The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to fire numerous Democrat-appointed members of independent agencies, but one case still moving through the legal system carries the greatest implications yet for a president’s authority to do that.

In Slaughter v. Trump, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission has vowed to fight what she calls her ‘illegal firing,’ setting up a possible scenario in which the case lands before the Supreme Court.

The case would pose the most direct question yet to the justices about where they stand on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old decision regarding a president’s power over independent regulatory agencies.

John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital he thinks the high court is likely to side with the president if and when the case arrives there.

‘I think it’s unlikely that Humphrey’s Executor survives the Supreme Court, at least in its current form,’ Shu said, adding he anticipates the landmark decision will be overturned or ‘severely narrowed.’

What is Humphrey’s Executor?

Humphrey’s Executor centered on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to fire an FTC commissioner with whom he disagreed politically. The case marked the first instance of the Supreme Court limiting a president’s removal power by ruling that Roosevelt overstepped his authority. The court found that presidents could not dismiss FTC commissioners without a reason, such as malfeasance, before their seven-year terms ended, as outlined by Congress in the FTC Act.

However, the FTC’s functions, which largely center on combating anticompetitive business practices, have expanded in the 90 years since Humphrey’s Executor.

‘The Federal Trade Commission of 1935 is a lot different than the Federal Trade Commission today,’ Shu said.

He noted that today’s FTC can open investigations, issue subpoenas, bring lawsuits, impose financial penalties and more. The FTC now has executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Shu said.

SCOTUS greenlights other firings

If the Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily allow two labor board members’ firings is any indication, the high court stands ready to make the FTC less independent and more accountable to Trump.

In a 6-3 order, the Supreme Court cited the ‘considerable executive power’ that the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board have, saying a president ‘may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.’

The order did not mention Humphrey’s Executor, but that and other moves indicate the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the 90-year-old ruling and is open to reversing it.

The case of Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya gets closest to the heart of Humphrey’s Executor.

Where does Slaughter’s case stand?

Slaughter enjoyed a short-lived victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found that Trump violated the Constitution and ruled in her favor on July 17.

She was able to return to the FTC for a few days, but the Trump administration appealed the decision and, on July 21, the appellate court paused the lower court judge’s ruling.

Judge Loren AliKhan had said in her summary judgment that Slaughter’s case was almost identical to William Humphrey’s.

‘It is not the role of this court to decide the correctness, prudence, or wisdom of the Supreme Court’s decisions—even one from ninety years ago,’ AliKhan, a Biden appointee, wrote. ‘Whatever the Humphrey’s Executor Court may have thought at the time of that decision, this court will not second-guess it now.’

The lawsuit arose from Trump firing Slaughter and Bedoya, the two Democratic-appointed members of the five-member commission. They alleged that Trump defied Humphrey’s Executor by firing them in March without cause in a letter that ‘nearly word-for-word’ mirrored the one Roosevelt sent a century ago.

Bedoya has since resigned, but Slaughter is not backing down from a legal fight in which Trump appears to have the upper hand.

‘Like dozens of other federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission has been protected from presidential politics for nearly a century,’ Slaughter said in a statement after she was re-fired. ‘I’ll continue to fight my illegal firing and see this case through, because part of why Congress created independent agencies is to ensure transparency and accountability.’

Now a three-judge panel comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee is considering a longer-term pause and asked for court filings to be submitted by July 29, meaning the judges could issue their decision soon thereafter.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a slew of documents this month, revealing that Obama administration officials ‘manufactured’ intelligence to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Here’s a look at the newly declassified records:

Declassified Presidential Daily Brief

Documents revealed that in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was ‘probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.’

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated, ‘Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.’

Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.

‘We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure,’ the Presidential Daily Brief stated. ‘Russian Government-affiliated actors most likely compromised an Illinois voter registration database and unsuccessfully attempted the same in other states.’

But the brief stated that it was ‘highly unlikely’ the effort ‘would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote result.’

‘Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes,’ it stated. 

The brief noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed that any Russian activities ‘probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates.’

The brief stated that cyber criminals ‘tried to steal data and to interrupt election processes by targeting election infrastructure, but these actions did not achieve a notable disruptive effect.’

Fox News Digital obtained declassified, but redacted, communications from the FBI in the Presidential Daily Brief, stating that it ‘should not go forward until the FBI’ had shared its ‘concerns.’

Those communications revealed that the FBI drafted a ‘dissent’ to the original Presidential Daily Brief. 

