In 1839, not long before President Donald Trump’s favorite president, Andrew Jackson, died, an admirer offered him an ancient roman sarcophagus, thought to have once held the remains of an emperor. Jackson, declined the offer, saying, ‘my republican feelings and principles forbid it.’ There may be a lesson here.

Since Trump returned to the White House just over a year ago, it seems like every single day something new is being named after him. The Kennedy Center, the Institute of Peace building, a new class of battleship, the Palm Beach airport and, who are we kidding, eventually the White House ballroom.

Meanwhile, a giant banner featuring Trump’s stern features was placed on the Department of Justice this week, not the first public building to be adorned with the visage of the president glaring down at us.

It all seems to have gone a bit too far, but not for the reasons generally cited. Instead, the pure quantity of Trump-branded government buildings is starting to diminish the meaning and impact of all of them.

To be clear, there is no risk of a major political backlash from voters as Trump’s name and image get plastered around Washington like posters for a Dave Matthews Band concert. People who hate him call it ‘Dear Leader’ fascism and people who love him takes selfies. Everyone else just shrugs and says, ‘Well, that’s Trump.’

Culturally, the question of whether naming everything after yourself is crass or unseemly is subjective and a matter of personal taste. As a priority to voters, it falls somewhere below good taste in music.

And after all, every city has its John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. boulevards, though, in fairness, they were killed, which is a major advantage if your goal is getting stuff named after you.

No, the real question is whether this avalanche of eponymous enterprises are burnishing, or diminishing, the president’s legacy, and in the far-seeing eyes of history, very often, less is more.

I get it, Trump spent his whole life making buildings grow out of the ground so he could slap his name on them, big as life and usually in gold. It is an admirable and very human impulse to leave something lasting.

The president was very good at leaving his mark. Trust me, I lived in New York City for 20 years, and you really can’t miss it. But now it turns out that all of that glass and steel is flimsy and impermanent compared to Trump the man, who, say what you will, will be spoken of and debated for centuries.

It is not in flinty metal or in the cold plastic of physical reality where Trump’s true legacy must now be forged. Rather, it is in the invisible fire of the future, where the man, not the buildings will be judged.

Trump has the immortality shot, with his bold vision not just in America but around the globe. He stands to be the most consequential figure of the early 21st century. We don’t need to name every county courthouse and 1-95 rest stop after him.

Throwing your name up everywhere in giant fonts is actually exactly the kind of eccentric behavior that gets mocked for thousands of years. Like Caligula threatening to make his horse a consul of Rome, it will be used by many to suggest narcissistic mania in Trump, because it already is used that way.

Trump is never going to be the modest Abe Lincoln type with the shawl and aw shucks, ‘Nobody will remember my speech,’ attitude. That’s cool, his braggadocio is fun. But I don’t want to live in a world where I check my Trump watch to see if it’s time for a Trump burger on my way to Trump airport.

As it turned out, ‘Old Hickory’ Andrew Jackson would be buried in a plain pine box, though the ancient treasure he declined is still housed by the Smithsonian. And instead of paying homage to him through a marble masterpiece, we keep little pictures of him in our pockets.

More importantly, our current commander in chief still draws on Jackson’s strength and values to this very day, fancy Roman sarcophagus or not.

The more things we name after Trump, the less it means, and the more it feels forced, when it needn’t be. Nobody, including Trump, has to convince us that he is a figure of historical magnitude. Seeing that advertised again and again starts to make it all seem a little bit cheapened.

Is the concept of ‘equal time’ outdated on today’s broadcast networks? The Federal Communications Commission put regulations on the books in 1934 requiring equal air time for political candidates during an election season. But that doesn’t extend to cable, or to streaming, or to the booming podcast world. You could get technical and claim the broadcast networks often come to people today via cable or satellite connections, not an antenna.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr recently suggested late-night comedy shows and daytime talk shows like ABC’s ‘The View’ could be evaluated for potential violations of the old equal-time rules. On Monday, Feb. 16, ‘Late Show’ host Stephen Colbert gaudily announced that he invited Texas state Democrat Rep. James Talarico for an interview, but lawyers told him ‘in no uncertain terms’ that he couldn’t do this, so he posted a Talarico interview on YouTube instead. When that YouTube video drew over 8 million views, it was painted by liberal journalists as a great victory over President Donald Trump. But Trump never objected to this interview.

