Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates went to the White House on Tuesday for a meeting with the president, according to a Gates spokesperson.

In a statement obtained by Fox News Digital, the spokesperson noted, ‘Bill met with the president to discuss the importance of U.S. global health programs and health research that is necessary to save lives, protect Americans’ health, and preserve U.S. leadership in the world.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on Wednesday.

Prior to the president’s inauguration for his second term, Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Emma Tucker asked the mega-wealthy figure whether he had met with Trump since Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential contest. 

Gates said that they had a ‘quite intriguing dinner,’ noting that it lasted more than three hours. 

An individual who Gates explained ‘helps manage things for me’ was also present, as well as Susie Wiles, Gates added.

Longtime government scientist Susan Monarez is refusing to leave her position as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced she had been removed from the role less than a month after she was sworn in.

Attorneys Mark Zaid and Abbe Lowell said they are representing Monarez and claimed she ‘has neither resigned nor yet been fired.’

The attorneys released a statement on social media, claiming HHS and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are weaponizing public health for political gain and putting millions of American lives at risk. 

‘When CDC Director Susan Monarez refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda,’ the statement said. ‘For that, she has been targeted. Dr. Monarez has neither resigned nor received notification from the White House that she has been fired, and as a person of integrity and devoted to science, she will not resign.’

The Washington Post reported that sources within the CDC, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said HHS leaders, including Kennedy, sought to get Monarez to commit to rescinding approvals for certain COVID-19 vaccines. When Monarez did not immediately commit, she was told by administration officials that she must resign or she would be fired. 

Sources also claimed she then attempted to involve the chairman of the Senate’s top health committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. The move reportedly further angered Kennedy. 

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for the HHS directed Fox News Digital to the agency’s response shared on its official X account.

‘Susan Monarez is no longer director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,’ HHS said. ‘We thank her for her dedicated service to the American people. Secretary Kennedy has full confidence in his team at the CDC who will continue to be vigilant in protecting Americans against infectious diseases at home and abroad.’

The White House confirmed to Fox News Digital that Monarez was being removed.

‘As her attorney’s statement makes abundantly clear, Susan Monarez is not aligned with the President’s agenda of Making America Healthy Again,’ White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. ‘Since Susan Monarez refused to resign despite informing HHS leadership of her intent to do so, the White House has terminated Monarez from her position with the CDC.’

Monarez was tapped by the Trump administration to lead the CDC after its initial nominee, Dave Weldon, withdrew from contention in March amid fears he might not garner enough support in the Senate to be confirmed. Shortly after Weldon stepped down, Monarez was formally nominated to be the CDC’s permanent director and was eventually confirmed in the final week of July.

During Monarez’s confirmation hearing, she expressed support for vaccines and told lawmakers she has ‘not seen a causal link between vaccines and autism.’

Prior to Monarez’s Senate confirmation, CDC directors did not typically require Senate approval, but that changed in 2022 when Congress passed a law making it necessary. Monarez was the first-ever Senate-confirmed CDC director in the agency’s history.

Monarez was also the first CDC director without a medical degree in more than seven decades. However, she does hold a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunology.

After getting her doctorate, Monarez entered the federal government, where she found herself in roles at the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Security Council, the Department of Homeland Security and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Her biography on the CDC’s website says she worked on ‘leading efforts to enhance the nation’s biomedical innovation capabilities, including combating antimicrobial resistance, expanding the use of wearables to promote patient health, ensuring personal health data privacy, and improving pandemic preparedness.’

Hours after the news that Monarez would no longer head the CDC, sources confirmed to Fox News Digital that at least three other top CDC officials tendered their resignations, including the CDC’s director of its National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Demetre Daskalakis; the director of the National Centers for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease, Dr. Daniel Jernigan; and the CDC’s chief medical officer, Debra Houry.

Daskalakis posted his lengthy resignation letter on X, citing various reasons for his departure, including ‘the views’ of Secretary Kennedy and his staff. 

Daskalakis said he could not continue to work in an administration that treats the CDC ‘as a tool’ to establish policies that ‘do not reflect scientific reality.’ He specifically cited recent changes Kennedy’s HHS has brought to vaccine scheduling for children and adults, arguing it ‘threaten[s] the lives of the youngest Americans and pregnant people.’ 

