Beef prices aren’t easing anytime soon and economists warn the pressure could last for years.

That’s because the U.S. cattle herd has fallen to its smallest size in 75 years, after years of drought, rising feed costs and an aging ranching workforce forced producers to scale back.

“The biggest thing has been drought,” Eric Belasco, head of the agricultural economics department at Montana State University, told Fox News Digital.

Years of dry weather have wiped out grasslands across the West and Plains, leaving ranchers without enough feed or water to sustain their herds. Many have been forced to sell cattle early, including breeding cows needed to produce the next generation of calves, making it harder to rebuild.

Drought quickly makes it harder and more expensive for ranchers to raise cattle.

As conditions worsen, hay production falls, feed gets more expensive and herd sizes shrink, according to data from the Kansas City Federal Reserve.

IN TEXAS CATTLE COUNTRY, ONE RANCHER WELCOMES TRUMP’S FOCUS ON DECADES OF THIN MARGINS

But even when conditions improve, rebuilding the herd takes time.

“The fact of the matter is there’s really nothing anybody can do to change this very quickly,” said Derrell Peel, a professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University. “We’re in a tight supply situation that took several years to develop, and it’ll take several years to get out of it.”

Peel, who specializes in livestock marketing, said it takes roughly two years to bring cattle to market, and several more years to rebuild herds, leaving little room for short-term relief.

TRUMP’S BEEF IMPORT PLAN IGNORES KEY ISSUE SQUEEZING AMERICAN CATTLE RANCHERS

And the supply crunch is only part of the story.

The U.S. beef industry is also highly concentrated, with four major companies—Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef—processing about 85% of the nation’s grain-fed cattle.

That dominance has drawn scrutiny from regulators, including a Department of Justice investigation into potential antitrust issues and pricing practices in the meatpacking industry.

Critics argue that level of consolidation gives meatpackers significant influence over prices, while industry groups say the market remains competitive.

Higher prices haven’t scared off consumers.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, the average price of beef climbed from about $8.70 per pound in March 2025 to $10.08 a year later, an increase of roughly 16%.

Even so, demand has held up. In 2025, shoppers spent more than $45 billion on beef, buying more than 6.2 billion pounds, according to data from Beef Research, a contractor for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Spending jumped about 12% from a year earlier, while the amount of beef sold rose more than 4%—a sign consumers aren’t just paying more, they’re buying more.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Sunday suggested Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., may have violated his oath with comments he made to a news outlet following a classified briefing.

Kelly told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation that it is “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines” when asked if the Pentagon has updated lawmakers on the Iran war’s impact on U.S. weapons stockpiles. 

The senator told Brennan the Tomahawks, Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) rounds and Patriot rounds used to defend the U.S. have been hit hard, adding that it will take years to replenish those stockpiles, which could affect a hypothetical U.S. conflict with China.

In response, Hegseth questioned whether Kelly, a former Navy pilot, may have violated his oath and said the Pentagon’s legal counsel will review his comments.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS PENTAGON FROM DEMOTING MARK KELLY OVER CONTROVERSIAL MILITARY VIDEO

“‘Captain’ Mark Kelly strikes again,” Hegseth wrote on X.

“Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a *CLASSIFIED* Pentagon briefing he received,” he continued. “Did he violate his oath… again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”

This comes amid a months-long dispute between Hegseth and Kelly over the senator’s participation in a video with some of his Democratic colleagues in Congress urging U.S. military members to ignore “illegal” orders.

The DOJ had opened an investigation into the video posted online featuring six Democratic lawmakers calling on troops and members of the intelligence community to defy illegal orders from the federal government. The lawmakers all served in the military or at intelligence agencies.

In addition to Kelly, the other lawmakers in the video were Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, as well as Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Jason Crow of Colorado.

GRAND JURY REJECTS DOJ EFFORT TO INDICT DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS WHO URGED MILITARY TO DEFY ILLEGAL ORDERS

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers said in the video. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

Grand jurors declined to sign off on charges against the lawmakers in February.

In November, the Pentagon launched an investigation into Kelly, pointing to a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment.

Hegseth has censured Kelly and has attempted to retroactively demote him from his retired rank of captain over his participation in the video, which affirms that refusing unlawful orders is a standard part of military protocol.

But a federal court ruling blocked the Pentagon from demoting the lawmaker over the video. The court also found the Pentagon likely violated Kelly’s First Amendment rights, and those of “millions of military retirees,” when it formally censured him on Jan. 5.

Hegseth subsequently appealed that ruling.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments and appeared largely skeptical of Hegseth’s attempt to punish Kelly for the video.

“I will not back down from this fight,” Kelly said after the hearing.

President Donald Trump had accused the lawmakers of being “traitors” who engaged in “sedition at the highest level” and “should be in jail” after the video was posted last fall. He even suggested they should be executed over the video, although he later attempted to walk that comment back.

Slotkin, who previously worked at the CIA and Pentagon, was targeted with a bomb threat just days after the clip and Trump’s subsequent statements suggesting the Democrats be executed.

Fox News Digital reached out to Kelly for comment.

