TRANSGENDER SPORTS BAN

Schumer said ahead of the vote that “Republicans are once again wasting time on voter suppression.” 

“Let’s let’s be very clear what this amendment is,” Schumer said. “It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and it’s a giant cover-up to what their bill really does, which is dramatic voter suppression, kicking 20 million or more people off the rolls without their knowledge or consent.”

Senate Republicans argued that if Democrats truly support voter ID, they should back the amendment.

“That is one on which the Democrats have said — Sen. Schumer himself — that ‘we are not opposed to photo ID,’” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said. “Well, let’s test that proposition. Let’s actually have a vote on it and see where the Democrats are.”

Republicans have been engaged in a floor push on the SAVE America Act for the past 10 days, debating the legislation in a bid to shift the narrative from the GOP being unable to advance the bill out of the Senate to Democrats being the ones blocking it.

Senate Democrats have argued that while they support identification to vote, the SAVE America Act goes far beyond that requirement. Schumer and others have likened the broader bill to Jim Crow-era segregationist laws in the Deep South, saying it would disenfranchise voters, particularly minority communities and low-income Americans.

GOP TRIGGERS MARATHON SENATE FIGHT TO EXPOSE DEMS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID BILL

However, requiring identification is already the practice in 36 states. Of those, 23 require photo ID, while 13 accept another form of identification, such as a bank statement. Nine of those states have Democratic senators.

According to a widely cited Pew Research poll from last year, 71% of Democratic voters support showing government-issued photo ID to vote.

“I know there are a lot of issues in the SAVE America Act, but this particular one focused on photo ID as something that can be easily implemented, which is already being implemented around the country,” Husted said of his amendment.

Senate Democrats blocked the measure once before, when Husted tried to force a vote on a standalone photo voter ID bill last week. His amendment listed several acceptable forms of identification, including an unexpired driver’s license with a photo, an unexpired state-issued ID card with a photo, a valid passport, a valid military or veteran ID with a photo or an unexpired tribal ID with a photo.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who typically breaks with his party, stood alongside Schumer and his colleagues on Thursday. Like other Democrats, he has opposed the SAVE America Act because of its additional provisions, such as giving the Department of Homeland Security access to states’ voter rolls.

But he recently said, “If the GOP wants real reform over a show vote, put out a clean, standalone bill, and I’m AYE.”

Congress is one step closer to ending the Homeland Security shutdown after the Senate advanced a new, last-minute deal, but it came at the price of Republicans ceding ground, temporarily, to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The Senate unanimously advanced a deal to reopen most of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the wee hours of Friday morning, 42 days into the shutdown that was spurred by the Trump administration’s immigration operations in Minnesota.

It was an agreement that largely gave Schumer and Senate Democrats what they wanted — no funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and parts of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But it lacked the stringent reforms they desired, like requiring judicial warrants or requiring agents to unmask.

SCHUMER, DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AGAIN, TRUMP INTERVENES TO PAY TSA AGENTS

While the deal mirrors previous attempts by Democrats to pass similar legislation that carved out immigration funding, Thune argued that Democrats are still walking away empty-handed in the policy fight over immigration enforcement. 

“We’ve been trying for weeks to fund the whole thing,” Thune said. “And, I mean, in the end, this is what they were willing to agree to. But again, it’s different that it has zero reforms in it. I mean, they got no reforms on DHS, which they could have had if they had been willing to work with us a little bit on that.”

Schumer said that if Republicans hadn’t blocked their initial attempts, “this could have been done three weeks ago.”

“This is exactly what we wanted,” Schumer said. “This is what we asked for, and I’m very proud of my caucus. My caucus held the line.”

The DHS funding deal now heads to the House, where Republicans aren’t enthusiastic about not funding key components of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown agenda.

The latest plan came after Senate Democrats blocked a seventh attempt to reopen DHS, after back-and-forth talks throughout the day on Thursday appeared to yield little progress toward a resolution. Trump also announced his intent to sign an order that would pay Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents as major airports are rocked with staggering lines and eye-popping wait times amid the shutdown. 

DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AFTER GOP REJECTS THEIR COUNTER, THUNE SAYS SCHUMER ‘GOING IN CIRCLES’

While a further concession to Democrats, in part, the underlying argument Republicans have made all along is that if Schumer and his caucus wanted reforms, they would have to agree to fund immigration enforcement.

And ICE and CBP are still flush with roughly $75 billion in cash from Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” giving the agencies a buffer for a time.

“The good news is we anticipated this a year ago. I mean, one of the reasons we front loaded, pre-loaded up the ‘one big, beautiful bill’ with advanced funding for Homeland Security was because we anticipated this was likely going to happen, and it did,” Thune said. “I still think it’s unfortunate. The Dems wanted reforms. We tried to work with them on reforms. They ended up getting no reforms.”

The same process used to pass that colossal legislative package will likely be turned to again fund immigration enforcement.

DHS DEAL IN LIMBO AS DEMOCRATS DEMAND TOUGHER ICE CRACKDOWN DESPITE GOP COMPROMISE

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., envisions funding ICE and CBP for several years.

“Democrats are trying to shut down ICE funding for the remainder of the fiscal year — ultimately they won’t be successful,” Schmitt said on X. “In response, I’ll be pushing to lock in funding for deportation operations and salaries for a decade.”

Doing so could be difficult, still, given that Republicans want to dump several other priorities into the mix, including portions of the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act and funding for the Iran war.

And some Republicans are already couching expectations on what can and can’t be accomplished in the party-line process, given that anything in the bill has to pass muster with strict rules in the Senate.

“I think we have to set our sights a little bit lower on this reconciliation bill,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital. “It’s got to be targeted to fund ICE for 10 years, I think that’s the number one thing to us.”

A Democratic House candidate running in a battleground seat in southwestern Iowa linked faith to political violence while warning against religion in public life, according to unearthed audio reviewed by Fox News Digital.

“We have seen religion and political violence showing up more and more in our public spaces,” Democratic candidate Sarah Trone Garriott said in a 2023 speech at a Methodist church. “It’s something that is just very in our faces and something that we’re very concerned about, and something that feels very threatening right now at this time.” 

Trone Garriott, a state legislator and Lutheran minister, is running to defeat Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, in November’s midterm elections. Prior to launching a House bid, Trone Garriott fashioned herself as a fierce opponent of Christian nationalism — a term some conservatives have argued that critics use to paint some Christians as prone to violence and hostile toward democracy.

In the speech, Trone Garriott said it was “a good thing to talk about religion and politics together” and spoke positively about living out one’s faith in their community. However, she repeatedly voiced discomfort about seeing public Christian displays and suggested it was something to be rooted out.

AMERICA’S CHURCHES UNDER SIEGE AS VIOLENCE INCREASINGLY INVADES SACRED GROUND

An image of a woman holding a sign with the phrase “one nation under God, indivisible” found in the Pledge of Allegiance, according to Trone Garriott, was one of several “pretty uncomfortable ways that faith and political power have collided.” The Iowa Democrat also called attention to Christian displays at one of President Donald Trump’s rallies and during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“This is not a Christian nation. It’s a nation for all of us,” Trone Garriott told the church congregants. “Spaces and proceedings need to be for all people, and we need to work on reminding folks of that.”

As a state senator, Trone Garriott said she intentionally sought out opening prayers that were not from the “White American Christian variety,” but from atheist, secular and other non-Christian perspectives.

Trone Garriott also spoke critically of parental rights in education and private Christian schools. She charged that both stemmed from racist opposition to the integration of public schools when parents desired to create a “White enclave” for their children.

“So maybe some of these things sound familiar today,” Trone Garriott said in her remarks. “It’s nothing new.”

The Iowa Democrat then proceeded to tie White men to her criticism of legislation barring biological males from women’s sports or preventing children from reading sexually explicit material. She notably opposed a bill keeping men out of women’s sports while serving in the state Senate.

“It’s really couched in the language of there’s a threat against women and White men are responsible to protect women from threats,” Trone Garriott said. 

