President Donald Trump appeared on the roof of the White House on Monday, indicating to the press that he was reviewing potential renovations for the presidential residence.

Trump specifically appeared above the West Wing and the press briefing room, with reporters crowded on the White House lawn to see him. There was also heavy security during the appearance due to the president’s exposure.

Trump spoke with several people while on the roof, though the White House has not identified them or said what they discussed.

The appearance comes just days after Trump announced that he and private donors will fund an estimated $200 million cost of a new ballroom at the White House.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday during a briefing that the construction is scheduled to begin in September and will be ‘completed long before the end of President Trump’s term.’

Trump similarly financed the installation of two 88-foot American flags flanking the White House earlier this year, each reportedly costing around $50,000.

‘The White House is currently unable to host major functions honoring world leaders in other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent approximately 100 yards away from the main building’s entrance,’ Leavitt said, adding the new ballroom will be ‘a much-needed and exquisite addition.’

She said the United States Secret Service will provide the necessary security enhancements and modifications during the construction.

The project is intended to provide a dedicated space for hosting official events, state dinners and large ceremonial gatherings.

The planned 90,000-square-foot addition will accommodate approximately 650 seated guests and will stay true to the classical design of the White House.

Fox Business’ Amanda Macias contributed to this report

President Donald Trump answered Tuesday whether he would try to campaign for the White House a fourth time around. 

During a phone interview on CNBC’s ‘Squawk Box,’ Trump was discussing Bureau of Labor Statistics job numbers that he argues were ‘rigged’ during the 2024 presidential election to inflate former President Joe Biden’s economic performance. While discussing gerrymandering, Trump said he ‘got the highest vote in the history of Texas’ – a claim CNBC anchorman Joe Kernen initially challenged but then admitted a network fact-check showed Trump did get the highest number of votes in Texas. 

‘I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, a record that they say won’t be beaten unless I run again,’ Trump said. 

CNBC anchorwoman Rebecca Quick interjected, ‘Are you going to run again? The Constitution…’

‘No, probably not,’ Trump responded. ‘Probably not.’ 

‘And you’re not going to, and you’re not going to fire Jay Powell,’ Kernen added, referencing tensions between Trump and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. 

Trump circled back to address Quick directly:  ‘I’d like to run,’ Trump told the anchorwoman. ‘I have the best poll numbers I’ve ever had. You know why. Because people love the tariffs, and they love the trade deals, and they love that countries – they love that foreign countries aren’t ripping us off. For years, they ripped us. A friend, and foe and a friend. And the friends were worse.’ 

The 22nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution says a person can be elected president only twice. If someone takes over as president – as a vice president would due to death or resignation – and serves more than two years in that term, the amendment states that person can only be elected president once more. It effectively sets a maximum of 10 years for any person to serve as commander-in-chief. 

George Washington set the tradition of stepping down as president after two terms, but the amendment came about in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms. Roosevelt served during the Great Depression and World War II. 

Trump earlier this year both teased and distanced himself from the idea of a third term, as some conservative circles have floated changing the 22nd amendment to allow an exception for nonconsecutive presidencies. 

Before Trump, the last and only other president to serve two nonconsecutive terms was Grover Cleveland in the late 1800s.

In May, Trump said he considered it a ‘compliment’ that ‘so many people’ wanted him to run in 2028 but said it was not something he was interested in pursuing. 

‘I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do,’ Trump told MSNBC’s Kristen Welker. ‘There are many people selling the 2028 hat, but this is not something I’m looking to do. I’m looking to having four great years, and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican. A great Republican to carry it forward. But I think we’re going to have four years, and four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular.’ 

Trump said he believed the MAGA movement could survive without him, floating Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as potential successors.

The Justice Department is weighing the release of the audio file and transcript of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s interview late last month with Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, senior administration officials told Fox News — the latest in a nearly month-long saga that has consumed the Trump administration and the attention of the public since early July. 

Blanche’s interviews with Ghislaine Maxwell took place over a two-day period in Florida, where she had been serving out a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking at the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, Florida. 

The questions took place at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Tallahassee.

Maxwell was transferred last week without explanation to a new, minimum-security women’s federal prison camp in Texas.

It is unclear how long the tape and transcripts from the interviews between Blanche and Maxwell are, but they do exist, Fox News has learned, and discussions are underway today involving whether — and when — to release them. 

