There are two distinct and clear things happening in American politics today that at first blush appear to be in direct conflict, President Donald Trump has had the best six months of any president in recent memory, and he is losing support in the polls. 

How can this be?

In fact, the way to reconcile Trump’s signature successes with his drop in approval is to understand that the president has expended an enormous amount of political capital, sacrificing support today, in the hope of good results tomorrow.

The achievements of the Trump administration are truly breathtaking when taken as a whole, starting with his central campaign promise, to shut down the southern border.

In a funny way, Trump was too successful on the border for his own political good. Had he cut the number of entries in half by now, it would still have been a positive story for the president, but he brought it to zero, so the issue is all but gone and forgotten, and nobody is getting any credit for it.

Then we have the passage of the ‘big, beautiful bill, the largest tax cut in history packed with big political winners like no tax on overtime and tips, and passed by a tiny GOP majority in Congress.

While that was going on, Trump also attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, badly damaging them and setting our geopolitical foe’s weapons program back years in a bold and perfectly executed mission.

Donald Trump has also unleashed his decades-long desire for higher tariffs to bolster American jobs and manufacturing, and after an all out panic from markets and pundits on ‘Liberation Day,’ back in April, the economy is now humming, largely free of inflation.

Last but not least, Trump, through his rescission package defunded NPR and PBS, something that has been the great white whale of many a conservative for many a year. They said it couldn’t be done, but Trump did it.

The scope, scale and speed of Trump’s triumphs are the good news, but they are always why his polling can get a bit jumpy, which is what we have seen over the past few weeks. 

According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Trump has shed about 3.5 points since July 7th — not a drop off a cliff, but not nothing, either. It’s mostly down to how busy he has been.

Above were listed 5 major accomplishments. There are, to be sure, many voters who love all five, but there are also voters who like 3 or 4 but not the others, and in approval polling the stuff people don’t like is louder than stuff they do.

Two weeks ago on a trip to Texas, I reported on these warning signs, especially around the deportations of illegal aliens without any other criminal record that make many Americans, including some Trump supporters, queasy. 

There is also an isolationist wing of the MAGA movement that hates the Iran strike, and even though its dire warnings of World War III fizzled like a cap gun in a hard rain, that still dinged the numbers.

Likewise, there are still plenty of individuals and industries that strongly dislike the tariffs, even if the economic sky hasn’t fallen. 

The point here, as Abe Lincoln once put it, is that you can’t please all the people all the time, and when you do as much as Trump has, this quickly, you are sure to displease lots and lots of folks.

The real bet that the Trump administration is making is not on the short-term popularity of any of its top achievements, but rather that a year from now, they will have made the lives of Americans better.

Donald Trump, even with just one term this time around, is committed to leaving our nation a very different place in 2029 than he found it in 2025. To do this requires an all-out assault on institutions from the deep state, to academia, to the media. 

Trump can’t poke as many political bears as he is without catching a few flesh wounds from the claws, but there is no sign of any imminent collapse that could thwart his overall efforts.

For six months, I have argued that Trump had all the runway he needed to put his plans in action. That was true, and he got a lot of planes up in the air, but the runway may be shortening now.

Now, all that is left is to judge the results of the Trumpian whirlwind of the past six months, and find out if this has been political capital well spent.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg will hear from immigration lawyers and the Trump administration in court on Thursday as he weighs new facts and allegations at the heart of one of the biggest immigration cases of President Donald Trump’s second term — setting the stage for another heated court fight.

Boasberg did not immediately signal which motions he would consider during the hearing. 

However, it comes after Boasberg found himself at the center of Trump’s ire and attacks on so-called ‘activist’ judges this year, following his March 15 temporary restraining order that sought to block Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act — a 1798 wartime immigration law — to quickly deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador earlier this year.

Boasberg also ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be ‘immediately’ returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen. 

His emergency order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of federal court challenges across the country — though the one brought before his court on March 15 was the very first — and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants’ due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Boasberg, as a result, has emerged as the man at the center of the legal fallout.

While the order itself has been in a bit of a holding pattern — the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the order two months ago, when they agreed to review the ruling — Thursday’s hearing could revive the bitterly divisive court fight once more.

Boasberg is expected to consider plaintiffs’ motions to reopen limited discovery, citing new evidence — including a recent U.N. report stating that, according to Salvadoran officials, the U.S. holds sole legal responsibility and custody over migrants transferred to CECOT. Other submissions include a whistleblower report from former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni, who worked on the case shortly before his removal.

