On Saturday, Israeli tanks and troops began maneuvering ever closer to Gaza City’s outskirts in preparation for a full-scale offensive. Eyewitness accounts reported intensified shelling as Israel is moving toward what could be the defining battle of its war against Hamas terrorists: the capture of Gaza City.

Israel’s security cabinet approved the operation, known as Gideon’s Chariots B, and has deployed up to five IDF divisions toward the city’s outskirts—a highly significant mobilization. Thousands of reservists—some 60,000—have been called up.

John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Madison Policy Forum and executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, told Fox News Digital the scale of this operation is unprecedented. ‘This will be a bigger challenge than anything the IDF has faced, arguably ever. It is the densest location in Gaza, the heart of Hamas’s stronghold. And you don’t really know what the tunnels are until you get into them.’

Spencer said that ‘Hamas built semi-circles of defenses oriented at Israel. But the IDF has shown creativity in maneuvering around obstacles.’ Israel plans to send more combat power into Gaza City than it has deployed across the entire Strip thus far. ‘If your goal is to clear Gaza City of Hamas’s military capabilities and search for hostages, you need that scale,’ he said.

Gadi Shamni, former commander of the Gaza Division and ex-head of IDF Central Command, told Fox News Digital, ‘It is a crowded city with refugee camps, dense neighborhoods, high-rises and a highly developed underground. People say the IDF controls above and below ground, but in the last campaign we saw that wasn’t always true. Even when you destroy tunnels, Hamas can rebuild them quickly. The longer you stay with more forces, the more opportunities you create for the other side to attack.’

A former senior Israeli security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Fox News Digital, ‘The IDF can militarily conquer Gaza, but the costs will be immense on both sides. The IDF will fight with a method of ‘destroy everything first’—air force bombs, massive charges, detonating streets from afar, wiping out entire areas and advancing slowly.

‘The IDF has gained enormous experience over the past two years and will use those tactics in this battle. … You are strong, the enemy is weak, and you have patience. Even the weather is on Israel’s side, with winter not arriving until January.’

The tunnels remain the most formidable element of Hamas’s defense. Unlike ISIS terrorists in Mosul, Spencer said, Hamas has built an underground tunnel network that allows commanders and fighters to move between positions avoid strikes, and conceal hostages. ‘The IDF that will go into Gaza City is not the IDF of 2023,’ Spencer said, pointing to rapid adaptations in the use of drones, robots, and specialized units for tunnel warfare. ‘They’ve learned so much. But this will still be slow, very careful, and costly.’

To illustrate the scale, Spencer pointed to the 2004 battle for Fallujah in Iraq. ‘It took the Marine Corps about two weeks to clear Fallujah—every single home, building, shop. About 68,000 structures were cleared, as if somebody physically looked in them,’ he said. ‘If all five of these [IDF] divisions were doing that, absolutely, you could get it done in a few months. But the enemy always gets a vote. You can’t rush to failure.’

The former Israeli senior security official described the operation as ‘telescopic—very slow, with pistons working one by one. This pace also gives Hamas the chance at every stage to try to cut a deal.’

On the fate of hostages possibly held in Gaza City, the official was blunt: ‘Some of the hostages will die. I wouldn’t be surprised if more brigades are brought in—the IDF is using immense ground power to seize urban terrain.’

Shamni also warned Hamas may relocate hostages, 50 hostages, of whom 20 are still believed to be alive, into combat zones to deter strikes—a tactic he said the IDF would be reluctant to engage for fear of harming captives, a conflict between military necessity and core values.

Shamni highlighted a particularly fraught dilemma: evacuating civilians. ‘You don’t know who will leave, how many will leave, how they’ll react—or whether Hamas will even allow them to leave,’ he said. ‘I assume many will not evacuate, and then you face the hard dilemma of fighting in a place full of noncombatants.’

Spencer added that history shows around 10% of civilians stay behind. ‘Even 10% of a million is 100,000 people,’ he said.

Shamni forecast a protracted operation: ‘It could take months. Two months might seize the surface, but then you still have to clear tunnels. It will cost many lives—including civilians. The worst-case scenario is that no hostages are found alive or dead because of the destruction.’