Anything released by the Trump administration would almost certainly involve heavily redacting any identifying information of individuals named in the transcript in order to protect victims— something Attorney General Pam Bondi has stressed in public on multiple occasions.

The Justice Department declined to comment on additional specifics involving the interview or its release.

Still, the news comes as the Justice Department and FBI have struggled to quell the mounting public pressure on them to release more information related to the Epstein investigation— underscoring the story’s sticking power in a fast-moving news cycle, and among Trump supporters, who have been some of the leading voices in demanding the information be released.

This pressure reached a fever pitch on July 7, after the Justice Department said in an unsigned memo that it did not plan to release more information about the investigation. They also said there was no ‘client list,’ as had been suggested. 

In the face of mounting public protest, Tuesday’s news makes clear the degree to which the Trump administration appears to be rethinking that response to the fallout.

Trump, for his part, has called for the Justice Department to release ‘all credible’ evidence in the files. 

‘We’d like to release everything, but we don’t want people to get hurt that shouldn’t be hurt, and I would assume that was why he was there,’ he told Newsmax late last week.

Also on Tuesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer issued multiple subpoenas related to the Epstein investigation, including subpoenaing the Justice Department for production of the ‘complete’ Epstein files to the committee ‘by or before August 19,’ according to a letter.

The House Oversight Committee subcommittee panel also subpoenaed former government officials for depositions in the Epstein probe, including Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

The panel voted by unanimous voice vote in late July to subpoena the individuals, and held a separate vote on subpoenaing the Justice Departent. 

Fox News’s Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

The Netherlands will become the first European state to provide cash to purchase U.S.-made weapons for Ukraine, under a plan agreed to by President Donald Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte. 

Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans announced Monday his nation will contribute €500 million ($576 million) to a fund called the NATO Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative.

Brekelmans said the funding would go toward Patriot systems and missiles, a mobile surface-to-air interceptor. 

Developed in the 1980s and still considered one of the U.S.’s most advanced air defense systems, the Patriot can thwart attacks from aircraft, tactical ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

A new Patriot system and the missiles to go along with it could cost around $1.1 billion, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The newest version of the missile costs around $4 million a piece.

Last month during a White House meeting with Rutte, Trump promised Europe would spend ‘billions’ on U.S. weapons to arm Ukraine.

‘Billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment is going to be purchased from the United States, going to NATO… And that’s going to be quickly distributed to the battlefield,’ Trump said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked the Netherlands for the funding on X. 

‘Ukraine, and thus the whole of Europe, will be better protected from Russian terror,’ he wrote.

‘I am sincerely grateful to the Netherlands for their substantial contribution to strengthening Ukraine’s air shield,’ he added.

Rutte also thanked the Netherlands and encouraged other European NATO allies to follow suit.

‘This is about getting Ukraine the equipment it urgently needs now to defend itself against Russian aggression,’ he said in a statement.

‘I have written to all NATO Allies, urging them to contribute towards this burden-sharing initiative, and I expect further significant announcements from other Allies soon.’

The Netherlands has emerged as one of Ukraine’s top defense donors, committing close to €3 billion in military aid since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Dutch support has included tanks, F-16 training, and now, contributions toward strategic air defense platforms like the Patriot.

The new Trump-NATO agreement came after Republicans expressed frustration with the nearly $128 billion in aid the U.S. has offered to Ukraine, arguing Europe should take up the burden. At the same time, Trump has increasingly grown impatient with Russian President Vladimir Putin during peace negotiations. 

White House envoy Steve Witkoff is set to head to Moscow this week before the deadline Trump gave Putin for ending the war. The president has threatened to slap steep tariffs on Russia and any nations that do business with it if this week’s negotiations fail to produce a deal. 

As the world discusses the reality of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Fox News’ Bill Hemmer got a look inside a distribution site operated by the controversial U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

Fox News was the first outlet to witness a newly established distribution center operated mostly by former U.S. forces who coordinate with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Hemmer said that the sites are not without their problems or controversy, but that the Americans working with GHF are proud of what they have accomplished.

In terms of the status of Gaza, Hemmer said that Rafah was clearly decimated by the IDF. The southern Gazan city is where Israel believes Hamas had its headquarters and where the terror group held hostages taken nearly two years ago, on Oct. 7, 2023. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be considering a full occupation of Gaza. If Israel makes this move, it would be a complete reversal of its policy dating back to 2005 when it pulled out of the enclave. Hostages’ loved ones have expressed opposition to the plan out of fear that it would put those still held captive in even more danger.

