Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, blasted Democrats on Wednesday for, in his view, dodging attempts to put an end to the funding lapse for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that has stretched past the 40-day mark over disagreements about imposing safeguards on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Cruz argued Democrats would endanger the country by allowing the enduring gridlock to continue.

“They are only responsive to their radical open-border base,” Cruz said.

A compromise to separate out funding and ICE from the rest of DHS looked poised to finally break the stalemate earlier this week, but those talks stalled amid fierce criticism from both sides.

JOHNSON TURNS UP HEAT ON SCHUMER AS DHS SHUTDOWN DRAGS ON, AIRPORT DELAYS MOUNT

To Cruz, the blame lies squarely with Democrats. Asked if they’re moving the goalposts, Cruz said there’s little doubt in his mind that’s the case.

“Of course they are. Chuck Schumer went on Morning Joe and said, “If the Republicans offer to fund everything except [Enforcement and Removal Operations] and ICE, that he will take that deal,” Cruz said.

“And so, the Republicans came back, President Trump said, ‘We’ll take your deal.’ And [Chuck] Schumer just walked all the Democrats off and said, ‘No, we don’t want that deal. We want a shutdown.’”

SEN KENNEDY SAYS HE WOULD ACCEPT DEMOCRATS’ OFFER TO ‘OPEN UP EVERYTHING’ BUT ICE

Funding for DHS originally lapsed on Feb 14 when Democrats made their support for funding the DHS conditional on 10 operational reforms to ICE.

Among other items, Democrats demanded a ban on masks, more stringent warrant requirements for detaining suspects in public and visible identification for the agency’s agents.

Following a pair of deadly confrontations between Immigration enforcement agents in Minnesota and agitators, Democrats argue that lawmakers must implement those reforms to ensure public safety.

Republicans have balked at those demands, arguing that they would handcuff Trump’s immigration enforcement plans.

Cruz believes there’s a greater danger to leaving the agency unfunded.

“We’ve had four terror attacks in the last two weeks, all by radical Islamic terrorists,” Cruz said. “DHS was created to prevent terror attacks and yet the Democrats are putting every American at risk because of their radical politics.”

SCHUMER KNOCKS TRUMP ON IRAN, PLAN TO SEND ICE TO AIRPORTS: ‘ASKING FOR TROUBLE’

A vehicle-ramming at a synagogue in Michigan, a university shooting in Virginia, the detonation attempts in New York and another shooting in Texas have left members like Cruz urging Democrats to fully fund the agency.

“The Democrats don’t care,” Cruz said.

Among continuing talks, Republicans have presented Democrats with what they described as a “final offer.” It remains unclear when the details of those negotiations will become publicly available.

President Donald Trump’s push to expand U.S. mining and loosen China’s global grip on critical minerals is colliding with his administration’s defense in court of a Biden-era veto blocking Alaska’s copper-rich Pebble Mine, reviving scrutiny of Donald Trump Jr.’s past opposition to the project.

The fight over Pebble Mine has spanned multiple administrations. Including in 2014, when the Obama Environmental Protection Agency concluded mining in Bristol Bay’s headwaters could damage the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery. Biden’s EPA vetoed the project in January 2023, prompting a lawsuit from Pebble and the state of Alaska. The Trump Department of Justice is now defending that veto in court. 

The clash under the Trump administration has given Pebble supporters new ammunition to argue the White House is undercutting its own agenda as Trump races to secure domestic supplies of copper and other minerals critical to defense systems and advanced technology.

It also puts Trump Jr.’s stance on Pebble Mine back in focus. In 2020, Trump Jr. publicly opposed the mine, joining GOP operative Nick Ayers, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence, in citing concerns about the local bay’s ecosystem. 

FROM MOJAVE TO BEIJING: HOW AMERICA QUIETLY CONCEDED THE RARE EARTH RACE

“As a sportsman who has spent plenty of time in the area I agree 100% [with Ayers],” Trump Jr. wrote on X in August 2020. “The headwaters of Bristol Bay and the surrounding fishery are too unique and fragile to take any chances with. #PebbleMine.”