Trone Garriott’s campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

DEMOCRAT RISING STAR CALLED OUT FOR ‘CREEPY’ COMMENT ABOUT TRANSGENDER CHILDREN

Nunn, who is seeking a third term in November, slammed Trone Garriott’s comments in the resurfaced video in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“I was raised around Iowans who go to church every week and show up for their neighbors,” Nunn said. “Sarah Trone Garriott can’t walk into a church without delivering a lecture about how their faith is threatening and their schools are racist.”

“She’s made it clear that the values Iowa families live by every single day are the ones she’s running against,” he added.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Democrats’ campaign arm, said Trone Garriott is working to unify Iowans in the 3rd Congressional District and condemns political violence.

“Sarah is a mom and minister who has served her community as a hospital chaplain and a parish pastor — public display of her faith has been a guiding force in Sarah’s life and continues to be to this day,” DCCC spokesperson Katie Smith said. “Sarah has always condemned political violence however it rears its ugly head and will always work to bring Iowans together.”

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the contest for the Republican-held seat as a “toss-up.”

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman is facing escalating backlash from within his own party, with one House Democrat saying this week she has more success working with a Republican senator and another calling for him to step down.

The criticism reflects growing friction between Fetterman and his progressive political base as he breaks with Democrats on key issues, including his support for Israel, backing of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, and openness to voter ID. Once a darling of the political left who exchanged endorsements with socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Fetterman now finds himself a target of attacks from his own party.

“I have more success in working with the one on the R side of the aisle than I do with the D side of the aisle,” Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., said at a recent event, contrasting Fetterman with Sen. David McCormick, R-Pa.

DAVID MARCUS: CAN JOHN FETTERMAN SAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FROM ITSELF?

The remark drew jeers from the audience at the event, where Houlahan spoke in opposition to the SAVE America Act, GOP-led legislation that includes voter ID requirements and other changes to election rules.

Houlahan urged voters to call “the office of your choice in the Senate” to voice opposition to the bill, adding that requiring “some form of ID is not an unreasonable ask,” but that “this bill is not that.”

Fetterman did not respond to a request for comment but said in a March 17 statement that he would vote against beginning debate on the bill while underlining his support for Voter ID.

“Stop turning this into a Christmas list and attacking vote-by-mail,” he said.

Houlahan declined further comment.

Last week, Rep. Brendan Boyle of Northeast Philadelphia took intraparty tensions with Fetterman to the next level by demanding his ouster.

Boyle, who did not respond to a request for comment, lambasted Fetterman for helping Mullin get confirmed.

“Once again Senator Fetterman shows why he is Trump’s favorite Democrat,” Boyle said in a statement. “He needs to go.”

‘THE VIEW’ CO-HOST JOY BEHAR UNLOADS ON FETTERMAN FOR BACKING TRUMP’S DHS PICK

Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., a combat veteran and political moderate who has vocally opposed Mullin’s candidacy, echoed Boyle and blasted Fetterman for effectively getting the secretary confirmed.

“If you needed any more proof that Fetterman has completely abandoned his constituents, here it is. Pennsylvanians deserve a Senator that actually fights for them,” Ryan said in a statement.

Fetterman was not always a political maverick, having once been a progressive favorite praised for his blunt and unfiltered style. As lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, he championed the legalization of marijuana and pushed aggressively for criminal justice reforms supported by Democrats. He aligned with the democratic-socialist Sanders wing of the party and hung pride and weed flags from his balcony at the State Capitol.

In 2020, Harrisburg Republicans inserted language in a budget bill to ban flags other than the national, commonwealth and POW/MIA banners from being posted at the Capitol, to which Fetterman quipped, “it’s kind of flattering that they changed Pennsylvania law just for me.”

Now, Fetterman recently claimed his party is “governed by TDS” — Trump Derangement Syndrome — and that he will always refuse to label Republican opponents “fascist” or make references to the Third Reich.

Fetterman also told “Hang Out with Sean Hannity” that he has encountered his former 2022 Republican foe Dr. Mehmet Oz — the current federal Medicaid administrator — and that the two maintain a civil relationship with no ill will.

He also issued a statement defending his support for Mullin.

