Home Blog

Accused Kirk Assassin’s Shaky Aim Could Keep Death Penalty Alive, Prosecutors Say

0

The accused assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk may have hit his alleged target, but prosecutors say his history of misses could help keep the death penalty on the table.

Tyler Robinson, 23, allegedly “seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target altogether” while practicing with the rifle authorities believe was used to kill Kirk, Utah prosecutors said in a court filing made public Tuesday.

The claim strikes directly at the defense’s bid to knock out the aggravating factor that could make Robinson eligible for execution if he is convicted.

Robinson’s attorneys argue that the fatal bullet traveled above the crowd at Utah Valley University rather than through it. Only one round was fired, Kirk was the only person struck and no bystanders were wounded, the defense noted.

But prosecutors say that argument ignores the risk Robinson allegedly knew he was taking when he fired a high-powered rifle from the roof of the campus’s Losee Center toward a courtyard packed with thousands of people.

Evidence recovered from Robinson’s southern Utah home allegedly included targets he had used to practice with his grandfather’s rifle, according to Fox News Digital and KSL’s coverage of the filing.

Those targets, prosecutors contend, show Robinson knew he was capable of missing — and that a miss from the rooftop could have sent a bullet into the crowd or struck someone standing near Kirk.

The state also pointed to evidence that the alleged gunman had to race across the roof, reassemble the rifle, get into position and fire within roughly one minute. He allegedly loaded four cartridges before taking the shot.

Taken together, prosecutors say, Robinson’s hurried setup, extra ammunition and spotty practice record support a reasonable inference that he understood the danger to people other than Kirk.

Several spectators were allegedly positioned between the rooftop and Kirk, while others were gathered close to the Turning Point USA founder onstage, prosecutors wrote.

Robinson’s lawyers see the scene very differently.

In a 41-page defense brief, they described an open-air shooting with a “clear line of sight.” They argued that the bullet struck its intended target, no second round was chambered and no one else was directly behind or beside Kirk in the bullet’s path.

The defense maintains that the state has shown only that harm to a bystander was possible — not that Robinson knowingly created the high probability of another death required to sustain the aggravator.

That distinction could decide whether Robinson faces a possible death sentence.

Utah’s aggravated-murder statute allows prosecutors to rely on evidence that a defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to someone other than the person killed. Robinson’s lawyers want Judge Tony Graf Jr. to strike that aggravating circumstance before trial, which would remove capital punishment as a possible sentence.

At this stage, however, prosecutors need only establish probable cause to send the charges to trial. They argue that Graf must draw reasonable inferences in the state’s favor rather than weigh competing interpretations as a jury would.

Prosecutors went further in their latest filing, accusing Robinson’s attorneys of ignoring controlling case law and saying they had “violated their ethical duty of candor to the Court.”

The state is also pressing a separate claim that Kirk was targeted because of his political expression. Prosecutors have cited an allegedly political message engraved on one of the cartridges, as well as messages Robinson allegedly sent about Kirk before surrendering.

Robinson is accused of driving from southern Utah to Orem and fatally shooting Kirk in the neck as the 31-year-old activist answered questions during a Turning Point USA event on Sept. 10, 2025.

Prosecutors allege that Robinson later admitted responsibility to several people and instructed his roommate to delete incriminating messages. He is charged with aggravated murder and six additional crimes but has not yet entered a plea.

The two sides presented evidence during a weeklong preliminary hearing in July and have since traded written arguments over whether the case — and its potential death penalty — should proceed.

Graf is scheduled to hear closing arguments on Sept. 1 before deciding whether Robinson will stand trial on all seven charges.

For Robinson’s defense, the argument is that the fatal shot was precise enough to spare everyone else.

For prosecutors, his battered practice targets tell the more dangerous story.

Trump Names New Pick To Lead FDA

0
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump has selected Dr. Heidi Overton, a senior White House domestic policy adviser and physician, to lead the Food and Drug Administration as the agency confronts battles over vaccines, drug prices, food additives, and abortion medication.

Trump announced the nomination Wednesday, describing Overton as a trusted problem-solver who would accelerate medical innovation, lower prescription costs, and advance Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

Overton currently serves as deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, where she has helped formulate and promote several of the administration’s most consequential health initiatives.