The communications revealed that the brief was expected to be published Dec. 9, 2016, the following day, but later communications revealed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘based on some new guidance,’ decided to ‘push back publication’ of the Presidential Daily Brief. 

‘It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week,’ wrote the deputy director of the Presidential Daily Brief at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, whose name is redacted. 

The following day, Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room, with the subject line starting: ‘Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic (REDACTED.)’

The meeting included top officials in the National Security Council, Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others, to discuss Russia.

The declassified meeting record, obtained by Fox News Digital, revealed that principals ‘agreed to recommend sanctioning of certain members of the Russian military intelligence and foreign intelligence chains of command responsible for cyber operations as a response to cyber activity that attempted to influence or interfere with U.S. elections, if such activity meets the requirements’ from an executive order that demanded the blocking of property belonging to people engaged in cyber activities.

After the meeting, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper’s executive assistant emailed intelligence community leaders tasking them to create a new intelligence community assessment ‘per the president’s request’ that detailed the ‘tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.’

‘ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS,’ the record states.

Later, Obama officials ‘leaked false statements to media outlets’ claiming that ‘Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.’

By Jan. 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.’ 

Intelligence officials told Fox News Digital that the ICA was ‘politicized’ because it ‘suppressed intelligence from before and after the election showing Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election.’ 

Officials also said it deceived the American public ‘by claiming the IC made no assessment on the ‘impact’ of Russian activities,’ when the intelligence community ‘did, in fact, assess for impact.’ 

‘The unpublished December PDB stated clearly that Russia ‘did not impact’ the election through cyber hacks on the election,’ an official told Fox News Digital.

The official also said the ICA had assessed that ‘Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC,’ while ‘failing to mention that FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.’ 

Officials said the intelligence was ‘politicized’ and then ‘used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more.’

Declassified House Intelligence Committee Report

A report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2020 said the intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the ‘unusual’ direction of then-President Barack Obama, published ‘potentially biased’ or ‘implausible’ intelligence suggesting otherwise.

The report, based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.

The report has never before been released to the public and instead has remained highly classified within the intelligence community.

Fox News Digital obtained the ‘fully-sourced limited-access investigation report that was drafted and stored in a limited-access vault at CIA Headquarters.’ The report includes some redactions.

The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier despite knowing it was based largely on ‘internet rumor,’ as Fox News Digital previously reported.

According to the report, the ICA was a ‘high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.’

‘Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA,’ the report states. ‘The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.’

The committee found that the five CIA analysts and drafter ‘rushed’ the ICA’s production ‘in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.’

‘Hurried coordination and limited access to the draft reduced opportunities for the IC to discover misquoting of sources and other tradecraft concerns,’ the report states.

The report states that Brennan ‘ordered the post-election publication of 15 reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which were substandard — containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible — and those became foundational sources for the ICA judgements that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.’

‘The ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws,’ the committee found.

‘One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,’ the report states, adding that the ICA ‘ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged — and in some cases undermined — judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.’

The report also states that the ICA ‘failed to consider plausible alternative explanations of Putin’s intentions indicated by reliable intelligence and observed Russian actions.’

The committee also found that two senior CIA officers warned Brennan that ‘we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.’

Despite those warnings, the Obama administration moved to publish the ICA.

The ICA ‘did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.’

The ICA, according to the report, excluded ‘significant intelligence’ and ‘ignored or selectively quoted’ reliable intelligence in an effort to push the Russia narrative.

The report also includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that ‘Putin told him he did not care who won the election,’ and that Putin ‘had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.’

The report also states that the ICA omitted context showing that the claim that Putin preferred Trump was ‘implausible —if not ridiculous.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence that showed that Russia was actually planning for a Hillary Clinton victory because ‘they knew where (she) stood’ and believed Russia ‘could work with her.’

The committee also noted that the ICA ‘did not address why Putin chose not to leak more discrediting material on Clinton, even as polls tightened in the final weeks of the election.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence showing that Putin was ‘not only demonstrating a clear lack of concern for Trump’s election fate,’ but also indicated ‘that he preferred to see Secretary Clinton elected, knowing she would be a more vulnerable President.’

Declassified Hillary Clinton section of House Intelligence Committee Report

One section of the declassified House Intelligence Committee report states that the material in Putin’s possession included Russian intelligence on Democratic National Committee information allegedly showing that senior Democratic leaders found Clinton’s health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming.’ 