Trump administration officials have repeatedly excoriated Boasberg as an ‘activist judge’ — a term they have employed for judges who have either paused or blocked Trump’s sweeping policy priorities enacted via executive order. Trump himself floated the idea that Boasberg could be impeached earlier this year— prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning.

Tensions between Boasberg and the Trump administration soared to a fever pitch earlier this year after Boasberg in April said he had found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for failing to return the planes to U.S. soil, in accordance with his emergency order, and said the court had determined that the Trump administration demonstrated a ‘willful disregard’ for his order.

The Trump administration appealed the findings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In June, Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to provide all noncitizens deported from the U.S. to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador to be afforded the opportunity to seek habeas relief in court, and challenge their alleged gang status.

‘Such was the situation into which Frengel Reyes Mota, Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, and scores of other Venezuelan noncitizens say they were plunged on March 15, 2025,’ Boasberg said.

Thursday’s hearing comes amid a flurry of new reports and allegations filed by plaintiffs in the case in an effort to reopen discovery.  

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, are asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint a special counsel to investigate newly declassified information about the Obama administration’s intelligence assessments about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Graham and Cornyn’s call for a special counsel, which Fox News Digital learned they are announcing Thursday morning, comes the day after the Department of Justice (DOJ) created a ‘strike force’ to investigate the evidence, which was declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month.

Graham and Cornyn, both senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not address the strike force but indicated in a statement that special counsels, who are outside officials brought in to oversee politically sensitive cases, operate independently of the attorney general.

Fox News reached out to the DOJ for comment on the special counsel request.

‘As we have supported in the past, appointing an independent special counsel would do the country a tremendous service in this case,’ Graham and Cornyn said.

Gabbard’s declassified intelligence shed new light on the Obama administration’s determination that Russia sought to help President Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Gabbard alleged Wednesday during a press briefing that Obama and his intelligence officials promoted a ‘contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t.’

Graham, who previously served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led the Senate’s inquiry into the FBI’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion and released a tranche of documents in 2020 suggesting the bureau had a flimsy basis for opening its investigation into Trump.

‘With every piece of information that gets released, it becomes more evident that the entire Russia collusion hoax was created by the Obama administration to subvert the will of the American people,’ Graham and Cornyn said.

Their remarks follow Trump accusing former President Barack Obama of ‘treason’ this week and after the DOJ opened criminal investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. 

Critics say Gabbard’s claims have been contradicted by past congressional reviews, some of which were led by Republicans. Obama, meanwhile, issued a statement in response to the wave of headlines suggesting he attempted to hurt Trump’s election chances.

‘Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,’ Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said. ‘But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.’

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Passing President Donald Trump’s agenda was a team effort between the Senate and House, but one Senate Republican was key in smoothing over differences between the two chambers.

‘There’s an inherent mistrust between senators and representatives,’ Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘There’s a deep, deep mistrust, and it’s like we’re playing shirts and skins with our own team.’

‘And trying to break down that barrier and let people know, ‘Hey, we’re all on the same team,’ is a little tougher than what people think,’ he continued.

House Republicans were dead set on crafting one, colossal package, while Senate Republicans preferred splitting the bill into two — even three — pieces. Then there were disagreements over the depth of spending cuts, changes to Medicaid and carveouts to boost the cap on the State and Local Tax Deduction (SALT).

And while the House GOP worked to craft their version of the massive, $3.3 trillion tax cuts and spending package that eventually made its way to the Senate, Mullin was a crucial figure in bridging the roughly 100-yard gap between both sides of the Capitol.

But it’s a job he never really wanted.

Mullin, who has been in Washington for over a decade, got his start in the House before being elected to the Senate in 2021. He wanted to maintain ‘lifelong friendships’ with his House colleagues, but becoming the de facto liaison between the chambers was more a decision of practicality than one he truly desired.

‘The first couple of deputy whip meetings we had when [Senate Majority Leader John Thune] was whip was discussing what the House is going to do, and no one knew,’ Mullin said. ‘And I was like, ‘Man, it’s just down the hall, we can go walk and talk to them.’ So the first time I did that, I went to the [House GOP] conference and just talked.’

‘And then it just turned into me going to Thune and saying, ‘Hey, why don’t I just become a liaison between the two?’ So I didn’t, I never envisioned of doing that, other than just keeping a relationship, but it was a natural fit,’ he continued.

