Federal judges have blocked President Donald Trump's executive orders related to stemming the flow of illegal immigration, as well as slimming the federal bureaucracy and slashing government waste. 

"Billions of Dollars of FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE, has already been found in the investigation of our incompetently run Government," Trump wrote on TRUTH Social on Tuesday. "Now certain activists and highly political judges want us to slow down, or stop. Losing this momentum will be very detrimental to finding the TRUTH, which is turning out to be a disaster for those involved in running our Government. Much left to find. No Excuses!!!" 

Judges in U.S. district courts – the lowest level in the three-tier federal court system – have mostly pushed back on Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. Here are the six times judges have blocked Trump's executive orders so far:

AS DEMOCRATS REGROUP OUTSIDE DC, GOP ATTORNEYS GENERAL ADOPT NEW PLAYBOOK TO DEFEND TRUMP AGENDA

The Trump administration quickly pushed to withhold Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money sent to New York City to house migrants, saying it had "significant concerns" about the spending under a program appropriated by Congress. The Justice Department had previously asked the appeals court to let it implement sweeping pauses on federal grants and loans, calling the lower court order to keep promised money flowing "intolerable judicial overreach."

McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, is presiding over a lawsuit from nearly two dozen Democratic states filed after the administration issued a memo purporting to halt all federals grants and loans, worth trillions of dollars. 

"The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional," McConnell wrote, "and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country."

The administration has since rescinded that memo, but McConnell found Monday that not all federal grants and loans had been restored. He was the first judge to find that the administration had disobeyed a court order.

The Democratic attorneys general allege money for things like early childhood education, pollution reduction and HIV prevention research remained tied up even after McConnell ordered the administration on Jan. 31 to "immediately take every step necessary" to unfreeze federal grants and loans. The judge also said his order blocked the administration from cutting billions of dollars in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

The Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeal on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration's effort to reinstate a sweeping pause on federal funding. 

The federal appeals court said it expected U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island to clarify his initial order.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, on Monday ordered lawyers to meet and confer over any changes needed to an order issued early Saturday by another Manhattan judge, Obama-appointee Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, that banned Elon Musk’s DOGE team from accessing Treasury Department records. Vargas instructed both sides to file written arguments if an agreement was not reached. 

The order was amended on Tuesday to allow Senate-confirmed political appointees access to the information, while special government employees, including Musk, are still prohibited from accessing the Treasury Department's payment system.

On Friday, 19 Democrat attorneys general, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, sued Trump on the grounds that Musk's DOGE team was composed of "political appointees" who should not have access to Treasury records handled by "civil servants" specially trained to protect sensitive information like Social Security and bank account numbers. 

Justice Department attorneys from Washington and New York told Vargas in a filing on Sunday that the ban was unconstitutional and a "remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch" that must be immediately reversed. They said there was no basis for distinguishing between "civil servants" and "political appointees."

They said they were complying with the Saturday order by Engelmayer, but they asserted that the order was "overbroad" so that some might think even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was banned by it. 

"Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency's work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President," DOJ attorneys wrote, adding that the ban on accessing the records by Musk's team "directly severs the clear line of supervision" required by the Constitution.

Over the weekend, Musk and Vice President JD Vance reacted to the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and the lower courts. 

 "If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal," Vance wrote broadly. "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." 

Musk said Engelmayer is "a corrupt judge protecting corruption," who "needs to be impeached NOW!"

Boston-based U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr., who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, kept on hold Trump's deferred resignation program after a courtroom hearing on Monday. 

O'Toole on Thursday had already pushed back the initial Feb. 6 deadline when federal workers had to decide whether they would accept eight months of paid leave in exchange for their resignation. 

A "Fork In the Road" email was sent earlier last week telling two million federal workers they could stop working and continue to get paid until Sept. 30. The White House said 65,000 workers had already accepted the buyout offer by Friday. 

The country's largest federal labor unions, concerned about losing membership, sued the Office of Personnel Management, asking the court to delay the deadline and arguing the deferred resignation program spearheaded by Musk is illegal.

Eric Hamilton, a Justice Department lawyer, called the plan a "humane off ramp" for federal employees who may have structured their lives around working remotely and have been ordered to return to government buildings.

TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER BLOCKED BY THIRD FEDERAL JUDGE

The Trump administration on Tuesday said it is appealing a Maryland federal judge's ruling blocking the president's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for people whose parents are not legally in the country.

In a filing, the administration's attorneys said they were appealing to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's the second such appeal the administration has sought since Trump's executive order was blocked in court.

The government's appeal stems from Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman's grant of a preliminary injunction last week in a case brought by immigrant rights groups and expectant mothers in Maryland. Boardman said at the time her court would not become the first in the country to endorse the president's order, calling citizenship a "precious right" granted by the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The president's birthright citizenship order has generated at least nine lawsuits nationwide, including suits brought by 22 states.

On Monday, New Hampshire-based U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said in relation to a similar lawsuit that he wasn't convinced by the administration's arguments and issued a preliminary injunction. It applies to the plaintiffs, immigrant rights groups with members who are pregnant, and others within the court's jurisdiction.

Last week, Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, who was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, ordered a block of Trump's order, which the administration also appealed.

The Trump administration is expected to argue before a federal judge Wednesday that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is rife with "insubordination" and must be shut down for the administration to decide what pieces of it to salvage.

The argument, made in an affidavit by political appointee and deputy USAID administrator Pete Marocco, comes as the administration confronts a lawsuit by the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees – two groups representing federal workers.

