Archive

2024

Browsing

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wants President Biden to increase tariffs on any imported energy components from China, a week after he introduced another bill that would hike tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle imports.

‘President Biden’s climate agenda undermines U.S. energy independence and will make us more reliant on China,’ Hawley told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘We can’t afford energy policies that enrich our greatest adversary at the expense of American workers here at home. It’s time to declare our energy independence from China—and we can start by raising tariffs on China’s green energy sector.’

Tariffs are taxes or duties imposed by a government on imported or exported goods.

Hawley will introduce a new bill on Tuesday called the Declaring Our Energy Independence from China Act. It would require the president to apply additional tariffs on all battery components, solar energy components and wind energy components imported from China at a 25% rate. 

The president could increase the rate by 5% annually for the next five years, peaking at 50%, according to the bill.

Since former President Trump’s term, the average U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports remain at approximately 19.3%, according to an estimate from the nonprofit research group Peterson Institute for International Economics. 

The bill would also require a report on subsidies China provided to its battery, solar and wind energy sectors over the past 15 years, including direct fund transfers, tax breaks and preferential access to resources.

Last year, Biden halted tariffs on solar imports for two years. A bipartisan Congressional Review Act resolution was passed to end the pause, but the president vetoed it.

Biden also introduced mandates to transition American manufacturers and workers toward electric vehicles (EVs), targeting two-thirds of all U.S. automobiles to be EVs by 2032. 

According to a U.S. Department of Defense report last summer, China controls most renewable energy equipment production and material supply chains.

Hawley is not the only one concerned about China dominating the U.S. energy industry. In January, a group of bipartisan senators sent a letter to Biden urging him to increase tariffs on Chinese imported solar panels. 

‘By 2026, China will have enough capacity to meet annual global demand for the next ten years,’ Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Jon Osoff, D-Ga., Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio wrote. ‘This capacity is an existential threat to the U.S. solar industry and American energy security.’

Last week, Hawley proposed a bill to boost the current 2.5% tariff on vehicles to 100%, effectively increasing the overall tariff on all Chinese automobile imports from 27.5% to 125%.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on Hawley’s bill.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell could endorse former President Donald Trump in the 2024 race as one of his last major actions before leaving leadership.

McConnell’s office and Trump’s presidential campaign have been in talks over a possible endorsement, as well as a strategy to unite Republicans just eight months away from the November election, according to The Associated Press, citing a person familiar with the situation.

McConnell is currently the highest-ranking Republican in Congress who has yet to back the former president’s bid to return to the White House.

Any potential endorsement comes as Trump is competing with former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to win the Republican nomination, and as both candidates compete for a whopping 854 delegates at stake on Super Tuesday, March 5.

Fox News Digital reached out to both the Trump campaign and McConnell’s Senate office but did not immediately receive a response.

McConnell, who turned 82 last month, announced on Wednesday that he would step down as Republican leader and would pursue ‘life’s next chapter.’

‘One of life’s most underappreciated talents is to know when it’s time to move on to life’s next chapter,’ he said on the Senate floor. ‘So I stand before you today… to say that this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate.’

‘I still have enough gas in the tank to thoroughly disappoint my critics, and I intend to do so with all the enthusiasm which they have become accustomed,’ McConnell added.

The decision is likely to set up a leadership election for the GOP conference that could determine the future of the Republican Party in the Senate – and how it could deal with Trump should he defeat President Biden in their November rematch.

McConnell’s potential endorsement comes after he vehemently criticized Trump and called him ‘morally responsible’ for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

Following the riot, key Republicans, including McConnell, strongly suggested the party was done with the former president.

In a scathing speech, McConnell said Trump incited the insurrection at the Capitol and blamed him for the ‘entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe’ and ‘wild myths’ about the election. The Senate leader ultimately did not vote to convict Trump on impeachment charges.

Despite their differences, endorsements matter to Trump and the two unifying with their bumpy past could help Republicans unite up-and-down the ballot in a must-win election.

