President Trump pushed back Sunday evening against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) warnings about her personal safety, escalating an already tense dispute within the GOP over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Speaking to reporters on the tarmac before departing Palm Beach, Fla., the president reiterated his criticism of Greene, again referring to the outspoken conservative as a “traitor” when asked about her claim that Trump’s rhetoric could endanger her life.
“Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene,” Trump said, correcting a reporter who used the congresswoman’s actual name. “I don’t think her life is in danger. I don’t think — frankly, I don’t think anybody cares about her.”
A short time later, Trump doubled down on Truth Social, taking aim at Greene as tensions continue to rise over her calls for the full release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “Wacky Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown (Remember, Green turns to Brown where there is ROT involved!) is working overtime to try and portray herself as a victim when, in actuality, she is the cause of all of her own problems,” Trump wrote. “The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!”
Greene, who has long portrayed herself as one of Trump’s staunchest allies, had posted earlier on X that “the hoax pizza deliveries have started now, to my house and family members,” and said her family’s construction business had received a pipe bomb threat. She argued that Trump’s attacks on her were “a dog whistle to dangerous radicals that could lead to serious attacks on me and my family.”
Responding to Trump labeling her a traitor, Greene wrote that the accusation is “absolutely untrue and horrific” and said such language “puts blood in the water and creates a feeding frenzy. And it could ultimately lead to a harmful or even deadly outcome.”
“I am not a traitor,” she insisted. “However, when the President of the United States irresponsibly calls a Member of Congress of his own party, traitor, he is signaling what must be done to a traitor.”
Watch:
I stood with President Trump when almost no one else would. I campaigned for him all over this country and spent millions of my own dollars helping him get elected.
That’s why being called a “traitor” isn’t just hurtful, it puts a target on my back and puts my life in danger.… pic.twitter.com/LPDjpldExn
Greene defended her record and her long-standing loyalty to Trump. “I fought harder than anyone to help President Trump get elected and I support his administration and the promises we made on the campaign,” she wrote. “My voting record is one of the most conservative voting records in Congress and I’m very proud of that. The toxic and dangerous rhetoric in politics must end and we need healing in this country for all Americans.”
The dispute comes as Greene has intensified her criticism of Trump’s earlier reluctance to endorse the full release of the Epstein files—documents many Republicans argue should be made public to expose potential wrongdoing and eliminate politically motivated speculation. The House is expected to vote this week on a measure compelling the Department of Justice to release those records. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who initiated the discharge petition to force the vote, said he expects significant Republican support.
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer – https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
Republican pressure on Trump increased last week after Democrats selectively released new emails, including one allegedly written by Epstein claiming Trump “knew about the girls.” Many conservatives view the move as a partisan attempt to smear Trump and distract from Democratic figures who were associated with Epstein. In response, and just minutes before his latest Truth Social post criticizing Greene, Trump urged House Republicans to back full transparency.
Lawmakers “should vote to release the Epstein files,” Trump said, arguing, “we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party.”
Still, Massie cautioned that the Justice Department—now conducting new probes into Epstein’s alleged connections to Democrats—might use those investigations to justify withholding certain materials even after Congress acts. Republicans warn that bureaucratic resistance could undermine the effort for full disclosure, a point fueling frustration both inside and outside the party.
The British broadcaster BBC has formally apologized to the White House for the way it edited a clip of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 — the day before the Capitol attack. The apology comes just days after President Trump’s legal team threatened the BBC with a $1 billion lawsuit over the segment, which appeared in a documentary.
According to a BBC spokesperson, “Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.” The BBC added: “Chair [Samir Shah] has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the President’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.” The BBC also confirmed that there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? on any of its platforms.
The broadcaster acknowledged that “the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action,” and referred to it as “an error in judgement.” The BBC nonetheless stated that it strongly disagrees there is a valid defamation claim.
The specific clip in question showed Trump saying to his rally crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” A fuller official transcript and video, however, show that Trump also told his supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol.
