Business tycoon Elon Musk agreed with Vice President JD Vance’s assertion that the bulk of violent crime is perpetrated by a small pool of people who should be locked up.

‘The big lie the Democrats told about violent crime is that it’s ‘systemic’ and therefore no one’s really responsible. If the ‘system’ is to blame then you fund a bunch of nonprofits that don’t do anything besides give jobs to underqualified radicals,’ Vance noted in a post on X. ‘The reality is that the gross majority of violent crime is committed by a very small group of people and we should be throwing them in prison.’

Musk agreed, saying that people who have greater sympathy for those likely to perpetrate murder than for those at risk of becoming murder victims are ‘disgusting.’

‘Yes,’ he commented when sharing Vance’s post. ‘What it comes down to is this: Do you have more sympathy for those highly likely to commit murder or more for those at risk of being murdered? If the former, you are a disgusting human being and yet so many on the radical left choose this!’

Republican Rep. Beth Van Duyne of Texas also shared Vance’s post.

‘The crime and homeless industrial complexes Democrats have set up with NGOs and nonprofits’ aren’t designed to solve problems,’ the congresswoman asserted. ‘Rather, they are fraudulent entities which exist to launder taxpayer dollars to enrich themselves, their friends, and further radical, pro-criminal policies that only endanger hard working Americans.’

Musk has also advocated for locking up repeat violent criminals for life.

‘A second conviction for aggravated violent crime should get life imprisonment,’ he wrote on X.

House Republicans are having early talks about cracking down on crime nationwide, the No. 2 GOP lawmaker suggested on Tuesday.

‘There are discussions about addressing some of these problems at a more federal level, but right now, we’re focused on D.C.,’ House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told Fox News Digital.

‘The president’s been very effectively reducing crime in D.C., and he’s got some limitations right now with a lot of these ordinances, and that’s what we’re focused on cleaning up.’

He added, however, ‘But we’re not done.’

It comes after President Donald Trump federalized the Washington, D.C., police force and deployed federal troops to the capital city in a bid to end violent crime. He’s now eyeing National Guard deployments in other cities across the country, though the idea has been met with criticism by Democrats.

The House Oversight Committee is slated to advance several bills dealing with D.C. criminal sentencing this week, which will likely get full House votes in the coming months.

Scalise’s comments suggest that while lawmakers are currently focused on overhauling Washington, D.C.’s criminal policies, it’s possible they could turn to the rest of the country at some point as well.

Trump similarly signaled last month that he wanted to see a bill dealing with crime across the U.S.

‘Speaker Mike Johnson, and Leader John Thune, are working with me, and other Republicans, on a Comprehensive Crime Bill. It’s what our Country needs,’ he wrote on Truth Social.

House GOP leaders also railed against crime in Democrat-run cities and states during their weekly press briefing on Tuesday – specifically their leaders’ opposition to National Guard deployments.

Such moves by the federal government could risk court battles with Democrat-run states and cities, as was the case when Trump sent the National Guard into Los Angeles earlier this year over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

‘I mean, these mayors in these big blue cities have to ask this question – and I think their voters and the residents and the law-abiding citizens in all these cities should be asking local leadership, ‘How long are you going to put up with this? When are you going to put your foot down and do the right thing?’’ Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., posed.

‘This is common sense. And I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the Democrats think this is some sort of winning political message. Yield, man. Let the troops come into your city, and show how crime can be reduced.’

Scalise, meanwhile, said at the press conference that Democrats ‘want crime to continue.’

‘They want to continue defunding the police and try to have it both ways. And President Trump is tired of that game, because he’s tired of watching people be hurt. There’s no reason for this violent crime wave that we see in so many cities,’ Scalise said. 

‘So we’re going to continue to have the president’s back and, frankly, have the American people’s back, regardless of their party, regardless of what city they live in. Everybody deserves to be safe, and Republicans are going to continue to push policies to help put that in place.’

Former Vice President Kamala Harris admits that former President Joe Biden got ‘tired’ while in office, but she insists there was no ‘big conspiracy’ to cover up his decline.

Harris made the claims in a newly released excerpt from her upcoming book, ‘107 Days,’ which details her experience running for president with frequent throwbacks to her time as number two in the White House. The excerpt, published by The Atlantic, focuses on her relationship with Biden and her frustration with how she was treated in the Biden-Harris administration.

‘Many people want to spin up a narrative of some big conspiracy at the White House to hide Joe Biden’s infirmity. Here is the truth as I lived it. Joe Biden was a smart guy with long experience and deep conviction, able to discharge the duties of president,’ Harris wrote. ‘On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump on his best. But at 81, Joe got tired.’

