A Colorado woman was convicted of murder after she and a stranger she met on a bus killed her boyfriend who expressed skepticism about her ability to land a job.

Ashley White, 29, was found guilty of second-degree murder, conspiracy to commit second-degree murder and robbery in the August 2020 death of Cody DeLisa, 28, the 17th Judicial District Attorney's Office said in a press release.

The couple had a "volatile and strained" relationship in the months leading up to the murder, as DeLisa often criticized White for her struggles with finding a full-time job, which contributed to tension between them, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said White expressed resentment over her boyfriend's criticism, even writing in her diary that she regretted ever meeting DeLisa.

DEA ARRESTS 4 IN COLORADO WITH SUSPECTED TIES TO SINALOA CARTEL, TREN DE ARAGUA

"Her frustration escalated after an incident in which she attempted to drown and burn DeLisa’s cat, a behavior that raised alarms about her mental well-being," prosecutors wrote.

On the day of the murder on Aug. 13, 2020, White attended a job interview in Denver. After the interview, she texted DeLisa about how it went while she was riding home on a bus.

During the exchange, prosecutors said DeLisa expressed skepticism about her chances of landing the job, which upset her.

White then began talking to a stranger during the bus ride home who said his name was "Scott."

COLORADO COURT RULES ELEPHANTS AT ZOO CANNOT PURSUE THEIR RELEASE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN

"Scott asked if she was in a relationship with a man and whether he raped her," prosecutors said. "White responded that he had, and Scott then said they must kill him."

White and Scott exited the bus and spent time together firing Scott’s gun before walking to White's home, where Scott introduced himself to DeLisa as White's brother from Texas, prosecutors said.

DeLisa was then shot twice in the head and his wallet was stolen, and his body was found the next day during a welfare check.

White and Scott spent the next few days together before Scott left, and they never saw each other again. White was later identified as a suspect and arrested and charged in DeLisa's death.

Three years after the killing, a woman came forward saying her boyfriend Michael Stratton may have been "Scott." He was in custody for a separate killing of a man in Pueblo that happened after DeLisa's murder, according to prosecutors.

The woman's description of Stratton's confession matched White's account of the crime, prosecutors said. But he was deemed incompetent to stand trial in the Pueblo murder case and has not been charged in DeLisa's case.

"This was a tragic and senseless murder and Ashley White bears significant culpability for it," District Attorney Brian Mason said in the press release. "Her callous actions led to the victim’s death, and now she will pay a significant price."

White is scheduled for sentencing on April 4.

LGBT activists and groups are already mobilizing to block gender-related executive orders President Donald Trump signed since taking office to fulfill one of his key campaign promises to crack down on "gender ideology extremism." And more legal challenges are expected in the coming weeks.

The executive orders, signed in late January, include a reinstatement of the ban on transgender troops in the military, a ban on federal funding for sex changes for minors and a directive requiring federal agencies to recognize only "two sexes," male and female, in official standard of conduct.

"This ban betrays fundamental American values of equal opportunity and judging people on their merit," Jennifer Levi, director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), said in a statement about the trans military ban. 

"It slams the door on qualified patriots who meet every standard and want nothing more than to serve their country, simply to appease a political agenda."

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS BANNING 'RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY,' DEI INITIATIVES IN THE MILITARY

GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), were among the first groups to file a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for its military ban. The lawsuit, Talbott v. Trump, was brought forward on equal protection grounds by six active-duty service members and two individuals attempting to enlist, according to the groups' announcement.

The plaintiffs include a Sailor of the Year honoree, a Bronze Star recipient and several who were awarded meritorious service medals. They were identified as U.S. Army Reservist Lt. Nicolas Talbott, Army Maj. Erica Vandal, Army Sgt. First Class Kate Cole, Army Capt. Gordon Herrero, Navy Ensign Dany Danridge, Air Force Master Sgt. Jamie Hash, Koda Nature and Cael Neary. The latter two are civilians who are seeking to enlist in the military.

DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH SAYS 'NO MORE DEI AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE': 'NO EXCEPTIONS'

Another lawsuit, filed by a transgender inmate receiving taxpayer-funded medical treatments, is challenging Trump's executive order that ends medical transgender treatments – such as hormones, sex changes and grooming accommodations – for federal prisoners.

The unnamed inmate, who goes by "Maria Moe" in court documents and is represented by GLAD Law, NCLR and Lowenstein Sandler LLP, is claiming Trump and the Bureau of Prisons are violating the Fifth and Eighth amendments and claims to be "at imminent risk of losing access to the medical care she needs to treat her gender dysphoria."

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole in Boston temporarily blocked BOP officials from transferring "Maria Moe" to a men's prison, according to a ruling released by the inmate's attorney Thursday. The temporary restraining order was issued Sunday, the same day the suit was filed.

Prison officials are expected to keep the inmate in the women's prison general population and maintain her transgender medical treatments, NBC first reported. 

CRACKING DOWN ON TRANS TROOPS: TRUMP ORDER NIXES PREFERRED PRONOUNS, RESTRICTS FACILITY USE

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against Trump's other executive orders, too, especially Trump's immigration-related policies. More are expected in the coming weeks. 

A memo released Wednesday by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management provided guidance on directing federal agencies to acknowledge that women are biologically female and men are biologically male, Reuters reported. Trump said last week federal funds would not be used to promote "gender ideology." 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on the litigation but did not hear back before publication.

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

A South Carolina inmate was executed on Friday, the third time in four months the state has carried out the death penalty as it goes through a backlog of inmates who exhausted their appeals when the state was unable to obtain lethal injection drugs.

Marion Bowman Jr., 44, was executed by lethal injection at 6:27 p.m. for his murder conviction in the shooting death of his friend, 21-year-old Kandee Martin, whose burned body was found in the trunk of a car in 2001.

Bowman has maintained his innocence since his arrest. He said at the beginning of his final statement: "I did not kill Kandee Martin."

His lawyers raised questions about his conviction, noting that he was convicted on the word of several friends and relatives who received plea deals with prosecutors in exchange for their testimony.

SOUTH CAROLINA MAN SENTENCED TO DEATH CONCERNED ABOUT DRUG AFTER ISSUE DURING NOVEMBER EXECUTION

When the curtain to the death chamber opened, Bowman briefly looked at his attorney on the other side of the glass in the witness room before looking back up at the ceiling and closing his eyes, opening his eyes once or twice as he looked up.

After Bowman's attorney finished reading his final statement and poem, his breathing became heavy, and he puffed his lips as he exhaled. In less than a minute, his breathing stopped. Twenty minutes later, a doctor with a stethoscope listened to his chest and placed a hand on his neck, patting him as she finished.

Bowman said in his final statement that death row inmates might be viewed as the worst of the worst, but they have all grown and changed from what "they were when they had their moment that cost them everything."

"I know that Kandee’s family is in pain, they are justifiably angry," Bowman said. "If my death brings them some relief and ability to focus on the good times and funny stories, then I guess it will have served a purpose. I hope they find peace."

For his final meal, Bowman had fried seafood, including shrimp, fish and oysters, as well as chicken wings and tenders, onion rings, banana pudding, German chocolate cake, cranberry juice and pineapple juice.

Bowman was offered a plea deal for a life sentence but instead went to trial because he said he was not guilty.

His execution was the third in South Carolina since September, when the state – once one of the busiest for executions – ended a 13-year pause in carrying out the death penalty. The pause was caused in part by the state having difficulty obtaining lethal injection drugs after its supply expired because of pharmaceutical companies' concerns that they would have to disclose they had sold the drugs to state officials. The state legislature then passed a shield law allowing officials to keep lethal injection drug suppliers private.

SOUTH CAROLINA SCHEDULING EXECUTIONS AGAIN AFTER A PAUSE FOR THE HOLIDAYS

In July, the state Supreme Court cleared the way to resume executions. Freddie Owens was put to death on Sept. 20 and Richard Moore was executed on Nov. 1, with both men choosing to die by lethal injection.

This was the first execution in the U.S. this year after 25 were carried out in the country last year. The court will allow an execution every five weeks until the other three inmates who have run out of appeals are put to death.