The former CDC director also cited the administration’s efforts to ‘erase transgender populations, cease critical domestic and international HIV programming, and terminate key research.’   

Fox News’ David Lewkowict contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump is reportedly working on a move that would give the U.S. a new military and economic foothold in Africa, counter China and Russia and strike a blow against Islamist terrorists in the region. And now a leading senator has told Fox News Digital this goal can be realized by recognizing the breakaway Somaliland as an independent state.

Somaliland, on the southern coast of the Gulf of Aden, broke away from Somalia in 1991. Its government is said to be offering the U.S. a new air and sea base close to the entrance of the Red Sea, and directly across from Yemen and the Houthis, if the U.S. formally recognizes it, 30% of the world’s container ship traffic is reported to pass through its waters en route to or from the Suez Canal.

In the Oval Office on Aug. 8, Trump told reporters, ‘We’re looking into that right now,’ when asked about the recognition of Somaliland and the possible resettlement of Gazans there, adding, ‘We’re working on that right now, Somaliland’. 

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas., told Fox News Digital, ‘There is a very real opportunity that President Trump will recognize Somaliland during this administration.’

Cruz added, ‘President Trump is bringing a new era of clarity in American national security, after four years of the Biden administration rewarding our enemies and punishing our allies, and recognizing Somaliland should be part of this new era.

‘Somaliland has been a reliable ally to the United States, is integrating itself with us and our allies globally, and is committed to helping us counter efforts by China to undermine the safety and prosperity of Americans,’ he said.

The White House did not respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment.

Neighboring Somalia has been battling Islamist fundamentalist fighters for decades. U.S. Africa Command has increased the number of airstrikes against both ISIS and al-Shabab terrorists under the current administration.

But Somaliland, 99% Muslim, has allegedly eliminated radicalism and has aligned itself with the U.S. and Israel, leading Cruz to tell Fox News Digital, ‘They’re a Muslim country, in a very dangerous part of Africa, showing real courage. I will continue to push for deepening the U.S.-Somaliland partnership, including through the Africa Subcommittee in the Senate, and I expect that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will be receptive to doing so.’

Earlier this month, Cruz wrote to President Trump about Somaliland, stating, ‘it requires the status of a state. I urge you to grant it that recognition.’

Somaliland’s president, Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi , is optimistic, telling the British Guardian newspaper on May 30, ‘Recognition is on the horizon.’ He added, ‘It’s a matter of time. Not if, but when’.

Somaliland’s port at Berbera is the jewel in any Washington deal. Analysts say it is in such a strategic position that both Russia and China have tried to acquire it. Right next door to it is one of Africa’s five longest runways, offering the U.S. the possibility of both a sea and air base that can strike Houthi rebels to the north and Al Shabaab terrorists to the east. 

In his letter to the White House, Cruz wrote, ‘Somaliland has emerged as a critical security and diplomatic partner for the United States, helping America advance our national security interests in the Horn of Africa and beyond. It is strategically located along the

Gulf of Aden, putting it near one of the world’s busiest maritime corridors. It possesses capable armed forces and contributes to regional counterterrorism and piracy operations. It has proposed hosting a U.S. military presence near the Red Sea along the Gulf of Aden.’

The U.S.’s largest military base in Africa is just up the coast in Djibouti. But there are security and surveillance issues at the Camp Lemonnier U.S. base where the Chinese and other nations have opened their own bases and monitoring stations nearby.

Somaliland is also offering the White House access to rare earth minerals essential for high-tech industries, such as lithium and silicon quartz.

The U.S. has described Somalia, with large numbers of both ISIS and al-Qaida-linked operatives, as a terrorist safe haven. Now the increasing presence of China and military forces from countries such as Turkey is reportedly leading some in Washington to be increasingly unhappy with its ‘one Somalia’ policy, where Somaliland continues to be recognized only as a part of Somalia. 

For now, a State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital the official position: ‘The United States recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Somalia, which includes the territory of Somaliland. The State Department is not in active discussions with Somaliland’s representatives about a deal to recognize Somaliland as a state.’