McConnell, the longest-serving Senate leader, will formally leave the Senate when his term ends in January 2027.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Calling it ‘one on a huge list of priorities,’ Rep. Jamie Raskin, D., Md., announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., to disqualify not just former President Donald Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office.

The alternative, it appears, is unthinkable: allowing the public to choose their next president and representatives in Congress. It appears that the last thing Democrats want is for the unanimous decision to actually lead to an outbreak of democracy. Where the Court expressly warned of ‘chaos’ in elections, Raskin and others appear eager to be agents of chaos in Congress.

Soon after the decision, Raskin went on CNN to assure people that he and his colleagues would not stand by and allow the right to vote to be restored to citizens in the upcoming election. He pledged to reintroduce a prior bill that would declare Jan. 6 an ‘insurrection’ and that those involved ‘engaged in insurrection.’

I previously wrote about these ‘ballot cleansing’ efforts because it would not just disqualify Trump but potentially dozens of sitting Republican members of Congress. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory. Similar legislation offered by Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., to disqualify members got 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

Raskin’s participation in this effort is crushingly ironic. In 2016, he sought to block certification of the 2016 election under the very same law as violent protests were occurring before the inauguration.

The prior bills were sweeping and included members who did not engage in any violent acts (no member has been charged with such violence or even incitement) but merely opposed certification).

Raskin recently offered a particularly Orwellian argument for the disqualification of Trump and his colleagues in Congress: ‘If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.’

In other words, preventing voters from voting is ‘the most democratic’ because these people choose to oppose certification… as he did in 2016.

After the ruling, Raskin added the curious claim that the justices ‘didn’t exactly disagree with [the disqualification theory]. They just said that they’re not the ones to figure it out. It’s not going to be a matter for judicial resolution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it’s up to Congress to enforce it.’

That was sharply different from the pre-decision Raskin who insisted that there was no real question legally and that the case before the justices was ‘their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.’

Well, they did act as ‘real Supreme Court justices’ by unanimously opposing what the court described as the ‘chaos’ that would unfold with such state disqualification efforts. Raskin, however, is seeking a new avenue for chaos through Congress.

Raskin’s statement is also bizarre in claiming that somehow the justices agreed with him and the others pushing disqualification. No one, not even the Trump team, questioned that Congress could act to bar people from office. It is expressly stated in the Constitution. It is not an ‘argument’ but a fact.

Of course, the Democrats would need to craft the legislation correctly to satisfy the standard and secure the support of both houses. Neither appears likely at this point.

However, Raskin is succeeding in one respect. He and his colleagues have bulldozed any moral high ground after Jan. 6. Most of us condemned the riot on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process. Yet, the Democrats have responded with the most anti-democratic efforts to prevent voters from exercising their rights in the upcoming election.

For these members, citizens cannot be trusted with this power as Trump tops national polls as the leading choice for the presidency.  It is the constitutional version of the Big Gulp law, voters, like consumers, have to be protected against their own unhealthy choices.

Raskin has continued to accuse the nine justices of being cowards in not supporting ballot cleansing. He told CNN that the court ‘doesn’t like the ultimate and inescapable implications of just enforcing the Constitution, as written.’ In other words, all nine justices, including the three liberals justices, are disregarding clear constitutional mandates to protect Trump.

It is the same delusional view echoed by other liberals who were enraged by the decision. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that ‘the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.’

After all, nothing says democracy like ballot cleansing and dissolving courts before a national election.

With the resumption of efforts to disqualify Republicans from running on ballots, Raskin and his colleagues seem to be channeling the spirit of former Mayor Richard Daley in the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.

With allegations of abuse by the police in cracking down on protests, Daley declared ‘the policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.’ With Democrats preparing to return to Chicago for their convention this year, Raskin and others appear to be responding to the court that ‘the party isn’t there to create chaos, the party is there to preserve chaos.’

This column was first published on the author’s blog, Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Let’s cut through the legal jargon: the Supreme Court yesterday did the only thing it could do, and did it unanimously.

The justices rejected the notion that a Colorado court – all-Democratic appointees – could simply kick Donald Trump off the ballot. Just on the face of it, the idea was ludicrous, absurd and anti-democratic, and the court explicitly banned any other state from trying such a stunt.

