Breaking
Wealth World News
Archive

2025

Browsing
Politics

Trump DOJ takes ‘unprecedented’ step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent an unprecedented letter to a Brazilian Supreme Court justice in May, admonishing the judge for ordering American-based video platform Rumble to restrict the free speech of a user on U.S. soil, describing the orders as international overreach that lack enforceability. 

Rumble, a popular U.S.-based video-sharing platform that bucks censorship efforts frequently found on other video and social media platforms, is at the center of an international battle to protect free speech that has been ongoing for months.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble in the South American country back in February over claims the U.S. company did not comply with court orders, including removing the accounts of a Brazilian man living in the U.S. and seeking political asylum.

‘If you look at what’s happening around the world, it’s clear we’re living through a perilous moment for anyone who believes in freedom of expression — a fundamental human right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and recognized globally, even by the United Nations,’ Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski exclusively told Fox News Digital Tuesday following the DOJ’s May letter. 

‘The fact that Rumble has become a central player in this global fight for free speech is a powerful validation of our mission. We’re proud to stand at the front lines of this effort and grateful that President Trump and his administration have made this battle a foreign policy priority.’ 

Moraes is now in the U.S. government’s crosshairs after the DOJ sent a letter to him in May outlining his reported international overreach into U.S. law affecting the First Amendment, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealing in a congressional hearing that the Brazilian judge could face U.S. sanctions. 

Moraes had ordered Rumble to remove a user from its platform as he stands accused of spreading false information online and is considered a fugitive in Brazil. Rumble refused and was threatened with financial penalties for the lack of cooperation. 

The DOJ letter, dated May 7 and made public Thursday, argued that Moraes’ orders are not enforceable in the U.S. 

‘These purported directives to Rumble are made under threat of monetary and other penalties,’ the letter, signed by DOJ official Ada E. Bosque, reads. ‘We take no position on the enforceability of the various orders and other judicial documents directing Rumble to act within the territory of Brazil, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, to the extent that these documents direct Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully advise that such directives are not enforceable judicial orders in the United States.’ 

The DOJ did not have additional comment to provide when approached about the letter Tuesday. 

Pavlovski described to Fox Digital that the letter is ‘unprecedented’ and draws a clear line to foreign nations that they cannot attempt to thwart U.S. laws and the First Amendment. 

‘The letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to a foreign judge over censorship orders is unprecedented,’ Pavlovski said. ‘It draws a bright red line: foreign officials cannot issue censorship orders that violate the First Amendment or bypass U.S. law. That kind of extraterritorial overreach is incompatible with American sovereignty. And that’s good news, not just for Americans, but for free societies everywhere.’ 

The letter continued that there are established channels for international legal proceedings, which the DOJ said the judge bypassed, and directed the Brazilian judge to various proper procedures he could take regarding the court orders. 

Rumble facing restrictions in foreign nations is hardly new, with the platform currently disabled in China, Russia and France, as well as Brazil. It has also previously received censorship demands in nations such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, but has maintained its free speech objective. 

The DOJ’s letter comes as Rubio revealed in a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in May that the State Department is considering sanctions against Moraes under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act authorizes the U.S. government to sanction individuals overseas if determined responsible for human rights abuses or corruption.

‘We’ve seen pervasive censorship, political persecution targeting the entire opposition, including journalists and ordinary citizens,’ Republican Florida Rep. Cory Mills asked Rubio at the hearing in May. ‘What they’re now doing is imminent, politically motivated imprisonment of former President Bolsonaro. This crackdown has extended beyond Brazil’s borders, impacting individuals on U.S. soil., the 2023 Financial Times article actually talked about this. What do you intend to do? And would you be looking at Supreme Court justice sanctioning of Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act?’

Rubio responded, ‘That’s under review right now, and it’s a great, great possibility that will happen.’

Days later, Rubio posted to X that the State Department will roll out visa restrictions on foreigners found ‘complicit’ in censoring Americans. 

‘For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,’ Rubio wrote on X. ‘Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.’ 

‘Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country,’ Rubio added, not naming specific individuals responsible for such actions. ‘Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over.’

