Author: NOVA Corp

Major League Baseball (MLB) is facing mounting backlash over threatening to discipline San Francisco Giants players for inscribing Bible verses on their Pride hats — a move critics say reflects the league’s growing embrace of progressive social causes at odds with its fan base.

MLB said the players’ actions violated its uniform policy, which prohibits “writing of any kind” on uniforms, despite the league previously allowing political messages in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The league’s warning came after three Giants players — Landen Roupp, J.T. Brubaker and Ryan Walker — wrote a passage from Genesis 9 on the franchise’s “Pride Night” caps. The verses in white lettering detailed the Christian understanding of the rainbow as a covenant between God and every living creature after the worldwide flood described in the first book of the Bible.

GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., are demanding answers, citing a “pattern of discrimination” against Christian players in the league.

DAN DAKICH RIPS MLB FOR WARNING GIANTS PLAYERS WHO WROTE BIBLE VERSES ON THEIR PRIDE HATS: ‘SHUT UP’

“The freedom to live out one’s faith does not end at the ballpark gate,” Hawley wrote in a letter to MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred on Tuesday.

The three Giants players have not yet been fined or punished by the league. But if the league decides to pursue disciplinary action, Hawley said in an interview with “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” Wednesday that he would subpoena Manfred to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and examine the league’s antitrust exemption. 

Hawley argued that the league’s enforcement of its uniform policy during the “Pride Night” episode stands in sharp contrast to its encouragement of players to embrace the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020.

That year, several franchises in the league inscribed pitcher’s mounds and jersey patches with messages stating “Black Lives Matter” and “United For Change.” 

Hawley also noted the league suspended its own uniform rules, allowing players to write progressive social messages on their cleats.

The league’s account also tweeted a picture of Giants players kneeling for the national anthem and endorsed the move with the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter.

“While they bent over backwards for BLM messaging in 2020, they’re cracking down on religious freedom in 2026,” Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, wrote on social media Wednesday. “This isn’t neutrality, it’s political discrimination against faith.”

“Americans see the double standard,” he added.

NATIONALS’ TREVOR WILLIAMS RECALLS FIGHTING ANTI-CATHOLIC MOCKERY WHEN DODGERS HOSTED DRAG NUN GROUP

In 2021, the league pulled the 2021 All-Star Game and MLB draft out of Atlanta, Ga., in protest of a Republican voting law. The measure enacted new restrictions on mail-in voting, which Democrats argued would make it harder for Black Georgians to vote.

Former President Joe Biden and former Democratic Georgia gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams endorsed the league’s decision. 

Hawley also pointed to a recent scandal involving a Washington Nationals executive alleging that anti-Christian discrimination in the league is not an “isolated incident.”

Washington Nationals Director of Community Relations Sean Hudson said the franchise did not include pitcher Trevor Williams in certain social media promotions over his religious objections to the Los Angeles Dodgers honoring a drag group that satirizes Christianity at its 2023 “Pride Night.”

“That executive has since been fired, but not before the anti-Christian bigotry was exposed,” Hawley said, adding that the league “needs to course correct immediately.”

“MLB has a sweetheart deal from the federal government,” he said. “They play by different rules than any other business in America. But now MLB is using its power to target Christians and trample free speech. It’s anti-American.”

MLB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon has also warned the league that it risks litigation if it moves to punish outspoken Christian players.

“Time to lawyer up!” she wrote on social media Tuesday.

Fox News’ Ian Miller and Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

When Americans think of low-tax policies, states like Florida and Texas usually come to mind. But another Republican-led state has quietly joined the club: North Dakota.

Tax cuts, strong finances and billions in oil revenue have combined to create one of the nation’s most competitive tax environments in the Great Plains state while other states across the country grapple with budget shortfalls and debates over tax hikes.

The issue is likely to remain front and center for governors and state lawmakers as they look to attract residents, businesses and investment in the years ahead.

While most states do not sit atop one of the nation’s largest oil formations, tax experts say the broader lesson is applicable almost anywhere. Strong revenues can be used to lower tax burdens and strengthen state finances rather than fuel spending increases.

BLUE-STATE TAX BURDEN FUELS AMERICANS FLEEING TO REPUBLICAN-LED SOUTHERN STATES

The payoff for North Dakota has been straightforward — residents keep more of what they earn, businesses face fewer tax burdens and the government remains on solid financial footing.

And while tax policy is only one piece of the equation, Nicole Fox, senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation told Fox News Digital that the group’s analysis of IRS migration data points to a clear trend.

“States that have experienced net in-migration are states with more competitive tax structures and lower overall costs of living,” Fox said.

While North Dakota ranks second in tax collections per capita, it remains one of the country’s more tax-friendly states — a welcome contradiction for the state’s government and residents.

Unlike New York and California, blue states that heavily rely on income taxes to fund government operations, North Dakota generates billions of dollars from oil and gas production. That energy wealth has given lawmakers greater flexibility to cut taxes for its residents while maintaining healthy state revenues.