If confirmed by the Senate, she would succeed Dr. Marty Makary, who left the agency in May after a turbulent tenure marked by internal disputes and disagreements over the direction of federal health policy.

Kyle Diamantas, who previously led the FDA’s Human Foods Program, is serving as acting commissioner.

A Physician With Deep White House Ties

Overton is a board-certified physician in public health and general preventive medicine. She earned her medical degree from the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and a doctorate in clinical investigation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

She previously trained as a general surgery resident at Johns Hopkins and advocated for greater price and quality transparency in health care.

During medical school, then-New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez appointed Overton to the University of New Mexico Board of Regents, where she held voting and fiduciary responsibility for the university and its health system.

Overton first entered the Trump White House as a fellow in 2019, working in the Office of American Innovation and on the Domestic Policy Council. Between Trump’s terms, she served as chief policy officer at the America First Policy Institute and helped lead its Center for a Healthy America.

Her biography from the conservative organization emphasizes her work on health-care transparency, fentanyl, public health and policies designed to give patients greater control over medical decisions.

The appointment would place a committed administration loyalist at the head of an agency that regulates products representing roughly one-fifth of American consumer spending.

Overton Helped Shape Trump’s Health Agenda

Overton has appeared alongside Trump during major health policy announcements, including the administration’s efforts to negotiate “most favored nation” agreements with drug companies. The policy seeks to tie American prescription prices to the lower prices paid in other developed countries.

She was also involved in Trump’s controversial effort to revise the childhood vaccination schedule and separate the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine into three individual shots.

Major medical organizations have generally supported the combined MMR vaccine, which has been used for decades and reduces the number of clinical visits and injections required for full immunization. Critics fear that splitting the vaccine could create delays and lower vaccination rates.

Overton’s role in the policy is likely to become a focus of her Senate confirmation hearing, particularly as lawmakers question how she would handle pressure from Kennedy and other administration figures skeptical of established federal vaccine recommendations.

Trump praised Overton as a “rockstar” who would advance medical cures, innovation and lower drug prices.

Kennedy also supports the nomination, giving Overton an important ally inside the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.

Difficult Issues Await New Commissioner

The next FDA commissioner will inherit an unusually difficult collection of unfinished projects.

The agency continues to face pressure over its regulation of COVID-19 vaccines and other immunizations, including questions about which populations should receive updated shots and what evidence manufacturers must provide.

Medication abortion will present another immediate test. Pro-life organizations want the FDA to impose tighter restrictions on mifepristone, including limits on prescriptions issued through telehealth and pills delivered through the mail.

Overton has previously used the term “teleabortion” when discussing remote access to abortion medication, drawing concern from abortion-rights organizations that expect her to revisit the drug’s rules.

The FDA must also determine how aggressively it will regulate ultraprocessed foods, chemical additives, and synthetic dyes. Those issues are central to Kennedy’s MAHA movement but can conflict with the deregulatory approach traditionally favored by Republican lawmakers and industry groups.

Other pending questions involve flavored electronic cigarettes, peptide treatments, psychedelics, antidepressant warnings, and efforts to shorten the approval process for new drugs.

Overton would therefore have to balance three competing forces: Trump’s desire for faster approvals and lower prices, Kennedy’s campaign against corporate influence in food and medicine, and Republican demands for reduced federal regulation.

Management Experience Likely to Draw Scrutiny

Overton’s supporters point to her medical education, policy background, and proximity to presidential decision-making. They argue that she understands Trump’s priorities and can coordinate more effectively with the White House than an outside nominee.

Critics are expected to focus on her limited experience running an organization comparable to the FDA.

The agency employs thousands of scientists, physicians, inspectors, lawyers, and regulatory specialists. It oversees prescription drugs, medical devices, vaccines, tobacco products, much of the nation’s food supply, and other consumer goods.

Axios reported before her selection that some health policy observers worried Overton’s nomination could unsettle FDA career employees and pharmaceutical investors, while other potential candidates possessed more direct executive management experience.

The criticism will likely feature prominently when she appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Makary, Overton’s predecessor and a former Johns Hopkins colleague, was confirmed in March 2025 by a 56-44 Senate vote. Overton will seek confirmation from a chamber still controlled by Republicans but divided over the administration’s vaccine policies.

Her nomination signals that Trump wants the FDA led by someone already embedded in his White House rather than an agency insider or pharmaceutical executive.