Moraes is also overseeing the upcoming trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of allegedly attempting to overturn his 2022 election results. 

Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva slammed the U.S. for threatening sanctions against Moraes in comment this week. 

‘It is unacceptable for the president of any country in the world to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of another country,’ da Silva said Tuesday, according to Reuters. 

The Brazilian president added that the U.S. should understand the importance of ‘respecting the integrity of institutions in other countries.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Moraes’ office Tuesday but did not immediately receive a reply. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading
By
Politics

Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., clashed Tuesday with a University of Pennsylvania law professor over the number of nationwide judicial injunctions imposed by district judges against President Donald Trump’s executive actions on matters including deportations, tariffs, and cuts to federal funding and the federal workforce. 

During the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled ‘The Supposedly ‘Least Dangerous Branch’: District Judges v. Trump,’ Hawley displayed a bar chart to argue that nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, which had not been used until the 1960s, surged when Trump came into office for his first term and then dramatically dropped again during former President Joe Biden’s time at the White House. 

‘Now, you don’t think this is a little bit anomalous?’ Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. 

Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News who previously worked for former President Barack Obama’s White House Counsel’s Office, responded, ‘A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents. Right?’ 

‘This was never used before the 1960s,’ Hawley said. ‘And suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction. And then when Biden comes office, no, no.’ 

Shaw cited Mila Sohoni, a Stanford Law School professor, as suggesting that the first nationwide injunction came in 1913 and others were issued in the 1920s. 

‘The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago,’ she said. ‘There’s many things that have changed in the last hundred or the last 50 years.’ 

‘So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions?’ Hawley shot back. ‘If it’s a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for? How can our system of law survive on those principles?’ 

Shaw said she believes a system where there ‘are no legal constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law,’ but the Republican from Missouri contended that’s not what the law professor believed when Biden was president. 

‘You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law,’ Hawley said. ‘You said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide injunction was a politician, just judges looking like politicians in robes. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law. But you’re fine with all of that if it’s getting the result that you want.’ 

Hawley cited Shaw’s stance in a specific abortion pill ruling during Biden’s presidency. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the Biden Food and Drug Administration’s mifepristone rules, which Shaw described at the time as ‘a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law.’ 

Hawley said she had failed to offer a legitimate principle for issuing nationwide injunctions now. 

‘I understand you hate the president,’ the senator told Shaw. ‘I understand that you love all of these rulings against him. You and I both know that’s not a principle. You’re a lawyer. What’s the principle that divides when issuing a nationwide injunction is OK and when it is not? When the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunctions, you said that they were travesties for the principle of democracy.’ 

‘When it’s Biden, it’s OK. When it’s Biden, oh, it’s a travesty. When it’s Trump in office, it’s a no holds barred, whatever it takes,’ the senator added. 

Hawley said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues were raising ‘very principled injunctions’ to nationwide injunctions issued against Biden just nine months ago and ‘all that’s changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.’

‘I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle very much dislike that individual,’ Hawley said, referring to Trump. ‘And I realize that you think that the rulings that he has lost are fundamentally sound.’

‘I disagree with all of that, but we can put that to one side. The question we’re talking about here is, ‘Should judges, single judges, district court judges be able to bind nonparties who are not in front of them?’ And you used to say no. Now you say yes,’ he said. ‘Let’s be consistent. I would just suggest to you our system of government cannot survive if it’s going to be politics all the way down.’ 

Shaw responded that ‘democracy is not as simple as majority rule,’ but Hawley interjected, saying, ‘You would have it as simple as majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you’re for the nationwide injunction. When you don’t, you’re not.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading
By
Politics

Radical new DOGE transparency powers could hit Congress after Elon Musk exit

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, is pushing to grant Congress vast new oversight powers over real-time federal spending to pick up where Elon Musk left off with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

A new bill that Roy is introducing on Wednesday would give lawmakers access to Treasury Department invoices larger than $25,000 in real time.

It would also grant lawmakers the ability to see payments to individual recipients of federal benefits and federal employees, according to bill text previewed by Fox News Digital.