‘As of September 2016, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service had DNC information that President Obama and Party leaders found the state of Secretary Clinton’s health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming,’ and felt it could have ‘serious negative impact’ on her election prospects,’ the report states. ‘Her health information was being kept in ‘strictest secrecy’ and even close advisors were not being fully informed.’ 

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service also allegedly had DNC communications that showed that ‘Clinton was suffering from ‘intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.” 

‘Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of ‘heavy tranquilizers’ and while afraid of losing, she remained ‘obsessed with a thirst for power,’’ the report states.

The Russians also allegedly had information that Clinton ‘suffered from ‘Type 2 diabetes, Ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.’’

The Russians also allegedly possessed a ‘campaign email discussing a plan approved by Secretary Clinton to link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump in order to ‘distract the American public’ from the Clinton email server scandal.’ 

Gabbard, during the White House press briefing Wednesday, said there were ‘high-level DNC emails that detailed evidence of Hillary’s, quote, psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness, and that then-Secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers.’ 

A tranquilizer is a drug used to reduce mental disturbance, such as anxiety and tension. Tranquilizers are typically prescribed to individuals suffering from anxiety, sleep disturbances and related conditions affecting their mental and physical health. 

A Clinton aide dismissed the claims as ‘ridiculous.’ 

Neither Clinton nor Obama responded to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment. 

President Donald Trump’s approach with Russian President Vladimir Putin pivoted drastically this month when, for the first time since returning to the White House, he not only confirmed his support for Ukraine in a NATO arms agreement but issued an ultimatum to the Kremlin chief.

The warning came in a clear message: Enter into a peace deal with Ukraine or face stiff international sanctions on its top commodity, oil sales.

While the move has been championed by some, it has been questioned by others who debate whether it will be enough to deter Putin’s war ambitions in Ukraine. One security expert is arguing the plan will work, but it might take years to be effective.

‘I think it will be effective, and he’s going to stick to that strategy. He’s going to continue to push Putin to return to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith, not come to the bargaining table, make promises that the Russians don’t plan on keeping,’ Fred Fleitz, who served as a deputy assistant to Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council during the president’s first term, told Fox News Digital.

‘That’s something Trump’s not going to tolerate,’ Fleitz added. ‘We will see this is just the first six months of the Trump presidency. This may take a couple of years to solve.’

But Trump campaigned on ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which has proven to be more complicated than he suggested from the campaign trail. And not everyone in the Republican Party has backed his approach when it comes to Europe, including a staunch Trump supporter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

‘We do not want to give or sell weapons to Ukraine or be involved in any foreign wars or continue the never-ending flow of foreign aid,’ Greene said on X. ‘We want to solve our own problems plaguing our own people.’ 

Fleitz pointed to Trump’s decision to directly strike Iran and argued it reflected Trump’s ability to be nimble as a leader. 

‘He looked at the intelligence and realized it was getting too close, and he decided to adjust his policy, which was first diplomacy,’ Fleitz said.

‘But Trump also specified something very important. He said to his supporters, ‘I came up with a concept of the America-first approach to U.S. national security, and I decide what’s in it,’ Fleitz added. ‘He has ownership of this approach, and he will adjust if necessary.’

Though Trump had made clear from the campaign trail that he wanted to see Europe take a leading role in the war in Ukraine, last week he countered a major talking point from some within his party, including Vice President JD Vance.

Vance has argued against arming Ukraine and said in an op-ed last year, ‘[It] is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.’

Trump agreed to sell NATO nations top U.S. arms that will then be supplied to Ukraine.

‘We want to defend our country. But, ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing,’ Trump said, sitting alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Security experts have largely argued that the future of Ukraine’s negotiating ability and, ultimately, the end of the war, will play out on the battlefield. 

On Thursday, John Hardie, deputy director of FDD’s Russia Program, told U.S. lawmakers on the Helsinki Commission, also known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in a defense briefing that Ukraine needs to be supplied with long-range strike capabilities that can hit key Russian missile and drone plants.

‘Ukraine shouldn’t be restricted merely to shooting down ‘arrows’,’ Hardie said. ‘An optimal approach will combine both offense and defense. Ukraine needs to be able to hit the ‘archer’ and the factories that make the ‘arrows.’