“In January, I called on the president to fire [Kristi] Noem — and he did. I truly approached the confirmation of my colleague and friend, Senator Mullin, with an open mind,” Fetterman said.

“We need a leader at DHS. We must reopen DHS. My ‘aye’ is rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in France on Friday to attend the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting where he will deliver a clear message on U.S. priorities for the ongoing war with Iran.

In the days leading up to the meeting, other members have taken markedly different approaches to the war. Nearly all of Washington’s partners — Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan — have reacted cautiously to the U.S.-Israeli military campaign and declined to participate in offensive operations, even as they condemn Iranian actions.

Before departing on Thursday, Rubio signaled a defiant approach to the talks: “I don’t work for France or Germany or Japan … the people I’m interested in making happy are the people of the United States. I work for them,” he said in a video posted on X.

The divergence has drawn frustration from President Donald Trump, who has pressed allies to contribute more, particularly in securing key maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz. While some countries have signaled a willingness to support defensive or maritime security efforts, they have stopped short of joining direct military strikes.

TRUMP PRESSES NATO PARTNERS ON SUPPORT AS HEGSETH BLASTS HESITATION

“The U.S. is constantly asked to help in wars, and we have. But when we had a need, it didn’t get positive responses from NATO. A couple leaders said that Iran was not Europe’s war. Well, Ukraine isn’t our war, yet we’ve contributed more to that fight than anyone,” Rubio added.

“The Strait of Hormuz could be open tomorrow if Iran stops threatening global shipping, which is an outrage and a violation of international law. For all these countries that care about international law, they should be doing something about it,” he said before boarding his plane to France.

The remarks set the tone for a summit already marked by growing friction between Washington and some of its closest allies over how to handle the Iran conflict. Rubio has framed the stakes in stark terms. “Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years . . . Iran has been killing Americans and attacking Americans across this planet,” he said during a White House cabinet meeting, adding that allowing Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons would be “an unacceptable risk for the world.”

But even before Rubio arrived at the meeting, European officials were signaling a markedly different approach.

“We need to exit from the war, not escalate this further, because the consequences for everybody around the world are quite severe,” Vice President of the European Commission Kaja Kallas said during a briefing on the sidelines of the G7 on Thursday.

JACK KEANE CALLS OUT NATO’S WEAKNESS AS SHIPPING CRISIS GRIPS STRAIT OF HORMUZ

“It can only be a diplomatic solution … sit down and negotiate to have a way out,” she added.

The contrast between Rubio’s framing and Kallas’s message captures the core tension shaping the meeting.

U.S. officials say Rubio is heading into the talks with a broader agenda that goes beyond Iran.

According to a State Department spokesperson, who spoke to Fox News Digital on background, Rubio will use the meeting to “advance key U.S. interests” and push discussions on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as “international burden sharing” and the overall effectiveness of the G7.

The U.S. is also expected to emphasize maritime security, including freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, while urging allies to take on a greater share of responsibilities in conflict zones and international organizations, the spokesperson said.

RUBIO, RATCLIFFE TO DELIVER CLASSIFIED IRAN BRIEFING TO ‘GANG OF EIGHT’ AHEAD OF TRUMP’S STATE OF THE UNION

European officials have instead emphasized the broader risks of the conflict.

France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said discussions at the G7 would build on a recent joint statement condemning Iran’s actions while also addressing maritime security concerns.

He said the “discussions will provide an opportunity to revisit positions already agreed at the G7 level… including the unjustifiable attacks carried out by Iran against Gulf countries … which we condemned in the strongest possible terms.”

Barrot added that ministers would also focus on securing global shipping routes.

“We will also have the opportunity to address maritime security and freedom of navigation … including an international mission … to ensure the smooth flow of maritime traffic in a strictly defensive posture, thereby helping to ease pressure on energy prices,” he said.

Kallas echoed that global framing. “All the countries in the world are one way or another affected by this war … it is in the interest of everybody that this war stops,” she said.

IRAN SIGNALS NUCLEAR PROGRESS IN GENEVA AS TRUMP CALLS FOR FULL DISMANTLEMENT

Her remarks also pointed to the interconnected nature of the crisis. “Russia is helping Iran with intelligence … and also supporting Iran now with drones,” she said, linking the Iran conflict to the war in Ukraine.