If the Senate agrees, Overton will take control of one of the federal government’s most powerful scientific agencies — and become responsible for turning the administration’s sprawling health agenda into enforceable policy.

Ossoff Turns Trump Feud Nuclear—Is This His 2028 Audition?

0

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff is no longer trading polite disagreements with President Donald Trump. He is going straight for the throat—and looking increasingly presidential while doing it.

Appearing Tuesday alongside Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Ossoff branded Trump a “draft-dodging, crook president” who had recklessly plunged the country into war.

The Georgia Democrat accused Trump of trying to imprison Kelly, a former Navy captain and astronaut whom Ossoff described as embodying “American heroism.” The comments marked the sharpest escalation yet in a feud that moved from foreign policy to deeply personal attacks in only a matter of days.

It also raised an unavoidable question: Is Ossoff merely fighting for another Senate term—or quietly auditioning for the White House?

Ossoff Takes the Gloves Off

The clash began Sunday, when Ossoff delivered a blistering speech attacking Trump’s handling of the U.S.-Israel war with Iran.

Ossoff accused the president of neglecting deployed service members, draining American military resources and focusing instead on golfing, stock trading and his White House ballroom.

“He doesn’t want to do the job,” Ossoff said before claiming Trump would rather “build his ballroom and travel with Natalie”—an apparent reference to Natalie Harp, the president’s executive assistant.

Harp’s inclusion made the attack intensely personal. She is one of Trump’s most trusted aides, frequently accompanying him and helping manage his social media output, according to CBS News.

The White House erupted.

When reporters asked Trump about Ossoff’s remarks, the president responded by calling the senator a “Pee-wee Herman look-alike.” White House communications director Steven Cheung piled on, describing Ossoff as a “radical, extremist Dumocrat,” while other administration officials launched their own attacks.

Ossoff did not retreat. He escalated.

During Tuesday’s appearance with Kelly and Giffords, he tied Trump’s war leadership to the president’s previous demand that Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers be arrested over a video reminding military personnel that they must refuse unlawful orders.

Trump called that video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” The episode drew widespread condemnation, while military-law experts noted that service members are obligated to reject illegal commands, according to The Associated Press.

For Ossoff, the contrast was irresistible: a president who avoided military service attacking a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut.

A Senate Campaign With a National Audience

The substance matters. But so does the delivery.

Ossoff’s speeches are increasingly built for national consumption: sharp lines, cinematic staging and short clips designed to explode across social media. His rallies have become what The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called “viral spectacles,” generating the kind of attention normally reserved for politicians with ambitions beyond the Senate.

His message is also bigger than Georgia.

Ossoff is not simply arguing that Republican challenger Mike Collins would be a bad senator. He is presenting himself as a national check on Trump—someone willing to confront the president over war, corruption, political intimidation and alleged self-dealing.

That is exactly the kind of political identity a future presidential candidate needs.

A White House campaign rarely begins with a formal announcement. It begins with a brand, a donor network and a proof of concept. Ossoff is building all three.

He entered the general election with more than $42 million in cash after raising roughly $20 million during the second quarter. Nearly 90% of his campaign’s contributions during that period were $100 or less, the campaign told the AJC.

That combination—a massive war chest and a broad small-dollar fundraising base—could be transferred quickly into a future national operation.

Then there is Georgia itself.

Ossoff is the only Democratic Senate incumbent running this year in a state Trump carried in 2024. Winning there requires more than exciting Democratic voters. It requires holding suburban swing voters and persuading at least some Republicans to split their tickets.

Ossoff has already secured endorsements from former Republican Sen. Jeff Flake and two Republican Georgia mayors. Valdosta Mayor Scott James Matheson and Tifton Mayor Julie Smith cited Ossoff’s constituent service and work securing resources for their communities when they crossed party lines to endorse him, according to the AJC.

If Ossoff can attack Trump this aggressively while winning decisively in a state Trump carried, Democrats searching for a post-Trump national strategy will notice.

But Ossoff Says He Is Not Running

There is one major complication in the 2028 theory: Ossoff has repeatedly denied it.

“I have zero interest in running for president in 2028,” he said during an MS NOW interview this week, dismissing the speculation as “2028 fantasy football.”