On Sunday’s ‘Media Buzz,’ I was griping about the fact that the justices were taking so long, and said they must be honing their opinions and concurring opinions. That turned out to be the case.

In the unsigned opinion, all nine justices declared that ‘nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos – arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration.’

While legal observers say the court moved at rocket speed, the ruling came on the last day before voters in Colorado head to the polls, along with those in the other Super Tuesday states.

Much of the back and forth had to do with the 14th Amendment, but put that aside for a moment.

When Colorado’s court first made its ruling, a veritable army of anchors, correspondents and legal analysts, especially on MSNBC, cheered the move, saying Trump was finally being held accountable for fomenting the Capitol riot. 

Many of the anti-Trumpers wanted more states to remove the former president from their ballots – as Maine’s Democratic secretary of state did, followed by an Illinois judge late in the game.

That means they were all taking a hard-line stance that has now been rejected Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. That should tell us something: Who’s more out of step with the country?

Trump, stepping before the cameras at Mar-a-Lago, calling the ruling a step toward national unity:

‘They worked long. They worked hard. And frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will be spoken about a hundred years from now and 200 years from now. Extremely important.’

Trump then pivoted to the other case the Supreme Court just took, his claims of total unity for actions taken while president. The legal pundits say SCOTUS may well rule against him on that one, though no one knows for sure, which would amount to a split decision on the two high-stakes cases.

 

Trump was soon doing the greatest hits, attacking such prosecutors as Jack Smith, Letitia James and Fani Willis, and slamming the judges hearing several of his cases. 

A New York Times reporter said that Mario Nicolais, attorney for the Colorado side, said the Supremes had ‘abrogated their responsibility to our democracy….I hope that the cowardice of the court today doesn’t lead to bloodshed tomorrow.’ Pretty gracious, huh?

Remember, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson found common ground with Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, but the critics are still carping. 

Jim Acosta, the anti-Trump CNN anchor, said his antagonist ‘has sort of played the legal system like a fiddle over the last couple of years. He’s thrown the kitchen sink into the gears of America’s judicial system.’

Maine GOP director Jason Savage told the Times that his goal is replacing Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, the Democrat who ruled in December that Trump was ineligible for the Maine ballot: ‘One bureaucrat was trying to alter the presidential election based on her opinion.’

What triggered the entire battle was Colorado dusting off an obscure, little-used legal provision passed after the Civil War: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It was aimed at former Confederate officials and soldiers who had rebelled against the country.

Where some of the justices parted company was over the scope of the unsigned opinion, with the court’s three liberal members saying in concurring opinions that the conservative majority went too far in attempting ‘to insulate the court’ and Trump from ‘future controversy….

‘In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.’

Some of the conflicting views involve whether only Congress has the power to utilize Section 3 and whether the president is considered an officer of the United States.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the liberals, saying the majority should not have raised ‘the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced…

‘This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency … Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.’

However you slice and dice it, it was a big win for Donald Trump, and for those who believe the voters, not partisan state officials, should get to pick the president.

The White House on Monday lifted regulations on those working in close contact with President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, no longer requiring a negative COVID-19 test.

The decision marks the end of one of the last remaining federal restrictions from the pandemic era.

The White House has pointed to changing guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a key factor in its policies surrounding COVID-19.

On March 1, the CDC officially dropped its recommendation for people to isolate themselves for five days after a positive COVID test.

The agency’s new guidance tells people to stay home if they are sick, but when they are feeling better and have been fever-free for 24 hours, they can return to school or work.

Prior to this most recent update, the CDC called for people who test positive for the virus to ‘stay home for at least five days and isolate from others in your home,’ a recommendation that was implemented in late 2021.

The contrast between the CDC’s rhetoric about COVID-19 during the pandemic and afterward has caused controversy among some.

In response to last week’s change in guidance, a community called LC/DC, which describes itself as non-partisan, is planning a protest at the Lincoln Memorial on March 15.