‘That’s when his age showed in physical and verbal stumbles. I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the West Coast for a Hollywood fundraiser. I don’t believe it was incapacity. If I believed that, I would have said so. As loyal as I am to President Biden, I am more loyal to my country,’ she added.

Harris went on to complain that Biden’s staff didn’t give her the support she felt was necessary as vice president, on issues from foreign policy to illegal immigration.

She complained that getting the White House press office, including then-press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, to defend her was ‘almost impossible.’

‘Worse, I often learned that the president’s staff was adding fuel to negative narratives that sprang up around me. One narrative that took a stubborn hold was that I had a ‘chaotic’ office and unusually high staff turnover during my first year,’ Harris wrote, going on to say that some people just can’t hack it in a White House role.

‘Their thinking was zero-sum: If she’s shining, he’s dimmed. None of them grasped that if I did well, he did well,’  she added regarding Biden’s staff. ‘That given the concerns about his age, my visible success as his vice president was vital. It would serve as a testament to his judgment in choosing me and reassurance that if something happened, the country was in good hands. My success was important for him.

The former vice president also said Democrats across the board should have been more aggressive in pushing Biden not to run, saying it was ‘reckless’ to leave the decision in his hands for so long.

”It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.’ We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision,’ Harris wrote.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause as the high court inches toward revisiting a landmark ruling about executive power over terminations.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a brief order that Biden-appointed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter should remain terminated from her job, at least for the next week, while the Supreme Court continues to consider her case.

The high court’s order responding to an emergency petition from the Trump administration comes as Slaughter has faced whiplash in the courts while challenging Trump’s decision to fire her at will.

A district court reinstated Slaughter, and then through the appeals process, Slaughter was re-fired, re-hired, and then re-fired once again on Monday. After an appellate court allowed her to return to work on Sept. 2, she did so right away, even sharing on social media multiple dissents she has authored in the days since her return.

Fox News Digital reached out to Slaughter’s legal team for comment.

Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and the other Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, stood in tension with the FTC Act, which says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for cause, such as malfeasance.

Their firings are at odds with a 90-year-old Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which found that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner was illegal.

While the Supreme Court has let Trump’s firings at other independent agencies proceed temporarily while the lawsuits play out in the lower courts, Slaughter’s case has presented the most blatant question yet to the justices about whether they plan to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. Legal scholars have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court has an appetite to reverse or narrow that decision.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued to the high court that the FTC wielded significant executive power and that its authority had expanded since the 1930s, when Humphrey’s Executor first established that an at-will FTC firing was illegal. The FTC now enforces dozens of statutes, including the Sherman Act, and has power to bring lawsuits seeking injunctions and penalties, Sauer noted.

‘Contrary to the lower courts’ suggestion, Humphrey’s Executor does not mean that Article II permits tenure protections for any agency named the ‘Federal Trade Commission,’ no matter how much more executive power the FTC accumulates,’ Sauer said.

A specialized unit with the Los Angeles Police Department is no longer providing former Vice President Kamala Harris security, according to a new report. 

Officers with LAPD’s Metropolitan Division, which falls under the police department’s special operations group, stepped in to provide Harris with security after President Donald Trump yanked Harris’ security detail in August, The New York Times reported. 

But that protection ended on Saturday following backlash from the LAPD’s union, The Los Angeles Police Protective League. The union called the arrangement ‘nuts,’ arguing that ‘LA taxpayers should not be footing the bill for this ridiculousness.’

‘We are happy to report that the Metro officers assigned to protect the multimillionaire failed presidential candidate are back on the street fighting crime,’ the union’s board of directors said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Monday. 

Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said using LAPD resources to provide Harris with protection was never a permanent solution. 

‘The plan was always to provide temporary support, and I thank L.A.P.D. for protecting former V.P. Harris and always prioritizing the safety of all Angelenos,’ Bass said in a statement to The New York Times. 

Bass’ office did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Bass previously said in a statement Wednesday that Trump’s decision to revoke Harris’ security detail amounted to an ‘act of revenge’ on a political opponent, and put Harris ‘in danger,’ according to The New York Times. 

The LAPD did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Fox News Digital. 

The Los Angeles Times also reported on Aug. 29 that the California Highway Patrol was providing security for Harris, according to law enforcement sources. California Gov. Gavin Newsom must approve such protection, per the publication. 

‘Our office does not comment on security arrangements,’ Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Thursday. 

