One of the attorneys representing anonymous FBI agents suing the Department of Justice to block the public identification of agents who investigated Jan. 6 is a longtime anti-Trump lawyer who worked with House Democrats on President Donald Trump’s first impeachment. 

Norm Eisen is an attorney, CNN legal analyst and expert at the Brookings Institution public policy think tank who previously served as the U.S.' ambassador to the Czech Republic and special counsel for ethics and government reform under the Obama administration, when he earned the nicknames "Dr. No" and "The Fun Sponge" for reportedly ensuring the administration abide by ethics rules. 

Eisen appeared in court on Thursday for a hearing before U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb involving a pair of lawsuits filed by two groups of FBI agents who investigated the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol Building as well as former special counsel Jack Smith's investigations and cases against Trump. 

Eisen serves as executive chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of the FBI agents who investigated Trump-related cases. State Democracy Defenders Fund is a nonprofit that bills itself as focused on defeating "election sabotage" and "autocracy in 2025 — and beyond."

FBI AGENTS SUE TRUMP DOJ TO BLOCK ANY PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED ON JAN. 6 INVESTIGATIONS

"Credible reports indicate the FBI has been directed to systematically terminate all Bureau employees who had any involvement in investigations related to President Trump, and that Trump’s allies in the DOJ are planning to publicly disseminate the names of those employees they plan to terminate," State Democracy Defenders Fund wrote in its press release of the emergency order to block the public release of FBI personnel names involved in the Jan. 6 investigation. 

Fox News Digital took a look back on Eisen's rhetoric and actions across the past few years and found that he has repeatedly been at the forefront of the legal cases against Trump, notably serving as co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Trump beginning in 2019. 

FBI AGENTS GROUP TELLS CONGRESS TO TAKE URGENT ACTION TO PROTECT AGAINST POLITICIZATION

House Democrats tapped Eisen — who early in his career specialized in financial fraud litigation and investigations — to help lead the first impeachment against the 45th president, which accused Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to allegedly seeking foreign interference from Ukraine to boost his re-election efforts in 2020. The House adopted two articles of impeachment against Trump, but the Senate ultimately voted to acquit him. 

Eisen revealed following the impeachment effort that he initially drafted 10 articles of impeachment against Trump, not just two, which would have included issues such as "hush money" payments to former porn star Stormy Daniels. Although the payments were not included in the impeachment articles, they were a focal point of the Manhattan v. Trump trial that found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in May 2024. 

FBI AGENTS DETAIL J6 ROLE IN EXHAUSTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE EMPLOYEES 'WERE INSTRUCTED TO FILL OUT'

"This was only the third impeachment trial of a president in American history, so it's remarkable that we even got those two," Eisen said in an NPR interview in 2020. "I will tell you that those two articles are a microcosm of all 10 of the impeachment articles that we drafted. They have features of all 10." 

Eisen told Fox News Digital, when asked about his history of anti-Trump cases, that he was initially open to working with the first Trump administration, but that the president, "turned against the Constitution."

"I was initially open to Trump and even advised his first presidential transition," Eisen told Fox Digital in an emailed comment on Friday. "But he turned against the Constitution and laws."

"In his first administration and now, he was and is using the presidency to break the law and to help himself and his cronies like Elon Musk — not the American people," he continued. "To ensure the integrity of our democracy, I am pushing back through the bipartisan institutions I work with such as State Democracy Defenders Fund, which has strong conservative representation on our board." 

Eisen is the co-founder of the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which made waves in 2023 and 2024 when it helped to initiate a Colorado court case to remove Trump from the primary ballot in the state, The New York Times reported.  

The lawsuit, which ultimately landed in the Supreme Court, argued that Trump should be deemed ineligible from holding political office under a Civil War-era insurrection clause and that his name should thus be barred from appearing on the 2024 ballot. The group said that Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters breached the U.S. Capitol, violated a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents officers of the United States, members of Congress or state legislatures who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution from holding political office.

Other states made similar legal claims to remove Trump, but each of the nine Supreme Court justices ruled in Trump’s favor in a decision released last March, ending the Colorado case and all others that were similar. 

DOJ DIRECTS FBI TO FIRE 8 TOP OFFICIALS, IDENTIFY EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN JAN. 6, HAMAS CASES FOR REVIEW

The State Democracy Defenders Action, which Eisen co-founded, has also been involved with other Trump-involved court cases, including in the Manhattan v. Trump case. The group helped file an amicus brief in February, advocating that presiding Judge Juan Merchan sentence Trump just days ahead of his inauguration. Trump was ultimately sentenced to unconditional discharge, meaning he faces no fines or jail time. 

​​Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May 2024. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump had falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star, Stormy Daniels, ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

Eisen also founded another group, the States United Democracy Center, which filed an amicus brief in 2024 in Fulton County, Georgia, court, advocating that District Attorney Fani Willis' racketeering case against Trump not be dismissed. 

ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR OPENING JACK SMITH ELECTOR CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT: WHISTLEBLOWER

The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled in December 2024 that Willis and her office are barred from prosecuting the case. The case worked to prove that Trump had led a "criminal racketeering enterprise" to change the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia. Trump has maintained his innocence in that case, as well as the other federal and state charges brought against him between the 2020 and 2024 election, slamming them as Democrat lawfare. 

Eisen, in his capacity as executive chair and founder of State Democracy Defenders Fund, also sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking Committee Member Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. on Monday to speak out against Kash Patel's nomination as director of the FBI under the second Trump administration. Eisen said he had ethics concerns surrounding Patel's previous work in Qatar. 

MAJOR FBI CHANGES KASH PATEL COULD MAKE ON DAY 1 IF CONFIRMED AS DIRECTOR

The FBI lawsuits followed acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove sending a memo to acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll in late January, directing him to fire eight FBI employees who worked on the Jan. 6 investigation, as well as a terror case related to Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack against Israel. The memo also informed the acting director to identify all current and former FBI personnel who took part in the case. 

The memo's directive to identify those involved in the case sparked the two FBI lawsuits filed Tuesday, which seek to stop the collection of names and their public release. 

"The individuals being targeted have served in law enforcement for decades, often putting their lives on the line for the citizens of this country," Eisen said in a statement provided in State Democracy Defenders Fund's press release announcing it filed an emergency order on behalf of the FBI agents. "Their rights and privacy must be preserved."

The judge temporarily barred the Trump DOJ on Thursday from disclosing information on the agents until she hears arguments and determines whether to issue a temporary restraining order. 

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch and Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

On President Donald Trump’s first day back in office, he signed an executive order entitled "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government," responding to the Biden administration’s lawfare against him. Democrats still harshly criticize that E.O.

On Nov. 15, 2022, former President Donald Trump announced that he again was running for president. On Nov. 18, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate and prosecute Trump, a historical first because prosecuting a former president and the leading presidential candidate of the major opposition political party shattered two centuries of legal norms and tradition. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, recently said that Biden’s "Justice Department’s infected with political decision-making, while its leaders refuse to acknowledge that reality."

Trump consistently and correctly criticized the Biden administration’s politicization and weaponization of government. He must now fundamentally choose whether to allow the Democrats’ wrongful lawfare against him to naturally end.

SHOULD PROSECUTORS BE PROSECUTED FOR THEIR LAWFARE CAMPAIGN AGAINST TRUMP?

Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s last-minute machinations, such as politicized special counsel reports and Biden’s blanket pardons for his family, friends and political allies, signal that Democrats likely will not stop lawfare and weaponization until they are turned against them. 

Biden’s statement accompanying his pardons showed that he knew lawfare was wrong: "baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety and financial security of targeted individuals and their families… being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage their reputations and finances."

If Democrats disavowed lawfare and committed to never doing it again, Biden’s last-minute pardons would have been unnecessary. Instead, they indicate that Democrats still want lawfare, expect tit-for-tat Republican-led investigations of Democrats, and anticipate that Trump perhaps will pardon his family, appointees and political supporters when he leaves office.

NEW YORK LEGAL LAWFARE CIRCUS AGAINST TRUMP IS CONSTITUTIONAL THREAT THAT MUST BE DISMISSED

Democrats recently signaled their commitment to lawfare when they attacked Pam Bondi during her confirmation hearings about "future weaponization" at DOJ. They intend to do the same at Kash Patel’s upcoming hearings for FBI director. 

Their questions followed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s pointless report, where he inaptly claimed that he would have convicted Trump for J6 but for the 2024 election. Smith is wrong because he ignored the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity case and cases such as Fischer, McDonnell, and Yates, all of which stripped away the heart of Smith’s charges. Ironically, Smith was the lead prosecutor in McDonnell; the Supreme Court ruled against him, 9-0.

Furthermore, Smith’s report futilely cited the Trump dissenting opinions and the lower courts’ denials of presidential immunity, even though the Supreme Court rejected them; this reveals Smith’s bias and poor legal judgment. 

THE PUBLIC REJECTED LAWFARE WHEN THEY RE-ELECTED TRUMP

Smith’s report implied that the Supreme Court was wrong: "no court had ever found that presidents are immune from criminal responsibility for their official acts, and no text in the Constitution explicitly confers such criminal immunity on the President." The Supreme Court, however, never before had to rule on presidential immunity because no DOJ ever prosecuted a former president.

Perhaps Smith takes comfort from legacy media outlets which supported him. For example, The Washington Post noted that Smith’s report "seems to make a point to offer a subtle but pretty unmistakable rebuke of the Supreme Court and its role in sparing Trump a possible conviction."  Smith’s duty as a special counsel, however, is to obey the Supreme Court, not ignore or "rebuke" it.

Customarily, special counsel reports are dry, boring, factual documents.  Smith filled his with politically tinged allegations that he cribbed from his indictments and the congressional J6 committee. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

He so strenuously claimed that he and his office were "unbiased," "neutral," and "professional" such that he "doth protest too much, methinks" as per Shakespeare’s "Hamlet," Act 3, Scene 2. No previous special counsel felt the need to repeatedly declare his own fairness and disinterest; none ever prosecuted a former president and the leading candidate of the main opposition party.

Worse, Smith dropped an "October Surprise" when he filed a huge J6 court brief shortly before Election Day, one-sidedly reciting unflattering allegations against Trump. It wrongly claimed, among other things, that Trump directed "an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters’ violence to further delay it" and that Trump "resorted to crimes."

Smith violated DOJ’s internal rules, which state that federal prosecutors "may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party." 

It appears that Pam Bondi will be confirmed as attorney general. She and President Trump can right our DOJ and criminal justice system, but only if the Democrats admit that their lawfare and weaponizing the government were wrong and backfired on them. 

Sadly, it may be that Democrats have to be shown that investigations and prosecutions can descend on them just as easily as they did on Republicans in order to drive a stake into lawfare’s heart.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM JOHN YOO

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JOHN SHU

The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

A Georgia state senator has had his ban from entering the state House chamber revoked following an ugly incident on Thursday which saw him flung to the floor, arrested and subsequently hospitalized.

State Sen. Colton Moore, a hardline supporter of President-elect Trump who previously tried to have Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis impeached for indicting the former president, was involved in a heated exchange at the entrance to the House chamber where officials refused him entry to attend Gov. Brian Kemp's State of the State Address.

Moore, of Trenton in Dade County, ended up being pushed to the floor by Keith Williams, a lawyer for House Speaker Jon Burns' office, who was trying to enforce a ban placed on Moore by the speaker. Moore was banned from entering the chamber after he blasted the state Senate's decision last year to consider a resolution to name a building at the University of North Georgia after the now-deceased former house speaker David Ralston.

STATE SENATOR PUSHED TO THE GROUND, ARRESTED WHILE TRYING TO ENTER GEORGIA HOUSE CHAMBER

Moore on Thursday made several attempts to brush past House staffers but was pushed back on several occasions. Then, at one point, William sent Moore flying, with the senator falling awkwardly to the floor. After another attempt to enter, Moore was arrested by state troopers and led away.

Later in the evening, Moore posted a video of himself sitting on a hospital bed with a blood pressure monitor strapped to one of his arms. His other arm was elevated on the bed’s guard rail. 

"I did take a bit of a beating; my hand, it’s a bit swollen and purple; we’re waiting to get some X-rays to check it out," Moore said.

"Today they took my freedom and liberty away as I was fighting for your freedom and liberty. But I tell you what, we still have a constitutional duty to do work, and I’ll still be in that legislature tomorrow morning. Thank you all for the support."

Burns initially said that the incident was "incredibly unfortunate and said that Moore had "created a dangerous situation when he chose to use force against our law enforcement officers, dedicated doorkeepers and House staff." Burns said that the integrity and decorum of this House was "non-negotiable—period."

On Friday, Burns, a Republican from Newington, lifted his ban after state Senate and Republican Party leaders lined up to support Moore.

GEORGIA LAWMAKER SAYS WHISTLEBLOWER ALERTED HIM OF SECRET MIGRANT ROOM AT AIRPORT 

He said that Moore’s desire to "cause a disturbance and gain notoriety in the press broke longstanding rules and precedents of decorum that each member of the General Assembly has a responsibility to uphold." But he said he’d admit Moore for joint sessions without an apology because Ralston wouldn’t have wanted the legislature’s work to be hindered.

"For this reason, the Ralston family has expressed to their family here in the House that they desire for our chamber to resume business as normal — with all members of the General Assembly present — for any future joint sessions with or without the apology they and the House deserve," Burns said.

Moore’s ban had stemmed from a speech he gave last year blasting former speaker Ralston, who was also a Republican. 

Moore accused Ralston of using his office to delay court cases for criminal defendants he had represented as an attorney. Ralston claimed in 2019 that his actions were entirely legal.

"This body is about to memorialize, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt Georgia leaders that we are ever going to see in my lifetime," Moore exclaimed at the time. 

It’s not the first time Colton, a self-described "RINO wrangler," has clashed with his Republican colleagues.

In 2023, Georgia’s Republican Senate Caucus suspended Moore for attacking them for opposing his plan to impeach Willis for indicting Trump in an election interference case.

Moore was the most prominent backer of a special session to impeach and remove Willis or defund her office, winning Trump’s endorsement. Kemp denounced the call as "some grifter scam" to raise campaign contributions for Moore.

The Willis case eventually unraveled, in part because she was in a romantic relationship with a prosecutor she had hired.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Moore was booked into Fulton County jail on a misdemeanor charge of willful obstruction of law enforcement officers.

After Moore took a mug shot imitating one Donald Trump famously took at the same jail, a supporter posted Moore’s $1,000 bail.

Lt. Edward Starling, a troopers spokesperson, said he had no update on whether charges would be dropped.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Special counsel Jack Smith resigned from his position at the Department of Justice Friday, Fox News has learned.