‘LC/DC is fighting to raise awareness about long COVID, and we recognize that reducing the isolation policy will result in more infections, long-term illnesses and disability,’ said Paul Hennessy, one of the three main organizers of the planned event.

The demonstration at Lincoln Memorial will take place on March 15 from 10:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Donald Trump won’t clinch the 2024 Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday.

But with the former president likely to capture the lion’s share of the 854 Republican delegates up for grabs when 15 states hold GOP primaries or caucuses on what’s known as Super Tuesday, Trump is expected to move significantly closer to locking up his party’s presidential nomination over his last remaining rival – Nikki Haley.

‘It’s big stuff and it’s the single most important primary day of the year,’ Trump told his supporters in a video posted on social media ahead of Super Tuesday.

Trump has swept all but one of the first nine contests on the GOP nominating calendar, including North Dakota’s Republican presidential caucuses on the eve of Super Tuesday. 

Another strong showing by the former president in Tuesday’s coast-to-coast primaries and caucuses will help him in his mission to completely pivot from a primary battle with Haley to a general election rematch with President Biden, who defeated Trump four years ago to win the White House.

‘If every single conservative, Republican, and Trump supporter in these states shows up on Super Tuesday, we will be very close to finished with this primary contest,’ Trump emphasized. ‘Republicans will then be able to focus all of our energy, time, and resources, on defeating crooked Joe Biden.’

Among the states holding nominating contests on Super Tuesday are delegate-rich California and Texas. Also holding primaries are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. Two states, Alaska and Utah, are holding caucuses. 

The scant public opinion polling conducted in some of these states indicates the former president holds formidable leads over Haley, a former two-term South Carolina governor who later served as U.N. ambassador in the Trump administration.

Some of the states – including California with 169 delegates at stake – have winner-take-all rules to varying degrees, which should boost Trump’s delegate haul.

With more large states like Georgia, Florida, Illinois and Ohio among the eight holding primaries on March 12 and 19, Trump is expected to reach the 1,215 delegates needed to clinch the nomination by the middle of this month.

Trump’s campaign predicted in a memo last month that even under the most favorable modeling for Haley, the former president would clinch the nomination by March 19.

Trump for nearly a year has dominated the GOP nomination race, which last summer peaked with over a dozen challengers taking on the former president. Helping to boost Trump among the Republican base – his history-making indictments last year in four different criminal cases – including charges in two cases that he tried to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss. 

The former president kicked off the nominating calendar with double-digit wins in the Iowa caucuses and in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan primaries. He also grabbed landslide victories in the Nevada and U.S. Virgin Islands GOP caucuses.

Trump rolled into Super Tuesday with plenty of momentum, after securing the 39 delegates up for grabs Saturday at Michigan’s GOP’s party convention.

A few hours later, the former president was victorious in the Missouri caucuses, and he closed out Saturday evening by scoring a win in the Idaho caucuses.

‘We’ve been launching like a rocket to the Republican nomination,’ Trump touted Saturday night at a rally in Richmond, Virginia, as he pointed to his ballot box victories in Michigan, Missouri and Idaho.

Heading into Super Tuesday, Trump was well more than 200 delegates ahead of Haley, following his North Dakota victory on Monday night.

‘Republican voters have delivered resounding wins for President Trump in every single primary contest and this race is over,’ Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a recent statement. ‘Our focus is now on Joe Biden and the general election.’

The former president also won a major court victory on Monday, as the Supreme Court sided unanimously with Trump in his legal challenge to the state of Colorado’s attempt to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot. 

But Haley, who remains in the GOP nomination race at least through Super Tuesday despite the extremely long odds she faces, on Sunday enjoyed victory for the first time in the 2024 race.

Haley topped Trump by roughly 30 points in Washington D.C.’s Republican primary. She captured 19 delegates and made history as the first woman to win a GOP presidential primary or caucus.

‘Republicans closest to Washington’s dysfunction know that Donald Trump has brought nothing but chaos and division for the past 8 years. It’s time to start winning again and move our nation forward!,’ Haley wrote on social media Sunday night.

