With countless legal challenges to the Trump administration’s federal spending actions, legal experts say plaintiffs in these suits are attempting to block President Donald Trump’s agenda as the courts navigate conceivably new territory. 

‘I think this is a continuation of the warfare that we’ve seen over the past four-plus years during the Biden administration,’ Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. 

‘The only difference now is that the instigators of the lawfare are outside of government, and they’re trying to use different advocacy groups, different interest groups to try to throw up obstructions to Donald Trump’s actions.’

The Trump administration so far has become the target of more than 90 lawsuits since the start of the president’s second term, many of which are challenging the president’s directives. 

Plaintiffs ranging from blue state attorneys general to advocacy and interest groups are specifically challenging Trump’s federal spending actions, including the administration’s attempt to halt federal funding to various programs and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts to slash excess government spending.

Smith said he suspects these plaintiffs are attempting to ‘slow down’ the Trump administration’s progress and agenda via these lawsuits ‘even if they know or suspect their lawsuits will ultimately not be successful.’

UC Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo told Fox News Digital that the plaintiffs in the spending cases are showing ‘political weakness’ by seeking judicial recourse rather than going to Congress.

‘I think that what you’re seeing is political weakness, because, if they had popular support, they should go to Congress,’ Yoo said. ‘That’s the branch for which the Founders expected to be responsible in containing or reacting to any expansion of presidential power that went too far.’

Despite the public outcry from conservatives that judges blocking Trump’s federal spending actions are ‘activist judges,’ Yoo said the judges are ‘confused.’

‘There’s a lot of confusion going on in the lower courts,’ he said. ‘I think they misunderstand their proper role.’

Smith said that in the cases at hand, many judges are ‘interposing their own views of what [are] appropriate actions for the executive branch of government,’ saying this is ‘not the proper role of a judge.’ 

‘And yet you see some of these judges who are issuing these TROs, they’re being very aggressive, and they’re impeding on core executive branch functions when it really should be the president and his advisers who get to make important decisions,’ Smith said. 

Smith added he hopes the Supreme Court is ‘taking a skeptical eye towards some of these actions by these judges.’

Both Smith and Yoo said they expect these challenges to eventually make their way up to the Supreme Court, with Smith saying the high court ‘is going to have to confront some questions that it’s been trying to skirt for several years now.’

‘This has to go to the Supreme Court because you’re seeing confusion in the lower courts about what is the proper procedural way to challenge spending freezes,’ Yoo said. 

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts paused a federal judge’s order that required the Trump administration to pay around $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors by midnight. Smith called the move by Roberts ‘actually pretty stunning.’

‘And I think a reasonable interpretation of that would be that the justices, particularly the Chief Justice, is kind of sending a shot across the bow to some of these judges that, ‘Look, if you keep this up, we’re going to step in and intervene,” Smith said. 

Yoo said he expects the Trump administration to ultimately prevail on many of the suits launched against him, saying that ‘he’s really, in many ways, following the decisions of the Roberts Court itself about how far executive power goes.’

‘Now, just because Trump won an election doesn’t mean he gets to do whatever he wants — he has to achieve his mandate through constitutional processes, which I think he’s doing,’ Yoo said. 

‘He’s litigating, he’s appearing at the Supreme Court, so he’s not ignoring the courts. He’s doing what you should do if you’re the president and you have the responsibility to execute the law,’ Yoo continued. 

Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump believes former President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter Biden, left behind the infamous bag of cocaine at the White House in 2023, the 47th president revealed in a recent interview. 

‘So … who actually left the cocaine in the White House?’ The Spectator’s Ben Domenech asked Trump in an interview at the White House Thursday afternoon. 

‘Well, either Joe or Hunter,’ Trump responded. ‘Could be Joe, too.’ 

The bag of cocaine was discovered July 2, 2023, in a storage locker near the entrance to the White House’s West Wing. The Secret Service discovered the small bag of cocaine and launched an investigation, which turned up inconclusive for a suspect. 

‘That was such a terrible thing because, you know, those bins are very loaded up with … they’re not clean, and they have hundreds and even thousands of fingerprints,’  Trump said of the discovery. ‘And when they went to look at it, it was absolutely stone cold, wiped dry. You know that, right?’

