Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has called on the FBI to conduct a counterintelligence threat assessment on the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Schumer said on the Senate floor on Tuesday that the FBI assessment should accomplish three things: determine if foreign intelligence agencies could gain access to the information ‘the president does not want to release in the Epstein files, through methods that include cyber intrusion;’ identify any vulnerabilities that could be exploited by foreign intelligence agencies with access to non-public information in the Epstein files, ‘including being able to gain leverage over Donald Trump, his family, or other senior government officials;’ and result in the FBI publicly showing that the bureau is ‘developing mitigation strategies to counter these threats and safeguard our national security.’ 

At his weekly Democratic leadership press conference afterward, Schumer condemned what he categorized as the Epstein ‘cover-up,’ further taking aim at President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

‘Trump promised he’d release the Epstein files while he was on the campaign trail, yet he has yet to do it,’ Schumer told reporters. ‘Speaker Johnson quite literally preferred to shut down Congress, sending everyone home on an Epstein recess to avoid the topic. Americans are right to be angry over the lack of transparency, but there are also some very real questions about risks to national security.’

‘Given Trump’s total about-face on releasing files and given what we know from the FBI whistleblowers, it’s natural to ask, what happens if our adversaries use cyberattacks and other means to access files and materials into Epstein that are damaging or worse for President Trump and or those around him?’ Schumer continued. ‘What happens if the Epstein files end up in the hands of Russia or North Korea, or Chinese governments? Unless the Epstein files are fully released to the public, could our adversaries use that, Epstein, to use that information to blackmail someone like the president? 

Last Thursday, Schumer noted, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services were among several government agencies hacked as part of a breach to Microsoft SharePoint system. 

‘This was confirmed that it was Chinese actors. So we don’t need this happening again,’ Schumer said. ‘We have to ensure that it can’t happen. National security is not and should never be a partisan issue. We need to do everything we can to make sure we protecting the U.S. and American families. This report is vital in doing that. Beyond that, there is one more thing Donald Trump could do to quell people’s anger, confusion, frustration, and/or deep fears. That is, release the files.’ 

Last week, Johnson ended the House legislative session a day early, averting a potential vote on a resolution by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would have compelled the Justice Department and the FBI to release the Epstein files. Johnson asserted on Sunday that House Republicans supported ‘maximum disclosure’ but argued that the resolution was ‘reckless’ and poorly drafted, arguing that it ignored federal rules protecting grand jury materials and ‘would require the DOJ and FBI to release information that they know is false, that is based on lies and rumors and was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings.’ 

Johnson said he supported the Trump administration’s stance that ‘all credible evidence and information’ be released, but emphasized the need for safeguards to protect victims’ identities.

During a bilateral meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland on Monday, Trump was asked why he kicked Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club in West Palm Beach, Florida, years ago. 

‘That’s such old history. Very easy to explain, but I don’t want to waste your time by explaining it. But for years, I wouldn’t talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn’t talk because he did something that was inappropriate,’ Trump told reporters. ‘He hired help, and I said, ‘Don’t ever do that again.’ He stole people that worked for me. I said, ‘Don’t ever do that again.’ He did it again, and I threw him out of the place, persona non grata. I threw him out and that was it.’ 

Trump said he turned down an invitation to Epstein’s notorious island in the Caribbean and claimed former President Bill Clinton and former Harvard University President Larry Summers had gone. 

‘I never went to the island and Bill Clinton went there, supposedly 28 times. I never went to the island, but Larry Summers, I hear, went there. He was the head of Harvard and many other people that are very big people. Nobody ever talks about them,’ Trump said. ‘I never had the privilege of going to his island. And I did turn it down. But a lot of people in Palm Beach were invited to his island. In one of my very good moments, I turned it down.’ 

Fox News’ Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

Longtime Democratic operative Steve Ricchetti is appearing before House investigators on Wednesday, the seventh former White House aide to be summoned for Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer’s probe.

Ricchetti most recently served as counselor to President Joe Biden during the vast majority of the Biden White House’s four-year term.