The resignation, which had already been expected since President-elect Trump was elected in November, was quietly announced in the footnote of a court filing Saturday. 

"The Special Counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on January 7, 2025, and separated from the Department on January 10," the note said.

Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate the 2020 election interference case against Trump related to Jan. 6 and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. In 2017, Smith served as acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee during the first Trump administration.

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

The news came as the country waits for Smith's report on the election interference case to be released. A recent court filing showed Garland plans to release the investigative report soon, possibly before Trump takes office Jan. 20. 

On Friday, a judge from a federal appeals court ruled against blocking the release of Smith's report.

"As I have made clear regarding every Special Counsel who has served since I took office, I am committed to making as much of the Special Counsel's report public as possible, consistent with legal requirements and Department policy," Garland wrote in a recent letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and ranking member Jamie Raskin, D-Md.

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

Once Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Smith filed motions to wind down his cases against the president-elect. At the end of November, Smith asked a judge to drop the charges against President-elect Trump in the D.C. case against him. 

Before asking to drop the case, Smith filed a motion to vacate all deadlines in the 2020 election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C., a decision that was widely expected after Trump's win. After the cases were dropped, Trump responded to the move by arguing the investigations "should never have been brought."

"These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought," Trump in a Truth Social post. "It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Fox News Digital's Brooke Singman and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.

Democratic lawmakers were noticeably silent following the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump despite previously commenting on the cases against him, as Washington prepares for a Republican trifecta in Congress.

Trump was sentenced on Friday after being found guilty on 34 charges related to falsifying business records in May.

The incoming president was sentenced to unconditional discharge, which means that he will not receive any jail time, fine or probation time. The sentence also preserves Trump's ability to appeal the conviction. 

After Trump was found guilty in criminal court in May, Democratic members of Congress put out a flurry of reactions on social media but appeared mum after the sentencing on Friday, which comes just days before he will be sworn into office on Jan. 20. 

TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO DENY HIS REQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in May, wrote in a post on X, fomerly Twitter, that "the jury has spoken and carefully rendered a decision. Responsible leadership requires the verdict to be respected," while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said that "nobody is above the law."

However, Democrats appeared less reactive to Friday's sentencing, which left Trump free of any penalty.

One Democratic congresswoman put out a statement following the unconditional discharge sentence, claiming that "our system of justice is not just."

"There is a two-tiered system of justice in this country, and Donald Trump lives on the tier where he gets to walk into the White House without spending a single day in jail or being put on probation after being convicted of 34 felonies. On the other tier are the clients I represented as a public defender in Texas, like the seventeen-year-old boy who was held on felony probation for taking some candy from his school's concession stand," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said in a post on X. 

REPUBLICANS BLAST ‘JOKE’ SENTENCING OF TRUMP 10 DAYS BEFORE SWEARING IN

"The scales are not equal," she added.

On the flip side, Republicans were very vocal following the sentencing. 

"I have no respect for the process being used in New York. I find the judge and prosecutor’s motives to be dripping with politics," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement. "This is a sad day for America."

Trump, ahead of the sentencing, said that he would appeal the decision.

Trump filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, but the high court ultimately denied his emergency petition to block his sentencing.

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Attorneys and legal experts railed against New York Judge Juan Merchan sentencing President-elect Donald Trump in the NY v. Trump case just days ahead of his inauguration as president, saying the case will be remembered as "one of the worst" cases in history. 

"I'll tell you how it strikes me, when you look at cases throughout history, not just in the United States, but really all over the world, this will be remembered as one of the worst. This will be remembered as an absolute injustice from the beginning," Fox News host Mark Levin said on Fox News after the sentencing. 

Merchan sentenced Trump on Friday morning to unconditional discharge, meaning he faces no punishment such as fines or jail time.

"This is the end of the politicalization of the justice system," said Fox News contributor Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney whom Trump named this week as senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice in his upcoming administration. 

DONALD TRUMP SENTENCED WITH NO PENALTY IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL, AS JUDGE WISHES HIM 'GODSPEED' IN 2ND TERM

"Trump's victory in the election basically, in my opinion, neutered this case. And the attempt to stain President Trump, to tarnish him with the scarlet felon, is going to be reversed just a matter of time. And I'm telling you this with 35 years of experience, this case should have never had been tried. It was done for one reason, to stop President Trump from becoming the 47th president. I want to be very clear, it failed."

Terrell added in his comments to Fox Digital that he is "salivating to get to the Department of Justice," where he will be "very involved in pursuing justice" surrounding the NY case and others brought against Trump. 

"I'm going to be involved in stopping anti-semitism and to stop going after Catholic families, parents who go to a school board meeting, and the misuse, the abuse of using the legal system for political gain. So, I'm going be involved in any investigation, and I hope I'm working there 24/7 to uncover all this nonsense," he said, noting that documents and correspondence surrounding the Trump cases will be "exposed." 

Merchan highlighted Friday ahead of sentencing that the court system handled Trump's case as it handles every other criminal case. 

"After careful analysis, this court determined the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Merchan said Friday. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts." 

Merchan added, "Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office."

REPUBLICANS BLAST 'JOKE' SENTENCING OF TRUMP 10 DAYS BEFORE SWEARING IN

Fox News contributor and lawyer Trey Gowdy underscored on Friday that if Trump's case was handled the same as any other in New York, it shows "there are a lot of bad trials going on" in the state. 

"Court time is precious. It is a precious resource. To waste this time on a case, where even the prosecution agrees you should not spend a minute. So if Juan Merchan says this case was not handled any differently, that just tells me there are lots of bad trials going on in New York," Gowdy said. 

Legal scholar and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley compared Merchan's remark that Trump's case was similar to any other in New York to Mary Shelley's "Dr. Frankenstein." 

"Merchan appears to be making the case in his own defense and insisted that this case is no different from any other case in New York. It is a case being made long after the jury has left the courthouse. This is like Dr. Frankenstein telling his creature that he is just like any other man. Stitching together this case from a dead misdemeanor and declined federal charges is anything but ordinary," Turley said on X. 

Trump addressed the court ahead of sentencing that the case was a "great embarrassment to the state of New York," while highlighting that voters "decisively" re-elected him to the White House in November. 

Fox News legal editor Kerri Urbahn added on Friday that as she walked into the courtroom, she noticed widespread support for Trump on the streets. 

"The only protesters, per se, who were here were Trump supporters. And even as I'm standing here right now, I'm looking into a square and I'm looking at people holding Trump flags, I'm looking at a person who has a sign that says, 'Enough is enough. We voted. We don't want this lawfare anymore.'" 

During Trump's trial in the spring of last year, no cameras were permitted in the courtroom. For the sentencing, however, Merchan agreed to allow audio, which Urbahn found odd. 

"It is noteworthy that during the trial, there was no audio. There were no cameras, but for this particular sentencing, Judge Merchan agreed to have audio. I can't help but think if it's because he wants the world to hear his voice sentence Donald Trump because we were not able to have that before," she said on Fox News. 

Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for Jan. 10 earlier this month, and was swiftly met with repeated attempts to delay and block the sentencing. Merchan said ahead of the sentencing that he would likely not "impose any sentence of incarceration" on Trump, and instead hand down an "unconditional discharge." 

Trump’s legal team filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. However, the court rejected his request. Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary." 

"The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application," Trump’s filing requested. 