Shamni, who also served as Israel’s military attaché in Washington, warned that the dual goals of defeating Hamas and returning hostages are contradictory, risking years of drawn-out fighting. 

Spencer, however, called the decision to press forward a ‘calculated risk,’ explaining that while military action carries dangers, ‘you weigh the risk of Hamas killing the hostages against the certainty that they’re being starved and tortured. Military pressure is the last resort. Without conquering Gaza City, Hamas will continue to hold a sanctuary.’

EXCLUSIVE – New Republican National Committee (RNC) chair Joe Gruters outlined his mission as he took over steering the GOP’s national party committee.

‘The midterms are ahead, where we must expand our major majority in the House, in the Senate, and continue electing Republicans nationwide,’ Gruters said as he addressed committee members moments after being unanimously elected chair at the RNC’s summer meeting, held this year in Atlanta, Georgia.

Gruters, a state senator and RNC committee member from Florida, who, until his election as chair on Friday, briefly served as the national party committee’s treasurer, is a longtime ally of President Donald Trump. His move to the RNC chairmanship cements Trump’s dominance over the GOP as it prepares for midterm battles next year.

And a month ago, Trump endorsed Gruters to succeed now-former RNC chair Michael Whatley, who stepped down as he runs for the Senate in battleground North Carolina in the blockbuster race to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Thom Tillis.

The ascension of Gruters to RNC chair is the latest sign of Trump’s complete control over the national party committee.

‘This is the president’s party. This is the president’s vision, overall. The party fully embraces the president,’ Gruters said as he and Whatley stood for an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital.

Whatley, who Trump picked to steer the RNC a year and a half ago, noted that ‘we have transformed the RNC, basically the way that President Trump has transformed the Republican Party.’

Gruters has been a major Trump supporter dating back to the president’s first campaign for the White House. Gruters served as Florida co-chair Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The Democratic National Committee, taking aim at Gruters following his election as chair, claimed that ‘Gruters and Trump will have a lot to bond over while they turn the Republican Party into even more of a personal propaganda machine for Trump.’

Republicans swept back to power last November, with Trump winning the White House, the GOP retaking control of the Senate and holding onto their fragile majority in the House.

But looking ahead to next year’s midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses House and Senate seats, the GOP will be defending their congressional majorities.

A key part of the RNC’s strategy going forward is Trump.

‘We’re gonna ride the president all the way to victory in the midterms, and we are going to win big,’ Gruters emphasized.

Asked about the top three items on his to-do list as he takes over as RNC chair, Gruters said, ‘number one, it’s still election integrity. That’s the most important thing, protecting the vote. And it’s about winning the midterms.’

‘It’s about going back to the fundamentals of registering voters and turning our voters out,’ the new chair added.

Gruters also highlighted Trump’s sweeping GOP-crafted domestic policy bill, which the Republican majorities in Congress passed this summer along near-party lines.

‘It’s our agenda,’ Whatley said in a Fox News Digital interview last month, as he pointed to the massive tax cuts and spending bill that Trump signed into law on July 4.

The measure is stuffed full of Trump’s 2024 campaign trail promises and second-term priorities on tax cuts, immigration, defense, energy and the debt limit. 

It includes extending the president’s signature 2017 tax cuts and eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay. 

By making his first-term tax rates permanent – they were set to expire later this year – the bill will cut taxes by nearly $4.4 trillion over the next decade, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 

The measure also provides billions for border security and codifies the president’s controversial immigration crackdown.

And the new law also restructures Medicaid – the almost 60-year-old federal program that provides health coverage to roughly 71 million low-income Americans. 

The changes to Medicaid, as well as cuts to food stamps, another one of the nation’s major safety net programs, were drafted in part as an offset to pay for extending Trump’s tax cuts. The measure includes a slew of new rules and regulations, including work requirements for many of those seeking Medicaid coverage.

Democrats, for months, have repeatedly blasted Republicans over the social safety net changes. And they’ve spotlighted a slew of national polls conducted both  before and after the measure was passed into law, that indicate the bill’s popularity in negative territory.

