The decision by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to end Facebook’s work with third-party fact-checkers and ease some of its content restrictions is a potentially ‘transformative’ moment for the platform, experts said, but one that is unlikely to shield the company from liability in ongoing court proceedings.

The updates were announced by Zuckerberg, who said in a video that the previous content restrictions used on Facebook and Instagram — which were put into place after the 2016 elections — had ‘gone too far’ and allowed for too much political bias from outside fact-checkers.

Meta will now replace that system with a ‘Community Notes’-style program, similar to the approach taken by social media platform X, he said. X is owned by Elon Musk, the co-director of the planned Department of Government Efficiency.

‘We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship,’ Zuckerberg said. ‘The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.’

The news was praised by President-elect Donald Trump, who told Fox News Digital that he thought Meta’s presentation ‘was excellent.’  ‘They have come a long way,’ Trump said.

Still, it is unlikely to ease the legal liability for Meta, which in recent months has been hit with the possibility of a multibillion-dollar class action lawsuit stemming from a privacy scandal involving the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. 

The Supreme Court in November rejected Meta’s effort to block the lawsuit, leaving in place an appellate court ruling that allowed the class action suit to move forward. 

Meta has also been the target of multiple Republican-led investigations in Congress. Republicans on the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government probed Meta’s activity and communication with the federal government and the Biden administration last year as part of a broader investigation into alleged censorship. 

The platform also came under scrutiny by the House Oversight Committee in August, as part of an investigation into claims that the platform suppressed information about the July 13 assassination attempt of Trump. 

Combined, these factors make it unlikely that Meta will see its legal problems go away anytime soon, law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital in an interview.

‘Facebook is now looking at a tough patch ahead,’ he said. ‘Not only do the Republicans carry both houses of Congress as well as the White House, but there is ongoing litigation in the social media case in Texas.’

Additionally, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is also unlikely to be sympathetic to the views of Meta in any case centered on First Amendment protections and rights to free speech.

The House investigations and litigation have both forced more of Meta’s actions into public view— something Turley said expects to come under further scrutiny in the discovery process in Missouri v. Biden, a case that centers on allegations of political censorship.

‘That discovery is still revealing new details,’ Turley said. ‘So Meta understood that in the coming months, more details would be forthcoming on its censorship program.’

Still, he said, this ‘could be a transformative moment,’ Turley said. 

‘And an alliance of Zuckerberg with [Elon] Musk could turn the tide in this fight over free speech,’ Turley said. ‘And as one of Zuckerberg’s most vocal critics  I welcome him to this fight.’

Attorney General Merrick Garland will release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on the 2020 election interference case against President-elect Trump, according to a court filing.

The Department of Justice told the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Wednesday that Garland intends to release Volume One of Smith’s report to Congress, which covers the allegations that Trump attempted to illegally undo the results of the 2020 presidential election.

However, Garland will not release Volume Two, which covers the classified documents case against Trump, as two defendants in that case still face criminal proceedings. 

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates. 

President Biden said he was still considering pre-emptive pardons for President-elect Donald Trump’s political foes, such as former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Dr. Anthony Fauci, during his final interview with a print publication before leaving the White House.

The interview, conducted over the weekend in the Oval Office by USA Today’s Washington Bureau chief Susan Page, was released Wednesday morning. Biden told Page during the discussion that he was still unsure whether to offer pre-emptive pardons to potential Trump targets, including Cheney, Fauci and others. 

Biden added during the interview that when he met with Trump following his November election victory, he urged the president-elect not to ‘try to settle scores.’

‘He didn’t say, ‘No, I’m going to…’ You know. He didn’t reinforce it. He just basically listened,’ Biden told Page.

Reports of potential pre-emptive pardons for people who could face Trump’s political wrath started to surface after Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, following his conviction on felony gun and tax charges. The pardon came after Biden said he was not considering such a move.

Biden continued handing out pardons and commutations during the waning days of his presidency. Last month, he set a record for the largest single-day act of clemency when he commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people in mid-December.

Some Democrats have warned the move to issue additional broad-based pardons for Trump’s political targets – on Biden’s way out the door – could set a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, others have publicly advocated for the pardons over fear of what Trump might do.

One of the public officials who Biden has reportedly been considering for one of the pre-emptive pardons, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told CNN Monday that he did not want to see every president going forward handing out broad-based, blanket pardons. However, Schiff stopped short of saying whether he would decline such a pardon if it were offered to him.

Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., signaled support for Biden issuing pre-emptive pardons. 

‘I think that without question, Trump is going to try to act in a dictatorial way, in a fascistic way, in a revengeful [way his] first year … towards individuals who he believes harmed him,’ Markey told Boston Public Radio following Trump’s November election victory. ‘If it’s clear by January 19th that [revenge] is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people, because that’s really what our country is going to need next year.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

The Trump transition team is accusing Democrats in the Senate of ‘stonewalling’ Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation to the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI). 