TRUMP TO BE SENTENCED IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL

The Supreme Court denied the request. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that they would have granted Trump’s petition to postpone sentencing, while the order suggested Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson to deny Trump’s request. 

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE

Trump has vowed to appeal the conviction, arguing that evidence in the case implicated his duties as president during his first term after the Supreme Court’s ruling in July that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office but not for unofficial acts. 

TRUMP FILES EMERGENCY PETITION TO SUPREME COURT TO PREVENT SENTENCING IN NY V. TRUMP

"I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL. The pathetic, dying remnants of the Witch Hunts against me will not distract us as we unite and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump posted to Truth Social shortly after the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday. 

"Every Legal Scholar stated, unequivocally, that this is a case that should never have been brought. There was no case against me. In other words, I am innocent of all of the Judge’s made up, fake charges. This was nothing other than Weaponization of our Justice System against a Political Opponent. It’s called Lawfare, and nothing like this has ever happened in the United States of America, and it should never be allowed to happen again. To this day, this highly political and corrupt Judge has put a gag order on me, which takes away my First Amendment right to speak about very important aspects of the case," his post added. 

​​Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump had falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

Fox News's Brooke Singman and David Spunt contributed to this report.

President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation. 

The president-elect attended his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. Trump sat beside his defense attorney Todd Blanche. 

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE

Judge Juan Merchan did not sentence the president-elect to prison, and instead sentenced him to an unconditional discharge, meaning there is no punishment imposed--no jail time, fines or probation. The sentence also preserves Trump's ability to appeal the conviction. 

"After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge," Merchan said Friday. "At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts." 

Merchan added: "Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office."

Before Judge Juan Merchan announced the sentence, Trump called the case a "tremendous setback for the American court system." 

"This is a great embarrassment to the state of New York," Trump said, adding that the people saw the trial firsthand, and voted "decisively" to elect him as president. 

Trump said the Justice Department was "very involved," and stressed that a case like this against a former president, candidate, and now president-elect has "never happened in our country before." 

"And I would just like to explain that I was treated very, very unfairly. And I thank you very much," Trump said Friday. 

Merchan set Jan. 10 — just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. 

Merchan, upon scheduling the sentencing last week, said that he was not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge." 

During Friday's sentencing hearing, Merchan said he took the "unusual step" of informing Trump of his sentence prior to the proceeding. 

"The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make," Merchan said, noting the court "must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances."

Merchan reflected on the case, saying that "never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances." The judge said it was an "extraordinary case" with media interest and heightened security, but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself "was not any more unique or extraordinary" than any other case.

Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request. 

Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York." 

The high court denied the request, saying "the application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons." 

TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO DENY HIS REQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL

"First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal," the order states," the Supreme Court's order, filed Thursday night, stated. "Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing." 

The order also noted that "Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application." 

Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. 

Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20. 

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

A federal appeals court rejected a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith's final report detailing his investigation and prosecution of President-elect Trump's alleged 2020 election interference and alleged improper retention of classified records. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied a request from Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos de Oliveira, the former property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who were charged with obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump's handling of sensitive government records. 

The court left a three-day hold on DOJ’s release of the report.

JUDGE GRANTS JACK SMITH REQUEST TO DISMISS JAN. 6 CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, APPEAL DROPPED IN FLORIDA DOCS CASE

The Justice Department said it would proceed with plans to release the first of two volumes centered on the election interference case but would make the classified documents section of the report available only to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their private review as long as the case against Trump’s co-defendants is ongoing.

It was not immediately clear when the election interference report might be released.

The election interference case was narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Following Trump's presidential victory, Smith's team abandoned both cases in November, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits federal prosecutions of sitting presidents.

TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO DENY HIS RESQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL

Justice Department regulations call for special counsels appointed by the attorney general to submit a confidential report at the conclusion of their investigations. It is then up to the attorney general to decide what to make public.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has made public in their entirety the reports produced by special counsels who operated under his watch, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information and John Durham’s report on the FBI’s Russian election interference investigation.

In a statement, Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung said that it was time to "put a final stop to the political weaponiziation of our Justice system."

"Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing after losing both of his Witch Hunts against President Trump. Deranged was unconstitutionally appointed and paid for, so he cannot be allowed to do anything more in perpetuation of his election-interfering hoaxes, let alone prepare an unconstitutional, one-sided, falsehood-ridden screed," he said.

"Today’s decision by the 11th Circuit keeps Judge Cannon’s injunction in place and prevents any report from being issued. It is time for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland to do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our Justice system," Cheung said. "The American People elected President Trump with a historic and overwhelming mandate, and we look forward to uniting our country in the new Administration as President Trump makes America great again." 

Fox News' Brooke Signman and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

The United States Supreme Court has denied President-elect Trump's petition to block his Friday sentencing in New York v. Trump. 

Trump filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, scheduled by Judge Juan Merchan, from taking place. 

"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal," the order states. 

"Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing," the court ruled. 

The order also noted that "Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application." 

Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. 

Trump's sentencing is now expected to move forward, with the president-elect expected to appear virtually for the proceeding, scheduled for 9:30 am Friday. 

Merchan set Trump's sentencing in New York v. Trump for Jan. 10 after a jury found the now-president-elect guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree, stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and has appealed the ruling but was rejected last week by Merchan. 

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE

Trump's lawyers, in their petition to the high court, said it should "immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary." 

"The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application," the filing states. 

Trump's attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court's ruling on presidential immunity. 

JUDGE DENIES TRUMP MOTION TO STOP NY CRIMINAL CASE SENTENCING

The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts. 

Trump's legal team is arguing Merchan should not be permitted to move any further and said their appeal of the ruling "will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit." 

Merchan set the sentencing date last week but said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison. 

Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed. 

Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20. 

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of "lawfare" promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland will release Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on the 2020 election interference case against President-elect Trump if a federal court clears the way, according to a court filing.

The Department of Justice told the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday that should an injunction be lifted, Garland intends to release Volume One of Smith's final report to Congress and the public, which covers the allegations that Trump attempted to illegally undo the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

However, Garland would not release Volume Two, which covers the classified documents case against Trump, as two defendants in that case still face criminal proceedings. Only the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will be permitted to view Volume Two, and they will be prohibited from discussing the report publicly. 

"This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the Department while safeguarding defendants' interests," Justice Department attorneys said in response to a motion to stop the report from being released.  

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH FROM RELEASING FINAL REPORT

It is customary for special counsels to release a final report, detailing the findings of their investigation and explaining any prosecution or declination decisions they reached. In Smith's case, the prosecution decision is immaterial, given Trump's status as president-elect and long-standing Justice Department policy against bringing criminal charges against a sitting president. 

Smith planned to release his final report sometime this month, as early as the end of this week. He will resign from his position before Trump takes office on Jan. 20. 

However, Trump co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira filed an emergency motion to block the reported imminent release of Smith’s final report. 

FORMER TRUMP CO-DEFENDANTS WANT JUDGE TO BLOCK SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH REPORT

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Aileen Cannon on Tuesday ruled in favor of Nauta and De Oliveira to "prevent irreparable harm." 

Cannon said Smith is "temporarily enjoined" from "releasing, sharing, or transmitting the Final Report or any drafts of such Report outside the Department of Justice."