But, Somaliland’s foreign minister worked Washington’s corridors and politicians in April, and several African sources, including the influential Horn Observer news outlet, have reported that President Abdullahi is expected to come to D.C. ‘soon’. U.S. officials, including the U.S. ambassador to Somalia, Richard Riley, are said to have been to Somaliland to meet with the president at least three times this year.

Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin Tuesday, calling on him to cancel funding to a left-wing environmental group accused of training and lobbying judges on climate policy, Fox News Digital exclusively learned. 

‘As attorney general, I refuse to stand by while Americans’ tax dollars fund radical environmental training for judges across the country,’ Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital of his push to encourage the EPA to end its funding of the Climate Judiciary Project. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call ‘neutral’ education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system,’ he said. ‘I commend President Trump’s efforts to cut waste and abuse during the first eight months of his presidency, and I am optimistic that his Administration will do the right thing and halt all funding to ELI.’ 

Knudsen spearheaded the letter sent to Zeldin Tuesday, which included the signatures of 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calling for the EPA to axe its funding to the left-wing environmental nonprofit, called the Environmental Law Institute, which oversees the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). 

The Environmental Law Institute founded the Climate Judiciary Project in 2018, which pitches itself as a ‘first-of-its-kind effort’ that ‘provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.’ 

The group, however, has been accused of trying to manipulate judges to make them more amenable to left-wing climate litigation. 

The letter sent Tuesday called on the EPA specifically to end any grants and awards endowed to the group. 

‘We write to bring to your attention grants made by EPA to the Environmental Law Institute (‘ELI’),’ the letter reads. ‘According to its 2024 financial statements, ELI received approximately 13% of its revenue in 2023, and 8.4% in 2024, from EPA awards. ELI also apparently still expected to receive funds from the federal government; its financial statement warned that the collectability of federal grant funds ‘is subject to significant uncertainty related to collectability and continual funding due to (the federal grant) funding freeze or other federal actions.”

The Environmental Law Institute received $637,591 from the EPA in 2024 and $866,402 in 2023 from the EPA, according to nonprofit tax documents published by ProPublica detailing the group’s federal expenditures that year. 

‘The Climate Judiciary Project’s mission is clear: lobby judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts,’ 23 state attorneys general wrote in the letter. ‘An alumni magazine profile said the quiet part out loud, writing that the Climate Judiciary Project co-founder was ‘explaining the science of climate change to a group of people with real power to act on it: judges.’ The Climate Judiciary Project’s tampering raises serious legal and ethical questions.’ 

The Environmental Law Institute, however, in a recent comment to Fox News Digital, has maintained that its educational programs through Climate Judiciary Project are in accordance with the standards established by national judicial education institutions. 

Climate Judiciary Project educational events are done ‘in partnership with leading national judicial education institutions and state judicial authorities, in accordance with their accepted standards,’ a spokesperson for the group said in an emailed statement in July. ‘Its curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

‘CJP’s work is no different than the work of other continuing judicial education organizations that address important complex topics, including medicine, tech and neuroscience,’ an Environmental Law Institute spokesperson previously told Fox News Digital when asked about its educational programs.

The call for EPA to slash any funds to the Environmental Law Institute was celebrated by leading groups such as the American Energy Institute and the Alliance for Consumers, who lamented in a comment to Fox Digital that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund the group and that ‘courtroom maneuvering’ threatens day-to-day life. 

‘The State Attorneys General are right to call for the elimination of taxpayer funding for the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project,’ Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox Digital. ‘This is a coordinated campaign to advance the Green New Deal through the judiciary using so-called climate litigation in the courts. Its curriculum is developed by climate alarmist allies of the plaintiffs and delivered to judges behind closed doors. Public funds should never be used to finance political advocacy disguised as judicial education.’

O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which is a nonprofit focused on advocating on behalf of American consumers, remarked that ‘as we have long warned, the left has a plan to reshape American society by using lawsuits in courts all across the country, especially in places like Hawaii and other coastal enclaves.’

‘The new wave of revelations about ELI is further concerning evidence of how committed the left is to imposing mandatory Progressive Lifestyle Choices through this courtroom maneuvering and how big a threat it really is to all our ways of life,’ Skinner added. 