A political advertisement opposing Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt is drawing attention online as critics argue the messaging could ultimately benefit the former reality TV star instead of hurt his campaign.

The ad, which has circulated widely on X in recent days, attacks Spencer Pratt over homelessness, policing and public employee unions while urging voters to reject the Republican candidate.

“Republican Spencer Pratt is the last thing Los Angeles needs for mayor,” the speaker in the video says. “Pratt opposes using taxpayer money to build brand new houses for unhoused neighbors, saying it’s time for the homeless to get help or get out.

“Pratt thinks L.A. needs thousands more police officers rather than more social workers, and Republican Spencer Pratt thinks public employee unions should have less power, not more,” the ad continued. “LA is on the right track and needs to stay the course. Vote no on Republican Spencer Pratt.”

WATCH: LEFT-WING LA MAYOR FACES REALITY TV CHALLENGER’S BLUNT TAKEDOWNS IN HEATED MAYORAL DEBATE

Los Angeles Ethics Commission filings show the ad was funded by an independent expenditure committee called “LA Unions Opposed to Spencer Pratt for Mayor 2026,” which is sponsored by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.

The group reported spending $221,000 on digital advertising opposing Spencer Pratt in a Form 496 filing.

The tone and framing of the ad quickly sparked reaction online, with some users suggesting the criticisms could resonate with voters frustrated by conditions in Los Angeles rather than weaken Spencer Pratt’s campaign.

SPENCER PRATT IS STANDOUT LA MAYORAL CANDIDATE IN DEBUT DEBATE PERFORMANCE: ’10/10 NO NOTES’

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, amplified the video on X, writing, “This attack ad could well elect Pratt.”

Some users on X also mocked the ad’s messaging. One user wrote, “This is supposed to be an attack ad??? Lolol.” Another wrote, “Wow even @UnrigLA is running ads supporting Spencer Pratt. This is such an incredible ad supporting Spencer Pratt!!!”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Spencer Pratt’s campaign and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor for comment.

ROGAN BACKS REALITY TV STAR SPENCER PRATT’S BID FOR LA MAYOR, SAYS ‘I’D VOTE FOR YOU’

The ad comes as Pratt’s mayoral bid has gained attention following his performance in a recent debate, where he drew notice for his blunt criticisms of city leadership and policy priorities, including the handling of homelessness and crime.

Pratt has emphasized issues such as homelessness, public safety and government spending throughout his campaign, positioning himself as a political outsider challenging the status quo in Los Angeles and drawing support from voters dissatisfied with current leadership.

Independent expenditure committees are prohibited from coordinating with candidates and are commonly used by outside groups to influence elections, according to the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission.

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that five prisoners from Poland and Moldova were released from detention in Belarus and Russia following diplomatic efforts involving the U.S., marking a rare breakthrough in negotiations with the two countries.

The release includes Polish journalist and activist Andrzej Poczobut, whose case has drawn international attention and concern from European leaders, and signals a potential opening for limited cooperation between Washington and Minsk, even as tensions with Russia remain high and broader disputes persist.

“We just secured the release of three Polish and two Moldovan prisoners from Belarusian and Russian detention,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Thanks to my Special Presidential Envoy, John Coale, we were able to push hard to make this release happen.

“My friend, President Karol Nawrocki of Poland, met with me last September and asked me to help secure Andrzej Poczobut from Belarusian prison,” he continued. “Today, Poczobut is free due to our efforts. The United States delivers for our Allies and Friends.

SECRETARY OF STATE RUBIO HAILS RELEASE OF US PRISONER IN BELARUS AS CONTROVERSY HANGS OVER NATION’S ELECTION

“Thank you to President Aleksandr Lukashenko for his cooperation and friendship. So nice!” Trump added.

Poczobut, a correspondent for the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza and a prominent member of Belarus’ Polish minority, had been serving an eight-year sentence in a case widely criticized as politically motivated.

He was arrested in 2021 after reporting on pro-democracy protests in Belarus, drawing international condemnation. Poczobut was later awarded the Sakharov Prize, the European Union’s top human rights honor.

POLISH CONSERVATIVE KAROL NAWROCKI WINS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO SUCCEED DUDA

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski described Poczobut as both a symbol of the fight for freedom in Belarus and an example of Poland’s commitment to securing the return of its citizens.

The exchange was part of a broader series of prisoner releases negotiated with U.S. involvement, reflecting a recent thaw in relations between Washington and Minsk under Trump.

A spokesperson for Poland’s Foreign Ministry said the deal involved a multi-country arrangement, with three individuals transferred from Belarus to Poland in exchange for three sent in the opposite direction, alongside others released through separate agreements.

AMERICAN AMONG 3 DETAINEES RELEASED FROM BELARUS

Those freed included Grzegorz Gawel, a Roman Catholic friar from the Carmelite order in Krakow, as well as a Belarusian national who had worked with Polish intelligence services, according to Polish officials, who did not publicly identify the individual.

Earlier this year, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko authorized the release of 250 political prisoners under an agreement with Washington that led to a partial easing of U.S. sanctions.