‘Putin will continue his unprovoked war so long as he believes it’s sustainable and offers a pathway to achieving his goals,’ Hardie argued. ‘By shoring up Ukraine’s defense of its skies and enabling Ukraine to inflict growing costs on Russia’s war machine, as well as pressuring the Russian economy and exhausting Russia’s offensive potential on the ground, we may be able to change that calculus.’

But Fleitz, who serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, said he believes this war will only be brought to an end when an armistice agreement is secured. 

‘I think there’s probably going to be an armistice where both sides will agree to suspend the fighting,’ Fleitz said. ‘Someday, we will find a line where both nations will agree to stop fighting.’

Ultimately, he believes this will happen by Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO for a certain period of time, though with Moscow’s understanding that Kyiv will be heavily armed by Western allies. 

‘I think there’s a way to do this where Russia wouldn’t be concerned about growing Western European influence in Ukraine, and Ukraine would not be worried that Russia will invade once a ceasefire or armistice is declared,’ he added. ‘Maybe this is a pipe dream, but I think that’s the most realistic way to stop the fighting.

‘We know from history conflicts like this take time; peacemaking takes time,’ Fleitz said. ‘I think that over time, Trump is going to have an effect on Putin.’

President Donald Trump said Friday that former President Barack Obama ‘owes me big’ following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. 

Trump on Tuesday claimed that Obama was the ‘ringleader’ of Russiagate, calling for him to be criminally investigated amid new claims that members of his administration allegedly ‘manufactured’ intelligence that prompted the Trump–Russia collusion narrative. Obama has denied the allegations, with a spokesperson for him describing them as ‘bizarre.’

‘It probably helps him a lot. Probably helps a lot. The immunity ruling, but it doesn’t help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot,’ Trump said Friday. ‘He’s done criminal acts, there’s no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helps him a lot… he owes me big, Obama owes me big.’ 

The intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the ‘unusual’ direction of then-President Barack Obama, published ‘potentially biased’ or ‘implausible’ intelligence suggesting otherwise, the House Intelligence Committee found, according to a Fox News report earlier this week.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had declassified a report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2020.

The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.

The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier, despite knowing it was based largely on ‘internet rumor,’ as Fox News Digital previously reported.

According to the report, the ICA was a ‘high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.’

‘Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA,’ the report states. ‘The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.’

The committee found that the five CIA analysts and drafter ‘rushed’ the ICA’s production ‘in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.’

In a statement Tuesday, Obama denied Trump’s ‘bizarre allegations’ that he was the Russiagate ‘ringleader.’

‘Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,’ Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. ‘But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.’ 

‘These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,’ Obama’s spokesman continued. ‘Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.’ 

Gabbard later told ‘Jesse Watters Primetime’ on Wednesday that there were ‘deep state obstacles’ to releasing her information about the Trump-Russia collusion investigation and that some people within the intelligence community (IC) didn’t want it to ‘see the light of day.’

‘There are a lot of deep state actors still here within Washington. President Trump wants us to find the truth. I want to find that truth. The American people deserve the truth, and they deserve accountability,’ she said.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report. 

Senate Democrats have begun to ramp up their push for the full release of documents related to the late, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while Senate Republicans have tried to focus their attention elsewhere.

‘The story Republicans hoped would quietly fade is growing louder by the hour,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor.

Schumer has led the charge among Senate Democrats in demanding more transparency on the Epstein issue, and has used the drama in recent weeks as a political cudgel to go after congressional Republicans and the White House.

His remarks come after a recent Wall Street Journal report alleged that President Donald Trump’s name appeared in the documents surrounding Epstein, and that he was told by the Justice Department about it before publicly saying he was not among the untold number of names within the documents.

Trump also ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to ‘produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony’ on the matter, and top Justice Department official Todd Blanche met with Epstein accomplice Ghislane Maxwell in Florida on Thursday to discuss the late pedophile and alleged sex trafficker.

‘It has the stench of a cover-up,’ Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital. ‘The only right outcome here is to release and disclose all the files. There should be no secret meetings or secret deals.’

However, the Epstein saga has not had near the effect in the Senate as in the House, where House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early this week for a monthlong break after some Republicans and Democrats joined forces in their calls to bring the so-called Epstein files out in the open.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have downplayed the issue, arguing that Congress has far less power to obtain the information than the Justice Department does.

Sen. Ron Johnson, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told Fox News Digital that he does not like ‘duplicating efforts,’ but noted that he is still curious to know more information about the Epstein documents.  

‘I’m like every American who knows anything about this – I’m curious,’ the Wisconsin Republican said. ‘It doesn’t make any sense to me, starting back with his original trial and very light sentence. But I think there are far more important things to worry about.’