The Tuesday letter specifically argued: ‘State consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive and misleading statements to market a product. ELI is representing its training as objective when reality shows that it is not. State Attorneys General are responsible for protecting consumers, and we are concerned by ELI’s statements.’

The EPA has taken a hatchet to millions of dollars doled out under the Biden administration to left-wing groups and other programs deemed a waste of taxpayer funds upon Zeldin’s Senate confirmation as EPA chief in January. 

The EPA under the Trump administration has canceled $20 billion in grants under the Inflation Reduction Act — which has led to an ongoing court battle. Zeldin said in March that the $20 billion in U.S. tax dollars were ‘parked at an outside financial institution in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight, doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified, and in some cases brand-new NGOs.’

The state attorneys general reflected on the previous cuts in their call to Zeldin to do the same to ELI funding. 

‘Under President Trump’s bold leadership, federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency have saved an estimated $190 billion, including terminating more than 15,000 grants that saved approximately $44 billion,’ the letter states. ‘You have heeded President Trump’s directive and achieved monumental savings for taxpayers. You canceled $20 billion in climate grants under the Inflation Reduction Act. You canceled another $1.7 billion in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants.3 And you canceled 800 environmental justice grants.’ 

Climate Judiciary Project and the Environmental Law Institute previously have come under fire from lawmakers such as Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused the groups of working to ‘train judges’ and ‘make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics.’

The Texas Republican recently has argued there is a ‘systematic campaign’ launched by the Chinese Communist Party and American left-wing activists to weaponize the court systems to ‘undermine American energy dominance.’

Climate Judiciary Project is a pivotal player in the ‘lawfare’ as it works to secure ‘judicial capture,’ according to Cruz, Fox Digital has previously reported. 

The FBI’s raid on John Bolton’s home and office is tied to an investigation that reaches beyond his controversial book, a source told Fox News Digital, fueling speculation that the former Trump adviser could face criminal charges.

The scope of any potential charges against Bolton, who served under President Donald Trump before falling out of favor with him in 2019, is uncertain, but experts tend to agree that Bolton has some legal exposure.

Prominent D.C.-based attorney Mark Zaid, who specializes in national security, said that while there are many unknowns about the Department of Justice’s investigation into Bolton, his memoir, ‘The Room Where It Happened,’ could be an area of vulnerability for him.

‘With respect to Bolton’s book, he is potentially vulnerable if he maintains any copies of early drafts which were determined to contain ‘voluminous’ amounts of classified information when it was first submitted to the White House for review,’ Zaid told Fox New Digital. ‘Those drafts were likely disseminated, per normal course of business, to his literary agent, publisher and lawyer.’

Zaid added that those transmissions could be unlawful under the Espionage Act, a serious set of charges used throughout history to punish spies and leakers of government secrets.

During the first Trump administration, Attorney General Bill Barr opened an investigation into Bolton and brought a civil lawsuit against him over the book days before it was set for release.

The DOJ alleged in the lawsuit that Bolton skipped over normal prepublication review processes and allowed his publisher to move forward with printing a book that contained several passages of classified national security information.

In court papers, Bolton said he did not initially believe his memoir contained classified information, but then he edited some information out of the book after consulting with the National Security Council. Bolton never received a final signoff from the National Security Council before moving forward with publishing. He argued in court papers that the Trump administration’s refusal to approve the memoir’s contents violated his First Amendment rights and that the National Security Council’s review process ‘had been abused in an effort to suppress’ the book, which contained harsh criticisms of Trump.

Judge Royce Lamberth, a D.C.-based Regan appointee, denied the Trump DOJ’s request to block publication of Bolton’s book because, among several reasons, it had already been exposed to publishers. Still, Lamberth faulted Bolton.

‘Defendant Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States,’ Lamberth wrote in an order at the time. ‘He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability.’

Lamberth found it was likely Bolton ‘jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information’ in violation of various nondisclosure agreements he signed as part of his national security role.

The DOJ never brought charges against Bolton, and the investigation was closed under the Biden administration. The Biden DOJ dismissed the civil lawsuit against Bolton over his book in June 2021.

While Bolton’s book controversy has been at the forefront since the raids at his home and office, one well-placed source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital on Monday the investigation is far more expansive than the book. 