Belarus, a longtime ally of Russia, has remained largely isolated from the West for years. Lukashenko, who has been in power for more than three decades, has faced repeated sanctions over human rights abuses and for allowing Russian forces to use Belarusian territory during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden’s lawyers are expected to object to the Justice Department’s release of redacted written transcripts and audio recordings of Biden’s 2017 interactions with his book ghostwriter, according to a new court filing.

“President Biden, through counsel, has advised the Department that he intends to seek to intervene to prevent any such disclosures,” Assistant Attorney General Civil Division Brett Shumate wrote in a filing from a Freedom of Information Act request from the Heritage Foundation’s Mike Howell. “The Department does not oppose intervention.”

There is a Tuesday deadline for Biden’s lawyers to respond to the DOJ’s release for a response to Howell’s FOIA request, which would come shortly after Tuesday if there was no objection.

Shumate noted the release of 70 hours of redacted recordings would be delayed until June 15 if Biden objects before the deadline.

BIDEN INTERVIEW AUDIO REVEALS WHO BROUGHT UP BEAU’S DEATH — AND IT WASN’T HUR

“Defendant intends to disclose the written transcript and audio recordings at issue in this matter, with redactions, to Congress, pursuant to a request from the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, as well as to Plaintiffs,” the filing in Howell’s FOIA lawsuit with the DOJ read.

The interactions came between Biden and his ghostwriter for the 2017 book: “Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose.” The audio and transcript were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents after the Obama administration ended, which included storing them in his garage and at the Penn Biden Center.

“President Biden cooperated fully with special counsel Hur, and agreed to provide audiotapes of conversations with his biographer for a book about his deceased son on the condition that they would not be made public,” Biden spokesperson TJ Ducklo told Politico in a statement Sunday. “The DOJ themselves have said these tapes serve no public interest.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS RELEASE OF JACK SMITH REPORT’S SECOND VOLUME

“What’s happening now isn’t about transparency. It’s about politics,” Ducklo continued. “If this Administration were genuinely committed to transparency, they would release Volume 2 of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s own alleged mishandling of classified documents. That report contains information Americans actually deserve to see.”

Fox News reached out to Ducklo for independent confirmation on this report and has not yet heard back.

The FOIA requester remains in pursuit of the documents.

CONSERVATIVES REACT TO LEAKED BIDEN AUDIO ON SOCIAL MEDIA: ‘THIS IS PAINFUL’

“These tapes will further prove the massive lie regarding Biden’s fitness for office and the fact Biden revealed classified information,” Howell, president of Heritage’s Oversight Project, told Politico. “The shenanigans aren’t over: At the last possible second, and after every delay tactic possible, the autopen is objecting to the American People receiving transparency. “

Hur concluded his investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents, noting longstanding DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president and saying a jury would be sympathetic to the oldest sitting American president, 82, because he was a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

“It appears that after lengthy negotiation covering several months — at no point seeking to intervene into this case on a timely basis — President Biden has changed position and now seeks to even enjoin release of the portions of transcripts that match exact phrases quoted in the Hur Report,” Shumate’s filing Friday read.

GREGG JARRETT: BIDEN, THE ‘MARIONETTE PRESIDENT; AND THE CASE OF THE RUNAWAY AUTOPEN

“The potential intervention by former President Biden and the new development of a discretionary release to the House Judiciary Committee in response to their March 23, 2026 letter, raises a number of issues”:

“As Plaintiffs understand the matter, President Biden would need an order barring release in this case and an order enjoining the Department from producing to the House Judiciary Committee all by June 15, 2026.”

The DOJ also accuses Biden’s lawyers of slow-walking responses and rejecting deadlines.

BIDEN WHITE HOUSE AIDES FACE OVERSIGHT DEADLINE AMID THREAT OF SUBPOENAS

“President Biden’s lead counsel was unable to provide any information about President Biden’s submissions arguing that such discussion was somehow premature (whereas, in reality it is 16 months late) and incredibly indicating that despite the June 15, 2026 production date, the motion to intervene would not be filed until mid-next week and that President Biden would seek up to three days after a ruling granting a motion to intervene to submit a proposed schedule for substantive relief,” the filing read.

“That is no way to conduct litigation and smacks of kicking the can down the road to justify delaying the June 15, 2026 production by some form of administrative injunction.”

The DOJ issued a new warning of Tuesday’s deadline, regardless.

READ THE COURT FILING – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

“The public deserves to hear the tapes and read the transcripts as redacted by President Donald J. Trump’s Department of Justice,” Shumate’s filing concluded. “Plaintiffs regret that they are currently unable to assist the Court in this process due to the repeated failure of counsel for President Biden to engage with Plaintiffs on this matter, putting off even initial substantive conversations until next week.”

Kirk Bangstad, the controversial Wisconsin brewery owner who seemed to offer free beer on Facebook for the assassination of President Donald Trump, is currently seeking the requisite 2,000 signatures for his burgeoning campaign for governor, warning his party he will win the primary if they try to silence him.

“I will win the primary if they don’t let me speak: I guarantee you that,” Bangstad told WISN 12 News this week when asked about speaking at the state Democratic convention.