Palestinians who spoke with Hemmer said they were hungry, and tired of the war and of Hamas.

Hemmer’s visit comes as the organization faces international condemnation and a call from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for its ‘immediate dismantling.’

‘Palestinians are paying the ultimate price of the international community’s legal, political and moral failure,’ a UNHRC statement read, citing the opinions of several U.N. experts. One such expert named in the statement is Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who has been repeatedly condemned by multiple governments, including the U.S., the U.K. and France, for making antisemitic statements.

Albanese and the other experts also say that GHF is ‘an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law.’

U.N. experts also claimed that Israeli forces and foreign military contractors indiscriminately fire at Palestinians seeking aid at GHF sites. However, GHF has consistently denied the use of force against civilians at its sites. On several occasions, the organization has sounded the alarm over threats emanating from Hamas against aid workers and seekers.

This aligns with a request GHF had for Fox News, which was to blur the faces of the Palestinians working with the organization out of fear of Hamas retribution.

GHF says it has distributed over ‘106 million meals efficiently and directly’ since May while pushing back on criticism and claims that its sites are dangerous. The organization insists that its goal is to feed Palestinians in need while bypassing Hamas, the terror group governing the war-torn enclave.

While Fox News was given an inside look at GHF, major questions remain. It is unclear how the organization is receiving funding and how much more they can expect in the future.

Recently, the U.N. released its monthly infographic on UN2720 Mechanism for Gaza. In June 2025, the U.N. reported that out of its 1,090 aid trucks, only 47 arrived at an ‘intended civilian destination inside Gaza.’ Meanwhile, the other 1,043 trucks were allegedly intercepted ‘either peacefully by hungry people or forcefully by armed actors’ in Gaza.

At the request of the U.N., Israel will let limited commercial goods enter the enclave, according to Fox News Chief Foreign Correspondent Trey Yingst. This strategy is apparently aimed at getting more goods into Gaza markets, allowing those in need of free aid to get to it first. 

Ex-White House deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed is sitting down with congressional investigators probing whether top Biden administration aides covered up signs of mental decline in the former president.

Reed arrived just before 10 a.m. on Tuesday, saying nothing to reporters on his way into the closed-door interview with staff on the House Oversight Committee.

The longtime Biden ally is the ninth former White House official to appear in the probe and the sixth to come in voluntarily — three others, ex-White House doctor Kevin O’Connor and former advisors Anthony Bernal and Annie Tomasini, were compelled via congressional subpoena.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., is investigating whether former President Joe Biden’s inner circle covered up signs of mental decline, and whether that means autopen signatures were used for executive decisions without Biden’s full awareness. Of particular interest to investigators are the myriad clemency orders signed toward the end of Biden’s presidency.

But the former president and his allies have pushed back on any allegations of impropriety. Biden himself told The New York Times last month that he was behind every decision made on pardons and commutations.

Reed, like many of those who appeared before him, has a relationship with Biden going back over a decade.

He was chief of staff to the vice president under the Obama administration from January 2011 until December 2013. Reed’s tenure in that role was bookended by Ron Klain and Steve Ricchetti, respectively — both of whom have already spoken to House investigators on voluntary terms.

It’s not likely, however, that Reed’s testimony will provide any sort of smoking gun for investigators.

The Biden allies who have appeared voluntarily so far have all asserted they believed the ex-president was fully capable of being commander-in-chief, though some, like Klain, have conceded his memory got duller over time.

Others, like Ricchetti and ex-senior advisor Mike Donilon, suggested they believed Biden remained as sharp as ever and would have been for another four years, sources said previously.

In contrast, those who appeared under subpoena all pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering any substantive questions.

Reed was reportedly among the former aides dubbed as part of Biden’s ‘Politburo’ calling shots at the White House toward the end of his term, according to Axios reporter Alex Thompson and CNN host Jake Tapper, who wrote, ‘Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.’

No lawmakers are expected to sit in for Reed’s transcribed interview; it’s common for such sit-downs to be staff-led by lawyers for both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

It could go on for several hours, however. All the five transcribed interviews before Reed’s took at least four hours. Ricchetti’s notably went roughly eight hours.

The House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for testimony regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News Digital has learned.

Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., sent a flurry of subpoenas related to Epstein on Tuesday morning, with the Clintons being just two of the people that House investigators are looking to hear from.

Comer also sent a subpoena to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for records related to Epstein’s case.

Others who are being compelled to appear are former FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, as well as ex-Attorneys General Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales.