The order remains in effect until three days after a resolution is announced from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

JUDGE GRANTS JACK SMITH REQUEST TO DISMISS JAN. 6 CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, APPEAL DROPPED IN FLORIDA DOCS CASE

Nauta and De Oliveira pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging they conspired to obstruct the FBI investigation into classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. 

Smith was tapped by Garland in 2022 to investigate both the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump's keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Florida residence. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges. 

Cannon, this summer, dismissed Smith's case against Trump relating to classified records, ruling that he was appointed unlawfully as special counsel. 

And in November, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan dropped Smith's charges against Trump in the 2020 election interference case. Smith also dropped his appeal to Cannon's ruling in the classified records case. 

Garland has opted to release the reports from two other special counsels whose investigations concluded during his tenure — publishing both the summary reports submitted by John Durham, who was tapped by then-Attorney General Bill Barr in 2019 to review the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, and the final report from Robert Hur, a former U.S. attorney whom he tapped in 2023 to investigate President Biden's handling of classified documents.

A judge in New York has denied a motion filed by President-elect Donald Trump to stay the Jan. 10 sentencing in the New York v. Trump case.

​​Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May 2024. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. 

New York Judge Juan Merchan set Trump's sentencing date in the case earlier this month, ahead of his inauguration as president on Jan. 20. The former and upcoming president had requested the verdict in the case be vacated based on the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision last year, which was denied by Merchan.  

Fox News Digital learned yesterday that Trump filed a motion to stay the Jan. 10 sentencing. 

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE

"Today, President Trump’s legal team moved to stop the unlawful sentencing in the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt. The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the state constitution of New York, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed," said Trump spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung on Monday. 

"The American People elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts. We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again," Cheung continued. 

However, Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer issued a filing Tuesday saying that "after consideration of the papers submitted and the extensive oral argument, movant’s application for an interim stay is denied." 

Trump remains set to be sentenced on Friday, Jan. 10, at 9:30 a.m. He plans to attend virtually. 

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

Fox News' Emma Colton and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

New York Judge Juan Merchan denied President-elect Donald Trump's request to delay sentencing in the New York v. Trump case. 

"Defendant's motion for a stay of these proceedings, including the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, is hereby DENIED," Merchan wrote in his decision Monday.

Earlier Monday, Trump's legal team filed a motion to delay sentencing in the case. Trump is set to be sentenced on Jan. 10 at 9:30 a.m., 10 days ahead of his inauguration as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. 

"Today, President Trump’s legal team moved to stop the unlawful sentencing in the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt. The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the state constitution of New York, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed," Trump spokesperson and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung told Fox Digital on Monday morning.

TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY 'UNLAWFUL SENTENCING' IN NEW YORK CASE

"The American People elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts. We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again," Cheung continued. 

Earlier Monday, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office responded to Trump's filing, calling on the court to deny the request. 

NEW YORK JUDGE SETS TRUMP SENTENCING DAYS BEFORE INAUGURATION

Merchan has already said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison and instead issue a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed.

​​Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

NY JUDGE ANNOUNCES UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE SENTENCING FOR TRUMP ON JAN 10

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

"Virtually ever legal scholar and pundit says THERE IS NO (ZERO!) CASE AGAINST ME. The Judge fabricated the facts, and the law, no different than the other New York Judicial and Prosecutorial Witch Hunts. That’s why businesses are fleeing New York, taking with them millions of jobs, and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES. The legal system is broken, and businesses can’t take a chance in getting caught up in this quicksand. IT’S ALL RIGGED, in this case against a political opponent, ME!!!" Trump posted to Truth Social on Sunday evening of the case.

Fox News Digital's Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

President-elect Trump filed a motion to stay the Jan. 10 sentencing in the New York v. Trump case, Fox Digital has learned. 

"Today, President Trump’s legal team moved to stop the unlawful sentencing in the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt. The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the state constitution of New York, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed," Trump spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung told Fox Digital on Monday morning. 

NEW YORK JUDGE SETS TRUMP SENTENCING DAYS BEFORE INAUGURATION

"The American People elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts. We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again," Cheung continued. 

The Manhattan district attorney's office responded to the filing Monday afternoon, denying the request to delay sentencing. 

"The Court should deny defendant’s motion for an immediate stay and should proceed to sentencing as scheduled on January 10, 2025," the DA's office wrote in its response Monday. 

New York Judge Juan Merchan set Trump's sentencing date in the case earlier this month, ahead of his inauguration as president on Jan. 20. The former and upcoming president had requested the verdict in the case be vacated based on the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision last year, which was denied by Merchan. 

Trump is set to be sentenced on Friday, Jan. 10, at 9:30 a.m. Merchan has already said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison, and instead issue a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed. 

NY JUDGE ANNOUNCES UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE SENTENCING FOR TRUMP ON JAN 10

​​Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office worked to prove that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

TRUMP SLAMS MERCHAN, DEMOCRATS, WHO 'JUST WANT TO SEE IF THEY CAN GET A POUND OF FLESH' AMID FAILED CASES

"Virtually ever legal scholar and pundit says THERE IS NO (ZERO!) CASE AGAINST ME. The Judge fabricated the facts, and the law, no different than the other New York Judicial and Prosecutorial Witch Hunts. That’s why businesses are fleeing New York, taking with them millions of jobs, and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES. The legal system is broken, and businesses can’t take a chance in getting caught up in this quicksand. IT’S ALL RIGGED, in this case against a political opponent, ME!!!" Trump posted to Truth Social on Sunday evening of the case. 

Trump’s sentencing in the case has been repeatedly delayed. Trump's lawyers had asked Merchan to overturn the former president’s guilty verdict after the Supreme Court ruled in July that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office, but not for unofficial acts.

New York Judge Juan Merchan’s dogmatic refusal on Friday to dismiss the misbegotten case against President-elect Donald Trump and, instead, proceed to sentencing on Jan. 10 is yet another middle finger extended to the law. And to Trump.  

At the same time, Merchan unwittingly concedes the folly of the entire prosecution by notifying the defendant that neither the court nor District Attorney Alvin Bragg will seek any meaningful punishment. Trump, the judge disingenuously advises, would receive an "unconditional discharge" with no incarceration, fine, or probation following the guilty verdicts by a Manhattan jury last May.

TRUMP SLAMS MERCHAN, DEMOCRATS, WHO JUST WANT ‘A POUND OF FLESH’ AMID FAILED CASES

Never mind that state law does not support a jail sentence under these circumstances. Forget that the district attorney deliberately contorted statutes and mangled evidence to pursue a meritless prosecution that was motivated purely by political vengeance. And ignore the fact that there is little chance that the biased jury’s guilty verdict, compounded by Merchan’s chronic reversible errors, will withstand judicial scrutiny on appeal. Eventually.  

It seems obvious that Merchan is desperate to stain Trump with the formal stricture of "convicted felon." To do it, he must sentence the incoming president. A jury’s verdict alone is insufficient under the law. Hence, the offer of what amounts to a non-sentence if only Trump will, at the very least, appear virtually during a hearing 10 days before he is sworn in.  

It is another charade meant to bookend —and cover-up— a sham trial. Show up to be verbally tarred and feathered, but no stocks or pillory will be deployed.

In some sense, it may be tempting to accept Merchan’s contingent surrender. Why? Under law, Trump is foreclosed from challenging the myriad of mistakes the judge made at trial, as well as the prosecution’s specious legal theory, until sentencing occurs. Only then is he officially "convicted." A successful appeal erases the conviction, albeit belatedly.  