Trump added that the lockers typically are covered with fingerprints, but that the locker containing the bag of cocaine ‘was wiped out with, with the strongest form of alcohol.’

‘By the way, and I have to tell you, I think I’m going to look into that because it was … bad stuff happened there,’ Trump added without elaborating. 

The Biden family, including the former president and his son, Hunter Biden, were not staying at the White House when the cocaine was discovered. Instead, the family was staying at presidential retreat Camp David in Maryland.

Hunter Biden has a long and well-documented history with substance abuse, and he detailed his hourly need for crack cocaine in his 2021 memoir, ‘Beautiful Things.’ He has since gone through recovery efforts and has been sober since 2019, according to sworn testimony in federal court in 2023.

Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was grilled about the cocaine when it was found but stressed the Biden family was not at the White House when it was discovered in a high-traffic area of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 

‘The Biden family was not here,’ Jean-Pierre said during a July 2023 press conference when pressed about the cocaine. 

‘They were not here. They were at Camp David,’ she said. ‘They were not here Friday. They were not here Saturday or Sunday. They were not even here Monday. They came back on Tuesday. So, to ask that question is actually incredibly irresponsible, and I’ll just leave it there.’ 

Shortly after the Secret Service announced it had discovered the cocaine, the agency announced it had closed its investigation and could not determine a suspect.

‘There was no surveillance video footage found that provided investigative leads or any other means for investigators to identify who may have deposited the found substance in this area,’ the Secret Service said in a statement announcing an end to the investigation. 

‘Without physical evidence, the investigation will not be able to single out a person of interest from the hundreds of individuals who passed through the vestibule where the cocaine was discovered.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office and Hunter Biden’s legal team for comment on Trump’s remarks but did not immediately receive a reply. 

Questions surrounding the resignation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sparked on Friday after Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, suggested he may need to step down after a spat erupted between him and President Donald Trump during live coverage.

But that wasn’t the first time the Republican Party has  suggested such a move, and it began earlier this month after Trump pushed the idea following a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Trump first said Ukraine should hold elections after falsely claiming he only enjoyed a 4% approval rating, though under Ukraine’s constitution the country cannot hold elections when Martial Law is in effect during a time of war. 

Zelenskyy, whose approval rating is closer to 63% according to a Reuters report, on Friday once again reiterated he would resign if Kyiv was granted NATO membership. 

Ultimately, he emphasized during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, that just like in the U.S. where ‘Americans vote for American president,’ just as ‘each European country vote for their president,’ the same sovereign right is held in Ukraine – suggesting it is not a negotiating tactic he will allow Trump to use to appeal to Putin. 

But who may be in the running should Zelenskyy ever decide to step down?

Vitali Klitschko

The former boxer-turned politician who has served as the mayor of Kyiv since 2014 with strong support among those living in the capital city, has also proven himself on the international stage.

In a trip to Brussels earlier this month, Klitschko stressed the need to stand behind Zelenskyy as he fielded verbal attacks from the Trump administration while also trying to counter Putin’s war. 

The voice of support for the Ukrainian leaders was particularly noticeable given his previous criticism of Zelenskyy.

During his trip last week, Klitschko reportedly emphasized that an election could ‘destroy the country from within’ while it faces existential threats from the north and on its eastern flank.

Ruslan Stefanchuk

Stefanchuk, the chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament, has also reportedly been floated as a potential future contender for the top role in Ukraine. 

Though Stefanchuk is said to be a top ally of Zelenskyy, he has ardently rejected the recent international suggestions  that Ukraine hold elections.

In a Facebook post earlier this month he argued that ‘If there is anyone who needs to be forced into real, free and fair elections, it is [Putin].’

He noted that Ukraine needs ‘bullets, not ballots,’ according to a report by Newsweek. 

Kyrylo Budanov

Head of Ukraine’s GUR military intelligence agency, Budanov, could be another who may be a contender for the top job in Kyiv given.

