AT&T turned over private, personal cellphone records belonging to then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy to then-Special Counsel Jack Smith in January 2023 amid his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Fox News Digital has learned.

Fox News Digital first reported Thursday that Smith subpoenaed AT&T for McCarthy’s records, but AT&T had indicated to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that the company had not shared any of the former speaker’s phone records.

But Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a letter AT&T sent to Grassley, R-Iowa, citing the previous reporting, which led the telecommunications company to review the case and change its response.

Smith, on Jan. 24, 2023, allegedly sought the ‘toll records for the personal cell phones of U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (AT&T) and U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (Verizon.)’

The information was included as part of a ‘significant case notification’ drafted by the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division May 25, 2023.

AT&T, though, notified Grassley that the company received a subpoena for McCarthy’s records in January 2023 — separate from the May 2023 subpoena for other toll records, and allegedly inadvertently supplied those personal cellphone records to Smith.

‘AT&T is producing today a January 23, 2023 grand jury subpoena issued by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to AT&T, also accompanied by a non-disclosure order relating to the subpoena,’ AT&T wrote.

AT&T referenced Fox News Digital’s exclusive reporting on the subpoena.

‘We identified (the subpoena) yesterday as such based on the phone number in the subpoena,’ the company continued. ‘Based on this newly found record, we write to correct our October 24, 2025 response, which was based (on) a reasonable review of our records at that time.’ 

‘AT&T’s Global Legal Demand Center receives hundreds of thousands of legal demands each year, and unlike the May 2023 subpoena discussed in our October 24 response, the subpoena we produced today did not seek records from a campaign account,’ AT&T explained.

‘Rather, as confirmed from press accounts, the subpoena sought records for a personal cellular phone number,’ AT&T continued. ‘It also did not in any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress. As a result, the subpoena processing center had no reason to believe that the phone number was associated with a member of Congress, and AT&T did not make further inquiries to the Special Counsel and produced the information as required by the subpoena.’

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told Fox News Digital that ‘Jack Smith broke the law and seized my phone records as Speaker of the House.’

‘If corrupt justice will do it to the Speaker, they’ll do it to anyone,’ he said. ‘The DOJ has the authority and responsibility to hold him accountable.’

Lawyers for Smith declined to comment.

AT&T had initially told Grassley that when the company received the May 2023 request for records it ‘raised questions with Special Counsel Smith’s office concerning the legal basis for seeking records of members of Congress, the Special Counsel did not pursue the subpoena further, and no records were produced.’

AT&T had also stressed that the company ‘has not produced any records or other information to Special Counsel Jack Smith’ relating to ‘any member of Congress.’

The revelations come after Fox News Digital exclusively reported in October that Smith and his ‘Arctic Frost’ team investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots were tracking the private communications and phone calls of nearly a dozen Republican senators as part of the probe, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania.

An official told Fox News Digital that those records were collected in 2023 by Smith and his team after subpoenaing major telephone providers. 

Smith has called his decision to subpoena and track Republican lawmakers’ phone records ‘entirely proper’ and consistent with Justice Department policy.

‘As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,’ Smith’s lawyers wrote in October to Grassley.

Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are investigating ‘Arctic Frost.’ 

‘Arctic Frost’ was opened inside the bureau April 13, 2022. Smith was appointed as special counsel to take over the probe in November 2022. 

An FBI official told Fox News Digital that ‘Arctic Frost’ is a ‘prohibited case,’ and that the review required FBI officials to go ‘above and beyond in order to deliver on this promise of transparency.’ The discovery is part of a broader ongoing review, Fox News Digital has learned.

Smith, after months of investigating, charged President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request. 

Smith’s case cost taxpayers more than $50 million. 

Republican legislation brewing in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing civil litigation transparency is sparking concern from some conservative organizations that fear it could chill donor participation and make it more difficult for Americans of modest means to hold ‘woke’ companies accountable. 

In a letter sent earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots Action urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject HR 1109, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald, and Mike Collins, which is known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 and is aimed at ensuring greater transparency in civil litigation, requiring parties receiving payment in lawsuits to disclose their identity. 

The letter warns that ‘sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.’

‘This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements, such as litigation funding agreements, independent from the discovery process and without any finding of relevance by a judge,’ the letter, signed by over a dozen conservative groups including America First Legal, Defending Education, Heartland Institute, former treasurer of Ohio Ken Blackwell, and American Energy Institute, states. 

‘The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights.