Senate Democrats are trying to force the issue, however. Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., again tried to introduce a non-binding resolution that called on Bondi to release all files related to Epstein, and the move was again blocked by Sen. Markwaye Mullin, R-Okla. 

Gallego said that the White House continues to make the issue ‘political theater,’ something that began on the campaign trail.

‘They fed this monster, and now they have to figure out the solution to what the American public is asking for, which is, you know, resolution and answers to their questions,’ he said.

Mullin, however, introduced his own resolution that comported with the president’s order for state and federal courts to release all Epstein documents surrounding the criminal investigation and prosecution against him. But when Gallego offered to combine the two, he objected, and accused him of turning the issue into a ‘political football.’

‘One, in this particular case — in a lot of cases — we’re not willing to stretch the truth to tell something that’s not accurate,’ Mullin said. ‘We want to be accurate with what we’re telling the American people. And the truth is, what can Congress do?’

So far, Mullin’s resolution is the only action offered by Senate Republicans in the ongoing Epstein saga. When asked if he would be interested in bringing the resolution to the floor for a vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said ‘obviously there is some interest in taking action on it, and we’ll see how intense that feeling is.’

Still, some Republicans want to focus their efforts elsewhere.

‘I hope we don’t waste our time on that,’ said Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ‘We’ve got enough to do.’ 

The Pentagon has suspended participation in all think tank events until further notice, departing from a history of dialogue with Washington’s civilian national security realm.

The move is an attempt ‘to ensure the Department of Defense is not lending its name and credibility to organizations, forums and events that run counter to the values of this administration.’

‘Going forward, no DOD official will attend events by America Last organizations that promote globalism and hate (President Donald Trump),’ Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson wrote on X. 

In the future, the Defense Department (DOD)’s Office of Public Affairs will conduct a ‘thorough vetting’ every time an official is invited to a conference to decide whether the event advances Trump’s agenda.

Such security events often are funded by foreign governments or defense contractors and serve as a space for such players to push a message or a product they sell to key officials and for defense officials to put out a message of their own from the U.S. government. 

The move comes after the Pentagon yanked its officials from participation in the Aspen Security Forum — a gathering of defense-minded industry leaders and researchers. 

Wilson had said the secretary’s office believed that event ‘promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.’

Several top military officials had been scheduled to speak at the event. 

Historically, defense secretaries have participated in defense conferences and think tank events like the Munich Security Conference or the Reagan Defense Forum.

Hegseth skipped out on the Munich Security Conference but attended the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in May.  

Aspen previously told Fox News Digital, ‘For more than a decade, the Aspen Security Forum has welcomed senior officials – Republican and Democrat, civilian and military – as well as senior foreign officials and experts, who bring experience and diverse perspectives on matters of national security. We will miss the participation of the Pentagon, but our invitations remain open.’

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., exuded confidence as she declared to Gen Z activists at the Voters of Tomorrow summit that the Democrats would take back the House in 2026.

‘We have no doubt that we will win the election with the House of Representatives,’ Pelosi said, eliciting applause from the crowd. She then responded to the cheers by once again saying ‘No doubt.’

The longtime California lawmaker also said she was confident that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., would be speaker of the House after the 2026 midterms.

While Pelosi was confident about the Democrats’ chances, she also emphasized the need for preparation. The former House speaker credited early preparation for the Democrats’ victories in 2006 and 2018 to early preparation, saying that 2026 could be the same. 

‘It’s important to be strong in the year in advance, because that’s when the troops line up. We have our messaging, we have our mobilization, we need the money to do it, but they go only next to a school to hold up the most important part: the candidate,’ she said.

However, Pelosi sees another element as being key to Democrats’ victory: bringing down President Donald Trump’s approval rating. The former House speaker called Trump’s current numbers ‘terrible.’

‘By October — certainly by November, but by October, we will have — with the help of so many people working — we’ll have taken what’s his name’s numbers down,’ Pelosi said.

A recent Fox News Poll found that 46% of voters approve of Trump’s performance, while 54% disapprove. That’s exactly where things stood last month, and better than at this point 8 years ago when 41% approved.

The Voters of Tomorrow summit boasts a lineup of high-profile speakers alongside Pelosi, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and David Hogg. Both Harris and Raskin are set to address the group virtually.

Fox News’ Dana Blanton and Victoria Balara contributed to this report.

