Home Blog

PayPal Reaches $30 Million Settlement With Justice Dept. Over ‘Unlawful DEI’ Initiative

2
Image via Pixabay free images

President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice announced Tuesday that PayPal agreed to a $30 million settlement over what the administration described as an “unlawful DEI” initiative that allegedly discriminated on the basis of race.

“Today, the Justice Department announced a settlement with PayPal Inc. to resolve a fair lending investigation into a discriminatory investment program created for black and minority-owned businesses,” Trump’s DOJ said in a press release.

According to the Department of Justice, the settlement requires PayPal to establish a new Small Business Initiative that does not use race, national origin, or other protected characteristics as eligibility criteria. Under the agreement, PayPal will waive processing fees for up to $1 billion in transactions — an estimated value of roughly $30 million — for qualifying American small businesses that are veteran-owned or operate in the farming, manufacturing, or technology sectors.

The agreement also requires PayPal to appoint a director to oversee the initiative, conduct assessments on the needs of small businesses, submit plans and proposals to the federal government, train employees on compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and provide annual reports on the program.

The DOJ investigation stemmed from a PayPal fund launched in 2020 that was designed to invest in “black and minority-owned businesses.” Federal officials said the initiative effectively gave preferential treatment to businesses based on race, color, and national origin, which they argued violated federal anti-discrimination laws.

In a statement announcing the settlement, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said the administration was following through on President Trump’s pledge to eliminate what it considers unlawful DEI practices across corporate America.

“American corporations are on notice,” he warned. “You will face our aggressive enforcement if you use race or national origin to discriminate against qualified Americans.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon similarly warned that companies engaging in race-based discrimination could face significant legal consequences.

“With this settlement, PayPal agrees that race and national origin should play no part in determining which small businesses deserve its investment and financial support,” she said. “The Department will use the full range of its enforcement authorities to eliminate discrimination and ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to grow their small businesses.”

The PayPal settlement comes as the Trump administration ramps up scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs throughout both the public and private sectors. The administration has argued that many DEI initiatives violate civil rights laws by favoring certain racial groups over others.

The Trump administration also recently filed a lawsuit against The New York Times over allegations that the newspaper engaged in discriminatory hiring and promotion practices tied to DEI policies. Federal officials alleged that a white male employee with extensive experience in real estate journalism was excluded from promotion opportunities because of his race.

The administration has increasingly framed such cases as part of a broader effort to restore what it calls merit-based hiring and lending standards, while critics argue the crackdown could undermine programs intended to expand opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.

READ NEXT: Trump Administration Sues The New York Times Over Racial Discrimination

Trump Conducts Surprise Straw Poll As 2028 Speculation Swirls

3

President Donald Trump teased the possibility of a future Republican “dream team” this week, but despite renewed speculation surrounding Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the president has made clear he has not yet chosen a favorite to carry the MAGA mantle into 2028.

Speaking to a group of law enforcement officials at the White House on Monday, Trump openly polled the crowd about who should succeed him once his second term ends.

“I don’t know. Who’s it going to be? Is it going to be JD? Is there going to be somebody else? I don’t know,” Trump said before asking attendees directly, “Who likes JD Vance? Who likes Marco Rubio? All right. Sounds like a good ticket.”

Applause in the room appeared louder for Vance, though Trump quickly clarified he was not offering an endorsement.

“By the way, I do believe that’s a dream team. But these are minor details. That does not mean you have my endorsement under any circumstance,” Trump said. “But you know … I think it sounds like presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate.”

The remarks immediately fueled speculation about the shape of the 2028 Republican primary field, which is increasingly viewed as likely to revolve around Vance and Rubio — two rising stars who have become central figures in Trump’s administration and broader MAGA movement.

Trump himself has repeatedly suggested Vance is currently the favorite to inherit the movement, while also leaving the door open to Rubio playing a major role.

Last August, Trump said Vance would “most likely” be the GOP nominee in 2028.

“Well, I think most likely, in all fairness,” Trump said at the time. “He’s the vice president. I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form.”

Still, Trump stopped short of a formal endorsement then as well.

“I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here, so it’s too early obviously to talk about it,” he added. “But certainly, [Vance] is doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point.”