President Trump’s lawsuit accuses the BBC of defamation, alleging the broadcaster caused “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” with the editing. With this apology, the BBC has taken a step toward mollifying the matter — but the threat of litigation remains.
NEW: BBC to apologize for deceptively editing President Trump’s January 6 speech in an effort to make it look like he encouraged violence at the Capitol.
The apology letter is reportedly expected to come early next week.
President Trump has a well-documented history of filing lawsuits (or threatening them) against major media outlets. Here are a few notable examples:
Trump’s legal team recently filed a $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against The New York Times, four of its journalists, and publisher Penguin Random House. He accuses them of publishing false allegations about his business and political career, saying they harmed his brand and business interests.
Earlier in 2025 he filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner (including Rupert Murdoch) over an article about alleged ties between Trump and the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In 2024, a settlement was reached when parent company Paramount Global (of CBS) paid $16 million to resolve a suit Trump brought over purportedly misleading editing of a 2024 interview on 60 Minutes.
Legal-watchers note that by mid-2025 Trump was involved in as many new media and defamation lawsuits as he was in all of 2024 — reflecting a significant escalation of his willingness to use litigation in his media disputes
President Donald Trump participates in a welcome ceremony with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
A new twist has emerged in the Fulton County election interference case against President Donald Trump. On Friday, a special prosecutor was appointed to replace embattled District Attorney Fani Willis (D), who was disqualified after a court found her romantic relationship with a top prosecutor created an appearance of impropriety.
Peter Skandalakis, executive director of Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council (PAC), announced that after failing to find another willing candidate, he would step in personally to oversee the case.
“Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment,” Skandalakis said in a statement. “Out of respect for their privacy and professional discretion, I will not identify those prosecutors or disclose their reasons for declining.”
The move came just as a judge-imposed deadline loomed for PAC to name a new prosecutor—or risk seeing the entire case dismissed.
Skandalakis explained that while “it would have been simple” to let the deadline expire, he believed “that was not the right course of action,” citing the public’s interest in ensuring the matter is resolved properly.
The Georgia court’s decision to remove Willis cast major doubt on the future of the case, which accuses Trump and several allies of racketeering and other charges related to challenging the 2020 election results. Trump and most of his co-defendants have pleaded not guilty, maintaining that they did nothing wrong in questioning the outcome of the election. Four others accepted plea deals.
With Willis out, Skandalakis now has full discretion over whether to continue pursuing the case or to drop the charges entirely.
“My only objective is to ensure that this case is handled properly, fairly, and with full transparency—discharging my duties without fear, favor, or affection,” he said.
This isn’t the first time Skandalakis has been involved in a high-profile matter stemming from Willis’s conduct. After she was previously barred from investigating Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (R) due to her involvement in a political fundraiser against him, Skandalakis also took over—and ultimately declined to bring charges.
Citing that past experience, he said his familiarity with similar issues makes him the best candidate to take over the Trump case.
The original indictment accused Trump and more than a dozen associates of an “unlawful conspiracy” to challenge President Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia. The case is one of several politically charged prosecutions targeting Trump during his campaign to return to the White House—the first criminal cases ever brought against a then-former U.S. president.
Trump was previously convicted in New York on business record charges tied to a 2016 hush money payment. Meanwhile, his two federal prosecutions—for alleged election interference and mishandling classified documents—were dismissed following his reelection to a second term.
PAC officials had confirmed as late as Thursday that no replacement had been found, suggesting the decision came together quickly.
On Monday, Skandalakis addressed Trump’s recent presidential pardons for several allies charged in the Georgia case, saying his office had “diligently” worked on the matter since Willis’s removal and would continue to do so “without being influenced by matters outside the scope of our assigned task.”
He also clarified that Trump’s pardons apply only to federal charges, not state cases.
“Therefore, the task before my office remains unchanged,” Skandalakis said.
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695
Just hours after the White House publicly accused congressional Democrats of selectively leaking emails related to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released tens of thousands of additional pages of documents. These include email exchanges between Epstein and prominent journalists.
