President Biden will not make an announcement on whether he will run for re-election in 2024 until after he gives the State of the Union address, according to sources.

Sources say that the timing of the announcement isn’t related to an ongoing investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said that the discovery of classified documents wouldn’t impact Biden’s timing on the decision.

‘The President is honoring his promise to respect the independence of the Department of Justice and divorce it from politics. You’ve heard from him directly, including after his agenda resulted in the best midterms for a Democratic President in 60 years, that he intends to run,’ Bates said.

‘With inflation falling, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, more jobs back to America, and lowering drug costs – all  in the last week alone – his focus in on delivering even more progress for American families. This week we also saw House Republicans’ vision: raising taxes on the middle class to cut them for the wealthy, worsening inflation, and a national abortion ban,’ he added.

A Democratic strategist told Fox News that it wouldn’t make sense for Biden to announce plans for 2024 anywhere near, or directly after, the State of the Union. The strategist said that Biden would be better off touting his administration’s accomplishments and let it breathe before launching another major moment.

Biden is facing criticism from Democrats and Republicans after classified documents were found at both his private office at the Penn Biden Center and at his Wilmington, Delaware, residence’s private garage.

In addressing the documents, Biden told Fox News’ Peter Doocy that they were in a locked garage.

‘Classified documents next to your Corvette? What were you thinking?’ Doocy asked Biden.

‘I’m going to get the chance to speak on all of this, God willing it’ll be soon, but I said earlier this week — and by the way my Corvette is in a locked garage. It’s not like it’s sitting out in the street,’ Biden responded.

‘So the documents were in a locked garage?,’ Doocy asked.

‘Yes, as well as my Corvette. But as I said earlier this week, people know I take classified documents and classified material seriously,’ President Biden said. ‘I also said we’re cooperating fully and completely with the Justice Department’s review.’

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Florida Republican Byron Donalds – one of only a handful of Black Republican lawmakers serving on Capitol Hill – says his Washington, D.C., office was sent a copy of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’

In a tweet, Donalds said the well-known anti-slavery work, which was authored by Harriet Beecher Stowe in the mid-1800s, was sent to his office Thursday by someone who had ‘hate in their heart [and] the desire to depict me as a sellout.’

The novel has been recognized as one of the most well-known abolitionist works in history. The term ‘Uncle Tom’ has been used in the modern era to describe Black people who are deferential to White people or White culture.

‘Today, my D.C. office received a copy of the world-renowned book ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ by Harriet Beecher Stowe,’ Donalds said. ‘Whoever sent this book did so w/ hate in their heart & the desire to depict me as a sellout.’

Donalds’ tweet showed a picture of the book he received along with a quote from NBA legend Bill Russell that reads: ‘Concentration [and] mental toughness are the margins of victory.’

This isn’t the first time Donalds has been on the receiving end of racist attacks from those who disagree with him politically. Earlier this year, amid Republicans taking a small majority in the House, Donalds’ wife, Erika, shared screenshots of the ‘racist attacks’ that she and her husband endure from the left.

‘Byron and I have been together for 23+ years, and the most racist attacks we experience are always from the left,’ she wrote in a tweet. ‘They can’t accept that a free thinking black man achieves success on his own merits, and they sure as heck can’t stand that he’s married to me!’

‘Cry harder, haters,’ she added.

Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for Donalds, told Fox News Digital at the time that ‘the congressman stands by his wife and denounces the blatant racism being thrown at them.’

Donalds was among a group of nearly two dozen Republicans who refused to vote for Kevin McCarthy in the House speaker race after he initially voted in his favor. He then switched to support Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, before his fellow Republicans nominated him for the role. Ultimately, Donalds voted for McCarthy.

Fox News’ Houston Keene contributed to this article.

FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is expected to investigate the leak of the draft Supreme Court decision that signaled the overturning of Roe v. Wade after the high court’s formal investigation failed to identify the culprit, Fox News has learned.

Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said last year, when he served as committee minority leader, Republicans would investigate the leak of the draft opinion.

Now that the Supreme Court has come up empty, a source close to the committee said the GOP-led panel intends to probe the matter.

On May 2, 2022, Politico published a draft of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the major abortion case that would eventually overturn the 1973 landmark ruling that legalized abortion at the federal level.