The search warrants, which were authorized by a judge, were based on evidence collected overseas by the CIA, the New York Times reported.

Critics note Bolton is the latest target of the Trump DOJ, which despite pledging to end ‘weaponization’ has pursued several of the president’s political rivals. The department has launched grand jury probes into New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and is examining Obama-era national security officials who Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says tried to undermine Trump’s 2016 victory. Trump has also urged an investigation of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, citing ‘criminal acts’ tied to the George Washington Bridge lane-closure scandal.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of Virginia suggested the line between honest scrutiny of potential wrongdoing and political revenge has become blurred.

‘Trump DOJ targeting enemies of Trump — Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Federal Reserve Governor [Lisa] Cook and now John Bolton. Trump appears to want them harmed for personal/political reasons but if they broke the law are the investigations justified?’ Fishwick told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘That question is putting an incredible stress test on our legal system.’

Zaid noted that Bolton could bring claims of a selective or vindictive prosecution if he were indicted but that those are difficult to prove.

Attorney Jason Kander, an Army veteran and former secretary of state of Missouri, said on the podcast ‘Talking Feds’ that even if the DOJ does not secure a conviction against Bolton, the legal process itself is punishment.

‘It’s not just harassment. It’s potential financial ruin,’ Kander said. ‘When they come after you like this it doesn’t matter if there isn’t a scintilla of evidence. It’s a minimum half a million bucks in legal fees in a situation like this.’

Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin Tuesday, calling on him to cancel funding to a left-wing environmental group accused of training and lobbying judges on climate policy, Fox News Digital exclusively learned. 

‘As attorney general, I refuse to stand by while Americans’ tax dollars fund radical environmental training for judges across the country,’ Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital of his push to encourage the EPA to end its funding of the Climate Judiciary Project. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call ‘neutral’ education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system,’ he said. ‘I commend President Trump’s efforts to cut waste and abuse during the first eight months of his presidency, and I am optimistic that his Administration will do the right thing and halt all funding to ELI.’ 

Knudsen spearheaded the letter sent to Zeldin Tuesday, which included the signatures of 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calling for the EPA to axe its funding to the left-wing environmental nonprofit, called the Environmental Law Institute, which oversees the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). 

The Environmental Law Institute founded the Climate Judiciary Project in 2018, which pitches itself as a ‘first-of-its-kind effort’ that ‘provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.’ 

The group, however, has been accused of trying to manipulate judges to make them more amenable to left-wing climate litigation. 

The letter sent Tuesday called on the EPA specifically to end any grants and awards endowed to the group. 

‘We write to bring to your attention grants made by EPA to the Environmental Law Institute (‘ELI’),’ the letter reads. ‘According to its 2024 financial statements, ELI received approximately 13% of its revenue in 2023, and 8.4% in 2024, from EPA awards. ELI also apparently still expected to receive funds from the federal government; its financial statement warned that the collectability of federal grant funds ‘is subject to significant uncertainty related to collectability and continual funding due to (the federal grant) funding freeze or other federal actions.”

The Environmental Law Institute received $637,591 from the EPA in 2024 and $866,402 in 2023 from the EPA, according to nonprofit tax documents published by ProPublica detailing the group’s federal expenditures that year. 

‘The Climate Judiciary Project’s mission is clear: lobby judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts,’ 23 state attorneys general wrote in the letter. ‘An alumni magazine profile said the quiet part out loud, writing that the Climate Judiciary Project co-founder was ‘explaining the science of climate change to a group of people with real power to act on it: judges.’ The Climate Judiciary Project’s tampering raises serious legal and ethical questions.’ 

The Environmental Law Institute, however, in a recent comment to Fox News Digital, has maintained that its educational programs through Climate Judiciary Project are in accordance with the standards established by national judicial education institutions. 

Climate Judiciary Project educational events are done ‘in partnership with leading national judicial education institutions and state judicial authorities, in accordance with their accepted standards,’ a spokesperson for the group said in an emailed statement in July. ‘Its curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

‘CJP’s work is no different than the work of other continuing judicial education organizations that address important complex topics, including medicine, tech and neuroscience,’ an Environmental Law Institute spokesperson previously told Fox News Digital when asked about its educational programs.