That role began when former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who Mullin had a longstanding relationship with, led the House GOP, and has continued since House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., took the helm in 2023.

And it paid dividends during the six-month slog to draft and pass Trump’s budget reconciliation bill, which required full buy-in from congressional Republicans to do so given that no Democrats were involved in the process.

Markwayne said that before the bill even made it to the Senate in early June, he played a role in ensuring that House Republicans didn’t ‘dump a ton of stuff in there’ that would be nixed by Senate rules.

He effectively ping-ponged back and forth between the chambers, jetting from morning workouts to speak with lawmakers, meeting with House Republicans during their weekly conference confabs or holding smaller discussions with lawmakers, particularly blue state Republicans concerned about changes to SALT, to get everyone on roughly the same page.

Much of it broke down to explaining how the Senate’s Byrd rule, which governs reconciliation and allows either party to skirt the Senate filibuster to pass legislation, worked.

‘I mean, even though I spent 12 or 10 years in the House, I never understood the Byrd rule, but why would I? I didn’t have to deal with it,’ he said. ‘So really getting to understand that, and breaking down that barrier helped.’

The flow of information wasn’t just one way, however. His discussions with House Republicans helped him better inform his colleagues in the upper chamber of their priorities, and what could and couldn’t be touched as Senate Republicans began putting their fingerprints on the bill.

SALT was the main issue that he focused on, and one that most Senate Republicans didn’t care much for. Still, it was a make-or-break agreement to raise the caps, albeit temporarily, to $40,000 for single and joint filers for the next five years, that helped seal the deal for anxious blue state House Republicans.

‘Just keeping them informed through the process was very important,’ he said. ‘But at the same time, talking to the House, and when we’re negotiating over here, I’d be like, ‘No guys, that’s a killer,’’ he said. ‘We can’t do that if you, if you touch this, it’s dead over there for sure. Guaranteed, it’s dead.’

Over time, his approach to the role has changed, an evolution he said was largely influenced by Thune.

A self-described ‘bull in a China cabinet,’ Mullin said that for a time his negotiating style was arguing with lawmakers to convince them ‘why you’re wrong.’ But that style softened after watching Thune, he said, and saw him talking less and listening more.

‘I took his lead off of it to let people talk,’ he said. ‘Sometimes you’re going to find out that they’re actually upset about something that had nothing to do with the bill, but they’re taking that, and they’re holding the bill hostage to be able to let this one point be heard.’

‘I don’t think it was a good indication that we were butting heads. Everybody was very passionate about this. I mean, they’ve been working for a long time. We looked at it as maybe a once in a generation opportunity for us to be able to get this done,’ he continued. ‘We wanted to get it right, but everybody wanted to have their fingerprint on it and at the end of the day, we knew we [had] to bring it to the floor.’

House Republicans are calling for more scrutiny on the roughly 1,500 commutation orders signed by President Joe Biden toward the end of his term after revelations that an autopen was used for a significant number of them.

‘Americans deserve accountability of their leaders. If an autopen was used to pardon hundreds of people, thousands of people, including the president’s son, who made that decision? Was it Joe Biden? Or was it some staffer that used an autopen?’ Ways & Means Committee Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., said in a brief interview with Fox News Digital.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that autopen signatures were used on clemency orders in the last few months of Biden’s White House tenure.

Biden told the outlet he made ‘every decision,’ and the report details a meticulous process from Biden making his decision to that decision being recorded by aides and passed through a chain of email communication – suggesting the then-president had final signoff.

But the report notes, ‘The Times has not seen the full extent of the emails, so it is impossible to capture the totality of information they contain or what else they might show about Mr. Biden’s involvement in the pardon and clemency decisions.’

Rep. Mark Messmer, R-Ind., suggested pardon decisions carried out in the late hours of the day should be looked at in particular.

‘I think we need to highly scrutinize the use of autopen signatures that were initiated at 10.45 p.m., well beyond the president’s normal day of cognitive activity, need to be brought into question,’ Messmer said.

The report noted one instance where the final word on a particular set of clemency orders was sent just after 10:30 p.m.

The Times had reported in July 2024, before he dropped out of the presidential race, that Biden said he would stop scheduling events after 8 p.m. due to the need for sleep.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, argued lawmakers need more information on who was in control of those signatures for public trust.

‘What people want is accountability. They want to know that what was done in the name of our president who was elected, that he actually bears responsibility for that,’ Gill said.

Another lawmaker suggested courts should even look at nullification.