The unprecedented leak triggered protests across the country and at Supreme Court justices’ homes that continued for months.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the leak an ‘egregious breach of trust.’ The day after the leak, Roberts called upon the Marshal of the Court to investigate the situation and find the source who leaked the document.

Investigators conducted more than 120 interviews of nearly 100 employees, all of whom denied disclosing the opinion, the court said.

Sources told Fox News over the summer that the initial focus was on some three dozen law clerks who work directly with the justices. Those clerks were asked to turn over their phones.

According to the Marshal’s report, the investigation team has been ‘unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.’

‘The investigation has determined that is unlikely that the Court’s information technology (IT) systems were improperly accessed by a person outside the Court,’ the report said. ‘After examining the Court’s computer devices, networks, printers, and available call and text logs, investigators have found no forensic evidence who disclosed the draft opinion.’

The report notes that the Court’s internal checks and balances were more vulnerable with more people working from home because of the coronavirus pandemic.

‘The pandemic and resulting expansion of the ability to work from home, as well as gaps in the Court’s security policies, created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the Court’s IT networks, increasing the risk of both deliberate and accidental disclosures of Court-sensitive information,’ the report said.

Investigators are continuing to ‘review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending,’ the report said.

‘The Court investigators will continue following up on leads if more information is learned,’ said Michael Chertoff, former DHS secretary and a former federal appeals judge brought on by Roberts as a consultant on the court’s internal investigative methods. ‘In the meantime, the Court has already taken steps to increase security and tighten controls regarding the handling of sensitive documents.

‘Most significantly, the Chief Justice has also directed a comprehensive review of the Court’s information and document security protocols to mitigate the risk of future incidents.’

Fox News’ Shannon Bream, Bill Mears, Bradford Betz, and Brianna Herlihy contributed to this report.

Three Democratic state legislators in Pennsylvania are set to introduce a bill this year to establish ‘Jan. 6 Day’ at public schools. 

Pennsylvania state Sen. Art Haywood plans to formally introduce a bill to honor ‘Jan. 6 Day’ with state Reps. Ed Neilson and Chris Rabb. The legislators said the bill will ensure first responders who lost their lives after the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, will never be forgotten.

‘This legislation is about embracing truth and being a country that is actively engaged in fighting systems of oppression,’ Rabb said at an event honoring first responders. ‘This moment demands reconciliation with a clear-eyed and honest assessment of what it will take to get back on the path toward atonement and healing that we so desperately need.’

Rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to demand that then-President Donald Trump remain in office after his failed reelection bid. 

Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran, was fatally shot by a Capitol police officer while attempting to force her way into the House chamber. Another person died during the riot after suffering a drug overdose, and two others died from medical emergencies.

Brian Sicknick, a 42-year-old Capitol police officer, was pepper-sprayed during the chaos and died the next day after suffering from two thromboembolic strokes. Four other officers who responded to the riot committed suicide in the months following.

The three Pennsylvania legislators emphasized the need to remind children of the events and tragedies of Jan. 6.

‘Please join me in co-sponsoring this legislation to ensure our students never forget to honor the courage and sacrifice of the fallen, as well as the bravery of the survivors who defended the nation and Constitution on January 6,’ the legislators wrote in a joint memorandum for the bill.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives investigated the events through a Jan. 6 Committee, which concluded that Trump should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

See Bret Baier’s full interview with Nikki Haley tonight on Special Report at 6pm ET.

Former South Carolina Governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley says she’s close on making a decision to run for president in 2024.

‘Well, when you’re looking at a run for president, you look at two things. You first look at ‘does the current situation push for new?’ The second question is, ‘am I that person that could be that new leader?’ You know, on the first question, you can look all across the board, domestic, foreign policy. You can look at, you know, inflation going up, economy shrinking, government getting bigger, you know, small business owners not being able to pay their rent. Big businesses getting these bailouts, all of these things warrant the fact that, yes, we need to go in a new direction,’ Haley said.

‘So do I think I could be that leader? Yes, But we are still working through things and we’ll figure it out. I’ve never lost a race. I said that then I still say that now. I’m not going to lose now,’ she added.