Colbert had to unfurl the nightly rant about being a courageous dissident and all that rot: ‘Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV, OK? He’s like a toddler with too much screen time. He gets cranky and then drops a load in his diaper.’

Then, surprisingly, CBS put out a statement that suggested Colbert was a liar, that the interview was not banned: ‘The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.’ On Tuesday, Colbert sputtered. ‘They know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS’s lawyers.’

Colbert wasn’t in danger of having to invite Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn. He might have to interview Crockett – who appeared on the show last year, before she was a candidate. This whole stunt could be painted as a campaign booster for Talarico, who raised millions of dollars off the appearance. 

Then came the weirdness of CBS News covering this spat, giving both sides equal time and weight. On Wednesday’s ‘CBS Mornings,’ reporter Elaine Quijano ran the opposing views, and then added another liberal view: ‘Monday was the first known time a late night talk show changed its programming since the FCC issued its new guidance. Anna Gomez, the only Democratic-appointed FCC commissioner, worries that decision could enable censorship.’

The ‘PBS News Hour’ also turned to Gomez for an attack on Trump and Carr: ‘Anything they don’t like, they want to control and they want to censor.’ Defunded PBS still sounds bitter.

The supreme irony in this entire kerfuffle is that Colbert represents the exact opposite of equal time. Overall, Alex Christy of NewsBusters reported that from September 2022 through Thursday, Colbert has brought on 230 liberal or Democrat guests, to only one Republican – and that Republican was former Rep. Liz Cheney after she was drummed out of office in a primary. So, let’s wink and say 231 to zero.

CBS could easily change the name of its late-night comedy show to ‘The People’s Republic of Colbert.’ Anyone who wants to end their day by listening to a long interview with Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders is not looking for giggles. But that’s what viewers found on January 20. Colbert announced with fanfare that this was the 19th time he’d platformed Sanders.

This is not a ‘bona fide news interview,’ if we’re going to use FCC lingo. It’s the lamest kind of ‘Sunset Semester’ socialism session. ‘Define oligarchy for us’ isn’t even a question. It’s a prompt.

But Colbert also put this ball on the tee for Bernie:  ‘This is a red-letter day for you. Here you are administering the oath of office to Mayor Mamdani and I just—you’ve been fighting, you’ve been carrying the banner of democratic socialists for a long time. What was that like to swear in the first Democratic Socialist mayor of a major city?’ He found it ‘extremely gratifying.’

When that YouTube video drew over 8 million views, it was painted by liberal journalists as a great victory over President Donald Trump. But Trump never objected to this interview.

It was the same situation with Talarico – two Democrats talking like Democrats. Colbert nudged: ‘It’s not the first time you’ve caused some drama. ‘FCC opening probe into The View after appearance by Talarico.’ Do you mean to cause trouble?’

Overall, the late-night ‘comedy’ show guest count in 2025 was overwhelmingly stacked: 99% of the political guests are liberals or Democrats. It’s the same on ‘The View.’ In 2025, Whoopi & Co. interviewed 128 liberals or Democrats to two Republicans or sort-of conservatives. Again, that’s being generous. The two are now former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was fulminating against Trump, and Cheryl Hines, who was forced into defending her husband, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

These are the shows that are the most passionately painting themselves as brave upholders of Democracy when they practice nothing of the sort. Only one side is worth hearing, and the other side is only worth smearing. 

For more than a month, Michal Weits has kept suitcases packed by the front door of her house in Tel Aviv.

‘We have our bags ready for weeks,’ she said. ‘Three weeks ago, there were rumors that it was the night the U.S. would attack Iran. At midnight, we pulled the kids out of their beds and drove to the north, where it is supposed to be safer.’

Weits, the artistic director of the international documentary film festival Docaviv, is speaking from her own traumatic experience. During the 12-day war, an Iranian missile struck her Tel Aviv home. She, her husband, and their two young children were inside the safe room when it collapsed on her.

‘After an Iranian missile hit our home and we lost everything we had, we also lost the feeling of ‘it won’t happen to me,’’ she said. ‘We are prepared, as much as it’s really possible.’