But Gruters sees the new law as campaign ammunition.

‘Every single Democrat in Congress voted for a tax increase on average everyday Americans,’ Gruters argued. ‘And that big, beautiful bill has something for every single American, whether you’re working class, whether you’re a small business owner, everybody benefits, and we’re going to be able to ride that bill all the way to victory.’

Russia’s top nuclear official this week said Moscow is facing ‘colossal threats’ and needs to update its nuclear capabilities.

Without directly naming where Russia’s chief nuclear threat is coming from, Director General of the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Alexei Likhachev said, ‘the current geopolitical situation, is a time of colossal threats to the existence of our country.’

‘Therefore, the nuclear shield, which is also a sword, is a guarantee of our sovereignty,’ he added, according to Russian state news agency RIA. ‘We understand today that the nuclear shield must only be improved in the coming years.’

The comments came less than a week after Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump convened for a face-to-face meeting that marked the first time a U.S. leader has met with the Kremlin chief since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. 

While Trump and Putin appeared positive following the talks, little seemed to have been concretely accomplished in the meeting and hope surrounding a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire appeared to decline as the week progressed. 

It is unclear why Likhachev issued comments regarding Russia’s nuclear program at this time, and he did not detail what sort of updates he would be looking to make to Moscow’s ‘shield’ program. 

Trump issued similar comments earlier this year when in May he announced his plans to develop the ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system — inspired by Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defense system — and which is expected to cost at least $175 billion.

Though security experts have been sounding the alarm when it comes to China’s escalating nuclear development, together Russia and the U.S. continue to possess 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

Moscow continues to hold nearly 4,400 nuclear warheads, over 1,500 of which are ‘strategically deployed’ while the U.S. possesses more than 3,700 warheads in its stockpiles with 1,400 deployed, according to the Arms Control Association. 

While nuclear disarmament was the standing international goal following the end of the Cold War, the trajectory of this policy remains dubious as relations between Washington and Moscow have once again turned precarious amid Putin’s war in Ukraine, and his burgeoning relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. 

The New Start Treaty remains the only bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia, and though it was extended in 2021, it is set to expire in February 2026. The future of the treaty – first signed in 2010 – also remains unclear as Moscow paused its participation in the agreement in 2023.

Putin said that this suspension meant he would continue to abide by stockpile limits under the treaty, but he would not allow for continued U.S. inspections. 

Fox News Digital could not immediately reach the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for comment as nations increasingly look to expand their nuclear capabilities just six months ahead of when the New Start Treaty is set to expire. 

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson criticized on Thursday what she said were the ‘recent tendencies’ of the Supreme Court to side with the Trump administration, providing her remarks in a bitter dissent in a case related to National Institutes of Health grants.

Jackson, a Biden appointee, rebuked her colleagues for ‘lawmaking’ on the shadow docket, where an unusual volume of fast, preliminary decisionmaking has taken place related to the hundreds of lawsuits President Donald Trump’s administration has faced.

‘This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,’ Jackson wrote.

The liberal justice pointed to the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of Calvinball, which describes it as the practice of applying rules inconsistently for self-serving purposes.

Jackson, the high court’s most junior justice, said the majority ‘[bent] over backwards to accommodate’ the Trump administration by allowing the NIH to cancel about $783 million in grants that did not align with the administration’s priorities.

Some of the grants were geared toward research on diversity, equity and inclusion; COVID-19; and gender identity. Jackson argued the grants went far beyond that and that ‘life-saving biomedical research’ was at stake.

‘So, unfortunately, this newest entry in the Court’s quest to make way for the Executive Branch has real consequences, for the law and for the public,’ Jackson wrote.

The Supreme Court’s decision was fractured and only a partial victory for the Trump administration.

In a 5-4 decision greenlighting, for now, the NIH’s existing grant cancellations, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices. In a second 5-4 decision that keeps a lower court’s block on the NIH’s directives about the grants intact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, sided with Roberts and the three liberals. The latter portion of the ruling could hinder the NIH’s ability to cancel future grants.