That uncertainty is already affecting the structure of the summit, with officials dropping plans for a unified final communiqué to avoid exposing divisions, Reuters reported.

Analysts say those differences reflect deeper structural tensions in the alliance. “Europe has criticized Donald Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ strategy towards Iran while pursuing a failed diplomatic approach that has enabled the regime to expand its terrorist networks and edge closer to nuclear threshold status,” Barak Seener, senior research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, told Fox News Digital.

“This reflects a lack of European capability to project power in the region, particularly in safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz.”

Seener added that years of reliance on Washington have left Europe increasingly exposed as the U.S. shifts its strategic priorities. “Years of underinvestment in defense and reliance on the United States have created a dependency that Washington increasingly views as a betrayal of the peace it has guaranteed Europe since the Second World War,” he said.

“With the U.S. placing greater value on its relationship with Israel than NATO, the result may be further erosion of the alliance, reduced support for Ukraine and rising economic pressure on Europe.”

He warned that the immediate test will come at the G7 itself. “Divisions over how to respond to Iran and to any U.S. request for support are likely to expose a deeper transatlantic split,” Seener said.

“Operation Epic Fury has showcased President Trump’s ability to assemble a coalition of allies to eliminate a common threat — in this case the Iranian regime — and stabilize international trade,” Jacob Olidort, chief research officer and director of American security at the America First Policy Institute, told Fox News Digital.

“The failure of Western Europe to participate in securing the Strait of Hormuz is particularly egregious because those countries depend on it more than we do,” he added.

“At the same time, the historic successes of Operation Epic Fury have awakened a new confidence in our Middle East partners to eradicate the threats from the Iranian regime and to work together to shape a more peaceful and prosperous region.”

President Donald Trump’s push to expand U.S. mining and loosen China’s global grip on critical minerals is colliding with his administration’s defense in court of a Biden-era veto blocking Alaska’s copper-rich Pebble Mine, reviving scrutiny of Donald Trump Jr.’s past opposition to the project.

The fight over Pebble Mine has spanned multiple administrations. Including in 2014, when the Obama Environmental Protection Agency concluded mining in Bristol Bay’s headwaters could damage the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery. Biden’s EPA vetoed the project in January 2023, prompting a lawsuit from Pebble and the state of Alaska. The Trump Department of Justice is now defending that veto in court. 

The clash under the Trump administration has given Pebble supporters new ammunition to argue the White House is undercutting its own agenda as Trump races to secure domestic supplies of copper and other minerals critical to defense systems and advanced technology.

It also puts Trump Jr.’s stance on Pebble Mine back in focus. In 2020, Trump Jr. publicly opposed the mine, joining GOP operative Nick Ayers, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, in citing concerns about the local bay’s ecosystem. 

FROM MOJAVE TO BEIJING: HOW AMERICA QUIETLY CONCEDED THE RARE EARTH RACE

“As a sportsman who has spent plenty of time in the area I agree 100% [with Ayers],” Trump Jr. wrote on X in August 2020. “The headwaters of Bristol Bay and the surrounding fishery are too unique and fragile to take any chances with. #PebbleMine.”

Policy paradox

John Shively, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, the company hoping to develop the mine, contended that the Trump DOJ defending the Biden-era veto undermines the president’s agenda and would force the United States to cede copper and rare earth minerals to Beijing. Shively called the veto a “textbook example of D.C. bureaucrats imposing their will on Alaska.”

“It sort of conflicts a little bit with what President Trump is doing,” Shively told Fox News Digital in an interview. “I’ll give him credit. One of the things I like to say in life is, ‘If you don’t recognize a problem, you’re never going to solve it.’ Well, they have recognized we’re in serious trouble in getting minerals in this country and metals, and so it’s a little surprising they continued the EPA lawsuit.”

The White House and EPA did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story. The DOJ, which is representing EPA in court as it fights to keep the Biden-era veto in place, declined to comment and deferred to the EPA.