The call for EPA to slash any funds to the Environmental Law Institute was celebrated by leading groups such as the American Energy Institute and the Alliance for Consumers, who lamented in a comment to Fox Digital that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund the group and that ‘courtroom maneuvering’ threatens day-to-day life. 

‘The State Attorneys General are right to call for the elimination of taxpayer funding for the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project,’ Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox Digital. ‘This is a coordinated campaign to advance the Green New Deal through the judiciary using so-called climate litigation in the courts. Its curriculum is developed by climate alarmist allies of the plaintiffs and delivered to judges behind closed doors. Public funds should never be used to finance political advocacy disguised as judicial education.’

O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which is a nonprofit focused on advocating on behalf of American consumers, remarked that ‘as we have long warned, the left has a plan to reshape American society by using lawsuits in courts all across the country, especially in places like Hawaii and other coastal enclaves.’

‘The new wave of revelations about ELI is further concerning evidence of how committed the left is to imposing mandatory Progressive Lifestyle Choices through this courtroom maneuvering and how big a threat it really is to all our ways of life,’ Skinner added. 

The Tuesday letter specifically argued: ‘State consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive and misleading statements to market a product. ELI is representing its training as objective when reality shows that it is not. State Attorneys General are responsible for protecting consumers, and we are concerned by ELI’s statements.’

The EPA has taken a hatchet to millions of dollars doled out under the Biden administration to left-wing groups and other programs deemed a waste of taxpayer funds upon Zeldin’s Senate confirmation as EPA chief in January. 

The EPA under the Trump administration has canceled $20 billion in grants under the Inflation Reduction Act — which has led to an ongoing court battle. Zeldin said in March that the $20 billion in U.S. tax dollars were ‘parked at an outside financial institution in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight, doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified, and in some cases brand-new NGOs.’

The state attorneys general reflected on the previous cuts in their call to Zeldin to do the same to ELI funding. 

‘Under President Trump’s bold leadership, federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency have saved an estimated $190 billion, including terminating more than 15,000 grants that saved approximately $44 billion,’ the letter states. ‘You have heeded President Trump’s directive and achieved monumental savings for taxpayers. You canceled $20 billion in climate grants under the Inflation Reduction Act. You canceled another $1.7 billion in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants.3 And you canceled 800 environmental justice grants.’ 

Climate Judiciary Project and the Environmental Law Institute previously have come under fire from lawmakers such as Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused the groups of working to ‘train judges’ and ‘make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics.’

The Texas Republican recently has argued there is a ‘systematic campaign’ launched by the Chinese Communist Party and American left-wing activists to weaponize the court systems to ‘undermine American energy dominance.’

Climate Judiciary Project is a pivotal player in the ‘lawfare’ as it works to secure ‘judicial capture,’ according to Cruz, Fox Digital has previously reported. 

President Donald Trump is pushing a new economic strategy: having the U.S. government take direct stakes in major U.S. companies. He argues it’s a way to make the country stronger by shoring up industries that fuel prosperity and safeguard national security.

The first big example came last week, when the White House announced the government now owns nearly 10% of Intel. The California-based chipmaker had received federal grants to boost U.S. production, but those funds have now been converted into a formal ownership share.

The U.S. government has historically offered loans, tax breaks, or contracts to private companies — but owning stock in them is much less common, raising questions about how far Trump’s approach might go and how Intel’s competitors may view the move.

One of those competitors, SkyWater Technology, a Minnesota-based semiconductor foundry with deep ties to the defense sector, welcomed the precedent while underscoring its all-American footprint.

‘We view equity stakes as an important tool to ensure accountability when taxpayer dollars support companies whose global structures raise questions about long-term U.S. benefit,’ Ross Miller, SVP of Commercial and A&D Business, told Fox News Digital. 

He contrasted that with SkyWater’s position as a fully domestic manufacturer: ‘SkyWater is different — we are U.S.-headquartered and U.S.-operated, with no foreign ownership or entanglements.’

‘Every dollar invested here directly strengthens America’s infrastructure, workforce, and independence,’ Miller added.

Looking ahead, he said SkyWater hopes to deepen collaboration with the Trump administration to expand domestic capacity in foundational chip technologies — the tried-and-true manufacturing methods that still power reliable systems in airplanes, automobiles, defense, biomedical equipment and even quantum computing.