John Shively, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, the company hoping to develop the mine, contended that the Trump DOJ defending the Biden-era veto undermines the president’s agenda and would force the United States to cede copper and rare earth minerals to Beijing. Shively called the veto a “textbook example of D.C. bureaucrats imposing their will on Alaska.”

“It sort of conflicts a little bit with what President Trump is doing,” Shively told Fox News Digital in an interview. “I’ll give him credit. One of the things I like to say in life is, ‘If you don’t recognize a problem, you’re never going to solve it.’ Well, they have recognized we’re in serious trouble in getting minerals in this country and metals, and so it’s a little surprising they continued the EPA lawsuit.”

The White House and EPA did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story. The DOJ, which is representing EPA in court as it fights to keep the Biden-era veto in place, declined to comment and deferred to the EPA.

Since Trump took office, his administration has moved quickly to dismantle the environmental policies of his liberal predecessors and strengthen the United States’ mineral supply. Trump signed executive orders that declared a national emergency on critical minerals, directed federal agencies to fast-track permitting processes and expanded the government’s list of critical minerals by adding copper and nine others to the list.

Trump Jr., an avid outdoorsman, has not spoken to the president or anyone in the administration during this term about Pebble Mine, but he did weigh in on the matter with his father in the first term, a source close to Trump Jr. told Fox News Digital. 

One industry source who spoke to Fox News Digital pointed to Trump Jr. and Ayers, attributing the Trump administration’s position on Pebble Mine in part to them. Ayers, like Trump Jr., openly opposed the mine in an X post in 2020.

“Like millions of conservationists and sportsmen, I am hoping @realDonaldTrump will direct @EPA to block the Pebble mine in Bristol Bay,” Ayers wrote on X. “A Canadian company will unnecessarily mine the USA’s greatest fishery at a severe cost. This should be stopped.” Pebble, which is spearheading the mine project, is a U.S. offshoot of Canadian company Northern Dynasty Minerals.

Ayers did not provide comment for this story.

The source close to Trump Jr. said that in the first administration, the president’s son told associates he was concerned, having been to Bristol Bay to fish on multiple occasions, about the mine’s potential effect on the ecosystem there.

The industry source balked at the Trump administration’s Pebble Mine contradiction, saying it was rooted in profit motives. The source told Fox News Digital that “these guys are cheap dates. … Like you sold your soul for a fishing trip on a boat for a week.” 

“How can you open at the one hand this reserve of rare earths to stop the Chinese from cornering the market, but then say, ‘We’re not going to have our own mining industry’?” the source said.

CHINA’S RARE EARTH TECH OBSESSION ENSNARES US RESIDENT AS CCP LOOKS TO MAINTAIN STRANGLEHOLD

When asked about potential outside influences affecting the administration’s position, Shively said: “Instead of focusing on comments from the past, we hope the administration is worried about the next president using this EPA veto to shut down signature Trump energy and critical mineral projects.”

The veto, also known as a “kill switch,” is a rarely-used mechanism of the Clean Water Act. The law allows a company to seek a mining permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the EPA can use the kill switch to block the permit.

Pebble’s permit request was rejected in the first Trump term, but Pebble won a reversal of that decision through an internal appeals process. That internal process was still playing out when the Biden administration issued the veto.

Pebble is asking the court to scrap the veto and allow the company to continue with the permitting process.

Pebble lawyers have argued that the company “spent decades and a billion dollars planning the safest and least impactful mine possible” and that studies adequately addressed the salmon concerns.

China is the world’s leading import source for more than two dozen critical minerals, including most rare earth minerals. The Trump administration has said that domestic access to critical minerals, including rare earths, is fundamental to national security and AI infrastructure.

The United States has, in recent decades, gone from dominating the production of the world’s rare earths to relying on China, which now controls roughly 70% of mining and nearly 90% of refining, Fox News Digital previously reported. 

China dominates the refining of many critical minerals and more than half of global copper refining, while the U.S. imports roughly 45% of its copper supply. Pebble says the mine could supply about 15% of U.S. copper demand.