And there’s the rub.  

Your average defendant would accept the Faustian bargain that guarantees no jail time and starts the clock immediately on the appellate process. But Trump is different. He is an inveterate fighter who refuses to capitulate, even when his opponents are facing reproach. It’s one of the many reasons why voters rewarded him with a second term in office. He does not give up or give in. Nor should he.

Trump is determined to clear his name. So, you can expect that his legal team will challenge Merchan’s ruling on both the dismissal and sentencing. There are various legal options available, such as filing for an emergency "stay" from the appellate courts that, if granted, may push any further proceedings beyond inauguration on Jan. 20.  

Since it is well established that presidents are immune from any criminal process while in office —a principle that even Merchan accepts— a court-ordered pause would effectively delay sentencing until 2029. Of course, that assumes the case still has a pulse four years from now.    

Trump has a credible argument that the verdicts against him should be vacated now. As president-elect, his lawyers contend that "immediate dismissal is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interest of justice." Sentencing would disrupt the orderly transfer of executive power.

In essence, a state has no right or power to transgress federal laws passed by Congress, including the Transition Act. Interference by a local prosecutor and/or judge constitutes a violation of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. 

But there are other compelling reasons to end this case sooner, rather than later.    

In an earlier ruling, Merchan readily acknowledged his authority to set aside the verdicts if mistakes were made at trial which would merit reversal.  Yet, he stubbornly refuses to recognize the plethora of errors that demand dismissal.   

Chief among them is that prosecutors relied on tainted evidence prohibited in the presidential immunity standard enunciated by the Supreme Court on July 1. Testimony from White House officials and numerous presidential records should never have been introduced. Merchan disregards all this by insisting that such evidence was trifling, even though prosecutors emphasized it during closing arguments to the jury.   

He also turned a blind eye to Bragg’s convoluted and incoherent legal theory that it must somehow be a crime to conceal a perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement. It is not. He then allowed the district attorney to shred the law by resurrecting expired business record misdemeanors and transmuting them into phantom election felonies that were falsely portrayed as unduly influencing the 2016 presidential contest.  

It was a pretty neat trick inasmuch as Trump’s transactions were recorded and reimbursed after the election. Moreover, Bragg, as a local prosecutor, had no jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign laws. The payments to former adult film star Stormy Daniels did not even qualify as contributions under any statute or regulation.

As I have noted before, a competent or objective judge would have long ago tossed the Trump indictment in the garbage where it belonged. On its face, it was patently deficient, if not ludicrous, and a transparently politicized prosecution.  

But Bragg’s disgraceful legerdemain did not bother Merchan in the least. Just the opposite. His honor merrily went along with the hocus-pocus. At trial, he shed his black robe to join the jurisprudential circus as co-prosecutor.  

When the preordained verdicts were announced, no one knew exactly what Trump was convicted of. Theoretically, bookkeeping errors were allegedly committed to further another crime in an unlawful attempt to influence the election.  

But what crime? No one can say. Was it federal campaign law violations? Taxation laws? False business records? Select from the aforementioned menu of imaginary possibilities. Trump doesn’t know because prosecutors never said. And neither did the jurors.  

In an appalling instruction to the panel, Merchan declared that they did not have to identify which crimes were supposedly perpetrated and need not agree unanimously. He abandoned with impunity the bedrock principle of unanimity in criminal convictions which the Supreme Court has reinforced repeatedly.  

Merchan’s courtroom devolved into a cesspool of incomprehensible rulings by a conflicted and hostile judge that deprived Trump of a fair trial. Merchan and prosecutors worked in concert to engineer the guilty verdicts. Political bias smothered the defendant’s due process rights. It was a harebrained case driven by a district attorney who enthusiastically embraced the Democrats’ corrupt lawfare campaign against their Republican opponent. 

None of it fooled American voters. Indeed, it appears to have backfired spectacularly. Many deeply resented how Trump’s adversaries disfigured the law to bring a series of criminal indictments designed to destroy his chances of returning to the White House. Outrage was voiced at the ballot box on Nov. 5.  Decisively.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Despite their best efforts to sabotage the outcome of the election, the unscrupulous duo of Merchan and Bragg can do nothing now to stop Trump. Even if his anticipated bid to halt the sentencing next Friday fails, the newly elected president still benefits.  He can commence appealing the shameless perversion of the law that was waged against him and the miscarriage of justice that ensued.  

It wasn’t a fair trial. It was a farce.  

In the meantime, it is incumbent on the incoming Department of Justice to open a comprehensive investigation into the lawfare campaign that Special Counsel Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought almost simultaneously and only after Trump announced his bid for election.

Coincidence? Hardly. There is reason to believe that there was coordination among them with President Joe Biden’s White House or with Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DOJ. Maybe both. If laws were broken, prosecutors should be exposed and held accountable for weaponizing the justice system.

Democrats have spent the last four years lecturing us that no one is above the law. Inconveniently now, that same standard applies to them.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT

EXCLUSIVE: President-elect Donald Trump slammed Judge Juan Merchan for denying his request to dismiss the charges against him in New York v. Trump, telling Fox News Digital Democrats "just want to see if they can get a pound of flesh because every case has failed."

Merchan denied Trump’s request to toss his guilty verdict in New York v. Trump, brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and set his sentencing for Jan. 10—just ten days before he is sworn in as 47th President of the United States. 

NEW YORK JUDGE SETS TRUMP SENTENCING DAYS BEFORE INAUGURATION

Merchan said there would be no imposition of a sentence including incarceration, jail time, a fine, or probation, but rather, likely, a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed. 

"Every major legal pundit, including Andy McCarthy, Jonathan Turley, Gregg Jarrett, and Eli Honig, has stated strongly there was no case, there is no case and this was just a witch hunt," Trump told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview Friday. "The judge is corrupt and I am still under a gag order, I am not allowed to speak about the thing he least wants me to talk about."

Trump said Merchan is "a totally conflicted judge who is doing the work for the Democrat Party because every other case has failed." 

"I did absolutely nothing wrong," Trump continued. "This is a political witch hunt by Biden and the DOJ."

He added: "They want to see if they can get a pound of flesh because every case has failed including deranged Jack Smith’s, who is on his way back to the Hague after having lost every case." 

Trump told Fox News Digital that "nobody has ever gone through what I go through—this is a disgrace." 

The president-elect went on to call Merchan "the most conflicted judge in the history of jurisprudence." 

"There has never been a judge as conflicted as this one," Trump said. "There was no case. He created a case out of nothing because he wanted my political opponent to win." 

Merchan imposed a gag order over Trump during the trial and has refused to lift that order. 

TRUMP CLAIMS DEMS MAY TRY TO IMPEDE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR HIS NOMINEES

Merchan’s gag order bars Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses with regard to their potential participation or about counsel in the case—other than Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg—or about court staff, DA staff, or family members of staff. 

One issue Trump has been barred from speaking about relates to Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, who sits as the president for Authentic Campaigns—a company that has done political work for top Democrat clients like President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan launched an investigation into Loren Merchan’s work for the Democrat-affiliated firm. Loren Merchan received more than $7 million in compensation from her work for Vice President Harris in 2020. 

Meanwhile, cases brought against Trump in all other jurisdictions have been dismissed or are paused indefinitely. 

A federal judge in Florida this summer dismissed the case brought against Trump by now-former Special Counsel Jack Smith related to his alleged improper retention of classified records. The judge, Jude Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida, dismissed the charges, ruling that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

Smith’s case against Trump related to alleged 2020 election interference was also dismissed last month, and he closed his office. 