‘If adopted, H.R. 1109 will have a chilling effect on free speech and association and directly threaten the privacy rights of Americans,’ the letter warns. ‘The end result will be fewer Americans having the resources or willingness to bring legitimate claims, which threatens to undermine future legal battles over issues critical to our movement.’

‘The privacy interests at stake here are not abstract. We have seen how disclosure regimes can be easily weaponized by bad actors, particularly those seeking to attack and intimidate political opponents.’

Issa told Fox News Digital on Thursday afternoon that there is ‘misinformation’ circulating about what the bill actually does and there will be a ‘small update tomorrow to clarify one item.’

‘What’s actually happened is language has been put in to assure groups that we’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama or any of the other historical 501c privileges that you don’t turn over your donor list and so on,’ Issa said. ‘That was something that Obama and Biden tried to do a couple of times. We want nothing to do with that. We’re only asking that if there is a material funder slash partner in a lawsuit, that they be disclosed.’

‘I fully respect and appreciate the concerns of people who want to make sure that this does not turn into a burdensome discovery of, for example, a nonprofit’s hundreds, thousands or millions of donors,’ Issa explained. 

‘We share the concern of all these groups that we wanted to make sure we believed we were on solid ground as written but in an abundance of caution, my staff and all the parties worked to try to come up with the most straightforward, effective way to say, of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.’

Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, call it a ‘vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.’

In his press release announcing the legislation in February, Issa said, ‘Our legislation targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system that distort our system of justice by obscuring public detection and exploiting loopholes in the law for financial gain.’

‘Our approach will achieve a far better standard of transparency in the courts that people deserve, and our standard of law requires. We fundamentally believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world and left absent from the facts of a case.’  

The press release explained that hundreds of cases a year involve civil litigation funded by undisclosed-third-party interests as an investment for return from hedge funds, commercial lenders and sovereign wealth funds through shell companies and that there are often investor-backed entities who seek hefty settlements from American companies that end up ‘distorting the free market and stifling innovation.’

The conversation about the legislation reignites an ongoing showdown between insurers and large corporations who have made the case that third-party funding drives abusive suits and inflated settlements therefore needing more visibility into funders of litigation and limits to speculative investment in lawsuits against advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks, who argue they are the only mechanism for those without deep pockets to take legal action against well funded companies. 

Many advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks don’t simply hand over charitable donations to a lawsuit but instead use structured litigation vehicles, limited liability companies, donor-advised funds, or legal-defense trusts,  that front the costs of a case and are reimbursed, sometimes with interest, if the case wins or settles. The process is known as non-recourse or outcome-contingent funding, meaning the funder only gets money back if the case succeeds.

Nonprofits like Consumers’ Research have been using litigation finance in recent years to push back against ‘woke capitalism’ to counter ESG and DEI policies and the group’s executive director, Will Hild, told Fox News Digital that it has been ‘all too easy for major companies to use their outsized influence and powerful market shares to push an ideological agenda with little to no recourse.’

Hild told Fox News Digital he views the legislation an ‘attack’ on one of the ‘few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.’

Hild added, ‘Even worse, it imposes dangerous disclosure mandates that would force plaintiffs to expose confidential litigation funding agreements. This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of woke corporations and makes it far harder for victims to secure the resources they need to fight back.’

The letter from the conservative groups also expresses fear that ‘compelled disclosure of private financial arrangements would force litigants to unveil the identity of donors — violating donor privacy rights and exposing them to threats of harassment and retaliation.’

In a Tuesday op-ed in The Hill opposing the legislation, Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears pointed to Supreme Court decisions that he says have ‘affirmed that forced disclosure of private association undermines fundamental freedoms.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rep. Fitzgerald said, ‘As reiterated to these groups in multiple discussions, it remains Congress’ intent to protect the First Amendment rights of those who contribute to political groups and religious organizations, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens’ United.’

Organizations that have endorsed the bill have pointed to concerns about foreign funding in courtrooms, specifically from China, including High Tech Investors Alliance who said in a press release they ‘commend’ the legislators who put it forward for ‘defending American businesses against the exploitation of our courts by foreign adversaries and unscrupulous hedge funds.’

‘For too long, a lack of transparency has allowed shell entities to manipulate the legal system to prey on American employers, concealing their predatory practices and identities of their financial backers,’ HTIA said. ‘As President Trump takes bold action against aggressive economic maneuvers by China and other countries, Congress must also act decisively to protect our judges and juries from becoming tools in the economic warfare waged by antagonists.’