It comes roughly a week after Musk announced he was stepping away from his federal government role – followed by his criticism of congressional Republicans’ spending legislation on the way out the door.

‘DOGE lifted up the hood of federal government spending and put on full display the massive programs and inefficiencies wasting American taxpayer dollars,’ Roy told Fox News Digital.

‘Billions were splurged on waste, fraud and abuse – but also on programs that clearly do not align with the core values of the American people. Regardless of which party controls the White House, the mission of DOGE in identifying wasteful spending must continue.’

He said his legislation would give Congress ‘the best tools available to identify this ridiculous spending in real time and allow us to reform government spending well into the future.’

Fiscal hawks like Roy are already looking to the next steps even as Congress begins consideration of a $9.4 billion spending cut proposal sent by the White House on Tuesday. 

The mechanism, known as a rescissions package, gives Capitol Hill 45 days to approve the blockage of funds – which were previously greenlit by Congress – while lowering the Senate’s threshold for passage on it from 60 votes to 51.

The package, which Republican leaders signaled could be the first of several, targets federal funding to NPR, PBS and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

House GOP leaders said that package would get a vote next week.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading
By
Politics

Massive Russia sanctions package stalls as Trump pushes for Ukraine peace talks

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Senators are growing antsy to move ahead with a massive sanctions package against Russia, and the only thing standing in the way is President Donald Trump.

In the midst of the extremely partisan budget reconciliation process, nearly the entire upper chamber has coalesced behind the sanctions package from Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., which would slap up to 500% ‘bone-breaking’ tariffs on countries buying energy products from Moscow.

The measure is designed to place Russia’s war machine into a chokehold by imposing duties on oil, gas, uranium and other exports largely purchased by China and India, which account for nearly three-quarters of Moscow’s energy business.

Trump has pushed for peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, which have so far not yielded an end to the three-year conflict, and has begun to sour on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reluctance to find a peaceful end to the ongoing conflict. He recently questioned ‘what the hell happened’ to the Russian leader.

The latest round of negotiations in Istanbul, Turkey, ended without a ceasefire, and Putin’s recent demands for large chunks of territory in exchange for peace have been nonstarters for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

A successful surprise drone attack by Ukraine and fears of a retaliatory strike by Russia have lawmakers growing increasingly anxious to sanction Russia into oblivion, but the president has yet to give Graham — a top ally of Trump’s — and Blumenthal’s bill his blessing.

‘If President Trump asked me my opinion, I would tell them, ‘let’s go now,’’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-L.a., one of the 82 co-sponsors of the bill, told Fox News Digital.

And Graham, who traveled to Ukraine with Blumenthal to meet with Zelenskyy during the Senate’s Memorial Day recess, wants to see his sanctions levied against Russia by as early as next week when world powers gather in Italy for the upcoming G7 Summit to ‘deliver an unequivocal message to China.’

‘The theme of this engagement was that we appreciate President Trump’s earnest efforts to bring about peace and entice Putin to come to the table,’ Graham said in a statement after meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. ‘It is our view Putin is not responding in kind, he is not interested in peace and that he plans to continue to dismember Ukraine.’

Blumenthal believed that Trump ‘has been played’ by Putin and accused the Russian leader of being ‘totally unserious’ about the negotiations with Ukraine.  

The lawmaker confirmed to Fox News Digital that he and Graham would hold a briefing for all 100 Senators on the current state of affairs in Ukraine on Wednesday.

He said there was ‘no question’ that Trump’s input would be significant for the bill’s fate, but noted that even House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-L.a., came out in support of levying strict sanctions on Russia, which suggested a bicameral desire to inflict monetary pain on Moscow and its allies.

‘We have 82 senators, evenly divided, bipartisan, which I think speaks volumes,’ Blumenthal said. ‘If it’s given a vote, it will pass, and obviously President Trump’s views will matter as to whether it’s given a vote.’

Still, Senate Republican leadership is waiting for a green-light from the White House before making any decisions to put the bill on the floor.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., countered on the Brian Kilmeade Show on Fox Radio that his team and the White House were working together to make sure that the sanctions package ‘from a technical standpoint’ hit the mark of what the president wanted to do.