This dichotomy was highlighted by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who during a meeting with the Petroleum Club of Houston last week compared California to deep red Texas and praised domestic energy production and dominance.

“In California, I saw firsthand what years of failed governance looks like: a tax system that is hostile to ambition. A regulatory state that smothers enterprise. An economic climate indifferent to consequence,” he said in remarks first shared with Fox News Digital.

“Here in Texas, meanwhile, the contrast is so striking that it begins to feel like a tale of two states.”

Bessent said: “More than strengthen an economy, energy abundance also secures a nation. Economic security is national security.”

TAX FIGHT PUTS CALIFORNIA ON COLLISION COURSE AS BILLIONAIRES LEAVE FOR RED STATES

The numbers help explain how North Dakota has pulled off raking in revenue while keeping taxes low.

According to the latest available U.S. Census Bureau data, North Dakota ranked second in the nation for state and local tax collections per capita in 2023, bringing in $9,834 per resident.

That might sound more like a high-tax state than a tax-friendly one. The difference is where the money comes from.

AMERICA’S NEXT ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE MAY BE RISING IN RED-STATE TERRITORY

North Dakota collects more tax revenue per resident than almost every other state, but much of that money comes from oil and gas production rather than from residents’ paychecks.

Of the $7.72 billion collected by state and local governments that year, roughly $3.17 billion came from severance taxes on oil and gas production — accounting for about 41% of total tax revenue.

While North Dakota collects all major tax types, including property, sales and income taxes, it relies far less on income taxes than many other states. Individual income taxes accounted for just 6.4% of total revenue in 2023, while corporate income taxes made up 4.2%.

Put simply, North Dakota collects a lot of revenue without heavily taxing residents’ incomes.

That revenue mix allows North Dakota to generate billions for government services while placing a relatively smaller burden on residents and businesses than states that rely more heavily on income taxes.

While few states can replicate North Dakota’s oil wealth, advocates argue its success shows that revenue windfalls can be used to lower tax burdens and strengthen state finances rather than expand government spending.

FIRST ON FOX: Abraham Alvarez, identified in federal documents as the alleged “ringleader” of a plot to carry out a mass casualty event at the UFC White House event on June 14, is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who overstayed his visa, according to Homeland Security information first obtained by Fox News Digital.

Alvarez came to the United States as a child and was granted by the Obama administration in 2014 deportation relief through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program after he failed to leave the country when his B2 visa expired in 2001.

Five co-conspirators were arrested so far this month for allegedly planning with others to use drones equipped with explosives to force an evacuation from the White House event on Sunday and, in the ensuing chaos, a team of snipers was allegedly set to open fire on the crowds. Federal investigators claim Alvarez was responsible for planning, organizing, and directing the planned attack.

Court records ousted Alvarez as a foreign national considering he consented to a consular notification after his arrest this weekend, though the documents provided no information on his specific immigration status nor his country of origin. 

FROM RALLY GUNFIRE TO WHITE HOUSE SHOOTING, THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUE TO MOUNT

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged a detainer for Alvarez following the FBI’s arrest.

Alvarez was arrested by the FBI on the day of the fight in Omaha, Nebraska.

The White House and FBI declined to comment when asked by Fox News Digital about the whereabouts of the other individuals involved in the group chat, with the former directing the inquiry to a DOJ press release.

“This illegal alien from Mexico should never have been allowed in our country,” DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said in a statement to Fox News Digital on the attack. “He was the ringleader of a failed terror attack targeting UFC Freedom 250 at the White House.”

“He will face justice and swiftly be removed from our country,” she added of Alvarez.

If convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, each plotter faces a maximum penalty of life in prison and a $250,000 fine. Planning to carry out violence on White House grounds carries an additional maximum penalty of five years in prison.  

DAN BONGINO REVEALS HOW THE FBI STOPPED AN ALLEGED TERROR PLOT BUILT FOR ‘UNIMAGINABLE’ CASUALTIES

After plans for the initial attack on Sunday, federal authorities claim the plotters planned a “second wave” where they would storm the White House gate. The co-conspirators purportedly sought to jump-start a revolution in the U.S. with the violence, citing grievances such as government corruption, the handling of the Epstein files, data centers using water and the influence of Israel over domestic politics. 

Alvarez allegedly used the name “Shepherd” in a group chat dedicated to planning the attack. He was “responsible for planning, organizing, and directing the planned attack,” according to a DOJ press release. 

“As many and as deadly as we can get,” Alvarez allegedly responded when asked by a fellow plotter when asked about making drones with explosives. Authorities say that he claimed to have had a working drone. 

Investigators have identified 23 individuals who were part of the alleged terror planning network, however; as of publishing, only five arrests have been announced in connection with the plot. It is unclear why the UFC event proceeded with many of those involved in the plot still seemingly at large. 

Abraham Hermosillo Alvarez, a Mexican illegal alien, was arrested by the FBI on the day of the fight in Omaha, Nebraska.

The White House and FBI declined to comment when asked by Fox News Digital about the whereabouts of the other individuals involved in the group chat, with the former directing the inquiry to a DOJ press release.