That denial should not be ignored. Ossoff has a difficult Senate election directly in front of him, and allowing presidential speculation to dominate could make him appear distracted or overly ambitious.

It is also entirely possible that his escalating rhetoric has a simpler purpose. Ossoff wants to energize Democrats, define Collins as inseparable from Trump and turn his Senate election into a referendum on the president.

Still, politicians can build national brands without actively planning presidential campaigns. Intentions also change—especially after a decisive victory, an explosion in fundraising or an unexpected opening in the party.

Ossoff does not need to be secretly assembling a 2028 campaign for this moment to matter. His feud with Trump is demonstrating how he would operate on a national stage: confrontational, polished, media-savvy and willing to make the fight personal.

The Bottom Line

Ossoff’s immediate target is Mike Collins. But Trump has become his chosen opponent.

That strategy could help the senator win reelection by turning Georgia’s race into a larger battle over the direction of the country. It could also leave Ossoff with something far more valuable after November: a national following, a battle-tested message and proof that he can compete in hostile political territory.

Ossoff may genuinely have “zero interest” in 2028 today but he is running the kind of campaign that could make Democrats very interested in him tomorrow.

Rubio Hits ICC President With Sanctions as Trump Escalates Sovereignty Fight

(Miami - Flórida, 09/03/2020) Presidente da República Jair Bolsonaro durante encontro com o Senador Marco Rubio..Foto: Alan Santos/PR

Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed sanctions Tuesday on the president of the International Criminal Court and one of its senior trial lawyers, escalating the Trump administration’s campaign against the Hague-based tribunal.

The new designations target ICC President Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge, and Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer.

“These individuals have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction,” Rubio said, according to CNN.

The sanctions generally block any property or financial interests the two officials have within the United States or under the control of U.S. citizens. Americans are also prohibited from conducting most transactions with them, effectively cutting Akane and Seye off from the U.S. financial system.

Rubio described the ICC as a corrupt, politically driven institution that has exceeded its authority. He said the sanctions were part of the administration’s “unwavering mission to protect Americans from this sham of a court.”

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. Israel is also not a member and does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

The ICC nevertheless maintains that it can prosecute alleged crimes committed on the territory of member states, even when the accused comes from a country that has not joined the court. That jurisdictional dispute lies at the heart of Washington’s confrontation with the tribunal.

Trump Laid the Groundwork

President Donald Trump did not immediately issue a separate public statement on Tuesday’s sanctions. However, the White House established the administration’s position in a February 2025 executive order authorizing penalties against ICC personnel.

In that order, Trump accused the court of taking “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.”

Trump said the ICC had endangered American service members and officials while abusing its authority against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in November 2024 over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected to the war in Gaza. Both Israel and the United States have rejected the accusations and the court’s authority.

Trump’s executive order declared the ICC’s efforts against protected American and allied officials an extraordinary threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy.

Washington has also fought the court over its past investigation into the conduct of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

A Campaign to Dismantle the Court

The latest sanctions are part of a broader State Department-led campaign to weaken the ICC’s ability to operate.

Rubio announced that effort in July, promising to use sanctions, visa restrictions, diplomatic pressure and other government powers to dismantle the court “brick by brick” if necessary.

The administration is also pressuring other countries to withdraw their funding and participation. Nations that cooperate with American law enforcement, host U.S. forces or rely on Washington’s security support have been urged to reject the ICC’s authority over American personnel.

Rubio said Tuesday that the administration is prepared to take additional action until the court is no longer capable of threatening American sovereignty. The State Department has described the effort as a whole-of-government response.

The administration has already sanctioned multiple ICC prosecutors and judges. Prosecutor Karim Khan was among the first officials targeted after pursuing the warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.

According to The Guardian, Seye has also been linked to investigations involving Israeli settlement funding and the distribution of weapons to settlers in the West Bank, although Rubio’s announcement did not identify the specific actions that led to Tuesday’s designation.

Court Fight Moves to U.S. Soil

The sanctions campaign is now facing several legal challenges inside the United States.

Three ICC judges sued the Trump administration in New York in June, arguing that the penalties imposed against them were unlawful. Human rights organizations have filed separate lawsuits claiming the sanctions interfere with their ability to document alleged crimes and assist international investigations.

Two advocacy groups said the restrictions had produced a “chilling effect” on their work. Four additional organizations filed another lawsuit last week, arguing that the administration was unlawfully obstructing their international justice work.

