The Trump transition team is accusing Democrats in the Senate of ‘stonewalling’ Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation to the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI). 

A hearing has yet to be set for President-elect Trump’s DNI pick, despite Republicans pushing for Gabbard’s nomination to be one of the first considered due to national security concerns. The potential delay in her hearing was first reported by Axios. 

Committee rules dictate that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence can’t hold a hearing unless all necessary paperwork is received at least a week beforehand, the office of Intel Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., told Fox News Digital. 

Per Warner’s office, the committee has yet to receive pre-hearing questions from Gabbard or an ethics disclosure. They also haven’t gotten a copy of her FBI background check.

However, a spokesperson for Gabbard and the Trump transition team pushed back on this. According to the transition, the paperwork that was due on Dec. 18 was submitted, the FBI background check has been done, and an additional round of paperwork is due on Thursday and will be finished by then. 

The FBI did not respond immediately to Fox News Digital’s question about whether the background check had been provided to the Intel Committee. 

The transition team also noted that Gabbard has a top-secret security clearance from her Army service, meaning her background check was expedited. 

The spokesperson for Gabbard asserted that Warner was directing Democratic members of the committee not to set up meetings with her until he had done so, drawing out her meeting process. According to them, Warner’s office was emailed on Nov. 27 but did not reply until Dec 29. 

‘After the terrorist attacks on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, it’s sad to see Sen. Warner and Democrats playing politics with Americans’ safety and our national security by stonewalling Lt. Col. Gabbard’s nomination, who is willing to meet with every member who will meet with her as this process continues,’ said transition spokesperson Alexa Henning. 

‘It is vital the Senate confirms President-elect Trump’s national security nominees swiftly, which in the past has been a bipartisan effort. We are working in lockstep with Chairman Cotton and look forward to Lt. Col. Gabbard’s hearing before Inauguration Day.’ 

The only Democrat to bypass this supposed directive was Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., the transition team said. The two met last month at the Capitol. 

Gabbard’s team added that Sens. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Angus King, I-Maine, only responded after Warner’s team finally confirmed their meeting. 

Warner’s office denied issuing any such directive to Democratic members. ‘That is flat-out untrue. Vice Chairman Warner has encouraged every senator on the Committee to meet with the nominee (as he has), carefully evaluate her experience, record and statements for themselves, and reach their own conclusions about whether she has the qualifications and background for this critical role,’ spokesperson Rachel Cohen told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

The intel vice chairman met in person with Gabbard on Tuesday. ‘I had a session with Ms. Gabbard, I went in with a lot of questions. I’ve still got a lot of questions,’ Warner said afterward.

‘This is an extraordinarily serious job that requires maintaining the independence of the intelligence community. It also means maintaining the cooperation of our allies. We’ve got a lot of our intelligence from our allies on a sharing basis, and if those – that information is not kept secure, it raises huge concern. So I’ve got, you know, we’ve got a number of questions out for her. This is the beginning of a process.’ 

A spokesperson for the new Intel chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., told Fox News Digital in a statement, ‘Chairman Cotton intends to hold these hearings before Inauguration Day. The Intelligence Committee, the nominees, and the transition are diligently working toward that goal.’

A source familiar told Fox News Digital that the committee has yet to prompt Gabbard for her written responses to the advance policy questions, and emphasized that she can’t respond to something not yet received. 

President Biden said he was still considering pre-emptive pardons for President-elect Donald Trump’s political foes, such as former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Dr. Anthony Fauci, during his final interview with a print publication before leaving the White House.

The interview, conducted over the weekend in the Oval Office by USA Today’s Washington Bureau chief Susan Page, was released Wednesday morning. Biden told Page during the discussion that he was still unsure whether to offer pre-emptive pardons to potential Trump targets, including Cheney, Fauci and others. 

Biden added during the interview that when he met with Trump following his November election victory, he urged the president-elect not to ‘try to settle scores.’

‘He didn’t say, ‘No, I’m going to…’ You know. He didn’t reinforce it. He just basically listened,’ Biden told Page.