The State Department did not respond to an inquiry from Fox News Digital regarding whether or not it would revoke Alvarez’s DACA immigration status if he is found guilty of involvement in the plot.

If convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, each plotter faces a maximum penalty of life in prison and a $250,000 fine. Planning to carry out violence on White House grounds carries an additional maximum penalty of five years in prison.  

VANCE WARNS LEFT-WING POLITICAL RHETORIC FUELING VIOLENCE AFTER FBI FOILS ALLEGED WHITE HOUSE UFC TERROR PLOT  

Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday that the alleged plans to attack the White House event were “not that advanced,” noting that the plot was relatively undeveloped when it was caught and that none of the suspects “weren’t in town” during the event.

“The FBI, our law enforcement partners and our U.S. Attorneys did what they do every day to make America Safe through quick response and vigilance in investigating, disrupting and dismantling this alleged plan before it could be carried out,” Acting Attorney General Todd was quoted as saying in a DOJ press release “We will take immediate and aggressive action to identify and prosecute those who incite and plan acts of violence.”

UFC CEO Dana White claimed that multiple threats were made against the White House event, noting that “these are the kind of events that bring the nuts out, this is normal stuff,”

President Donald Trump has faced a string of security threats since he was wounded in an attempted assassination during a July 2024 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

These have included  a second assassination attempt at his Florida golf club two months later, an alleged Iran-linked murder-for-hire plot, am armed man rushing the White House Correspondents Dinner and a flood of threats made against his life from disgruntled citizens — all of which underscore the persistent threat environment surrounding Trump’s public appearances.

Two high-stakes Supreme Court battles over President Donald Trump’s authority to remove federal officials could reshape the balance of power in Washington, but legal experts say the justices may draw a sharp line between the cases.

At the center of the debate are Slaughter v. Trump, involving the firing of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, and Trump v. Cook, involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. While both cases touch on presidential removal power, legal scholars say the disputes present fundamentally different legal questions.

In Slaughter, the administration is directly challenging statutory restrictions on the president’s ability to remove FTC commissioners, arguing that limits on the president’s authority to fire commissioners violate his Article II executive powers. But in Cook, the central question is whether Trump met the Federal Reserve Act’s “for cause” removal requirement. Trump has argued that Cook’s alleged misconduct involving mortgage disclosure documents justified her removal for cause.

Catholic University of America law professor Joel Alicea said Solicitor General John Sauer’s approach during oral arguments in Slaughter differed significantly from his strategy in Cook. The Trump administration argued in Slaughter that the FTC Act’s removal limit — which allows the president to fire commissioners only for reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct — unconstitutionally restricts the president’s Article II authority.

“In the Slaughter case, they are making the explicit constitutional argument that it doesn’t matter what the statute says, the president gets to fire the FTC commissioners at will,” Alicea said.

SCOTUS TAKES UP TRUMP’S BID TO FIRE FTC COMMISSIONER AT WILL — A SHOWDOWN THAT COULD TOPPLE 90-YEAR PRECEDENT

The administration was far more cautious in Trump v. Cook.

“The president’s team chose not to raise the constitutional argument in Cook,” Alicea explained, suggesting the Court has already indicated that the Federal Reserve presents a distinct set of constitutional issues rooted in historical precedents involving the nation’s early banking system.

In its recent emergency ruling in Trump v. Wilcox, the Supreme Court allowed removals involving NLRB and Merit Systems Protection Board officials to take effect while the litigation continued. 

But the Court rejected the argument that its decision would necessarily call into question the Federal Reserve Board’s tenure protections, stating, “we disagree,” and explaining that the Federal Reserve is a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a distinct historical tradition dating back to the First and Second Banks of the United States.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS READY TO KEEP LISA COOK ON FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD DESPITE TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE HER

Many legal experts, including Erin Hawley, chair of Lex Politica’s Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, expect the Court to be more receptive to the administration’s argument in Slaughter than in Cook, where the Fed’s longstanding independence may weigh heavily.

“The Supreme Court has signaled that it believes the core function of the Fed — setting monetary policy — be unique in that it has a historical analogue in the First Bank,” Hawley told Fox News Digital. “Based on history, that core function may well satisfy constitutional separation of powers.”

While Hawley noted that the Federal Reserve also engages in rulemaking and other activities that could be characterized as exercises of executive power, the Court is not being asked in Trump v. Cook to decide the broad constitutional validity of the Fed’s removal protections in the same way it is being asked to evaluate the FTC’s protections in Slaughter.

The Cook dispute has also drawn opposition from a bipartisan group of former Federal Reserve chairs, former Treasury secretaries and economists, who warned that allowing presidents greater control over Federal Reserve governors could undermine central-bank independence and create economic instability. 

“There is broad consensus among economists, based on decades of macroeconomic research, that a more independent central bank will lead to lower and more stable inflation without creating higher unemployment,” a brief filed by a bipartisan group to the Court stated.