Rubio, for his part, publicly signaled support for Vance last year, telling Vanity Fair: “If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.”

Yet speculation about Rubio’s own ambitions has only intensified as he has emerged as one of the administration’s most visible and influential officials, juggling a growing list of high-profile responsibilities within Trump’s orbit.

At the same time, some political observers believe the eventual 2028 field may not unfold the way many Republicans currently expect.

Political analyst Mark Halperin argued Friday that Vance and Rubio are unlikely to engage in a bruising primary battle against one another despite widespread media speculation.

“We get to what I think is driving a lot of this, besides people loving Marco Rubio — and a lot people in my sources do — is Vance,” Halperin said during his online show.

Halperin pointed to concerns among some Republicans about Vance’s public image and political style, arguing Rubio may have advantages in traditional campaign settings.

“I will say that in the next two years, as people in the party and the media are comparing Rubio and Vance side by side, I don’t think Vance can win the performance competition,” Halperin said. “I think Rubio has improved enough and the perceptions are such that Vance is going to have a hard time.”

Still, Halperin ultimately predicted that if Vance decides to run, Rubio would likely avoid challenging him directly.

“These two guys are genuine friends,” Halperin said. “You cannot beat an incumbent vice president running for president unless you rip their face off. That’s just the way our politics work.”

Halperin floated another possibility that has received relatively little attention so far: Vance and Rubio eventually joining forces on a single ticket.

“If Vance runs, I think they’ll run together,” he said. “I think they’ll be a ticket, and they may even announce as a ticket from the beginning of the campaign.”

He also suggested there remains a real possibility Vance could ultimately decline to run altogether, citing the intense scrutiny presidential campaigns place on candidates and their families.

“So if Vance chooses not to run, and I think that’s a possibility, probably because of his kids, I think Rubio will be in an extremely strong position,” Halperin said.

Watch:

For now, however, Trump appears content to encourage speculation without settling the question himself.

While Vance remains widely viewed as the early frontrunner thanks to his position as vice president and close alignment with Trump’s political movement, Rubio’s growing stature within the administration has made him impossible to ignore in conversations about the GOP’s post-Trump future.

And despite the president’s playful “dream team” comments this week, Trump has repeatedly emphasized one thing above all else: the race to succeed him is still far from decided.

GOP Lawmaker Unveils Historic Move To ‘Expunge’ Impeachments Against Trump

3

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is launching a renewed push to wipe President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from the House record — calling the proceedings a “maliciously false” partisan campaign that damaged Trump’s reputation and abused congressional power.

The California Republican introduced H.Res.1211, a resolution that would formally expunge both impeachments approved by the House in 2019 and 2021 “as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives.”

“The fact is that the Constitution doesn’t spell out what to do when you’ve wrongfully indicted somebody,” Issa told Fox News Digital. “An impeachment is basically an indictment, and it’s an indictment that you can’t really be acquitted from.”

“If you are impeached by the House, famously where do you go to get your reputation back?” he added. “That’s sort of a problem that we’re dealing with.”

The measure, which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, reignites a fierce constitutional and political debate over whether Congress can retroactively erase an impeachment after it has already become part of the historical record.

Issa argued that newly declassified intelligence documents and revelations about the impeachment investigations justify revisiting the issue years later.

The resolution claims Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 — tied to his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — relied on politically biased and unreliable information supplied by an anonymous whistleblower who allegedly lacked firsthand knowledge.

Issa’s resolution also points to recently declassified material highlighted by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who earlier this year said documents revealed what she described as a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community “to manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump in 2019.”

Trump became the third president in U.S. history to be impeached in December 2019 after House Democrats accused him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over allegations he pressured Ukraine to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election. The Senate later acquitted Trump in February 2020, with only one Republican — Sen. Mitt Romney — voting to convict on one article.

The president was impeached a second time in January 2021, just days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on a charge of “incitement of insurrection.” That impeachment made Trump the only president ever impeached twice.

Issa blasted the second impeachment as rushed and fundamentally unfair.

“They impeached him for essentially an insurrection, a true high crime, and it’s false,” Issa said.

The resolution argues House Democrats rammed the second impeachment through Congress in just two days without a full evidentiary process, fact witnesses, or an extended investigation. While lawmakers held a brief hearing with constitutional scholars, Republicans argued Trump was denied basic due process protections.