‘Maybe some of the pardons and things like that can be rolled back,’ Rep. John McGuire, R-Va., said. ‘We’ll leave it to the courts to figure that out.’

Rep. Andrew Cylde, R-Ga., went a step further: ‘That has to be corrected. It has to be investigated. And those people, really, in my opinion, should be prosecuted for stepping outside the bounds of the Constitution.’

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chair James Comer, R-Ky., is already investigating the Biden administration’s use of autopen and whether former top White House aides concealed evidence of the then-president’s mental decline.

Ex-White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain is the latest person expected to appear before House investigators, with a voluntary transcribed interview scheduled for Thursday morning.

Democratic allies of Biden have blasted the probe as a political spectacle rather than an honest fact-finding mission.

But all the Republican lawmakers who spoke with Fox News Digital argued to at least some extent that Americans want accountability, though some suggested it would be beneficial to focus efforts on the future.

‘I have to balance my thoughts on this. I think that, you know, it’s good to know what happened, to keep it from happening…but on the other hand, I really want to be focused on the future,’ said Rep. Troy Downing, R-Mont. ‘But I will tell you, the speculation – although I obviously don’t know 100% what’s true or not – I think the speculation is very probable, just seeing who Biden was at the end of his tenure and knowing that that didn’t happen overnight.’

Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, vice chair of the House GOP Conference, told Fox News Digital, ‘As far as the previous administration, what’s done is done, but it’s also good to highlight to the American people, okay, you were in some cases lied to.’

Notably, autopen is a standard and legal practice that’s been used by officials in many past cases, including by President Donald Trump. House investigators are looking into whether Biden really made the final sign-off himself on key decisions, however.

The office of former president Joe Biden was contacted for comment.

The Justice Department has formed a ‘strike force’ to assess the evidence publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard relating to former President Barack Obama and his top national security and intelligence officials’ alleged involvement in the origins of the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Wednesday evening, announced the formation of the ‘strike force,’ to investigate potential next legal steps which may stem from Gabbard’s recent declassification of records suggesting that Obama administration officials ‘manufactured’ intelligence to form the narrative that then-candidate Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Justice Department officials told Fox News Digital that the DOJ takes the alleged weaponization of the intelligence community with ‘the utmost seriousness.’

A source familiar with the strike force told Fox News Digital that everything is being reviewed and that no serious lead is off the table.

The source told Fox News Digital that the National Security Division of the Justice Department will ‘likely be involved in the investigation.’ 

‘The Department of Justice is proud to work with my friend Director Gabbard and we are grateful for her partnership in delivering accountability for the American people,’ Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

‘We will investigate these troubling disclosures fully and leave no stone unturned to deliver justice,’ she said.

The strike force consists of teams made up of investigators and prosecutors that focus on ‘the worst offenders engaged in fraudulent activities, including, chiefly, health care fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, money laundering offenses, false statements offenses,’ and more, according to the DOJ.

The formation of the strike force comes after a slew of developments related to the origins of the Trump–Russia investigation.

Earlier in July, CIA Director John Ratcliffe sent a criminal referral for former CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI.

The referral came after Ratcliffe declassified a ‘lessons learned’ review of the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). The 2017 ICA alleged Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election to help then-candidate Trump. But the review found that the process of the ICA’s creation was rushed with ‘procedural anomalies,’ and that officials diverted from intelligence standards. 

It also determined that the ‘decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment.’ 

The dossier — an anti-Trump document filled with unverified and wholly inaccurate claims that was commissioned by Fusion GPS and paid for by Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC — has been widely discredited. The review marks the first time career CIA officials have acknowledged politicization of the process by which the ICA was written, particularly by Obama-era political appointees. 

Records declassified as part of that review further revealed that Brennan did, in fact, push for the dossier to be included in the 2017 ICA.

FBI Director Kash Patel received the criminal referral and opened an investigation into Brennan.

Patel also opened a criminal investigation into former FBI Director James Comey.

The full scope of the criminal investigations into Brennan and Comey is unclear, but two sources described the FBI’s view of the duo’s interactions as a ‘conspiracy,’ which could open up a wide range of potential prosecutorial options. 

The FBI and CIA declined to comment.

Neither Brennan nor Comey immediately responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Days later, Gabbard declassified documents revealing ‘overwhelming evidence’ that demonstrated how, after Trump won the 2016 election against Clinton, then-President Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia collusion probe.

Gabbard said the documents revealed that Obama administration officials ‘manufactured and politicized intelligence’ to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise.

