FIRST ON FOX: House Democrats are opening an investigation into President Donald Trump and his administration’s acceptance of a $400 million private jet from the Qatari government.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, led his fellow Democrats on the panel in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington on Thursday.

They’re specifically asking Bondi to hand over a reported legal memo she wrote that is meant to assert the legality of Trump accepting the plane on behalf of the U.S.

“Any legal memo purporting to make such a claim would obviously fly in the face of the text of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which explicitly prohibits the President from accepting any ‘present [or] Emolument… of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State’ unless he has ‘the Consent of Congress,'” the letter reads.

MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE

“Accordingly, we are writing to request that you provide the Committee on the Judiciary with these memos immediately as their analysis and conclusions are apparently the basis for the President’s decision to disregard the plain text of the Constitution.”

Raskin and the other Judiciary Committee Democrats went so far as to accuse Trump or people in his orbit of soliciting a bribe from Qatar.

“President Trump’s statements expressing displeasure with delays in the delivery of his new Boeing aircraft to serve as Air Force One and the timing of this ‘gift’ suggest that President Trump or a member of his Administration may have improperly solicited this ‘nice gesture’ from the Qatari government,” the Democrats said, citing Trump’s own comments.

“The fact that, according to President Trump, the plane would not remain in service to the United States but would rather be donated to his presidential library after his term concludes further raises the possibility that this ‘nice gesture’ is intended as a bribe to Donald Trump.”

Multiple outlets reported that Bondi and Warrington drafted a legal memo that said it was “legally permissible” for Trump to accept the plane and then have it transferred to his presidential library when he leaves office.

A source familiar with the discussions told Fox News Digital the memo was drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel and signed by Bondi.

But Democrats suggested the memo was likely not sufficient grounds for Trump to bypass Congress on the issue, and pointed out Bondi herself had previously lobbied on Qatar’s behalf.

BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT’S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY

“The Constitution is clear: Congress — not the Attorney General or the White House Counsel — has the exclusive authority to approve or reject a gift ‘of any kind whatever’ given to the President by a foreign government,” the letter said.

“We would also note that, even if the Attorney General had a constitutional role to play here, Attorney General Bondi has a significant and obvious conflict of interest given her prior registration as an official agent of the Qatari government and earned no less than $115,000 per month lobbying on its behalf.”

When reached for comment on the matter, a source close to Bondi said only that the letter was received by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In addition to looking for the memo itself, the Democratic letter also asked for any communications and other records regarding the Boeing plane’s transfer, and discussions of the gift’s legal justifications.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have little power to compel Trump administration officials to comply, given their status as the minority party in the chamber.

But Raskin has been scrutinizing Trump and his inner circle over family foreign ties since the former president’s first term.

The latest letter comes during Trump’s diplomatic visit to the Middle East, where Qatar was one of his stops.

Trump has defended his acceptance of the plane on multiple occasions, arguing he would be a “stupid person” to not take it, while bashing Democrats for their criticism.

“So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane. Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week.

Senate Republicans said they knew little when asked by Fox News Digital earlier this week.

Meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., skirted the issue during his most recent weekly press conference.

“I’m not following all the twists and turns of the charter jet. My understanding is it’s not a personal gift for the president of the United States, and other nations give us gifts all the time, but, I’m going to leave it to the administration. They know much more about the details,” Johnson told reporters.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Foreign Affairs

It’s Time for America to Walk Away Completely From Ukraine–Russia

Each side is still convinced it can get more than is on offer.

Credit: Alexander Lukatskiy

President Donald Trump, along with much of his administration, is clearly frustrated with the slow pace of peace talks to end the Russo–Ukrainian War. Trump has, at various times, castigated both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky for refusing to truly seek peace. Trump’s frustration has been matched by Vice President J.D. Vance, who has personally argued with Zelenskyy and recently said that Russia was “asking for too much.” Likewise, Secretary of State Marco Rubio spearheaded the idea that the Trump administration could walk away from mediating between the two sides.

But since that time, Trump has sought to organize a meeting between Zelensky and Putin in Istanbul, and has even floated going there himself to oversee the talks, in a last-ditch effort to secure peace between two sides the administration seems to believe do not want it.