Since Trump took office, his administration has moved quickly to dismantle the environmental policies of his liberal predecessors and strengthen the United States’ mineral supply. Trump signed executive orders that declared a national emergency on critical minerals, directed federal agencies to fast-track permitting processes and expanded the government’s list of critical minerals by adding copper and nine others to the list.

Trump Jr., an avid outdoorsman, has not spoken to the president or anyone in the administration during this term about Pebble Mine, but he did weigh in on the matter with his father in the first term, a source close to Trump Jr. told Fox News Digital. 

One industry source who spoke to Fox News Digital pointed to Trump Jr. and Ayers, attributing the Trump administration’s position on Pebble Mine in part to them. Ayers, like Trump Jr., openly opposed the mine in an X post in 2020.

“Like millions of conservationists and sportsmen, I am hoping @realDonaldTrump will direct @EPA to block the Pebble mine in Bristol Bay,” Ayers wrote on X. “A Canadian company will unnecessarily mine the USA’s greatest fishery at a severe cost. This should be stopped.” Pebble, which is spearheading the mine project, is a U.S. offshoot of Canadian company Northern Dynasty Minerals.

Ayers did not provide comment for this story.

The source close to Trump Jr. said that in the first administration, the president’s son told associates he was concerned, having been to Bristol Bay to fish on multiple occasions, about the mine’s potential effect on the ecosystem there.

The industry source balked at the Trump administration’s Pebble Mine contradiction, saying it was rooted in profit motives. The source told Fox News Digital that “these guys are cheap dates. … Like you sold your soul for a fishing trip on a boat for a week.” 

“How can you open at the one hand this reserve of rare earths to stop the Chinese from cornering the market, but then say, ‘We’re not going to have our own mining industry’?” the source said.

CHINA’S RARE EARTH TECH OBSESSION ENSNARES US RESIDENT AS CCP LOOKS TO MAINTAIN STRANGLEHOLD

When asked about potential outside influences affecting the administration’s position, Shively said: “Instead of focusing on comments from the past, we hope the administration is worried about the next president using this EPA veto to shut down signature Trump energy and critical mineral projects.”

A ‘kill switch’ to save the salmon

The veto, also known as a “kill switch,” is a rarely-used mechanism of the Clean Water Act. The law allows a company to seek a mining permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the EPA can use the kill switch to block the permit.

Pebble’s permit request was rejected in the first Trump term, but Pebble won a reversal of that decision through an internal appeals process. That internal process was still playing out when the Biden administration issued the veto.

Pebble is asking the court to scrap the veto and allow the company to continue with the permitting process.

Pebble lawyers have argued that the company “spent decades and a billion dollars planning the safest and least impactful mine possible” and that studies adequately addressed the salmon concerns.

Copper and other critical minerals

China is the world’s leading import source for more than two dozen critical minerals, including most rare earth minerals. The Trump administration has said that domestic access to critical minerals, including rare earths, is fundamental to national security and AI infrastructure.

The United States has, in recent decades, gone from dominating the production of the world’s rare earths to relying on China, which now controls roughly 70% of mining and nearly 90% of refining, Fox News Digital previously reported. 

China dominates the refining of many critical minerals and more than half of global copper refining, while the U.S. imports roughly 45% of its copper supply. Pebble says the mine could supply about 15% of U.S. copper demand.

“We’ve already committed to building a lot more defense capacity,” Shively said, noting that copper would be used for nuclear submarines, large aircraft carriers, jets and more crucial defense supplies.

In addition to copper, the Pebble mineral deposit is also rich in rare earths, Shively said, noting Pebble could mine rhenium and molydbdenum, which is used to strengthen steel. 

Shively said the veto, if the court approves it, would set a dangerous precedent that allows future administrations and activists to level broader Clean Water Act vetoes. The current veto targets an expansive 220,000-acre area of Alaska containing an estimated 80 billion pounds of copper, according to court papers. 

“If they can use this tool against us, they can use it anywhere in the country,” Shively said. “And when you get rabid environmentalists in government, they tend to use these kinds of tools.”

Briefing in the lawsuit is set to be completed by mid-April, and the court could issue a decision anytime after that or call for oral arguments to continue examining the fight.