Washington-based U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, on Friday ordered a temporary block on plans by the Trump administration to put 2,200 USAID employees on leave. He also agreed to block an order that would have given just 30 days for the thousands of overseas USAID workers the administration wanted to place on abrupt administrative leave to move their families back to the U.S. at the government's expense. 

Both actions by the administration would have exposed the workers and their families to unnecessary risk and expense, according to the judge.

The judge reinstated USAID staffers already placed on leave but declined to suspend the administration's freeze on foreign assistance.

Nichols is due to hear arguments Wednesday on a request from the employee groups to keep blocking the move to put thousands of staffers on leave as well as broaden his order. They contend the government has already violated the judge's order. 

In the court case, a government motion shows the administration pressing arguments by Vance and others questioning if courts have the authority to check Trump's power.

"The President's powers in the realm of foreign affairs are generally vast and unreviewable," government lawyers argued.

Fox News' Landon Mion and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore web pages and datasets that were taken down in accordance with President Donald Trump’s executive order.

Under U.S. District Judge John Bates’ order, HHS, the CDC and the FDA are required to restore data sets and pages that were "removed or substantially modified" last month "without adequate notice or reasoned explanation."

Earlier this month, Doctors for America, represented by Public Citizen Litigation Group, filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personal Management (OPM), the CDC, the FDA and HHS for removing information that it says was used by doctors and researchers.

RILEY GAINES: THE ALL-OUT WAR ON FEMALE ATHLETES ENDS NOW, THANKS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

"Removing critical clinical information and datasets from the websites of CDC, FDA, and HHS not only puts the health of our patients at risk, but also endangers research that improves the health and health care of the American public," Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, a member of the board of directors for Doctors for America, said in a statement on the organization’s website.  "Federal public health agencies must reinstate these resources in full to protect our patients."

"These federal agencies exist to serve the American people by protecting public health," Zach Shelley, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel on the case, said in the same statement. "Removing this vital information flouts that mandate. Our lawsuit seeks to hold them to their responsibilities to the people of this country."

LGBT ACTIVISTS MOBILIZE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S 'EXTREME GENDER IDEOLOGY' EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Doctors for America alleged in its complaint that the removal of the web pages and data sets created a "dangerous gap in the scientific data available to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks."

According to the complaint, the pages and data sets that were either taken down or modified included a report on an HIV medication, pages on "environmental justice," pages on HIV monitoring and testing and a CDC guide on contraceptives, among others. Doctors for America claim that these pages and reports were either removed or modified to "combat what the president described as ‘gender ideology.’"

The web pages in question were taken down in accordance with President Trump’s order on "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." In the order, President Trump outlines precise definitions of "woman," "man," "female," "male" and other gendered words, establishing the recognition of two genders as official U.S. policy.

"The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself," the order reads.

President Donald Trump repeated his suggestion that Canada become the 51st on Sunday, noting that it would not be subjected to his incoming tariffs should the country join the U.S.

"We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason," Trump wrote on TRUTH Social. "We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true!" 

"Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State," Trump added. "Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada – AND NO TARIFFS!" 

Trump has for weeks suggested the United States should take control of Canada through economic pressure.

TRUMP IMPOSES TARIFFS ON IMPORTS FROM CANADA, MEXICO AND CHINA: 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY'

Citing the flow of illicit drugs across the northern border, Trump signed an order Saturday to implement a 25% tariff on goods entering the United States from Canada. The order, which takes effect Tuesday, also puts a 10% duty on energy or energy resources from Canada. The order states, "gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illicit drugs of all kinds have poured across our borders and into our communities," adding that "Canada has played a central role in these challenges, including by failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs." 

Trump also said he would implement tariffs of 25% on goods from Mexico, as well as 10% on imports from China due to the flow of drugs across U.S. borders.

AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION REACTS TO TRUMP ANNOUNCEMENT OF ENERGY TARIFFS ON CANADA, MEXICO

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum both vowed retaliation on Saturday. 

"We categorically reject the White House's slander of the Government of Mexico for having alliances with criminal organizations, as well as any intention to interfere in our territory," Sheinbaum said, adding that she instructed her administration officials to implement "tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico's interests." 

Trudeau said Canada would impose 25% tariffs on $155 billion of U.S. goods, including "immediate tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods effective Tuesday, followed by further tariffs on $125 billion worth of American products in 21 days." 

"I don't think we're not at all interested in escalating, but I think that there will be a very strong demand on our government to make sure that we stand up for the deal that we have struck with the United States," Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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

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

A former inspector general (IG) who was dismissed on Friday said President Donald Trump's decision to fire 17 independent watchdogs at various federal agencies constitutes a "threat to democracy" and government transparency.

Trump dismissed IGs at agencies within the Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Veterans Affairs, and more, notifying them by email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office, the Washington Post first reported.

Mike Ware, who served as the chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, told MSNBC's "Ana Cabrera Reports" that he and other federal watchdogs were informed of their firing via email on Friday.

‘FLOODING THE ZONE’ TRUMP HITS WARP SPEED IN FIRST WEEK BACK IN OFFICE

Ware said it was "alarming" that the Trump administration had fired them over what he described as "changing priorities"—noting that IGs are not part of any administration and merely ensure there is no fraud, waste and abuse in how taxpayer funds are expended.

In 2022, Congress passed reforms that strengthened protections for IGs and made it harder to replace them with political appointees, requiring the president to explain their removal.