Trump was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 after falling short of the two-thirds threshold needed for conviction, though seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting guilty — the largest bipartisan vote to convict a president in impeachment history.

Issa also accused Democrats of violating House norms throughout both proceedings.

A source close to Issa’s office told Fox News Digital that some Democrats have privately acknowledged information that emerged after the impeachments “reflects so poorly on the House” and represents “an example of what’s gone wrong in the Capitol and in Washington.”

The effort already has backing from powerful Republicans, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.

“Democrats weaponized impeachment against President Trump with politically motivated charges,” Jordan told Fox News Digital. “We applaud Chairman Issa for leading the fight to expunge this sham from the record.”

More than 20 House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors, including Claudia Tenney, Tim Burchett, Harriet Hageman and Ronny Jackson.

The push follows several failed Republican attempts to erase Trump’s impeachments from congressional records. Similar resolutions introduced in 2022 and 2023 never received hearings, markups or floor votes before dying at the end of the previous Congress.

Issa insists this latest effort is different.

“The previous resolutions were not written as strongly as this one and didn’t have what we have,” he said, referring to what he called newly uncovered evidence of misconduct tied to the impeachment inquiries.

Still, constitutional scholars remain divided over whether Congress can truly “erase” an impeachment. Supporters argue the Constitution gives the House the “sole Power of Impeachment,” meaning lawmakers also control their own records and can vote to expunge prior actions.

Critics counter that Congress cannot undo the historical fact that the House impeached a president, even if lawmakers later condemn or annotate the process as flawed. In practice, many legal experts say the effort would be largely symbolic.

Issa, however, says symbolism matters.

“Our goal is to show that it’s false and it was maliciously false,” he said. “When you’ve been falsely accused, whether it’s days, weeks, months or years later, somebody should be just as interested in printing that retraction on the front page as they were in putting the original charge on the front page.”

President Trump Calls Out Supreme Court Justices By Name In Scathing Truth Social Post

2
President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

President Donald Trump sharply criticized two Supreme Court justices he appointed, lamenting what he called a “devastating” ruling against his tariff policy while suggesting the court could soon rule against his administration again on birthright citizenship.

In a lengthy Sunday night Truth Social post, Trump singled out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett by name after they joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s liberal wing in a recent ruling striking down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs.

“I ‘Love’ Justice Neil Gorsuch! He’s a really smart and good man, but he voted against me, and our Country, on Tariffs, a devastating move,” Trump wrote. “How do I reconcile this? So bad, and hurtful to our Country.”

Trump added that he also “liked and respected” Barrett, but said both justices had “hurt our Country so badly” with the ruling.

The president argued the decision could cost the United States billions of dollars in refunded tariff payments.

“They were appointed by me, and yet have hurt our Country so badly!” Trump wrote. “I do not believe they meant to do so, but their decision on Tariffs cost the United States 159 Billion Dollars that we have to pay back to enemies, and people, companies, and Countries, that have been ripping us off for years. It’s hardly believable!”

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

Trump claimed the court could have avoided forcing the administration to repay tariff revenues by adding what he described as a “tiny” sentence to the ruling.

“They could have solved that situation with a ‘tiny’ sentence, ‘Any money paid by others to the United States does not have to be paid back,’” he wrote. “Why wouldn’t they have done so?”

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling against Trump’s tariff authority under IEEPA saw Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts side with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. (RELATED: Supreme Court Strikes Down Most Trump Tariffs, Reasserts Congress’ Role)

Trump went even further in the post, arguing that some Republican-appointed justices have become overly eager to distance themselves from conservatives.

“With certain Republican Nominated Justices that we have on the Supreme Court, the Democrats don’t really need to ‘PACK THE COURT’ any longer,” Trump wrote. “In fact, I should be the one wanting to PACK THE COURT!”

He also complained that Republican-appointed justices often seek to appear “independent,” while Democratic-appointed justices remain loyal to the presidents who nominated them. (RELATED: Supreme Court Rules On Trump Tariffs)

“What is the reason for this?” Trump wrote. “They have to do the right thing, but it’s really OK for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them to ‘almost’ the highest position in the land, that is, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”

“Democrat Justices always remain true to the people that honored them for that very special Nomination,” he continued. “They don’t waver, no matter how good or bad a case may be, but Republican Justices often go out of their way to oppose me, because they want to show how ‘independent’ or, ‘above it all,’ they are.”