He’s now expected to sit down with House Oversight Committee staff for a closed-door transcribed interview that could last several hours.

Comer, R-Ky., is investigating whether Biden’s top White House aides concealed signs of mental decline in the president, and if that meant executive actions were signed via autopen without his knowledge.

Ricchetti first began working for Biden in 2012, when he was appointed as counselor to the vice president during the Obama administration. He was soon promoted to Biden’s chief of staff in late 2013.

Ricchetti, who made a living as both a lobbyist and a Democratic insider, chaired Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign as well.

The committee’s interest in him, however, lies in his alleged key role in managing the White House while aides reportedly worked to obscure signs of the president’s mental decline.

‘As Counselor to former President Biden, you served as one of his closest advisors. According to a report, you were part of a group of insiders who implemented a strategy to minimize ‘the president’s age-related struggles,’’ Comer wrote to Ricchetti in June, referencing a Wall Street Journal report.

‘The scope and details of that strategy cannot go without investigation. If White House staff carried out a strategy lasting months or even years to hide the chief executive’s condition—or to perform his duties—Congress may need to consider a legislative response.’

Axios reporter Alex Thompson, who co-wrote ‘Original Sin’ with CNN host Jake Tapper about Biden’s cognitive decline and his aides’ alleged attempts to cover it up, told PBS program Washington Week earlier this year that Ricchetti was part of a small group of insiders that some dubbed Biden’s ‘Politburo.’

He also played a key role in Biden’s legislative agenda, most notably as one of the Democratic negotiators working with then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., to avoid a full-blown fiscal crisis over the U.S. national debt in early 2023.

It comes after another close former aide, former White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain, appeared before investigators for his own transcribed interview last week.

Like Klain, Ricchetti is appearing on voluntary terms—the fourth former Biden aide to do so.

Three of the previous six Biden administration officials who appeared before the House Oversight Committee did so under subpoena. Former White House physician Kevin O’Connor, as well as former advisers Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal, all pleaded the Fifth Amendment during their compulsory sit-downs.

But the three voluntary transcribed interviews that have occurred so far have lasted more than five hours, as staff for both Democrats and Republicans take turns in rounds of questioning.

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he may skip the G20 summit in South Africa in November over the nation’s ‘very bad policies,’ and instead send someone else to represent the United States.

Trump made the remarks aboard Air Force One in response to a reporter’s question as he returned from a trip to Scotland, where the president achieved a massive trade deal with the European Union.

‘I think maybe I’ll send somebody else because I’ve had a lot of problems with South Africa,’ Trump said. ‘They have some very bad policies.’

‘Very, very bad policies, like policies where people are being killed,’ Trump added.

In May, Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House with news clippings and a video allegedly showing grave treatment of White farmers.

Trump has claimed that White Afrikaner South African farmers are being slaughtered and forced off their land. The Afrikaners are descendants of mostly Dutch settlers who first arrived in South Africa in 1652. 

South Africa and its president have denied claims of genocide and harassment. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio already boycotted a G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in South Africa earlier this year over the government’s controversial land seizure policy.

Both the Trump and former Biden administrations have also criticized South Africa after the nation accused Israel of genocide in Gaza and brought a case to the International Court of Justice.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Norman contributed to this report.

Thailand and Cambodia reached a ceasefire deal ‘through trade,’ President Donald Trump announced Monday, ending a burgeoning conflict that displaced 260,000 people. 

The declaration from Trump comes after he said over the weekend that he had spoken to the leaders of Cambodia and Thailand, urging a ceasefire, adding the U.S. would not get back to the ‘trading table’ with the southeast Asian countries until fighting stops. 

The fighting began Thursday after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Both sides blamed each other for starting the clashes that have killed at least 35 people and displaced more than 260,000 people on both sides. 

‘Numerous people were killed and I was dealing with two countries that we get along with very well, very different countries from certain standpoints. They’ve been fighting for 500 years intermittently. And, we solved that war … we solved it through trade,’ Trump told reporters during his trip to Scotland. 