Ware suggested that Trump failed to provide a comprehensive reason for the mass firings and may have potentially violated the protections afforded by the reforms.

TRUMP'S FEDERAL DEI PURGE PUTS HUNDREDS ON LEAVE, NIXES $420M IN CONTRACTS

"We're looking at what amounts to a threat to democracy, a threat to independent oversight and a threat to transparency in government. This is no doubt. The statute isn't just a technicality, it's a key protection of IG independence is what it is," Ware said.

He also claimed that the U.S. government might as well not have an independent oversight mechanism if the new administration only adheres to the IG Act in a "piecemeal manner."

The mass firing is Trump's latest attempt to force the federal bureaucracy into submission after he shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs, rescinded job offers and sidelined more than 150 national security and foreign policy officials. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST MEDIA AND CULTURE NEWS

Trump began his second term with the intent of purging any opponents of his agenda from the government and replacing them with officials who would execute his orders without hesitation.

During his first term, Trump fired four IGs in less than two months in 2020. This included the State Department, whose inspector general had played a role in the president's impeachment proceedings.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News' Chris Pandolfo and Lucas Y. Tomlinson contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump fired 17 independent watchdogs at various federal agencies late Friday, a Trump administration official confirmed to Fox News, as he continues to reshape the government at a blistering pace.

Trump dismissed inspectors general at agencies within the Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department of Veterans Affairs and more, notifying them by email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office, the Washington Post first reported.

"It’s a widespread massacre," one of the terminated inspectors general told the Post. "Whoever Trump puts in now will be viewed as loyalists, and that undermines the entire system."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Trump's action may violate federal law that requires the president to give 30 days' notice to Congress of his intent to fire any independent watchdog, the Associated Press reported. 

‘FLOODING THE ZONE’ TRUMP HITS WARP SPEED IN FIRST WEEK BACK IN OFFICE

"There may be good reason the IGs were fired. We need to know that if so," Grassley said in a statement. "I’d like further explanation from President Trump. Regardless, the 30 day detailed notice of removal that the law demands was not provided to Congress." 

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. 

Inspectors general at federal agencies are called on to investigate government waste, fraud and abuse. They operate independently and can serve in multiple administrations.

The mass firing is Trump's latest attempt to force the federal bureaucracy into submission after he shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs, rescinded job offers and sidelined more than 150 national security and foreign policy officials. Trump began his second term with the intent of purging any opponents of his agenda from the government and replacing them with officials who would execute his orders without hesitation. 

TRUMP TO DECLASSIFY JFK FILES: FAMED DOCTOR WHO INVESTIGATED ASSASSINATION PREDICTS WHAT AMERICANS COULD LEARN

Among those spared from Trump's wrath was Department of Justice inspector general Michael Horowitz, the New York Times reported. Horowitz led the investigation of the FBI's Russian collusion probe, which exposed at least 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the FBI's application for a FISA warrant in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., slammed Trump's firings, calling them a "purge of independent watchdogs in the middle of the night." 

TRUMP MEETS WITH CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS, FIRE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO SEE LA WILDFIRE DAMAGE FIRST HAND

"President Trump is dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption," Warren posted on X.

During his first term, Trump fired five inspectors general in less than two months in 2020. This included the State Department, whose inspector general had played a role in the president's impeachment proceedings.

Last year, Trump's predecessor Joe Biden fired the inspector general of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, after an investigation found the official had created a hostile work environment.

In 2022, Congress passed reforms that strengthened protections for inspectors general and made it harder to replace them with political appointees, requiring the president to explain their removal.

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to declassify files on the assassinations of former President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert F. Kennedy and civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. 

Trump had promised to release the previously classified documents during his 2024 campaign after decades of speculation and conspiracy theories about the killings. 

"Everything will be revealed," Trump told reporters as he signed the order in the Oval Office of the White House.

TRUMP PLEDGES TO RELEASE FILES ON JFK, MLK, RFK ASSASSINATIONS 

During his first administration, Trump had promised to release all the files related to John F. Kennedy, but an undisclosed amount of material remains under wraps more than six decades after Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas. The primary suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, was killed two days later by Jack Ruby. 

After appeals from the CIA and FBI, Trump blocked the release of hundreds of records. Trump said at the time the potential harm to U.S. national security, law enforcement or foreign affairs is "of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure."

"I have now determined that the continued redaction and withholding of information from records pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is not consistent with the public interest and the release of these records is long overdue," Trump's order states. 

"And although no Act of Congress directs the release of information pertaining to the assassinations of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I have determined that the release of all records in the Federal Government’s possession pertaining to each of those assassinations is also in the public interest."

TRUMP VOWS THE ‘BIGGEST FIRST WEEK' IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY DURING VICTORY RALLY: ’EXTREMELY HAPPY'

U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., praised the declassification of the JFK files. 

"Our government, led by corrupt bureaucrats, has hidden this information from the American people for far too long. Americans deserve to know the truth, whether it makes the government look good or not," she said in a statement. "As part of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I want to continue to deliver transparency to Americans. The truth belongs to the people, and we won’t rest until they have it."

Trump’s promise to also release outstanding documents related to King and former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy leaves questions about how the president will speed up the releases.

Robert F. Kennedy, then a senator from New York, was on the presidential campaign trail as a Democratic candidate when he was fatally shot June 5, 1968, by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Christian, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.  

Under the Martin Luther King Jr. Records Collection Act, the remaining files pertaining to King are not due for release until 2027. King was fatally shot by James Earl Ray at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968.