SUPREME COURT SETS DATE TO HEAR FTC SLAUGHTER CASE IN TEST OF TRUMP’S FIRING POWERS

Slaughter v. Trump, meanwhile, has become a major test of the unitary executive theory, the view that Article II gives the president control over officials who exercise executive power. The justices have agreed to consider whether to overrule or narrow the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld statutory limits on the president’s ability to remove FTC commissioners.

“This isn’t about Trump’s power so much as it is about the power of the president generally — the same authority over the executive branch in this case is going to apply to the next president as well,” said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network.

“Indeed, President Biden was very aggressive in using the firing power, and maybe if he had a second term, he would have gotten down to firing this level of officers as well,” Severino continued.

Another issue emerging from Slaughter concerns the remedies available to courts when an agency head is allegedly removed unlawfully.

“The idea that the federal courts get to order the president to reinstate an executive officer he has fired? That’s actually a novel question,” Alicea said. “It’s not something that has been adjudicated before when you’re dealing with an agency head.”

The Court could therefore face not only whether Trump had authority to remove officials but also whether judges possess the power to compel their reinstatement.

Critics of expanding presidential removal authority warn that a ruling for Trump in Slaughter could weaken the independence of agencies Congress intentionally insulated from political pressure.

CONGRESS EXPANDED THE EXECUTIVE—ONLY FOR TRUMP TO QUASH MUCH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Constitutional law expert Robert McWhirter argued that supporters of broader presidential power should consider how that authority might be used by future administrations.

“The underlying policy issues to be considered is let’s say that you’re all pro-Donald Trump and you think he should have that power,” McWhirter said. “Well, do you really want to make sure that any president has that power?”

McWhirter also defended independent boards as valuable safeguards that remove certain decisions from day-to-day partisan politics. He argued that many executive powers ultimately derive from congressional delegations, giving Congress significant authority to structure agencies as independent entities.

“So, if you think about anything, Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, he only has that power because Congress passed the Immigration Nationality Act,” McWhirter said. “He acts under acts of Congress, delegation of power from Congress, and he has a duty to faithfully execute.”

Supporters of broader presidential removal power see the issue differently, arguing that the president should have the power to remove heads of independent agencies because they cannot be thrown out by voters in elections.

“A ruling for the president in the Slaughter case would be very significant. It would ensure that the president is able to direct and control independent agencies, even those with multi-member heads,” Hawley said. “Were the rule otherwise, that would mean that unelected bureaucrats would be calling the shots.”

“Such a result is not only anti-democratic but inconsistent with the Constitution’s allocation of power.”

Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s scandal-plagued rise is causing rifts within the Democratic Party, and several Democratic strategists who spoke to Fox News Digital warned of the long-term implications of the party embracing him.

“Anyone paying attention to the intersection of culture and politics knows that my party pushed #MeToo well beyond the bounds of common sense long before Graham Platner’s rise,” Michael LaRosa, former press secretary to first lady Jill Biden, said about whether the #MeToo movement rings hollow within the party now that top Democrats have rallied behind Platner.

“But the reflexive partisan instinct to circle the wagons around him is the political equivalent of pulling the plug on whatever credibility Democrats had left as the self-appointed champions of women.”

“If the standards disappear the moment they’re politically inconvenient, they were never standards at all.”

JONATHAN TURLEY: WHEN JOURNALISTS WHINE ABOUT #METOO, THEY DON’T MEAN PLATNER, TOO

Former adviser to President Bill Clinton and Democratic strategist Doug Schoen argued that Democrats are choosing power and Senate control over serious concerns about Platner’s past, and that could hurt them in 2028.

“In the short term, for some Democrats, those on the progressive left, it’s the right decision, a practical decision,” Schoen said. “To me, it’s a very sad one and certainly undermines the moral legitimacy of the Democratic Party as a whole.”

“Certainly, I think they’ve left themselves vulnerable vis-à-vis Platner’s extreme left-wing positions, his toxicity as a person, the issues with relationships, arguably lying about his Nazi tattoo,” Schoen said. “I certainly think this creates issues for the Democrats where none needed to exist.”

Platner has denied allegations from former girlfriends who told The New York Times that he discussed rape fantasies, drank heavily and had violent episodes, while also facing mounting criticism over sexually explicit messages allegedly sent to women shortly after getting married, a Nazi-linked tattoo and online comments mocking a Purple Heart veteran.

Despite new controversies emerging days before Maine’s Democratic Senate primary, Graham Platner won with more primary votes than any Democrat in state history. 

Democratic strategist Mally Smith told Fox News Digital he doesn’t believe that the Platner campaign is necessarily the “death” of the #MeToo movement, but that Democrats who have “more fully embraced” his campaign are “going to have some trouble when it comes to making the case on the Epstein files or any general claims of believe all women.”

“So maybe Democrats don’t have the advantage on the issue anymore, but I would say that it’s not like Republicans have an advantage either,” Smith added. “I think voters are just gonna say, well, both parties are willing to live with the baggage of their candidates.”

Looking ahead to 2028, LaRosa said that Democrats could be haunted by their ties to Platner for years.