‘We’re trying to give [President Trump] as much space and room as necessary for him to try and negotiate the best possible outcome and get a peaceful solution in Ukraine,’ Thune said. ‘And if the sanctions contribute to that, then yeah, we’re available and ready to move.’

Meanwhile, lawmakers don’t see the sanctions package as undermining any ongoing efforts from the White House to broker a peace deal. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-S.C., believed that the legislation would instead act as a ‘real enabler’ for the Trump administration.

And Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va, similarly believed that the sanctions bill could give Trump a ‘stronger hand’ in negotiations.

‘These are sanctions that would be very punishing to the Russian economy,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘And we think the president can say, ‘Look, this is going to be very serious, but it can be avoided if we reach an accord right now that’s a cease fire.’’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading
By
Business

McDonald’s Snack Wrap is officially returning. Here’s when.

Snacktime is nigh at the Golden Arches.

On June 3, McDonald’s announced exactly when the Snack Wrap will return to partipating restaurants nationwide: July 10. And, thankfully, it’s not a limited-time offer, either — it’s here for good.

The Snack Wrap, which has been off menus for almost a decade, features one of the chain’s new McCrispy Strips — a chicken strip made with all-white meat — and is topped with shredded lettuce and shredded cheese, wrapped in a flour tortilla.

This go-round, the Snack Wrap comes in two flavors: Spicy, which McDonald’s says “brings the heat with a habanero kick” reminiscent of its Spicy McCrispy sandwich; and Ranch, which “delivers a satisfying burst of cool ranch goodness,” according to the brand, along with hints of garlic and onion.

Customers can get the Snack Wrap on its own or as a combo meal, which will come with two wraps, a medium fries and your drink of choice.

It’s been a long journey for Mickey D’s devotees: On Dec. 5, Joe Erlinger, president of McDonald’s USA, first revealed that the Snack Wrap was on its way back while discussing the new McValue menu.

“The Snack Wrap will be back in 2025,” Erlinger said at the time, declining to reveal the exact date. “It has a cult following, I get so many emails into my inbox about this product.”

Then, on April 15, the chain teased the official release date: “snack wraps 0x.14.2025,” it posted on X, without specifying the month.

Now, for the official rollout, McDonald’s is leaning into the fact that for years, fans have inundated the chain with pleas to reinstate the item after it was kicked off menus in 2016. A Change.org petition started in 2021 in its honor garnered over 17,000 signatures, and fans resorted to posting TikToks and making dedicated Instagram accounts devoted to bringing it back.

While the chicken-craving masses waited for the Snack Wrap’s return, other fast-food chains have dropped their own versions: In March 2023, Wendy’s introduced its Grilled Chicken Ranch Wrap; in July 2023, Taco Bell reintroduced its Crispy Chicken Taco for a limited time; and in August 2023, Burger King launched BK Royal Crispy Wraps for a limited time, too.

Most recently, a single day before McDonald’s announcement, Popeyes dropped its own Chicken Wraps as a limited-time offer. Let the wrap battle commence.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS
Keep Reading
By
Sports

Knicks show it’s win or go home with firing of Tom Thibodeau

The New York Knicks just played in their first NBA Eastern Conference finals since 2000.

They just had two consecutive 50-win seasons for the first time since 1993-1994 and 1994-95.

The Knicks were close to a Game 7 in this season’s East finals and not far from playing in the NBA Finals for the first time since 1999.

But there was no Game 7 for the Knicks and no NBA Finals appearance. And now, no more Thibodeau.

The Knicks cut ties with Thibodeau on Tuesday, June 3.

“Our organization is singularly focused on winning a championship for our fans,” Knicks president Leon Rose said, in part, in a statement. “This pursuit led us to the difficult decision to inform Tom Thibodeau that we’ve decided to move in another direction.’

It proves the axiom: there is a shelf life on every coach.

And it proves a Thibodeau-specific truism: his shelf life with a team does not extend beyond five seasons.

He lasted just five seasons with the Chicago Bulls despite five playoffs appearances, including one spot in the East finals.