“We’ve already committed to building a lot more defense capacity,” Shively said, noting that copper would be used for nuclear submarines, large aircraft carriers, jets and more crucial defense supplies.

In addition to copper, the Pebble mineral deposit is also rich in rare earths, Shively said, noting Pebble could mine rhenium and molydbdenum, which is used to strengthen steel. 

Shively said the veto, if the court approves it, would set a dangerous precedent that allows future administrations and activists to level broader Clean Water Act vetoes. The current veto targets an expansive 220,000-acre area of Alaska containing an estimated 80 billion pounds of copper, according to court papers. 

“If they can use this tool against us, they can use it anywhere in the country,” Shively said. “And when you get rabid environmentalists in government, they tend to use these kinds of tools.”

Briefing in the lawsuit is set to be completed by mid-April, and the court could issue a decision anytime after that or call for oral arguments to continue examining the fight.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz says that the U.S. is “unquestionably winning the war” with Iran.

And the conservative firebrand and three-term senator from Texas tells Fox News Digital that, in his opinion, President Donald Trump‘s “decision to launch this military action is the most consequential decision” of his presidency.

“If you look at how our military has carried out this action, it has been an incredible success,” Cruz emphasized in an interview this week.

But many Americans don’t agree with the senator’s reading on the nearly month-long strikes by the U.S. and Israel on Iran.

MOST AMERICANS OPPOSE STRIKES ON IRAN, BUT BIG GAP BETWEEN DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS: POLLS

Several new national surveys released this week, including a new Fox News poll, indicate that most Americans give the military strikes a thumbs down. But the surveys point to a continued broad partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans over the ongoing fighting in the volatile Middle East.

HEAD HERE FOR FOX NEWS LIVE UPDATES ON THE STRIKES AGAINST IRAN

The military attacks by the U.S. and Israel have resulted in the deaths of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials, and the decimation of the country’s military.

But Iran has retaliated with attacks against Israel and many of its other neighbors in the region.

And Iran has targeted energy facilities with missile and drone attacks in a number of Persian Gulf nations. It has also made the Strait of Hormuz nearly impassable to commercial shipping, bringing to a halt roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply and in turn sending fuel prices skyrocketing in the U.S. and across the globe.

Asked about the ongoing operation, Cruz highlighted, “We’ve taken out virtually the entirety of their air defenses. We have taken out their short range and medium range ballistic missile launchers, their missiles, and their missile manufacturing capacity. Have taken out their drone launchers, their drones and their drone manufacturing capacity.”

ONLY ON FOX NEWS: PENCE SAYS TRUMP ‘TURNED A DEAF EAR’ TO ISOLATIONISTS IN GOP

“We have executed over 9000 military strikes. We have sunk 140 of their ships. That is the largest… sinking of naval ships since World War Two, and on top of that, we’ve taken out the Ayatollah and virtually the entirety of the top military leaders. That is a profound victory,” the senator emphasized.

Cruz noted that he “spent the entire day” with Trump on the eve of the launch of the strikes, as the president traveled to Texas.

“The day before he launched this military action, I was on Air Force One with him. He was flying down to Texas, and then he and I were one on one in the Beast, the Presidential limo, and we spent most of the day talking about, should he launch this military action, or should he negotiate further.”

Cruz recollected, “What I told him at the time is, I said, I don’t think there’s anything to negotiate. The Ayatollah is negotiating in bad faith and the regime was weaker than it ever has been.”

The senator highlighted that “the Ayatollah and the mullahs in Iran have been waging war against the United States for 47 years… Iran has been the number one state funder of terrorism in the world.”

According to the Fox News poll, a third of voters nationwide said the U.S. military action against Iran will make America safer, with 44% saying less safe and nearly one in four (23%) saying the strikes will make no difference.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Cruz disagrees.

“The president decimating this regime has made America substantially safer, and that is his responsibility as commander in chief,” the senator stressed.

Congress is one step closer to ending the Homeland Security shutdown after the Senate advanced a new, last-minute deal, but it came at the price of Republicans ceding ground, temporarily, to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The Senate unanimously advanced a deal to reopen most of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the wee hours of Friday morning, 42 days into the shutdown that was spurred by the Trump administration’s immigration operations in Minnesota.