A hearing has yet to be set for President-elect Trump’s DNI pick, despite Republicans pushing for Gabbard’s nomination to be one of the first considered due to national security concerns. The potential delay in her hearing was first reported by Axios. 

Committee rules dictate that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence can’t hold a hearing unless all necessary paperwork is received at least a week beforehand, the office of Intel Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., told Fox News Digital. 

Per Warner’s office, the committee has yet to receive pre-hearing questions from Gabbard or an ethics disclosure. They also haven’t gotten a copy of her FBI background check.

However, a spokesperson for Gabbard and the Trump transition team pushed back on this. According to the transition, the paperwork that was due on Dec. 18 was submitted, the FBI background check has been done, and an additional round of paperwork is due on Thursday and will be finished by then. 

The FBI did not respond immediately to Fox News Digital’s question about whether the background check had been provided to the Intel Committee. 

The transition team also noted that Gabbard has a top-secret security clearance from her Army service, meaning her background check was expedited. 

The spokesperson for Gabbard asserted that Warner was directing Democratic members of the committee not to set up meetings with her until he had done so, drawing out her meeting process. According to them, Warner’s office was emailed on Nov. 27 but did not reply until Dec 29. 

‘After the terrorist attacks on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, it’s sad to see Sen. Warner and Democrats playing politics with Americans’ safety and our national security by stonewalling Lt. Col. Gabbard’s nomination, who is willing to meet with every member who will meet with her as this process continues,’ said transition spokesperson Alexa Henning. 

‘It is vital the Senate confirms President-elect Trump’s national security nominees swiftly, which in the past has been a bipartisan effort. We are working in lockstep with Chairman Cotton and look forward to Lt. Col. Gabbard’s hearing before Inauguration Day.’ 

The only Democrat to bypass this supposed directive was Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., the transition team said. The two met last month at the Capitol. 

Gabbard’s team added that Sens. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Angus King, I-Maine, only responded after Warner’s team finally confirmed their meeting. 

Warner’s office denied issuing any such directive to Democratic members. ‘That is flat-out untrue. Vice Chairman Warner has encouraged every senator on the Committee to meet with the nominee (as he has), carefully evaluate her experience, record and statements for themselves, and reach their own conclusions about whether she has the qualifications and background for this critical role,’ spokesperson Rachel Cohen told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

The intel vice chairman met in person with Gabbard on Tuesday. ‘I had a session with Ms. Gabbard, I went in with a lot of questions. I’ve still got a lot of questions,’ Warner said afterward.

‘This is an extraordinarily serious job that requires maintaining the independence of the intelligence community. It also means maintaining the cooperation of our allies. We’ve got a lot of our intelligence from our allies on a sharing basis, and if those – that information is not kept secure, it raises huge concern. So I’ve got, you know, we’ve got a number of questions out for her. This is the beginning of a process.’ 

A spokesperson for the new Intel chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., told Fox News Digital in a statement, ‘Chairman Cotton intends to hold these hearings before Inauguration Day. The Intelligence Committee, the nominees, and the transition are diligently working toward that goal.’

A source familiar told Fox News Digital that the committee has yet to prompt Gabbard for her written responses to the advance policy questions, and emphasized that she can’t respond to something not yet received. 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump the day before Trump’s high court appearance but said they did not discuss an emergency application the former president’s legal team planned to file to delay the sentencing. 

Alito told Fox News’ Shannon Bream he was asked if he would accept a call from Trump regarding a position that his former clerk, William Levi, is being considered for, and praised Levi’s ‘outstanding resume.’ 

‘William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon,’ said Alito. 

Alito said he did not speak with Trump about the emergency application, nor was he ‘even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed.’ 

‘We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect,’ Alito said. 

Alito told Fox News that he is often asked to give recommendations to potential employers for former clerks and that it was common practice. 

Levi once served in the Justice Department during the President-elect’s first term and also clerked for Alito from 2011 to 2012.

Alito, speaking to Trump the day before Trump’s appearance in high court regarding his New York hush-money case, is causing some to call him out, saying the conversation was an ‘unmistakable breach of protocol.’

‘No person, no matter who they are, should engage in out-of-court communication with a judge or justice who’s considering that person’s case,’ Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonpartisan group Fix the Court, said in a statement.

Alito said he was unaware there was an emergency request being readied by the Trump legal team with respect to the New York State case, and there was no discussion of it.   

He confirmed to Fox News that the call was solely about Levi, and that there was no discussion of any matter involving a Trump legal issue – past, present or future. 

He also said there was no discussion of any issue before the Court or potentially coming before the Court.