The varying opinions by the justices came out to 36 pages total, which is lengthy relative to other emergency rulings. Jackson’s dissent made up more than half of that.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley observed in an op-ed last month a rise in ‘rhetoric’ from Jackson, who garnered a reputation as the most vocal justice during oral arguments upon her ascension to the high court.

‘The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself,’ Turley said.

Barrett had sharp words for Jackson in a recent highly anticipated decision in which the Supreme Court blocked lower courts from imposing universal injunctions on the government. Barrett accused Jackson of subscribing to an ‘imperial judiciary’ and instructed people not to ‘dwell’ on her colleague’s dissent.

Barrett, the lone justice to issue the split decision in the NIH case, said challenges to the grants should be brought by the grant recipients in the Court of Federal Claims.

But Barrett said ‘both law and logic’ support that the federal court in Massachusetts does have the authority to review challenges to the guidance the NIH issued about grant money. Barrett joined Jackson and the other three in denying that portion of the Trump administration’s request, though she said she would not weigh in at this early stage on the merits of the case as it proceeds through the lower courts.

Jackson was dissatisfied with this partial denial of the Trump administration’s request, saying it was the high court’s way of preserving the ‘mirage of judicial review while eliminating its purpose: to remedy harms.’

Longtime Republican consultant Roger Stone lambasted Trump adviser-turned-staunch-critic John Bolton following the FBI raid on his Bethesda, Maryland residence on Friday.

‘Good morning. John Bolton. How does it feel to have your home raided at 6 o’clock in the morning?’ Stone riffed on X, six years after the Biden FBI raided his own Fort Lauderdale home in an operation to which CNN was reportedly tipped off to.

‘Wait! Where was CNN?’ added Stone, who has often criticized Republicans who become disloyal to President Donald Trump.

‘What goes around comes around- and Roger Stone still ‘did nothing wrong,’’ he said, quoting the catchphrase and shirts that were circulated after his 2019 raid.

Stone, who began his political career volunteering for 1964 presidential nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., before moving on to advising President Richard Nixon, also posted a photo of himself from his arrest wearing a ‘Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong’ shirt.

Stone continued his critique of Bolton later Friday morning with another X post that included a split photo of the two men:

‘The man on the left had his home rated at 6 am because he did something wrong. The man on the right had his home raided at 6 am because he didn’t. Karma is b—-.’

He later released a mock statement claiming Bolton admitted his signature mustache was ‘appropriated from a member of the Village People.’

Bolton, who held diplomatic posts under Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush before joining President Donald Trump’s first administration, later broke with Trump over his handling of COVID-19, his approach to diplomacy, and the impeachment saga.

Trump often returned fire at Bolton after their messy breakup, and Stone occasionally chimed in to defend his longtime friend from New York.

After Bolton attacked Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, calling her a ‘serious threat to national security’ – Stone returned fire.

‘Watching war pig John Bolton attack the appointment of Tulsi Gabbard as DNI makes me all the more certain that she is precisely the right person for the job,’ Stone said in November.

After the raid on Bolton’s home, FBI agents were also seen in DuPont Circle, D.C., removing boxes from the Baltimore native’s personal office.

The FBI launched a raid Friday morning into the home and office of John Bolton — President Donald Trump’s national security advisor from 2018 and 2019 — months after Trump yanked Bolton’s security clearance in January upon taking office. 

The two men have a long history of trading barbs following Bolton’s exit from Trump’s first administration — all of which escalated after Bolton sought to publish a memoir in 2020 that included some unflattering details about his time in the White House. 

While Trump has labeled Bolton a ‘wacko’ and a ‘dope,’ Bolton has had his fair share of harsh words for the president. 

‘I don’t think he’s fit for office,’ Bolton said in an interview with ABC News in June 2020, ahead of his memoir’s release. ‘I don’t think he has the competence to carry out the job.’ 

‘There really isn’t any guiding principle that I was able to discern other than what’s good for Donald Trump’s reelection,’ Bolton said at the time. ‘I think he was so focused on the reelection that longer-term considerations fell by the wayside.’ 