He made it just three seasons with the Minnesota Timberwolves with two playoffs appearances, both first-round exits.

And now, he’s done in New York after three consecutive playoffs appearances.

Can’t wait to hear what Indiana Pacers coach Rick Carlisle, the head of the National Basketball Coaches Association, says about Thibodeau’s dismissal when he meets with the media at Finals availability Wednesday, June 4, in Oklahoma City.

Thibodeau did a fantastic job, altering the way the Knicks are viewed as a team and franchise. He helped change the culture. There is a part of this firing that doesn’t seem right, but that’s also the business of professional sports. And the decision made by Rose and his staff might not be wrong, either.  

Just like the Bulls and Timberwolves before, the Knicks’ front office believes another coach is needed to get New York one step closer to a title — what would be its first since 1973.

Thibodeau is an excellent coach and knows Xs and Os. He has been in the NBA since 1989 — the last 13 years as a head coach. But the Game 1 debacle against the Pacers — when the Knicks squandered a 115-101 lead with 4:06 left in the fourth quarter and lost 138-135 in overtime — and New York’s inability to stop Indiana runs with games on the line sunk Thibodeau.

It’s not unusual for a team to need a new voice and approach to reach the next level. Someone more nimble. Steve Kerr replaced Mark Jackson in Golden State, Ty Lue took over for David Blatt in Cleveland, Nick Nurse came in for Dwane Casey in Toronto, Frank Vogel filled Luke Walton’s chair with the Los Angeles Lakers.

What direction is that for the Knicks? The franchise has deep ties to the Creative Artists Agency, and Rose was a prominent agent with CAA before taking the Knicks’ job. It won’t surprise anyone if the Knicks stick with someone from CAA.

Michael Malone is a name to watch. Malone is a championship coach, leading Denver to the title in 2023, has coached stars and is a New York native. He was born in Queens when his dad, Brendan, was a high school coach at famed Power Memorial Academy, where Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played.

Whoever gets the job, the message is clear: Win a title. Or else.

Follow NBA columnist Jeff Zillgitt on social media @JeffZillgitt

This post appeared first on USA TODAY
Keep Reading
By
Sports

Cowboys’ Micah Parsons says he’ll be at team’s minicamp

The NFL offseason marches on as teams enter the second week of organized team activities (OTAs). After this week is through, teams will be back in action with the start of minicamps, the first mandatory part of the offseason.

It’s not surprising for players to not be on the field for OTAs, but minicamp is another story. Players can be subject to fines for time missed.

One of the biggest storylines entering minicamps is the future of Dallas Cowboys star edge rusher Micah Parsons. He is entering the final year of his rookie contract and is looking to get an extension done with the team to secure his future in Dallas.

He made it known a week from minicamp that he will not be missing the mandatory part of offseason training.

‘I will be there!’ Parsons wrote in a post on X on June 3. ‘I haven’t missed a mini camp in 4 years! Even though the contract is not done, I have teammates and a playbook! I’m preparing as if I will be on the field the first week of camp! But it’s in the owner’s hands. I’m ready to win a Super Bowl!’

This echoes comments from Cowboys coach Brian Schottenheimer earlier in the day.

‘Micah and I talked a couple days ago,’ Schottenheimer said. ‘Again, he’s doing a little bit of traveling, but (with) everything that he and I have talked about, I expect that he will be here (for mandatory minicamp).’

Parsons was on the field for the Cowboys’ voluntary offseason program in April.

‘Micah and I have had great communication,’ Schottenheimer said. ‘Everything I’ve asked him to do – and vice versa – he’s followed through on. So, I would expect to see him.’

Parsons is entering the fifth year of his rookie deal signed after the 2021 NFL Draft. Because of his career performance so far, he’s currently set to make $24 million in 2025, all fully guaranteed.

Multiple other edge rushers have signed lucrative extensions this offseason. Las Vegas’ Maxx Crosby signed a three-year, $106.5 million extension in March to stay with the Raiders. Days later, Myles Garrett signed a record four-year, $160 million extension with the Cleveland Browns.