In the past few days, Haley landed the endorsements of two GOP senators from Super Tuesday states – Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Haley, who has garnered strong support in the GOP primaries from independents and whose fundraising has remained formidable, has stayed in the race as an option for voters dissatisfied with a likely Biden-Trump rematch. 

But while Trump plans to make comments Tuesday evening from his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, Haley has no public events or election night gatherings scheduled for Super Tuesday evening and remains mum on any plans going forward.

Haley reiterated in an interview on Saturday with Fox News’ Bill Melugin that ‘we’re going to go as long as we’re competitive,’ but she did not specifically define what competitive means.

One U.S. territory – American Samoa – also holds nominating contests on Tuesday.

Except for Alaska, all the states holding GOP primaries or caucuses on Tuesday are also conducting Democratic ones as well. And Iowa Democrats will announce the results of a vote-by-mail caucus they’ve been holding since mid-January.

The president, who faces nominal challenges from Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota and best-selling author and spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson, is likely to romp in the Democratic contests.

Biden is expected to win the vast majority of the 1,420 Democratic delegates up for grabs on Tuesday, and move much closer to the 1,968 needed to lock up renomination.

A group of pro-Palestinian protesters on Monday accosted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and her fiancé outside a movie theater in Brooklyn and demanded that she call Israel’s offensive in Gaza a ‘genocide.’

Video obtained by Fox News Digital shows the protesters, phones in hand, approaching the congresswoman outside the Alamo Drafthouse. 

‘You refuse to call it a genocide,’ one of the protesters can be heard saying, to which Ocasio-Cortez fires back: ‘I need you to understand that this is not okay.’ 

‘It’s not okay that there’s a genocide happening and you’re not actively against it,’ the protester says. 

‘You’re lying!’ Ocasio-Cortez shouts back. 

The video shows the protesters following her down the escalator, continually berating her for not labeling the war a ‘genocide.’ 

‘If you can’t say it, just say it. Literally. We’re just talking to you like normal people. Just say it’s a genocide. Just say it. Over 30,000 people are dead AOC, you can’t just say it for once?’ another protester shouts, citing figures from the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza. ‘Just say the word, that’s it. That’s all we want you to say.’ 

The protesters chase her and her fiancé, Riley Roberts, outside the building. At one point, Roberts pleads with the protesters to stop as they continue following the couple down the sidewalk. 

One of the protesters asks whether Ocasio-Cortez is concerned her comments would ‘go viral.’ 

A visibly angry Ocasio-Cortez tells the protesters that they’re going to clip the video so that her comments are ‘completely out of context.’ 

She then appears to concede that Israel’s actions constitute a genocide. 

‘I already said that it was. And y’all are just gonna pretend that it wasn’t. Over and over again. It’s f—ed up man. And you’re not helping these people. You’re not helping them,’ Ocasio-Cortez says. 

The protesters, clearly unassuaged and dissatisfied with her answer, continue chasing the couple down the sidewalk. One of them mentions her past comments, condemning the Armenian genocide. 

‘Why won’t you say it in front of everybody, why us?’ 

Fox News Digital has reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office for comment. 

Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly condemned Israel’s retaliation after the Oct. 7 massacre, in which Hamas militants killed 1,200 civilians, injured hundreds more, and took around 250 hostages. 

She has called for a ceasefire and suggested the U.S. ‘conditioning aid, if not cutting aid to the Netanyahu government.’  

Just weeks after the Oct. 7 attack, Ocasio-Cortez accused Israel of committing war crimes, while qualifying that she was not defending Hamas. 

Reactions from legal experts are pouring in after the Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of former President Trump and against the effort to remove him from the Colorado ballot for allegedly taking part in an ‘insurrection.’

‘The Court showed a divided nation that we remain bound by shared constitutional values,’ George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley said on Fox News immediately after the decision was read, adding that this was a ‘critical moment for this court in history.’

‘After all of the years we have spent in this Republic we came to a point where these states claimed that they could unilaterally bar the leading presidential candidate from ballots to prevent people from voting for Donald Trump,’ Turley said. ‘The court here struck with a strong, and it appears unanimous, voice at least on the result that that’s not going to happen. Voters will vote. They’ll make their own verdict regardless of cases that happen involving President Trump. They will cast the most important verdict of all. They will vote for the next President of the United States.’