Leonard Leo, who operates a vast network of conservative nonprofits and is tied to Consumers’ Research, told Politico earlier this year that ‘while there are areas, like mass tort, where litigation financing has been abused, and could be reformed, it has always been a critical tool for the conservative movement to advance the public good by taking on the liberal woke agenda.’

The House Judiciary Committee did not mark the bill up Tuesday and Fox News Digital is told it will be marked up on Thursday at 12 p.m. 

‘If someone is acting as a principal litigant, either directly or one step removed, then you have a right to face them, you have the right to cross-examine them, you have a right to know if they receive your trade secrets that were exposed and disclosed in litigation, these things are all important,’ Issa said, adding that the legislation does not require materials to be turned over to the defendant and a judge can review them in camera, a legal term for in private.

Issa continued, ‘We just want to make sure that the judge knows that just as the markman is a required part of determining what a patent means, that it’s a responsibility of the judge to determine who the litigants are and, as appropriate, disclosing them is required — and that last part has always been ignored a little bit, we’re only making sure that that discovery is asked for and evaluated at a minimum by the judge or magistrate overseeing the case.’

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that officials who pushed radical climate change policies should be immediately investigated.

While speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Washington, D.C., Trump said the American people rejected ‘failed’ far-left models, including regulation aimed at curbing climate change.

The event, which was held at the Kennedy Center, aims to bring together ‘visionaries, leaders, and changemakers shaping the future of global investment,’ according to its website. Speakers include Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Albert Bourla and several other heavy hitters.

Trump went through climate activists’ change in terminology, noting that what is now called ‘climate change’ was once called ‘global warming.’

‘Perfect words, ‘climate change.’ They’re covered if it rains, if it snows, if it’s warm, it’s climate change, ‘it’s destroying the world,” Trump said. He later remarked, ‘It’s a little conspiracy out there. We have to investigate them immediately. They probably are being investigated.’

‘Their policies punish success, rewarded failure and produced disaster, including the worst inflation in our country’s history,’ Trump added.

While it was not immediately clear who Trump was referencing when he called for an investigation, he has spoken out against the Green New Deal, which he calls the ‘Green New Scam.’

Trump issued a proclamation declaring October ‘National Energy Dominance Month.’ In his proclamation, Trump lamented the Biden administration’s ‘war on American energy,’ saying that ‘the Green New Scam shuttered dozens of coal plants leaving our power grid vulnerable, halted mining productions, and shipped our energy jobs from Texas to Tehran, from the Midwest to Moscow, and from Baton Rouge to Beijing.’

Additionally, on Earth Day, the White House declared that, ‘Unlike the previous administration, which wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on virtue signaling and ineffective grifts, the Trump administration’s policies are rooted in the belief that Americans are the best stewards of our vast natural resources — no ‘Green New Scam’ required.’ 

The White House article listed Trump’s environment-related policies, such as the promotion of U.S. energy dominance, his support for forest management and his actions to protect public lands.

During his remarks on Wednesday, Trump declared that, under his administration, ‘America is back and America is open for business. And America is actually stronger than it’s ever been before.’

On Tuesday, MBS committed his country to increasing its planned investment in the U.S. economy to nearly $1 trillion over the next year. Trump welcomed the investment, saying it was ‘great.’

‘You know, that’s great. I appreciate that. That’s great. We’re doing numbers that nobody’s ever done. And in all fairness, if you didn’t see potential in the U.S., you wouldn’t be doing it,’ Trump said.

‘Definitely,’ MBS replied.

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Americans are bracing for their healthcare premiums to increase in 2026 amid uncertainty stemming from whether Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies about to expire at the end of 2025 will receive an extension. 

Those shopping on the ACA marketplace already are expected to face a 26% premium price increase in 2026, and if the potential government subsidies expire, monthly payments for subsidized patients could increase by 114%, according to an analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation released in October. 

But the potential lapse in government subsidies, which seek to lower monthly payments for patients, isn’t the only reason for rising premium prices. At the crux of the issue is that the ACA’s foundation includes several inflationary provisions that are driving up healthcare costs, according to experts. 

‘Obamacare does more to increase prices,’ Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Washington-based libertarian-leaning Cato Institute think tank, told Fox News Digital Monday. 

‘It increases prices on healthy people by requiring them to pay double or triple what they should have to pay for health insurance, and it requires everybody who enrolls in Obamacare to buy more comprehensive coverage than they probably would if you gave them the money.’ 