Weits remembers the surreal contrast of those days. Four days after being injured in the missile strike, while still in the hospital, she was told she had won an Emmy Award for the documentary she produced about the Nova massacre on Oct. 7.

‘Four days earlier an 800-kilogram explosive missile fell on our home and I was injured, and four days later I woke up on my birthday to news that I had won an Emmy,’ she said. ‘It can’t be more surreal than this. That is the experience of being Israeli, from zero to one hundred.’

She says Israelis have learned to live inside that swing. ‘Inside all of this, life continues,’ she said. ‘Kids go to school, you go to the supermarket, Purim arrives and you prepare, and you don’t know if any of it will actually happen. We didn’t make plans for this weekend because we don’t know what will happen.’

That gap — between visible routine and private fear — defines this moment. The fear she describes is now part of the national atmosphere.

On the surface, Israel looks normal. The beaches are crowded in the warm weather. Cafés are full. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange has risen in recent days. Children go to school as Israelis prepare for the Jewish holiday of Purim and costumes are being prepared.

But inside homes and across local news broadcasts, one question dominates: when will it happen? When will President Donald Trump decide whether to strike Iran — and what will that mean for Israel?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has instructed the Home Front Command and emergency services to prepare for possible escalation, with Israeli media reporting a state of ‘maximum alert’ across security bodies.

Speaking at an officer graduation ceremony this week, Netanyahu warned Tehran: ‘If the ayatollahs make a mistake and attack us, they will face a response they cannot even imagine.’ He added that Israel is ‘prepared for any scenario.’

The military message was echoed by the IDF. ‘We are monitoring regional developments and are aware of the public discourse regarding Iran,’ IDF Spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said. ‘The IDF remains vigilant in defense, our eyes are open in every direction and our readiness in response to any change in the operational reality is greater than ever.’

Yet the psychological shift inside Israel goes deeper than official statements.

For years, Israelis lived with rockets from Hamas. The Iranian strikes felt different.

‘The level of destruction from Iran was something Israelis had not experienced before,’ said Israeli Iran expert Benny Sabti. ‘People are used to rockets from Gaza. This was a different scale of damage. It created real anxiety.’

Iron Dome, long seen as nearly impenetrable, was less effective against heavier Iranian missiles. Buildings collapsed. Entire neighborhoods were damaged.

‘People are still traumatized,’ Sabti said. ‘They are living on the edge for a long time now.’

At the same time, he stressed that the country is better prepared today.

‘There are feelings, and there are facts,’ Sabti said. ‘The facts are that Israel is better prepared now. The military level is doing serious preparation. They learned from the last round.’

The earlier wave of protests inside Iran had sparked hope in Israel that internal pressure might weaken or topple the regime. Weits told Fox News Digital, ‘I am angry at the Iranian government, not the Iranian people. I will be the first to travel there when it’s possible. I hope they will be able to be free — that all of us will be able to be free.’

Despite losing her home and suffering hearing damage from the blast, she says the greater loss was psychological. ‘There is no more complacency,’ she said. ‘The ‘it won’t happen to me’ feeling is gone.’

Across Israel, that sentiment resonates.

The CIA on Friday said that director John Ratcliffe had ordered the retraction or ‘substantive revision’ of 19 intelligence assessments over the past decade that were deemed to be politically biased.

In a release, the CIA included three redacted assessments from between 2015 and 2021 that related to White women’s extremist radicalization, attacks on LGBT activists in the Middle East and Africa, and the COVID-19 pandemic limiting access to birth control in developing countries.

‘The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned,’ Ratcliffe said in a statement.

He added, ‘There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record. These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis. Our recent successes in Operation ABSOLUTE RESOLVE and Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER exemplify our dedication to analytic excellence.’

The CIA release said the assessments were identified by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which did an independent review on hundreds of reports from the last decade, adding that the assessments ‘did not meet CIA and IC analytic tradecraft standards and failed to be independent of political consideration.’

The agency said an internal review led by Deputy Director Michael Ellis ‘agreed that they did not meet the high standards the American people expect from CIA’s elite analytic workforce.’