‘I said, ‘I don’t want to trade with anybody that’s killing each other.’ So we just got that one solved. And I’m going to call the two prime ministers who I got along with very, very well and speak to them right after this meeting and congratulate them. But it was an honor to be involved in that. That was going to be a very nasty war. Those wars have been very, very nasty,’ Trump also said. 

‘By ending this War, we have saved thousands of lives. I have instructed my Trade Team to restart negotiations on Trade. I have now ended many Wars in just six months — I am proud to be the President of PEACE!’ Trump added in a post on Truth Social.

As part of the ceasefire deal, military commanders from both sides will begin to hold talks Tuesday to defuse tensions while Cambodia will host a border committee meeting on Aug. 4, according to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. 

He added that the foreign and defense ministers of Malaysia, Cambodia and Thailand have also been instructed to ‘develop a detailed mechanism’ to implement and monitor the ceasefire to ensure sustained peace. 

It is ‘time to start rebuilding trust, confidence and cooperation going forward between Thailand and Cambodia,’ Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet said during a press conference in Malaysia alongside Thai Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X that the U.S. ‘applauds the ceasefire declaration between Cambodia and Thailand announced today in Kuala Lumpur.’ 

‘President Trump made this happen. Give him the Nobel Peace Prize!’ added White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. 

Fox News’ Brie Stimson and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

A federal judge in Boston on Monday blocked the Trump administration from ending federal Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide, ruling that the effort is likely unconstitutional and in violation of the group’s First Amendment protections. 

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee in Boston, granted Planned Parenthood’s request for a nationwide preliminary injunction. ‘Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,’ she said in her order on Monday.

‘In particular, restricting members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs,’ she added.

Judge Talwani said Monday that Planned Parenthood had sufficiently demonstrated to the court that they were ‘likely to succeed on the merits’ of their lawsuit— one of the ways in which judges evaluate emergency requests for injunctive relief—citing the harm that patients and clinics would likely suffer as a result of the lost Medicaid funding.

Attorneys for Planned Parenthood had sued over the Medicaid cuts earlier this month, which were enacted under a provision of the ‘one big beautiful bill’ narrowly cleared by the Republican-led Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4. 

Plaintiffs argued in their filing that the cuts would cause ‘grave’ health risks to as many as one million patients nationwide. 

They also pointed to possible increases in cancer and in undetected sexually transmitted infections, especially in low-income communities.

Many areas could also see an increase in unplanned pregnancies as a result of the lost contraception access their clinics provide, they noted.

Judge Talwani’s order is expected to apply to the nearly 600 health centers operated across the country by Planned Parenthood. It is almost certain to be appeared by the Trump administration, which could even ask the higher courts to grant it an administrative stay in the interim while lower court battles continue to play out.

The administration has also found success in filing emergency orders to the Supreme Court. As of earlier this month, the high court has ruled in Trump’s favor in the majority of cases filed via the ‘shadow docket’ or via emergency application.

Fox News’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report. 

Senate Republicans have received marching orders from President Donald Trump to ram through his remaining nominees, but Democrats are slow-walking the process over some key nominations.

Some of the nominees giving Senate Democrats the most heartburn include Jeanine Pirro, Emil Bove, Mike Waltz and Paul Ingrassia, all of whom Trump tapped for key roles in his administration.

Most of them have all slowly moved through the process, but they are just a few of many other, less controversial figures that are being held up by delay tactics.

There are now over 140 pending ‘civilian’ nominations for positions across the gauntlet of federal agencies, ambassadorships and judgeships. While the Senate has moved at a blistering rate over the last six months to confirm nominees — they’ve clocked nearly 100 so far — Trump has called on Republicans to stay in town rather than leave Washington for a roughly month-long break.

Republicans are trying to hammer out a deal with Democrats to see that more low-hanging fruit nominees, like ambassadors, get the green light for a faster process on the Senate floor, and are willing to keep lawmakers in town over the weekend if their counterparts don’t relent.

‘Democrats want to get out of here for August recess, then fine, give us a certain amount of en blocs that we can go through with non-controversial nominees,’ Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said.

Bove, who currently works at the Justice Department but previously served as Trump’s personal attorney, has been a particular target for Democrats. Trump nominated him to serve a lifetime appointment to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and he is nearing the end of his confirmation process.

Democrats have accused Bove of being unfit for the role, and listed whistleblower allegations that he suggested the Trump administration could ignore judicial orders, among other sticking points, as reason enough to try to subvert his appointment to the bench.

‘I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,’ Bove said during his confirmation hearing.

He’s also become a prime target of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and other Democrats, including Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who staged a walkout in protest of his nomination during a recent hearing.

‘He’s the extreme of the extreme,’ Schumer said. ‘He’s not a jurist. He’s a Trumpian henchman. That seems to be the qualification for appointees these days.’

Pirro, a former Fox News host who was tapped to be the top federal prosecutor in D.C., has similarly faced resistance — Senate Democrats walked out of the same meeting discussing her and Bove’s nominations — but not near the degree that Bove has.  

Still, she was advanced out of committee on a party-line vote, coming another step closer to taking over the position she holds in the interim on a permanent basis.

Trump tapped Waltz to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the last cabinet position to be filled by the administration.

Waltz stepped away from his original role as national security advisor following ‘Signalgate,’ a highly publicized blunder that saw him add a journalist to a group chat on the messaging app Signal that included Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and others discussing the plans and execution of a strike against Yemen. He also advanced out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Ingrassia’s nomination as special counsel, a position that would see him lead the government watchdog Office of the Special Counsel, was derailed last week when his name was pulled from a list of other nominees slated to have a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Ingrassia has come under scrutiny for his connections with Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist, and his limited career as a lawyer — he graduated from law school three years ago.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Senate panel for comment on Ingrassia’s hearing cancellation. 

The Senate confirmed its first nominee of the week ahead of what is expected to be a jam-packed schedule to ram through as many of President Donald Trump’s picks as possible.

David A. Wright, Trump’s pick to lead the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a five-year term, was confirmed in the upper chamber on a 50to 39 vote on Monday. It’s not Wright’s first time as chair of the commission, having first served in the role beginning in 2020.

Trump had previously tapped Wright during his first term, and again selected him to lead the NRC earlier this year. His new term is set to end in 2030.

The NRC is an independent regulatory agency tasked with regulating commercial nuclear power plants, reactor licensing and renewal and other elements related to protecting public health and safety when it comes to nuclear energy. Wright’s confirmation comes on the heels of Trump’s announcement that the U.S. and European Union were entering a trade deal that would see the bloc purchase $750 billion of U.S. energy over the next three years. 

While the commission is independent from other arms of the government, Senate Democrats have balked at recent attempts to make the regulatory body, in their view, more partisan.

Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order that demanded the agency consider making its safety standards less stringent, shortening the timelines for environmental reviews and a quadrupling of the nation’s nuclear power capacity by 2050: all part of the president’s quest to ensure America’s energy dominance. 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., argued that over the last seven years that Wright has been a part of the commission, first as a commissioner beginning in 2018 and then as chair, he would fulfill the president’s wishes. 

‘Achieving this will require experienced and highly qualified Commissioners who are empowered to lead the Agency through a period of high expectations,’ she said in a statement. ‘Well, David Wright meets that mark.’

Then Trump fired a Democratic member of the commission last month, and a staffer from the president’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was reportedly detailed from the Department of Energy to the regulatory agency.  

That prompted Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, to warn of a ‘hostile takeover’ of the commission by the Energy Department.

The move hurt what began as bipartisan support for Wright’s nomination — Whitehouse initially backed him but changed his position.

‘I hoped to see Chairman Wright rise to the occasion, but circumstances right now at the NRC continue to deteriorate,’ he said in a statement. ‘I cannot presently support his renomination.’

Still, Wright’s confirmation is a win for both Senate Republicans and the White House after Trump called on the Senate GOP to ram his nominees through blockades set up by Senate Democrats.

There are now over 140 pending ‘civilian’ nominations for positions across the gauntlet of federal agencies, ambassadorships and judgeships. The Senate has moved at a blistering clip over the last six months to confirm nominees—they’ve clocked nearly 100 so far — the president has called on Senate Republicans to consider canceling the forthcoming August break to get more done. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., warned that if his colleagues across the aisle continued to slow walk the process in the upper chamber for the slew of remaining ‘uncontroversial’ nominees, or be prepared to stick around Washington. 

‘Or they can rein in their reflexive anti-Trump sentiment and allow some of his rank-and-file nominees to proceed by unanimous consent or voice vote — just as Republicans did when the roles were reversed,’ he said. ‘And I’d remind my colleagues about the dangerous and ugly precedent that they’re setting here. But the choice is theirs. But whether it’s the slow way or the fast way, we’re getting President Trump’s nominees confirmed.’

The Department of Justice has filed an official complaint alleging misconduct by US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg. Fox News has reviewed the complaint which was written by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle and addressed to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sri Srinivasan.

Fox News has learned that the complaint was written and filed at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi.

‘The Department of Justice respectfully submits this complaint alleging misconduct by U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Donald J. Trump to the Chief Justice of the United States and other federal judges that have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,’ says Mr. Mizelle.

Judge Boasberg is presiding over a high-profile case involving the deportation of several migrants to El Salvador and has talked about holding DOJ lawyers in contempt because of his assertion that his order to turn airborne planes around was not followed. President Trump has also made critical comments about Judge Boasberg.

The complaint details two occasions on which Judge Boasberg made comments the Justice Department alleges undermine the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

‘On March 11, 2025, Judge Boasberg attended a session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which exists to discuss administrative matters like budgets, security, and facilities. While there, Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders. Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions.’

‘Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders. First, although he lacked authority to do so, he issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Government from removing violent Tren de Aragua terrorists, which the Supreme Court summarily vacated.

Taken together, Judge Boasberg’s words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation.’ 

The DOJ is asking Chief Judge Srinivasan to refer the complaint to a special investigative committee as an inquiry is essential to determine whether Judge Boasberg’s conduct constitutes ‘conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.’ The complaint also asks that Judge Boasberg be taken off the case involving Venezuelan migrants who were deported to El Salvador, ‘to prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds.’

The case in question is J.G.G. v Trump.

This is the second time the Bondi DOJ has filed an official complaint against a federal judge. In late February, the DOJ filed a complaint about US District Judge Ana Reyes, concerning what the DOJ calls Judge Reyes’ ‘misconduct’ during the proceedings in Nicolas Talbott et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., which is a case brought by two LGBTQ groups challenging the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders barring transgender individuals from serving in the US military.

News of the complaint comes at a time when the Trump administration has excoriated dozens of so-called ‘activist’ judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s sweeping executive orders from taking force in his second White House term.

Judge Boasberg in particular found himself at the center of Trump’s ire and attacks on so-called ‘activist’ judges this year, following his March 15 temporary restraining order that sought to block Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.

Boasberg had ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be ‘immediately’ returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen.

His emergency order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of federal court challenges across the country – though the one brought before his court on March 15 was the very first – and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants’ due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Boasberg, as a result, emerged as the man at the center of the legal fallout. 

Trump administration officials have repeatedly excoriated Boasberg both for his order and his attempt to determine whether they acted in good faith to comply with his orders, and Trump himself has floated the idea that Boasberg could be impeached earlier this year – prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning. 

The complaint, focused on months-old behavior and allegations surrounding Judge Boasberg— first tapped as a judge by then-President George W. Bush in 2002, comes at a time when he could again have a say in a major class action case brought by lawyers representing the former CECOT migrants. 