A House Oversight Committee subcommittee panel voted to subpoena each of the individuals, as well as the DOJ, in two respective votes last month during an unrelated hearing.

It comes after Comer followed through on an earlier full committee vote to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, a close former Epstein associate who was sentenced to 20 years in prison ‘for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple minor girls with Jeffrey Epstein over the course of a decade,’ according to a press release by the Southern District of New York.

Comer has agreed to delay Maxwell’s deposition until after the Supreme Court heard her petition to overturn the conviction, however.

The committee is giving the DOJ until Aug. 19 to turn in records related to Epstein’s case, Fox News Digital has learned. A DOJ spokesperson confirmed receipt of the subpoena but declined to comment further.

Hillary Clinton is being compelled to appear on Oct. 9, and Bill Clinton on Oct. 14, according to letters sent to both of them, respectively.

Barr and Sessions, who both served as attorneys general during Trump’s first term, were subpoenaed to appear Aug. 18 and Aug. 28, respectively.

Obama-era attorneys general Lynch and Holder are being compelled to appear on Sept. 19 and Sept. 30.

Former Biden attorney general Garland’s deposition date is scheduled for Oct. 2, Mueller is scheduled for Sept. 2, and Comey is scheduled for Oct. 7.

Gonzales, who served as attorney general under former President George W. Bush, is being compelled to appear Aug. 26.

It’s not immediately clear how much information the subpoenas will yield, or if those subpoenaed will cooperate with the House Oversight Committee at all.

The late pedophile Epstein committed suicide in 2019 while awaiting prosecution on federal sex trafficking charges. The GOP base has fractured over the current administration’s handling of the case, however.

The divisions stem from a DOJ memo released in July that said, ‘This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.’

Far-right figures like Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer have accused the DOJ of mishandling something that’s long been seen as a priority for Trump’s base.

President Donald Trump has stood by Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, and has directed her to release any ‘credible’ evidence related to Epstein in a bid to quell the infighting.

Bondi then had deputy attorney general Todd Blanche travel down to the Florida prison where Maxwell was kept until recently for a sit-down with her and her lawyer.

The DOJ has also pushed for the release of grand jury testimony related to Epstein and Maxwell’s cases.

Democrats, meanwhile, have seized on the discord with their own newfound calls for transparency related to Epstein’s case – prompting accusations of hypocrisy from the right.

‘Democrats have now seized on this as if they ever wanted transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, which is an asinine suggestion for any Democrat to make. The Democrats had control of this building, the White House, for four years, and they didn’t do a dang thing when it came to transparency in regards to Jeffrey Epstein and his heinous crimes,’ White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said last month.

‘It was this president who directed the Department of Justice and the attorney general to do an exhaustive review of all files related to Jeffrey Epstein, which they did.’

Put yourself in Hillary Clinton’s shoes. No, really. I know it’s an abhorrent thought, but imagine being Hillary, having initiated the greatest political dirty trick of all time, watching Russiagate unspool over the past decade. Think of her witnessing the country go down the granddaddy of all rabbit holes in 2017 – a rabbit hole she personally helped dig — looking for proof of Russian collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin that she knew didn’t exist. 

What was she thinking as the country hired a special prosecutor and spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to pursue leads that she and her campaign team had fabricated out of thin air? Was she ever remorseful? Was there ever a moment when she wanted to reel in the whole sorry deception and tell the country that she was sorry, and that she had lied?

No, there was not. Hillary Clinton even wrote a book called ‘What Happened?’ in which she blamed Putin, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and former CIA Director James Comey for her shocking loss to Donald Trump, a non-politician whom she mocked and derided. To this day, she sticks to her self-serving fable, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was out to get her and, but for his interference, she would surely have become the country’s first female president.

The reality is that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, disliked and distrusted by most Americans. Polling from CNN that came out about the time of the 2016 Democrat Convention gives a taste of what voters thought of Clinton.  The Washington Post reported, ’68 percent say Clinton isn’t honest and trustworthy… her worst number on-record….  The 30 percent who see Clinton as honest and trustworthy is now well shy of the number who say the same of Trump: 43 percent.’ 

The public was right not to trust Clinton; the more we learn about Russiagate, and her role in it, the more apparent that is. 

Any normal person would conclude that Clinton, whose approval rating CNN pegged at a dismal 31% in July 2016, was not a shoo-in come the November election. Barack Obama had been president for eight years and the country had become less Democrat-leaning during his term; only 31% of the nation identified as Democrat in 2016, while 36% had described themselves as true blue in 2008, when he was first elected. 