It was an agreement that largely gave Schumer and Senate Democrats what they wanted — no funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and parts of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But it lacked the stringent reforms they desired, like requiring judicial warrants or requiring agents to unmask.

SCHUMER, DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AGAIN, TRUMP INTERVENES TO PAY TSA AGENTS

While the deal mirrors previous attempts by Democrats to pass similar legislation that carved out immigration funding, Thune argued that Democrats are still walking away empty-handed in the policy fight over immigration enforcement. 

“We’ve been trying for weeks to fund the whole thing,” Thune said. “And, I mean, in the end, this is what they were willing to agree to. But again, it’s different that it has zero reforms in it. I mean, they got no reforms on DHS, which they could have had if they had been willing to work with us a little bit on that.”

Schumer said that if Republicans hadn’t blocked their initial attempts, “this could have been done three weeks ago.”

“This is exactly what we wanted,” Schumer said. “This is what we asked for, and I’m very proud of my caucus. My caucus held the line.”

The DHS funding deal now heads to the House, where Republicans aren’t enthusiastic about not funding key components of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown agenda.

The latest plan came after Senate Democrats blocked a seventh attempt to reopen DHS, after back-and-forth talks throughout the day on Thursday appeared to yield little progress toward a resolution. Trump also announced his intent to sign an order that would pay Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents as major airports are rocked with staggering lines and eye-popping wait times amid the shutdown. 

DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AFTER GOP REJECTS THEIR COUNTER, THUNE SAYS SCHUMER ‘GOING IN CIRCLES’

While a further concession to Democrats, in part, the underlying argument Republicans have made all along is that if Schumer and his caucus wanted reforms, they would have to agree to fund immigration enforcement.

And ICE and CBP are still flush with roughly $75 billion in cash from Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” giving the agencies a buffer for a time.

“The good news is we anticipated this a year ago. I mean, one of the reasons we front loaded, pre-loaded up the ‘one big, beautiful bill’ with advanced funding for Homeland Security was because we anticipated this was likely going to happen, and it did,” Thune said. “I still think it’s unfortunate. The Dems wanted reforms. We tried to work with them on reforms. They ended up getting no reforms.”

The same process used to pass that colossal legislative package will likely be turned to again fund immigration enforcement.

DHS DEAL IN LIMBO AS DEMOCRATS DEMAND TOUGHER ICE CRACKDOWN DESPITE GOP COMPROMISE

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., envisions funding ICE and CBP for several years.

“Democrats are trying to shut down ICE funding for the remainder of the fiscal year — ultimately they won’t be successful,” Schmitt said on X. “In response, I’ll be pushing to lock in funding for deportation operations and salaries for a decade.”

Doing so could be difficult, still, given that Republicans want to dump several other priorities into the mix, including portions of the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act and funding for the Iran war.

And some Republicans are already couching expectations on what can and can’t be accomplished in the party-line process, given that anything in the bill has to pass muster with strict rules in the Senate.

“I think we have to set our sights a little bit lower on this reconciliation bill,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital. “It’s got to be targeted to fund ICE for 10 years, I think that’s the number one thing to us.”

An appeals court paused a pair of lower court rulings in Oregon that restricted federal agents’ use of tear gas and other crowd-control munitions during protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request for temporary administrative stays in two cases in a 2-1 ruling.

Anti-ICE demonstrators have held protests at the building since June, as part of protests across the country challenging President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Two lawsuits were filed over federal agents’ crowd control tactics — one brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon on behalf of protesters and freelance journalists and another brought by the residents of an affordable housing complex across the street from the ICE building.

OREGON JUDGE LIMITS FEDERAL AGENTS’ TEAR GAS USE AT PORTLAND PROTESTS

The complaints argue that federal agents’ use of chemical and projectile munitions has violated the rights of plaintiffs — including a demonstrator known for wearing a chicken costume, a married couple in their 80s and two freelance journalists who said federal agents used chemical spray and projectile munitions against them.