Bangstad, the owner of Minocqua Brewing Company (MBC), launched his campaign for Wisconsin governor after drawing national scrutiny for a social media post that appeared on the brewery’s Facebook page after an alleged assassination attempt against Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.

“Well, we almost got #freebeerday,” the April 12 post read just minutes after the WHCA Dinner security event. “Either a brother or sister in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or he faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle. We’ll never know. Regardless, we stand at the ready to pour free beer the day it happens.”

WISCONSIN DEM’S BAR LAMENTS ‘WE ALMOST GOT FREE BEER DAY’ FOR TRUMP ASSASSINATION

The news spread so far on social media and in the news that it drew a visit from the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI days later, but Bangstad contends it was merely satirical commentary and not a dog whistle for political violence from leftist radicals like the past three Trump assassination attempts.

“It was satire,” he told WISN 12. “I meant it as satire. I’ve said that all along and it was taken out of context in order to create a feeding frenzy by the media, which it did, and allow Republicans to paint Democrats as politically violent.”

There has been caution from Democrats about Bangstad’s rhetoric for weeks, but it has not stopped him, and he acknowledged it led to his jumping into the gubernatorial race after the federal law enforcement visit, and even has proven lucrative for fundraising, if not his brewery business.

“Remember there was another half of that post that said, ‘or Donald Trump is trying to fake an assassination attempt to get a better news cycle,” Bangstad told WISN 12. “The first part was satire that was trying to set off the second part.”

WISCONSIN MOM ‘SEETHING’ AFTER DEMOCRATS GIVE HER 8-YEAR-OLD SON A CHILLING BRACELET CALLING FOR TRUMP’S DEATH

Bangstad said he resurfaced his “free beer day” MBC business campaign because “the assassination attempt seemed staged,” acknowledging it has allowed him to gain “name recognition.”

Bangstad pointed to his “250,000 followers on Facebook” and “170,000 subscribers to our Substack page.”

“Most of those people are progressives and a lot of those are progressives who live in Wisconsin, so I would think I have the best name recognition in the state of Wisconsin right now,” Bangstad continued.

“The Democratic Party who has a terrible approval rating across the country and in Wisconsin can say all they want to about me. I’m a true Democrat, a true progressive Democrat, and I have more name recognition than everybody in this race save for probably Mandela Barnes.”

DEM LAWMAKER SPARKS ONLINE OUTRAGE FOR BLAMING TRUMP’S LOW APPROVAL FOR WHCA DINNER SHOOTING

If he was blocked from speaking at the June 13-14 Wisconsin Democratic convention at the Monona Terrace Convention Center in Madison, Bangstad vowed, “I’d speak anyway; I’d speak outside the front door.”

“And if they try to not let me speak, they’re going to put me in office,” Bangstad said. “Let’s be honest.

“If they restrict my speech as a fellow Democrat, they are going to do so much harm to their appearance, and they’re going to do so much harm to other candidates, I will win the primary if they don’t let me speak. I guarantee you that.”

Bangstad said he has not “gotten that far” on whether he will attend the Democratic convention in June.

MANDELA BARNES JUMPS INTO WISCONSIN GOVERNOR RACE — BUT BAGGAGE FROM HIS 2022 SENATE BID FOLLOWS

“I’ve got to get my 2,000 signatures by June 1 – obviously, I’m in the race really late; we’ve got a month to get 2,000 signatures,” he said.

“I will of course attend the Democratic convention, I’m a Democrat. I want to drag the Democratic Party kicking and screaming to a realistic place that’s not owned by big money, and that’s what I plan to do.

“And I think I can get there in Wisconsin.”

FORMER NAVY SEAL AND ‘POLITICAL OUTSIDER’ ANNOUNCES GOP CAMPAIGN FOR WISCONSIN GOVERNOR

The Wisconsin primary is Aug. 11, but getting the signatures and his name out there is a first priority, according to Bangstad, admitting the campaign as “raised a ton of money so far” while demurring on exactly how much.

“I’ve got oodles of money in Facebook followers, in Substack followers, the equivalent of that in my being able to reach people and give them my message,” he said.

Bangstad’s small brewery has long leaned into liberal politics, selling progressive-themed merchandise and promoting itself through anti-Trump messaging and shirts reading, “I wish it was free beer day.”

PATTERN OF LEFTIST VIOLENCE GROWS AS TRUMP NEARS 10 MONTHS IN OFFICE

The controversy escalated after the April 25 security scare at the WHCA Dinner in Washington, D.C., where authorities say Cole Allen, 31, of Torrance, California, attempted to storm a Secret Service checkpoint with a loaded shotgun and other weapons. Allen was ordered held without bail, facing life in prison for attempted assassination of the president and assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon.

After the brewery’s post, the FBI and Secret Service confirmed they followed up on the matter and conducted a voluntary interview with Bangstad.

“The U.S. Secret Service follows up on perceived threats against the President of the United States or any one of our protectees,” the agencies said in a joint statement to Fox News. “The FBI and Secret Service together followed up on information received and conducted further investigative steps, which included a voluntary interview with the individual. This is an ongoing matter and we do not have further comment.”