The deaths of King and John F. Kennedy have spawned conspiracy theories over the years, many of which allege government involvement or cover-ups.  

Fox News Digital's Stephen Sorace contributed to this report. 

Newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).

In 2020, Trump started the ball rolling toward extricating the U.S. from the United Nations agency, but President Joe Biden reversed course after taking office in 2021.

"The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO. The Presidential Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed on January 20, 2021, that retracted the United States’ July 6, 2020, notification of withdrawal is revoked," Trump's order declares.

TOP 5 INAUGURATION DAY MOMENTS

"The Secretary of State shall immediately inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations, any other applicable depositary, and the leadership of the WHO of the withdrawal," the order instructs.

The U.S. Senate voted 99-0 on Monday to confirm Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., to serve as Secretary of State — Rubio voted for himself before resigning from the Senate.

Trump's order calls for the Secretary of State and director of the Office of Management and Budget to "pause the future transfer of any United States Government funds, support, or resources to the WHO;" "recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO;" as well as "identify credible and transparent United States and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by the WHO."

TRUMP FAILED TO DELIVER ‘DAY 1’ PROMISE TO GRANT CLEMENCY TO ROSS ULBRICHT, FOUNDER OF SILK ROAD

The WHO issued a statement on Tuesday lamenting Trump's decision, and expressing hope that the U.S. will rethink the move.

"The World Health Organization regrets the announcement that the United States of America intends to withdraw from the Organization," the globalist body noted. "We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe."

Trump signed a flurry of orders after taking office on Monday.

One of them declares it U.S. policy "to recognize two sexes, male and female," which "are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality."

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

Trump is only the second president in U.S. history to win election to two non-consecutive terms — the first was Grover Cleveland in the 19th century.

Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report

President Trump on Monday made a number of ambitious announcements on border security and immigration, eyeing a sweeping overhaul of U.S. policy and likely fueling pushback from Democrats and immigration activists in the weeks and months ahead.

Trump used his inaugural address to outline his plans to fulfill his campaign promises to seal the southern border and launch a historic mass deportation campaign.

"First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border. All illegal entry will immediately be halted," Trump said moments after being inaugurated. "And we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came."

TRUMP VOWS ‘NEW ERA OF NATIONAL SUCCESS,' SAYS AMERICA'S ‘DECLINE IS OVER’ IN INAUGURAL ADDRESS

Fox News had previewed Trump’s immigration moves, which include deploying the military to the border, ending Biden-era parole policies, restoring border wall construction and designating international cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. 

Trump also will be ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, suspending refugee resettlement and creating a rapid removal process that does not allow for an asylum claim, officials told reporters.

Officials told reporters in a press call that Trump would sign an order clarifying language in the 14th Amendment and stating that the federal government "will not recognize automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States."

Trump reiterated many of these promises in his address.

TRUMP TO DEPLOY MILITARY TO BORDER, END BIDEN PAROLE POLICIES IN FLURRY OF DAY 1 EXECUTIVE ORDERS

"We will reinstate my Remain in Mexico policy. I will end the practice of catch-and-release. And I will send troops to the southern border to repel the disastrous invasion of our country. Under the orders I signed today, we will also be designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations," he said. 

"And by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, I will direct our government to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to U.S. soil, including our cities and inner cities."

TRUMP TO TAKE MORE THAN 200 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON DAY 1

"As commander in chief, I have no higher responsibility than to defend our country from threats and invasions," he said. "And that is exactly what I am going to do. We will do it at a level that nobody has ever seen before." 

Trump made tackling illegal immigration, including a mass deportation operation, a central theme of his 2024 campaign.

Polls showed Americans saw illegal immigration as a top issue during the 2024 election, and some Democrats in Congress recently have supported legislation to require the detention of certain illegal immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Fox News' Brooke Singman and Bill Melugin contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOOMING TIKTOK BAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President-elect Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices during his first White House term, significantly reshaping the nation's top court. But President Biden appointed more federal judges than Trump in the past four years.

According to fresh data from the Federal Judiciary Center, Biden is slated to end his tenure having installed 228 judges to U.S. district and appellate courts, including record numbers of female and minority judges to district courts across the country. 

That total was aided in part by a flurry of eleventh-hour confirmations by Senate Democrats, who scrambled to approve Biden's judicial nominees last month in the final days of the 118th Congress and while they still held a narrow majority in the chamber.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOOMING TIKTOK BAN

Trump appointed 226 federal and appellate court judges during his first White House term, just under Biden's total.

Biden also placed one justice on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the nation's highest court.

Sixty percent of the judges appointed by Biden are Black, Hispanic, Asian or part of another racial or ethnic minority group, according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center, the highest percentage for any U.S. president. 

Biden's federal judge appointments, both in their diversity and scope, bear similarities to another single-term Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.

CARTER'S JUDICIAL PICKS RESHAPED THE FEDERAL BENCH ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Unlike Biden, Carter did not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. But he appointed more than 260 federal and appellate court judges during his four years in office, including record numbers of women and minority judges, helping the courts better reflect the populations they represented. The appointments helped reshape the federal bench and paved the way for women and minorities to serve on the Supreme Court.

Most notably, Carter is credited with installing Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a decision that set her up later for promotion when Democratic President Clinton tapped her for the nation's highest court in 1993.

Kristi Noem, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, told lawmakers that she will end the controversial CBP One app, and a related migrant parole program that has allowed nearly 1.5 million immigrants into the US.