The Department of Homeland Security has previously said that the agents have “followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property.”

Earlier this month, the federal judges in Portland overseeing the separate cases both issued preliminary injunctions limiting federal agents’ use of tear gas, pepper spray and other chemical munitions unless someone poses an imminent threat of physical harm.

The agents were also ordered not to fire munitions at the head, neck or torso “unless the officer is legally justified in using deadly force against that person” and were told not to use pepper spray against a group in an indiscriminate way that would affect bystanders. Additionally, they were told to only target people who were engaging in violent unlawful conduct or actively resisting arrest, noting that trespassing, refusing to move and refusing to obey an order to disperse are acts of passive resistance, not active resistance.

“Plaintiffs provided numerous videos, which were received in evidence and unambiguously show DHS officers spraying OC Spray directly into the faces of peaceful and nonviolent protesters engaged in, at most, passive resistance and discharging tear gas and firing pepper-ball munitions into crowds of peaceful and nonviolent protestors,” U.S. District Judge Michael Simon wrote in his ruling on March 9 in the case brought by the ACLU.

“Defendants’ conduct — physically harming protestors and journalists without prior dispersal warnings — is objectively chilling,” he added.

JUDGE RULES FEDERAL AGENTS MUST LIMIT TEAR GAS AT PROTESTS NEAR PORTLAND ICE BUILDING

The Ninth Circuit panel said on Wednesday that oral arguments in the two cases will be consolidated and scheduled for April 7.

Earlier this year, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson called on ICE to leave the city after federal agents deployed tear gas at a crowd of demonstrators outside the agency’s building. The mayor described the protests as peaceful and criticized federal officers’ use of pepper balls, flash-bang grenades and rubber bullets.

“Federal forces deployed heavy waves of chemical munitions, impacting a peaceful daytime protest where the vast majority of those present violated no laws, made no threat, and posed no danger to federal forces,” he said in a statement at the time.

“To those who continue to work for ICE: Resign. To those who control this facility: Leave,” he added, accusing federal officials of “trampling the Constitution.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Senate was again unable to end the Homeland Security shutdown on Thursday despite signs of a possible breakthrough to end the long-running closure, which prompted President Donald Trump to make a move. 

Senate Democrats blocked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding for a seventh time as the partial shutdown entered its 41st day on Thursday, after Senate Republicans made a new offer earlier in the day after late night negotiations. 

Trump then ordered DHS to pay airport workers on, and accused “their ‘Leader,’ Cryin’ Chuck Schumer,” of making it clear where Democrats stand, “and that is, ON THE SIDE OF CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS, AND NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.”

“I am going to sign an Order instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, to immediately pay our TSA Agents in order to address this Emergency Situation, and to quickly stop the Democrat Chaos at the Airports,” Trump said on Truth Social. “It is not an easy thing to do, but I am going to do it!”

Still, several other components of the agency, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are still without funding. 

DEMS BLOCK DHS FUNDING AFTER GOP REJECTS THEIR COUNTER, THUNE SAYS SCHUMER ‘GOING IN CIRCLES’

The vote stayed open for several hours to allow for talks between both sides to continue, but by the fifth hour, Trump pulled the trigger on funding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). 

“We’ve held the vote open for five hours to give the Democrats an opportunity to come to the table,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told reporters. “They have not. And now, time is up.”

Earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he believed talks between the two sides are making progress.

And despite Thune saying just a day earlier that there was “no point” in sending Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Democrats another compromise proposal, Republicans did just that.

“Dems are in possession of what I think is our last and final [offer],” Thune said. “So let’s hope this gets it done.”

Thune remained mum on the details of the offer. When asked if the White House backed it, he said, “They’ve been involved in the back-and-forth that has occurred overnight and all morning, so we’ll see.”

DHS DEAL IN LIMBO AS DEMOCRATS DEMAND TOUGHER ICE CRACKDOWN DESPITE GOP COMPROMISE

Several Senate Democrats leaving their closed-door lunch meeting said they had yet to see or be briefed on the latest proposal, and that the GOP’s new offer wasn’t discussed during the meeting.