Budanov, who has not expressed a desire to seek high office according to a Newsweek report, happens to have an even higher trust rating than Zelenskyy among Ukrainians. 

The military intelligence head earlier this month apparently voiced his confidence that Ukraine may finally be able to reach a peace deal after three years of war.

‘I think it is going to happen. There are most of the components for it to happen,’ Budanov reportedly said during a YouTube interview. ‘How long it will be, how effective it will be – [is] another question.’

General Valery Zaluzhny

The former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Zaluzhny, and presently his country’s ambassador to the U.K. is seen as a popular and credible successor to Zelenskyy if the president were to step aside. 

Zaluzhny and Zelenskyy have had their differences, resulting in the general being dismissed from his military post in 2024. Carnegie Politika blog recently reported that his popularity is strong, with 80% of Ukranians saying they trust him. The publication also noted that a hypothetical second-round runoff between the two resulted in a statistical tie.

Zaluzhny has not said if he would challenge Zelenskyy or if he was even interested in running for the president. 

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s future as president of Ukraine was cast into doubt by longtime supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and others after the embattled leader got into a nationally televised spat with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office Friday.

Graham’s call wasn’t the first time key Republicans have suggested Zelenskyy might need to step down, or at least stand for re-election. Trump pushed the idea earlier this month following a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Trump first said Ukraine should hold elections after falsely claiming he only enjoyed a 4% approval rating, though under Ukraine’s constitution the country cannot hold elections when Martial Law is in effect during a time of war. 

Zelenskyy, whose approval rating is closer to 63% according to a Reuters report, on Friday once again reiterated he would resign if Kyiv was granted NATO membership. 

Ultimately, he emphasized during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, that just like in the U.S. where ‘Americans vote for American president,’ just as ‘each European country vote for their president,’ the same sovereign right is held in Ukraine – suggesting it is not a negotiating tactic he will allow Trump to use to appeal to Putin. 

But who may be in the running should Zelenskyy ever decide to step down?

Vitali Klitschko

The former boxer-turned politician who has served as the mayor of Kyiv since 2014 with strong support among those living in the capital city, has also proven himself on the international stage.

In a trip to Brussels earlier this month, Klitschko stressed the need to stand behind Zelenskyy as he fielded verbal attacks from the Trump administration while also trying to counter Putin’s war. 

The voice of support for the Ukrainian leaders was particularly noticeable given his previous criticism of Zelenskyy.

During his trip last week, Klitschko reportedly emphasized that an election could ‘destroy the country from within’ while it faces existential threats from the north and on its eastern flank.

Ruslan Stefanchuk

Stefanchuk, the chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament, has also reportedly been floated as a potential future contender for the top role in Ukraine. 

Though Stefanchuk is said to be a top ally of Zelenskyy, he has ardently rejected the recent international suggestions  that Ukraine hold elections.

In a Facebook post earlier this month he argued that ‘If there is anyone who needs to be forced into real, free and fair elections, it is [Putin].’

He noted that Ukraine needs ‘bullets, not ballots,’ according to a report by Newsweek. 

Kyrylo Budanov

Head of Ukraine’s GUR military intelligence agency, Budanov, could be another who may be a contender for the top job in Kyiv given.

Budanov, who has not expressed a desire to seek high office according to a Newsweek report, happens to have an even higher trust rating than Zelenskyy among Ukrainians. 

The military intelligence head earlier this month apparently voiced his confidence that Ukraine may finally be able to reach a peace deal after three years of war.

‘I think it is going to happen. There are most of the components for it to happen,’ Budanov reportedly said during a YouTube interview. ‘How long it will be, how effective it will be – [is] another question.’

General Valery Zaluzhny

The former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Zaluzhny, and presently his country’s ambassador to the U.K. is seen as a popular and credible successor to Zelenskyy if the president were to step aside. 

Zaluzhny and Zelenskyy have had their differences, resulting in the general being dismissed from his military post in 2024. Carnegie Politika blog recently reported that his popularity is strong, with 80% of Ukranians saying they trust him. The publication also noted that a hypothetical second-round runoff between the two resulted in a statistical tie.

Zaluzhny has not said if he would challenge Zelenskyy or if he was even interested in running for the president. 