"Yes, Senator, if confirmed and I have the opportunity to be secretary, on day one CBP One will be shut down," Noem told Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Noem was first asked by Hawley if the southern border was secure.

NOEM BOASTS OUTPOURING OF POLICE, BORDER UNION SUPPORT FOR DHS CHIEF

"Senator, no, the southern border is not secure today. But in just three days, we will have a new president in this country, President Donald J. Trump. And he will secure our border," she said.

She was then asked about the use of the CBP One app, which allows immigrants to be paroled into the U.S. The app was created during the first Trump administration to assist with scheduling cargo inspections. However, it was controversially expanded in 2023 to allow migrants to make an appointment at a port of entry to be allowed in, initially due to an exception from the Title 42 public health order and then, since May, to be paroled into the U.S. as part of the Biden administration’s expansion of "lawful pathways." 

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT KRISTI NOEM, THE ‘BORDER HAWK’ NOMINATED BY TRUMP TO LEAD DHS

As of the end of December, more than 936,500 individuals had made appointments to be paroled through the app, according to Customs and Border Protection.

Connecting to that was a parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans (CHNV), which allows up to 30,000 nationals a month from those countries to receive travel authorization to enter the U.S. after a vetting process. As of the end of December, about 531,000 nationals had been allowed in through the program. It was first applied to Venezuelans in October 2022 and expanded to the other three nationalities in January 2023.

While the Biden administration said it was a part of an effort to encourage legal, rather than illegal, immigration and had been part of a slowing down of nationals entering illegally from those groups, opponents condemned it as a "concierge service" for otherwise illegal mass migration. 

TRUMP DHS PICK NOEM LIKELY TO FACE SCRUTINY OVER DEPORTATION, BORDER PLANS AT CONFIRMATION HEARING

Noem said she would end CBP One on the first day in office, although the agency will keep some information.

"There's data and information in there that we will preserve so that we can ensure we know who's coming into this country and who's already here, that we need to go find," she clarified.

She then pointed to CHNV, "where our federal government actually paid to fly people into this country directly from other countries without any vetting or knowing who they are."

"So there's several of these programs that need to be eliminated, and we need to ensure that we're following legal immigration laws," she said.

Hawley followed up, asking if she would put an end to "abuse" in the parole system.

"We will go back to case by case evaluation of these parole cases and ensure that we have more resources, if you will partner with us, to make sure that our legal immigration system is fully utilized, that we have more judges, more immigration courts, so that we can process people legally and make sure that they are, going through that process rather than, like Joe Biden has done, use this as an excuse to allow people to come into our country with no consequences," she said.

Noem, if confirmed, will oversee DHS at a time when the agency is expected to launch a historic mass deportation operation targeting illegal immigrants within the U.S., while also attempting to expand border security at the southern and northern borders.

She will work with "border czar" Tom Homan, who was picked by Trump in November to head the operation and border security efforts.

FIRST ON FOX — A coalition of more than 400 U.S. farm, agriculture and growers groups sent a letter to Senate leaders this week urging the swift confirmation of President-elect Donald Trump nominee Brooke Rollins to head up the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), praising her as a strong voice they see as well-positioned to speak to the interests of rural America.

The signatories included a whopping 417 national and state growers groups representing the interests of farmers, growers, hunters, ranchers, forest owners, renewable fuel associations and state departments of agriculture across the country — encompassing what they said is virtually "all aspects of American agriculture, food, nutrition and rural America."

The USDA is the agency that oversees the nation's agriculture and its practices. Its sprawling portfolio includes providing support for farmers, setting the standards for school meals and overseeing the safety of meat, poultry and eggs.

The letter was previewed exclusively to Fox News Digital and sent to Sens. John Boozman, R-La., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. — the chair and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, respectively — just one week before Rollins was slated to appear before the panel for her confirmation hearing.

AG NOMINEE PAM BONDI SEEN AS STEADYING FORCE TO STEER DOJ IN TRUMP'S SECOND TERM

In the letter, signatories praised what they described as Rollins’ foundational knowledge of agriculture, combined with her policy and business bona fides that they said made her uniquely qualified for the role of U.S. agriculture secretary.

Rollins "has been engaged in American agriculture since an early age," they said, noting Rollins’ childhood spent baling hay and growing livestock in Glen Rose, Texas — a small town some 70 miles outside of Dallas — as well as the summers she spent working on her family’s farm in Minnesota.

Later, Rollins majored in agricultural development at Texas A&M on a scholarship, before completing law school at the University of Texas. She went on to work for former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and then later served as director of the United States Domestic Policy Council during Trump’s first term as president. She then became president and CEO of the America First Policy Institute, whose mission is to "advance policies that put the American people first." 

The nonprofit think tank has called on Congress to restrict China's access to American farmland and has been critical of President Biden's energy policies. 

TRUMP ANNOUNCES NEW CABINET DEPUTIES AS INAUGURATION DATE DRAWS NEAR

In the letter, the groups said Rollins’ agriculture and farming bona fides, policy expertise and her business experience make her uniquely prepared to "provide effective executive leadership for USDA’s important, wide-ranging activities and large workforce."

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

The timing of the letter and Rollins' pending confirmation hearing, slated for Thursday, comes at a crucial time for U.S. growers groups and agribusinesses across the country. 

It comes as lawmakers have stalled on a new farm bill, and on other key priorities for farmers and industry groups across the country. 