Bolton also characterized Trump as lacking focus on policy while being very fixated on himself — to the detriment of national security matters. 

‘His policymaking is so incoherent, so unfocused, so unstructured, so wrapped around his own personal political fortunes, that mistakes are being made that will have grave consequences for the national security of the United States,’ Bolton also said in an ABC interview in June 2020. 

The first Trump administration sought to block the release of Bolton’s memoir, ‘The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,’ and asserted it contained classified material. 

The book alleged that Trump ‘pleaded’ Chinese President Xi Jinping to support Trump’s reelection campaign, and called the president ‘stunningly uninformed.’ 

While the Justice Department attempted to prevent its publication on the grounds that the book disclosed classified matters pertaining to U.S. intelligence sources and methods, a federal judge signed off on the publication of the book, which ultimately was published June 23, 2020. 

Meanwhile, Trump discredited Bolton’s assertions included in the book, and hurled his own insults back at Bolton. 

‘Many of the ridiculous statements he attributes to me were never made, pure fiction,’ Trump said in a social media post June 18, 2020. ‘Just trying to get even for firing him like the sick puppy he is!’ 

‘Wacko John Bolton’s ‘exceedingly tedious’(New York Times) book is made up of lies & fake stories. Said all good about me, in print, until the day I fired him,’ Trump said in a separate social media post on June 18, 2020. ‘A disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war. Never had a clue, was ostracized & happily dumped. What a dope!’

Bolton departed his post at the White House in September 2019. While Bolton said that he left due to his own volition, Trump claimed that he fired Bolton. 

Bolton was not arrested or taken into custody following the raid on his home and office Friday.

Trump told reporters Friday that he had no knowledge of the raid and learned about it watching TV. 

‘He’s a, not a smart guy,’ Trump said Friday. ‘But he could be a very unpatriotic. I mean, we’re going to find out. I know nothing about it. I just saw it this morning. They did a raid.’ 

The Trump administration began handing over documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case to the House Oversight Committee on Friday, a spokesperson for the panel said.

House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., has committed to making the documents public in the interest of transparency, albeit after a committee review for sensitive information related to Epstein’s victims.

‘The production contains thousands of pages of documents. The Trump DOJ is providing records at a far quicker pace than anything the Biden DOJ ever provided,’ the spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

‘The Committee intends to make these records public after thorough review to ensure any victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted. The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations.’

The spokesperson added that the Trump DOJ was complying with Comer’s subpoena at a quicker pace than former Biden administration Attorney General Merrick Garland did in handing over materials related to Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into ex-President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents.

House investigators originally requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce a tranche of files pertaining to the late pedophile and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, by 12 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19. 

It’s part of a wider bipartisan investigation into the handling of Epstein’s case, which has also reached several former attorneys general, FBI directors, and former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Comer announced Monday afternoon that he would delay the deadline until Friday in light of the DOJ’s cooperation.

‘Officials with the Department of Justice have informed us that the Department will begin to provide Epstein-related records to the Oversight Committee this week on Friday. There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,’ Comer said in a statement.

‘I appreciate the Trump administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.’

Requested materials included all documents and communications in the DOJ’s possession relating to both Epstein and Maxwell, as well as files ‘further relating or referring to human trafficking, exploitation of minors, sexual abuse, or related activity.’

Documents relating specifically to the DOJ’s prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell, Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida, and any materials related to Epstein’s death were requested.

The House Oversight Committee asked for the documents to be largely unredacted, according to a subpoena obtained by Fox News Digital, ‘except for redactions to protect the personally identifiable information of victims, for any child sex abuse material as defined by the Department of Justice Manual, and any other redactions required by law.’

The deadline comes a day after former Attorney General Bill Barr was deposed by the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors. Barr was the first person scheduled to appear in the committee’s probe under subpoena.

The Clintons both have separate deposition dates scheduled for October.

Comer was directed to send the flurry of subpoenas after a House Oversight Committee subcommittee panel voted in favor of them during an unrelated hearing in July.