South Carolina has executed 46 inmates since the death penalty was resumed in the U.S. in 1976. In the early 2000s, the state was carrying out an average of three executions per year. Only nine states have killed more inmates.

Bowman did not ask Republican Gov. Henry McMaster for clemency, but the governor's office still released a letter denying clemency, noting that he received informal requests and petitions to spare Bowman's life.

No governor in the state has ever reduced a death sentence to life in prison without parole in the modern era of the death penalty.

Bowman's lawyer, Lindsey Vann, said his client did not want to spend additional decades in prison for a crime he did not commit. He had already spent more than half his life on death row.

"After more than two decades of battling a broken system that has failed him at every turn, Marion’s decision is a powerful refusal to legitimize an unjust process that has already stolen so much of his life," Vann said in a statement Thursday.

Bowman was convicted in Dorchester County in 2002 in connection with Martin's death the year before. Several friends and family members testified against him as part of plea deals with prosecutors.

One friend said Bowman was upset because Martin owed him money, while a second testified that Bowman believed Martin was wearing a recording device to have him arrested.

Bowman said he sold drugs to Martin, who was a friend of his for years, and sometimes she would pay with sex, but he said he did not kill her.

The final appeal from his current lawyers argued that Bowman's trial attorney was not prepared and had too much sympathy for the white victim and not Bowman, who is black. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected the argument.

Bowman's lawyers also raised concerns about his execution due to his weight. An anesthesiologist said he feared South Carolina's secret lethal injection protocols did not take into account that Bowman, listed as 389 pounds in prison records, was heavier, as it can be difficult to properly insert an IV into a blood vessel and determine the dose of the drugs needed in people with obesity.

His lawyers were concerned that the drug used to put Moore to death in November required two large doses more than 11 minutes apart.

An anesthesiologist involved in reviewing Moore's autopsy records said they showed fluid in the lungs, leading lawyers to believe he "consciously experienced feelings of drowning and suffocation during the 23 minutes that it took to bring about his death."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court will weigh an effort to establish the nation's first religious charter school with implications for school choice and religious practices. 

The court agreed Friday to hear two cases on the matter, which will be argued together — Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. 

In 2023, the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted to approve an application by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa for a K-12 online school, the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School.

SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF FAMILIES CAN OPT OUT OF READING LGBTQ BOOKS IN THE CLASSROOM

Oklahoma parents, faith leaders and an education group sought to block the school after the approval. 

In a 7-1 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found a taxpayer-funded religious charter school would violate the First Amendment's provision on "establishment of religion" and the state constitution.

"Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school," Justice James Winchester wrote in the court’s majority opinion. "As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian.

"However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic school curriculum while sponsored by the state."

Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Counsel Jim Campbell told Fox News Digital the case "is fundamentally about religious discrimination and school choice."

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOOMING TIKTOK BAN

"The Supreme Court has been clear in three cases over the last eight years that you can't create a public program like that and then exclude religious organizations," Campbell said. "So, we're going to be arguing before the court that the state of Oklahoma should be allowed to open up the program to religious organizations."

Campbell says the decision would give parents, families and the state "more educational options." 

Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who originally challenged the school's approval, has previously said the school's establishment is unconstitutional. His spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement the attorney general "looks forward to presenting our arguments before the high court."

"I will continue to vigorously defend the religious liberty of all 4 million Oklahomans," Drummond said in a statement released in October. "This unconstitutional scheme to create the nation’s first state-sponsored religious charter school will open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan. My fellow Oklahomans can rest assured that I will always fight to protect their God-given rights and uphold the law."

TENNESSEE AG OPTIMISTIC ABOUT SCOTUS CASE AFTER 'RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY' REVERSAL IN LOWER COURT

The Oklahoma case is one of several religious institution cases that have been filed in the Supreme Court. 

In 2017, the high court ruled in favor of a Missouri church that sued the state after being denied taxpayer funds for a playground project as a result of a provision that prohibits state funding for religious entities. 

Likewise, in 2020, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools in a 5-4 decision that backed a Montana tax-credit scholarship program. Most recently, in 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that a Maine tuition assistance program violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause for excluding religious schools from eligibility.

Campbell said given the court's previous considerations of cases involving religious educational institutions, he is "hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that the same principle applies here."

"You can't create a charter school program that allows private organizations to participate but tell the religious groups that they can't be included," Campbell said. "So, we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will make it clear that people of faith deserve to be a part of the charter school program as well."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, although an explanation was not given. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in April. 

School choice has become a hot-button issue, particularly after the 2024 election cycle. President Donald Trump recently signed two executive orders on education, one to remove federal funding from K-12 schools that teach critical race theory and another to support school choice. 

Fox News Digital's Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Kash Patel, President Donald Trump's pick for FBI director, claimed Thursday that he won't stand for federal law enforcement needing a warrant for surveillance in some scenarios because it's plainly impractical in real-time practices. Despite lawmakers’ surprise at his opposition, legal experts say his take is far from unusual within the law enforcement arena.

Patel was peppered with questions Thursday on a provision called Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When asked if he believed that a warrant requirement is "practical and workable or even a necessary element of 702," Patel said he had issues with "those that have been in government service and abused it in the past." Patel said that because of the viability of abuse, "we must work with Congress to provide the protections necessary for American citizens dealing with these matters."

"Having a warrant requirement to go through that information in real time is just not comported with the requirement to protect American citizenry," Patel said during his Senate hearing. "I'm all open to working with Congress on finding a better way forward. But right now, these improvements that you've made go a long way."

4 OF THE BIGGEST CLASHES BETWEEN PATEL, SENATE DEMS AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING

"The fact that the soon-to-be head of the nation's, sort of, top law enforcement agency takes the position that is favored by law enforcement shouldn't surprise anybody," former assistant district attorney and criminal defense attorney Phil Holloway told Fox News Digital. 

"When Mr. Patel answered the question the way that he did, that answer is adverse to the public positions taken by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle." 

Patel, throughout his testimony, emphasized his interest in working with Congress if he were to head the FBI.

"Some lawmakers have absolutely called for the necessity of a warrant in these situations. And so it makes sense that the senators would ask the nominee to run the FBI whether or not he has an opinion on it," Holloway continued. "But, ultimately, it's not his call."

KASH PATEL HAMMERS ‘GROTESQUE MISCHARACTERIZATIONS’ FROM DEMS AMID FIERY FBI CONFIRMATION HEARING

"I've always thought that there's a middle ground here where you don't have to. And I think there are some situations that warrant a warrant and deserve a warrantless search," Palm Beach County, Fla., state attorney Dave Aronberg told Fox News Digital. "And I think Patel's remarks show that he thinks the same way."

Aronberg noted that under U.S. law, there is a warrant exception under exigent circumstances, i.e. emergency situations, where it is impractical to obtain a warrant. 

"What Kash Patel is saying is that there may be some situations that may be in that gray area where you shouldn't have to get a warrant," Aronberg said. "And I am encouraged by his comments because I do think that law enforcement needs flexibility when it comes to national security matters, especially with the very real threat of terrorism here on our shores."

KASH PATEL FLIPS SCRIPT ON DEM SENATOR AFTER BEING GRILLED ON J6 PARDONS: 'BRUTAL REALITY CHECK'

Congress voted to pass a renewal of FISA's Section 702 last April. The legislation serves as a governmental tool in gathering intelligence on foreign subjects using the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers. 

If the renewal had not been passed, the expiration would have meant companies would not be forced to comply with the government's requests for surveillance aid under the bill. 

Without the FISA section's reauthorization, the government would be required to seek a warrant to compel any such assistance, which is a process that can span extended periods of time. 

Earlier this month, a federal district court ruled that the federal government had violated the Fourth Amendment when it searched the communications of an Albanian citizen residing in the U.S. at the time of his arrest without a warrant. The information had been collected under FISA's Section 702. 

"The individual rights of people in the United States under our Constitution come first," Holloway said. "So having constitutional requirements that sort of frustrate or perhaps slow down law enforcement, this is a tension that is not new at all. And so what we're seeing is this playing out."

Fox News Digital's Liz Elkind and Julia Johnson contributed to this report. 