HASAN PIKER NO-SHOWS PRO-COMMUNIST EVENT OVER ALLEGED SAFETY FEARS WHILE MOCKING TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

Bangstad livestreamed part of the encounter with two suited men who questioned him about whether he knew anyone who wanted to harm Trump or supported anyone who wanted to harm the president. The brewery also posted what it said was a transcription of a voicemail from a person Bangstad identified as a Secret Service agent and urged supporters to call the number.

Bangstad, a former Democrat candidate for Wisconsin’s 34th Assembly District, lost his 2020 general election bid. He also founded the Minocqua Brewing Company super PAC, which has targeted Trump and Republicans, and previously sued to keep Trump off Wisconsin’s 2024 ballot.

The latest controversy also put pressure on other Wisconsin Democrats who have past ties to Bangstad.

Trump-backed House candidate Michael Alfonso accused Democrats of trying to avoid the issue, pointing to Bangstad’s connections to Democrats in the state.

POPULAR LEFT-WING PODCAST HOSTS PUSH CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT TRUMP STAGED ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON HIMSELF

“This brewery is owned by a man named Kirk Bangstad, and he’s not just some random crazy guy,” Alfonso wrote on X. “Kirk is friends with current Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Francesca Hong. He previously employed Rebecca Cooke, the Democrat currently running against Derrick Van Orden, and was himself the Democratic nominee against my father-in-law, Sean Duffy, in Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District—where I am now running for office.”

Cooke’s campaign denounced political violence but did not mention Bangstad by name in its response to Fox News.

“This rhetoric is dangerous and unacceptable – showcasing just how broken our political system is,” Cooke said through her campaign manager. “I denounce all forms of political violence.

“We need to bring the temperature down, stop pitting working folks against each other, and come together to solve the very serious problems facing our communities.”

DISNEY UNDER FIRE AS ABC GRAPPLES WITH ANOTHER JIMMY KIMMEL CONTROVERSY

The National Republican Congressional Committee said Cooke’s response was insufficient and called on her to directly name her former employer.

“Rebecca Cooke needs to stop hiding and immediately denounce her former employer, Kirk Bangstad’s dangerous and unhinged comments,” NRCC spokesman Zach Bannon told Fox News. “Cooke’s previous employment by Bangstad makes her silence even more unacceptable. Voters deserve to know whether she stands with Wisconsinites who reject this rhetoric or with the same extremist voices pushing it.”

Hong also responded in a series of X posts after Fox News Digital reached out, condemning the normalization of political violence but not naming Bangstad. When asked specifically about the brewery or owner, Hong campaign manager Becky Cooper pointed back to the posts.

“That would fall under the ‘becoming numb’ portion,” Cooper told Fox News, declining to denounce Bangstad by name. “MBC’s tweet is intentionally inflammatory and a symptom of the normalization of political violence.”

LIBERAL WISCONSIN BREWING COMPANY PROMISES ‘FREE BEER, ALL DAY LONG’ AFTER TRUMP DIES

Wisconsin Republicans and national GOP figures have seized on the episode as evidence of overheated rhetoric on the left.

“Wisconsin Democrats are so sick in the head that an attempted murder is funny to them,” RNC spokeswoman Delanie Bomar told Fox News. “All Wisconsin Democrats, including Rebecca Cooke, must immediately condemn this disgusting behavior.”

Bangstad has also drawn scrutiny outside his anti-Trump messaging. Wisconsin Public Radio reported last year that he had been charged in a harassment case tied to a dispute with a local newspaper publisher.

“We only give comments to legitimate news organizations, not state propaganda agencies,” Bangstad told Fox News Digital after a request for comment about the Secret Service and FBI visit. “However, maybe one of our customers might want to respond to your question.”

Fox News reached out to Bangstad for further comment Sunday and has not yet heard back.

Fox News has also reached out to the campaigns for Hong, Cooke and Barnes, along with the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee.

Fox News’ Peter D’Abrosca contributed to this report.

Virginia Democrats’ redistricting push was meant to lock in an advantage. Instead, it’s unraveling after a costly court defeat—triggering a growing blame game inside the party.

The high-stakes effort to redraw congressional maps, backed by tens of millions of dollars and significant political capital, briefly delivered a narrow on-paper win. But in a 4–3 ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the maps, citing legal deficiencies, and forced a redraw—wiping out those gains.

Democrats are left arguing over whether party leaders ignored legal warnings and pushed a strategy that was always at risk of collapsing.

DAVID MARCUS: VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS STEP ON A $70M RAKE AND NOW THEY’RE CRYING

In hindsight, critics say the outcome was avoidable. Republicans had urged an earlier court review before votes were cast and money spent, a step they argued could have clarified the maps’ legality. 

Democrats pressed ahead anyway, betting the strategy would hold.

“Violating the Virginia Constitution and bypassing the rule of law to further one’s own political power is wrong,” Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., said in a statement to The Hill. “Had [Democratic Gov.] Abigail Spanberger and the rest of Virginia’s Democrats succeeded, they would have caused irreparable harm to our democracy and disenfranchised millions of Virginians.”