The ICC had not issued a public response to the new designations as of Tuesday afternoon.

ABC Files First Amendment Lawsuit Against Trump’s FCC

0
President Donald Trump answers questions from members of the media aboard Air Force One en route to Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, for a rally on the economy, Tuesday, December 9, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

ABC is taking President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission to court, accusing the powerful broadcast regulator of using its licensing authority to punish speech the administration does not like.

In a First Amendment lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ABC alleged that the administration has carried out a politically motivated campaign against the network through the FCC.

“Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts,” the lawsuit states, according to Mediaite and Deadline.

The network said the attacks have escalated from public criticism of its journalism and programming to “express demands” that ABC be stripped of broadcast licenses because of its speech.

At the center of the case is an unusual FCC order requiring eight ABC-owned local stations to apply for license renewals years ahead of schedule. The stations serve New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Francisco, Raleigh-Durham and Fresno. Their licenses were not otherwise set to expire until between 2028 and 2031.

ABC is seeking a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop the accelerated review, The Wall Street Journal reported. The FCC did not immediately comment on the new lawsuit, according to the Journal.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has rejected claims that the review is punishment for ABC’s programming. He has said it stems from a previously opened investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices and whether the company complied with federal employment rules.

ABC argues that explanation is a pretext.

The legal showdown follows months of escalating pressure on the network. In February, Carr confirmed that the FCC had begun enforcement proceedings involving The View and the federal equal-time rule after the program featured political candidates. Carr questioned whether the daytime show qualifies for the rule’s exemption for bona fide news programs.

Then in April, the FCC ordered the eight ABC stations into early renewal proceedings one day after Trump and first lady Melania Trump called for late-night host Jimmy Kimmel to be fired over an “expectant widow” joke. Carr denied that the timing was retaliatory, saying the action was tied to the agency’s DEI investigation and Disney’s response to document requests, The Guardian reported.

The dispute intensified again in July. After ABC declined to preempt its prime-time schedule for a Trump address, Carr said that editorial decision would factor into the FCC’s license review, The Desk reported. Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez responded that broadcasters—not the government—decide what news and speeches to carry.

ABC accused the agency of “attempted censorship” in a July filing and warned that the stakes extend far beyond one network.

“The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” the network wrote, according to Mediaite.

The network says its stations easily meet the legal standard for renewal and notes that they have held their licenses for decades while providing local journalism and emergency coverage. ABC also said more than 150,000 comments were filed in the FCC proceeding, with over 95% supporting renewal, TheWrap reported.

A bipartisan group of former FCC chairs, commissioners and senior officials has also urged the agency to end the early review, describing it as unprecedented and warning that it could chill broadcasters nationwide. Conservative organizations, including the Media Research Center and the Center for American Rights, have pushed in the opposite direction, asking the FCC to deny the renewals over alleged bias and discrimination.

Mystery Impostor Slips Into UK Prime Minister’s Messages

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles delivers remarks during the Memorial Service for Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, Sunday, September 21, 2025.(Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Britain’s new prime minister thought he had a direct line to President Donald Trump’s inner circle. Instead, he was messaging a mystery impostor.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham exchanged a handful of messages with someone posing as White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, according to a bombshell Politico report citing four officials.

Burnham eventually smelled a rat and cut off the contact. But by then, at least some of the exchange had taken place after he entered 10 Downing Street on July 20—turning an apparent digital con into a security headache spanning two governments.

One person briefed on the communications insisted that only a “few messages” were exchanged and that they were “of no significance.”

British officials were not quite relaxed enough to let the matter drop.

The British Embassy in Washington raised the incident directly with the White House, two officials told Politico. Downing Street offered only a stone wall in response to questions: “We do not comment on national security matters.”

CBS News reported that the BBC independently confirmed the exchange and said it was limited to written messages. Burnham and the impostor never spoke by phone, according to that account.

The White House also pushed back on the most alarming theory circulating in London.

“This incident had nothing to do with the Chief of Staff’s devices being hacked,” a White House official told CBS News.

That distinction matters because Wiles’ identity has already been hijacked once in a sprawling Washington impersonation scheme.

