The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that it would be officially imposing sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the jurist leading a criminal investigation against former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro. 

News of the sanctions comes after President Trump threatened a 50% tariff on products from Brazil unless the country stopped what Trump has described as an ‘unjust’ and politically motivated case against Bolsonaro that is charging the former Brazilian president with organizing an attempted coup. A notice announcing the sanctions from the Treasury Department alleged De Moraes has been using his position to authorize ‘arbitrary’ pre-trial detentions, suppress freedom of speech and target political opponents. 

‘Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies,’ Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. ‘De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions—including against former President Jair Bolsonaro.’

‘Today’s action makes clear that Treasury will continue to hold accountable those who threaten U.S. interests and the freedoms of our citizens,’ Bessent added.

As a result of the sanctions, all of De Moraes’s property and assets that are located within the United States, or that are in the possession of any U.S. persons, have been frozen. That also includes any assets where De Moraes has a 50% or more stake.

Any corporations or financial institutions that engage in certain transactions or activities deemed to violate the sanctions against De Morae also risk exposure to sanctions themselves, the Treasury Department also indicated. 

The Trump administration’s sanctions against De Moraes stem from the president’s first-term Executive Order 13818, which declared a national emergency with respect to human rights abuses and corruption around the world. The 2017 executive order, according to the Treasury Department, builds on the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act passed in 2016, which allows the president and the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to impose sanctions on foreign officials responsible for human rights violations. 

Rumors the U.S. might levy sanctions targeting De Moraes were reported earlier this month as Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, was reportedly working closely with the White House to push the United States to impose sanctions.  

De Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice, has been leading the case against Bolsonaro, steering key developments in the case as its official ‘rapporteur,’ which followed an 884-page report by the Brazilian Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet detailing a scheme alleging Bolsonaro and 33 others participated in a plan to remain in power despite losing to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. 

The case against Bolsonaro alleges the attempted coup involved the systematic sowing of national distrust in the electoral system among the populace, drafting a decree to give the plot a veneer of legality, and pressuring top military brass to go along with the plan and inciting a riot in the capital.

A panel of justices on Brazil’s Supreme Court accepted the charges against Bolsonaro in March, and ultimately ordered the former leader to stand trial. All five justices ruled in favor of accepting the charges, which included accusations involving a plan to poison Bolsonaro’s successor and kill a Supreme Court judge.

A Senate Republican wants the Justice Department to investigate, and potentially prosecute, former Special Counsel Jack Smith over whether he ‘unlawfully took political actions to influence the 2024 election’ against President Donald Trump.

Sen. Tom Cotton, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused Smith of seeking to impact the 2024 election in his capacity as special counsel under the Biden-led Justice Department in a letter to the acting head of the Office of Special Counsel, Jamieson Greer, first obtained by Fox News Digital.  

‘As the Office of the Special Counsel is tasked with ensuring federal employees aren’t conducting partisan political activity under the guise of their federal employment, you’re well situated to determine whether Smith broke the law,’ the Arkansas Republican wrote.

‘Many of Smith’s legal actions seem to have no rationale except for an attempt to affect the 2024 election results – actions that would violate federal law,’ he continued.

Smith was tapped by former Attorney General Merrick Garland to probe allegations that Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election results, and later investigated the handling of classified documents that were uncovered during a raid at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago compound.

Cotton listed four instances during Smith’s tenure where he charged that the prosecutor sped up trial dates and published information ‘with no legitimate purpose.’

In one example, Cotton accused Smith of fast-tracking the trial date and jury selection for his case against Trump related to his August 2023 indictment that was part of his 2020 election investigation.

That indictment included four charges against the president, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Cotton argued that, typically, defendants have more than two years to prepare for that kind of trial, and noted that the jury selection period was slated just two weeks before the Iowa Caucuses in 2024.

He also charged that Smith skirted the normal appellate process and ‘failed to articulate a legitimate reason’ the court should grant his request when Smith demanded a trial before the forthcoming election day, wanted an expedited review by the appeals court and then filed a petition with the Supreme Court to bypass the district court after Trump filed his defense with the District of Columbia District Court in December 2023.

Cotton accused Smith of violating the Justice Department’s ’60-day rule,’ that prevents prosecutorial steps from being taken that could influence an upcoming election. That charge stemmed from Smith’s move to file a brief following the Supreme Court’s decision regarding presidential immunity, which was granted on Sept. 26, 2024, a little over a month out from the election.

And that brief, Cotton noted, exceeded the normally allowed length four times over and included grand jury testimony ‘typically kept secret at this point in other proceedings.’

‘These actions were not standard, necessary, or justified – unless Smith’s real purpose was to influence the election,’ Cotton said. ‘In fact, throughout Special Counsel Smith’s tenure, he regularly used farfetched and aggressive legal theories to prosecute the Republican nominee for president. I would add that President Biden also called during the election for President Trump to be ‘locked up.’’

