The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) unveiled its National Farm Security Action Plan on Tuesday morning.

The plan is specifically meant to address threats from foreign governments, like China, and how those threats impact American farmers. It presents legislative and executive reforms such as banning Chinese nationals from obtaining farmland in the U.S., as well as assessing who holds land near military bases.

‘The farm’s produce is not just a commodity, it is a way of life that underpins America itself. And that’s exactly why it is under threat from criminals, from political adversaries, and from hostile regimes that understand our way of life as a profound and existential threat to themselves,’ USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a press event in Washington, D.C.

‘For them, agricultural lands and our farms, because they are a previous inheritance, are weapons to be turned against us,’ she continued. ‘We see it again and again, from Chinese communist acquisition of American farmland to criminal exploits of our system of agriculture, to the theft of operational information required to work the land and beyond. All of this takes what is profoundly good and turns it toward evil purposes.’ 

Rollins was joined by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

‘As someone who’s charged with leading the Defense Department, I want to know who owns the land around our bases and strategic bases and getting an understanding of why foreign entities, foreign companies, foreign individuals might be buying up land around those bases,’ Hegseth said.

Bondi directly referenced how agroterrorism is becoming a top concern for the administration. Two Chinese nationals were arrested in Michigan last month for allegedly smuggling what FBI Director Kash Patel described as a ‘known agroterrorism agent.’

‘A country who cannot feed itself, cannot take care of itself, and cannot provide for itself, is not secure, and we have to be able to feed ourselves to make sure that no other country ever controls us,’ Noem said.

Noem said that during her time as governor of South Dakota she signed a law that banned the governments of China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Russia and entities related to them from buying farmland in the state.

‘And I’ve watched for decades as evil foreign governments, including China, have come into this country, and they have stolen our intellectual property. They’ve manipulated their currency, they’ve treated us unfairly in trade deals. They’ve come in and purchased up our processing companies, stolen our genetics,’ she continued.

Numerous states have laws on the books restricting land purchases by those with ties to China and other foreign adversaries. In 2021, over 383,000 acres had ties to China, but the number has dipped in recent years, according to Agriculture Dive. 

President Donald Trump disclosed he and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley clashed over leaving equipment in Afghanistan as the U.S. withdrew troops in 2021. 

Trump, who historically has pushed to recover billions of dollars’ worth of equipment U.S. troops left in Afghanistan, said Milley argued at the time it was cheaper to leave the equipment there. 

‘That’s when I knew he was an idiot,’ Trump said during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday. ‘Didn’t take long to figure that one out. But they left all that equipment. But they left their dignity behind. It was the most embarrassing moment, in my opinion, in the history of our country. Not that we got out. We should have not been there, but that we got out the way we got out with great embarrassment and death.’ 

Milley, who is now retired, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

The Taliban seized nearly all of the more than $7 billion worth of equipment U.S. troops left in Afghanistan during the withdrawal process, according to a 2022 Department of Defense report.

While U.S. troops removed or destroyed most of the major equipment, aircraft, ground vehicles and other weapons were left in Afghanistan. The condition of these items remains unknown, but the Pentagon said in the report the equipment likely would fail operationally without maintenance from U.S. contractors. 

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed off on pulling U.S. troops from Afghanistan, following up on existing plans from the first Trump administration in 2020 with Taliban leaders to end the conflict. 

However, Biden bore the brunt of criticism for the withdrawal after the Taliban rapidly took over Afghanistan again, and more than a dozen U.S. service members died supporting evacuation efforts. 

Thirteen U.S. service members were killed during the withdrawal process due to a suicide bombing at Abbey Gate, outside the then-Hamid Karzai International Airport, as the Taliban gained control of Kabul.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in May that he had instructed the Pentagon to launch a comprehensive review of the U.S. withdrawal to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the event and to hold those responsible accountable. 