In May 2025, senators, governors, business executives and other prominent figures received texts and calls from someone claiming to be Trump’s powerful gatekeeper. Wiles told associates that her personal phone had been hacked, and CBS News reported that one or more unknown people used contacts from the device to target senior officials.

The messages came from unfamiliar numbers, and some recipients were asked to shift the conversation to Telegram. The FBI launched an investigation.

The earlier scheme grew stranger as it unfolded. As Mediaite reported, citing The Wall Street Journal, one lawmaker was asked to prepare a list of people Trump should pardon. In another case, the impersonator requested a cash transfer. Targets also noticed broken grammar and oddly formal language that did not sound like Wiles.

The fake-Wiles operation was not an isolated stunt. An impostor later used artificial intelligence to mimic Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s voice and writing style while contacting foreign ministers and American officials.

The FBI warned in December that malicious actors have been impersonating senior state, White House, Cabinet and congressional figures since at least 2023. The schemes often begin with a text, quickly jump to an encrypted app and then turn toward sensitive information, authentication codes, introductions or money, according to the bureau’s public alert.

Burnham took office less than a month ago after replacing Keir Starmer. An official government biography says he returned to Parliament in June and became Labour leader on July 16 before entering Downing Street four days later.

Who contacted him, how the impostor reached him and what the pair discussed remain unknown.

Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Latest Bid to Overturn $5 Million Carroll Verdict

0
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to challenge the $5 million civil verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll.

In a one-sentence order, the justices denied Trump’s petition for rehearing without explanation. No dissents were publicly noted.

The court had already declined in June to hear Trump’s appeal of the verdict. Monday’s decision leaves that rejection in place and effectively closes another path for the president to contest the judgment.

The justices did not rule on the underlying allegations or explain their reasoning. They simply refused Trump’s extraordinary request to reconsider their earlier decision.

Supreme Court rehearings are exceedingly rare. Under the court’s rules, they are generally reserved for substantial intervening circumstances or other significant grounds that were not previously presented.

Carroll sued Trump after publicly alleging that he assaulted her inside a Manhattan department store during the 1990s. Trump has repeatedly denied her account.

A civil jury later found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million. The case was civil, not criminal, and the verdict did not result in a criminal conviction.

Trump’s appeal argued, among other things, that jurors were improperly allowed to hear testimony from other women who had accused him of sexual misconduct.

According to The Hill, Carroll received the $5 million payment, plus interest, last month.

Trump’s attorneys urged the Supreme Court to reconsider while a separate appeal involving Carroll remains before the justices. That case stems from a second trial in which a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million over additional defamatory statements made by Trump.

The president is asserting a presidential-immunity defense in the second case. His lawyers argued that the outcome of that appeal could also affect the first Carroll judgment.

“That is a paradigmatic reason to at least hold a petition,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their request to the court.

“When a forthcoming or pending case may affect the proper disposition of another petition, the Court may hold the related petition, and later resolve it in light of the lead case,” they added.

The justices were not persuaded to keep the $5 million dispute alive.

A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team blasted the decision and continued to characterize the Carroll litigation as politically motivated.

“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes,” the spokesperson said in a statement quoted by The Hill.

“President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again,” the spokesperson added.

Although Monday’s order shuts down Trump’s rehearing request in the $5 million case, his challenge to Carroll’s separate $83.3 million judgment remains pending before the Supreme Court.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

Trump Backs Former Federal Prosecutor in Bid to Topple Letitia James

0
Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump is throwing his political weight behind Republican Saritha Komatireddy as she tries to unseat New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of his most persistent political and legal adversaries.

In a Truth Social post Friday, Trump called it his “Great Honor” to endorse Komatireddy, whom he described as an “America First Patriot,” and said she had his “Complete and Total Endorsement” in the November election.

Trump also unleashed a blistering attack on James and Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, declaring that New York had “gone to HELL” under their leadership. He branded James a “Complete and Total Disaster” and again accused her of pursuing a politically motivated “WITCH HUNT” against him.

The president said Komatireddy would prioritize law and order, support police and first responders, protect election integrity, combat illegal immigration and defend the Second Amendment if elected.

Komatireddy quickly welcomed the endorsement.

“I was honored to be nominated to be a federal judge by the President in 2020 and I’m honored to receive his endorsement today,” she wrote on X. “I’m working hard to win the support of all New Yorkers and defeat Letitia James this November.”