The first of the three reports included in the release was titled ‘Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment,’ and was published in October 2021, in the first year of the Biden administration.

It focused on women in groups overseas ‘that incite, facilitate or conduct violence because they believe that their perception of an idealized, white European ethnic identity is under attack from people who embody and support multiculturalism and globalization.’

The second report was titled ‘Middle East-North AfricaLGBT Activists Under Pressure, and was released near the end of the Obama administration.

That assessment claimed that ‘The tough stance taken against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community by governments in the Middle East probably is driven by conservative public opinion and domestic political competition from Islamists, and is hindering US initiatives in support of LGBT rights.’

The last declassified report included in the CIA release was titled ‘Worldwide: Pandemic-Related Contraceptive Shortfalls Threaten Economic Development, and was published in July 2020, nearly the end of President Donald Trump’s first term.

‘The COVID-19 pandemic is limiting contraceptive access in the developing world and will probably undermine efforts to address population pressures there that are hindering economic development,’ it stated.

A senior administration official who spoke to The New York Times on condition of anonymity said that most of the rest of the flagged assessments dealt with diversity, equity and inclusion.

The Times added that former officials it spoke to both questioned the decision to declassify the three documents and the claims that the assessments were flawed, believing they just showed the policy priorities of past administrations.

A leading domestic energy advocacy group praised EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s announcement that his agency would undo recent additions to the federal ‘mercury and air-toxics standards’ (MATS) for coal-fired power plants.

Zeldin said removing the restrictions allows the already ‘robust’ MATS standards to remain in effect, ensuring both public health and the health of America’s coal industry amid a push for U.S. energy dominance.

‘The Biden-Harris Administration’s anti-coal regulations sought to regulate out of existence this vital sector of our energy economy. If implemented, these actions would have destroyed reliable American energy,’ Zeldin said, adding that protecting the environment and supporting industry and baseload power is not a ‘binary choice.’

In response, Power the Future founder Daniel Turner told Fox News Digital the move is a significant step toward revitalizing the American coal industry and, in turn, fueling economies in economically depressed industrial communities throughout Appalachia and beyond.

‘Since the war on coal, we have weakened our grid, driven electricity prices through the roof, outsourced major industries to Mexico and China, but most of all driven tens of thousands of Americans into ruin because of a globalist agenda,’ Turner said Friday, adding that the costs of a crippled coal industry went far beyond shuttered infrastructure.

‘The cruel Obama-led war on coal ruined numerous towns across rural America, drove families into poverty, caused alcoholism, opioid addiction, domestic violence, and suicide to skyrocket.

‘Power The Future started because of coal miners, the acceptable casualties in the globalist climate change agenda,’ added Turner, whose group is based in coal-heavy Virginia.

‘Restoring America’s coal dominance is good for our national security and economy, and it restores the dignity of small-town coal workers whose labor is vital to America’s survival.’

Many of America’s poorest counties are in what were once very wealthy coal communities, including McDowell and Mingo counties in West Virginia and Bell, Letcher, McCreary and Breathitt counties in Kentucky, where Vice President JD Vance’s family is from.

During much of the 20th century, McDowell County — and its seat, Welch — was the No. 1 coal-producing county in the U.S. and home to 100,000 people — a population boom some credit with spurring construction of what became the nation’s first parking deck, which is still standing today in Welch.

Now, about one-quarter of McDowell residents live in poverty while the median income is around $30,000.

Turner alluded to those conditions in comments to Fox News Digital, saying people must ‘never forget or forgive the drivers of the war on coal for their cruel attacks on a vital industry found only in rural America.

‘[Anti-coal politicians] fly private jets to attend global climate summits while they orchestrated an evil attack on the coal miner making America weaker and China richer.’

Turner quipped that any ‘anti-coal activist’ is invited to join him in visiting coal-producing communities but may be unhappy to get dirt on their clothing and find lodging not up to ‘Four Seasons’ standards.

‘We need coal. There is not one product around you right now that was not touched by coal, and to lower prices, bring market stability and ensure economic growth, we need to dominate the coal industry,’ Turner said.