A source familiar with negotiations told Fox News Digital that, “Schumer needs to grow a pair of balls and make a decision.” 

The quick shift in mood in the upper chamber, despite the latest failure, came after the prospect of a deal to end the second-longest shutdown in history appeared even further out of reach. 

Republicans had offered Democrats a framework that would carve out Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) funding but lacked the reforms Schumer and his caucus want.

“I think our caucus remains united around the same premise: we’re not going to fund an immigration enforcement operation that doesn’t obey the law,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital. “And I don’t think we’ve seen a proposal from them yet that meets that very simple priority.”

SENATE REPUBLICANS MOVE TO REOPEN DHS WITH NEW PLAN, WAIT FOR DEMOCRATIC BUY-IN

The ICE carve-out is also a proposal Democrats have made before — one Republicans previously blocked. Given that, many Senate Republicans were frustrated that Democrats appeared to back away from an idea they once supported.

“They go on the floor, they shoot their mouths off and say we’ll fund everything but ICE,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital. “We took them at their word. So, you know, they need to agree to ‘yes.’”

It has also forced Republicans to grapple with the idea of not funding immigration enforcement, which has been a sore subject throughout the week.

Still, they are eyeing budget reconciliation — the same party-line tactic used to pass Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” last year — to fund immigration operations and several other priorities.

“I will not support legislation that doesn’t pay ICE agents. However, there’s a mechanism, by way of reconciliation, where we can front-load multiple years of that,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. “The Democrats, I think, just handed us more certainty moving forward.”

Elon Musk demanded on Wednesday that a Delaware judge recuse herself from Tesla lawsuits, arguing she recently demonstrated her bias against him when she liked an anti-Musk LinkedIn post. 

Musk’s lawyers filed a motion for recusal in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, which included a screenshot of Judge Kathaleen McCormick liking the social media post celebrating Musk’s $2 billion court loss in a separate case. The attorneys noted that the incident did “not exist in a vacuum.”

The lawyers were referring to McCormick previously presiding over high-stakes cases involving Musk and the tech billionaire accusing the judge of bias stretching back years. The ongoing friction with the judge follows hostility Musk has faced from the left in recent years, most notably when he became a close ally of President Donald Trump in 2024 and through the early months of the administration. 

Musk’s lawyers said McCormick appeared to cheer on a lawyer on LinkedIn who made a post mocking Musk’s legal defeat in a California fraud case. McCormick is currently presiding over separate derivative litigation brought by Tesla shareholders who have alleged Musk harmed the company by overpaying himself and board members. The lawyers said one of McCormick’s staff members also liked another anti-Musk post related to Musk’s pending litigation.

TRUMP NOT INTERESTED IN TALKING TO MUSK: ‘ELON’S TOTALLY LOST IT’

“This post to which the Court reacted and another to which a Court staff member reacted are not simply negative criticism of Mr. Musk and his attorneys, they are inflammatory,” Musk’s lawyers wrote.

The lawyers said that “the very facts underlying the litigation celebrated in the posts are squarely at issue in the consolidated and coordinated actions.”

McCormick later deactivated her LinkedIn account, and in a letter to attorneys in the case she denied supporting the anti-Musk post.

“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally,” McCormick wrote. “I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”

McCormick in 2022 presided over a separate, high-profile lawsuit brought by Twitter, now called X, against Musk to force him to complete his $44 billion acquisition of the company after Musk attempted to back out over allegations the company misled him about the number of bots on the platform. Musk ended up moving forward with the acquisition and later testified that he felt forced to because he believed McCormick was biased against him.

“We were unlikely to win the [Twitter] case in Delaware because the judge was extremely biased against me,” Musk said this month, according to the recusal motion. “This was, in fact, the same judge that struck my Tesla option grant that was subsequently overturned by the Delaware Supreme Court. So it’s accurate to say she was, that judge was not favorably inclined to me. Not objective.”

In another lawsuit, McCormick in 2024 twice voided a multibillion-dollar pay package for Musk and the Tesla board, saying they had breached their fiduciary duties and that Musk effectively controlled the board. The Delaware Supreme Court reinstated the pay package but upheld McCormick’s underlying findings.