Trump also predicted the court could soon rule against his administration on birthright citizenship, another major issue currently pending before the Supreme Court.

The president tied that concern to his unprecedented appearance at a Supreme Court session earlier this year.

“I choose people to help our Country, not to hurt it,” Trump wrote, “and now, based on what I witnessed recently by being the first President in History to attend a Supreme Court session … they will be ruling against us on Birthright Citizenship, making us the only Country in the World that practices this unsustainable, unsafe, and incredibly costly DISASTER.”

While Trump insisted he was not demanding personal loyalty from the justices, he suggested their rulings should align more closely with what he believes is best for the country.

“I don’t want loyalty,” he wrote, “but I do want and expect it for our Country.”

Trump also warned that an unfavorable ruling on birthright citizenship, combined with the court’s tariff decision, could have severe economic consequences.

“Yes, I have another way of doing Tariffs, but it is far slower, and more laborious than what was just determined, in a close decision, to be ‘illegal’ or ‘unconstitutional,’” Trump wrote. “Sometimes decisions have to be allowed to use Good, Strong, Common Sense as a guide.”

“A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not economically sustainable for the United States of America!”

WHCA Dinner Shooting Suspect Enters Plea In Trump Assassination Case

    2

    On Monday, the suspect accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump during the White House Correspondents Association dinner pleaded not guilty to four federal charges. 

    Cole Allen, 31, entered the plea in federal court Monday morning. 

    Allen allegedly attempted to breach the event at the Washington Hilton, where Trump and senior officials were present. The suspect was apprehended, and a federal officer was injured but survived, officials said.

    According to investigators, Allen allegedly stormed a security checkpoint armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and multiple knives—triggering panic at the high-profile event packed with journalists and political elites.

    Authorities say Allen left behind a disturbing manifesto outlining what appears to be a calculated plan to target members of the Trump administration.

    In the writings, he described prioritizing officials “from highest-ranking to lowest,” suggesting a methodical approach to the attack.

    He also made clear he was willing to harm others if necessary to reach his intended targets.

    In one particularly unsettling detail, Allen referenced his choice of ammunition—claiming he selected buckshot “to minimize casualties,” even as he prepared for violence.

    Allen faces charges of attempting to assassinate Trump and assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon, in addition to two other firearms-related charges: transportation of a firearm and ammunition through interstate commerce with intent to commit a felony and using, carrying, brandishing and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.  

    The alleged gunman has agreed to remain detained ahead of trial.  

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

    Trump Admin Announces Plan To Revoke Passports Over Unpaid Child Support

    2

    The U.S. State Department has begun revoking the passports of thousands of Americans with large unpaid child support debts, according to federal officials.

    The enforcement effort officially began Friday and will initially target parents who owe at least $100,000 in overdue child support. About 2,700 passport holders currently fall into that category, based on figures provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Under federal law, Americans with more than $2,500 in unpaid, court-ordered child support can already be denied a passport or have an existing passport revoked. In a statement released Thursday, the State Department said it is expanding coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services to identify and enforce penalties against delinquent parents who exceed that threshold.

    Officials said the crackdown is intended to pressure parents into complying with court-ordered child support obligations.

    Once revoked, a passport can no longer be used for international travel, even if the debt is later paid, according to State Department guidance.

    The department urged Americans with significant child support debt to contact the appropriate state child support enforcement agency and make payment arrangements before enforcement action is taken.

    “Eligibility for a new passport will only be restored after child support debt is paid to the relevant state child support enforcement agency and the individual is no longer delinquent according to HHS records,” officials said.

    Individuals affected by the policy must work directly with the state agency overseeing their child support case. After the debt is resolved, the Department of Health and Human Services must update its records before the State Department can issue a new passport. Officials said that process can take at least two to three weeks.

    It remains unclear how many Americans could ultimately be affected by the expanded enforcement effort. Officials said that the Department of Health and Human Services is still gathering data from state agencies, but the number of passport holders owing more than $2,500 in child support debt could total many thousands more.