Since taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have become the target of multiple lawsuits over the president's agenda and policies. 

The Trump White House has faced numerous legal challenges, including deportation policies, an executive order to end birthright citizenship and a directive to freeze federal funding.

On the day of his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, with many legal experts arguing that the right is enshrined in the Constitution under the 14th Amendment.

BLACK CAUCUS CHAIR ACCUSES TRUMP OF 'PURGE' OF 'MINORITY' FEDERAL WORKERS

"The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift," Trump says in the order, titled, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration that same day "on behalf of organizations with members whose babies born on U.S. soil will be denied citizenship under the order." The ACLU also claimed the order is unconstitutional and against congressional intent and Supreme Court precedent.

Eighteen Democrat-led states then launched their own lawsuit, also claiming the order is unconstitutional and "unprecedented." 

"The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth," the lawsuit reads.

TRUMP COULD BE ON VERGE OF LEGAL VICTORY AGAINST CBS AS SETTLEMENT SPECULATION HEATS UP

Attorneys general from New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine and others signed on to the suit, along with the city and county of San Francisco, Calif., and Washington, D.C.

A U.S. district judge also temporarily blocked Trump's order in a separate lawsuit filed by the states of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington, describing the action as "blatantly unconstitutional."

Several Chicago sanctuary city groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its mass deportation policy, saying it violates their First Amendment rights. 

The suit, filed by Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Organized Communities Against Deportations, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights Inc., and Raise the Floor Alliance, states that "the threat of ICE agents flooding into communities has already impacted Chicagoans and chilled their rights to freely exercise their religion and assemble."

Trump also signed an executive order ending all federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. On Monday, the president signed an order stating that the "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life."

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS STRIPPING FEDERAL FUNDING FROM SCHOOLS THAT TEACH CRT, SUPPORTING SCHOOL CHOICE

Six transgender military members filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the order is unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

"Rather than being based on any legitimate governmental purpose, the ban reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status," the suit claims. 

The Office of Management and Budget issued a memo on Monday with a directive to pause all federal grants and loans aiming to eradicate "wokeness" and the "weaponization of government" in an effort to improve government efficiency. The memo claims that nearly $3 trillion was spent in 2024 on such assistance programs. 

The White House shortly thereafter insisted that the freeze did not affect programs such as Social Security, Medicare or other entitlement payments.

Alongside Senate Democrats announcing a coordinated response with Democratic governors, blue state attorneys general, along with advocacy and non-profit groups, filed their own suits over the directive. 

On Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 22 other attorneys general suing to stop the implementation of the memo.

Likewise, a handful of non-profit organizations and health associations, including a LGBTQ+ advocacy group, filed a lawsuit Tuesday over the directive.

A federal judge on Tuesday imposed a stay on Trump's action, delaying it until Monday.

Fox News Digital's Adam Shaw, Breanne Deppisch and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report. 

Liberal news website The Daily Beast could soon face a defamation lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee and ex-Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita.

The RNC and LaCivita believe they were defamed by The Daily Beast in an October 2024 report that reported LaCivita was paid $22 million by the Trump campaign. The RNC and LaCivita say the sum was less, and it was used for things such as campaign advertising, as opposed to being pocketed by LaCivita, which they claim The Daily Beast "falsely" suggested.  

Axios first reported that the RNC and LaCivita had readied a defamation suit against the Daily Beast and noted lawyers have written three letters, which have been obtained by Fox News Digital, demanding retractions of the article over the past few months.

JURY FINDS CNN COMMITTED DEFAMATION AGAINST NAVY VETERAN, SETTLEMENT REACHED ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES

The Daily Beast stands by its reporting, although it added an editor’s note to the initial story admitting the article "mistakenly reported that LaCivita’s firm had received a total of $22 million" when the total was actually $19.2 million. 

"The Beast is committed to following the money and reporting accurately on Chris LaCivita's LLC, which received $19.2 million from the Trump campaign, the RNC and related super PACs, according to public records," a Daily Beast spokesperson told Fox News Digital. 

"We stand by our journalism and will defend ourselves vigorously if necessary," the spokesperson continued. 

While the Beast says it stands by its journalism, the liberal news organization has taken steps to resolve the ordeal before a lawsuit is formally filed. 

The first letter was sent from the Geragos & Geragos law firm to Daily Beast general counsel Neil Rosenhouse on November 5, 2024. It claimed the initial report, along with "recycled allegations" repeated in other Daily Beast content, "center around the false and defamatory claim" that the RNC authorized, and LaCivita received, compensation in the amount of $22 million over the course of two years for his role in Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

The letter stated the RNC and LaCivita had reason to believe The Daily Beast acted "with actual malice." 

Three days after receiving the initial letter, the Daily Beast added the following editor’s note to the report: "The original version of this article mistakenly reported that LaCivita’s firm had received a total of $22 million from Trump’s campaign and affiliated PACs. Based on a further review of FEC records, the correct total is $19.2 million. The Beast regrets the error. The article has also been updated to make clear that payments were to LaCivita’s LLC, not to LaCivita personally." 

The second letter came on November 12, 2024, when Geragos & Geragos told The Daily Beast its editor’s note was "entirely inadequate" and failed to remedy the damages inflicted on LaCivita.

"The remainder of the reporting has remained substantially the same, and despite the addition of the editor’s notes and corrections, it continues to falsely imply that Mr. LaCivita personally pocketed $19.2 million paid by the Trump campaign for campaign advertising," the letter stated. 

"The editor’s note in that article clarifying that $22 million went to LaCivita’s LLC and not to him personally does not remedy the overall defamatory messaging of the story – which depicts Mr. LaCivita as deceptively pocketing campaign money for his own personal gain and that he was and is on the verge of being ‘fired’ because of it," the letter continued. "This entire narrative is completely false and a result of malicious and irresponsible reporting by The Daily Beast… we demand that The Daily Beast issue a retraction on all reporting regarding this topic."

The third letter, sent on January 21, demanded that The Daily Beast "immediately and permanently" remove a podcast episode that discussed the report. 

FOX NEWS DIGITAL FINISHES 2024 AS TOP NEWS BRAND AMONG KEY METRICS DURING UNPRECEDENTED YEAR OF NEWS

In response, The Daily Beast deleted a segment of the podcast while continuing to insist it "stands by its reporting."

The following note was added to the podcast description: "The Beast has deleted a segment that appeared on the original edition of this podcast with award-winning journalist Michael Isikoff. It concerned payments, revealed in FEC records, that Republican strategist and operative Chris LaCivita’s LLC collected from the Trump campaign and related super PACs. The interview included references to a sum of money larger than the actual amount, which was $19.2 million. The Beast regrets the error. For clarity of listening the Beast is removing the entire segment. The Beast stands by its reporting on this subject, which appears elsewhere."

Attorneys for the RNC and LaCivita have demanded that The Daily Beast preserve all documents and communications related to the story ahead of "anticipated litigation."

The Daily Beast declined further comment. 

EXCLUSIVE – A law firm requested public records from five major universities in order to investigate whether they were participating in a "censorship regime" they claim was conducted under the Biden administration.

"Free speech is essential to a free society," said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, director of the ADF Center for Free Speech, in a press release obtained by Fox News Digital.

"The American people have a right to know if their tax dollars were used to suppress certain voices and how involved state actors were—and are—in social media censorship," Sechler said in the statement.

Now with a new administration in power, ADF is going after the University of Michigan (UM), the University of Wisconsin (UW), Indiana University (IU), the University of North Carolina (UNC), and the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA).

ATTORNEY SAYS 'A LOT OF TEACHERS COMING TO US' AFTER THEY ARE BEING FORCED TO USE STUDENTS' PREFERRED PRONOUNS

ADF cited President Donald Trump signing an executive order that seeks to restore freedom of speech. Trump on Jan. 20 announced that the executive order ends the previous administration’s practices of trampling "free speech rights."

The White House said the federal government will not censor speech on social media or any online platform in general, which they said was executed "under the guise of combating ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’"

ADF claims that these universities created "misinformation" centers that are "designed to censor speech."