The Trump administration’s desire for peace is understandable—but so is their belief that both sides are not seeking it. While some of the Russian government’s demands, such as the recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, are reasonable, others are complete non-starters. Among these is the amorphous “denazification” of Ukraine, which seems akin to demanding some sort of constitutional regime change in Kiev, something the United States likely would not sanction and which would not be accepted by Ukraine’s population. Likewise, Putin’s actions—such as bombing definitively civilian areas and, as Trump has discussed in private, killing children—do not indicate he is interested in finding peace.

Unfortunately, this should not be a surprise. Russia is winning the war. Some voices in the West have tried to argue otherwise, or at least have tried to portray the war as a stalemate. While this was once true, it is no longer: Russia is slowly, but consistently, taking more land in Ukraine, inch by inch. Short of a miracle for the Ukrainian armed forces, there is no feasible way that most of the occupied territories, particularly the Donbas and Crimea, will ever leave Russia’s control.

This, among other facts, is something the Ukrainian side has stubbornly refused to accept, which has also caused annoyance with Kiev in the Trump administration. Claiming that all of Ukraine’s land would be reconquered was once an understandable attempt at raising morale, but it has now become an albatross for peace talks. Crimea and the majority of the Donbas have been fully integrated into the Russian Federation. But Zelensky’s peace plans have completely ignored this reality. His 10-point “peace formula,” which he marketed for years, included the restoration of all of Ukraine’s conquered territories and Russia agreeing to be held accountable by international courts—two utter impossibilities.

Zelensky’s newest plan, from earlier this year, was a response to the Trump administration’s aforementioned framework. While it dropped demands to get back all of Ukraine’s territory—though without accepting Russian control—it once again included an American-backed security guarantee. This was particularly galling, as practically every major foreign policy official in the Trump administration, including Trump himself, had repeatedly shut down the possibility of an American-backed security guarantee.

Part of the Ukrainian government’s intransigence comes from political necessity. Zelensky has put himself in an impossible situation: Accepting the loss of about 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory would effectively end his political career and, after years of promising total victory, could engender some sort of revolution in the capital. It will almost certainly create a stab-in-the-back narrative dominating the years to come, which could induce further political chaos in the country. Nor is Europe in a position to come to Ukraine’s aid if demanded by a security guarantee. The most Ukraine will get is the recently signed minerals deal, which Zelensky, correctly, has deemed not to be a true security guarantee. Yet Trump is not responsible for Zelensky having put himself in such a difficult political position, and is certainly not responsible for his political future in Kiev.

Zelensky did heed Trump’s demand to meet with Putin in Turkey, although Putin did not. But even if Putin had, it is unlikely either side would have agreed to an end. Neither has reason to do so: Ukraine is not losing at a fast enough pace to jolt the Ukrainian establishment into seeking peace, and Russia is not winning at a slow enough pace to make them desire a quick end to the war. If Ukraine squints, they can still see a way to get back more land. If Russia squints, they can still see a way to burst through Ukraine’s defenses. Until one (or both) sides can no longer see such eventualities, neither will truly want peace.

And while this moment most probably will eventually come, there is no way of knowing how or when; it could take months or years. And already, the war has been a huge distraction, eating up much of the energy and momentum of the first few months of the administration. This is likely what caused Rubio to make his initial threat of walking away.

But the administration has yet to follow through on that threat, as the minerals deal signing and the constant updates about the pace of peace negotiations demonstrates. Peace may seem tantalizingly close, which could be a reason why the administration, though it has threatened to swear off playing a mediating role, is still keeping its foot half in the negotiating room. But it is abundantly clear that neither side is interested in truly ending the war. As a result, it’s time to walk away entirely so long as Russia and Ukraine remain unable to compromise and articulate a mutually acceptable vision for a settlement.

The post It’s Time for America to Walk Away Completely From Ukraine–Russia appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics

Are Neocons Losing ‘Antisemite’ As a Blanket Smear?

War hawks have long insisted that those who question American foreign policy have bigoted reasons. That may have come to an end.

Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

The conservative radio legend Mark Levin recently insinuated that President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, might be anti-Semitic.

Witkoff is Jewish.

Describing the “neocon element” in an interview with Breitbart, Witkoff said, “In their minds, anything that is of a military nature to be a solution to that problem, they have a bias towards that. They give no consideration whatsoever on what the consequences are on that.”

Witkoff then added, “The neocon element believes that war is the only way to solve things.”