“If he wins, you’ll still have to explain why you stood with him,” LaRosa said. “If he loses, you’ll have nothing to show for it except the association. Either way, he’s someone you’ll be answering for.”

Smith explained Platner’s rise by citing voters that are “unhappy with the status quo” to the point where there’s an “element, whether it’s Republican voters supporting President Donald Trump or Democratic voters supporting Graham Platner in Maine, where they say these elites attacking him is actually evidence that he’s on the right track.”

For others, the controversies are still too big for voters to ignore. LaRosa said that voters “reward guts, not willful blindness” when judging a candidate with Nazi imagery tattooed on his chest, adding that the Democratic leaders are lacking that same “courage.”

DEMOCRATS BREAK WITH SCANDAL-PLAGUED GRAHAM PLATNER, WARN OF ‘CIVIL WAR’ IN PARTY

“We look pretty vapid, unprincipled and hypocritical to look the other way when it comes to any candidate accused of any level of violence against women just because it is politically inconvenient,” LaRosa said. “Never again should voters trust us or take our moral arguments seriously. Principles only mean something when they’re applied across the board, even when it’s politically uncomfortable.”

For over a decade, Democrats have used the “Nazi” attack line against President Donald Trump, but have nevertheless mostly rallied around Platner, despite the Nazi imagery tattooed on his body for 18 years.

“They’re seeing all of these lunatics, like the guy in Maine…for ten years they’ve been calling me a ‘Nazi,’ and now they have a Nazi running. He’s got a tattoo on him,” President Trump said during a Thursday news conference.

Schoen argued Democrats have now weakened their case against Republican scandals, pointing to Texas Attorney General and Senate candidate Ken Paxton.

“For every criticism that they level at Ken Paxton in Texas, they will be greeted by criticism of Graham Platner in Maine, which to me makes their job more difficult,” Schoen said.

Smith made a similar point, saying both parties are dealing with candidates causing “their own version of heartburn” that can be used against them politically.

Trump-backed Paxton prevailed in the primary against incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, after he was impeached by the Texas House, a federal investigation into allegations that he abused his office to aid a donor and cheating allegations.

LaRosa said the “uncomfortable truth” is that Democrats have reduced Platner to a simple political equation, viewing him as “just another number, another vote, another seat, another data point on a spreadsheet” instead of focusing on whether he is the right person for the job.

PLATNER CONTROVERSIES FUEL SPECULATION ABOUT LITTLE-KNOWN MAINE BALLOT REPLACEMENT PROVISION

November may provide a clearer test, Schoen said. He said Platner’s victory does not mean he shed his political baggage, adding Platner has left the party to grapple with problems “where none needed to exist.”

“With Graham Platner, there are literally immediate, multiple sources of concern that are ongoing, and it isn’t clear to me that he will necessarily survive and succeed,” Schoen said.

Ultimately, Smith said that Maine voters will be focused on the economy and that concerns about Platner will likely only be a major issue within the state rather than nationwide.

“Voters are unhappy with the economy, and I think most people are going to be voting on whether they believe the economy is better than when Trump was inaugurated, and the answer to that is a resounding no,” Smith said. “So I think as much as news stations like to talk about Graham Platner and what this means for Democrats overall, or vice versa, Ken Paxton and Republicans overall, most voters are not going to think about Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo outside of Maine. So I think this is more of a localized Maine problem.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Platner campaign for comment.

A Florida appeals court ruled Wednesday that the state’s ban on concealed carry by adults ages 18 to 20 violates the Second Amendment, finding that young adults are entitled to the same constitutional protections as law-abiding adults over the age of 20.

In a sweeping opinion, the court said 18-year-olds can serve in the military and defend the nation but face restrictions on their ability to exercise the same self-defense rights available to older adults.

“Eighteen- to 20-year-olds can defend the country without restriction but can only utilize their Second Amendment right to self-defense with severe restrictions,” Judge Spencer D. Levine wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals.

“Restricting 18- to 20-year-olds — members of the same ‘political community’ as other law-abiding adults — from rights to self-defense would make the Second Amendment a ‘second-class’ right,” Levine wrote.

FEDERAL JUDGE APPROVES COLORADO LAW BANNING PEOPLE UNDER 21 FROM BUYING A GUN

The ruling comes after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier declined to defend the law earlier this year.

“In another win for the unalienable rights of Floridians, the 4th DCA agreed with our position that Florida’s law banning adults under 21 from conceal carrying a firearm is unconstitutional,” Uthmeier wrote on X.

“We will not seek further review and will work with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to implement the court’s order,” he wrote.

STAY IN YOUR LANE: FLORIDA AG FIRES NEXT VOLLEY AGAINST JUDGE HALTING STATE IMMIGRATION LAW

The case stemmed from the 2024 arrest of Jaylen Eubanks, who was 18 at the time. According to the opinion, officers responding to a report of a person displaying a handgun detained Eubanks and found an unholstered firearm on his waist. He was charged with carrying a concealed firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm.