The new documents name Obama, top officials in his National Security Council, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others.

Gabbard, on Monday, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department related to those findings. DOJ officials did not share further details on whom the criminal referral was for.

And on Wednesday, Gabbard declassified documents that showed that the intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the ‘unusual’ direction of Obama, published ‘potentially biased’ or ‘implausible’ intelligence suggesting otherwise.

That information came from a report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2020.

The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.

The report has never before been released to the public, and instead, has remained highly classified within the intelligence community.

Meanwhile, Fox News Digital, in 2020, exclusively obtained the declassified transcripts of Obama-era national security officials’ closed-door testimonies before the House Intelligence Committee, in which those officials testified that they had no ’empirical evidence’ of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, but continued to publicly push the ‘narrative’ of collusion.

The House Intelligence Committee, in 2017, conducted depositions of top Obama intelligence officials, including Clapper, Rice and Lynch, among others.

The officials’ responses in the transcripts of those interviews align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which found no evidence of criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, while not reaching a determination on obstruction of justice.

The transcripts, from 2017 and 2018, revealed top Obama officials were questioned by House Intelligence Committee lawmakers and investigators about whether they had or had seen evidence of such collusion, coordination or conspiracy — the issue that drove the FBI’s initial case and later the special counsel probe.

‘I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,’ Clapper testified in 2017. ‘That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence…. But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.’

Lynch also said she did ‘not recall that being briefed up to me.’

‘I can’t say that it existed or not,’ Lynch said, referring to evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination.

But Clapper and Lynch, and then Vice President Joe Biden, were present in the Oval Office July 28, 2016, when Brennan briefed Obama and Comey on intelligence he’d received from one of Clinton’s campaign foreign policy advisors ‘to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.’ 

‘We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from (REDACTED),’ read Brennan’s handwritten notes, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital in October 2020. ‘CITE (summarizing) alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.’

Meanwhile, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, according to the transcript of her interview to the House Intelligence Committee, was asked whether she had or saw any evidence of collusion or conspiracy.

Power replied: ‘I am not in possession of anything — I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.’

When asked again, she said: ‘I am not.’

Rice was asked the same question.

‘To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause,’ she said, according to her transcribed interview, in response to whether she had any evidence of conspiracy. ‘I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw… conspiracy prior to my departure.’

When asked whether she had any evidence of ‘coordination,’ Rice replied: ‘I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.’

Meanwhile, former FBI Deputy Director McCabe was not asked that specific question but rather questions about the accuracy and legitimacy of the unverified anti-Trump dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

McCabe was asked during his interview in 2017 what was the most ‘damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that’ he ‘now knows is true.’

McCabe replied: ‘We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.’

‘You don’t know if it’s true or not?’ a House investigator asked, to which McCabe replied: ‘That’s correct.’

After Trump’s 2016 victory and during the presidential transition period, Comey briefed Trump on the now-infamous anti-Trump dossier, containing salacious allegations of purported coordination between Trump and the Russian government. Brennan was present for that briefing, which took place at Trump Tower in New York City in January 2017.

The dossier was authored by Steele. It was funded by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie.

But Brennan and Comey knew of intelligence suggesting Clinton, during the campaign, was stirring up a plan to tie Trump to Russia, documents claim. It is unclear whether the intelligence community, at the time, knew that the dossier was paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

The Obama-era officials have been mum on the new revelations, but a spokesman for Obama on Tuesday made a rare public statement.

‘Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,’ Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. ‘But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.’ 

‘These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,’ Obama’s spokesman continued. ‘Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.’

He added: ‘These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.’ 

A senior former Biden administration official arrived on Capitol Hill for a closed-door interview with House investigators on Thursday.

Ronald Klain served as former President Joe Biden’s chief of staff in the first half of his term, from the beginning of his term in January 2021 until early February 2023.

He did not answer shouted questions from reporters before disappearing for his voluntary transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee.

Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., is investigating whether Biden’s top White House aides concealed signs of mental decline in the then-president, and if that meant executive actions were signed via autopen without his knowledge.

‘I think he’ll be forthcoming. I mean, he’s at the top of the organizational chart for the Biden administration,’ Comer told reporters on his way into the closed-door deposition. ‘I think everyone in America is wondering whether or not Joe Biden was mentally fit to be President of the United States, especially during the last six months of his administration.’

Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., were also seen entering the room for the interview, which is expected to be staff-led.

Biden maintained he ‘made every decision’ in a recent interview with The New York Times.