For example, ADF called out UM’s Center for Social Media Responsibility (CSMR), which, according to their website, "addresses the negative effects of broad access to the means of public communication, while amplifying positive effects."

CSMR’s website explains further that while social media product managers, designers, and engineers "are the day-to-day policymakers of today's social media landscape," the institution aims to help them articulate "principles" as well as create "metrics and tools" that help them "set responsible policy."

LOCAL VIRGINIA TEACHERS NO LONGER FORCED TO USE STUDENTS' PREFERRED PRONOUNS AFTER SETTLEMENT

The law firm wants records related to the CSMR containing any communication between the CSMR administrators, including the director, and federal government officials or employees. Furthermore, ADF requests documents related to communication between CSMR directors and employees of social media companies Google, Facebook, Instagram, "Twitter," YouTube, Snapchat, and Reddit.

Acquiring such communication would help ADF identify any "certain censorship red flags," in its view, like "cancel," "throttle," "First Amendment," and "free speech." 

ADF also cited a report released in February by investigators from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee which found that UM officials pitched an idea of an artificial intelligence tool to the National Science Foundation (NSF) for "externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship."

The House Judiciary Commitee's Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government stated in February last year that NSF issued "multi-million-dollar grants to university and non-profit research teams" to combat "alleged misinformation" regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

Considering that NSF "is responsible for funding censorship grants," ADF wants records containing any of the terms National Science Foundation and NSF. 

ADF suspects that CSMR and similar institutions at IU, UW, UNC, and UCLA had worked with the Biden administration.

Sechler claimed that the Biden administration "established a censorship regime that aimed to suppress so-called ‘misinformation’ and other speech deemed unfavorable to the government," which "included funding censorship tools created by these public universities."

"The U.S. government should defend our First Amendment right to free speech, not be its greatest threat," he said.

UM, IU, UW, UNC, and UCLA, as well as a spokesperson for former President Joe Biden, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that federal employees must return to in-person work by early February or "be terminated," the latest in a string of actions announced by the new administration as it looks to crack down on remote work. 

Trump addressed the changes Wednesday at the White House shortly before signing into law the immigration-focused Laken Riley bill.

Asked about the new requirements for federal workers, Trump said, "We’re requiring them to show up to work or be terminated."

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT DOGE AND ITS QUEST TO SLASH GOVERNMENT WASTE, SPENDING

His remarks come just hours after the Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, began emailing roughly 2 million federal employees on Tuesday, offering them the equivalent of a buyout if they do not return to in-person work within a specified time frame. 

Employees have until Feb. 6 to decide whether to take the buyouts, OPM said, noting that most employees will be required to show up in person five days a week.

Those who choose not to continue their roles in person would be provided with what the email said would be a "dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program."

Employees who resign were also told they will retain all pay and benefits regardless of workload and will be exempt from in-person work requirements until Sep. 30, 2025.

"We think a very substantial number of people will not show up to work, and, therefore, our government will get smaller and more efficient," Trump told reporters of the plan Wednesday. "And that's what we've been looking to do for many, many decades."

'GET BACK TO WORK': HOUSE OVERSIGHT TO TAKE ON GOVERNMENT TELEWORK IN 1ST HEARING OF NEW CONGRESS
 

He also suggested federal employees may be asked to "prove" they did not have another job during the period of remote work, a difficult issue to correct for given that an estimated 8.6 million U.S. residents work multiple jobs, or roughly 5.2% of the U.S. workforce, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"We may ask these people to prove that they didn't have another job during their so-called employment with the United States of America, because if they did, that would be unlawful," Trump said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

 "A lot of people are getting paychecks, but they're actually working other jobs, so they'll have to prove that to us that they weren't," Trump said.

Fox News Digital's Greg Wehner contributed to this article. 

A new interim director has been tapped to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as President Donald Trump looks to enforce a crackdown on transgender inmates in facilities that do not match their biological sex. 

William W. Lothrop was named the new BOP director after Colette Peters resigned on Inauguration Day. It's unclear when the Trump administration will appoint someone to permanently fill the role. 

"As we face ongoing challenges, including staffing shortages and operational issues, I am committed to working alongside you to find real solutions that strengthen our facilities," Lothrop said in the statement. "We will continue collaborating with our law enforcement partners and stakeholders to maintain robust programming and support services for inmates."

TRUMP'S 'TWO SEXES' EXECUTIVE ORDER COMES ON HEELS OF SCOTUS ACCEPTING ANOTHER CHALLENGE TO LGBT AGENDA

On his first day in office, Trump announced a temporary hiring freeze for federal positions and reversed former President Joe Biden’s ban on private prisons. His executive order, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," defines sex strictly as male or female, based on biological characteristics, and mandates that federal agencies adopt this definition in their policies and practices.

The order specifies that individuals should be housed in federal prisons according to their biological sex rather than their gender identity, which will apply to the 2,300 transgender inmates currently housed in federal prisons across the U.S. It also halts federal funding for transgender procedures and treatments for inmates.

"The Attorney General shall ensure that the Bureau of Prisons revises its policies concerning medical care to be consistent with this order, and shall ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex," the order reads.

PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST PROSECUTED BY BIDEN DOJ REACTS TO TRUMP PARDON: 'I WANT TO GIVE HIM A HUG'

During the Biden administration, several U.S. states implemented policies allowing transgender inmates to be housed in facilities that align with their gender identity. In 2021, California became the first state to enact a policy permitting transgender inmates to request housing based on their gender identity. Since then, the state has seen a significant increase in such requests, with a 234% rise in the transgender inmate population.

In January 2022, New York state revised its policies to allow transgender individuals to choose their prison housing. And Colorado reached a legal settlement to house biological men in women's facilities last year, which was part of a case involving 400 transgender women. 

Fox News Digital has previously reported multiple cases of male inmates, serving sentences for sexual assault, murder and other violent offenses, in federal prisons being transferred to women’s facilities. Many of them have received taxpayer-funded medical procedures to medically transition genders.

Lothrop, who was formerly the BOP deputy director, is replacing Peters, who was appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 and touted as a reform-minded outsider tasked with rebuilding an agency plagued for years by staff shortages, widespread corruption, misconduct and abuse.

'SCARED' AND 'TRAUMATIZED' WALZ'S SUPPORT FOR TRANS WOMEN IN MINNESOTA WOMEN'S PRISON ‘ENDANGERING’ INMATES

The agency has nearly 36,000 employees and is responsible for more than 155,000 federal inmates. The BOP director is not subject to Senate confirmation, according to the legal news service Law 360. During her tenure, Peters appeared before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and spoke about the challenges the BOP faced, but she had trouble getting results. 

During the end of Trump's campaign, he pledged he would crack down on left-wing gender ideology and ran a successful ad campaign attacking his opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, for her role in ushering in sex change procedures for incarcerated people in California.

"Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you," the narrator of Trump's campaign advertisement said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and BOP for comment. 

Fox News Digital's Michael Dorgan contributed to this report. 

Lawmakers at the state and federal levels are responding to President Joe Biden’s record presidential pardon spree – as more than 3,000 people found their sentences commuted or pardoned. The pardons, some of which came in the final hours of Biden's presidency, were issued to many members of his own family.

The last-minute tranche on Sunday that included James Biden, Hunter Biden and Valerie Biden-Owens came only weeks after a record 1,500 commutations in a single day – notably including that of disgraced Pennsylvania Judge Michael Conahan.

Conahan, of Wilkes-Barre, was dubbed the "kids for cash judge" after he was charged in connection with a scheme to send juvenile offenders to for-profit prisons in exchange for kickbacks.

Pennsylvania state Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Dallas, represents the area where Conahan once sat on the bench.

LAWMAKERS DEMAND SCRANTON CHANGE ‘BIDEN EXPRESSWAY’ NAME AFTER JUDGE PARDONED

Baker told Fox News Digital the former president’s pardon in that case was "disrespectful to the victims, their families, the juvenile justice system, and to all the officials who have worked to reform the system so that this kind of scandal cannot happen again."

She and other lawmakers are also trying to bring new attention to victim notification processes that exist at the federal level and in many states, including Pennsylvania.