A significant portion of the new material shows correspondence between Epstein and writer-turned-biographer Michael Wolff. Wolff reached out to Epstein multiple times, discussing not only Epstein’s public image but how to leverage criticism of Donald Trump for strategic benefit.
In February 2016, Wolff wrote to Epstein:
“NYT called me about you and Trump,” “Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting.”
A month later they discussed plans ahead of the release of Filthy Rich — a true-crime book by James Patterson about Epstein, who was Patterson’s neighbor in Palm Beach. Wolff suggested to Epstein:
“Becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now.” And he added: “Patterson can be counted on to produce a bestseller, and while he isn’t regarded as a serious writer, he’ll surely be unloading a lot of tabloid copy … Because this will be tied to the election, the Trump-Clinton angle will amp up the attention 10-fold, in fact, possibly, a hundred fold. Possibly more than anything you’ve encountered before.”
When Epstein asked Wolff what he should say publicly about his relationship with Trump, Wolff’s advice was pointed:
“If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” “You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”
In further correspondence, Wolff requested introductions for Epstein to two figures close to Trump: business leader and inaugural-committee chair Tom Barrack and former federal prosecutor Kathy Ruemmler. He told Epstein he sought “an off-the-record perspective on White House procedures,” while researching his book about Trump’s first 100 days in office. He also asked whether former President Bill Clinton would confirm he had never been to Epstein’s private U.S. Virgin Islands island, Little St. John — a place Clinton has publicly denied visiting. Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell has also denied seeing Clinton there.
The documents show that Epstein and Wolff planned to meet as recently as May 2019 — months before Epstein died in a federal jail cell while awaiting trial.
Some of the newly released material included a short video of a dog and what appear to be chew toys modeled after Trump and the 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton. Others appear to be slides from an adviser working to generate positive search-engine results for Epstein following his 2008 conviction for child-sex crimes.
Earlier, Democrats had released documents that included an especially cryptic email from Epstein to Maxwell — one that mentions Trump by name, and refers to an unnamed victim of Epstein’s trafficking network. The email read:
“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump,” Epstein wrote on April 2, 2011. “[VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him…he has never once been mentioned. Police chief. etc. I’m 75% there.”
Officials later identified the “unnamed victim” as well-known Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year. Giuffre repeatedly stated that Trump was not involved in wrongdoing and “couldn’t have been friendlier” to her in their limited interactions. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, responded:
“The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre.”
In his own post on Truth Social, Trump weighed in:
“The Democrats cost our Country $1.5 Trillion Dollars with their recent antics of viciously closing our Country, while at the same time putting many at risk — and they should pay a fair price,” he wrote. “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!”
As a reminder: Epstein secured a highly-controversial so-called “sweetheart” deal in 2008 for child-sex crimes. He was arrested again in 2019 on more serious trafficking charges — but died before the case went to trial. Maxwell was convicted of grooming and procuring girls and young women for Epstein; she is appealing and continues to assert her innocence.
Key Takeaways for a Republican Audience
The timing of the document releases and allegations of selective leaking by Democrats raises questions about political motive and media stratagem.
The correspondence shows efforts to frame Epstein’s narrative around Trump — part of a broader attempt to tie the story to the 2016 presidential election and cast Trump in a negative light.
Trump’s defenders argue the documents reinforce his long-standing disassociation from Epstein, as well as serve to remind voters of Democrats’ role in political maneuvering, rather than holding criminals accountable.
For Republicans focused on institutional integrity and media accountability, the episode reinforces concerns about selective exposure of documents, agenda-driven leaks, and manipulation of public perception.
President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for at least $1 billion, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation after it aired a misleadingly edited clip in its pre-election documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance?”
The film, which aired ahead of the November 2024 election, includes footage from Trump’s January 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally, just before Congress certified Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The BBC’s version of Trump’s remarks spliced together two separate parts of his speech to make it appear more inflammatory.