‘The Department of Defense has an obligation, both to the American people and to the warfighters who sacrificed their youth in Afghanistan, to get to the facts,’ Hegseth said in a memo in May. ‘This remains an important step toward regaining faith and trust with the American people and all those who wear the uniform and is prudent based on the number of casualties and equipment lost during the execution of this withdrawal operation.’ 

While Trump tapped Milley to serve as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2019, the relationship between the two unraveled after Milley issued an apology for appearing beside Trump in uniform during a photo-op outside the White House during the 2020 protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer.

Milley said in his apology that his appearance ‘created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.’

‘As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it,’ Milley said in the apology. 

Since then, Trump has issued various threats toward Milley, such as appearing to suggest Milley deserved to face execution for actions, including speaking to Chinese officials. Prior to departing office, Biden issued a preemptive pardon to Milley to safeguard the retired general from retributive actions by Trump. 

Hegseth yanked Milley’s security clearance in January. 

Milley told lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in March 2024 that he and the commander of U.S. Central Command at the time of the withdrawal, Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., both advised Biden to keep some U.S. troops in Afghanistan after pulling most forces. 

‘The outcome in Afghanistan was the result of many decisions from many years of war,’ Milley told lawmakers. ‘Like any complex phenomena, there was no single causal factor that determined the outcome.’

Former Vice President Kamala Harris offered a take so ‘weird’ and ‘not good’ in an interview with social media personality Kareem Rahma that they both agreed to nix airing the footage, according to Rahma. 

Rahma, who hosts the popular series ‘Subway Takes,’ where he asks commuters and sometimes celebrities their opinions, previously told the New York Times that he conducted an interview with Harris during the summer of 2024, but that it was never released. 

Rahma said in an interview clip with Forbes’ Steven Bertoni posted on social media Monday that Harris’ take was so ‘bad’ he felt fortunate it didn’t make the cut. 

‘Her take was really confusing and weird – not good,’ Rahma told Bertoni. And we ‘mutually agreed to not publish it. And I got lucky, because I didn’t want to be blamed for her losing.’

‘Her take was that bad?’ Bertoni said. 

‘It was really, really bad… it like, didn’t make any sense,’ Rahma said, revealing Harris’ take was ‘bacon as a spice.’ 

Neither Harris nor Rahma immediately responded to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Rahma, who is Muslim, told the New York Times in a story published in November 2024 that Harris’ team originally proposed she would share a ‘hot take’ against people removing their shoes on airplanes.

But Harris went on to declare that bacon was a spice – a food that Rahma and other Muslims do not consume for religious reasons. The Times reported that Rahma was ‘taken aback’ by Harris’ statement. 

‘Think about it, it’s pure flavor,’ she said, per the unaired footage obtained by the Times. 

The Times’ story said two senior campaign managers for Harris said the topic of bacon had been previously raised, while Rahma and his manager said that wasn’t the case. Harris’ campaign reportedly apologized for sharing her take on bacon and offered to re-film the episode, but Rahma declined, according to the Times. 

Rahma told the Times that his reasoning for not airing the interview was because he didn’t want to upset the Muslim community, and that he was hoping to ask Harris questions about the Biden administration’s policy regarding the Israel–Hamas war. 

‘It was so complicated because I’m Muslim and there’s something going on in the world that 100% of Muslims care about,’ Rahma told the Times. ‘And then they made it worse by talking about anchovies. Boring!’

Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, also appeared on Rahma’s series leading up to the 2024 election, where he discussed gutter maintenance. Walz’s interview was posted in August 2024. 

Fox News’ Yael Halon contributed to this report. 

As the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran continues, the Jewish State’s leader said that he would be open to having access to some of America’s most powerful military equipment.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a stop on Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon to meet with House Speaker Mike Johnson before a later confab with the Senate. It’s his first trip to Washington since the 12-day war between Israel and Iran erupted, and comes on the heels of a stoppage in fighting between the two countries.

When asked if he would be open to Israel gaining access to B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-busting bombs — the same U.S. military equipment used to cripple Iran’s nuclear program — Netanyahu appeared to relish the thought.