Trump had pleaded not guilty to all charges across both of Smith’s cases against him. 

And last month, a Georgia court of appeals disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her team from prosecuting Trump in her 2020 election interference case. 

JORDAN INVESTIGATES DAUGHTER OF JUDGE IN NY V. TRUMP CASE OVER HER WORK FOR KAMALA HARRIS, DEMOCRATS

The court did not toss Trump's indictment entirely, but Willis and the assistant DAs working in her office now have "no authority to proceed."

"There is no way such corrupt people can lead a case and then it gets taken over by somebody else," Trump told Fox News Digital last month, reacting to the ruling. "It was a corrupt case, so how could it be taken over by someone else?" 

"The case has to be thrown out because it was started corruptly by an incompetent prosecutor who received millions of dollars through her boyfriend—who received it from her—and then they went on cruises all the time," Trump said, referring to Willis' relationship with a former prosecutor on her team, Nathan Wade. 

"Therefore, the case is entirely dead," Trump said. "Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years." 

Meanwhile, Trump spokesman and incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital that the order by Merchan "is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence."   

"This lawless case should have never been brought and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed," Cheung told Fox News Digital. "President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process and to execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this or any remnants of the Witch Hunts." 

Cheung added: "There should be no sentencing, and President Trump will continue fighting against these hoaxes until they are all dead."

President-elect Trump's bid to toss his conviction in his New York criminal hush money case was denied on Friday. 

New York Judge Juan Merchan rejected Trump's request to vacate the verdict in the case based on the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision.

Sentencing is set for January 10 at 9:30 a.m, with the president-elect having the option to appear in person or virtually. But Merchan said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison. 

Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to "impose any sentence of incarceration," but rather a sentence of an "unconditional discharge," which means there would be no punishment imposed. 

Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on January 20. 

TRUMP CLAIMS DEMS MAY TRY TO IMPEDE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR HIS NOMINEES

Merchan noted that he is still reviewing the other motions filed by Trump to dismiss the case.

He also rejected the DA’s suggestion that he preserve the verdict, but end proceedings as it would deny Trump’s right to a path to appeal.

"Today’s order by the deeply conflicted, Acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence," Trump spokesman and incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital. "This lawless case should have never been brought and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed. President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process and to execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this or any remnants of the Witch Hunts." 

Cheung added: "There should be no sentencing, and President Trump will continue fighting against these hoaxes until they are all dead."

Last month, Merchan also denied Trump attorneys' request to dismiss charges on the basis of presidential immunity.

The ruling comes after President-elect Trump and his team in July requested Merchan overturn his guilty verdict in New York v. Trump, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that presidents have immunity for official acts. 

US APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP VERDICT IN E. JEAN CARROLL DEFAMATION CASE

Merchan ruled that the evidence presented in the trial was related "entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections." 

Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from the yearslong investigation related to alleged hush money payments run by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance initiated the investigation, and Bragg prosecuted Trump. 

After an unprecedented six-week trial in New York City, a jury found the president guilty on all counts. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a former president has substantial immunity for official acts committed while in office. 

In the formal motion in July, Trump attorney Todd Blanche pointed to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, and argued that certain evidence of "official acts" should not have been admitted during the trial. 

Trump attorneys, last month, officially requested to "immediately" dismiss charges against the president-elect in New York v. Trump, declaring the "failed lawfare" case "should never have been brought." 

TRUMP REQUESTS NY JUDGE OVERTURN GUILTY VERDICT, INDICTMENT AFTER SCOTUS IMMUNITY RULING

Trump attorneys said the case "would never have been brought were it not for President Trump’s political views, the transformative national movement established under his leadership, and the political threat that he poses to entrenched, corrupt politicians in Washington, D.C. and beyond." 

Trump lawyers said that "wrongly continuing proceedings in this failed lawfare case disrupts President Trump’s transition efforts and his preparations to wield the full Article II executive power authorized by the Constitution pursuant to the overwhelming national mandate granted to him by the American people on November 5, 2024." 

Bragg, in November, requested to Judge Juan Merchan that the case be stayed until the end of Trump’s second term, but Trump attorneys noted that the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department concluded that "the categorical prohibition on the federal indictment of a sitting president…even if the case were held in abeyance…applies to this situation." 

They added that Bragg's "ridiculous suggestion that they could simply resume proceedings after President Trump leaves Office, more than a decade after they commenced their investigation in 2018, is not an option."

In what appears to be a bid to ensure that President-elect Trump enters office as a formally convicted felon, Judge Juan Merchan has denied Trump’s post-trial motions and proposes to sentence him next Friday, January 10.

The bait for Trump to agree to this is that Judge Merchan is signaling that the sentence will be a conditional discharge – meaning the president-elect would face no prison time and no post-sentence monitoring (such as probation). Moreover, because the imposition of sentence and entry of the judgment would end the proceedings in the trial court, Trump would be free to commence his appeal of what would be 34 felony convictions on the charge of business-records falsification.

I do not believe Trump will agree to this; instead, I suspect he will seek an immediate appeal on the immunity claims that Merchan conclusively rejected in today’s 18-page opinion and order. It is not surprising that Merchan denied Trump’s immunity claims; he had already ruled against Trump on this point in an opinion issued on December 16.

NEW YORK JUDGE SETS TRUMP SENTENCING DAYS BEFORE INAUGURATION

In prior proceedings, Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg, appeared to acknowledge that Trump would likely have a right to appeal an immunity ruling against him prior to being sentenced. That is no doubt why, rather than push for a sentencing date, Bragg’s prosecutors proposed that the case be frozen – held in abeyance while Trump served his four-year presidential term. In that scenario, the case would theoretically to resume in 2029 (when Trump would be 82-years-old) with final presentencing rulings, the imposition of sentence and entry of the judgment of conviction, and the appeal.

In Friday afternoon’s ruling, Merchan rejected that proposal, claiming that he had a responsibility to sentence Trump prior to inauguration, lest what the judge frames as an important public interest in getting the sentencing done were undermined. 

It is not clear to me that there is any such public interest. There seems, instead, to be the interest of Merchan – an activist Democrat who contributed to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign against Trump in violation of state judicial ethics rules – to ensure that Trump is branded a convicted felon while there is still opportunity, pre-inauguration, to make that happen.

Nevertheless, Merchan appears to acknowledge that Trump still has cards to play. The opinion states, for example:

"This Court must sentence Defendant within a reasonable time following verdict; and Defendant must be permitted to avail himself of every available appeal, a path he has made clear he intends to pursue but which only becomes fully available upon sentencing. [Emphasis added.]"

Put aside how precious it is for this demonstrably hostile judge to express his deeply held concerns about the vindication of Trump’s appellate rights. Merchan must interject the word "fully" because, while Trump can only bring his complete appeal based on all claims of error arising out of the proceedings only after sentencing, he should be able to bring a partial appeal now targeted solely at Merchan’s immunity ruling. 

TRUMP SLAMS MERCHAN, DEMOCRATS, WHO 'JUST WANT TO SEE IF THEY CAN GET A POUND OF FLESH' AMID FAILED CASES

Merchan then goes on to address Bragg’s proposal to hold the case in abeyance for four years: "[I]f the Court is unable to impose sentence before Defendant takes his oath of office [on January 20], then this may become the only viable option." 