    READ NEXT: Child Protection Controversy Rocks Key Pennsylvania Race

    Trump Announces Ceasefire and Prisoner Swap in Russia-Ukraine War

    0

    President Donald Trump on Friday announced a three-day ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia to celebrate the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II.

    “This ceasefire will include a suspension of all kinetic activity, and also a prisoner swap of 1,000 prisoners from each country,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This request was made directly by me, and I very much appreciate its agreement by President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”

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

    FAA Employee Charged With Threatening President

    A Federal Aviation Administration contractor from New Hampshire is accused of threatening to assassinate President Trump after allegedly sending a chilling email to the White House promising to “neutralize/kill” the commander in chief over the ongoing conflict with Iran.

    Dean DelleChiaie, 35, was arrested Monday and charged with sending a threat against the president after authorities say he used both a government-issued computer and email account to make violent threats tied to his anger at the Trump administration.

    “I, Dean DelleChiaie, am going neutralize/kill you – Donald John Trump – because you decided to kill kids – and say that it was War – when in reality – it is terrorism,” DelleChiaie allegedly wrote in an April 21 email addressed to the White House. “God knows your actions and where you belong.”

    Federal investigators say the disturbing message came months after DelleChiaie allegedly searched the phrase “I am going to kill Donald John Trump” on his FAA work computer.

    According to court documents first reported by CBS News, Secret Service agents and local police questioned DelleChiaie at his Nashua apartment earlier this year after discovering a string of alarming online searches.

    “DELLECHIAIE stated he realized he should not search these subjects and that it was crazy for him to do this on his work computer,” the affidavit stated.

    “DELLECHIAIE expressed, in substance, that what motivated him to conduct these searches was that he upset with the current administration based on multiple subjects, including the election, presidential pardons, and the ‘Epstein files.’”

    Investigators say DelleChiaie also searched for information on how to smuggle a firearm into a federal building and researched previous assassination attempts targeting Trump.

    Authorities further alleged that he looked up information related to Vice President JD Vance’s family and the family of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — a discovery likely to intensify concerns about politically motivated threats against top administration officials.

    DelleChiaie appeared in federal court Tuesday and now faces a charge of interstate communication of a threat against the president. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

    The arrest comes amid heightened security fears surrounding Trump after multiple threats and assassination attempts over the last two years.

    Most recently, authorities say 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen attempted to gun down Trump and several administration officials during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 25. Investigators said Allen appeared to be driven by conspiracy theories involving Jeffrey Epstein and anti-Trump rhetoric.

    In a manifesto uncovered after the attack, Allen allegedly described Trump as a “pedophile” and “rapist” who needed to be killed.

    The shocking incident marked the third known assassination attempt against Trump since 2024.

    The first came during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a gunman opened fire and wounded Trump in the ear while killing a rally attendee behind him. Months later, another suspect was arrested after allegedly attempting to target Trump at his Florida golf course.

    The latest case is likely to add even more scrutiny to political rhetoric and online extremism as federal authorities continue investigating a growing number of threats against the president and senior members of his administration.

    Palm Beach County Signs Off On Trump Airport Trademark Deal

    2
    Image via Pixabay

    Palm Beach County commissioners narrowly approved a controversial trademark agreement Tuesday that clears the way for Palm Beach International Airport to be renamed after President Donald Trump — pushing forward a politically charged project that has divided local leaders and raised fresh concerns about taxpayer costs and oversight.

    In a 4-3 vote, the commission signed off on a licensing deal with DTTM Operations LLC, the Trump family company that manages the president’s trademarks. The agreement gives Trump’s organization significant control over how the airport’s new identity is used, including authority over branding, marketing materials and the sale of airport-themed merchandise.

    The vote marks the first official action by county commissioners tied directly to the airport renaming effort, which was mandated earlier this year by Florida lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    Under the agreement, the airport is expected to adopt the name “President Donald J. Trump International Airport,” matching trademark filings submitted by Trump’s company in February.

    Supporters of the deal argued the county had little choice but to move forward after state lawmakers forced the renaming through Tallahassee. Republican commissioners said approving the trademark agreement ensures Palm Beach County retains at least some role in negotiations surrounding the airport’s future branding and operations.

    But critics warned the agreement grants unusually broad authority to Trump’s business organization while locking the county into a deal with no clear exit strategy.