Eubanks challenged the concealed-carry charge, arguing Florida’s age restriction violated the Second Amendment. The restriction was enacted following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, where 17 people were killed. A trial court rejected Eubanks’ argument, but the appellate court reversed.

Citing Supreme Court precedent including Heller, Bruen and Rahimi, the court said adults ages 18 to 20 are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that Florida failed to identify a historical tradition supporting the restriction.

GUNS AND GANJA: SUPREME COURT SKEPTICAL OF FEDERAL LAW BANNING FIREARM POSSESSION FOR REGULAR MARIJUANA USERS

The panel also pointed to founding-era militia laws requiring many 18-year-old men to serve while bearing arms.

“That young adults had to serve in the militia indicates that founding-era lawmakers believed those youth could, and indeed should, keep and bear arms,” the opinion states.

The court rejected arguments that concerns about firearm misuse among younger adults justified the restriction, saying Florida failed to identify a historical tradition supporting the law and that adults ages 18 to 20 could not be treated like categories historically subject to firearm restrictions, such as felons or the mentally ill.

“All those who reach the age of 18 are able, and encouraged, for example, to join the military to defend our country,” Levine wrote.

“Yet those very same law-abiding adults are burdened in their ability to exercise the same Second Amendment rights that other adults have.”

The court reversed Eubanks’ concealed-carry conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

President Donald Trump withdrew his endorsement of Oklahoma GOP congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer on Wednesday, and threw his support behind Republican rival Mark Tedford, a dramatic reversal that came shortly before Lahmeyer publicly announced he was suspending his campaign.

Lahmeyer told Fox News Digital, however, that he made the decision to end his campaign the night before and informed his wife and campaign team before Trump’s endorsement switch.

“I made my decision to drop out of the race last night,” Lahmeyer told Fox News Digital. “I decided to choose my wife over my ambition. I informed my wife about my decision late last night and then my campaign team early this morning. My decision did not take place because of the decision of POTUS this afternoon.”

AP results showed Tedford finishing first with 32.2% and Lahmeyer second with 25.9%, advancing both Republicans to a runoff election to succeed Rep. Kevin Hern, who is running for the U.S. Senate.

TRUMP DROPS MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE ENDORSEMENT, CALLS HER A ‘RANTING LUNATIC,’ HINTS AT BACKING PRIMARY RIVAL

Trump had previously endorsed Lahmeyer as a “MAGA Warrior” and longtime ally, making Wednesday’s endorsement switch one of the more notable reversals of the 2026 midterm cycle.

At approximately 2:23 p.m., Trump announced on Truth Social that he was backing Tedford.

“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — He has always been with me, and I will always be with him,” Trump wrote. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford.”

SNUBBED BY TRUMP, GOP CANDIDATES FIGHTING FOR RE-ELECTION ACT LIKE THEY HAVE HIS BACKING ANYWAY

The president described Tedford as “Pro Trump and MAGA all the way” and said the state lawmaker had his “Complete and Total Endorsement.”

At approximately 2:32 p.m., Lahmeyer announced on X that he was suspending his campaign.

“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the last twenty four hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer said.

“I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church, and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Washington.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Lahmeyer, Tedford and the White House for comment. A White House official referred Fox News Digital to Trump’s Truth Social statement and did not provide additional comment.

INSIDE STEFANIK’S EXIT AND HOW THE TRUMP ENDORSEMENT THAT NEVER CAME WAS ‘BIGGEST PIECE’ OF THE ‘PUZZLE’

Trump’s decision marked a sharp turn from his earlier endorsement of Lahmeyer, whom he praised before Oklahoma’s June 16 primary.

The endorsement reversal came after a turbulent stretch for Lahmeyer’s campaign. The Daily Mail published reports regarding Lahmeyer’s communications with former Miss Oklahoma USA Caitlin Simmons Key. 

Lahmeyer later acknowledged that he had crossed “a boundary line through text messaging” while disputing what he described as a misleading characterization of the situation.

Neither president Trump nor the White House publicly explained the reason for the endorsement change. Tedford is now positioned as the likely Republican nominee in the strongly GOP district.

Vice President JD Vance is pushing back on comparisons between the emerging Trump-Vance Iran pact and claims that the agreement, released Wednesday, bears too much resemblance to President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal.

Critics pointed to Vance’s defense of the memorandum of understanding to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — the details of which were released by the administration — under which Iran would receive economic benefits only after complying with nuclear restrictions. They argue that dynamic mirrors how Obama promoted the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which Trump and Vance have long reviled.

Vance, however, suggested to Fox News that the comparison stems from a misconception because the proverbial carrot-and-stick positions from the Obama deal have been reversed.

“You’ve got Iranian propagandists out there saying, well, ‘we get all these things’, and they leave out the fact that they only get those things if they fundamentally transform themselves as a country,” he said, adding that the deal could open the door to economic cooperation for Tehran throughout the Mideast if it complies.

VANCE EN ROUTE TO PAKISTAN FOR HIGH-STAKES IRAN TALKS AS ‘FRAGILE’ CEASEFIRE TEETERS

“So the United States wins either way. As the president said, either they get nothing, we destroy their nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz [is] open, or they fundamentally transformed themselves. And that’s a big one too. It’s really up to them,” he said on “The Five.”