Again, Merchan is clearly aware that Trump may be permitted to appeal the immunity portion of the ruling immediately. If that happens, then Merchan would, indeed, be "unable to impose sentence" before inauguration day – in which case Trump would not be a convicted felon upon entering the presidency.

What I find most remarkable about all of this is Merchan’s description of Trump’s offenses:

"Here, 12 jurors unanimously found Defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means. It was the premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world that is the gravamen of this offense. [Emphasis added.] To vacate this verdict on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position Defendant once held, and is about to assume again [i.e., the presidency], would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry's confidence in the Rule of Law."

Here, Merchan is swallowing whole Bragg’s portrayal of the case: We’re not merely talking about falsification business records; Trump conspired to steal the 2016 election – a conspiracy that succeeded! 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Now, let’s put aside that this is not what the indictment charged. Let’s put aside that it is a ridiculous claim – i.e., even assuming for argument’s sake that, as Bragg claimed, Trump’s non-disclosure agreement (NDA) payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels was a campaign expense that had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission (it wasn’t), it still would not have had to be reported until after the election – meaning: it was not illegally concealed from voters. And let’s put aside that, because Merchan (in violation of due process) did not require a unanimous verdict on the crime Trump was supposedly concealing by falsifying his business records, it cannot fairly be said – as the judge claims – that 12 jurors unanimously found that he conspired to steal the election.

Ignoring all of that, if one truly believed, as Merchan says he believes, that Trump was proven to have conspired to steal a presidential election – abusing his status, the judge portentously adds, as "the leader of the free world" – then how could a responsible judge in good conscience sentence Trump to a no prison, no probation sentence? As described by Merchan, this was a heinous crime for the ages.

Of course, Merchan doesn’t really believe that. How could he? This was, at most, a trivial, time-barred misdemeanor offense of record-keeping regarding a legal transaction (NDAs are legal and common) that Bragg – with enormous help from Merchan – gussied up into 34 felonies by purporting to enforce federal campaign finance laws that a state prosecutor has no authority to enforce (and that the relevant federal authorities concluded Trump didn’t violate).

The American people just elected Donald Trump president by not only an Electoral College majority but by a popular-vote edge. The public did so knowing full well about Bragg’s absurd criminal case in Manhattan. 

Clearly, there is no public clamor to see Trump sentenced prior to taking the nation’s highest office. There is, instead, a spiteful New York progressive Democratic interest in branding the Republican president-elect a convicted felon.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ANDREW McCARTHY
 

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr is urging the state Supreme Court to reject an appeal by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, after she was removed from the election interference case against President-elect Trump.

Earlier this month, a Georgia court of appeals disqualified Willis from the Georgia election interference case against Trump and others, citing an "appearance of impropriety." The panel also cited the romantic relationship between Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

On Monday, the state’s lead attorney, who announced plans to run for governor in November, posted a statement on social media regarding the ruling against Willis.

"The Georgia Court of Appeals has ruled that the Fulton County DA created her own conflict and rightfully removed her from the case against President-elect Trump," Carr wrote. "‘Lawfare’ has become far too common in American politics, and it must end.

GEORGIA APPEALS COURT DISQUALIFIES DA FANI WILLIS AND HER TEAM FROM TRUMP ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

"As such, I would encourage the Georgia Supreme Court to not take her appeal," Carr continued. "It’s our hope that the DA will now focus taxpayer resources on the successful prosecution of violent criminals in Fulton County."

Willis, who was spearheading the sweeping prosecution case against Trump, came under fire after she was accused in February of having an "improper" affair with special prosecutor Wade, whom she had hired to help prosecute the case.

FANI WILLIS WAS 'TERRIFIED' BECAUSE HER CASE AGAINST TRUMP WAS 'WEAK,' ATTORNEY SAYS

Wade was ultimately forced to step down from the prosecution team.

The court did not toss Trump's indictment entirely, but Willis and the assistant DAs working in her office now have "no authority to proceed."

"After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office," the court filing read. "The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring."

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

Mexico is developing an app that will allow migrants in the U.S. facing deportation to alert their family members and local U.S. consulates if they are about to be detained by authorities, a senior official said Friday. He added that his government plans to ensure that each Mexican citizen is given due process in the U.S. before being potentially ejected from the country. 

The app, called "Alert Button," is being designed in anticipation of the mass deportations of illegal migrants expected to occur after President-elect Trump is sworn into office on Jan. 20. A cornerstone of Trump’s second term in office is to secure the border and carry out the largest mass deportation program the U.S. has ever seen.

Many Mexican nationals who are in the U.S. illegally will likely be targeted by the new Trump administration. The Mexican government estimates there are 11.5 million migrants with some form of legal residency in the United States and 4.8 million without legal residency or proper documents. 

NEW REPORT REVEALS MASSIVE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BENEFITING FROM BIDEN-HARRIS ADMIN'S 'QUIET AMNESTY'

The new app, which is expected to be available in January, will allow users to press a tab to send an alert notification to previously chosen relatives and the nearest Mexican consulate, of which there are 53 in the U.S.

"In case you find yourself in a situation where detention is imminent, you push the alert button and that sends a signal to the nearest consulate," Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs Juan Ramón de la Fuente said.

He said it has already been rolled out for small-scale testing and "appears to be working very well." 

De la Fuente described it as a sort of panic button, adding that his office has beefed up its consular staff by hiring "329 legal representatives" to ensure that Mexicans facing deportation will be given due process and are properly informed of their rights before potential removal. 

U.S. authorities are obliged to notify home-country consulates when a foreign citizen is detained and Mexico says its consular staff will offer legal aid to help migrants in the legal process related to deportation. 

The government says it has also set up a call center staffed 24 hours a day to answer migrants’ questions and help educate them on their rights ahead of "possible arrests or other intimidating actions."

De la Fuente said in a statement that the Mexican government will defend the human rights of its citizens in the U.S. in strict compliance with international law.

BIDEN ADMIN FACES SCRUTINY OVER RESPONSE TO ‘SIGNIFICANT RISE’ OF ASSAULTS ON BORDER PATROL AGENTS

"We want to tell our fellow countrymen that they are not alone and they will not be alone," he said, reiterating that there is a consular network that is up to the task.

The foreign minister said that in order to deport someone from the U.S. a court order or removal ruling is needed and that his consular team will be "very vigilant in ensuring that due process is followed."

Trump has already clashed with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum over immigration and proposed a 25% tariff on imported goods from Mexico over the flow of illegal immigrants and illicit drugs. Sheinbaum said that such a move could lead to a trade war between the countries and insisted her government has already been clamping down on migrants crossing into the U.S.

The U.S. recorded an unprecedented number of illegal migrants flowing across its borders under the Biden-Harris administration. The number of illegal immigrants on ICE's non-detained docket exploded to nearly 7.7 million, more than double what it was when Trump left office. It was at 3.2 million at the end of FY 2020.

The annual ICE report released in October shows that ICE deported 271,484 illegal immigrants to 192 different countries in fiscal year 2024. Of those, 32.7% had criminal histories and 237 were known or suspected terrorists.

It’s a significant increase from more than 142,000 deported in FY 23, and around 72,000 in FY 2022. In FY 2020, the last year of the Trump administration and which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, there were around 185,000 deportations and in FY 2019 there were 267,000 deportations. 

Fox News’ Adam Shaw and the Associated Press contributed to this report.