A source familiar with the federal process said the system is a voluntary construct, in that victims may sign up for notifications but are not automatically informed if convicts are pardoned, transferred or released.

Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., said he was troubled by much of Biden’s pardon spree, including those given preemptively to family and President Donald Trump critics, as well as convicts like Conahan – whose "kids for cash" scandal greatly affected his constituents – and added that the former president may have damaged the pardon process.

"These preemptive actions amount to an implicit admission of wrongdoing," Meuser said of pardons given to Biden family members.

ECONOMY BORDER & ABORTION DIVIDE BIDEN'S HOMETOWN AS RESIDENTS LOOK BACK ON NATIVE SON'S FIRST TERM

"This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the long-standing purpose of the presidential pardon power. Historically, pardons have been used to offer clemency or correct injustices—not to shield one's family members from potential accountability before any charges are even brought."

Unfortunately for Biden critics, Meuser said the presidential pardon power is enshrined in Article II of the Constitution, and Congress has no power to intervene or change it.

"While I vehemently disagree with Biden’s decision to preemptively pardon members of his family, the presidential pardon power is established [therein]. That means, absent the ratification of a constitutional amendment, Congress does not have the power to review, alter, or pass legislation limiting a president’s pardon power."

Meuser pointed to the 1974 Supreme Court case Schick v. Reed, which confirmed Congress cannot have a role.

"Nevertheless, our Founding Fathers never could have conceived that a president would pardon a son who broke countless laws and utilized the White House to defraud and leverage millions of dollars in a pay-to-play scheme that also involved other family members."

Rep. Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa., who flipped Biden’s home district in November, has also expressed concern over Biden’s use of presidential pardons.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I think what's discouraging is that you heard time and time again along the campaign trail that he wasn't going to do something like this, but I'm certainly not surprised," Bresnahan recently told WBRE.

"I'm sure much of America is not surprised."

While countless Americans who fell victim to those pardoned, including Conahan, may have little recourse, Baker said she is participating in the drafting of legislation in Harrisburg late Friday that will attempt to remove Biden’s likeness from part of his home area.

While the former Spruce Street in Scranton – since renamed Biden Avenue – is city property, Baker said the "President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Expressway" splitting off Interstate 81 into his hometown is within PennDOT’s bounds.

"The reaction has been so strong that many have called for renaming the President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Expressway, which was designated by Scranton City Council in 2021," Baker said.

The lawmaker added Biden’s legacy is forever "stained" by Conahan’s "inexplicable and infamous commutation."

"We owe it to the juvenile victims, their families, and all the believers in equal justice to remove the name of Joe Biden and replace it with someone truly deserving of the honor."

An order barring commuted Jan. 6 defendants from entering Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Capitol could raise constitutional challenges, one legal expert says. 

In a filing Friday, Judge Amit P. Mehta specified the order applied to "Defendants Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Edward Vallejo, David Moerchel, and Joseph Hacket," whose sentences were commuted. Those pardoned are not subject to the order.

Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, was previously seen in the Capitol complex's Longworth House Office Building. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy.

PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS PARDONED BY TRUMP, FOX CONFIRMS

The order states, "You must not knowingly enter the District of Columbia without first obtaining the permission from the Court." It adds, "You must not knowingly enter the United States Capitol Building or onto surrounding grounds known as Capitol Square."

The filing says the order is effective as of Friday at noon. Later that day, the Justice Department filed a motion seeking to lift the order.

"If a judge decided that Jim Biden, General Mark Milley, or another individual were forbidden to visit America’s capital — even after receiving a last-minute, preemptive pardon from the former President— I believe most Americans would object. The individuals referenced in our motion have had their sentences commuted — period, end of sentence," Acting U.S. Attorney Edward Martin said in a statement.

"This is a very unusual order," Jonathan Turley, Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital. "The judge is relying on the fact that the sentences were commuted, but the defendants did not receive full pardons."

COMMUTED JAN. 6 DEFENDANTS BARRED FROM DC, CAPITOL BUILDING BY FEDERAL JUDGE

Ron Coleman, counsel at Dhillon Law Group, called the order "novel."

"It is unclear what basis the court would have to assert jurisdiction over someone who has been pardoned for the conviction that is presumably the basis for the order or what the legal grounds are for making Washington, D.C., the kind of national capital, like Moscow in the old USSR, that a citizen needs permission to enter," Coleman said.

NANCY PELOSI SLAMS TRUMP’S ‘SHAMEFUL’ PARDONS OF JAN. 6 DEFENDANTS

Turley said that although the new order could "prove a factor" in President Donald Trump extending a full pardon to those with commuted sentences, "it's not clear whether an order will prompt Trump to reconsider his decision to offer only commutations."

Turley noted that the order could raise constitutional challenges, including First Amendment implications. 

"I think the court is effectively barring these individuals from being able to associate or petition government officials without the prior approval of the court," Turley said. "That could raise questions under the First Amendment.

"I expect this will be challenged by these individuals."

Trump pardoned nearly all Jan. 6 defendants earlier this week after promising to do so at his inaugural parade.

DOJ CONSIDERS CHARGING 200 MORE PEOPLE 4 YEARS AFTER JAN. 6 CAPITOL ATTACK

Trump signed off Monday on releasing more than 1,500 people charged with crimes from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol. The order required the Federal Bureau of Prisons to act immediately on receipt of the pardons.

Those pardoned in his initial order included Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys chairman who faced a sentence of 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.

Fox News' David Spunt, Diana Stancy and Jamie Joseph contributed to this report. 

The Department of Justice is rescinding job offers for the Attorney General’s Honors Program amid President Donald Trump’s federal hiring freeze, according to a new report. 

The Attorney General’s Honors Program, established in 1953, hires graduating law students or recent law school graduates from top law schools such as Harvard, Duke, Georgetown, Stanford and the University of Virginia. 

But the Department of Justice notified those who had been selected for the program, which serves as a pipeline to recruit top legal talent into the public sector, that their offers were being revoked, several people familiar with the decision told the Washington Post. 

CAREER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS REASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT POSITIONS: REPORTS

The Department’s Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management distributed an email to those affected via email on Wednesday. 

"Pursuant to the hiring freeze announced Jan. 20, 2025, your job offer has been revoked," said the email," according to an email the Post obtained. 

Those familiar with the program said it may take on more than 100 lawyers annually, with recent hires assigned to the antitrust, national security, criminal and other divisions. 

They told the Post that the program is critical in recruiting new top talent to the Justice Department in order to replace outgoing legal talent. The two-year program places young attorneys on a career path to stay at the Department once the program concludes. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FREEZES ALL CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION CASES: REPORT

The Post reports that it is uncertain whether the program will resume once federal hiring starts again. 

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Trump signed a series of executive orders on Inauguration Day this week, including those initiating the federal hiring freeze as well as withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, and directing every department and agency to address the cost-of-living crisis.

DOJ RACING THE CLOCK TO ENSHRINE ‘WOKE’ POLICING RULES, LAWYER SAYS, AS JUDGE HEARS BREONNA TAYLOR REFORM CASE

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"As part of this freeze, no Federal civilian position that is vacant at noon on January 20, 2025, may be filled, and no new position may be created except as otherwise provided for in this memorandum or other applicable law," a White House memo said. "Except as provided below, this freeze applies to all executive departments and agencies regardless of their sources of operational and programmatic funding."

Those exempt from the hiring freeze include military personnel and other federal jobs pertaining to immigration, national security or public safety. 

FIRST ON FOX: A new report conducted by nonprofit organization Do No Harm (DNH) is sounding the alarm on medical schools allegedly "skirting" a 2023 Supreme Court ruling rejecting the use of race-based factors in admissions. 

DNH says it "represents physicians, nurses, medical students, patients, and policymakers" in an effort to keep "identity politics out of medical education, research, and clinical practice." The organization had previously released a report where they found "many in the healthcare establishment nevertheless remain ideologically committed to the principle of racial favoritism and reject the virtue of race blindness" despite the high court ruling. 

DNH states that a previous report also indicated that the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) "and several medical specialty societies and medical schools" "rebuked" the Supreme Court decision shortly after it was handed down through means that included "veiled threats to circumvent the Court’s decision."