A D.C.-based federal district judge ruled late Saturday evening that President Donald Trump’s firing of the head of the Office of Special Counsel was unlawful, keeping him in his post. The Trump administration filed their notice of appeal shortly thereafter. 

Hampton Dellinger, appointed by former President Joe Biden to head the Office of Special Counsel, sued the Trump administration in Washington, D.C., federal court after his Feb. 7 firing. 

D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in the Saturday filing that the court’s ruling that Dellinger’s firing was ‘unlawful’ is consistent with Supreme Court precedent. 

The Trump administration filed its notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shortly after Jackson’s ruling. 

Jackson wrote that the court ‘finds that the elimination of the restrictions on plaintiff’s removal would be fatal to the defining and essential feature of the Office of Special Counsel as it was conceived by Congress and signed into law by the President:  its independence.  The Court concludes that they must stand.’

Jackson enjoined the defendants in the suit, including Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, ordering them to recognize Dellinger’s post. Jackson did not enjoin Trump. 

‘It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal,’ Jackson wrote. 

Jackson wrote in her order that the enjoined defendants ‘must not obstruct or interfere with his performance of his duties; they must not deny him the authority, benefits, or resources of his office; they must not recognize any Acting Special Counsel in his place; and they must not treat him in any way as if he has been removed, or recognize any other person as Special Counsel or as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, unless and until he is removed from office’ in accordance with the statute delineating Dellinger’s post.

Jackson’s decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court paused the Trump administration’s efforts to dismiss Dellinger. The Trump administration had asked the high court to overturn a lower court’s temporary reinstatement of Dellinger. 

The dispute over Dellinger’s firing was the first Trump legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court in his second term.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented, saying the lower court overstepped, and they cast doubt on whether courts have the authority to restore to office someone the president has fired. While acknowledging that some officials appointed by the president have contested their removal, Gorsuch wrote in his opinion that ‘those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement.’ 

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson notably voted to outright deny the administration’s request to OK the firing at the time. 

Shortly after the Supreme Court paused Trump’s efforts, Jackson hinted that she would possibly extend a temporary restraining order which has kept Dellinger in his job. 

Jackson called the matter ‘an extraordinarily difficult constitutional issue’ during a hearing. 

‘I am glad to be able to continue my work as an independent government watchdog and whistleblower advocate,’ Dellinger said in a statement at the time. ‘I am grateful to the judges and justices who have concluded that I should be allowed to remain on the job while the courts decide whether my office can retain a measure of independence from direct partisan and political control.’

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

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Jake Gibson, Greg Wehner and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump on Saturday signed an executive order making English the official language of the U.S.

The order revokes an executive order issued by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, ‘Improving Access Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,’ that required federal agencies and recipients of federal funding to provide language assistance to non-English speakers.

However, Trump’s order notes it does not ‘require or direct’ any change in services provided by any agency.

It will be up to agency heads to decide if any changes should be made.

While English has been used as the country’s national language — seen in every historic governing document — the U.S. has never had an official language.

‘A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exhange ideas in one shared language,’ Trump wrote in the order.

The U.S. is one of just a few countries without an official language. About 180 of the 195 countries across the globe have made the distinction.

Trump has been outspoken about designating English as the nation’s language, specifically in 2024, as he criticized former President Joe Biden’s immigration policies.  

‘We have languages coming into our country. We don’t have one instructor in our entire nation that can speak that language,’ Trump said while speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2024. ‘These are languages—it’s the craziest thing—they have languages that nobody in this country has ever heard of. It’s a very horrible thing.’ 

The order states it is intended to ‘promote unity’ and ‘cultivate a shared American culture for all citizens,’ while ensuring consistency in government operations and creating a pathway to civic engagement.

First lady Melania Trump speaks at least five languages, including English, French, Italian, German and Slovene, Fox News Digital previously reported.

Trump has signed at least 76 executive orders since reclaiming the Oval Office in January, Fox News Digital previously reported.

Executive orders and actions included renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and signing an executive order to restore the Obama-named Mount Denali to its original Mount McKinley. 

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.