Parsons would be the latest to sign an extension. If he doesn’t, though, he’d be by far the top free agent in the 2026 offseason.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY
Keep Reading
By
Sports

Manny Pacquiao chases history as he returns to ring at 46

Manny Pacquaio is set to be inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame on Sunday, June 8. At which point he’ll be in position to do something no boxer has ever done.

Reign as a world champion as a Hall of Fame inductee.

Now 46, Pacquaio indicated he’s motivated and fit enough to make history as he prepares to fight Mario Barrios, the 30-year-old WBC world welterweight champion, Friday, July 19, in Las Vegas.

Pacquaio said he’s running up the mountains again, a ritual that has propelled the Filipino boxing star as he has trained for countless fights. And during a news conference Tuesday in Los Angeles, Pacquaio noted his pro boxing career started in 1995 and yet all these years later he still has “the fire, the determination, eagerness to train hard, to work hard. Even now I’m enjoying working out hard, like running the mountain, working out in the afternoon. Amazing.’’

Yet he faces a metaphorical mountain, too.

For starters, he’s 16 years older than Barrios. Also, this will be his first pro fight since 2021, when he lost to Yordenis Ugas by unanimous decision. He has not won a boxing match since 2019.

But Pacquiao made history before.

He is the sport’s only eight-division world champion. And in 2019, he became the oldest welterweight world champion when he defeated Keith Thurman for the WBA world title.

On Tuesday, Pacquaio (62-8-2, 39 KOs) welcomed his age gap with Barrios (29-2-1, 18 KOs) being viewed as helpful experience rather than a liability.

“A big factor for this fight,’’ Pacquaio said. “I’ve been through a lot of hard fights. Hard, hard fights and experience.’’

Facing a legend

The boxers from the top four fights on the Pacquaio-Barrios card all talked at least a little trash with their opponent. With the exception of Pacquaio and Barrios, that is.

Barrios broke into a smile during a faceoff with Pacquaio. At other times he looked in disbelief.

“I’m defending my WBC (title) against the legend,’’ Barrios said at one point. “This is huge. Something I never really pictured unfolding, but it’s here and it’s on one of the biggest cards of the year.’’

Pacquaio wore a smile through much of the press conference. Even when he put on a pair of sunglasses, he projected warmth.

“Yeah, he’s a hard guy to dislike,’’ Barrios said.

But Barrios indicated he understands Pacquaio won’t be quite as gentlemanly during their fight.

“I know if at any point he has me hurt, he’s going to get me out of there without a doubt,’’ Barrios said. “And so I have to go and make sure he’s not successful and have to go in there and just make sure that my hand is raised at the end of the fight. Whether it’s by stoppage or by decision.’’

Benefiting from the rest?

Those who believe in ring rust will view Pacquaio fighting for the first time in almost four years as worrisome. But Pacquaio, who noted he’s been in boxing for 30 years, said it’s a “good thing for me that I rest.”

“I rest four years in my body and now I’m back,’’ he added. “I’m excited for the fans to give a good fight, you know, me so dedicated to my career. Boxing is my passion, the way I train, the way I work hard, punishing myself to the limit and to make sure that I can give a good fight to the fans. So, that’s what (you’re) expecting (of) me on that fight July 19th. It’s going to be a good fight.”

Apparently it won’t be his last fight either, according Pacquaio.

Asked if this bout will be a one-off or if he’s ready to make another run, Pacquaio smiled and said, “Yes, I’m back.’’

Hall of Fame history

Pacquaio is set to become the first Hall of Fame inductee to fight for a world championship.

Mike Tyson, Alexis Arguello, Jeff Fenech and Azumah Nelson each fought in sanctioned bouts after they were inducted into the Hall of Fame but did not fight for a title, according to Jeff Brophy, historian at the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

Brophy passed along another piece of history: Sugar Ray Leonard was an announced member of the 1997 Hall of Fame class when he fought Hector Camacho for the International Boxing Council (IBC) middleweight title. Leonard lost to Camacho by fifth-round TKO in March and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in June.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY
Keep Reading
By
Sports

USWNT has dominant win in friendly vs. Jamaica: Highlights

The U.S. women’s national team breezed past Jamaica Tuesday night, running up a 4-0 scoreline in a friendly at Energizer Park in St. Louis, Missouri.