Levin, who is also Jewish and a longtime advocate of neoconservative foreign policy, said of Witkoff’s remarks, “lol. The envoy talks like the fifth column isolationists. Nobody believes war is the only way. We wait with great interest to see the deal you’re negotiating with the warmonger Iranian terrorist regime.”

Levin would then add in a repost of Witkoff’s remarks, “By the way, neocon is a pejorative for Jew. Unbelievable.”

The Community Notes feature of X rightly gave Levin’s accusation proper context, “Neocon,’ short for ‘Neo-conservative,’ is a term for a political philosophy focused on active foreign policy to spread liberal democracy. While many Neocons have been Jewish, nowhere near all have been.”

Calling someone, particularly someone who is Jewish, an antisemite because they prefer diplomacy to war is little different than Democrats who call Donald Trump a “white supremacist” based on, well, nothing really at all.

The point is that “white supremacists” are bad, and therefore Trump is bad. For so many on the left, no further logic or reasoning is required.

In this century and the last, neoconservatives have often accused anyone who opposed their hawkish agenda of being antisemitic. Whether or not these realist or restrainer figures were actually malicious towards Jews was always beside the point. The point is antisemites are bad, therefore anyone who opposes the neocons’ wars are bad.

There are genuine antisemites who are also antiwar, just as there are genuine white supremacists who support Trump. But just conflating all of this to use as a junky verbal battering ram is not only untrue but dishonest.

If this sounds dumb or simplistic, that’s because it is. But this was characteristic of the overall pre-Trump conservative environment that Levin came of age in and that shaped him, with the Bush-Cheney administration at the apex of the era.

Putting Witkoff’s own Jewishness aside, there is literally nothing in what he said that could fairly qualify as antisemitism. Levin was simply using the same old smear tactic borrowed from the left that neoconservatives have long relied on, often successfully.

But even a conservative voice as powerful as Levin has not made a dent on Witkoff or Trump’s larger MAGA movement. Witkoff is respected on the right and if he has something to say about the “neocon element” and the problems they cause, conservatives are going to listen.

Which is probably part of what drives Levin mad. This would not necessarily have been the case even a decade ago. Neoconservatives have long seen themselves as gatekeepers. The neocon David Frum would write after Rand Paul won his first Republican Senate primary, “Is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul?”

That was in 2010. Trump has just begun his second term. Has the American right entered a new era?

Tucker Carlson wondered the same in a recent interview with libertarian activist and comedian Dave Smith.

“If Mark Levin is calling the Trump administration antisemitic, Steve Witkoff, we’re at the end of something and the beginning of something new,” Carlson observed.

He continued, “I almost called Mark when I saw it because I really, I know him, but I really love Steve Witkoff and I think his decency. I don’t agree with him and everything at all, but his decency is just palpable. I mean, it just comes through his concern for people. His reasonableness is just so obvious. And the effects of what he’s done have been so great. Great for America, great for the world.”

“So I almost. I was so offended,” Carlson said, giving Levin the benefit of the doubt. “And then I thought, I’m not going to solve anything by calling Mark Levin and scolding him. Probably scream at me, but. But I did think, like, he’s not stupid.”

He continued, “If you’re calling Steve Witkoff an antisemite on Twitter, like, you know, you’re losing. Right? Is that what that is?”

Dave Smith did not disagree.

Carlson would add, “So you have Mark Levin calling Steve Witkoff an anti-Semite. We’ve reached peak crazy, I mean, I think Witkoff is Jewish, right?” 

“Peak crazy” is one way to put it.

But for Levin or any other neoconservative who still stubbornly insists on equating the use of the term “neocon” with antisemitism, it got worse for them on Tuesday.

Donald Trump said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, “The so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

The president continued, “The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation builders,’ neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Baghdad, so many other cities.”

Dave Smith could not contain himself.

“The other day Mark Levin responded to Steve Witkoff by saying ‘neocon is a pejorative for Jew’ essentially calling him an antisemite,” Smith posted on X. “Today, Donald Trump blasted neocons in his speech in Saudi Arabia. So, is Trump a woke right antisemite too?”

“I bet these cowards won’t dare,” he added.

For decades, the same people who helped craft and promote some of the worst foreign policy mistakes in American history, who still assume no responsibility and have faced zero accountability for their mistakes, and who, at one time, wore the badge of neoconservatism as an honor, decided that now that their term is so sullied, anyone who uses it must be a bigot. 