‘DEI PLEDGE’: WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY ISSUES STATEMENT AFTER ASKING EMPLOYMENT PARTNERS TO SIGN COMMITMENT

The newly published data, titled "Skirting SCOTUS: How medical schools will continue to practice racially conscious admissions," used both MCAT data and available admissions data. DNH noted that because AAMC does not publish school-level data, it is not "immediately clear" which medical schools are continuing to implement affirmative action and to what extent. The data also excludes public universities in states where affirmative action was already banned.

"Among the thirteen schools that published clear racial/ethnic demographic data for the class of 2027 and 2028, four experienced an increase in the proportion of black or Hispanic students," the report states. 

"Fidelity to SFFA is not only measured by year-to-year demographic changes but is also a function of the degree to which affirmative action informed admissions policies before SFFA," the report continues.

The report states if the penalty assigned to "white and Asian applicants was modest," the demographic change would be reflected as such and vice versa. 

NEARLY HALF OF ALL US COLLEGE STUDENTS REJECT MANDATORY DEI COURSES ON CAMPUS: STUDY

The study stated that "outcomes at Quinnipiac, Maryland, Chicago, and Duke stand out as schools where admissions policies are particularly worthy of scrutiny" given that the schools "admit black and Hispanic medical students at a rate that far exceeds their representation in the applicant pool (13% in 2024)."

"That fact, in conjunction with the reality that black and Hispanic matriculants to medical schools have significantly lower GPAs and MCAT scores than other matriculants, is a signal that the schools continue to penalize or reward students on the basis of race," the report states. 

"It's pretty shocking and appalling how flagrantly some of these medical schools are ducking a Supreme Court ban on affirmative action," Ian Kingsbury, research director at DNH, told Fox News Digital. "You can see it in the data, and then you can tie that data to the statements that the schools themselves are making, where they're publicly rebuking the Supreme Court and where they're talking about the importance of diversity in their admissions process."

THESE SIX STATES BANNED OR LIMITED DEI AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN 2024

"Whether the decision to stop publishing data after SFFA is coincidental, a gesture to disguise improper implementation of SFFA, or an effort to hide the statistical reality associated with proper implementation, is unclear," the report continued. "Given pressure from the AAMC to continue to racially discriminate, coupled with the reality that many medical schools have been captured by far-left ideologues, these schools – as well as the dozens of others that didn’t publish any data – do not automatically earn a presumption of innocence."

"The sort of sobering reality is that, unfortunately, for the time being, Students for Fair Admissions has not resolved the issue of racial discrimination in higher education," Kingsbury said. "And there's more work to be done."

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the use of race as a factor in college admissions in a 6-3 decision in 2023. 

The justices decided two separate legal challenges over just how Harvard University – a private institution – and the University of North Carolina – a public one – decide who fills their classrooms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Student activist group Students for Fair Admissions brought cases against both universities. The group initially sued Harvard in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance."

Fox News Digital reached out to AAMC, Quinnipiac University, University of Maryland, University of Chicago, and Duke University for additional comment.

AAMC directed Fox News Digital to its most recent data publication on medical school applicants and enrollment in 2024. 

"We are encouraged by the increase in first-time applicants to medical school. The AAMC and its member medical schools are committed to continuing our efforts to increase the supply of physicians and to increase the range of backgrounds and experiences in the applicant and matriculant pools that are critical to the future physician workforce. Evidence shows that a more varied workforce can improve access to health care and the health of our communities," David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC president and CEO, said in the statement. 

President Trump did not pardon or commute the prison sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the anonymous marketplace website Silk Road, despite his promise on the campaign trail to free him on "day one."

Ulbricht was convicted because his website, which was founded in 2011 and used cryptocurrency for payments, was used to sell illegal drugs, even though he did not sell any of the illicit substances himself.

After being sworn into office on Monday, Trump issued several executive actions, including efforts to reduce immigration, designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move to resume federal executions and pardoning or commuting sentences to time served of people convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

But Trump's first day back in the White House came to an end with Ulbricht still behind bars without a pardon or commutation from the president, who pledged to do so last spring.

TRUMP VOWS TO COMMUTE PRISON SENTENCE OF SILK ROAD FOUNDER ROSS ULBRICHT

In May, Trump delivered a speech at the Libertarian National Convention to a hostile crowd of boos in an attempt to win over Libertarian voters. Libertarians believe government investigators overreached in their case against Silk Road and generally oppose the War on Drugs.

While the attendees were not favorable to Trump for most of the event, they did give a big cheer when he said he would commute Ulbricht's sentence to time served, as the crowd chanted "Free Ross" in the hopes that the then-presidential candidate would take action if elected to allow the Silk Road founder to return home to his family after more than a decade behind bars.

"If you vote for me, on day one I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht, to a sentence of time served. He’s already served 11 years. We’re going to get him home," Trump told the crowd of Libertarians, many of whom were holding signs that read "Free Ross."

Ulbricht reacted to Trump's comments the following day on the social media platform X.

"Last night, Donald Trump pledged to commute my sentence on day 1, if reelected," he wrote. "Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. After 11 years in prison, it is hard to express how I feel at this moment. It is thanks to your undying support that I may get a second chance."

Last month, Ulbricht wrote: "For my last monthly resolution of 2024, I intend to study every day and to get up to speed as much as I can as I prepare for freedom."

Trump later reiterated his promise to commute Ulbricht's life sentence at a bitcoin conference, which he received loud cheers for.

Despite Trump failing to deliver on his promise to free Ulbricht on his first day back in office, the president reportedly may still grant him clemency as early as Tuesday.

"Pres. Trump's staff just confirmed to me Ross's pardon will be issued late tonight or tomorrow morning," Libertarian Party chair Angela McArdle wrote Monday night on X.

Elon Musk, who serves in the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency in the Trump administration, also said Ulbricht would be released soon.

"Ross will be freed," Musk wrote on X.

Many Libertarians have said they supported Trump in November's election, citing, in part, his commitment to free Ulbricht.

TRUMP PARDONS NEARLY ALL 1/6 DEFENDANTS

During his first term, Trump considered intervening to release Ulbricht before ultimately deciding against a pardon.

Ulbricht, now 40, operated the website from 2011 until his arrest in 2013. He was sentenced two years later to life in prison.

"I was trying to help us move toward a freer and more equitable world," Ulbricht said from prison in 2021. "We all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and now here I am. I'm in hell."

"Trump is done signing EOs and pardons for the night," 2024 Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver wrote on X. "Hopefully, we will see a #FREEROSSULBRICHT commutation in the morning."

A New York Times reporter sparked controversy this week after suggesting in an article that President-elect Trump’s nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget, Russell T. Vough, helped promote a "unitary executive theory" ahead of Trump’s second term.

It drew sharp criticism on social media and among conservative analysts who argued the description of the theory was fundamentally untrue.

The report in question by Alan Rappeport focused on Vought’s nomination to head up OMB during Trump’s second presidency, a position he also held during Trump’s first term, and the work Vought did after Trump left office.

In the years after Trump's first term, the Times report says, Vought founded a conservative think tank and served as an architect of Project 2025, described in the report as an effort by conservative groups to help advance executive branch power. 

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOOMING TIKTOK BAN

The report says the legal underpinning of Project 2025 is "a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory that rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches" and "argues that presidential power over federal agencies is absolute." 

Though the article has since been updated to describe the unitary executive theory as three "separate but equal branches," the article was panned by conservatives and others who disagreed with the Times' characterization of the legal theory.

It was the second part of the statement in particular that sparked backlash from conservative commentators, including National Review editor Charles Cooke, who argued in an op-ed that the Constitution and its wording, in his view, is explicit about how the executive, legislative and judicial branches can exercise power and about the limitations of the executive branch. 

"The United States is a democratic republic in which elected officials are held accountable for their decisions," Cooke wrote in an op-ed for the National Review. 

TRUMP INAUGURATION GUEST LIST INCLUDES TECH TITANS MARK ZUCKERBERG, JEFF BEZOS, ELON MUSK

"The only elected official who holds power within the executive branch is the president. For anyone else to exercise power without the permission or endorsement of the sole electee would be to create a fourth branch of government, unmoored from oversight, and thereby to undermine the whole apparatus."