The 11th-hour passage of a government spending bill in late December helped narrowly avert a government shutdown, but it failed to provide the full extent of farm aid and other agriculture subsidies in the amounts considered necessary for many in the U.S.

In the letter, the groups cited Rollins’ "close working relationship" with the incoming president, which they said will "ensure that agriculture and rural America have a prominent and influential voice at the table when critical decisions are made in the White House."

In sum, the letter said, Rollins’ leadership at USDA is necessary to help "advocate for a new farm bill, stabilize an agricultural economy in decline, support the full food and agriculture and forestry value chain, and continue American agriculture’s long history of providing the most secure, affordable and nutritious food supply in the world."

Rollins is not expected to face staunch opposition to her nomination to head up the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and lawmakers who have spoken out to date have praised both her experience and strong knowledge of the agriculture sector. 

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem heads to Capitol Hill on Friday for her confirmation hearing to lead the Department of Homeland Security -- a hearing where border security and plans to launch a massive deportation operation are likely to take center stage.

Noem, nominated by President-elect Trump to lead DHS, will appear before the Senate Homeland Security Committee at 9 a.m. ET. 

The governor has largely stayed out of the spotlight, with more controversial nominees drawing attention from politicians and the media. But, if confirmed, she will play an important role in the next administration, leading the agency involved not only with border security but also cybersecurity, response to natural disasters and counterterrorism.

SENATE GOP TEES UP CONFIRMATION HEARING BLITZ IN EFFORT TO MEET AMBITIOUS TRUMP TARGETS 

That broad role has been highlighted in recent days with wildfires engulfing Los Angeles, where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plays a key role in response. FEMA’s importance was also on display late last year during the hurricane season.

She will also be engaged in the battle for cybersecurity, including against threats from communist China.

Dealing with natural disasters and cybersecurity are both areas where Noem has experience. As governor, she banned TikTok from state-owned devices in 2022, citing the company’s ties to China. Separately, Dakota State University has one of the top cyber units in the country, and cybersecurity is the fastest growing industry in South Dakota, an expansion encouraged by Noem. 

Noem has in-depth experience with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) because the state has dealt with flooding, including in June when there were record-setting floods in the state. 

Noem, a former member of Congress, was elected governor of South Dakota in 2018 and won re-election in 2022. 

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT KRISTI NOEM, THE ‘BORDER HAWK’ NOMINATED BY TRUMP TO LEAD DHS

But it is likely to be border security, and the promise by Trump to launch a historic deportation operation, which will feature in any contentious exchanges.

Trump, nominating Noem, had argued that she is "very strong" on border security.

"She will work closely with ‘Border Czar’ Tom Homan to secure the border and will guarantee that our American homeland is secure from our adversaries. I have known Kristi for years and have worked with her on a wide variety of projects. She will be a great part of our mission to make America safe again," Trump said in a statement.

"With Donald Trump, we will secure the border and restore safety to American communities so that families will again have the opportunity to pursue the American dream," Noem said.

While Homan has been charged with leading the deportation operation, Noem will be in charge of DHS agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.)

Democrats may choose to quiz Noem on their objections to mass deportations, although a number of Democrats have indicated their openness to border security and legislation mandating ICE detention for some illegal immigrants -- after a historic border crisis during the Biden administration that only recently subsided, and which was a top issue in the 2024 election.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

Noem previously backed a pause on accepting migrants from terrorist hot spots. As governor, she pledged in 2021 not to take any more migrants from the Biden administration and also deployed National Guard to the border in Texas. 

"My message to illegal immigrants is — Call me when you're an American," she said on Facebook in 2021.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told McClatchy that he believes there will be a quick confirmation of Noem, and that she will likely have a few Democrats voting in favor.

"I think the bar is so low that any kind of attempt to slow down the mass illegal migration would be an improvement," Paul said. "I think they’re going to be very aggressive, not only her but the entire [Trump] administration."

A liberal activist group in Colorado is warning sheriffs in the state that they will hold them personally liable and sue if they cooperate with President-elect Trump's mass deportations plans or with ICE officials in any way, including working to deport illegal immigrants.

In a letter to Colorado sheriffs signed by ACLU of Colorado executive director Deborah Richardson and legal director Tim MacDonald, the group warned of severe personal consequences for law enforcement officials in Colorado if they comply with any ICE requests, including ICE detainers, which often keep the agency from having to undertake dangerous arrests in public spaces.  

The group compared Trump’s plans for mass deportations to the Japanese internment camps of the 1940s and said law enforcement aiding in these efforts could face personal legal penalties of tens of thousands of dollars.

MacDonald and Richardson warned Colorado sheriffs that "joining with ICE or other federal officers in mass immigration raids or using the power of your office to hold people solely at ICE request will expose you and your officers to personal liability."

BLUE STATE MAKES $350M 'DEFUND POLICE' COMEBACK AFTER RECORD HOMICIDES, VIOLENT GANG TAKEOVERS

"Any Colorado law enforcement officer who causes the violation of a right protected under the Colorado Constitution is subject to liability for damages and attorneys’ fees including potential personal liability up to $25,000, and their employer – defined to include the elected sheriff – is generally obligated to satisfy the full amount of any uncollectible judgment," said the letter.

ACLU of Colorado also harshly criticized the Aurora Police Department for working with ICE in December to detain over a dozen immigrants in a violent home invasion and kidnapping incident linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

The gang members allegedly forced their way into a Venezuelan immigrant couple’s apartment at the Edge at Lowry Apartments in the Denver suburbs and bound, beat, stabbed and kidnapped the victims, leaving them hospitalized. The perpetrators also allegedly stole jewelry from the victims.