SkyWater isn’t the only U.S. chipmaker that could be affected by Trump’s new approach. New York-based GlobalFoundries, a semiconductor manufacturer, operates large-scale chip fabs in New York and Vermont. Supported by federal funding, these sites play a central role in U.S. efforts to bring back more domestic chip production.

Given the firm’s federally-backed fabs on U.S. soil, GlobalFoundries could become a candidate for equity-linked deals tied to Trump’s semiconductor resilience goals. 

Similarly, Micron Technology, which is investing tens of billions of dollars to build memory chip fabs in New York and Idaho with the support of CHIPS Act funding, could also fall under consideration. The Boise, Idaho-based company has positioned itself as a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to restore leadership in advanced memory manufacturing.

GlobalFoundries and Micron did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

On Monday, Trump suggested this was just the beginning. ‘I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,’ he told reporters at the White House, hinting that his administration could pursue similar deals in other sectors.

But not everyone sees the move as positive. 

‘This is bad policy and the most glaring example to date of the administration’s tilt towards socialism. It’s an unprecedented move, so I’m hesitant to make any predictions,’ explained Jai Kedia, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives.

Kedia also warned the policy could display ‘favoritism towards large firms that can negotiate deals with the executive at the expense of small and mid-size firms that do not have the political clout to arrange such deals.’

President Donald Trump is pushing a new economic strategy: having the U.S. government take direct stakes in major U.S. companies. He argues it’s a way to make the country stronger by shoring up industries that fuel prosperity and safeguard national security.

The first big example came last week, when the White House announced the government now owns nearly 10% of Intel. The California-based chipmaker had received federal grants to boost U.S. production, but those funds have now been converted into a formal ownership share.

The U.S. government has historically offered loans, tax breaks, or contracts to private companies — but owning stock in them is much less common, raising questions about how far Trump’s approach might go and how Intel’s competitors may view the move.

One of those competitors, SkyWater Technology, a Minnesota-based semiconductor foundry with deep ties to the defense sector, welcomed the precedent while underscoring its all-American footprint.

‘We view equity stakes as an important tool to ensure accountability when taxpayer dollars support companies whose global structures raise questions about long-term U.S. benefit,’ Ross Miller, SVP of Commercial and A&D Business, told Fox News Digital. 

He contrasted that with SkyWater’s position as a fully domestic manufacturer: ‘SkyWater is different — we are U.S.-headquartered and U.S.-operated, with no foreign ownership or entanglements.’

‘Every dollar invested here directly strengthens America’s infrastructure, workforce, and independence,’ Miller added.

Looking ahead, he said SkyWater hopes to deepen collaboration with the Trump administration to expand domestic capacity in foundational chip technologies — the tried-and-true manufacturing methods that still power reliable systems in airplanes, automobiles, defense, biomedical equipment and even quantum computing.

SkyWater isn’t the only U.S. chipmaker that could be affected by Trump’s new approach. New York-based GlobalFoundries, a semiconductor manufacturer, operates large-scale chip fabs in New York and Vermont. Supported by federal funding, these sites play a central role in U.S. efforts to bring back more domestic chip production.

Given the firm’s federally-backed fabs on U.S. soil, GlobalFoundries could become a candidate for equity-linked deals tied to Trump’s semiconductor resilience goals. 

Similarly, Micron Technology, which is investing tens of billions of dollars to build memory chip fabs in New York and Idaho with the support of CHIPS Act funding, could also fall under consideration. The Boise, Idaho-based company has positioned itself as a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to restore leadership in advanced memory manufacturing.

GlobalFoundries and Micron did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

On Monday, Trump suggested this was just the beginning. ‘I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,’ he told reporters at the White House, hinting that his administration could pursue similar deals in other sectors.

But not everyone sees the move as positive. 

‘This is bad policy and the most glaring example to date of the administration’s tilt towards socialism. It’s an unprecedented move, so I’m hesitant to make any predictions,’ explained Jai Kedia, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives.

Kedia also warned the policy could display ‘favoritism towards large firms that can negotiate deals with the executive at the expense of small and mid-size firms that do not have the political clout to arrange such deals.’