Allies of Spanberger say legal concerns were raised early and not fully heeded, pointing to state lawmakers for pushing forward. Lawmakers and other Democrats counter that litigation was inevitable and the maps were defensible.

DEMS WHO RAN ON AFFORDABILITY NOW FACE BACKLASH AS COSTS CLIMB IN NY, VIRGINIA

The dispute reflects a broader divide within the party over how aggressively to pursue redistricting. Some Democrats argue such efforts are necessary to counter Republican-led maps nationwide.

“I feel like the system is fundamentally broken, but let’s be clear. Republicans began the redistricting arms race,” Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., told Fox News Digital in an earlier interview. “And so Democrats are left with no choice but to level the playing field for the sake of democracy.”

“Look, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have political gerrymandering,” Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, added. “But because we don’t live in that world, we’ve got to fight fire with fire.”

Others, however, are more blunt in assigning blame.

“I put this all on Democrats,” Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said, arguing the party failed to respond forcefully to earlier GOP redistricting efforts and is now facing the consequences.

The fallout is landing at a difficult moment.

A federal raid on May 6 on the office of a powerful state senator has added to a sense of instability, while former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder has suggested the turmoil could give Spanberger an opening to reset and impose discipline on a still-fractured political operation.

The episode underscores the growing role of courts in redistricting fights—and the risks of pushing legal boundaries in a high-stakes environment, with potential implications for control of Virginia’s congressional delegation.

In retrospect, even with the narrow 4–3 decision, it’s a steep price: roughly $70 million and much of Spanberger’s political capital spent on a campaign that won the battle but lost the war.

Democrats are left to sort out not just what went wrong—but who’s responsible.

Fox News Digital’s Leo Briceno contributed to this report.

Michael Eisenberg, a top advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, says Israel and the newly-created Board of Peace will “take action” against Hamas if it does not comply with the peace terms it agreed to.

Eisenberg made the comments during an interview with Fox News on Sunday. He said Hamas is currently out of compliance with a wider peace agreement and is refusing to give up its weapons to “demilitarize” Gaza.

“I think all the options are on the table since Hamas is noncompliant with the 20-point plan, and they haven’t delivered their weapons like they were supposed to. And so we’ll have to wait and see. But like I said, this is incredibly well thought out. Give President Trump a tremendous amount of credit and his team of people credit. They’ve literally thought through every stage of this from beginning to end,” Eisenberg said.

“And by the way, and as President Trump said, there’s an easy way and a hard way. Everyone prefers the easy way, which is Hamas. With the help of the mediators delivers the weapons, but if they don’t, there’s a hard way too.,” he added.

TRUMP CONVENES FIRST ‘BOARD OF PEACE’ MEETING AS GAZA REBUILD HINGES ON HAMAS DISARMAMENT

Eisenberg went on to say that Iran must also eventually give up control over Gaza under the 20-pont plan agreed to between the U.S., Israel and Hamas.

“Hamas is still there. But the 20-point plan says they cannot be there. They cannot be a part of government. They cannot bear arms. They have to become Swedish, basically, in order for them to stay in any role in Gaza. And so I suggest they do that sooner rather than later. And I think progress is slow. You can’t microwave a 30-year problem. It doesn’t work. Sociologists,” he said.

Eisenberg’s comments come amid multiple peace negotiations across the Middle East. Israel is hashing out an agreement to deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the U.S. is in talks with Iran.

WHAT ISRAEL WANTS FROM AN IRAN PEACE DEAL: NO ENRICHMENT, MISSILE LIMITS AND STRICT ENFORCEMENT

Netanyahu said last week that Israel and the United States remain in “full coordination” as negotiations continue.

“We share common objectives, and the most important objective is the removal of the enriched material from Iran, all the enriched material, and the dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities,” Netanyahu said at the opening of a security cabinet meeting.

On the nuclear issue, former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror said Israel’s position remains uncompromising.

“Weaponized uranium must leave Iran,” Amidror said. “The Iranians must not be allowed to enrich uranium.”

Alongside the nuclear issue, Israeli analysts say Iran’s ballistic missile program has become equally central to Israel’s security concerns.

The statute of limitations on Dr. Anthony Fauci’s criminal referral for lying to Congress about gain-of-function research expires Monday, but Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is vowing to keep up the pressure on “the COVID coverup” with a Senate hearing this week.

“David Morens, Dr. Fauci’s top advisor, was indicted, but Fauci himself still walks free,” Paul, who has long pressed Fauci in heated exchanges in congressional hearings, wrote this week on X, continuing his urging of the Justice Department to pick up charges from his criminal referral despite former President Joe Biden issuing a sweeping preemptive pardon of Fauci on his last night in office Jan. 19, 2025.

“The DOJ has 5 days to indict Fauci before the statute of limitations runs out. The clock is ticking. Justice cannot wait.”

The Biden pardon and Fauci’s statute of limitations expiration Monday shields the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to Biden, but Morens was indicted late last month for having “deliberately concealed information and falsified records in an effort to suppress alternative theories regarding the origins of COVID-19.”