Though expressing confidence that she would win, maybe Hillary knew she had to pull out all stops to beat Donald Trump. Perhaps that’s why she signed off on two dirty tricks that led to the despicable undermining of Donald Trump’s presidency. 

First, her former campaign manager Robby Mook testified in court that she personally approved her campaign’s scheme in October 2016 to tell a Slate magazine reporter about an unverified server backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa bank in Moscow. This supposed connection formed the first step in trying to convince the public that Donald Trump was a tool of Vladimir Putin. The purported link never existed, but it was widely publicized by Hillary’s supporters and the legacy media (I repeat myself), creating suspicion in the public’s mind. 

After the Slate story emerged, weeks before the election, Hillary put out a tweet claiming ‘Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank,’ followed up by a news release in which she said, ‘This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.’ 

The FBI subsequently concluded no ‘hotline,’ indeed no link, ever existed. Interestingly, another apparatchik pushing the Trump-Alfa bank lie was Jake Sullivan, later presumably rewarded by President Joe Biden appointing the unknown politico to be National Security Adviser. 

Of course, the bigger and more destructive Russia collusion lie that Hillary helped originate came from the salacious allegations contained in the Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign, which led to the longtime investigation into Russian interference and the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. This is a fact, verified by the fact that the Federal Election Commission under Biden penalized the campaign and the DNC for lying about having funded that opposition research. 

The story, however, goes on. New revelations have revived accusations that Hillary Clinton, as well as Barack Obama, James Comey, John Brennan and others manipulated intelligence and facts to feed the public even more lies about Donald Trump’s supposed ties to Russia. 

Amazingly, the New York Times has again leapt into the breach to protect Clinton, perhaps concerned they might lose their 2018 Pulitzer earned for helping promote a fake news story. They reference, ‘An annex to a report by the special counsel John H. Durham’ but claim the disclosures are an effort by ‘the Trump team [seeking] to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein files.’ They write that GOP allegations that ‘Mrs. Clinton had approved a campaign proposal to tie Mr. Trump to Russia to distract from the scandal over her use of a private email server’ is not valid because…the damning emails contained in the annex are likely fabrications from Russian spies. Sure. 

Will we ever know the complete truth about the plot hatched to discredit the Trump presidency? Probably not, and it is probably also true that key players like Hillary Clinton will never be held accountable.

But, as Hillary watches the ongoing revelations coming from the Trump White House, we can also imagine that she is getting her comeuppance. Her treachery and deceit -– knowing how badly she has abused the public’s trust — has surely shriveled her soul, leaving her bitter and defeated. 

People now see her as a corrupt schemer, someone who knew she could not win an election on her merits and so resorted to lies and fabrications that hurt the country. 

We also now see her as someone who didn’t just attack President Trump, but also the 61 million Americans who voted for him in 2016.

Attorney General Pam Bondi directed her staff Monday to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has learned.

Bondi ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings, and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury to secure a potential indictment, according to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News Digital and a source familiar with the investigation.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the report of an investigation but said Bondi is taking the referrals from Gabbard ‘very seriously.’ The spokesperson said Bondi believed there is ‘clear cause for deep concern’ and a need for the next steps.

The DOJ confirmed two weeks ago it received a criminal referral from Gabbard. The referral included a memorandum titled ‘Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing ‘Russian and criminal actors did not impact’ the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure’ and asked that the DOJ open an investigation.

No charges have been brought at this stage against any defendants. A grand jury investigation is needed to secure an indictment against any potential suspects.

The revelation that the DOJ is moving forward with a grand jury probe comes after Gabbard declassified intelligence in July that shed new light on the Obama administration’s allege determination that Russia sought to help Trump in the 2016 election.

Former President Barack Obama and his intelligence officials allegedly promoted a ‘contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t,’ Gabbard said during a press briefing of the intelligence.

Among the declassified material was a meeting record revealing how Obama allegedly requested his deputies prepare an intelligence assessment in December 2016, after Trump had won the election, that detailed the ‘tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.’ 

That intelligence assessment stressed that Russia’s actions did not affect the outcome of the election but rather were intended to sow distrust in the democratic process.

It is unclear who is under investigation and what charges could be in play given statutes of limitations for much of the activity from nearly a decade ago have lapsed.