    Democratic commissioners Gregg Weiss, Joel Flores and Bobby Powell Jr. voted against the measure, saying they were given less than 24 hours to review the final agreement before Tuesday’s meeting.

    They also raised concerns about provisions allowing Trump’s company to approve how the president’s image and biography are used in airport promotions and displays. Another clause requires airport retailers to source airport-branded merchandise only from vendors approved by Trump’s organization.

    Trademark attorney Josh Gerben said portions of the agreement go beyond what is typically included in standard licensing deals.

    “Normally a trademark agreement focuses on quality control standards,” Gerben said. “It’s unusual to see language requiring retailers to purchase merchandise from approved sellers selected by the trademark owner.”

    County Attorney David Ottey defended the provision during Tuesday’s meeting, saying it was designed to maintain quality standards and insisting the Trump family would not financially benefit from sales made inside the airport. However, county officials acknowledged they still do not know which vendors may ultimately be approved.

    The agreement also contains no termination clause, meaning Palm Beach County would remain bound by the deal indefinitely unless state law changes in the future.

    Beyond the political controversy, county officials continue to warn about the financial impact of the renaming project. Administrators estimate the airport overhaul — including signage changes, marketing updates, federal documentation and operational adjustments — could cost taxpayers roughly $5.5 million.

    County leaders have repeatedly urged the state to cover those costs rather than forcing local officials to redirect funding away from other infrastructure projects.

    Officials have also raised concerns in recent months about possible safety and logistical complications tied to changing the airport’s name, particularly involving aviation systems, emergency coordination and federal regulatory updates.

    Still, with Tuesday’s approval now complete and Trump having already signed the agreement over the weekend, the renaming effort appears poised to move ahead — cementing one of the most politically symbolic airport name changes in the country.

    This article originally appeared on Official Trump Tracker. Republished with permission.

    Report: Comey Skipping First Court Appearance In Trump Threat Case

    Former FBI Director James Comey will no longer have to make an upcoming court appearance in North Carolina after a federal judge agreed to cancel the hearing tied to charges that he threatened President Donald Trump through a controversial social media post.

    U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan conditionally approved Comey’s request to waive the appearance after his attorneys argued he had already made an initial court appearance last week in Alexandria, Virginia.

    Comey surrendered to authorities during that appearance, was formally read his rights, and did not enter a plea.

    His legal team argued that federal criminal procedure rules provide “for an initial appearance in the singular,” making another hearing unnecessary. Prosecutors with the Department of Justice reportedly supported the request.

    Judge Flanagan ruled that the North Carolina hearing would be canceled if Comey filed the required waiver by Friday. Otherwise, the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

    The former FBI chief is facing two federal charges tied to a May 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to read “86 47” — a message prosecutors say amounted to a threat against Trump’s life.

    According to prosecutors, the phrase “86” is widely understood as slang for eliminating or getting rid of someone, while “47” refers to Trump, the 47th president.

    The charging document alleges:

    “On or about May 15, 2025, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the defendant, JAMES BRIEN COMEY JR, did knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States, in that he publicly posted a photograph on the internet social media site Instagram which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47,’ which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”

    Comey has fiercely denied the accusations and claimed the prosecution is politically motivated.

    When the image was first posted, Comey later said he believed the shells represented a “political message” and claimed he did not realize the numbers could be interpreted as encouraging violence. He eventually deleted the post.

    The longtime Trump rival responded to the indictment in a video statement, insisting he has done nothing wrong.

    “But nothing has changed with me. I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let’s go,” Comey said.

    “But it’s really important that all of us remember that this is not who we are as a country, this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be.”

    The charges — threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce — each carry a maximum possible prison sentence of five years. Prosecutors would need to prove Comey “knowingly and willfully” threatened to “take the life of” Trump.

    The case marks yet another chapter in the bitter feud between Trump and the former FBI director, whom Trump fired in 2017 during the early stages of the Russia investigation led by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

    It is also the second criminal case Comey has faced since Trump returned to the White House.

    Comey was previously charged with false statements and obstruction tied to his 2020 congressional testimony about FBI leaks. That case was ultimately dismissed after a court found the prosecutor’s appointment unlawful, though the Trump administration has appealed the decision.