Reports of potential pre-emptive pardons for people who could face Trump’s political wrath started to surface after Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, following his conviction on felony gun and tax charges. The pardon came after Biden said he was not considering such a move.

Biden continued handing out pardons and commutations during the waning days of his presidency. Last month, he set a record for the largest single-day act of clemency when he commuted the sentences of roughly 1,500 people in mid-December.

Some Democrats have warned the move to issue additional broad-based pardons for Trump’s political targets – on Biden’s way out the door – could set a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, others have publicly advocated for the pardons over fear of what Trump might do.

One of the public officials who Biden has reportedly been considering for one of the pre-emptive pardons, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told CNN Monday that he did not want to see every president going forward handing out broad-based, blanket pardons. However, Schiff stopped short of saying whether he would decline such a pardon if it were offered to him.

Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., signaled support for Biden issuing pre-emptive pardons. 

‘I think that without question, Trump is going to try to act in a dictatorial way, in a fascistic way, in a revengeful [way his] first year … towards individuals who he believes harmed him,’ Markey told Boston Public Radio following Trump’s November election victory. ‘If it’s clear by January 19th that [revenge] is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people, because that’s really what our country is going to need next year.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

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

The Department of Justice told the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Wednesday that Garland intends to release Volume One of Smith’s report to Congress, which covers the allegations that Trump attempted to illegally undo the results of the 2020 presidential election.

However, Garland will not release Volume Two, which covers the classified documents case against Trump, as two defendants in that case still face criminal proceedings. 

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates. 

The decision by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to end Facebook’s work with third-party fact-checkers and ease some of its content restrictions is a potentially ‘transformative’ moment for the platform, experts said, but one that is unlikely to shield the company from liability in ongoing court proceedings.

The updates were announced by Zuckerberg, who said in a video that the previous content restrictions used on Facebook and Instagram — which were put into place after the 2016 elections — had ‘gone too far’ and allowed for too much political bias from outside fact-checkers.

Meta will now replace that system with a ‘Community Notes’-style program, similar to the approach taken by social media platform X, he said. X is owned by Elon Musk, the co-director of the planned Department of Government Efficiency.

‘We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship,’ Zuckerberg said. ‘The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing speech. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.’

The news was praised by President-elect Donald Trump, who told Fox News Digital that he thought Meta’s presentation ‘was excellent.’  ‘They have come a long way,’ Trump said.

Still, it is unlikely to ease the legal liability for Meta, which in recent months has been hit with the possibility of a multibillion-dollar class action lawsuit stemming from a privacy scandal involving the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. 

The Supreme Court in November rejected Meta’s effort to block the lawsuit, leaving in place an appellate court ruling that allowed the class action suit to move forward. 

Meta has also been the target of multiple Republican-led investigations in Congress. Republicans on the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government probed Meta’s activity and communication with the federal government and the Biden administration last year as part of a broader investigation into alleged censorship. 

The platform also came under scrutiny by the House Oversight Committee in August, as part of an investigation into claims that the platform suppressed information about the July 13 assassination attempt of Trump. 

Combined, these factors make it unlikely that Meta will see its legal problems go away anytime soon, law professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital in an interview.

‘Facebook is now looking at a tough patch ahead,’ he said. ‘Not only do the Republicans carry both houses of Congress as well as the White House, but there is ongoing litigation in the social media case in Texas.’

Additionally, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is also unlikely to be sympathetic to the views of Meta in any case centered on First Amendment protections and rights to free speech.

The House investigations and litigation have both forced more of Meta’s actions into public view— something Turley said expects to come under further scrutiny in the discovery process in Missouri v. Biden, a case that centers on allegations of political censorship.

‘That discovery is still revealing new details,’ Turley said. ‘So Meta understood that in the coming months, more details would be forthcoming on its censorship program.’

Still, he said, this ‘could be a transformative moment,’ Turley said. 

‘And an alliance of Zuckerberg with [Elon] Musk could turn the tide in this fight over free speech,’ Turley said. ‘And as one of Zuckerberg’s most vocal critics  I welcome him to this fight.’