‘Sadly, the liberal elite who launched the war on coal are too ignorant or too indifferent to know this. The ignorant can be educated, and that’s what I try to do at Power The Future. But the indifferent must be defeated, as they are a threat to our liberty, property and prosperity. I will never stop until I defeat them all,’ he said, calling President Donald Trump the ‘greatest coal president in history.’

Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy fired back at the policy change, telling the AP that ‘by weakening pollution limits and monitoring for brain-damaging mercury and other pollutants, they are actively undermining any attempt to make America — and our children — healthy.’

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an order imposing a 10% ‘global tariff’ following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law.

‘It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately,’ Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Friday evening.

The order was issued under Section 122 and applies in addition to the standard tariffs that are already in place, the president announced during a White House press briefing Friday afternoon.

He also announced the launch of several Section 301 investigations and other inquiries aimed at shielding the U.S. from what he described as unfair trade practices by foreign governments and companies.

The high court blocked Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what amounts to a major test of executive branch authority. 

The president noted he will pursue ‘alternatives’ to tariffs under emergency law.

‘Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,’ Trump said. ‘We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.’

Trump called the ruling ‘deeply disappointing,’ saying he was ‘ashamed’ of certain members of the court.

‘I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,’ the president said. ‘In actuality, I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because… I wanted to be very well-behaved.

‘I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. I have very effectively utilized tariffs over the past year to make America great again,’ he said.

A source outside the Trump administration told Fox News that an aide came into the closed-door White House breakfast with governors earlier Friday and handed Trump a note about the Supreme Court ruling.

The source said Trump ‘called it a disgrace, and then he went on with the remarks.’

Some of the Supreme Court’s nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience when the president delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

‘The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no,’ Trump said during the news conference. ‘They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation… They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.’

In the opinion, the high court declared, ‘Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate… importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.’

Trump has made tariffs a key plank of his economic agenda since retaking the Oval Office last year, but his policies have not come without controversy.

Republican reaction to the ruling has been mixed.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., slammed the high court’s decision.

‘The Supreme Court just undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers. President Donald Trump was elected to fight unfair trade and stop the United States from being ripped off. I’m outraged by this decision; it’s clearly judicial overreach,’ Carter asserted in a post on X.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., welcomed the ruling.

‘In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism,’ Paul noted in a post on X.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., also hailed the decision.

‘The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics,’ Bacon wrote in a post on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Congress and the administration will determine the ‘best path forward’ in the coming weeks.

‘No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,’ Johnson wrote in an X post.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

A leading domestic energy advocacy group praised EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s announcement that his agency would undo recent additions to the federal ‘mercury and air-toxics standards’ (MATS) for coal-fired power plants.

Zeldin said removing the restrictions allows the already ‘robust’ MATS standards to remain in effect, ensuring both public health and the health of America’s coal industry amid a push for U.S. energy dominance.

‘The Biden-Harris Administration’s anti-coal regulations sought to regulate out of existence this vital sector of our energy economy. If implemented, these actions would have destroyed reliable American energy,’ Zeldin said at the Mills Creek Power Plant in Kentucky, adding that protecting the environment and supporting industry and baseload power is not a ‘binary choice.’

In response, Power the Future founder Daniel Turner told Fox News Digital the move is a significant step toward revitalizing the American coal industry and, in turn, fueling economies in economically depressed industrial communities throughout Appalachia and beyond.

‘Since the war on coal, we have weakened our grid, driven electricity prices through the roof, outsourced major industries to Mexico and China, but most of all driven tens of thousands of Americans into ruin because of a globalist agenda,’ Turner said Friday, adding that the costs of a crippled coal industry went far beyond shuttered infrastructure:

‘The cruel Obama-led war on coal ruined numerous towns across rural America, drove families into poverty, caused alcoholism, opioid addiction, domestic violence, and suicide to skyrocket.’

‘Power The Future started because of coal miners, the acceptable casualties in the globalist climate change agenda,’ said Turner, whose group is based in coal-heavy Virginia.

‘Restoring America’s coal dominance is good for our national security and economy, and it restores the dignity of small-town coal workers whose labor is vital to America’s survival.’

Many of America’s poorest counties are in what were once very wealthy coal communities — including McDowell and Mingo counties in West Virginia and Bell, Letcher, McCreary, and Breathitt counties in Kentucky, where Vice President JD Vance’s family is from.