An investigation by the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to identify the culprit who leaked a draft Court decision that signaled the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling the legalized abortion at the federal level. 

On May 2, 2022, Politico published a draft of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the major abortion case that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. The unprecedented leak triggered protests across the country and at the justices’ homes that continued for months.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the leak an ‘egregious breach of trust.’ The day after the leak Roberts called upon the Marshal of the Court to investigate the situation and find the source who leaked the document to Politico. 

Investigators interviewed more than 120 interviews of nearly 100 employees — all of whom denied disclosing the opinion, the court said. 

Sources told Fox News over the summer that the initial focus was on some three dozen law clerks who work directly with the justices. Those clerks were asked to turn over their phones. 

Per the Marshal’s report, the investigation team has been ‘unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.’ 

‘The investigation has determined that is unlikely that the Court’s information technology (IT) systems were improperly accessed by a person outside the Court,’ the report says. ‘After examining the Court’s computer devices, networks, printers, and available call and text logs, investigators have found no forensic evidence who disclosed the draft opinion.’ 

The report notes that the Court’s internal IT system was more vulnerable with more people working from home because of the coronavirus pandemic. 

‘The pandemic and resulting expansion of the ability to work from home, as well as gaps in the Court’s security policies, created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the Court’s IT networks, increasing the risk of both deliberate and accidental disclosures of Court-sensitive information,’ the report says. 

Investigators are continuing to ‘review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending,’ the report says. 

‘The Court investigators will continue following up on leads if more information is learned,’ said Michael Chertoff, former DHS secretary and a former federal appeals judge brought on by Roberts as a consultant on the court’s internal investigative methods. ‘In the meantime, the Court has already taken steps to increase security and tighten controls regarding the handling of sensitive documents.

‘Most significantly, the Chief Justice has also directed a comprehensive review of the Court’s information and document security protocols to mitigate the risk of future incidents.’ 

Fox News’ Brianna Herlihy contributed to this report. 

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Assembly gave a final, bipartisan push Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it harder for violent criminals to get out of jail on bail.

The measure will now go before voters to be ratified in the statewide April 4 election. Its passage in the Assembly by a 74-23 vote marks the culmination of a push by Republican lawmakers to speed the amendment before voters.

Putting the amendment on the April ballot gives the Republican-controlled Legislature a chance to score an early win in the new legislative session while avoiding a veto from Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The proposal’s popularity with conservatives could also drive supporters to the polls in a pivotal election that will determine ideological control of the state Supreme Court.

State law requires the Legislature to approve constitutional amendments in two consecutive sessions before sending them to the ballot for voters to ratify. The governor cannot veto constitutional amendments. The Senate gave its final approval Tuesday. both chambers first passed the bail amendment in February 2022.

‘It is a huge step in the right direction for holding violent, career criminals accountable,’ Republican Rep. William Penterman said.

The amendment would require a judge to consider a defendant’s potential risk to public safety, including their criminal history, when setting bail. Currently, cash bail is set only as a means to ensure the person appears in court. Democrats have argued the amendment could create further inequity in the criminal justice system by allowing wealthy defendants to more easily get out of jail.

‘If we’re serious about safety, there are other measures to do that,’ said Democratic Rep. Dora Drake, pointing to reforms that are backed by liberals such as eliminating cash bail.

Opponents also have focused on what they see as a glaring problem in how the law could be applied. The added considerations in setting bail would apply only to violent criminals, but state law currently offers three different definitions for what constitutes a violent crime. Judges would have to decide which definition to follow unless and until lawmakers clarify what definition applies to bail.

Republican Rep. Cindi Duchow, the amendment’s chief Assembly sponsor, said Thursday that she plans to introduce a definition in the coming weeks that would include crimes such as rape, child molestation, human trafficking and murder but not extend to misdemeanor offenses. Opponents were concerned lawmakers might wait until after the law was passed to define its scope.

Amendment supporters have been working since 2017 to pass it. Their efforts gained momentum in 2021 after Darrell Brooks Jr. drove his SUV into a Waukesha Christmas parade, killing six people. Brooks had posted $1,000 in an earlier case just two days before the Nov. 21 parade. Sen. Van Wanggaard, the bill’s lead sponsor, said Tuesday that the measure was not a reaction to the parade killings.

Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court in neighboring Illinois halted a law that would have ended the state’s cash bail system. The California Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that it’s unconstitutional to impose cash bail on a defendant who can’t afford it. Legislators in that state have been working for months to end the cash bail system but their efforts have so far failed.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Republicans would not consider measures to end cash bail altogether.

The Assembly was also slated Thursday to consider an advisory referendum that Republicans want to place on the April ballot. The nonbinding measure would ask voters if they believe that welfare recipients should be required to look for work.

State law already requires recipients of unemployment benefits to look for jobs. Republicans have also passed work-search requirements to receive other welfare benefits, but COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from the President Joe Biden’s administration have put those laws on hold.

After the Senate approved the ballot question Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu suggested the results, which would not change state law, could be used to back a push to require some Medicaid recipients to look for work.

A group of religious leaders who support abortion rights filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging Missouri’s abortion ban, saying lawmakers openly invoked their religious beliefs while drafting the measure and thereby imposed those beliefs on others who don’t share them.

The lawsuit filed in St. Louis is the latest of many to challenge restrictive abortion laws enacted by conservative states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. That landmark ruling left abortion rights up to each state to decide.

Since then, religious abortion rights supporters have increasingly used religious freedom lawsuits in seeking to protect abortion access. The religious freedom complaints are among nearly three dozen post-Roe lawsuits that have been filed against 19 states’ abortion bans, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Missouri lawsuit brought on behalf of 13 Christian and Jewish leaders seeks a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing its abortion law and a declaration that provisions of its law violate the Missouri Constitution.

‘What the lawsuit says is that when you legislate your religious beliefs into law, you impose your beliefs on everyone else and force all of us to live by your own narrow beliefs,’ said Michelle Banker of the National Women’s Law Center, the lead attorney in the case. ‘And that hurts us. That denies our basic human rights.’

Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, a Republican, called the lawsuit ‘foolish.’

‘We were acting on the belief that life is precious and should be treated as such. I don’t think that’s a religious belief,’ Rowden said.

Within minutes of last year’s Supreme Court decision, then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Gov. Mike Parson, both Republicans, filed paperwork to immediately enact a 2019 law prohibiting abortions ‘except in cases of medical emergency.’ That law contained a provision making it effective only if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

The law makes it a felony punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison to perform or induce an abortion. Medical professionals who do so also could lose their licenses. The law says that women who undergo abortions cannot be prosecuted.

Missouri already had some of the nation’s more restrictive abortion laws and had seen a significant decline in the number of abortions performed, with residents instead traveling to clinics just across the state line in Illinois and Kansas.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the faith leaders by Americans United for Separation of Church & State and the National Women’s Law Center, said sponsors and supporters of the Missouri measure ‘repeatedly emphasized their religious intent in enacting the legislation.’ It quotes the bill’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Nick Schroer, as saying that ‘as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception and that is built into our legislative findings.’ A co-sponsor, Republican state Rep. Barry Hovis, said he was motivated ‘from the Biblical side of it,’ according to the lawsuit.

‘I’m here today because none of our religious views on abortion or anything else should be enshrined into our laws,’ Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis and one of the plaintiffs, said at a news conference.

Lawsuits in several other states take similar approaches.

In Indiana, lawyers for five anonymous women — who are Jewish, Muslim and spiritual — and advocacy group Hoosier Jews for Choice have argued that state’s ban infringes on their beliefs. Their lawsuit specifically highlights the Jewish teaching that a fetus becomes a living person at birth and that Jewish law prioritizes the mother’s life and health.

A court ruling siding with the women was appealed by the Indiana attorney general’s office, which is asking the state Supreme Court to consider the case.

In Kentucky, three Jewish women sued, claiming the state’s ban violates their religious rights under the state’s constitution and religious freedom law. They allege that Kentucky’s Republican-dominated legislature ‘imposed sectarian theology’ by prohibiting nearly all abortions. The ban remains in effect while the Kentucky Supreme Court considers a separate case challenging the law.

But Banker said Missouri’s lawsuit is unique because while plaintiffs in other states claimed harm, ‘we are saying that the whole law violates separation of church and state and we’re seeking to get everything struck down.’