Musk responded that year to an X post from a conservative influencer about McCormick, writing “absolute corruption” after the influencer noted that she had previously worked at a Delaware law firm that donated to former President Joe Biden.

Musk’s grievances with McCormick began amid a national push against the tech billionaire as he began weighing in on politics, speaking out against the Democrat Party ahead of the 2022 midterms and endorsing Trump in the 2024 election. 

He became the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency in 2025, serving in the role as a special government employee as he sought to identify government overspending and fraud, which raised his status as a political target by the left. Democrat lawmakers condemned Musk’s DOGE efforts in protests, while Tesla locations were targeted by rioters last year as critics characterized Musk as an unelected billionaire working in the administration. 

Trump and Musk had a public falling out last spring, when Musk openly opposed the president’s signature budget bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The pair have since been spotted chatting at various public events. 

President Donald Trump said he will sign an executive order to address airport disruptions, announcing the move in a Truth Social post Thursday that framed the situation as a national emergency.

“Because the Democrats have recklessly created a true National Crisis, I am using my authorities under the Law to protect our Great Country,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, I am going to sign an Order … to immediately pay our TSA Agents in order to address this Emergency Situation.”

WHY SOME US AIRPORTS ARE DODGING TSA SHUTDOWN CHAOS WHILE OTHERS GRIND TO A HALT

The move comes as a 41-day partial government shutdown has disrupted the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), causing long lines at airports nationwide amid a standoff over DHS funding and immigration enforcement.

Trump accused Democrats of “refusing to fund Immigration Enforcement” and creating “Chaos at the Airports,” while thanking TSA agents for their work.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

This is a developing story, check back later for updates.

U.S. dollar bills will bear President Donald Trump’s signature to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence, the Treasury Department said, a first for a sitting president.

Trump’s signature will be placed on all U.S. paper currency and will replace the Treasurer of the United States’ signature on U.S. money for the first time in 165 years. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the move will recognize the Trump administration’s “historic achievements.”

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are on a path toward unprecedented economic growth, lasting dollar dominance and fiscal strength and stability,” Bessent said in a statement. 

“There is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President Donald J. Trump than U.S. dollar bills bearing his name, and it is only appropriate that this historic currency be issued at the Semiquincentennial.”

TRUMP LAUNCHES MASSIVE ‘FREEDOM 250’ PUSH TO IGNITE AMERICA’S 250TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION

The first $100 bills with the signatures of Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will be produced in June, followed by other denominations in the coming months, Reuters reported. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Treasury Department for comment.

MAGA COUNTRY VOTERS SOUND ALARM OVER ‘RIDICULOUS’ NATIONAL DEBT AMID DEBATE OVER TRUMP-BACKED BILL

The Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing is still producing notes bearing the signatures of former President Joe Biden’s Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, and Treasurer Lynn Malerba, Reuters reported.

In a statement, Treasurer Brandon Beach said placing Trump’s signature on U.S. currency is “not only appropriate, but also well-deserved,” given his “mark on history as the architect of America’s Golden Age economic revival.”

Thursday’s announcement came as Trump makes efforts to put himself on a coin. The design of a commemorative gold coin with his image was approved by a federal arts panel. 

Trump’s name has also been placed on buildings, government programs and institutions.

Republican attorneys general are hailing a First Amendment victory in a censorship lawsuit against the Biden administration after two red states secured a settlement restricting federal government agencies from influencing social media companies’ moderation practices.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital the settlement, a 10-year consent decree blocking several agencies from pressuring social media companies over their content, was “simply historic in nature.”

“Being able to set a precedent like this will help everybody in the future be able to show that this conduct is wrong,” Murrill said in a phone interview. “It was Orwellian in nature from the beginning. It still is, and I’m grateful that the government is acknowledging that it shouldn’t have been doing it.”