‘President Trump, of course, vanquished Joe Biden, Jack Smith, every Democrat who weaponized the law against him, but President Trump’s astounding victory doesn’t excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference,’ he continued. ‘I therefore ask the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether Jack Smith or any members of his team unlawfully acted for political purposes.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Smith but did not immediately hear back.

The Supreme Court revealed on Wednesday that Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal to her sex trafficking conviction will be among the many cases the high court reviews at a closed-door conference in September.

The Supreme Court posted a brief notice indicating it plans to examine a petition from Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend and associate, on Sept. 29, marking the first time the justices will have her case before them. The public could learn whether the high court plans to review Maxwell’s case within days or weeks of that date.

If the Supreme Court were to deny Maxwell’s petition, she would have no appeal options left. If the high court were to grant it, that means it would review Maxwell’s arguments that she was improperly prosecuted.

Maxwell was convicted by a jury in New York in 2021 of five counts involving sex trafficking of a minor and conspiracy and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

She appealed her conviction, arguing it should be tossed out because a plea deal Epstein reached with the federal government in 2007 immunized her and statutes of limitations for her actions had lapsed.

Maxwell’s case has reentered the spotlight in recent weeks after the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI revealed that they had reviewed Epstein’s case files and found no further information that they could release to the public. The DOJ and FBI also said they uncovered no further evidence that would allow them to bring investigative action against figures who may have been associated with Epstein, a wealthy financier and registered sex offender who died in 2019 while in prison awaiting trial.

However, the administration faced intense blowback from MAGA supporters who felt Trump appointees, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, were reneging on promises to unveil revelatory information about Epstein’s case.

Trump, who was among the many prominent figures who once socialized with Epstein, said the topic was ‘sordid’ but ‘boring’ and dismissed questions about it. However, in the face of building pressure, the president demanded the DOJ take more action to release files.

The Supreme Court signaling that it will review Maxwell’s case comes at a delicate moment.

After Trump’s demands, the department asked the court to release a limited and redacted batch of documents from the grand juries’ indictments of Epstein and Maxwell. Then, DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell in Tallahassee, Florida, where she is serving her prison sentence, and questioned her for two days. 

Blanche’s motives for the meeting remain unclear.

Maxwell’s attorney, David Markus, told reporters after the meeting that it marked the ‘first opportunity she’s ever been given to answer questions about what happened.’  She answered questions about ‘maybe about a hundred different people, and she didn’t hold anything back,’ Markus said. He said they had not ‘yet’ approached Trump about clemency. The president recently said, when asked by a reporter about the matter, that he is ‘allowed’ to give Maxwell a pardon but that he had not considered it at this stage.

The House Oversight Committee has also moved to pull back the curtain on Epstein’s case by subpoenaing Maxwell to testify before the panel.

Maxwell’s attorney responded by saying she would need full immunity to testify and that she wanted to wait until after the Supreme Court responded to her petition.

Israel-supporting Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres revealed on Tuesday he no longer has a relationship with some of his family due to his support for Israel. 

‘I’ve lost friends, all of you have lost friends there,’ he told a room full of Jewish students at the Israel on Campus Coalition Summit on Tuesday. ‘I’m no longer on speaking terms with with certain members of my family.’

Torres’ deep support for Israel has put him at odds with progressives in his party — but the New York Democrat has only recently begun to express frustration with the Jerusalem government. 

‘No offense, but there are moments when I feel like the Israeli government has the worst PR operation that I’ve ever seen,’ he told a room full of Israel-supporting students at the Israel on Campus Coalition Summit, some of whom applauded the remark. 

‘If I have like a normal constituent who comes to me, is not anti-Israel, is not anti-Semitic, but expresses this concern about hunger in Gaza, I cannot tell her there’s no issue,’ he said. ‘I cannot deny it. I cannot downplay that.’

The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reports that 60,000 Palestinians have died as a result of Israel’s offensive campaign in Gaza to eradicate Hamas, and 154 have died from lack of food. President Donald Trump this week acknowledged there’s ‘real starvation’ in Gaza due to food shortages.  

Torres said that while he doesn’t hold Israel responsible for that starvation, ‘I feel like we should be doing everything we can to ease the human suffering in Gaza.’

He claimed that Israel is held to a ‘double standard’ because ‘no other country has been and has been expected to deliver food to its adversaries.’ 

Aid has been trickling into Gaza through the Israel-partnered Gaza Humanitarian Fund, which, since operations began on May 27, the group says has delivered more than 97 million meals. 

That ‘definitely contradicts the narrative that there’s a deliberate policy of starvation,’ Torres said. 

However, Israeli forces guard distribution sites, and the United Nations — which opposes GHF — claims over 1,000 Palestinians have died seeking aid through the group. GHF, in turn, argues the U.N.’s aid distribution has been entirely ineffective: U.N. data shows that only 8% of U.N. aid has reached its destination without being looted in the last 10 weeks, according to a Reuters report.

Israel has said there is no widespread famine in Gaza, asserting photos are misleading or of isolated cases, but has started to pause fighting in large swathes of the strip for 10 hours a day to allow for a surge of aid by land and air. 