EX-FAUCI TOP ADVISOR INDICTED OVER ALLEGED COVID COVER-UP, HIDDEN EMAILS

“For years, I warned that Fauci and his inner circle buried the truth about Wuhan,” Paul wrote Wednesday on X. “Now his closest adviser has been indicted.

“Fauci lied to Congress under oath. The statute of limitations expires in 5 days. Will the DOJ finally indict Fauci?”

The Trump Justice Department under former Attorney General Pam Bondi or acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has made no public statements about bringing charges.

ANTHONY FAUCI MAY BE DEPOSED AS GOP INTENSIFIES COVID INVESTIGATIONS IN NEW CONGRESS

“While we can all have our beefs with Congress, this isn’t in our hands any longer,” Paul wrote Thursday on X. “I DID the work, investigated, and sent multiple CRIMINAL referrals to the DOJ.

“Whether he is indicted or not now is not up to Congress. It is up to the DoJ, and no one else.”

“He lied to Congress about NIH funding dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan and engaged in the worst cover-up in modern medical history,” Paul added in another X post. “The American people want Fauci behind bars.”

BIDEN TEAM REPORTEDLY CONSIDERING PREEMPTIVE PARDONS FOR FAUCI, SCHIFF, OTHER TRUMP ‘TARGETS’

President Donald Trump has publicly rejected the Biden autopen pardons as having no force or “legal effect,” but there is no precedent for a new president nullifying a past president’s pardons, because they would potentially render presidential pardon authority ultimately powerless against a new administration’s agenda.

“Anyone receiving ‘Pardons,’ ‘Commutations,’ or any other Legal Document so signed, please be advised that said Document has been fully and completely terminated, and is of no Legal effect,” Trump wrote in December on Truth Social.

Just two days after the Fauci clock runs out, Paul is chairing a Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs committee hearing with a “COVID coverup” whistleblower Wednesday.

FBI EXAMINING COVID-19 ORIGIN ‘COVER-UP’ AMID NEW STRAIN EMERGENCE: BONGINO

“Next week I’m holding a hearing with a whistleblower who will testify publicly about the COVID coverup,” Paul teased in an X post. “Mark your calendars: Wednesday, May 13 at 10 a.m.

“The truth is coming.”

Paul renewed a criminal referral to the DOJ last July to investigate whether Fauci’s May 2021 statements violated federal false-statements law. In the referral, Paul pointed to Fauci’s testimony that “the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

DOJ INVESTIGATING ANDREW CUOMO FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING ABOUT COVID DECISIONS, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Paul’s referral also noted Fauci later said he had “never lied before the Congress” and did “not retract that statement” after Paul warned him about the criminal implications of lying to Congress.

The referral cites a February 2020 email released by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, in which Fauci wrote that “scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments” involving bat viruses and human infection.

Paul argued that the email contradicted Fauci’s sworn testimony.

COVID ‘MOST LIKELY’ LEAKED FROM WUHAN LAB, SOCIAL DISTANCING ‘NOT BASED ON SCIENCE,’ SELECT COMMITTEE FINDS

Paul also cited research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) that he said was funded under a NIAID award and involved combining spike genes from bat SARS-related coronaviruses with another coronavirus backbone to create chimeric viruses capable of infecting human cells.

“This research, conducted at the WIV and funded under NIAID Award R01AI110964, fits the definition of gain-of-function research,” the referral stated.

The criminal referral further cites a 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found the WIV and Wuhan University received NIH funding. According to Paul’s referral, the GAO said NIH funded a project that included “genetic experiments to combine naturally occurring bat coronaviruses with SARS and MERS viruses, resulting in hybridized coronavirus strains.”

SCIENTISTS EXPECT MAJOR ‘MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS’ DESPITE TRUMP’S CAP ON NIH RESEARCH FUNDING

Anyone who makes a materially false statement in a congressional investigation or review can face fines and up to five years in prison.

Paul’s July referral also challenged the legal effect of a preemptive pardon Fauci received from Biden’s autopen.

“New information has revealed that these pardons were executed via autopen, with no documented confirmation that the President personally reviewed or approved each individual grant of clemency,” Paul wrote. “According to reports, White House staff authorized the use of the autopen to issue the clemency documents.

“This raises serious constitutional and legal concerns about the legitimacy of Dr. Fauci’s pardon.”

GREGG JARRETT: BIDEN, THE ‘MARIONETTE PRESIDENT; AND THE CASE OF THE RUNAWAY AUTOPEN

Fauci has repeatedly denied lying to Congress, including forcefully to Paul himself in multiple congressional hearings.

“Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11 [2021], where you claimed at the NIH never funded gain-of-function research and move on?” Paul asked in a July 2021 Senate hearing.

“Sen. Paul, I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement,” Fauci shot back.

“Let me finish!” Fauci added, when Paul tried to interject. “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially, you do not know what you’re talking about.”