ABC News was the first to report the Trump-Alito call. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Biden will be in office less than two more weeks, but that’s not slowing down Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, both Republicans, from taking the Biden administration to court over new energy-efficient housing standards they argue undermine affordable housing and go beyond what federal law allows.

This isn’t the only late lawsuit or complaint filed against the Biden White House in its waning days, and it marks Paxton’s 103rd lawsuit challenging the Democratic administration.

‘So, I don’t know if anybody’s close to that, but he’s kept us busy because we’ve had to prevent him from being more of a king or a dictator than an elected executive who is responsible for implementing, not creating, laws,’ Paxton told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

Paxton said they ‘may have another’ lawsuit on the way, but they may not have it ready in time.

In addition to Utah and Texas, the states participating in the lawsuit with the National Association of Home Builders are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. The coalition contends the administration’s energy standards are not only burdensome but also exceed the authority granted by Congress. 

‘Even as our nation prepares to transition to a new administration, the outgoing HUD and USDA offices are committed to inflicting unwanted and unneeded cost increases on Americans who are already struggling to pay their bills, provide for their families, and secure a brighter future for their children,’ Reyes said in a statement.

The Biden administration has claimed these rules will save money by making homes more energy efficient. However, critics argue the rules are increasing upfront costs and reducing options for buyers.

The lawsuit also questions whether the administration had the legal authority to enforce these rules. The attorneys general say the administration is relying on private organizations, like the International Code Council, to set standards that go beyond what the original law intended.

Biden’s renewable energy agenda has been a controversial focal point of energy critics over the last four years. On Monday, Biden also signed an executive action that bans new drilling and further oil and natural gas development on more than 625 million acres of U.S. coastal and offshore waters. 

Trump’s press secretary quickly slammed the order on X. 

‘This is a disgraceful decision designed to exact political revenge on the American people who gave President Trump a mandate to increase drilling and lower gas prices. Rest assured, Joe Biden will fail, and we will drill, baby, drill,’ Karoline Leavitt wrote on X. 

More than a dozen Republican AGs over the last four years have kept the Biden administration on alert and issued notices on several of his policies. In November, Iowa Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird, alongside more than 20 other attorneys general, sent a letter to special counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, calling on them to drop their cases against President-elect Trump to avoid the risk of a ‘constitutional crisis.’

Paxton also filed a lawsuit in November against the Biden-Harris Department of Justice to prevent potential destruction of any records from Smith’s ‘corrupt investigation into President Donald Trump,’ according to his office. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment but did not hear back by time of publication.

President-elect Donald Trump is envisioning a future without new wind energy projects under his administration, arguing that this power source is economically impractical and is causing harm to marine life.

Trump has long criticized using wind farms as a main form of energy production, but his latest remarks suggest that his incoming administration could place major restrictions on the future production of new wind-powered energy projects.

‘It’s the most expensive energy there is. It’s many, many times more expensive than clean natural gas,’ Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday. ‘So we’re going to try and have a policy where no windmills are being built.’

The federal government currently offers several different ways to obtain subsidies for windmill production, which Trump pointed to as one of the main issues with the energy source.

‘The only people that want them are the people getting rich off windmills, getting massive subsidies from the U.S. government,’ he added. ‘You don’t want energy that needs subsidy.’ 

The incoming president has also claimed potential interference with sea mammals is an issue, specifically in Massachusetts.

‘You see what’s happening up in the Massachusetts area, where they had two whales wash ashore in I think a 17-year period,’ Trump said during the news conference. ‘Now they had 14 this season. The windmills are driving the whales crazy, obviously.’

Trump finds consensus with some environmental groups on the issue.

‘That’s the only thing out there that’s changed, and it’s changed dramatically,’ said Constance Gee of Green Oceans, a group that strives to protect ocean life, according to WCVB 5. ‘There is so much ship traffic out there. It’s so loud. There’s piledriving. There’s sub-bottom profiling with sonar.’

The National Marine Fisheries Service, however, says that there is no evidence currently connecting wind turbines and whale deaths.

Trump’s latest comments were criticized by a Democratic ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, who said the incoming president ‘is completely out of touch.’ 

‘Trump is against wind energy because he doesn’t understand our country’s energy needs and dislikes the sight of turbines near his private country clubs,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a statement.

Wind energy is currently the largest source of renewable energy in the U.S., according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). However, such energy production has received growing opposition from members of the GOP in recent years, who have expressed concerns over its potential adverse effects.

‘Like the canary in the coal mine, the recent spate of tragic whale deaths shed new light and increased scrutiny to the fast-tracking of thousands of wind turbines off our coast,’ Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said in March 2023.

Over the past four years, President Joe Biden has made major investments in the offshore wind industry as part of his green energy push, approving the nation’s first 11 commercial scale offshore wind projects.