Trump announced his intent to nominate Komatireddy to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2020, although the Senate did not confirm her nomination. A Harvard College and Harvard Law School graduate, Komatireddy spent more than a decade as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York and later served as chief of staff at the Drug Enforcement Administration. She previously clerked for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Her prosecutorial record includes cases involving terrorism, cybercrime, narcotics trafficking, money laundering and foreign corruption. The Justice Department has credited her for work that helped secure convictions in cases involving an ISIS recruiter and Genaro García Luna, the former Mexican security official convicted of aiding the Sinaloa Cartel.

A Feud Years in the Making

Trump’s endorsement is especially personal because James has made legal action against him a defining part of her public profile.

James campaigned for attorney general in 2018 as an outspoken Trump critic. Her office opened an investigation into the Trump Organization in 2020 after former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress about the company’s financial practices. In 2022, James sued Trump, his company and several executives, alleging they had repeatedly inflated asset values on financial statements to secure more favorable terms from banks and insurers.

After a civil trial, New York Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and other defendants liable and imposed roughly $464.6 million in disgorgement and interest, along with business restrictions and independent oversight of the Trump Organization.

Trump scored a major victory in August 2025 when a state appeals court vacated the entire financial award, concluding that the massive disgorgement order amounted to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. But the ruling did not erase the underlying judgment: the court otherwise affirmed the case, including findings that Trump and his company had submitted deceptive business records. Both sides moved to continue the fight in New York’s highest court, with Trump seeking to eliminate the remaining penalties and James seeking to restore the financial award.

The feud later widened to include separate mortgage-fraud allegations against James. Federal prosecutors accused her of making false statements connected to a Virginia property, and a grand jury indicted her in October 2025 on bank-fraud and false-statement charges. James denied wrongdoing and described the prosecution as political retaliation.

A federal judge dismissed the indictment the following month after ruling that the prosecutor who brought the case had been unlawfully appointed. Two grand juries subsequently declined to return a new indictment. As of August 2026, James is not under indictment, although Trump has continued to call for her prosecution.

An Uphill Fight in Deep-Blue New York

Komatireddy enters the general election with an extensive law-enforcement résumé but a significant name-recognition problem. A Siena University poll released Aug. 12 showed James leading 54% to 36% among likely voters. More than two-thirds of those surveyed said they had either never heard of Komatireddy or did not know enough about her to form an opinion.

Trump’s endorsement could help Komatireddy consolidate Republican support and introduce her to voters across the state. It also ensures that a contest already centered on crime, public integrity and the power of the attorney general’s office will double as another referendum on the Trump-James rivalry.

James, first elected in 2018 and now seeking a third term, remains the favorite. Komatireddy, however, is betting that voters frustrated by public safety concerns and politicized law enforcement will be willing to break with New York’s Democratic establishment.

The general election is scheduled for Nov. 3.

Iran Defies Trump’s Bid to Claim Strait of Hormuz for America

0
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Iran fired back at President Trump on Saturday after he declared his intention to make the Strait of Hormuz a U.S. territory, insisting that Tehran alone will decide when the strategic waterway opens or closes.

“The Strait of Hormuz has been Iranian, is Iranian, and will remain Iranian,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi wrote on X, according to an English translation published by The Hill.

“This strait will only be closed and opened under Iran’s command,” he added.

Gharibabadi said Iran would continue enforcing its blockade as long as the United States refused to accept what he called the “reality of defeat” and continued indulging in “delusions.”

The response escalated a growing power struggle over one of the world’s most important shipping routes nearly six months into the conflict.

Trump floated the extraordinary move during remarks at a police academy in New York on Friday.

“Pretty soon, I will be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States,” Trump said.

The president has repeatedly argued that America’s naval presence and blockade have already placed the strait under Washington’s operational control.

“We have control over it. Nobody else. Only us,” Trump told reporters earlier in the week. “Our Navy is unbelievable, and things are going great for our country.”

The White House previously quoted Trump making a similar declaration during a July interview with Fox & Friends.

“Iran doesn’t control the Strait. We control the Strait,” Trump said, according to the White House summary.

Trump claimed the U.S. blockade was powerful enough to determine which vessels could enter the passage. The administration has twice deployed the blockade during the conflict as it attempts to isolate Tehran and cut off Iranian shipping.