During much of the 20th century, McDowell County — and its seat, Welch — was the No. 1 coal-producing county in the U.S. and home to 100,000 people — a population boom some credit with spurring construction of what became the nation’s first parking deck, which is still standing today in Welch.

Now, about one-quarter of McDowell residents live in poverty while the median income is around $30,000.

Turner alluded to those conditions in comments to Fox News Digital, saying people must ‘never forget or forgive the drivers of the war on coal for their cruel attacks on a vital industry found only in rural America.’

‘[Anti-coal politicians] fly private jets to attend global climate summits while they orchestrated an evil attack on the coal miner making America weaker and China richer.’

Turner quipped that any ‘anti-coal activist’ is invited to join him in visiting coal-producing communities but may be unhappy to get dirt on their clothing and find lodging not up to ‘Four Seasons’ standards.

‘We need coal. There is not one product around you right now that was not touched by coal, and to lower prices, bring market stability and ensure economic growth, we need to dominate the coal industry,’ Turner said.

‘Sadly, the liberal elite who launched the war on coal are too ignorant or too indifferent to know this. The ignorant can be educated, and that’s what I try to do at Power The Future. But the indifferent must be defeated, as they are a threat to our liberty, property and prosperity. I will never stop until I defeat them all,’ he said, calling President Donald Trump the ‘greatest coal president in history.’

Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy fired back at the policy change, telling the AP that ‘by weakening pollution limits and monitoring for brain-damaging mercury and other pollutants, they are actively undermining any attempt to make America — and our children — healthy.’

: The State Department has finalized a new privacy-preserving app intended to give users worldwide access to what officials describe as the same uncensored internet available to Americans, even in countries with strict online repression such as China and Iran and as Europe enacts tighter content oversight. 

The platform, Freedom.gov, will roll out ‘in the coming weeks,’ Fox News Digital has learned. 

It will operate as a one-click desktop and mobile application compatible with iOS and Android devices.

The app is open-source and includes built-in anonymity protections. 

‘In the interest of total transparency, we made Freedom.gov completely open-source. But we also made it completely anonymous,’ a State Department official said. ‘Anyone can see how it works. No one, including us, can track or identify you.’

According to the official, the application does not log IP addresses, session data, browsing activity, DNS queries or device identifiers that could be used to personally identify users.

Specific details about the app’s underlying technical structure were not disclosed.

Governments with sophisticated censorship systems historically have moved quickly to block or criminalize circumvention tools. Authorities can restrict app downloads, block domains, throttle traffic or impose penalties on users.

Whether Freedom.gov maintains accessibility in heavily restricted environments may depend on its technical architecture and its ability to adapt to countermeasures.

The initiative is being led by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who oversees the State Department’s Digital Freedom office.

‘Freedom.gov is the latest in a long line of efforts by the State Department to protect and promote fundamental freedoms, both online and offline,’ Rogers said. ‘The project will be global in its scope, but distinctly American in its mission: commemorating our commitment to free expression as we approach our 250th birthday.’

Reuters previously reported that the State Department was developing the Freedom.gov platform.

The rollout comes amid intensifying global battles over internet governance, as governments across Europe and beyond move to assert greater control over online content.

In Europe, regulators have tightened oversight under new laws aimed at policing digital platforms. The European Union’s Digital Services Act expands government authority over major platforms and requires removal of illegal content, including hate speech and extremist material, with regulators empowered to impose steep fines for violations.

In the United Kingdom, the Online Safety Act imposes new obligations on platforms to address harmful and illegal content and includes age-verification requirements for certain services. Critics warn the measures risk incentivizing aggressive content removal and expanding government influence over lawful speech online.

Elsewhere, restrictions have been more direct. Russia recently moved to ban WhatsApp, further consolidating state control over digital communications.

China maintains the world’s most sophisticated online censorship system, widely known as the ‘Great Firewall,’ blocking foreign news outlets and social media platforms while promoting a state-controlled digital ecosystem.

Iran repeatedly has imposed sweeping internet shutdowns during periods of unrest. During protests, government blackouts have cut citizens off from global communications.

The Wall Street Journal previously reported that thousands of Starlink satellite internet terminals were covertly brought into the country following a blackout, in an effort backed by the United States to help dissidents bypass censorship. 