Others also took aim at the article on social media, arguing the Times reporter fundamentally misunderstood the unitary executive theory. 

"This is bad, even for the New York Times," Iowa law school professor Andy Grewal wrote in a widely-shared post on X.

The New York Times did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for a response. 

PANAMA CITY, Fla. – A jury found that CNN committed defamation against U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young and is responsible for punitive damages on Friday after more than eight hours of deliberation. 

The jury ruled Young is awarded $4 million in lost earnings, $1 in personal damages such as pain and suffering and said that punitive damages are warranted against CNN. 

The jury will now proceed to phase two of the trial to determine punitive damages. Lawyers on each side will have a chance to present evidence to determine punitive damages. 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: CLOSING ARGUMENTS MADE AS JURY BEGINS TO DELIBERATE LAWSUIT AGAINST NETWORK

Young alleged that CNN smeared him by implying he illegally profited when helping people flee Afghanistan on the "black market" during the Biden administration's military withdrawal from the country in 2021. Young believes CNN "destroyed his reputation and business" by branding him an illegal profiteer" who exploited "desperate Afghans" during a November 11, 2021, report by Alex Marquardt that first aired on CNN’s "The Lead with Jake Tapper." 

The decision comes after 3-plus years of litigation and a wild, sometimes chaotic, 8-day trial. 14th Judicial Circuit Court Judge William S. Henry, who presided over the trial in Bay County, Florida, previously ruled that Young "did not act illegally or criminally," despite what the network reported on air. 

After the verdict sent shock waves through the courtroom, Judge Henry read instructions to the jury as they prepared to determine punitive damages. 

"You should consider this additional evidence, along with the evidence presented, and you should decide any disputed factual issues by the greater weight of the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case," Judge Henry said. 

"In order to decide the amount of punitive damages, if any, to be assessed as punishment against the defendant," he continued. "This amount would be in addition to the compensatory damages you have previously awarded." 

Judge Henry instructed jurors to consider "the nature, extent and degree of misconduct and the related circumstances" including, "whether the wrongful conduct was motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain," "whether the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct together with the high likelihood of injury resulting from the conduct was actually known by the defendant," "whether at the time… the defendant had a specific intent to harm the plaintiff," and if the conduct "did, in fact, harm plaintiff." 

Judge Henry also said the "financial resources" of CNN should be taken into consideration. 

"You may not award an amount that would financially destroy the defendant," Judge Henry said.  

"You may, in your discretion, decline to award punitive damages. When determining the amount, if any, punitive damages to be awarded, you may impose punitive damages to punish the defendant only for the specific conduct you have concluded caused plaintiff hard," Judge Henry said. "You may not award punitive damages to punish defendant for anything other than the conduct that injured plaintiff." 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: EDITOR WHO SAID STORY WAS ‘FULL OF HOLES LIKE SWISS CHEESE’ GRILLED ON WITNESS STAND

Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman urged jurors to punish CNN during a powerful closing statement on Thursday. 

"It was a calculated attack by CNN on his character that has inflicted deep and lasting wounds," Freedman said. 

CNN's Jake Tapper first teased the 2021 segment at the center of the suit by warning CNN viewers of "desperate Afghans still trying to escape the country being preyed on by folks demanding that they pay up big time to get out."

Later in the show, Tapper reminded viewers that the story about "desperate Afghans" being "preyed upon" was up next. 

Tapper’s teasers ended up being a key part of the trial, as jurors asked to take another look at them during the deliberation process. 

Once the much-hyped segment began, Tapper said Marquardt found "Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success."

Tapper tossed to Marquardt, who said "desperate Afghans are being exploited" and need to pay "exorbitant, often impossible amounts" to flee the country. 

Marquardt then singled out Young, putting a picture of his face on the screen and saying his company was asking for $75,000 to transport a vehicle of passengers to Pakistan or $14,500 per person to end up in the United Arab Emirates.

"Prices well beyond the reach of most Afghans," Marquardt told viewers.

CNN then aired Marquardt allegedly attempting to call Young, who did not answer the phone. 

"In a text message, he told CNN that Afghans trying to leave are expected to have sponsors pay for them," Marquardt said, adding that Young told the network evacuation costs are "highly volatile and based on environmental realities."

Marquardt then said Young "repeatedly declined to break down the cost or say if he’s making money," before playing a clip of an anonymous sympathetic man who couldn’t afford to have his family evacuated from Afghanistan.

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: PLAINTIFF ACCUSES NETWORK OF FAKING CRITICAL PHONE CALL FOR ‘THEATER’

Marquardt went back to Young, saying he received another text message. 

"In another message, that person offering those evacuations, Zachary Young, he wrote, ‘Availability is extremely limited, and demand is high’… he goes on to say, ‘That’s how economics works, unfortunately,’" Marquardt told viewers.

Tapper responded, "Unfortunately, hmm," before thanking Marquardt for the report. 

No other people or companies were named other than Young.

The phone call became a point of contention during the trial, as the plaintiff suggested Marquardt didn’t really place a call to Young and behind-the-scenes footage of the segment showed Marquardt joking it was "theater" to colleagues. But Marquardt testified that he called the number he believed to belong to Young and dismissed the "theater" joke as a reference to "Saturday Night Live."

The segment was shared on social media and also repackaged for CNN's website. The Marquardt report was re-aired Nov. 13 on Jim Acosta’s CNN show and multiple times on CNN International. 

Every second of the segment was picked apart during the trial, with CNN’s legal team insisting Young was not a major element of the story and the plaintiff’s team suggesting the "black market" implication essentially ruined Young’s career as a defense contractor, where that language was specifically mentioned as grounds for termination in a contract he signed. 

Young's legal team obtained damning CNN internal messages through discovery repeatedly showing staffers expressing overt hostility towards the Navy veteran. Among those presented to the jury included one calling him a "s--tbag" and an "a--hole," one saying he has a "punchable face."

Marquardt's own message telling a colleague "we're gonna nail this Zachary Young mf---er" was often cited throughout the trial.

At one point, CNN senior national security editor Thomas Lumley was grilled in court after internal messages showed he was highly skeptical of the "pretty flawed" report. Lumley was called as a witness after internal messages showed he felt the report was "full of holes like Swiss cheese." 

Young, who became emotional on the witness stand when discussing the segment’s impact on his marriage, also testified that he rescued at least 22 women from Afghanistan, but that information was never reported by CNN. 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: REPORTER PRESSED ON HIS HEAVY PURSUIT OF NAVY VETERAN AS DEFENSE DOWNPLAYED INVOLVEMENT

CNN issued an on-air apology on March 25, 2022, when substitute anchor Pamela Brown was sitting in Tapper’s chair. However, several CNN staffers who took the witness stand said he didn’t feel the apology was necessary and Adam Levine testified that the apology was only issued for legal purposes. 

Freedman also reminded jurors that many CNN staffers testified that the "black market" term was accurate, and others said the network’s on-air apology was not necessary.

"None of them are sorry. All of them said they would do it again," Freedman told jurors on Thursday. 

The trial also included Judge Henry scolding CNN lead counsel David Axelrod, who is not the on-air pundit with the same name, several times and forcing him to apologize to Young on the spot for calling him a "liar" when evidence proved he didn’t lie about failing to earn work in his field on the heels of the CNN segment airing. 

Axelrod had insisted a document showing Young still had a security clearance was proof he was able to find work after the CNN segment aired, but it ultimately came out that the security clearance was dropped in 2022. 

This is a developing story, more to come… 

Plaintiff Zachary Young testified on Thursday that he does not still have a security clearance, after CNN suggested holding one would indicate he’s still able to find work and wasn't harmed by the network's reporting, as his high-stakes defamation lawsuit nears its conclusion. 

Young, a Navy veteran, alleges that CNN smeared him by implying he illegally profited when helping people flee Afghanistan on the "black market" during the Biden administration's military withdrawal from the country in 2021. Young believes CNN "destroyed his reputation and business" by branding him an illegal profiteer who exploited "desperate Afghans" during the November 2021 segment.