‘Would I like to see Israel have the capacities that the United States has? Of course we’d like it. Who wouldn’t want it?’ he said.

‘But we are appreciative of what assistance we’ve received, and I think it’s served not only the interest of Israel’s security but America’s security and the security of the free world,’ Netanyahu continued.

Netanyahu’s sentiment comes as a bipartisan duo in the House, Reps. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., are pushing to allow President Donald Trump the capability to send Israel the stealth bomber and powerful, 30,000-pound bombs capable of burrowing 200-feet into the ground before exploding, if Iran is found to still be marching forward with its nuclear program.

Their bill currently has three other Democratic co-sponsors, including Reps. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Juan Vargas, D-Calif.

The same aircraft and munitions were used in Operation Midnight Hammer, the secretive strike authorized by Trump last month to hit some of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, including Fordow, a facility buried below layers of rock that previous Israeli strikes couldn’t crack. Currently, the U.S. does not loan out any of its fleet of B-2s to allies.

Netanyahu’s remarks also came after he met with Trump on Monday, and he lauded his work with the president since his return to the White House.

‘I have to say that the coordination between our two countries, the coordination between an American president and Israel Prime Minister has been unmatched,’ he said. ‘It offers great promise for Israel, for America, for our region and for the world.’

He also hinted that ‘it may be very likely’ the pair may meet again before he leaves Washington. 

Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court’s injunction against the administration’s executive order.

In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court.

The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. 

It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to ‘streamline government and eliminate waste.’ Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal government.

A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself.

‘Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application,’ the Court wrote. ‘We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.’

The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court’s unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is ‘likely to succeed’ in defending the legality of the order.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that ‘this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.’ She warned that the executive action represents a ‘structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives’ and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts.

‘This unilateral decision to ‘transform’ the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court,’ she wrote. ‘The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.’

The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed ‘non-critical’ or ‘not statutorily mandated.’ The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain ‘thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service… is not in the government and public interest.’

Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees.

‘Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration,’ wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government.’

Former President Joe Biden’s persistent use of a teleprompter during public events, including during a fundraiser with just a couple dozen supporters, left donors complaining for months and dashed their expectations of hearing from the 46th president, a new book claims. 

‘For most of the campaign, Biden only ever spoke with the assistance of a teleprompter, even for small private audiences,’ a new book, ‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,’ reported. ‘The presence of the machine made for extremely awkward interactions in intimate settings, and irked donors who had paid thousands of dollars for a personal view of the president, not expecting a canned speech they could see on TV.’ 

‘He once read from a teleprompter in front of thirty people in the open kitchen of a Palo Alto mansion,’ the book continued. ‘Donors complained for months about the president’s reliance on the machine. Aides defended the teleprompter as a tool to keep the famously garrulous president on schedule.’ 

‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America’ was released Tuesday and authored by Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of the New York Times and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post. It details the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, including Biden’s cratering health issues. 

The book detailed that just days after Biden’s disastrous June 2024 debate against President Donald Trump that opened the floodgates to typical Democrat supporters turning their backs on Biden ahead of the election, the president attended a campaign event at Virginia Democrat Rep. Dan Beyers’ house without a teleprompter. The book claims Biden only spoke for about six minutes.

‘At Beyer’s house, the campaign was eager to prove Biden could speak off the cuff. There was no teleprompter to be found. The president blamed his poor debate performance on a heavy travel schedule and said he ‘almost fell asleep onstage.’ He spoke for about six minutes,’ the book detailed. 

The word ‘teleprompter’ appears in the new book a dozen times, mostly referencing the president’s reliance on the machine, as well as concern among some staffers that using a teleprompter was crucial to the president avoiding the unexpected as his health deteriorated. 

‘The officials who planned events at the White House tried to avoid any surprises or unpredictable situations. If the president was going to speak, he would go to the podium, deliver remarks from a teleprompter, and leave. There was no room for creativity or spontaneity,’ the book states in a section on how Biden had fallen during a commencement in 2023 and staff devised plans to prevent another public fall in the future. 