Host Jesse Watters agreed that the deal is the “exact opposite” of what Obama and former Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., forged a decade ago.

VANCE TOUTS DESTRUCTION OF IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM AS TRUMP ANNOUNCES ISRAEL-IRAN CEASEFIRE

“If they fund the proxies they don’t get the economic benefits, and the missiles are covered because 85% of them have been destroyed and 90% of their industrial base has been destroyed.”

“They’ve been disarmed. They can’t re-arm because they can manufacture more weapons and now they can really project power outside of their borders because they have no Air Force and they have no Navy and they don’t pose an imminent threat to the United States anymore,” Watters said, further arguing that the Iranians cannot enrich uranium because the only force capable of recovering the uranium “dust” is the U.S.

In a July 2015 statement defending the JCPOA, Obama used language similar to that now being used by Trump administration officials. 

“[W]e give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. If, in a worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the future. And I have no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position,” a White House statement read. 

Obama also argued a future president would be “in a far stronger position” if Iran violated the agreement years later because inspections and transparency measures would allow the U.S. to monitor Tehran’s nuclear stockpiles.

Vance, however, noted there are few such stockpiles left after the Trump administration ordered strikes months ago.

Like the current administration, Obama sought to blunt criticism, warning in an August 2015 speech that ads will run and “accompanying commentary” will try to undermine the deal.

“Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments,” he said in a line similar to arguments Vance has made in Fox News interviews.

“Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant, concrete steps like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stockpiles. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place,” Obama said. 

“On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snapback will only grow,” Obama said in another line that echoed arguments now being made by administration officials.

Some critics, however, remained skeptical as of Wednesday, noting that Trump spent years attacking the JCPOA, arguing it provided economic relief in exchange for insufficient concessions.

TRUMP AGAIN SAYS DEAL IS CLOSE, THEN CONFIRMS A LAST-MINUTE AGREEMENT WITH IRAN, BUT DETAILS STILL SECRET

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a Trump critic and former astronaut, suggested the deal resembled something candidate Trump would have lambasted.

“I did read what was reported on those 14 points [of the agreement] and I got to say, I mean, if this was something that President Obama or Biden had put forward, I don’t think Donald Trump would have been too supportive of it, right?” Kelly said.

“I mean, it gives everything: It’s basically everything that the Iranians would want,” he warned.

IRANIAN REGIME CRITIC WARNS TRUMP DEAL COULD BE ‘LIFELINE’ FOR REGIME, CLAIMS PEOPLE ARE ‘NERVOUS’

Iranian security expert Behnam Ben Taleblu told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview Wednesday that some, however, will take pause at the Trump-Vance deal

“The administration is focusing very much on this not being American money, whether one is looking at the reconstruction or the ability of the regime to later on generate revenue through oil sales. But worryingly, any deal with the Islamic Republic is a deal with the devil,” said Taleblu, who leads the Iran program at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — a nonpartisan national security and foreign policy research institute in Washington.

“When Trump left the Iran deal in 2018, he didn’t leave it because of violation, he left it because that which the U.S. got was not worth that which the U.S. gave — meaning the nuclear concessions the U.S. got was not worth the sanctions relief the U.S. gave,” Taleblu said.

4TH ROUND OF US-IRAN TALKS ENDS AS TRUMP SET TO EMBARK ON HISTORIC MIDDLE EAST TOUR

The best way for the administration to secure a narrative “win,” according to Taleblu, would be to fully release the text of the deal to present a true comparison with both the JCPOA and the less-remembered 2013 JPA, which was also forged by Obama.

Taleblu said the JPA is a better comparison to reports about the Trump deal. That pact was smaller in scope and set the stage for Obama and Kerry to negotiate the larger 2015 deal. In the current deal, Taleblu said, there is a similar 60-day window for Iran to comply.

“They have to show that that which they got is worth more than that which they gave. And based on leaks of the [pending deal] in Bloomberg and CNN and Al-Arabiya, it’s not looking good,” he said.

Another headwind facing the administration is the American public’s limited tolerance for economic repercussions, such as rising gas and commodity prices or occasional downturns in the Nasdaq.

“This is not just political it’s cultural and social which means the administration has to do a better job bringing the public along,” he said.

Taleblu said Iran has been warring with the U.S. since 1979 and that there needs to be more effective “political communications” about that fact to secure public buy-in.

He also warned that while the effects of a war with Iran on the U.S. may strain the public, they would be dwarfed by the economic fallout from a future conflict with a more complicated adversary: China.

The memorandum of understanding lays out immediate waivers for Iranian oil exports, as well as a framework for $300 billion in economic development.

An official, however, emphasized to Fox News Digital that oil waivers were the only major benefit Tehran would realize before any final agreement is reached after a 60-day window.

In a reporter call, officials underlined that negotiations would promptly end if it was discovered Iran was “just dragging us along and kind of bull——- us,” and that they remained skeptical of Iran’s intentions.