The documentary quoted Trump as saying:
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”
However, in reality, Trump’s words were more measured. He told supporters:
“We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
He continued:
“You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.”
Trump also explicitly called for peaceful protest, adding:
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
It wasn’t until about an hour later in his remarks that Trump said the second part of the BBC’s edited clip:
“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
BBC Leaders Step Down Amid Backlash
The controversy was first exposed by The Daily Telegraph, which published an internal BBC memo acknowledging the editing issue. Following the uproar, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness both resigned.
In a message to staff, Turness admitted that “mistakes have been made” but denied claims that the BBC is “institutionally biased.”
Trump’s Legal Response
Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Britt, sent the BBC a legal letter demanding a full apology and retraction. The letter accuses the broadcaster of “defrauding the public” and misrepresenting Trump’s words to paint him in a negative light.
“Well, I guess I have to,” Trump told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, confirming his intent to sue. “Why not? Because they defrauded the public, and they’ve admitted it.”
A Pattern of Media Accountability
This is not the first time the President has successfully taken on major media outlets.
Last year, ABC News settled with Trump for $15 million after anchor George Stephanopoulos falsely claimed on-air that Trump was found civilly liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case. The jury had, in fact, found him liable only for sexual abuse.
In July 2024, Trump won another $16 million settlement from Paramount, following claims that a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris was heavily edited to favor her during the election season.
Trump also has an ongoing $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, accusing it of defamation after it published a supposed birthday note he allegedly wrote to Jeffrey Epstein—a note Trump denies ever writing.
President Donald Trump has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the civil verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll, marking the latest chapter in a years-long legal battle that has shadowed his political comeback.
In a petition filed with the Court, Trump’s attorneys argued that the $5 million jury verdict was “propped up” by “a series of indefensible evidentiary rulings” that allowed Carroll’s lawyers to introduce what they called “highly inflammatory propensity evidence.” The filing claimed that these rulings unfairly prejudiced the jury and violated federal evidentiary standards.
“President Trump has clearly and consistently denied that this supposed incident ever occurred,” attorney Justin Smith and his co-counsel wrote in the filing. “No physical or DNA evidence corroborates Carroll’s story. There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation.”
Carroll first sued Trump in 2019, after publishing a memoir alleging that he raped her in a department store dressing room in New York City in the 1990s. Trump denied the accusation outright, saying he had never met Carroll, that she was not his “type,” and that she fabricated the story to promote her book. His forceful denials led to Carroll’s defamation claims, resulting in two separate trials.
Trump’s lawyers now assert that U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who oversaw the trial, “warped federal evidence rules” to support Carroll’s “implausible, unsubstantiated assertions.” They further contend that by upholding the verdict, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals created a conflict with other appellate courts over how such evidence should be treated.
When Trump’s legal team first announced in September that they would appeal to the Supreme Court, Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, dismissed the move. “We do not believe that President Trump will be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court,” she said at the time.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team characterized the Supreme Court filing as part of a broader effort to fight what they describe as politically motivated legal attacks. “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 statement said.
The appeal follows a series of defeats for Trump in the lower courts. In December 2024, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld the $5 million verdict, rejecting claims that trial errors had tainted the outcome. In June 2025, the same court denied Trump’s request for a full rehearing by all active judges, leaving him with the Supreme Court as his last legal option.
Trump did not attend the original 2023 trial but briefly testified at a second defamation trial in 2024, which resulted in a separate $83.3 million damages award for Carroll. That verdict was also upheld in September by a 2nd Circuit panel, which described the jury’s damages as “fair and reasonable.” Trump has since asked the full appellate court to reconsider that decision as well.
President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Monday, February 10, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House photo by Abe McNatt)
President Trump has granted full pardons to former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his ex-chief of staff Cade Cothren — two Republican operatives convicted in a federal corruption case involving a legislator-funded mailer program. The White House announced that the decision came after what the administration describes as a disproportionate prosecution by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Biden administration.