Young's lead counsel Vel Freedman informed Judge Henry on Wednesday that his client had just learned he lost his security clearance, which had been previously renewed right after the CNN report aired. CNN’s legal team had earlier suggested during the trial that Young maintaining a security clearance was proof that he lied about being able to work in the wake of the CNN segment. 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: EDITOR WHO SAID STORY WAS ‘FULL OF HOLES LIKE SWISS CHEESE’ GRILLED ON WITNESS STAND

Freedman said Young checked his security clearance status after testifying, and discovered that he actually lost it in 2022. As a result, Freedman sought to inform the jury that Helios Global, the firm that held Young’s now-defunct security clearance, "dissolved" the relationship in 2022. 

A security clearance is government-issued permission to access and handle classified information needed to work many jobs available to defense contractors. Young, who was working a defense contractor, has testified that private firms are responsible for holding and renewing the security clearances.

Freedman called Young back to the stand on Thursday to clear things up, asking if he still had a security clearance. 

"No, I don’t," Young said.

"When did you find out?" Freedman asked. 

"Two days ago," Young answered. 

CNN lead counsel David Axelrod, who shares a name with the CNN commentator, then cross-examined Young.

"Is it true that if a company holds your security clearance... they have to be OK, or they have to approve doing work with you?" Axelrod asked, to which Young said he doesn’t know details of how the process works. 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: REPORTER PRESSED ON HIS HEAVY PURSUIT OF NAVY VETERAN AS DEFENSE DOWNPLAYED INVOLVEMENT

Axelrod then said, "But, you would agree that a company that agrees to hold your security clearance isn’t saying that, you know, we wouldn’t do work with you, right?" 

"That’s right," Young said. 

"I know your testimony is that you now found out you don’t have a security clearance. Isn’t it true that you just know you don’t have a security clearance with Helios?" Axelrod asked. 

Young said only one company holds your clearance and, in his case, it was Helios for many years. 

"I just found out that that hasn’t been the case for a couple years," Young said.  

Helios Global dropped Young’s clearance in 2022, after the CNN report aired. 

"You have no idea whether the U.S. government has actually canceled your security clearance, correct?" Axelrod said. 

"No, I do, it’s common knowledge in our industry. You have to have a company hold your clearance for you. You don’t get to keep it as an individual," Young testified. 

CNN'S ALEX MARQUARDT HESITANT TO ADMIT HE MADE MONEY COVERING WAR ZONES: ‘I DON’T GO THERE TO GET PAID'

Young said the government doesn’t inform people when a clearance is terminated. 

"That’s not how it works," he said. 

Axelrod noted that Young maintained security clearance through November 2022. Young does not know if the CNN segment is the direct reason why the clearance was terminated. 

Once Young left the stand, Judge Henry read juror instructions ahead of closing arguments. 

Earlier on Thursday, senior vice president of news and executive editorial director Adam Levine admitted under oath that CNN only apologized to Young for legal purposes. Many CNN staffers have testified that Young didn’t deserve an on-air apology.  

The ongoing trial can be streamed live here. 

Judge William Henry blasted CNN’s lead counsel in the ongoing defamation trial on Wednesday, ordering him to apologize to plaintiff Zachary Young for repeatedly calling him a "liar" and telling the high-powered lawyer he lost all credibility in the courtroom. 

"This isn’t kindergarten. Y'all matriculated from kindergarten a long, long time ago," Judge Henry said. 

Young, a Navy veteran, alleges that CNN smeared him by implying he illegally profited when helping people flee Afghanistan on the "black market" during the Biden administration's military withdrawal from the country in 2021. Young believes CNN "destroyed his reputation and business" by branding him an illegal profiteer who exploited "desperate Afghans" during the November 2021 segment.

Young's lead counsel Vel Freedman informed Judge Henry on Wednesday that his client had just learned he lost his security clearance, which had been previously renewed right after the CNN report aired. CNN’s legal team had earlier suggested that Young maintaining security clearance was proof that he lied about being able to work in the wake of the CNN segment. 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: REPORTER PRESSED ON HIS HEAVY PURSUIT OF NAVY VETERAN AS DEFENSE DOWNPLAYED INVOLVEMENT

Freedman said Young checked his security clearance status after testifying, and discovered that he actually lost it in 2022. As a result, Freedman sought to add a witness from Helios Global, the firm that held Young’s now-defunct security clearance, in order to tell jurors that the relationship "dissolved" in 2022. 

CNN lead counsel David Axelrod, who shares a name with the CNN political commentator, objected to the last-minute effort. However, Freedman insisted the "jury should not be misled" and said Bay County jurors were left with the impression that Young still holds a security clearance to this day. 

Axelrod insisted that he didn’t mislead the jury, but Judge Henry blasted the "blatant misrepresentation" of CNN’s legal team implying the security clearance document was an employment contract.  

Judge Henry read aloud a transcript of Axelrod’s comments from last week, in which he called the lawsuit a "fraud" and insisted Young "lied" about being able to earn income in the wake of the CNN report. 

"You called him a liar multiple times there," Judge Henry said.

CNN'S ALEX MARQUARDT HESITANT TO ADMIT HE MADE MONEY COVERING WAR ZONES: ‘I DON’T GO THERE TO GET PAID'

Judge Henry seemed annoyed that Axelrod used the security clearance document to insist Young was a "liar," but then objected to a witness who would be able to explain that Young did not actually have the clearance. Freedman told the judge that CNN "knew" Young no longer had security clearance but didn't tell the court. 

"They knew it was not true," Freedman said. "CNN knew that relationship ended, knew Mr. Young did not know that relationship ended, had proof of it, failed to disclose it to the other side, and then put an expert on the stand to say he still has it."

Much like last week when similar chaos erupted, Judge Henry then called for a recess because he wanted to return to his chambers and think things over. He returned and promptly scolded Axelrod. 

"I think I made comments throughout the course of this case about how counsel was conducting themselves, how everything was a surprise, a last-minute thing … I find it rich that we’ve got discovery being done at the same time a motion to quash is being filed, arguing that the plaintiffs are violating the rules by sending out trial subpoenas while the defense is doing the exact same thing," Judge Henry said. 

"We have representations being made to the court that we were just fortuitous … it wasn’t fortuitous, you were just doing the same thing that the plaintiffs were doing, in sending a trial subpoena for documents without notice to the other side," he continued, adding that CNN’s legal team has flip-flopped on the importance of the security clearance document. 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: EDITOR WHO SAID STORY WAS ‘FULL OF HOLES LIKE SWISS CHEESE’ GRILLED ON WITNESS STAND

Judge Henry said it was clear CNN’s legal team tried to use the document to show Young didn’t make money in his industry following the CNN segment and there was "no way in hell" he would have admitted it if he knew discovery was conducted after the deadline.

"Mr. Axelrod, I don’t know how many times in this transcript, I didn’t bring the paper back with me, how many times you called Mr. Young a liar. But yet, in his deposition, he acknowledged having his security being held by Helios Global. Which is exactly what that document is and exactly what he testified to," Judge Henry said.

"I think an apology from you is clearly in order to Mr. Young for the number of times in front of this court, and streamed around the world, that you called Mr. Young a liar," the judge continued. 

Judge Henry reminded Axelrod that he previously said he wasn’t going to decide the case based on "who can sling the most mud" or who can make the other side look worse. 

Judge Henry then ruled that the Helios Global representative was permitted to testify. 

"I’m troubled by all of this. I’m overly concerned with the level of professionalism, or lack thereof," Judge Henry said, adding that both sides were at fault. 

CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: SEVERAL STAFFERS TESTIFY AGAINST NETWORK'S ON-AIR APOLOGY ORDERED BY LEGAL DEPARTMENT

Judge Henry noted that Axelrod previously implied the document was a "smoking gun" in the case but contradicted himself later to suit his argument. 

"Right now, your credibility with me, Mr. Axelrod, is about none," Judge Henry said. 

Axelrod then apologized. 

"I apologize and if you feel that I misled you, that certainly wasn’t my intention," Axelrod said.