1. Guaranteed coverage 

One provision included in the ACA is the guaranteed issue, which requires that insurers provide coverage to anyone without factoring in their health status or age. 

This is a factor that ramps up the cost of premiums, according to Sally Pipes, the president of the free market think tank Pacific Policy Institute.

‘As older patients use a lot more healthcare than the young and cost insurers a lot more in claims, premiums have to rise to cover their loss on the older enrollees,’ Pipes said in a statement Monday to Fox News Digital. 

2. Community rating rule 

Coupled with this provision is the community rating rule, which bans insurers from charging older people more than three times what they do younger people — regardless of their health status.

This essentially amounts to a system of government price controls because it requires insurance companies to charge two people of the same age on the same healthcare plan the same premium, even if one is healthy and the other is sick, according to Cannon. 

‘That is a price floor for the healthy person, because the price can’t go below whatever you charge the sick person, and it’s a price ceiling for the sick person, because the price can’t go above whatever you charge the healthy person,’ Cannon said. ‘And so the centerpiece of Obamacare is really just price controls, where you set the price too high in one area and too low in the other area.’ 

3. Mandated service coverage 

Additionally, the ACA has an ‘essential’ health benefits requirement that stipulates health insurance plans must cover certain services, including inpatient and outpatient hospital care, mental health services, prescription drug coverage and more.

‘This means enrollees have to buy a plan that covers each benefit, regardless of whether they want that benefit or not,’ Pipes said. ‘If an individual family wants a plan that doesn’t cover alcohol rehabilitation or hair prostheses, they still have to pay to cover these benefits. They add tremendously to the cost of coverage.’ 

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats have been at odds over extending ACA subsidies, ultimately prompting the government shutdown, which lasted more than 40 days and was the longest in U.S. history. Democrats refused for weeks to back a measure without a provision to permanently extend the ACA subsidies, which will expire at the end of 2025.

But, ultimately, Democrats got behind a short-term spending bill that does not extend these subsidies by the end of the year. Even so, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., agreed to a vote in December on legislation that would continue these credits.

The Biden administration first introduced the COVID-era subsidies under the American Rescue Plan Act passed in March 2021, which was subsequently extended the following year under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Meanwhile, Trump has signaled he won’t back continuing the subsidies and said in a social media post Tuesday that Congress shouldn’t ‘waste’ its time on negotiating an extension. 

‘THE ONLY HEALTHCARE I WILL SUPPORT OR APPROVE IS SENDING THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE,’ Trump said in the post.

President Donald Trump may have made amends with SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, after referencing the billionaire in a speech Wednesday and after Musk attended a dinner at the White House Tuesday evening. 

While the two publicly exchanged harsh words in the spring after Musk left his post heading up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tensions appear to have simmered in the following months. 

‘You’re so lucky I’m with you, Elon. I’ll tell you. Has he ever thanked me properly?’ Trump said at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum on Wednesday in Washington. ‘Although I do let him buy other than electric cars, but these are minor details. You know, we had a mandate which even Elon thought was ridiculous, that everybody has to have an electric car by 2030. And once, fortunately, he said, that’s a ridiculous thing.’ 

Trump’s comments came while discussing a portion of his massive tax and domestic policy measure known as the one ‘big, beautiful bill’ that he signed in July, which included a new tax deduction on car loan interest for purchases made between 2025 and 2028 permitting car buyers the ability to write off up to $10,000 annually in interest for certain loans on brand new cars.

After Trump’s speech, Musk posted on X: ‘I would like to thank President Trump for all he has done for America and the world.’ 

Tension between Trump and Musk reached an all-time high in May after the two publicly aired their differences regarding the ‘big, beautiful, bill.’ Musk was highly critical of the measure amid reports the measure would increase the federal deficit, while Trump Musk’s disdain for the bill was due to a provision that eliminated an electric vehicle tax credit that benefited companies like Tesla.

The two hurled insults against one another in May and June, with Musk claiming that Trump wouldn’t have won the 2024 election without the billionaire’s support. Meanwhile, Trump accused Musk of going ‘CRAZY’ over cuts to the electric vehicle credits, and said that Musk had been ‘wearing thin.’

However, the two were seen together at conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s funeral in Arizona in September. 

Musk also appeared at the White House Tuesday for a dinner during Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington. Other tech executives who attended the dinner included Apple CEO Tim Cook and Dell CEO Michael Dell. 

The White House and Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.