“Isolationists” is another barb they have loved. “Unpatriotic conservatives” was another they invented. Straight up calling war critics “traitors” has happened. Yet blanket and usually baseless accusations of antisemitism against anyone who questions U.S. foreign policy has long been the favorite weapon of neoconservatives, and perhaps most effective.

But is this over? Antiwar sentiment now flourishes on the right. Did the president just declare war on the neocons? Is what Trump said something we can discuss openly, now?

Mark Levin, is Donald Trump “antisemitic”?

The post Are Neocons Losing ‘Antisemite’ As a Blanket Smear? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

Elbridge Colby is Right: Europe Should Focus on Europe

The Trump administration wants European capitals to stop trying to deter China and focus on their own continent.

The Pentagon is pushing the British military to focus more of its attention and resources in the Euro-Atlantic, not in East Asia, the Financial Times reported recently. The policy’s purported architect is U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, who has been a strong supporter of America’s European allies increasing their military spending and doing more for their own defense, especially in light of the Ukraine War and increased concern regarding Russian aggression.

This policy marks a sharp break from the Biden administration, which sought to link America’s Indo-Pacific and NATO allies under the presumption that an enhanced European military presence in Asia would help counter Chinese belligerence in the region. Reacting to the FT’s reporting, Ely Ratner, the Biden administration’s top Pentagon official for the Indo-Pacific region, suggested that Europe staying actively engaged in Asia would be “good for deterrence and good for Taiwan’s defense and resilience” and is “something to be encouraged.” 

But Colby is correct in both his analysis of the situation and the prescriptions recommended. On the whole, America’s allies in Europe currently do not have the resources necessary to undertake meaningful deployments outside of their principal theater. Furthermore, when they do undertake such operations, they are not contributing to regional deterrence in any significant manner and, instead, are exacerbating an already tenuous regional equilibrium. 

Since President Barack Obama declared a pivot to Asia in the early 2010s, Europeans have been fearful that increased U.S. engagement in East Asia would be at their expense, given their underinvestment in defense and overreliance on America’s strategic leadership. By attempting to step up their own engagement in the Indo-Pacific and increase confrontational rhetoric and trade policies toward China, the Europeans are seeking to ensure continued U.S. support by demonstrating that they can help the U.S. counter its “pacing threat.”

This European motivation to enhance military engagement in Asia has aligned with a growing sense of urgency among U.S. regional allies to counter and deter China’s aggressive maritime behavior—notably Japan and the Philippines, who have been facing tense maritime disputes with China. This was demonstrated clearly at last month’s meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Condemning China’s “destabilizing activities” across Indo-Pacific waters, the two leaders vowed to elevate regional security cooperation, including joint military maneuvers. Similarly, the Philippines has also sought to expand maritime security cooperation with European actors, reaching an agreement in August 2024 with Germany to conduct joint training.  

As a result of these trends, throughout the Biden administration European states dramatically increased their military engagement in the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate their commitment to international law, freedom of navigation, and the so-called “rules-based international order.” In 2021, the UK sent a warship through the Taiwan Strait for the first time in over a decade, citing “enduring security interests” in the region. In 2024, two German ships sailed through the Strait for the first time in over two decades. That same year, the French conducted their own such journey after the Dutch and U.S. navies conducted joint operations in the South China Sea. 

European leaders should rethink such activities. The supposition that expanding joint military cooperation and activities between Europe and Asia would strengthen the rules-based international order and collective deterrence against China reflects misguided assumptions about deterrence and a counterproductive approach to ensuring established rules and norms prevail. 

Deterrence requires the combination of sufficient military capabilities and political will. While the optics of more European vessels conducting joint maneuvers in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait alongside the U.S. and Asian partners may appear to improve deterrence against China, the reality is that at present Europeans hardly have the necessary resources to manage the Russian threat on their own, let alone to viably contribute to deterrence against China, a global superpower, in a far-flung, largely maritime-based theater. Moreover, if European states were not willing to intervene militarily on their own continent in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is presumable that those same states would be even more reluctant to intervene in a potential military conflict in faraway Asia.