MacDonald said the Aurora Police Department’s raid against the TdA-linked criminals "exceeded their authority under Colorado law" and that "this type of behavior inflicts harm and distress on a vulnerable community, and risks depriving residents of their rights guaranteed under the Colorado Constitution and state law."

TREN DE ARAGUA ARE IDEOLOGICAL TERRORISTS DISGUISED AS A STREET GANG WARNS FORMER MILITARY OFFICER

"We have taken legal action against law enforcement offices that ran afoul of Colorado law, and if necessary, will do so again," said MacDonald. "We are ready to respond to violations of our neighbors’ civil rights and to prevent constitutional violations of the rights of Colorado families and communities."

Roger Hudson, a city council member in nearby Castle Pines, Colorado, responded to the letter, telling Fox News Digital that "it’s disappointing to me that an organization whose sole purpose has been to defend the rights of Americans has now chosen noncitizens – many of whom are in our country illegally – over the rights of hardworking American taxpayers."

"Colorado taxpayers are exhausted from working hard to foot the high bill for failed liberal policies, not just regarding immigration, but also housing, education, transportation, infrastructure, and the economy," he said, adding: "Change is coming soon, and it begins with the inauguration of President Donald Trump."

President-elect Donald Trump indicated that he plans to push 100 — or around 100 — executive orders after assuming office, senators and reports have indicated, with the number varying slightly.

Trump, who will take office later this month on Jan. 20, met with Senate Republicans on Wednesday.

During a Thursday morning appearance on "Fox & Friends" Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said that Trump indicated that there are almost 100 executive orders to address issues like border security and U.S. energy.

"He threw that out — 100 — there could be like 100 EOs, yeah. I believe him." Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., noted to The Hill.

TRUMP PLANS TO ‘IMMEDIATELY’ REVERSE BIDEN'S ‘RIDICULOUS’ BAN ON NEW OIL AND GAS DRILLING ALONG US COAST

Senators were provided previews regarding some of what they were informed would be 100 executive orders, two sources noted to Axios. Stephen Miller, who Trump has tapped to serve in his new administration, discussed plans for using executive authority to tackle border and immigration beginning day one, the outlet reported.

The Associated Press claimed that Trump is readying more than 100 executive orders beginning day one, and had informed GOP senators during the meeting. "There will be a substantial number," Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., noted according to the outlet.

Fox News Digital emailed a Trump spokesperson with a request for comment on Saturday, but did not receive a response in time for publication. 

TRUMP PRESSES GOP TO SWIFTLY SEND ‘ONE POWERFUL BILL’ FOR HIS SIGNATURE ASAP

Signing scads of executive orders would enable Trump to unilaterally push his agenda after returning to the Oval Office, but GOP lawmakers also plan to work with him to enact his legislative priorities as well.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., have both declared their intent to push the president-elect's agenda.

TRUMP CAN DO A LOT THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDERS, SAYS GOP REP

"Biden is doing everything possible to make the TRANSITION as difficult as as possible, from Lawfare such as has never been seen before, to costly and ridiculous Executive Orders on the Green New Scam and other money wasting Hoaxes. Fear not, these "Orders" will all be terminated shortly, and we will become a Nation of Common Sense and Strength. MAGA!!!" Trump declared in a post on Truth Social earlier this week.

The Supreme Court on Friday heard oral arguments in a fast-tracked case over the future of TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media app that will be barred from operating in the U.S. in just nine days barring divestiture or eleventh-hour intervention from the high court.

At issue is the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law signed by President Biden that passed Congress in April with bipartisan approval. The act gave TikTok either nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

On Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users. 

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

"We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here," Prelogar said. "Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data."

"TikTok's immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage," she added. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

At the conclusion of oral arguments, it remained unclear as to how the Supreme Court might proceed in the matter — though a ruling or order is expected before the Jan. 19 ban comes into force.

The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year with strong bipartisan support — as well as the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

But the argument also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled possible support for TikTok. His attorneys filed an amicus brief last month, urging the Supreme Court to delay the ban until he is sworn in as president.

If the goal of China and ByteDance, through TikTok, is "trying to get Americans to argue with each other," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "I’d say they are winning."

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, on Friday sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest — a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it — meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law — and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday noted that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok's legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny — a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

Francisco told justices in oral arguments on Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.

"What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government" and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said. "It doesn't alter the fact that this is being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated."

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.

Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content.

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections.

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.

The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a heavily followed case that pits national security concerns against free speech protections for millions of Americans.

The court agreed in December to hold an expedited hearing on the case, giving it just nine days to decide whether to uphold TikTok's request to halt or delay the ban passed by Congress before it takes effect Jan. 19. 

It is unlikely the court will take that long, however, and justices are expected to issue a ruling or order in a matter of days.

The case comes as TikTok continues to be one of the most popular social media apps in the U.S. with an estimated 170 million users nationwide. 

'HIGHLY QUALIFIED': FORMER STATE AGS URGE SENATE TO CONFIRM BONDI TO LEAD JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

President-elect Trump has also signaled support for the app, putting the case further into the national spotlight in the final weeks before his inauguration.

Ahead of Friday's oral arguments, here's what to know about the arguments and how the Supreme Court might act.