DR. FAUCI SAYS HE APPRECIATES PRESIDENT BIDEN’S PARDON BUT INSISTS ‘NO CRIME’ WAS COMMITTED

The nature of the alleged lie revolves around the definition and denials of gain-of-function research surrounding COVID-19.

“You’re dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around them from a pandemic,” Paul said in the famed exchange, adding, “you are obviously obfuscating the truth.”

Fauci replied, “I’m not obfuscating the truth – you are.”

“You are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals,” he added. “I totally resent that.”

Paul shot back, “It could have been.”

“If there is any lying here, senator, it is you,” Fauci said, shaking his finger at Paul.

Sitting members of Congress are provided immunity under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution, while most of those investigated by Congress and subject to testifying under oath, which Fauci did.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood out from her colleagues this week when she broke with them to rail against the high court’s decision to fast-track its landmark order dismantling a key provision in the Voting Rights Act. 

But Jackson’s solo dissent was far from the first time the Biden-appointed justice has been on an island, as she has routinely blasted the court for not asserting more judicial authority over President Donald Trump’s executive actions and drawn rebukes from her colleagues for taking what they have viewed as flawed positions.

Ideological divides over high-profile cases have been common. The trio of liberals has remained unified against the Trump administration by opposing decisions, including on the interim docket, to curb universal injunctions, allow states to ban transgender medical treatments for minors, permit Trump to fire members of independent agencies, authorize the government to cancel immigrants’ temporary protected status and more.

But even in some of those cases, Jackson goes on solo diatribes, highlighting a deeper internal divide within the liberal bloc.

WHY JUSTICE JACKSON IS A FISH OUT OF WATER ON THE SUPREME COURT

Below are five recent times Jackson gave lone opinions.

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s map last month, finding 6-3 it contained an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Upon request, the Supreme Court also decided 8-1 to fast-track the landmark decision — handing it down immediately rather than in roughly a month like it usually does — allowing several red states to more quickly attempt to implement new congressional lines after the high court weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by limiting the role race may play in congressional redistricting.

Jackson, the bench’s most junior justice, broke with her eight colleagues in that decision, saying the court improperly “[dove] into the fray” of active elections by handing its judgment down immediately.

“Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,” Jackson wrote.

LATEST SCOTUS LEAK A GIFT TO LIBERALS ‘SALIVATING’ OVER CONTROL OF HIGH COURT NARRATIVE: EXPERTS

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a scathing concurrence for the sole purpose of ripping apart Jackson’s dissent, saying her claims were “groundless and utterly irresponsible.”

The Supreme Court is still weighing Trump’s signature plan to severely limit birthright citizenship, but it first entertained the subject last year by addressing how lower courts across the country uniformly issued nationwide injunctions against the plan. The high court decided 6-3 to ban such injunctions but left room for judges and plaintiffs to deploy other methods when seeking widespread relief.

Jackson gave a rogue, separate dissent in the case, drawing eyebrow-raising jabs from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote in the court’s opinion in 2025. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson wrote that nationwide injunctions should be permissible because the courts should not allow the president to “violate the Constitution.” 

Barrett disagreed.

“She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” Barrett wrote.

The high court fractured last August in dual 5–4 decisions that allowed the National Institutes of Health to cancel nearly $800 million in research grants.

Jackson, in one of her most memorable one-person dissents, appeared to boil over with frustration, observing that the majority “bends over backward to accommodate” the Trump administration.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules,” Jackson wrote. “We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”

Some of the canceled grants were geared toward research on diversity, equity and inclusion; COVID-19; and gender identity. Jackson argued the grants went further and that “life-saving biomedical research” was at stake.

When the Supreme Court sided 8-1 with a Christian counselor who challenged Colorado’s ban on counseling minors about sexual orientation and gender identity — which the state barred as conversion therapy — Jackson was the lone dissenter, warning that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.”

Jackson said the key free speech decision defied “treatment standards” and bucked the medical profession, leading an unlikely colleague, Justice Elena Kagan, to openly reject her dissent.

Kagan, an Obama appointee, said Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

In a lower profile case about police stops, Jackson conspicuously found in April that the high court overstepped its authority by improperly meddling in a lower court’s assessment of how Washington, D.C., police decided to stop a man in a suspicious vehicle.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision by the lower court, saying it should have weighed the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the vehicle and approved of an officer’s decision to briefly detain the man.

The decision was 7-2, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor opposed the ruling while also opting against joining Jackson’s dissent. Jackson accused the majority of trying to “wordsmith” and interfere with a typically routine evaluation of a police stop.

“I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court,” Jackson wrote.

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor, said in an op-ed this month that Jackson has “quickly developed a radical and chilling jurisprudence.”

Despite establishing herself as an outlier, Jackson also has a swathe of supporters from civil rights groups to celebrities. She has been showered with praise on “The View,” nominated for a Grammy for her audiobook and drawn encouragement from Democratic lawmakers.

Jackson said during her appearance this year on “The View” that “criticism is part of the job.”

“Dissents are an opportunity for the justices who disagree with the majority to really describe their view of the law but also their concerns,” Jackson said, adding that “you hope that your view will prevail in the long run.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Supreme Court’s press office for comment.