Therefore, the symbolic presence of European vessels in Asian waters would actually do little, if anything, to help deter Chinese aggression. Such actions could arguably increase peacetime tensions and instability in Asia by creating more pretexts for China’s escalatory maritime activities. For instance, in June 2024, a Dutch naval patrol in the East China Sea was confronted by Chinese fighter jets, leading to a diplomatic spat between Beijing and Amsterdam. Thus far, China has shown no signs of moderating its assertive maritime posture in regional seas, despite significantly elevated naval cooperation between the U.S. and its Asia-Pacific allies in recent years. The involvement of European navies, most of which possess limited power projection capabilities, is unlikely to change this dynamic.

Ultimately, the policy of interlinking the European and Asian security theaters is illogical and counterproductive. The reality is that neither NATO states nor U.S. Asian allies have the luxury of investing their capabilities and resources into the others’ military theater. Nor would doing so help strengthen regional deterrence. 

As we wrote last year, Washington’s allies in Europe and Asia should prioritize conflict resolution and deterrence in their respective regions without needlessly interlinking the two. Given the increased concern across Europe about Russia’s military intentions, it would be far more helpful to the United States and the Europeans themselves if they put their resources where their mouth is and undertake the serious investments and reforms necessary for Europe to stand on its own two feet. This would eventually help allow the United States to commit the resources it requires for preserving deterrence in Asia. European military reforms and investment will also ensure that NATO’s European member states are valuable allies and can contribute to the collective defense. This is exactly what Vice President J.D. Vance spoke about in April when he said, “It’s not in Europe’s interest, and it’s not in America’s interest, for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States.”

The Europeans, with sustained American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support, are capable of ensuring their security while continuing to invest in their own defense industrial base and integrated force development. But this will require that European states maintain their focus on the Euro-Atlantic region and entrust their American ally and Asian partners with ensuring security in the Pacific.

The post Elbridge Colby is Right: Europe Should Focus on Europe appeared first on The American Conservative.

“I hope they have makeup wipes in prison.”

That’s how Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., responded to the arrest of Samuel Theodore Cain, a trans-identifying activist who goes by “Roxie Wolfe” online, after he was charged with allegedly making repeated death threats against the congresswoman. 

Cain, 19, was taken into custody by the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) after months of alleged threats, making him the first known trans activist in the country to be arrested for threatening a sitting member of Congress.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Mace didn’t hold back.

EXCLUSIVE: NANCY MACE TARGETED BY PENNSYLVANIA MAN ARRESTED FOR THREATENING TRUMP

“I’ve waited for this for a long time,” she said. “Trans activists have been threatening to kill me every day for over six months, ever since I started filing bills to protect women’s spaces.”

Mace said her top priority has always been protecting her family, her staff and herself from the kind of politically motivated violence she believes is getting worse and is also ignored by the left.

“We live in fear every day, looking over our shoulders because these trans activists fuel violence,” she said. “And yet not one Democrat has spoken up to say it’s wrong.”

Cain allegedly posted violent messages online threatening to kill Mace and her children, describing graphic ways he would harm her. According to Mace, these threats were shared with law enforcement and the public for months.

Investigative journalist Andy Ngo reported Cain had a history of allegedly posting threats and expressing support for far-left causes. 

REP. NANCY MACE’S ALLEGED ATTACKER PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO INCIDENT ON CAPITOL GROUNDS

In one post, Cain allegedly wrote, “I’M GOING TO ASSASSINATE REPRESENTATIVE NANCY MACE WITH A GUN AND I’M BEING 100% DEAD ASS.”

Ngo’s investigation revealed that Cain’s social media accounts were filled with posts about trans-related topics and support for Democrats. After being contacted by the FBI about his posts, Cain allegedly admitted to making the threat but claimed he “didn’t mean it.”

“We’ve posted the voicemails,” Mace said. “We’ve shared the text messages. They talked about smashing my head into a bathroom floor or shooting me.

“This is who these people are. And still, not a single Democrat has stood up and said, ‘This is unacceptable.’”

Mace said the silence speaks volumes.

“When the left shows you who they are, believe them,” she said. “They are normalizing political violence, and they’re doing it by refusing to condemn it.”

Mace, who has introduced legislation to protect women’s bathrooms and spaces, said this arrest only proves why her efforts matter.

“This matters more than ever,” she said. “We have to protect women. Real men protect women. Real men don’t threaten them. But we can’t do this alone. We need more people to speak out.”

She said real change will only happen when people stop being afraid and start holding dangerous behavior accountable.