Fox News Digital reached out to the vice president’s office for additional comment.

Fox News Digital’s Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and four Republican-led states sued the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) on Wednesday, alleging the influential medical organization misled parents and doctors about the safety, effectiveness and necessity of transgender medical treatments for minors.

The lawsuit alleges WPATH, whose standards of care are widely used by physicians treating patients with gender dysphoria, made deceptive claims about puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex change surgeries while failing to adequately disclose potential risks and side effects.

“Parents have a right to make informed decisions about their children’s health,” FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson wrote on X. “The FTC will not allow parents and children to be deceived by medical organizations and providers who are prioritizing profit over children’s health and safety.”

‘TRANSGENDER MADNESS’ UNDER FIRE AFTER CONGRESS LETS TAXPAYER FUNDING BAN LAPSE

According to the complaint, WPATH removed age-based recommendations for certain transgender procedures from its Standards of Care. The FTC also alleges the organization promoted treatments that were not adequately supported by evidence regarding their safety and effectiveness.

The lawsuit, filed alongside Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, marks the latest effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to scrutinize medical interventions for transgender minors.

WPATH previously sued to block an FTC investigation into the organization, arguing the agency violated its First Amendment rights. A federal judge in May temporarily blocked the probe.

SEN HAWLEY WARNS IT WOULD BE ‘UNCONSCIONABLE’ IF BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER FUNDS FLOW TO TRANS KIDS’ SEX CHANGES

WPATH rejected the allegations and said its standards are intended to support individualized patient care. In a statement provided to The Associated Press, the organization said its guidelines are based on individualized treatment rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Fox News Digital reached out to WPATH for additional comment but did not immediately receive a response.

“WPATH is in a strong position to prove that the FTC is acting out of pure retaliation as part of the federal government’s relentless and targeted campaign to undermine gender-affirming care by attacking the First Amendment rights and the independence of professional medical organizations,” the group said in a statement to the AP.

The lawsuit comes amid a broader national debate over puberty blockers, hormone therapies and sex change surgeries for minors.

Supporters argue the treatments can be medically necessary for some patients, while critics contend the long-term risks are not fully understood and that children may be unable to provide informed consent.

Trump-endorsed Republican congressional candidate Anthony Constantino says he will donate $174,000 — the equivalent of one year’s congressional salary — to the family of Sgt. Eddie Ryan, a wounded Iraq War veteran, regardless of whether he wins his race in New York’s 21st Congressional District.

Constantino, the CEO of Sticker Mule, made the surprise pledge on June 10 at a campaign event in Queensbury, New York, handing Ryan’s family a handwritten note promising the donation, according to local news outlet The Daily Gazette.

“I planned to give away my entire congressional salary from day one,” Constantino told Fox News Digital. “My team presented a few options and I immediately thought of Sgt. Eddie Ryan because he inspired me to fight harder early in this race.” 

BLUE STATE CEO WHO PUT UP 100-FOOT PRO-TRUMP SIGN TO SPEND $2.6 MILLION ON CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS

Constantino added, “I want this to become a symbolic gesture that encourages more Americans to fight, fight, fight for a better future while simultaneously inspiring other people of means to support our great Veterans.”

Ryan, a former U.S. Marine Corps sniper, was severely wounded by friendly fire in Iraq in 2005. He was shot twice in the head, suffered a traumatic brain injury and now faces lasting mobility and speech challenges, The Daily Gazette reported.

Constantino said he first met Ryan and his family earlier this year outside a Warren County Republican Committee meeting. The exchange lasted less than a minute, but he said it left a lasting impression.

“Sgt. Ryan is a role model for loving America and staying positive in the face of adversity. He was severely wounded in combat and proudly says he would do it again with a big smile,” Constantino said.

RACE TO SUCCEED REP. ELISE STEFANIK IN UPDATE NEW YORK HEATS UP WITH NEW CHALLENGER

Ryan said he was stunned by the announcement. 

“I’m still floored,” Ryan said after the pledge was revealed, according to The Daily Gazette.

Constantino is running against state Assembly Member Robert Smullen in the June 23 Republican primary to succeed Rep. Elise Stefanik in New York’s 21st Congressional District. 

He has spent millions of dollars of his own money on the campaign and has cast the race as a fight against the political establishment.

“It’s an opportunity to move the country in a positive direction in a big way,” Constantino said. “Once I saw first hand how bad the swamp that President Trump talks about so much really is, I felt I had no choice but to use my resources to fight it to create a better future for America.”

BRIAN MAST: I’M A WOUNDED WARRIOR. I’VE SEEN DONALD TRUMP CARE FOR VETERANS. THAT’S WHY I’M VOTING FOR HIM

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump endorsed Constantino — who previously fought local officials to keep a massive pro-Trump sign on his factory — in the race to fill Stefanik’s seat.

“It is my Great Honor to endorse America First Patriot, Anthony Constantino, who is running to represent the fantastic people of New York’s 21st Congressional District,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in April.

Fox News Digital’s Louis Casiano contributed to this report.