The White House confirmed to Fox News Digital that Trump pulled Harris’ security detail on Aug. 29, and noted that typically vice presidents are only offered Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office. 

However, former President Joe Biden signed an order before leaving office that extended Harris’ Secret Service protection by an additional year. 

CNN first reported that Trump signed a memo pulling Harris’ Secret Service security detail. A spokesperson for Harris told Fox News Digital no reason was provided for eliminating the protection. 

The U.S. Secret Service did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

The Wall Street Journal reported in July that Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, had his security detail rescinded in July. 

Former presidents and their spouses receive Secret Service security details for the remainder of their lives unless they voluntarily opt out, according to the Secret Service’s website. 

Fox News’ Greg Norman, Patrick Ward, and David Spunt contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump is still facing a $83.3 million payment to writer E. Jean Carroll after a federal appeals court rejected his challenge of a defamation verdict against him Monday.

The ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a lower court decision finding that Trump did, in fact, defame Carroll. Trump’s lawyers argued his comments about Carroll were protected by presidential immunity and that the verdict in the case was unjust. The three-judge panel rejected both of those claims.

‘We conclude that Trump has failed to identify any grounds that would warrant reconsidering our prior holding on presidential immunity. We also conclude that the district court did not err in any of the challenged rulings and that the jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable,’ the court opinion read.

‘The record in this case supports the district court’s determination that the ‘the degree of reprehensibility’ of Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,’ the court added.

Carroll sued Trump twice after she released a book in 2019, which claimed Trump raped her during a brief encounter with him in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.

Trump vigorously denied the claims, saying he had never met Carroll, that she was not his ‘type’ and that she fabricated the incident to sell books. His vocal and repeated criticisms and denials led to Carroll’s defamation allegations.

Monday’s ruling comes months after the same court rejected Trump’s appeal in another Carroll-related case. In that appeal, Trump challenged evidence that Carroll’s legal team introduced to the jury during the civil lawsuit, including the Access Hollywood tape that surfaced during Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The full panel of judges declined to hear Trump’s argument, however, forcing the president to either accept defeat or appeal to the Supreme Court.

Read the full ruling below (App users click here)

Fox News’ Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Senate Republicans have started the process of going nuclear on Senate Democrats in their quest to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominees.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Monday laid the framework for the GOP to use the ‘nuclear option,’ a move that allows for a rule change in the Senate with a simple majority vote in order to install a new rule that allows for nominees to be voted on in groups.

Republicans are moving forward with a plan originally devised by Democrats during the Biden administration, due to frustrations at the time with the sluggish pace that nominees were moving through the upper chamber.

However, that pace has turned into an outright crawl during Trump’s second term. No nominee at any level has received a voice vote or moved through unanimous consent — two methods meant to fast-track the confirmation process for sub-cabinet level positions in the bureaucracy.

Thune quoted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who in 2022 railed against Republicans during a Senate floor speech for slowing some of former President Joe Biden’s nominees, and said, ‘Regardless of the party in the White House, both sides have long agreed that a President deserves to have his or her administration in place, quickly.’ 

Thune charged that the Democrats’ blockade was ‘Trump derangement syndrome on steroids’ and argued that if the nominees were as historically bad as they claimed, they would not have voted some of them out of committee on a bipartisan basis.

‘We’ve got a crisis, and it’s time to take steps to restore Senate precedent and codify in Senate rules what was once understood to be standard practice,’ he said. 

‘This afternoon I will be taking the necessary procedural steps to amend the rules,’ Thune continued. ‘It is an idea with a Democrat pedigree.’

Thune is expected to take the first step in the process Monday night and will file a resolution with dozens of nominees who advanced out of committee on a bipartisan basis. 

The plan, which takes its cue from a bill pushed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Angus King, I-Maine, and former Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., would allow for nominees to be voted on in groups, or ‘en bloc.’

The original bill put a cap of 10 nominees per en bloc group and included both district judge and U.S. attorney picks. Republicans are likely to go beyond the cap but may not include judicial nominees.

Instead, the focus is on sub-cabinet level nominees that make their way through their respective committees with bipartisan support.

‘What I’m just saying is we’re returning to the way the Senate used to work,’ Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News Digital. ‘When the vast majority of nominees, after being scrutinized in committee, had their hearings voted out and sent to the floor. Then you know, Bush, Clinton — 99% of them by unanimous consent or by voice vote, and President Trump has had zero.’

Thune’s move comes after he and Schumer were unable to reach a deal on moving nominees last month before lawmakers left Washington for recess.

Both parties have turned to the nuclear option a handful of times since 2010. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used the nuclear option to allow for all executive branch nominees to be confirmed by simple majority. 