“This arrest happened because someone had the courage to act,” she said. “That was Capitol Police. That was SLED. I demanded it too, but they finally said, ‘Not one more.’ That’s what we need — courage, not silence.”

Cain allegedly made many of his threats publicly on social media. Mace said that’s a major problem and called for changes to Section 230, the law that shields tech platforms from liability. According to the DOJ, 230 “provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.”

“You can’t even sue blogs when people post threats or lies,” she said. “There’s no accountability. That has to change. People are being targeted, and these platforms are letting it happen.”

Some on the left have accused Mace of “punching down” for calling attention to her would-be attacker. Mace had a sharp response.

“Only Democrats blame the victim,” she said. “They don’t want to protect women. We’ve seen it in sports, bathrooms, locker rooms and now in politics. They always look the other way.

“There’s a total double standard. Not one Democrat colleague of mine has spoken out since the arrest. Not one.”

Asked what she would say to other lawmakers, especially women, who are scared to speak out on gender and safety issues, Mace was clear.

“Violence against women should always be taken seriously,” she said. “We should believe women. We should protect them. And we should prosecute the people who want to hurt them.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“If you care about women, prove it. Stand up and say, ‘No more!’”

Mace also revealed to Fox News Digital she’s preparing a victim impact statement and hopes to attend Cain’s bond hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Friday.

“I’m working on it now,” she said. “We’re figuring out logistics, but I plan to be there.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon questioned Harvard University President Alan Garber’s decision to take a 25% pay cut, saying she’s not sure how that shows the university is changing policies on antisemitism or racial discrimination.

A Harvard University spokesperson told Fox News Wednesday Garber agreed to take a 25% reduction in pay for the 2025-26 school year after the Trump administration cut $2.2 billion in funding to the university.

McMahon was a guest on FOX Business’ “The Evening Edit” Thursday, and she opened up about the situation at the elite Ivy League institution and Garber’s reduction in pay.

“I’m not quite sure today with the president of Harvard, President Garber, taking a salary decrease is somehow a statement that they’re changing their policies on antisemitism or racial discrimination. I don’t think that does a whole lot to solve the problem,” McMahon told host Elizabeth MacDonald. 

HARVARD UPDATES LAWSUIT AFTER TRUMP CANCELS ADDITIONAL $450M IN FUNDING

“And if you just look at some of the stats, I mean, the Harvard Crimson even reported that … in their own research over the last couple of years, 2% to 3% of the faculty are conservative. And you just can’t have that kind of discrepancy without having the theology or ideology be biased across campus.”

Harvard on Tuesday filed an update to its lawsuit against the Trump administration after another $450 million of research funding was cut.

The Massachusetts school amended the lawsuit hours after the federal government’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that eight federal agencies were terminating approximately $450 million in grants over what is described as Harvard’s “radical” and “dark problem” on campus.

“Harvard University has repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination and antisemitic harassment plaguing its campus,” the task force said in a statement.

The latest freeze comes in addition to $2.2 billion in funding already withheld and threats by the Trump administration to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT TAKES 25% PAY CUT AMID TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FUNDING FREEZE

Harvard filed its initial lawsuit in April to block $2.2 billion in funding from being denied.

In its amended lawsuit, Harvard said much of the funding that was initially frozen has now been terminated, apparently with no hope of restoring it.

McMahon told MacDonald she did not think Harvard has changed its practices, adding the Trump administration has gone to the university to investigate.

“We wanted to sit down with President Garber. I spoke with him,” McMahon said. “We were going to sit down and discuss things, and we had sent a letter … and asked him to come to the table. And his answer was a lawsuit that Harvard filed.”

Since then, she said, there has been other communication with Garber, noting the Trump administration was doing some of the things without taking away the lawsuit.

But she added she is willing to discuss with Harvard officials what the university is doing differently.

TRUMP FROZE FUNDING FOR HARVARD. MONEY TO THESE UNIVERSITIES MAY ALSO BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK

McMahon acknowledged Harvard has tried to make changes, including asking the chair of the school’s Middle East Studies department to step down.

She made it clear, though, that the Trump administration is not taking anything off the table.

“It is clear antisemitism on campus is a civil rights violation, and Harvard has argued, as other elite universities have, that … maybe their First Amendment rights are being abridged,” McMahon said. “This is not about the First Amendment. This is civil rights.