Renewed furor over Epstein’s case engulfed Capitol Hill after intra-GOP fallout over the Trump administration’s handling of the matter.

The DOJ effectively declared the case closed after an ‘exhaustive review,’ revealing Epstein had no ‘client list,’ did not blackmail ‘prominent individuals,’ and confirmed he did die by suicide in a New York City jail while awaiting prosecution.

In response to the backlash by some on the right, Trump directed the DOJ to release grand jury testimony related to Epstein – a request that’s been tied up in courts since then – while Attorney General Pam Bondi had her deputy, Todd Blanche, interview Maxwell in person to uncover any possible new information.

Comer also subpoenaed Maxwell but agreed to defer her scheduled deposition until after the Supreme Court heard her appeal to overturn her conviction.

Fox News Digital reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized on Thursday what she said were the ‘recent tendencies’ of the Supreme Court to side with the Trump administration, providing her remarks in a bitter dissent in a case related to National Institutes of Health grants.

Jackson, a Biden appointee, rebuked her colleagues for ‘lawmaking’ on the shadow docket, where an unusual volume of fast, preliminary decisionmaking has taken place related to the hundreds of lawsuits President Donald Trump’s administration has faced.

‘This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,’ Jackson wrote.

The liberal justice pointed to the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of Calvinball, which describes it as the practice of applying rules inconsistently for self-serving purposes.

Jackson, the high court’s most junior justice, said the majority ‘[bent] over backwards to accommodate’ the Trump administration by allowing the NIH to cancel about $783 million in grants that did not align with the administration’s priorities.

Some of the grants were geared toward research on diversity, equity and inclusion; COVID-19; and gender identity. Jackson argued the grants went far beyond that and that ‘life-saving biomedical research’ was at stake.

‘So, unfortunately, this newest entry in the Court’s quest to make way for the Executive Branch has real consequences, for the law and for the public,’ Jackson wrote.

The Supreme Court’s decision was fractured and only a partial victory for the Trump administration.

In a 5-4 decision greenlighting, for now, the NIH’s existing grant cancellations, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices. In a second 5-4 decision that keeps a lower court’s block on the NIH’s directives about the grants intact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, sided with Roberts and the three liberals. The latter portion of the ruling could hinder the NIH’s ability to cancel future grants.

The varying opinions by the justices came out to 36 pages total, which is lengthy relative to other emergency rulings. Jackson’s dissent made up more than half of that.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley observed in an op-ed last month a rise in ‘rhetoric’ from Jackson, who garnered a reputation as the most vocal justice during oral arguments upon her ascension to the high court.

‘The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself,’ Turley said.

Barrett had sharp words for Jackson in a recent highly anticipated decision in which the Supreme Court blocked lower courts from imposing universal injunctions on the government. Barrett accused Jackson of subscribing to an ‘imperial judiciary’ and instructed people not to ‘dwell’ on her colleague’s dissent.

Barrett, the lone justice to issue the split decision in the NIH case, said challenges to the grants should be brought by the grant recipients in the Court of Federal Claims.

But Barrett said ‘both law and logic’ support that the federal court in Massachusetts does have the authority to review challenges to the guidance the NIH issued about grant money. Barrett joined Jackson and the other three in denying that portion of the Trump administration’s request, though she said she would not weigh in at this early stage on the merits of the case as it proceeds through the lower courts.

Jackson was dissatisfied with this partial denial of the Trump administration’s request, saying it was the high court’s way of preserving the ‘mirage of judicial review while eliminating its purpose: to remedy harms.’

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — a largely taxpayer-funded body that has taken in hundreds of millions in federal dollars — is facing pushback for fast-tracking a climate review that critics say is an attempt to undermine the Trump administration’s energy agenda.

Earlier this month, Politico reported that NASEM is using ‘internal funding’ to pay for a review that will be released in September in order to ‘inform’ the Environmental Protection Agency’s move to rescind the Obama-era greenhouse gas endangerment finding, a cornerstone of climate regulation that conservatives say has strangled American energy production.