According to a senior White House official, Casada and Cothren were convicted of a “minor issue involving constituent mailers — which were billed at competitive prices, never received a complaint from legislators, and resulted in a net profit loss of less than $5,000.” The official added that “the Biden DOJ responded with an armed raid, a perp walk and suggested sentences exceeding 10 years — penalties normally reserved for multimillion-dollar fraudsters.”
Casada was sentenced in September to three years in prison, and Cothren to two and a half years, following their convictions. Casada resigned from his speakership in 2019 after a no-confidence vote within his party.
The former lawmaker was found guilty of 17 charges in the public corruption case, while Cothren was found guilty of all 19 charges in the trial that began in April.
Casada resigned in 2019 after a no-confidence vote by fellow Tennessee Republicans.
President Trump’s recent pardons:
To understand the Casada/Cothren case in context, here are key examples of Trump’s clemency use:
Earlier this year, Trump pardoned former Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland (R), who had resigned amid a federal corruption scandal and served prison time.
He also pardoned former New York Representative Michael Grimm (R), who pleaded guilty to tax fraud.
In February, Trump pardoned former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) — who had been convicted in a high-profile federal corruption case — further underscoring the breadth and partisan ramifications of his clemency decisions.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is reportedly considering a run for president in 2028 — a move that, if realized, could reshape the Republican Party’s post-Trump era and test the staying power of the “America First” movement.
According to a new report from Notus, Greene has privately expressed interest in following in Donald Trump’s footsteps to the White House. The outlet cites four sources familiar with her thinking, saying Greene believes she represents the “real MAGA” faction — the core conservative movement that has reshaped the GOP since 2016 — and that many Republican leaders have drifted away from those grassroots values.
One source told Notus that Greene feels confident she has built the national donor network and grassroots support needed to mount a serious primary campaign, especially as the GOP’s base remains loyal to Trump’s populist agenda.
Building a National Brand
While Greene has long been a lightning rod for criticism from the left, she’s also gained national recognition for her unapologetic defense of conservative causes — from border security to religious freedom, from cutting wasteful spending to standing up against what she calls the “weaponization” of government against political opponents.
In recent months, Greene has sought to expand her reach beyond the hardcore MAGA base. She’s made high-profile appearances on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” on HBO, The View, and CNN, signaling an effort to engage audiences outside of conservative media. Her willingness to enter unfriendly territory underscores her confidence and desire to make the case for conservative principles in front of skeptics.
As one GOP strategist told Notus, “She’s trying to take the MAGA message to a national stage — not just to Republicans, but to all Americans who feel Washington is broken.”
Criticizing the GOP’s Lack of Direction
Greene has also been unafraid to criticize her own party when she believes it has lost focus. On Real Time, she expressed frustration with Republicans who, after years of campaigning to repeal and replace Obamacare, “still don’t have a plan.”
“I’m angry about that,” Greene said on the show, adding that conservatives need to deliver tangible results, not just rhetoric.
In recent weeks, she has also called out male Republican members of Congress as “weak” for caving to establishment pressure, blasted the GOP for having “no plan” to avoid government shutdown chaos, and criticized the party’s leadership for not pushing harder to release Jeffrey Epstein files, saying Americans deserve transparency and truth.
A Populist in the Trump Mold
Those close to Greene describe her as both fiercely loyal to Donald Trump and equally committed to ensuring his populist movement survives beyond him. She was one of Trump’s earliest and most vocal defenders during both impeachments and remains one of his strongest allies in Congress.
At the same time, Greene has worked to develop her own national voice, one that emphasizes restoring American sovereignty, rebuilding manufacturing, reducing foreign entanglements, and protecting traditional values that she argues have been under assault from both the left and establishment Republicans.
The 2028 Question
When asked directly about a presidential run during an appearance on comedian Tim Dillon’s podcast last October, Greene laughed off the speculation — but didn’t shut it down entirely.