“When you put other students at risk, their safety is of concern,” she added. “And their Jewish students will tell us that they’re even afraid to go to activities on campus. That’s clearly civil rights violations. Yes, that does bear investigation, and we’re not taking anything off the table.”

Harvard has become a target of Trump’s broader crackdown on universities, much of which is in response to last year’s anti-Israel unrest that erupted on campuses across the country.

DOES HARVARD DESERVE WAR WITH TRUMP, OR IS GOVERNMENT OVERSTEPPING? CAMPUS REACTS TO FUNDING BATTLE

On April 11, the Trump administration sent a letter to Garber and Harvard Corporation Lead Member Penny Pritzker outlining the institution’s failures and a list of demands from the White House. In the letter, the administration accused Harvard of failing to uphold civil rights laws and to foster an “environment that produces intellectual creativity.”

The Trump administration threatened to pull federal funding if Harvard did not reform governance and leadership and its hiring and admissions practices by August 2025. The letter emphasized the need for Harvard to change its international admissions process to avoid admitting students who are “hostile” to American values or support terrorism or antisemitism.

Harvard refused to comply with the demands, and Garber said “no government … should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The Trump administration then froze $2.2 billion in funding to Harvard and is reportedly looking to slash another billion, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The university later filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its “unlawful” freezing of funds.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Norman, Andrea Margolis, Stephen Sorace and Bonny Chu contributed to this report.

Former head of the FBI James Comey is getting lambasted online after he shared a social post that many people perceived as a “hit” on President Donald Trump’s life.

The post included the numbers “86 47” etched in the sand at a beach using seashells. “Cool shell formation on my beach walk…” Comey captioned the Thursday post.

While to some people the numbers may appear innocuous, “86” is frequently used as a call sign for murdering or getting rid of someone, while “47” is for the 47th President of the United States.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS MULL CONSEQUENCES FOR DEMS WHO ‘STORMED’ ICE FACILITY

Following backlash on social media over the post, including from at least one lawmaker who called for Comey to be arrested, Comey deleted the post shared to his Instagram and put up a message addressing it.

“I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message,” the subsequent post from Comey read. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.” 

The FBI, where Comey used to work before he was fired by Trump during his first term, had no comment on the matter, but it was also apparent that people at the top levels of the agency were aware of the post. However, Trump’s new FBI director, Kash Patel, acknowledged on X that agency personnel were “aware” of Comey’s post.

“We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran,” Patel added in his post. “Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support.” 

WHITE HOUSE RIPS HOUSE DEMS TRYING TO HIJACK TRUMP’S GULF OF AMERICA PLANS

White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Cabinet Secretary Taylor Budowich also weighed in on X.

“While President Trump is currently on an international trip to the Middle East, the former FBI Director puts out what can clearly be interpreted as ‘a hit’ on the sitting President of the United States—a message etched in the sand,” she wrote on X. “This is deeply concerning to all of us and is being taken seriously.”

“Arrest Comey,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., added in his own post about the matter.

Former head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey is getting lambasted online after he shared a social post that many people are taking as a “hit” on President Donald Trump’s life.

The post included the numbers “8647” etched in the sand at a beach using seashells. “Cool shell formation on my beach walk…” Comey captioned the Thursday post.

While to some people the numbers may appear innocuous, “86” is frequently used as a call sign for murdering someone, while “47” is for the 47th President of the United States.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS MULL CONSEQUENCES FOR DEMS WHO ‘STORMED’ ICE FACILITY

Following backlash on social media over the post, including from at least one lawmaker who called for Comey to be arrested, Comey deleted the post shared to his Instagram and put up a message addressing it.

“I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message,” the subsequent post from Comey read. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.

WHITE HOUSE RIPS HOUSE DEMS TRYING TO HIJACK TRUMP’S GULF OF AMERICA PLANS

The FBI, where Comey used to work before he was fired by Trump during his first term, had no comment on the matter, but it was also apparent that people at the top levels of the agency were aware of the post.

“While President Trump is currently on an international trip to the Middle East, the former FBI Director puts out what can clearly be interpreted as ‘a hit’ on the sitting President of the United States—a message etched in the sand,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Cabinet Secretary Taylor Budowich wrote on X before Comey deleted the post. “This is deeply concerning to all of us and is being taken seriously.”