‘Everyone could see the president was aging. He sometimes failed to recognize former staff at functions. Still, current aides insisted his decline was strictly physical, and even then they acknowledged it only by trying to Bubble Wrap the president and avoid any more catastrophes. Staff limited direct access to the president, keeping meetings with him small,’ the book continued.

Biden entered his 2024 reelection cycle already racked by claims and concerns that his mental acuity had slipped and he was not mentally fit to continue serving as president, which was underscored by special counsel Robert Hur’s report in February 2024 that rejected criminal charges against Biden for possessing classified materials, citing he was ‘a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.’ Fox News has been reporting on Biden’s apparent health decline since at least 2020. 

Biden brushed off the claims throughout 2024, until his debate against Trump in June of that year, when he was seen tripping over his words, speaking in a far more subdued tenor than during his vice presidency, and losing his train of thought at times. The debate opened the floodgates to criticism among Democrats that Biden should step aside and pass the mantle to a younger generation of Democrats. 

After weeks of the White House and campaign staffers vowing Biden would stay in the race and to ‘keep the faith,’ Biden announced in a social media post on a Sunday afternoon in July 2024 that he dropped out of the race. He endorsed then-Vice President Kamala Harris to run for the Oval Office, giving her just over 100 days to launch her own campaign that failed to rally enough support when up against Trump. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office regarding the claims in the new book, but did not immediately receive a reply.

The Cato Institute is warning that the federal government is testing the outer limits of executive power with President Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariffs, and it wants the courts to put a stop to it.

In a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president overstepped his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries including China, Mexico and Canada.

The libertarian thinktank argues the move undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and expands executive authority over trade in ways Congress never intended.

‘This is an important case about whether the president can impose tariffs essentially whenever he wants,’ Cato Institute legal fellow Brent Skorup said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. ‘There has to be a limit — and this administration hasn’t offered one.’

‘Tariff rates went up to 145% on some products from China,’ he said. ‘And the president’s lawyers couldn’t offer a limiting principle. That tells you the administration believes there’s no real cap, and that’s a problem.’

Cato’s brief urges the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that found the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president’s use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court said the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to fight drug trafficking or trade imbalances.

Skorup said in court the administration was unable to define a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA. 

‘They couldn’t articulate a cap,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing in the law that mentions duties or tariffs. That’s a job for Congress.’

The administration has defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA provides the necessary tools for the president to act swiftly in times of national emergency. Trump officials maintain that both the fentanyl crisis and America’s trade vulnerabilities qualify.

‘There are real emergencies, no one disputes that,’ Skorup said. ‘But declaring an emergency to justify global tariffs or solve domestic trade issues goes far beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers.’

Skorup acknowledged that the real issue may be how much discretion Congress gave the president in the first place. 

‘It’s a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have taken vague laws and stretched them. Congress bears some of the blame for writing them that way,’ he said, adding that’s why courts should ‘step in and draw the line.’

For small businesses like V.O.S. Selections, the costs go beyond legal fees. Skorup said businesses who rely on imports, like V.O.S., have struggled to plan ahead as tariffs have been paused and reinstated repeatedly.

Skorup said there are several small businesses that rely on global imports and it becomes a ‘matter of survival’ when tariff rates change unexpectedly.

‘V.O.S. Selections imports wine and spirits and when the tariff rates go up unexpectedly, they can’t get products to their distributors as planned,’ he said. ‘And that’s true for others too, like pipe importers and specialized manufacturers. These companies don’t have the flexibility to absorb those costs or adjust overnight.’

If the appeals court sides with the administration, it could mark a major expansion of presidential power over trade policy. Skorup warned that such a ruling would allow future presidents to take similar actions with little oversight.

‘It would bless Congress’ ability to hand over immense economic power to the president,’ he said. ‘That would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution is supposed to protect.’

A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.