Ally Sentnor and Lynn Biyendolo both provided two goals. Sentnor, the Utah Royals attacker, did her damage by scoring twice in a nine-minute span in the first half, while Biyendolo came off the bench to score with her first touch, then provided the final margin with an 88th-minute finish.

With USWNT legend and St. Louis native Becky Sauerbrunn honored before kickoff, the USWNT made light work of a Reggae Girlz side missing some of its biggest names. The U.S. would finish the match with 82% possession, while goalkeeper Phallon Tullis-Joyce did not have to register a save on either of Jamaica’s two shot attempts.

U.S. coach Emma Hayes got more things to think about long-term, with Kerry Abello going the full 90 in her first-ever USWNT appearance. Claire Hutton and Avery Patterson, who were in that situation very recently, played major roles in USWNT goals on the night, while Ajax youngster Lily Yohannes pulled the strings in a more advanced role than she played in the 3-0 win over China on May 31.

USWNT vs. Jamaica highlights

The biggest stories, every morning. Stay up-to-date on all the key sports developments by subscribing to USA TODAY Sports’ newsletter.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY
Keep Reading
By
Sports

Lawsuit alleges MSU mishandled Mel Tucker sexual harassment case

Sexual assault survivor advocate Brenda Tracy filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan State University’s Board of Trustees and two individual board members on June 3, alleging they harmed her and her livelihood by mishandling her sexual harassment complaint against former head football coach Mel Tucker.

Her 51-page lawsuit accuses the officials of violating their legal and ethical duties to keep Tracy’s identity confidential throughout the university’s investigation of her December 2022 sexual harassment complaint. It alleges that Trustees Rema Vassar and Dennis Denno likely caused her name to be leaked to news outlets and others during the investigation. Michigan State officials, Vassar and Denno did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit also says that university officials breached their duty of care by failing to address the onslaught of threats and harassment Tracy suffered after she ultimately went public with her story. In addition, the lawsuit says that board members knew or should have known that Tucker had behaved inappropriately with other women and presented a threat to Tracy and the campus community. 

The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for seven counts, including breach of contract, misconduct in office, gross negligence and violating Tracy’s due process rights. She says she suffered psychological and emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, lost earnings and incurred additional expenses for medical and therapy treatments as a result.

“It’s taken a long time to get here, and I’ve been through a lot, but at some point I want to move forward with my life,” Tracy told USA TODAY. “I feel like this is an important step in doing that. I want the people who harmed me to be held accountable, and that’s more than just Mel Tucker.”

The lawsuit is one of several that have been filed in connection with the sexual misconduct scandal that led to the firing of one of the nation’s highest-paid coaches. Tracy in October sued Tucker in state court, alleging he defamed her by claiming they had developed a mutual romance.

Tucker, who has maintained that he and Tracy had a consensual sexual relationship, sued Michigan State in August 2024 for wrongful termination and defamation. The school fired him for cause weeks after the scandal erupted into public view in September 2023 and canceled roughly $80 million remaining on the record 10-year contract he had signed less than two years earlier.

At the crux of Tracy’s sexual harassment allegations is an April 2022 phone call between her and Tucker in which she says he masturbated without her consent. The call came eight months after Tucker hired Tracy, an established gang-rape survivor and educator, to speak to his players about sexual violence prevention.

Over the course of their yearlong business relationship, Tracy said that Tucker made a series of unwanted sexual advances, culminating in the April 2022 call. Tucker says that they had a flirtatious relationship, that Tracy told him she was looking for a “sugar daddy,” and that during the April 2022 call they engaged in a one-time instance of mutual phone sex.

Michigan State’s Title IX office completed its investigation into Tracy’s complaint in October 2023, finding Tucker responsible for sexually harassing and exploiting Tracy multiple times before, during and after the now-infamous April 2022 phone call. The university in January 2024 denied Tucker’s appeal of the findings. 

This post appeared first on USA TODAY
Keep Reading
By