A House GOP lawmaker is entering the race to become South Carolina governor on Friday, his campaign confirmed to Fox News Digital.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is expected to kick off his campaign with an event in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on Friday.

As of Friday morning, his non-congressional X account had been changed to say, ‘Ralph Norman for Governor.’

He’s a fiscal hawk on the House GOP’s rightmost flank, where he’s joined other like-minded colleagues in upending leaders’ legislative agenda at times in the name of pushing for more conservative policy wins.

Norman is joining a crowded Republican primary field with his new gubernatorial bid. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and state Sen. Josh Kimbrell are also in the race.

Meanwhile, Norman’s House colleague, Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., is also said to be considering a campaign for governor.

‘We wish Congressman Ralph Norman the best of luck today as he announces his run for Governor,’ Mace said in a statement on X.

Norman previously ran the Warren Norman Company, a commercial real estate development business started by his father.

Before being elected to Congress via special election in 2017, Norman served in the South Carolina state House from 2009 to 2017.

A longtime ally of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Norman was the only House Republican to formally endorse her before Haley dropped out of the race, after which Norman emphatically backed President Donald Trump.

He told Fox News Digital of his endorsement in January 2024, ‘When I supported Nikki Haley, I had the respect of Donald Trump to call him, and I told him what I was gonna do, and I decided I was going to do it.’

Norman has been a vocal supporter of Trump since Haley’s exit. He was most recently at the White House earlier this week with other House Republicans for a reception celebrating their legislative successes.

Earlier this year, he was part of a group of conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus forcing last-minute changes to the president’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ that they said fell more in line with what Trump actually wanted.

Current South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, also a close Trump ally, is term-limited at the end of 2026.

The president’s endorsement will likely play a decisive role in the Palmetto State’s GOP primary.

Artist Amy Sherald canceled her upcoming exhibit featuring a portrait of a transgender Statue of Liberty at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery after Vice President JD Vance raised concerns the show included woke and divisive content, Fox News Digital has learned. 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March that placed Vance in charge of overseeing the removal of programs or exhibits at Smithsonian museums that ‘degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.’ 

Vance said Sherald’s ‘American Sublime’ exhibit violated Trump’s executive order and was an example of woke and divisive content during a meeting June 9 with the Board of Regents, a source familiar with the meeting told Fox News Digital. 

‘Vice President Vance has been leading the effort to eliminate woke indoctrination from our beloved Smithsonian museums,’ an administration official said in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘On top of shepherding the One Big Beautiful Bill through the Senate and helping President Trump navigate international crises, the vice president has demonstrated his ability to get President Trump’s priorities across the finish line.’

Sherald, best known for painting former first lady Michelle Obama’s official portrait in 2018, announced Thursday she was pulling her show, ‘American Sublime,’ from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery slated for September, The New York Times first reported. 

Sherald said she was rescinding her work from the exhibition after being told that the National Portrait Gallery had some concerns about featuring the portrait of the transgender Statue of Liberty during the show. The painting, ‘Trans Forming Liberty,’ depicts a trans woman with pink hair wearing a blue gown. 

‘These concerns led to discussions about removing the work from the exhibition,’ Sherald said in a statement, The New York Times first reported Thursday. ‘While no single person is to blame, it’s clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role. 

‘This painting exists to hold space for someone whose humanity has been politicized and disregarded. I cannot in good conscience comply with a culture of censorship, especially when it targets vulnerable communities.

‘At a time when transgender people are being legislated against, silenced and endangered across our nation, silence is not an option,’ Sherald added. ‘I stand by my work. I stand by my sitters. I stand by the truth that all people deserve to be seen — not only in life, but in art.’

The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Vance’s involvement in the matter. 

The White House said the removal of Sherald’s exhibit is a ‘principled and necessary step’ toward cultivating unity at institutions like the Smithsonian. 

‘The ‘Trans Forming Liberty’ painting, which sought to reinterpret one of our nation’s most sacred symbols through a divisive and ideological lens, fundamentally strayed from the mission and spirit of our national museums,’ Trump special assistant Lindsey Halligan said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

‘The Statue of Liberty is not an abstract canvas for political expression. It is a revered and solemn symbol of freedom, inspiration and national unity that defines the American spirit.’

Other members of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents include the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, along with senators John Boozman, R-Ark.; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; and Gary Peters, D-Mich., along with several other House members. 

Fox News’ Gabriel Hays contributed to this report.