That effort is being led by molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman who, in addition to being a member of NASEM, serves as an External Science Advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance, a group tied to the progressive consulting behemoth Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund, a nonprofit that pushes a variety of progressive causes. 

Critics tell Fox News Digital they have concerns about the timing of this move and the possible political motives attached to the fast-tracked review. 

‘NASEM’s decision to do a fast-track study on greenhouse gas emissions and endangerment in response to the EPA rule undermines the legitimacy of the National Academies,’ Daren Bakst, Director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told Fox News Digital. 

‘The process shows the numerous problems with what they are doing. On August 7, NASEM announced they were doing a report to be finished in September. That is an incredible rush job that by itself undermines the legitimacy of what they are doing. Likely, the report has already been written in whole or in part, given the timing. This rush gives the impression they have their conclusions and are just working backwards. ‘

Conservatives have long argued that groups tied to Arabella Advisors operate as a ‘dark money’ network, influencing policy debates and shaping research priorities behind the scenes. This dynamic reflects a growing entanglement between research institutions and ideologically driven funding streams. 

The concern is heightened by the fact that NASEM derived roughly 58% of its budget from federal funds in 2024. The New York Times reported that ‘about 70%’ of the budget came from federal funds in 2023. 

‘To me, it seems like a move to protect NASEM’s position as the gatekeeper of official science,’ Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital. ‘I think it’s appropriate to ask whether government-funded researchers and organizations might have a conflict of interest in setting the terms of the climate debate. For example, it’s clear that more alarm means more research funding.’

Regarding the Arabella connection, Fisher said that ‘any overlap’ between the NASEM effort and political advocacy groups ‘deserves scrutiny.’

‘I’d like to know who pushed for NASEM’s involvement in the first place and whether ideological groups applied any pressure to get NASEM to join the political fray,’ Fisher said. ‘In any case, I’m surprised to see NASEM inject itself into inherently political fights over EPA policy.’

James Taylor, President of the Heartland Institute, told Fox News Digital that NASEM is a ‘leftist’ and ‘statist’ institution that is ‘funded by and dependent on big government.’

Fox News Digital previously reported that NASEM, sometimes referred to as NAS, has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in recent years while doling out hefty salaries to its top brass and bankrolling a variety of left-wing initiatives. 

‘It has long since stopped being a scientific organization and is now merely a political one,’ Taylor said. 

‘For example, in a recent so-called climate science assessment, only 22% of the authors had PhDs, which was equaled by the 22% of authors who worked for environmental activist groups. Counting Democrat politicians who were also co-authors, the NAS assessment had more environmental activists writing the report than actual scientists. NAS is a joke and has no credibility at all.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a NASEM spokesperson said, ‘This fast-track study is being funded by private donations, and is intended to inform public comments requested by EPA.’

‘The New Venture Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization that uses a fiscal sponsorship model to support a wide range of nonpartisan projects,’ a New Venture Fund spokesperson told Fox News Digital. ‘We fully support efforts to increase funding for foundational science and proudly served as Science Philanthropy Alliance’s fiscal sponsor until it spun off in 2023.’

‘Arabella Advisors is an independent organization and one of our many vendors. They do not ‘manage’ New Venture Fund or have any say in our funding or fiscal sponsorship decisions.’

The revelation comes as the Trump administration seeks to rescind the Obama-era greenhouse gas endangerment finding, a cornerstone of climate regulation that critics say has strangled American energy production.

The 45-day public comment period for the proposal is set to end in mid-September. 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declared that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ‘threaten both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.’

This finding established the EPA’s legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pledged to roll back the assessment, claiming it has fueled an avalanche of regulations that have cost the U.S. economy over $1 trillion. He doubled down again in July during a speech in Indiana, delivered against a backdrop of trucks, while slamming the Biden-Harris Administration’s electric vehicle mandate.

‘With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,’ Zeldin said, adding that regulatory relief will give U.S. consumers affordable choices when car shopping.

An Arabella spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Arabella ‘does not fund any organizations.’

‘We are a professional services firm that provides administrative and operational support such as compliance, HR, and accounting to nonprofit clients. We are not a donor and we are not a funder.’