‘So much for the long list of people who weighed in on this case to declare that Colorado’s position was the only constitutionally acceptable one and suggesting that any idiot could see that,’ Judicial Network President Carrie Severino posted on X. 

‘Obviously, they were not making legal arguments, but political ones.’

Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital that the ‘unanimous Supreme Court got it right.’

‘States can’t create a patchwork of ways for disqualifying candidates for federal office,’ Shapiro added. ‘There’s disagreement among the justices about which federal actors can do so, and according to which procedures, so perhaps it would be a good idea for Congress to clarify these issues by enacting a new version of the Enforcement Act of 1870.’

‘But regardless, in a polarized time of record-low societal trust in institutions, it’s a good thing that voters will decide whether Donald Trump can return to the White House, not Colorado’s supreme court, Maine’s secretary of state, or any other state or local officials.’

‘The Supreme Court justices brought order to what could have become a chaotic election season by shutting down this partisan, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional effort in Colorado,’ Heritage Foundation legal fellows Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson wrote in a press release. ‘They found a ‘combination’ of constitutional grounds that ‘resolves this case,’ and that explains why the Colorado court got it wrong.’

‘Activist courts and partisan bureaucrats should not be able to take away American voters’ right to choose the president. This ruling, which came together with amazing speed for the Supreme Court, should serve as a stern warning that radicals cannot interfere in our election process and, as the justices say in the opinion, ‘nullify the votes of millions and change the election result.’’

All nine justices ruled in favor of Trump in the case, which will impact the status of efforts in several other states to remove the likely GOP nominee from their respective ballots. 

The court considered for the first time the meaning and reach of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders who ‘engaged in insurrection’ from holding public office again. Challenges have been filed to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot in over 30 states. 

‘We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,’ the Court wrote.

‘A great win for America. Very, very important!’ Trump told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview Monday morning. 

‘Equally important for our country will be the decision that they will soon make on immunity for a president — without which, the presidency would be relegated to nothing more than a ceremonial position, which is far from what the founders intended,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘No president would be able to properly and effectively function without complete and total immunity.’ 

He added, ‘Our country would be put at great risk.’ 

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

President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on Thursday, March 8 will be a make-or-break moment. It could very well be the president’s last opportunity to turn around his dismal standing with the American people which, according to a recent New York Times/Siena poll, is mired at the lowest point yet of his presidency. After all, it’s not often that Biden’s handlers allow him to appear before a national audience. 

Biden has three critical missions. One is to look like a robust, energetic man who can capably govern our country for the next four years, and not a doddering and confused 81-year-old. The vast majority of Americans – 86% in one survey– thinks he is not up to the task. His job is to prove them wrong. 

Second, Biden must convince the 82% of voters (in the Times poll) who say his policies haven’t helped them that they are confused and that, in fact Bidenomics has been a smashing success. Ditto the 73% in a new Fox News poll who rated economic conditions today ‘only fair’ or ‘poor.’ 

Third, and possibly most important, Biden has to convincingly blame someone else for the unholy mess at the southern border. He will tell the public that his hands have been tied by Republicans, and that he is powerless to fix it. He’ll hope voters forget that Trump managed to close the border all on his own.

These are nearly impossible challenges. The Times survey shows the incumbent Democrat losing to Donald Trump by 5 points, and trailing with Hispanic voters. His advantage with Black voters has narrowed significantly and he has lost ground also with young people, many of whom are unhappy about the president’s support for Israel and have been checking ‘uncommitted’ in Democratic primaries.

For all these reasons, this SOTU looms large.  

Can Biden turn around his sinking ship? Bragging about cracking down on ‘junk fees’ or going full nuclear against ‘shrinkflation’ will not suffice. Touting his climate agenda or his student loan forgiveness plans is risky – working class Americans, whom the president is desperately courting, don’t like either. He can promise to save democracy, but since he and his party are feverishly trying to bankrupt, imprison and remove from the ballot his foremost opponent Donald Trump, such claims ring hollow. 