The president, however, has not explained what legal mechanism he would use to designate the waterway as American territory. The strait is an internationally navigable passage bordered by Iran and Oman, with shipping lanes running through their territorial waters.

The Guardian reported that it was unclear whether Trump’s statement represented a formal change in administration policy.

Former U.S. diplomat Richard Haass has also challenged Trump’s assertion, arguing that no single country currently controls the strait.

The collapse in vessel traffic has become a visible test of the competing claims.

Only six ships traveled through the waterway last weekend, according to Kpler data cited by The Hill. Before the war began on Feb. 28, approximately 130 to 140 vessels crossed the strait each day.

The disruption carries consequences far beyond the military confrontation.

Before the conflict, roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas moved through the narrow passage. Its closure has disrupted global supplies, driven up energy prices and forced Middle Eastern producers to reduce output.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said in June that the strait remained “effectively closed.” The agency projected that Brent crude would average $105 per barrel in June and July as shipments remained limited and regional production declined.

Diplomatic efforts have produced little sign of a breakthrough.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Saturday that Tehran had not decided to resume direct talks with the United States. Messages exchanged through Qatar and Pakistan did not amount to formal negotiations, he said, according to Reuters reporting carried by The Guardian.

Araghchi said Iran’s separate discussions with Oman were focused on establishing a possible shipping route through the strait.

Tehran has continued to demand that Washington end its military campaign and blockade, lift sanctions, release frozen Iranian assets and compensate Iran for wartime damage before the waterway fully reopens.

For now, Trump and Iran are locked in a high-stakes test of power, with both sides claiming control of the world’s most important oil chokepoint.

Greg Gutfeld Jokes Karoline Leavitt Could Be Fox News-Bound After White House Exit

1

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld joked that outgoing White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt could follow a well-worn path from the White House briefing room to cable news after she leaves the Trump administration at the end of August.

The wisecrack came Thursday on “The Five” as Gutfeld and co-hosts Emily Compagno, Jessica Tarlov, Charles Hurt and Shannon Bream discussed who President Donald Trump could choose to replace Leavitt.

“Rumor has it, you’re up for the job,” Gutfeld told Bream, according to Mediaite.

“They can’t afford me,” Bream shot back.

Gutfeld then turned the conversation toward Leavitt’s own future.

“I worry that she’ll come to work at Fox, and now we’ll have three of ’em,” he said, referring to Fox personalities Dana Perino and Kayleigh McEnany, both of whom previously served as White House press secretary.

“We already have Dana, and Kayleigh, and then we’ll have Karoline,” Gutfeld continued, according to The Mirror US. “And then they’ll have their own show.”

Hurt accused Gutfeld of making the conversation “so awkward,” but the panel kept the bit going by floating several Fox hosts for the high-profile White House role.

Gutfeld told Compagno that he could see her as a “dynamite press secretary,” pointing to her background as a professional cheerleader and her experience at Fox. When he joked that he was trying to get her off “The Five,” Compagno replied: “To make room for Karoline.”

The exchange was playful speculation—not a report that Leavitt is negotiating with Fox News. Leavitt has not announced plans to join the network, and Trump said her next role will keep her connected to his political operation.

Still, Gutfeld’s joke drew on a real revolving door between the White House podium and television news. Perino served as press secretary under President George W. Bush before building a prominent career at Fox, including as a co-host of “The Five.” McEnany was Trump’s final press secretary during his first administration and joined Fox News in 2021, later becoming a co-host of “Outnumbered.”

Trump announced Wednesday that Leavitt would leave her post at the end of the month to spend more time with her family. He praised the 28-year-old as “one of my most trusted aides” and said she would remain one of his “top outside advisors” while serving as an influential Republican voice ahead of the midterm elections.

Leavitt, who recently returned to the White House after the birth of her second child, described the decision as “bittersweet.”

“I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy, and attention required of the White House Press Secretary,” she wrote in a statement posted to X.

Leavitt became the youngest White House press secretary in history when she took the job at age 27. Before joining the administration, she served as Trump’s 2024 campaign spokeswoman, worked in his first White House and mounted an unsuccessful congressional bid in New Hampshire.

Trump has not named her successor. And while Gutfeld may already be imagining another former press secretary at Fox, the only job Leavitt has publicly lined up so far is advising the president from outside the White House.