Missouri, Louisiana and several individual plaintiffs brought the high-profile jawboning lawsuit in 2022, alleging the Biden administration and officials in the first Trump administration inappropriately pressured social media companies to censor conservative viewpoints about COVID-19, election security and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES PENTAGON POLICY RESTRICTING PRESS ACCESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HANDS VICTORY TO NEW YORK TIMES

Under the settlement, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are barred for the next decade from threatening or coercing social media companies to remove or suppress protected speech. The agreement also blocks officials from giving directions on or vetoing platforms’ content moderation decisions.

“This is the first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who brought the lawsuit when he served as his state’s attorney general. “The deep state just got checked.”

Murrill and U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer helped with the case when they were solicitors general of Louisiana and Missouri, respectively. Murrill reflected on conversations she had at the time about “the line between coercion and government speech.”

“It was so clear to me that what the government was doing went way beyond appropriate boundaries in terms of deliberately throttling people’s speech, taking down protected, truthful speech and forcing these corporations to bend to the White House’s will,” Murrill said. “That was a very scary precedent, and I think that’s why this agreement is so important.”

GOOGLE TO REINSTATE BANNED YOUTUBE ACCOUNTS CENSORED FOR POLITICAL SPEECH

The lawsuit alleged that federal government agencies and officials pressured YouTube; Twitter, now X; Facebook, now Meta; and other platforms to censor content, arguing the actions amounted to coercing the companies to remove constitutionally-protected speech.

Republicans’ outrage about social media censorship gained momentum in 2020 after Twitter fully restricted and Facebook suppressed the New York Post’s bombshell report about the Biden family and Ukraine that was based on contents from Hunter Biden’s laptop. 

Discovery in the lawsuit and subsequent congressional investigations revealed that FBI officials during the first Trump administration met with social media companies and warned them just before the story was published of a possible Russian “hack and leak” operation designed to interfere with the 2020 election, which the companies later said influenced their decision to block the story.

President Donald Trump told Fox Business in October 2020 the censorship efforts were “out of control” and intended to derail his election prospects.

“It’s like a third arm, maybe a first arm, of the DNC — Twitter, and Facebook, they’re all — like really, it’s a massive campaign contribution,” Trump said at the time.

An infamous open letter signed by 51 former top intelligence officials in the weeks before the election fueled the fire by alleging the New York Post’s story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Trump, when he took office in 2025, revoked their security clearances in an executive order and accused them of using their powerful former job titles to help discredit the story to swing the election for Joe Biden.

Judge Terry Doughty, a Louisiana-based federal judge appointed by Trump, initially issued an injunction against the Biden administration in 2023, saying evidence in the case “depicts an almost dystopian scenario” in which the federal government “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” Biden administration officials were found, for instance, to have aggressively demanded in emails to social media companies that they remove anti-vaccine content, which they said was disinformation.

One Biden White House official told Facebook that “internally, we have been considering our options on what to do about it,” while another warned Twitter to take down content “ASAP” and “immediately.”

The injunction limited the government from having certain interactions with social media companies, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed that injunction, and the Supreme Court fully vacated it on appeal, finding the plaintiffs did not show they had standing. The high court punted on addressing the underlying merits of the case, leading to this week’s consent decree.

GOOGLE’S DECISION TO WALK BACK BIDEN-ERA YOUTUBE ACCOUNT BANS HAILED AS ‘HUGE DEVELOPMENT’ FOR FREE SPEECH

The settlement allows government officials to continue communicating with social media companies, including by flagging content or expressing disagreement, so long as the communication does not involve threats, such as implying that the companies will suffer regulatory or legal consequences.

In the settlement, the federal government did not admit any wrongdoing, and the agreement noted that the government still had authority to address criminal activity or national security threats on the platforms.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway applauded the consent decree in a statement, saying her state “will NOT allow politicians to police speech.”

Attorney John Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented individuals who were named as plaintiffs in the case alongside the two states, emphasized their winding path to the consent decree.

“This case began with a suspicion, that blossomed into fact, that led to congressional hearings and an executive order that government censorship of Americans’ social media posts should end,” Vecchione said. 

“Freedom of speech has been powerfully preserved by our clients, past and present, who initiated this suit.”