Klain is the sixth ex-White House official to appear as part of Comer’s probe, and the third to appear on voluntary terms.

Former White House physician Kevin O’Connor, as well as senior advisors Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal, all appeared under subpoena.

Each also pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions.

Ex-staff secretary Neera Tanden and longtime Biden advisor Ashley Williams both appeared for voluntary transcribed interviews, like Klain.

Both of their interviews lasted over four hours, though House GOP investigators appear to have gleaned little new information.

Before serving as Biden’s chief of staff, Klain worked in the same capacity when the Delaware Democrat was vice president during the Obama administration.

He also served as a top advisor on Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

Most critical to investigators, perhaps, is the prominent role Klain reportedly played in preparing Biden for his disastrous June 2024 debate against now-President Donald Trump.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., a member of the Oversight Committee, shared some of the information he hoped would be gleaned from Klain’s sitdown.

‘Did you ever see a question of cognitive ability in the president? Were you aware that he was not making these decisions? Was he being led?’ Burlison asked.

Fox News Digital’s Deirdre Heavey contributed to this report.

Sen. John Fetterman may be a Democrat, but on the issue of banning cashless-only businesses, he’s 100% right – and every small business owner, working-class American and financial realist should take note.

As a financial planner and entrepreneur, I’ve seen how pushing the U.S. toward a fully cashless society doesn’t just inconvenience people – it hurts them. It widens the wealth gap, excludes millions from daily commerce and puts Main Street businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

When Fetterman says, ‘It’s simple – it’s legal tender. If you accept money, you have to accept all money,’ he’s not just making a populist statement. He’s standing up for every American who gets punished simply for trying to pay with the money they earned.

Let’s look at the numbers:

• 5.9 million U.S. households are unbanked (FDIC).
• 18.7 million more are underbanked, relying on check cashers, prepaid cards and money orders.
• 13% of Americans use cash for all or most purchases.
• Nearly 40% of Americans couldn’t cover a $400 emergency.

When a store refuses cash, it’s essentially telling millions of people – especially seniors, low-income earners and minorities – that their money isn’t welcome.

As the Pennsylvania senator put it, ‘We can’t let stores discriminate against people just because they don’t have a credit card or a smartphone.’

This push toward a cashless economy is driven by tech elites who assume everyone has digital access.  Aren’t you sick and tired of the guilt tipping button that now asks you for 20 or 25 or 30% tip with a server watching over you to see what you are going to give them. But this isn’t Silicon Valley – it’s America. Here, you should be able to buy lunch or medicine with a few bucks in your pocket.

And for many Americans, cash isn’t optional – it’s essential.

As someone who works with business owners every day and having owned a concrete driveway installation company, I can tell you, going cashless is bad for business. Here’s why:

1. Swipe Fees Eat MarginsEvery card transaction costs businesses 1.5% to 3.5%. On tight margins, that’s real money – especially in food, retail and service sectors.
2. Fewer Impulse BuysStudies show people are more thoughtful when using cash. That’s good for consumers – and helps prevent overreliance on credit.
3. System Outages Kill SalesWhen the power goes out or internet fails – like during the 2021 Texas storm – only businesses accepting cash could stay open. In emergencies, cash is king.
4. Customer LossMany older adults and working-class families still use cash daily. Turning them away is just bad business.

Every digital transaction is tracked. Your location, purchases and habits are cataloged and monetized by Big Tech and banks.

Cash, on the other hand, protects privacy. No monthly statements, no tracking, no algorithms.

The more we give up cash, the more control we give away – to institutions that charge fees, track behavior and limit access.

Cities like Philadelphia, San Francisco and New York have already banned cashless-only retail. It’s time to go national.

Fetterman’s proposed federal law would:

• Require all physical stores to accept U.S. currency.
• Impose penalties on violators.
• Allow exceptions for online-only or high-security federal locations.

It’s not about resisting innovation – it’s about ensuring inclusion. Legal tender should mean what it says: legal for all debts, public and private.

Once we lose cash, we lose a piece of our freedom. We become more dependent on banks, apps and companies that profit off our transactions and control access to our own money.

Fetterman nailed it: ‘We’re going to keep pushing until every American – regardless of income – can walk into a store and buy what they need with a few bucks in their pocket.’

He’s right. And if we care about fairness, privacy and keeping Main Street open to all, we need to get behind him.

Because cash isn’t just currency. It’s economic liberty – and it’s worth protecting.