Those hoping for a reset, the kind of pivot to the middle that arguably saved Barack Obama’s presidency, will likely be disappointed. Obama, too, was unpopular at this point in his first term, but after receiving what he described as a ‘shellacking’ in the midterms, he edged towards the middle and managed to boost his standing. By all accounts, the Biden team thinks the campaign is going hunky-dory, no reboot necessary.

The number one issue for voters is immigration and the border, and rightly so. Biden and Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas continue to argue that they are blameless, even as the death toll from our open border continues to mount. 

The gruesome murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley allegedly by a Venezuelan migrant in the country illegally brings home the danger of our immigration fiasco. But so do the 112,000 deaths from fentanyl poisoning that took place in 2023 alone. And let’s not forget the hundreds of migrants who have died in their desperate effort to cross into our country between points of entry.  

The open border is also weakening our nation’s security; tens of thousands of military-age Chinese men have poured into the U.S. for the first time ever and hundreds of individuals on the terror watch list have tried to enter the country as well.  

The White House has responded to voter fury about the collapsed border by blaming Republicans. If only the GOP would have passed the immigration plan Biden proposed early in his presidency, they claim, we would not have this problem. That is bunk; Biden’s ‘U.S. Citizenship Act’ did little to protect our border and instead prioritized legalizing people in the country illegally. (The name gives it away.) The bill was such a dud that even Democrats ignored it during Biden’s first two years, during which they controlled both houses of Congress.  

The White House now blasts the GOP for ongoing inaction, even as voters know that Biden through executive action could restore the safeguards put in place by Donald Trump and then jettisoned by Biden during his mindless effort to obliterate his predecessor’s policies.  

Don’t expect Biden to apologize for allowing at least 7 million people to enter the U.S. illegally since he became president. Democrats are happy to welcome these ‘newcomers,’ as they now call them, whom they hope will become lifetime supporters of their party.  

Biden will also try to convince Americans voters that the economy is working for them, even though only a quarter of voters in a new Fox News poll say that is so, while 48% say his policies have hurt them.  His claims about the economy are so dishonest that even the friendly New York Times felt compelled recently to offer a fact-check. 

While unemployment is low and the economy continues to grow, inflation remains a huge problem for Americans living paycheck to paycheck. In particular, people are incensed that the cost of food is up more than 20% since Biden took office, while wages have only increased 15%. People are falling behind and they know it. 

Biden will again accuse ‘greedy’ food companies like Pepsi or Kraft Heinz of profiteering after the pandemic; he will try to blame them for rising prices. Don’t believe it. These companies’ profit margins plummeted after the COVID shut-downs; they have been scrambling ever since to cover increased labor and materials costs and, for the most part, are still underwater. This is another Biden lie.

Biden’s biggest challenge will be to look like a man in charge – a man that can be trusted to lead our nation for the next four years. 

That will take magic, not an hour reading from a Teleprompter.

Three passengers are suing Boeing and Alaska Airlines for $1 billion in damages in the wake of a door panel blowing out midair on their flight.

The suit, announced Feb. 23, accuses Boeing and Alaska Airlines of negligence for allegedly having ignored warning signs that could have prevented the Jan. 5 incident, which forced the plane pilots to make an emergency landing.

‘This experience jeopardized the lives of the 174 passengers and six crew members that were on board,’ a release announcing the suit states. ‘For those reasons, the lawsuit seeks substantial punitive damages … for what was a preventable incident.’

The suit is also seeking damages on behalf of other passengers who may have flown on Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft, which were subsequently grounded by the Federal Aviation Administration following the incident.

The suit is not related to another class-action lawsuit filed in January in the immediate wake of the incident.

Boeing 737 Max 9 planes flown by Alaska and United Airlines have resumed regular service. However, both carriers have indicated that they are reconsidering whether to place additional orders with Boeing for additional Max aircraft, including the successor line, the Max 10.

The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board continue to investigate Boeing over the January blowout incident.

Boeing declined to comment. Alaska said it does not comment on pending litigation or the ongoing NTSB investigation.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS