A government watchdog fired by President Donald Trump in January has filed a legal brief arguing that Trump is well within his executive powers to fire him and the 16 other U.S. inspectors general ousted just four days into his second term.  

Eric Soskin, the former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, was appointed by Trump during his first presidential term. He was then fired just four days after Trump returned to the Oval Office, Jeff Beelaert, an attorney for Givens Pursley and a former Department of Justice official, told Fox News in an interview.

‘Eric was one of the fired inspectors general, and disagreed with his former IG colleagues. He wanted to make that clear in filing a brief,’ Beelaert said. 

Trump moved shortly after his inauguration to purge the government watchdogs from across 17 government agencies, prompting intense backlash, criticism and questions over the legality of the personnel decisions. 

The move prompted a lawsuit from eight of the ousted watchdogs, who asked the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, to declare their firings illegal and to restore their agency positions.

These remedies are considered a long shot, and are unlikely to succeed next week when the plaintiffs appear in D.C. court for their next hearing. Even so, Soskin disagreed so strongly with their rationale that he not only declined to join their lawsuit, but also had lawyers file an amicus brief on his behalf supporting the administration’s ability to terminate his role.

Beelaert helped author that amicus brief on Soskin’s behalf, which outlined primary reasons that Trump does have the power to make these personnel decisions, under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and updates to federal policy.

The brief invokes the IGs ‘mistaken’ reliance on a 1930s-era precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, which protects agency firings in certain cases, and requires a 30-day notice period for any personnel decisions. Soskin’s lawyers argue that the reliance on this case is misguided and that the precedent applies solely to members of ‘multi-member, expert, balanced commissions’ that largely report to Congress, and are not at issue here.

‘Supreme Court precedent over the last five, ten years has almost all but rejected that idea that Congress can impose restrictions on the president’s removal authority,’ Beelaert said.

Other critics noted that Trump failed to give Congress a 30-day notice period before he terminated the government watchdogs – a formality but something that Trump supporters note is no longer required under the law.

In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any ‘reasons’ for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a ‘substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons’ for terminations.

The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of ‘changing priorities’ from within the administration. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter.

Plaintiffs challenging the firings are likely to face a tough time making their case next week in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Reyes, the presiding judge in the case, did not appear moved by the plaintiffs’ bid for emergency relief.

She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order – a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove ‘irreparable’ and immediate harm as a result of the actions – and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for March 11.

‘At the end of the day, this drives home the idea that elections matter,’ Beelaert said. 

‘And of all the times that the president should have the removal of authority, it’s the start of the administration’ that should be most important, he said, noting that this is true for both political parties.

‘It doesn’t matter who serves in the White House. I think that any president, whether it’s President Trump, President Biden – it doesn’t matter,’ Beelaert said. ‘The president should be allowed to pick who is going to serve in his administration. And to me, that’s a bit lost in this debate. ‘

Hostages freed from Gaza visited President Donald Trump in the Oval Office to tell him that his re-election to the White House gave them hope after hundreds of days in Hamas captivity. 

In a Thursday press event, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff told reporters that seven people freed from Gaza, along with some of their loved ones, met with the president this week to share their horrific stories of abduction, severe abuse and time in captivity.

One Israeli hostage, Omer Shem Tov, who was freed on Feb. 22, told the president that he believed Trump had ‘been sent by God’ to secure their release.

‘They talked about how they heard about his election, and they were uplifted,’ Witkoff said of the meeting.  ‘They were elated waiting for him because they knew he was going to help them get rescued.’

Witkoff, who described the event as ’emotional,’ also reiterated the Trump administration’s commitment to securing the release of more hostages.

Reports this week revealed that the Trump administration has begun directly negotiating with Hamas – a revelation that apparently frustrated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Details of the negotiations remain unclear, though reports suggested the Trump team had proposed a 60-day ceasefire and the release of an additional 10 hostages – though who would be included in the next release remains unclear as there are 25 hostages still assessed to be alive, including one American.

‘Edan Alexander is very important to us as – all the hostages are – but Edan Alexander is an American, and he’s injured. And so, he’s a top priority for us,’ Witkoff told reporters.

Witkoff confirmed that Adam Boehler, special envoy in charge of hostages, had been involved in the recent negotiations attempting to secure the second phase of the ceasefire agreement which is supposed to see the release of the remaining hostages. 

‘We feel that Hamas has not been forthright with us. And it’s time for them to be forthright with us,’ Witkoff said.  ‘Edan Alexander would be a very important show.’

Trump issued another warning on social media this week, telling Hamas to release all hostages immediately. Though Hamas has thus far responded by saying they will only begin the release of more hostages if a second phase in the ceasefire is agreed to.  

There are 59 hostages still held by Hamas, including one individual who was taken by the terrorist group separate from the October 2023 attacks.

Some 35 hostages are assessed to have been killed by Hamas and whose bodies are still being held, including four Americans: Omer Neutra, Itay Chen, Gadi Haggai and Judi Weinstein Haggai – all of whom are believed to have been killed on Oct. 7, 2023. 

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are coming together to crack down on Chinese-backed companies’ ownership of land in the continental U.S.

It comes as the Trump administration appears on the precipice of a trade war with Beijing, as China promises to retaliate against what its foreign minister called ‘arbitrary’ tariffs from Washington.

‘It is in the interest of the United States to review purchases of American farmland by foreign entities to protect our farms and agricultural production from our foreign adversaries, especially China,’ Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, the House Republican leading the bill, told Fox News Digital.

‘But for far too long, our government has repeatedly failed to enforce the laws on the books, monitor foreign purchases of our farmland, or assess financial penalties on those who break our laws.’

The bill is also being led by Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., and in the upper chamber by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.

It would direct the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body tasked with analyzing the national security implications of specific foreign investments in the U.S., to review any purchase of American farmland by a foreign entity that exceeds 320 acres or $5 million.

The bill is also aimed at establishing a public database on foreign ownership of U.S. farmland through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to partner with the Secretary of Homeland Security on an annual threat assessment report on foreign ownership of U.S. farmland.

‘Allowing China or other foreign competitors to buy up large swaths of American farmland puts our national security and food supply at risk,’ McDonald Rivet told Fox News Digital. ‘This bill is a key step towards protecting American interests from falling into the hands of bad actors abroad, especially China.’

Ernst blamed the U.S. government’s ‘outdated system’ for allowing ‘China’s malign influence to threaten our security by buying up our nation’s land.’

‘I’m drawing a line in the sand to overhaul this flawed way of doing things, increase reporting and transparency, strengthen oversight of the influence of our foreign adversaries, and force the sale of foreign-owned land,’ Ernst said.

No foreign country directly owns U.S. land, but Chinese-backed companies own a small fraction of American farmland – a number that has risen considerably in recent years.

A 2023 plan by Chinese company Fufeng Group to buy land near a sensitive military base in Grand Forks, North Dakota, alarmed lawmakers and other federal officials, and was blocked over national security concerns.

Chinese entities’ ownership of U.S. farmland went up 30% between 2019 and 2020, according to a 2021 USDA report.

Meanwhile, China recently warned it was ready for a war over export taxes with the U.S. after President Donald Trump levied an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods just days after returning for his second term.

‘If war is what the US wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end,’ China’s embassy posted on X.

Chinese-backed companies currently own 384,000 acres of U.S. farmland, according to the most recent government data.

The U.S. is continuing to share some defensive intelligence with Ukraine to protect against incoming Russian strikes, despite an announced pause in intel sharing that raised alarm bells, Fox News Digital has learned.

Three sources familiar with the decision confirmed that intelligence related to force protection and incoming threats would continue. Federal intelligence, the work of the CIA, FBI and human intelligence, has ceased, as has data that helps with offensive Ukrainian strikes against Russians. 

Another intelligence source said to expect the pause to be ‘very temporary in nature,’ and that the sharing of all data could resume in the coming days. 

The intelligence pause had prompted confusion and alarm from Ukraine and its allies, as its parameters were not entirely clear. However, U.S. intelligence has been a lifeline for Ukraine’s forces: defense experts say that ceasing all data-sharing would be a bigger blow to Ukrainian forces than losing military aid from the U.S. 

‘Ukraine had one single advantage on Russia: information superiority. With that gone, Kyiv would be in trouble,’ said Can Kasapoglu, a defense fellow at the Hudson Institute. ‘Europe does not have enough strategic enablers capacity to fill in the vacuum,’ said Kasapoglu. 

The National Security Council declined to comment on what military intelligence was still being shared, as did the Pentagon. 

A pause in offensive military intelligence means ‘The selective sharing of intelligence creates a strategic imbalance, forcing Ukraine into a primarily defensive posture.’ former military intelligence officer Matthew Shoemaker said. 

‘Even if Ukraine would still receive intelligence for incoming threats, the lack of offensive intel limits their ability to preemptively neutralize potential threats. This puts Ukraine in a more reactive posture, potentially increasing their vulnerability to Russian attacks,’ he continued.  

‘It restricts their capacity to disrupt Russian supply lines, command centers, and staging areas behind enemy lines.’

However, if intelligence sharing resumes quickly, it was likely a tactic to put pressure on Ukrainians at the negotiating table. ‘It suggests that it was more a signal to Ukrainian policymakers that the U.S. can turn off assistance at will.’ 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe said Wednesday that President Donald Trump had asked for the pause on intelligence sharing but said it could be lifted as soon as Ukraine signaled it was ready for a ceasefire. 

‘I think if we can nail down these negotiations and move toward these negotiations and, in fact, put some confidence-building measures on the table, then the president will take a hard look at lifting this pause,’ National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said.

U.S. intelligence is believed to be used to track Russian movements and identify targets, as well as for operating U.S.-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems.

France and the United Kingdom have said they would step in to fill the gaps where U.S. intelligence has ceased, but the U.K. said it would not share data that originated with the U.S. but is shared through the Five Eyes alliance. 

After a blow-up fight in the Oval Office last week between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. officials have agreed to meet with a Ukrainian team in Saudi Arabia next week. 

Trump also teased possible new sanctions on Russia on Friday, his first public threat against the Kremlin since taking office. The president has grown increasingly frustrated with Russia ramping up its strikes on Ukraine at the same time he has been pushing for a ceasefire. 

Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED. To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late. Thank you!!!’ Trump posted on Truth Social.

However, the president seemed optimistic about the prospects for peace on Thursday. 

‘I think what’s going to happen is Ukraine wants to make a deal, because I don’t think they have a choice,’ he said. ‘I also think that Russia wants to make a deal, because in a certain, different way, a different way that only I know, only I know, they have no choice either.’

A major agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a memo to hospitals and medical providers in the U.S. this week reminding them of ‘the dangerous chemical and surgical mutilation of children, including interventions that cause sterilization,’ and vowed the agency would continue aligning its policies with President Donald Trump’s executive orders. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which provides health coverage to more than 100 million people through Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, sent a memo Wednesday that was obtained by Fox News Digital reiterating ‘the program requirements of hospitals to serve all patients, especially children, with dignity and adherence to the highest standard of care that is informed by robust evidence and the utmost scientific integrity.’ The memo is effective immediately.

‘Other developed nations have taken decisive actions to prohibit or significantly limit these mutilation practices to ensure that children are protected from harmful, unscientific medical interventions,’ the memo adds. 

The notice also said ‘ CMS may begin taking steps in the future to align policy, including CMS-regulated provider requirements and agreements, with the highest-quality medical evidence in the treatment of the nation’s children in order to protect children from harmful, often irreversible mutilation, including sterilization practices.

‘In recent years, medical interventions for gender dysphoria in children have proliferated,’ the memo adds. ‘Initiated with an underdeveloped body of evidence and now known to cause long-term and irreparable harm to some children, CMS may begin taking steps in the future to adjust its policies to reflect this reality and the lack of medical evidence in support of these harmful treatments.’

Dr. Kurt Miceli, the medical director at the conservative medical activist group Do No Harm, told Fox News Digital the memo ‘did a nice job’ of highlighting medical data from other countries regarding ‘gender-affirming’ care for kids. 

‘And we really salute them for really looking at the data and being very clear that we need to protect children, really, from these irreversible harms that, unfortunately, we see from sex-change surgeries or hormonal therapies that are used,’ Miceli said.

The notice comes as the Trump administration has been moving to weed out ‘radical gender ideology’ across U.S. institutions and outlawed gender-transition treatments and surgeries for minors.

Many hospitals across the country are still conducting these procedures and ignoring Trump’s orders. 

Lawsuits are already underway challenging Trump’s other gender-related executive orders, too, which include booting transgender troops out of the military and banning biological men from women’s sports. HHS is also undergoing sweeping staffing changes due to Elon Musk’s DOGE layoffs. 

The CMS memo said its alert ‘is informed by a growing body of evidence and protective policies across the world’ and cited studies outlining the effects of gender-transition treatments for kids in England and Finland, as well as several from U.S. medical journals and the Mayo Clinic.

Between 2016 and 2020, nearly 3,700 children between the ages of 12 and 18 underwent surgery, with more than 3,200 having breast or chest surgery and more than 400 undergoing genital surgery, resulting in permanent changes to their reproductive organs, the memo states. More than 120,000 children between 6 and 17, from 2016 to 2020, were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, with more than 17,000 starting treatments like puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

‘In several notable instances, research used to promote these harmful procedures on children contained obvious and significant methodological flaws or demonstrated outright scientific misconduct,’ the memo stated.

The Trump administration appealed a federal judge’s decision Thursday that the administration’s firing of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member was illegal – the same day that the former head of the Office of the Special Counsel announced he was dropping his suit against President Donald Trump on similar grounds. 

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered Thursday that NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox be reinstated after she had been fired by Trump earlier this year. Wilcox filed suit in D.C. federal court, arguing that her termination violates the congressional statute delineating NLRB appointments and removals. 

‘A President who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution,’ Howell wrote in her Thursday opinion. 

The Trump administration filed its appeal to the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit shortly after the decision was issued. The administration wrote in its appeal that it intended to request a stay of the order pending appeal, ‘including an immediate administrative stay’ from the appellate court. 

In her Thursday opinion, Howell had some harsh words for the president, writing that his ‘interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power – or, more aptly, his aspiration – is flat wrong.’

‘At issue in this case is the President’s insistence that he has authority to fire whomever he wants within the Executive branch, overriding any congressionally mandated law in his way,’ Howell wrote. 

Howell’s decision came on the same day that Hampton Dellinger, a Biden-appointee previously tapped to head the Office of Special Counsel, announced that he would be dropping his suit against the Trump administration over his own termination. 

‘My fight to stay on the job was not for me, but rather for the ideal that OSC should be as Congress intended: an independent watchdog and a safe, trustworthy place for whistleblowers to report wrongdoing and be protected from retaliation,’ Dellinger said in a statement released Thursday. 

Dellinger’s announcement was preceded by a D.C. appellate court’s Wednesday holding that sided with the Trump administration. 

The court issued an unsigned order pausing a lower court order that had reinstated Dellinger to his post. 

‘Thank you to the countless DOJ lawyers working around the clock each and every day to defend the President’s actions and uphold the Constitution against baseless attacks,’ a Department of Justice spokesperson told Fox News at the time. 

Dellinger said in his announcement that he believes the circuit judges ‘erred badly’ in their Wednesday decision, saying that it ‘immediately erases the independence Congress provided for my position.’

‘And given the circuit court’s adverse ruling, I think my odds of ultimately prevailing before the Supreme Court are long,’ Dellinger said. ‘Meanwhile, the harm to the agency and those who rely on it caused by a Special Counsel who is not independent could be immediate, grievous, and, I fear, uncorrectable.’

Similar to Wilcox, Dellinger sued the Trump administration in D.C. federal court after his Feb. 7 firing. 

He maintained the argument that, by law, he can only be dismissed from his position for job performance problems, which were not cited in an email dismissing him from his post.

The Supreme Court had previously paused the Trump administration’s efforts to dismiss Dellinger. The administration had asked the high court to overturn a lower court’s temporary reinstatement of Dellinger. 

Fox News’ Jake Gibson, Bill Mears, Shannon Bream, and David Spunt contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump signaled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future, just over a month after his administration reinstated a ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Tehran. 

Trump on Friday told reporters that the U.S. is ‘down to the final moments’ negotiating with Iran, and that he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. 

‘It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon,’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. ‘You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem.’ 

Trump revealed he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pushing for Tehran to agree to a nuclear agreement — or face military consequences, according to a clip released Friday from an interview with FOX Business that is set to air Sunday. 

‘I would rather negotiate a deal,’ Trump told FOX Business. ‘I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily.’ 

‘But the time is happening now, the time is coming up,’ he said. ‘Something is going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran, and I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them.’