“Oh my goodness. I hate politics so much, Tim,” she said. “People are saying that, and I’ve seen a few people saying ‘she’s running’… What I’m doing right now is I very much want to fix problems. That’s honestly all I care about.”
Still, those familiar with her thinking say Greene’s ambitions go beyond her congressional seat. With her growing national platform, fundraising power, and ability to command headlines, she could emerge as one of the most influential Republican figures in the post-Trump era — whether she runs in 2028 or not.
In August, President Donald Trump made his clearest endorsement yet for a future Republican presidential candidate, declaring that Vice President JD Vance is “most likely” to carry the MAGA torch after his second term ends.
Trump described Vance as “probably the favorite” to lead the Republican Party into the next election cycle.
“He’s most likely the heir,” Trump said, referring to Vance. “He understands the movement, he understands the people, and he’s doing a phenomenal job as Vice President.”
Trump also praised Secretary of State Marco Rubio, calling him “somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form,” suggesting Rubio could play a key role in a future Vance-led administration or campaign.
Rubio, for his part, echoed Trump’s praise of Vance during a recent interview with Lara Trump on Fox News.
“I think he’s doing a great job as Vice President. He’s a close friend, and I hope he intends to do it,” Rubio said of Vance.
Although recent polling has shown Rubio with some early support among Republican voters for a potential 2028 run, conventional political wisdom indicates he wouldn’t start publicly signaling interest in running for president until much closer to the election.
“You never know what the future holds,” Rubio said. “But if I’m able to finish this term strong and we accomplish what we’ve set out to do, I’ll be satisfied with that as the apex of my public service career.”
Justice Department officials in Miami and Washington, D.C. are moving forward with grand jury subpoenas as part of an expanding investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, according to Fox News sources.
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason Reding Quiñones is supervising the probe, according to Fox News.
Fox News previously revealed that both Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey were under federal investigation as of July 2025. Comey is already facing trial in January, while Brennan has not yet been indicted — though prosecutors are preparing to present evidence to a grand jury in South Florida.
The case gained renewed momentum last month when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) formally referred Brennan to the Department of Justice, accusing him of lying under oath to Congress.
Jordan charged that Brennan “willfully and intentionally” misled lawmakers during his 2023 testimony, when he denied that the CIA relied on the Steele dossier in compiling the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — the report that alleged Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. Brennan also claimed the CIA had opposed using the dossier’s contents — a claim Jordan and other Republicans say is demonstrably false.
The Steele dossier, a controversial collection of memos compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, accused then-candidate Donald Trump of collusion with Russia. The dossier was later debunked, and evidence showed it was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
A federal appeals court has reopened a potential path to dismissing President Donald Trump’s controversial hush money conviction, a major development that could upend the first criminal verdict ever rendered against a U.S. president.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit revived Trump’s bid to move the case out of New York state court and into federal court—where he plans to argue that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity shields him from prosecution for actions connected to his time in office.
The appeals panel said it “cannot be confident” that the lower court properly evaluated Trump’s arguments before rejecting his request last year.
“The court bypassed what we consider to be important issues bearing on the ultimate issue of good cause,” the panel wrote.
The judges did not express an opinion on whether Trump’s strategy should prevail, but sent the case back to the lower court for further review.
“We leave it to the able and experienced District Judge to decide whether to solicit further briefing from the parties or hold a hearing to help it resolve these issues,” the panel added.
Trump’s team has long maintained that the Manhattan prosecution was politically motivated and orchestrated by Democratic officials seeking to damage his 2024 campaign. The conviction—34 counts of falsifying business records—stemmed from what prosecutors described as a “hush money” payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump has denied the alleged affair and consistently argued that the payments were legal expenses.
The move to federal court, if successful, could provide a new venue for Trump to challenge what many conservatives view as an abuse of prosecutorial power and a double standard in the justice system. The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in July strengthened Trump’s position, establishing that presidents are entitled to significant constitutional protections against criminal prosecution for official acts.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