Former Obama intelligence officials, including John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey have drawn scrutiny from Trump officials for their involvement in developing intelligence that undermined Trump’s 2016 victory.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

A federal court fight over President Donald Trump’s authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court for review, legal experts told Fox News Digital, in a case that has already proved to be a pivotal test of executive branch authority.

At issue in the case is Trump’s ability to use a 1977 emergency law to unilaterally slap steep import duties on a long list of countries doing business with the U.S.

In interviews with Fox News Digital, longtime trade lawyers and lawyers who argued on behalf of plaintiffs in court last week said they expect the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a matter of ‘weeks,’ or sometime in August or September – in line with the court’s agreement to hear the case on an ‘expedited’ basis.

The fast-track timeline reflects the important question before the court: whether Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he launched his sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.

Importantly, that timing would still allow the Supreme Court to add the case to their docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins in early October. That could allow them to rule on the matter as early as the end of the year. 

Both Trump administration officials and lawyers for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if the lower court does not rule in their favor. And given the questions at the heart of the case, it is widely expected that the high court will take up the case for review.

In the meantime, the impact of Trump’s tariffs remains to be seen. 

Legal experts and trade analysts alike said last week’s hearing is unlikely to forestall the broader market uncertainty created by Trump’s tariffs, which remain in force after the appeals court agreed to stay a lower court decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade. 

Judges on the three-judge CIT panel in May blocked Trump’s use of IEEPA to stand up his tariffs, ruling unanimously that he did not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under that law. 

Thursday’s argument gave little indication as to how the appeals court would rule, plaintiffs and longtime trade attorneys told Fox News Digital, citing the tough questions that the 11 judges on the panel posed for both parties.

Dan Pickard, an attorney specializing in international trade and national security issues at the firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said the oral arguments Thursday did not seem indicative of how the 11-judge panel might rule.

‘I don’t know if I walked out of that hearing thinking that either the government is going to prevail, or that this is dead on arrival,’ Pickard told Fox News Digital. ‘I think it was more mixed.’

Lawyers for the plaintiffs echoed that assessment – a reflection of the 11 judges on the appeals bench, who had fewer chances to speak up or question the government or plaintiffs during the 45 minutes each had to present their case. 

‘I want to be very clear that I’m not in any way, shape or form, predicting what the Federal Circuit will do – I leave that for them,’ one lawyer for the plaintiffs told reporters after court, adding that the judges, in his view, posed ‘really tough questions’ for both parties.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who helped represent the 12 states suing over the plan, told Fox News Digital they are ‘optimistic’ that, based on the oral arguments, they would see at least a partial win in the case, though he also stressed the ruling and the time frame is fraught with uncertainty.

In the interim, the White House forged ahead with enacting Trump’s tariffs as planned.

Pickard, who has argued many cases before the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, noted that the oral arguments are not necessarily the best barometer for gauging the court’s next steps – something lawyers for the plaintiffs also stressed after the hearing.

Even if the high court blocks the Trump administration from using IEEPA, they have a range of other trade tools at their disposal, trade lawyers told Fox News. 

The Trump administration ‘has had more of a focus on trade issues than pretty much any other administration in my professional life,’ Pickard said. 

‘And let’s assume, even for the sake of the argument, just hypothetically, that the Supreme Court says this use of IEEPA exceeded your statutory authority. The Trump administration is not going to say, like, ‘All right, well, we’re done. I guess we’re just going to abandon any trade policy.’

‘There are going to be additional [trade] tools that had been in the toolbox for long that can be taken out and dusted off,’ he said. ‘There are plenty of other legal authorities for the president. 

‘I don’t think we’re seeing an end to these issues anytime soon – this is going to continue to be battled out in the courts for a while.’

Both Pickard and Rayfield told Fox News Digital in separate interviews that they expect the appeals court to rule within weeks, not days. 

The hearing came after Trump on April 2 announced a 10% baseline tariff on all countries, along with higher, reciprocal tariffs targeting select nations, including China. The measures, he said, were aimed at addressing trade imbalances, reducing deficits with key trading partners, and boosting domestic manufacturing and production.

Ahead of last week’s oral arguments, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said lawyers for the administration would continue to defend the president’s trade agenda in court.

Justice Department attorneys ‘are going to court to defend [Trump’s] tariffs,’ she said, describing them as ‘transforming the global economy, protecting our national security and addressing the consequences of our exploding trade deficit.’

‘We will continue to defend the president,’ she vowed.