TikTok arguments, alleged free speech violations 

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are urging the court to either block or delay the enforcement of a law Congress passed with bipartisan backing in April.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company or be removed from U.S. app stores and hosting services. Its owners have said repeatedly they will not do so. It also grants the president a 90-day window to delay the ban if TikTok says a divestiture is in progress.

TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. 

Lawyers for TikTok argued that the law violates First Amendment protections, describing it as an "unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation" and noting that lawmakers failed to consider less restrictive alternatives compared to an outright ban.

"History and precedent teach that, even when national security is at stake, speech bans must be Congress’s last resort," attorneys said in a reply brief filed last month to the high court. 

National security concerns 

Congress has cited concerns that China, a country it considers a foreign adversary of the U.S., could use TikTok to download vast troves of user data and push certain Chinese government-backed content onto users, prompting it to order the divestiture last spring. 

The Biden administration also echoed these concerns. In a Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted the law focuses solely on China’s control of the app, which the Biden administration argued could pose "grave national security threats" to Americans, rather than its content. 

Beijing could "covertly manipulate the platform" to advance geopolitical interests in the U.S., Prelogar noted, or use the vast amount of user data it has amassed for either espionage or blackmail. 

Lawyers for the administration will argue Friday that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech— much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content — and failed to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The Biden administration also filed under seal classified evidence to the court that it argued "lends further support" to its conclusion that TikTok under ByteDance ownership should be banned. 

That evidence has not been released to the public. 

Political pressures 

The Supreme Court's decision to fast-track the case comes as President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, telling reporters during a press conference his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case. 

"I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump told reporters.

Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act. 

Still, attorneys for TikTok have cited that relationship directly in their Supreme Court filings. Last month, they argued an interim injunction is appropriate "because it will give the incoming Administration time to determine its position, as the President-elect and his advisors have voiced support for saving TikTok.

"There is a strong public interest that this Court have the opportunity to exercise plenary review.

The case also comes amid a groundswell of support from some lawmakers in Congress. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass.; and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., filed a brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the ban, arguing the lawmakers do not have sufficient evidence needed to outweigh free speech protections granted under the First Amendment. 

In the brief, lawmakers referenced the nation's longtime reliance on national security claims as a means of justifying censorship, citing examples from the Sedition Acts of the 18th and 20th centuries and Cold War-era free speech restrictions. Banning TikTok due to "speculative concerns" about foreign interference, they argued, is "unconstitutional and contradicts fundamental American values." 

They argued the U.S. could adopt less drastic measures that would effectively address any data security concerns posed by the app while also not infringing on First Amendment rights.

Others remained deeply opposed. 

Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted TikTok's arguments as "unmeritless and unsound" in a filing of his own, noting that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."

FIRST ON FOX: Twenty Republican attorneys general are prepared to bolster President-elect Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, according to a joint statement led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach shared with Fox News Digital. 

"The Biden Administration took dozens of executive actions that weakened border controls and sanctioned illegal immigration from around the world," the letter states. 

"Republican attorneys general fought back by taking the Biden Administration to court for ending successful Trump Administration immigration policies and replacing them with new policies that violated the law and encouraged illegal immigration. The Republican attorneys general prevailed in virtually every one of these laws."

REPUBLICAN AGS DOUBLE DOWN ON BIDEN ADMINISTRATION LAWSUITS AS PRESIDENT PREPARES TO LEAVE OFFICE

The AGs say they're ready to restore Trump's "America First" policies from Trump's first administration, particularly his "Remain in Mexico policy" and mass deportations.

"As we point out in this letter, the Remain in Mexico policy is something that's found in federal statute, and it's been in federal statute since 1996. President Trump was the first president who actually implemented that policy set by Congress," Kobach told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

"President Trump has all the statutory tools he needs," he added. "They are already in the federal code, and that's what we're saying too. As lawyers who have been trying to stop the Biden administration from violating the law, we are saying, ‘President Trump, you have our support, and you have a wide open runway ahead of you to renew the enforcement of our federal immigration laws.’"

BIDEN MOVING TO BAN OIL AND GAS LEASES FOR 20 YEARS IN NEVADA REGION, JUST WEEKS BEFORE TRUMP INAUGURATION

The attorneys general are also anticipating Trump will "fully rescind the unlawful DACA programs," as he promised during his first term. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, introduced in 2012 by the Obama administration, permits illegal immigrants brought to the country as children — often referred to as "Dreamers" — to temporarily remain in the country.

In addition to Kobach, attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Tennessee signed the statement.

Republican attorneys general across the U.S. have been at the forefront of filing lawsuits against the Biden administration over the last four years. This month, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed his 103rd lawsuit against the outgoing administration over its energy efficiency standards for housing.  

GROWING CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN CANADA IS FIGHTING BACK AGAINST 'CALIFORNIA ON STEROIDS,' SAYS STRATEGIST

The Republicans have secured several legal wins. In 2021, a coalition led by then-Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry obtained a preliminary injunction against the administration's suspension of new oil and gas leases on federal land. In May 2024, Paxton achieved a significant win in a lawsuit alleging unlawful censorship by the administration, with a federal judge denying the government's motion to dismiss and ordering expedited discovery. 

And a federal judge recently vacated the administration's Title IX rule, which had expanded protections against discrimination based on gender identity, after challenges from Republican-led states. 

"I think what the 20 or so attorneys general signing this statement is about what the law is and what the law requires," Kobach said. "And … we are very grateful and expect that President Trump will return us to a country where the law is enforced and the strictures that Congress has put in place are observed."