Lawyers for the ACLU and others in the class asked Judge Boasberg earlier this month to reopen discovery in the case, citing allegations from a United Nations report regarding custodial status of migrants at CECOT, and the recent decision to remove the 252 migrants sent from the U.S. to El Salvador to Venezuela under the prisoner exchange.

Asked at a status hearing in court last week whether the Justice Department would comply with the court’s orders, DOJ lawyer Tiberius Davis said they would, ‘if it was a lawful order.’

They also said they would likely seek an appeal from a higher court.

In April, Judge Boasberg also ruled that the court had found ‘probable cause’ to hold the Trump administration in contempt for failing to return the planes to U.S. soil, in accordance with his March 15 emergency order, and said the court had determined that the Trump administration demonstrated a ‘willful disregard’ for his order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed his original motion in April, and has yet to move on the matter.

When the ambulance arrived in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia two years ago, an angry EMT got out and barked at the crowd, ‘Who called this in?’ 

Standing next to my cameraman and above the prone body of a shirtless soul bedecked in boils and not moving, I said, ‘I did.’ He didn’t say a word, he looked at me, then down the street at the dozens of strung out bodies, then back at me as if to say, ‘Look at all this, what do you want me to do?’

I had no answer.

Last week, President Donald Trump did answer that question with a much-welcome executive order (EO) intended to bring back civil commitment, in other words, the ability to put people who are a danger to themselves or others in institutions, even against their will.

Civil libertarians are in a tizzy over the EO. They insist this is an abuse of due process and harkens to the bad old days, when hundreds of thousands of Americans were committed to mental institutions, sometimes for dubious reasons.

But in examining and judging Trump’s proposed policy here, it is important to understand and accept what the status quo on the ground is right now, and it is nothing short of horrific.

I’ve traveled to homeless encampments all over America, from tucked-away Manhattan underpasses to the sprawling chaos of San Francisco’s Tenderloin, a place you literally smell a block before you enter.

In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die.

For decades now, Democrats have spent endless dollars on fruitless efforts to fix the homeless problem. In California alone, Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent $20 billion on failing to fix it, and only recently admitted the encampments have to go.

In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die.

What the Trump administration realizes is that Democrats refuse to accept is that homelessness is, actually, two very distinct problems. One is financial, the other is a matter of addiction and mental health.

Financial homelessness is fairly easy to address. The evicted mother living in her car can be given temporary housing and job assistance. She really does just need a hand up.

Homelessness related to mental illness and addiction, however, isn’t really a homelessness problem at all, it’s an addiction and mental illness problem, and shockingly, just letting people in tents shoot up in what was once a thriving commercial district doesn’t solve it.

As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn’t really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren’t in a de facto open-air institution already.

What does it matter if these places lack walls and locks? They are cages nonetheless, cruel prisons whether voluntary or not.

As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn’t really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren’t in a de facto open-air institution already.

Opponents of civil commitment insist you cannot take away people’s freedom! But freedom to do what? Shoot fentanyl every day until they die on a curbside, pockets rifled by another desperate junkie?

If it was your child on these broken and brutal streets of death, would you want them to be left in freedom to waste away, or would you want them taken somewhere where they could be protected and helped?

Opponents will say that civil commitment can be abused. They will point to the 1950s when homosexuals were sent to institutions, but it’s not 1950. We aren’t going to institutionalize gay people, and we cannot be paralyzed by a bigoted past when trying to save lives today.

Could there be abuses or mistakes made regarding civil commitment? Sure, but people are dying in the streets right now, and we must trust ourselves to actively help them, without stepping over the line.

Annoyed with me, or not, that day in Kensington, the EMT revived the man at my feet, who, it turns out, wasn’t dead, after all. Instead, he was angry, because the Narcan that woke him up also negated the high he had paid for.

There are really only two sides to be on here: the side that says we are going to do everything we can to save that man’s life, even against his will, or the side that condemns him to an open-air prison of his own making.

President Trump has chosen wisely, and if local governments take heed, it is going to save a lot of lives across America.