Iranian authorities have attempted to jam satellite signals and criminalized possession of such equipment. Satellite connectivity — which does not rely on domestic telecommunications infrastructure — has emerged as one of the few viable lifelines during shutdowns.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently defended a move by President Donald Trump to protect and boost the production of a precursor chemical for pesticides, which just two years ago RFK Jr. said was a major contributor to ‘America’s chronic disease epidemic,’ and if elected he would ‘ban’ it. 

Citing national defense imperatives, Trump passed an executive order earlier this week to protect a precursor element used in the production of an herbicide known as glyphosate. Trump’s executive order described glyphosate-based herbicides as ‘a cornerstone’ of the United States’ agricultural productivity. 

The directive created a furor among proponents of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda. Just two years ago, in June 2024, when Kennedy was still running for president, he posted on X, formerly Twitter, that ‘glyphosate is one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic.’

‘The herbicide Glyphosate is one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic. Much more widely used here than in Europe. Shockingly, much of our exposure comes from its use as a desiccant on wheat, not as an herbicide. From there it goes straight into our bodies,’ RFK Jr. said in 2024 while running for president. ‘MY USDA will ban that practice.’

A MAHA Commission report released in May 2025 highlighted the concerns surrounding glyphosate as well. 

‘Some studies have raised concerns about possible links between some of these products and adverse health outcomes, especially in children, but human studies are limited,’ the report said. ‘For example, a selection of research studies on a herbicide (glyphosate) have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances.’

Trump’s executive order was immediately praised by agriculture industry leaders, but MAHA loyalists were sharply critical. 

‘This move betrays the very MAHA voters who put this administration in power,’ Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of American Regeneration and a leading grassroots voice within MAHA, said in a statement. ‘It stands in direct opposition to the President’s original promise to address the contribution of pesticides to chronic disease.’

‘The right is captured by Big Glyphosate,’ added Alex Clark, a podcast host affiliated with Turning Point USA, founded by the late-Charlie Kirk. 

‘It feels like MAHA is going through a breakup, or just found out our husband was having an affair,’ she told the Wall Street Journal.

When reached for comment, RFK Jr. said Trump’s directive on glyphosate ‘puts America first where it matters most,’ citing the nation’s defense readiness and food supply.

‘We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it,’ he said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.’

President Donald Trump slammed the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that ruled he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law, noting he will pursue ‘alternatives’ to tariffs under emergency law.

‘Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,’ Trump said during a White House press briefing Friday afternoon. ‘We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.’

The president also announced he is imposing a 10% ‘global tariff’ following the court’s decision.

‘Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,’ Trump said. ‘And we’re also initiating several section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.’

The high court blocked Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what amounts to a major test of executive branch authority. 

Trump called the ruling ‘deeply disappointing,’ saying he was ‘ashamed’ of certain members of the court.

‘I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,’ the president said. ‘In actuality, I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because… I wanted to be very well-behaved.

‘I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. I have very effectively utilized tariffs over the past year to make America great again,’ he said.

A source outside the Trump administration told Fox News that an aide came into the closed-door White House breakfast with governors earlier Friday and handed Trump a note about the Supreme Court ruling.

The source said Trump ‘called it a disgrace, and then he went on with the remarks.’

Some of the Supreme Court’s nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience when the president delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

‘The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no,’ Trump said during the news conference. ‘They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation… They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.’

In the opinion, the high court declared, ‘Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate… importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.’

Trump has made tariffs a key plank of his economic agenda since retaking the Oval Office last year, but his policies have not come without controversy.

Republican reaction to the ruling has been mixed.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., slammed the high court’s decision.

‘The Supreme Court just undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers. President Donald Trump was elected to fight unfair trade and stop the United States from being ripped off. I’m outraged by this decision; it’s clearly judicial overreach,’ Carter asserted in a post on X.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., welcomed the ruling.

‘In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism,’ Paul noted in a post on X.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., also hailed the decision.

‘The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics,’ Bacon wrote in a post on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Congress and the administration will determine the ‘best path forward’ in the coming weeks.

‘No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,’ Johnson wrote in an X post.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.