Four years later, then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., went nuclear to allow for Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority. And in 2019, McConnell reduced the debate time to two hours for civilian nominees.

Republicans voiced hope that using a proposal from Democrats would sway some to support the change and argued that the move is meant to further streamline the process and prevent future blockades by either party.

‘I really look at this like they’re forcing us to do something,’ Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital. ‘There’s nothing nuclear about it, in my humble opinion. And again, this is their bill, and we’ll see. It’s great to watch them squirm as they try to figure out what to do with this.’

Jeffrey Epstein’s estate began handing documents over to Capitol Hill lawmakers on Monday, pursuant to a subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee last month.

Trustees tasked with handling the late pedophile’s matters were ordered to turn over a tranche of files, including his infamous ‘birthday book,’ as part of House lawmakers’ investigation into Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

The ‘birthday book,’ along with Epstein’s last will and testament, details of his 2007-2008 non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, entries from Epstein’s contact books from Jan. 1, 1990 through Aug. 10, 2019, and information about Epstein’s known bank accounts, were all handed over to investigators.

A committee aide told Fox News Digital that staff would review the documents, and they would be made public ‘in the near future.’

House Oversight Committee Democrats, meanwhile, took to X with what appears to be an excerpt from the ‘birthday book’ that shows a message from President Donald Trump to Epstein, though the White House denied its veracity.

‘As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it. President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X, specifically in reference to a Wall Street Journal story that first mentioned allegations of Trump writing in the book.

A letter from attorneys representing Epstein’s estate signaled in a letter to the Oversight Committee that Monday’s production was just the first tranche of documents pursuant to the congressional subpoena.

Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., sent a letter on Aug. 25, requesting a slew of documents by Sept. 8.

‘It is our understanding that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein is in custody and control of documents that may further the Committee’s investigation and legislative goals. Further, it is our understanding the Estate is ready and willing to provide these documents to the Committee pursuant to a subpoena,’ Comer wrote at the time.

As part of his non-prosecution agreement, Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to two state charges in Florida of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution, avoiding more severe federal charges. He ended up serving 13 months in county jail with the benefit of a work-release program, confidential settlements with some victims, and being registered as a sex offender. 

It also allowed co-conspirators to avoid charges – a major point of contention during his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell’s federal trial in late 2021. It’s also the basis of Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn her guilty verdict.

Subpoenaed documents include all entries in a book compiled by Maxwell for Epstein’s 50th birthday, Epstein’s will and information on his 2008 non-prosecution agreement.

Lawmakers hope that the ‘birthday book,’ which allegedly includes personalized messages from Epstein’s friends and associates, will shed light on his personal connections. The information is likely to be dated, however, with the book having been compiled in 2003.

Information was also sought on Epstein’s financial transactions, call and visitor logs, and ‘any document or record that could reasonably be construed to be a potential list of clients involved in sex, sex acts, or sex trafficking facilitated by Mr. Jeffrey Epstein,’ according to a copy of the subpoena viewed by Fox News Digital.

Comer has subpoenaed a litany of individuals, as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ), for information related to Epstein.

He is also bringing in Alexander Acosta, a former Trump administration labor secretary who also served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the federal government in 2008, for a transcribed interview on Sept. 19.

Comer and other members of the House Oversight Committee met with Epstein survivors last week.

About 33,000 pages of files turned over by the DOJ have already been released by the House Oversight Committee, though the vast majority of those were already public knowledge.

The House Oversight Committee has released another tranche of files related to Jeffrey Epstein on Monday night, which includes a message from former President Bill Clinton in the late pedophile’s infamous ‘birthday book.’

The surprise document dump by the GOP-led panel came hours after Epstein’s estate turned materials over to House investigators, pursuant to a congressional subpoena.

Among the documents released by the committee is the reported book compiled by Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell for the late pedophile’s 50th birthday.

What appears to be an entry by Clinton praises Epstein’s ‘childlike curiosity, the drive to make a difference, and the [illegible] of friends.’

The book also appears to include entries by former Epstein attorney Alan Dershowitz and President Donald Trump, though the White House and the president himself have vehemently denied its veracity on multiple occasions.

‘As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it. President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X, specifically in reference to a Wall Street Journal story that first mentioned allegations of Trump writing in the book.

Fox News Digital also reached out to Clinton’s office for comment.

Epstein and Clinton were known to have a cordial relationship, and Clinton is known to have flown on Epstein’s plane on numerous occasions. 

Neither he nor Trump have been accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein, however.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters when asked about Trump’s entry in the book, ‘I’m told that it’s fake.’

The entry under Dershowitz’s name references a news article that he took for influencing, perhaps in a joking manner, changing the focus from Epstein to Clinton.

‘Dear Jeffrey, As a birthday gift to you, I managed to obtain an early version of the Vanity Unfair article. I talked them into changing the focus from you to Bill Clinton, as you will see from the enclosed excerpt. Happy birthday and best regards,’ the entry said.

Dershowitz has also consistently denied wrongdoing as it relates to Epstein.

A cartoon drawn underneath, that was not attributed to anyone, shows a man at a bar with the caption, ‘I’ve come to the conclusion that I should be thinking less about money and more about naked women, and biomathematical research.’

Other entries in the ‘birthday book’ appear to be Epstein during various stages of his life.

Another entry appeared to make a joke about Epstein being a U.S. intelligence asset. Below a photo of Epstein next to a woman with her face redacted reads a note, ‘He is the boyfriend of [redacted]…We think he works for the CIA.’

A photo on another page shows a young Epstein in front of what appears to be a store counter, with the accompanying caption, ‘Are you sure this will make my ‘winkie’ grow?’

The tranche of documents released by the House Oversight Committee also includes details of Epstein’s last will and testament, what appears to be an address book of contacts, and details of his 2007-2008 non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Southern Florida.

In a statement upon the files’ release, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., criticized Democrats for earlier releasing only the portion of the files that included Trump’s name – and asserted that the president was not implicated in any wrongdoing.

‘It’s appalling Democrats on the Oversight Committee are cherry-picking documents and politicizing information received from the Epstein Estate today. Oversight Committee Republicans are focused on running a thorough investigation to bring transparency and accountability for survivors of Epstein’s heinous crimes and the American people,’ Comer said.

‘President Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing and Democrats are ignoring the new information the Committee received today. The Committee will pursue additional Epstein bank records based on this new information. Democrats must decide if their priority is justice for the survivors or politics.’

The release comes a day before former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch is set to appear before Comer’s panel for a closed-door deposition on Epstein.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed back against partisan portrayals of the Supreme Court, telling Fox News’ Bret Baier that justices ‘wear black, not red or blue’ and follow the Constitution, not politics.

She appeared on Fox to promote her new book, ‘Listening to the Law,’ and to address public perceptions of the Court’s work and independence.

Barrett stressed that the Court is not divided into partisan teams. She also defended its approach to presidential power, clarified misconceptions about the Dobbs decision, and reflected on her originalist judicial philosophy.

Her book touches on details such as assigned seating, courtroom traditions, and the gap between outside perception and inside reality.

‘You know, we don’t wear red and blue, we all wear black because judges are nonpartisan. And the idea is that we are all listening to the law. We’re all trying to get it right. We’re not playing for a team,’ she told Baier. ‘We don’t sit on specific sides of the bench, left and right. You know, we sit in order of seniority.’

Barrett underscored the disconnect between public perception and the Court’s inner workings, noting:

‘I often ask new law clerks what surprised you most when you started? And one of the most common answers is the difference between what’s happening on the inside and what people think is happening on the inside.’

Critics on the left argue the Court is shielding former President Donald Trump, a view reflected in headlines from outlets such as The New York Times and NBC.

Barrett responded by placing the Court’s work in historical context, stressing that cases on presidential power extend beyond any one occupant of the office.

‘We’re not deciding cases just for today, and we’re not deciding cases based on the president,’ Barrett said. ‘As the current occupant of the office, we’re deciding cases about the presidency. So we’re taking each case, and we’re looking at the question of presidential power as it comes. And the cases that we decide today are going to matter.

‘Four presidencies from now, six presidencies from now, and so on. Each of these cases that we’re getting, you know, well, I mean, some of them overlap, but many present different constitutional issues,’ she added.

She stressed the Court rules on the presidency as an institution, with decisions that resonate across administrations.

Turning to the Dobbs decision, Barrett said the ruling did not outlaw abortion but returned the issue to the political process—a point she argued has been widely misunderstood.

‘Dobbs did not say that abortion is illegal. Dobbs said it belongs to the political process,’ Barrett said.

Barrett acknowledged growing threats to judges, stressing violence should not be ‘the cost of public service.’

Returning to public perception, she said the Court must follow the law even when rulings are unpopular, stressing integrity over public opinion.

‘The court… can’t take into account public opinion in making individual decisions… you have to follow the law where it leads, even if it leads in a place where the majority of people don’t want you to go,’ she said.