Behnam Ben Taleblu, director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Iran program, said that it seemed Trump was ‘putting all options on the table, from good to bad.’ 

‘But the President should be careful,’ Ben Taleblu said in a statement. ‘Tehran has set a trap for him, hoping to lure him into endless diplomacy that is used to blunt maximum pressure and dampen the credibility of an American or Israeli military option while buying time to creep towards a nuclear weapon.’

Trump’s remarks also come days before the 18th anniversary of the abduction of retired FBI Special Agent Robert ‘Bob’ Levinson from Kish Island, Iran, on Sunday, which also marks National Hostage and Wrongful Detainee Day. 

The FBI has continued to offer up to a $5 million reward for information that leads to Levinson’s recovery, while the State Department has offered $20 million for such information, as well as details on those who are wanted for their alleged involvement in his disappearance. 

Trump told reporters in February he believes Iran is ‘close’ to developing a nuclear weapon, but that the U.S. would stop a ‘strong’ Tehran from obtaining one. He also signed an executive order instructing the Treasury Department to execute ‘maximum economic pressure’ upon Iran through a series of sanctions aimed at sinking Iran’s oil exports. 

‘They’re very strong right now, and we’re not going to let them get a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said Feb. 4. 

Trump’s first administration also adopted a ‘maximum pressure’ initiative against Tehran, issuing greater sanctions and harsher enforcement for violations.

A government watchdog fired by President Donald Trump in January has filed a legal brief arguing that Trump is well within his executive powers to fire him and the 16 other U.S. inspectors general ousted just four days into his second term.  

Eric Soskin, the former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, was appointed by Trump during his first presidential term. He was then fired just four days after Trump returned to the Oval Office, Jeff Beelaert, an attorney for Givens Pursley and a former Department of Justice official, told Fox News in an interview.

‘Eric was one of the fired inspectors general, and disagreed with his former IG colleagues. He wanted to make that clear in filing a brief,’ Beelaert said. 

Trump moved shortly after his inauguration to purge the government watchdogs from across 17 government agencies, prompting intense backlash, criticism and questions over the legality of the personnel decisions. 

The move prompted a lawsuit from eight of the ousted watchdogs, who asked the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, to declare their firings illegal and to restore their agency positions.

These remedies are considered a long shot, and are unlikely to succeed next week when the plaintiffs appear in D.C. court for their next hearing. Even so, Soskin disagreed so strongly with their rationale that he not only declined to join their lawsuit, but also had lawyers file an amicus brief on his behalf supporting the administration’s ability to terminate his role.

Beelaert helped author that amicus brief on Soskin’s behalf, which outlined primary reasons that Trump does have the power to make these personnel decisions, under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and updates to federal policy.

The brief invokes the IGs ‘mistaken’ reliance on a 1930s-era precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, which protects agency firings in certain cases, and requires a 30-day notice period for any personnel decisions. Soskin’s lawyers argue that the reliance on this case is misguided and that the precedent applies solely to members of ‘multi-member, expert, balanced commissions’ that largely report to Congress, and are not at issue here.

‘Supreme Court precedent over the last five, ten years has almost all but rejected that idea that Congress can impose restrictions on the president’s removal authority,’ Beelaert said.

Other critics noted that Trump failed to give Congress a 30-day notice period before he terminated the government watchdogs — a formality but something that Trump supporters note is no longer required under the law.

In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any ‘reasons’ for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a ‘substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons’ for terminations.

The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of ‘changing priorities’ from within the administration. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter.

Plaintiffs challenging the firings are likely to face a tough time making their case next week in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Reyes, the presiding judge in the case, did not appear moved by the plaintiffs’ bid for emergency relief.

She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order — a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove ‘irreparable’ and immediate harm as a result of the actions — and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for March 11.

‘At the end of the day, this drives home the idea that elections matter,’ Beelaert said. 

‘And of all the times that the president should have the removal of authority, it’s the start of the administration’ that should be most important, he said, noting that this is true for both political parties.

‘It doesn’t matter who serves in the White House. I think that any president, whether it’s President Trump, President Biden — it doesn’t matter,’ Beelaert said. ‘The president should be allowed to pick who is going to serve in his administration. And to me, that’s a bit lost in this debate. ‘