A ceasefire and hostage deal has so far evaded Israel and Hamas leadership. White House envoy Steve Witkoff is on his way to Israel for negotiations as of Wednesday, Axios reported. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday that Democrats invoked a century-old law to force President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice and the FBI to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. 

At a press conference, Schumer said he joined all his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Homeland Security Committee in invoking ‘a century-old and little-known law known as the Rule of Five.’ Under the federal law, Schumer said, ‘when any five senators on the Homeland Security Committee call on the executive branch, the executive branch must comply.’ 

Schumer said their request ‘covers all documents, files, evidence and other materials’ in possession of the DOJ and the FBI related to the case of the United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. 

‘While protecting the victims’ identities can and must be of top importance, the public has a right to know who enabled, knew of, or participated in one of the most heinous sex trafficking operations in history,’ Schumer said. 

He pointed to past statements from Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel promising transparency, but argued the public has only received ‘stonewall, evasion, lies.’ 

‘Donald Trump campaigned on releasing the Epstein files. He broke that promise,’ Schumer continued. ‘Trump should stop hiding from the truth. He should stop hiding from the American people. So today, Senate Democrats took action. We’re invoking federal law and using our authority as a check on the executive to compel transparency.’ 

‘It’s not a stunt. It’s not symbolic. It’s a formal exercise of congressional power under federal law. And we expect an answer from DOJ by August the 15th,’ the top Senate Democrat continued. ‘That’s what accountability looks like. This is what oversight looks like. And this is what keeping your promises to the American people look like.’ 

He also appealed to Senate Republicans. 

‘If you believe in transparency, if you believe Congress has a role to play in checking the executive, join us. Join us in calling for more transparency on the Epstein files, because once there’s transparency, the truth emerges,’ Schumer said. 

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Schumer initially made the announcement during a speech on the Senate floor earlier Wednesday. The top Democrat argues that he and four other senators can force the Department of Justice to release the files to the public.

Wednesday’s floor speech was Schumer’s second in the past few days focusing on the Epstein files. He also called on the FBI to conduct a counterintelligence threat assessment on the Epstein case on Tuesday.

He argued the FBI assessment should accomplish three things: determine if foreign intelligence agencies could gain access to the information ‘the president does not want to release in the Epstein files, through methods that include cyber intrusion;’ identify any vulnerabilities that could be exploited by foreign intelligence agencies with access to non-public information in the Epstein files, ‘including being able to gain leverage over Donald Trump, his family, or other senior government officials;’ and result in the FBI publicly showing that the bureau is ‘developing mitigation strategies to counter these threats and safeguard our national security.’

President Donald Trump dished on the ‘strange story’ stemming from reports that a Secret Service agent attempted to smuggle his wife onto a Secret Service cargo plane accompanying the president on his trip to Scotland, as the Secret Service kicks off an investigation into the incident. 

Trump told reporters that he had just heard about the alleged incident, which he labeled a ‘weird deal’ and said that the agency was handling the matter. 

‘I don’t know, that’s a strange one. I just heard that two minutes ago. I think Sean’s taking care of it … Is that a serious story?’ Trump told reporters on Air Force One Tuesday, appearing to reference Sean Curran, Secret Service director. 

‘I don’t want to get involved, it’s a strange story,’ Trump said. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital on whether Trump had been briefed on the matter or on the investigation. 

Real Clear Politics first reported that a Secret Service agent attempted to smuggle his wife aboard a Secret Service cargo aircraft during Trump’s travels for his Scotland trip. 

When asked about the report, the Secret Service told Fox News Digital a personnel investigation is underway. 

‘The U.S. Secret Service is conducting a personnel investigation after an employee attempted to invite his spouse – a member of the United States Air Force – aboard a mission support flight,’ a Secret Service spokesperson said in a Tuesday statement to Fox News Digital. 

‘The aircraft, operated by the U.S. Air Force, was being used by the Secret Service to transport personnel and equipment,’ the spokesperson said. ‘Prior to the overseas departure, the employee was advised by supervisors that such action was prohibited, and the spouse was subsequently prevented from taking the flight. No Secret Service protectees were aboard and there was no impact to our overseas protective operations.’ 

The Secret Service has come under scrutiny following the aftermath of the July 2024 assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

In that incident, 20-year-old gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight bullets at Trump from a rooftop during a campaign rally. One bullet grazed Trump’s ear, and the gunman killed Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old firefighter, father and husband attending the rally. 

Additionally, another man was apprehended and charged months later with attempting to assassinate Trump at his Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Both incidents are under investigation, and a bipartisan House task force that investigated the Pennsylvania attack determined the episode was ‘preventable,’ and that various mistakes were not an isolated incident.

Since these episodes, the Secret Service has implemented a host of changes to its agency to beef up its security practices. 

Specific steps taken include expanding the use of drones for surveillance purposes, and overhauling its radio communications networks and their interoperability with Secret Service personnel, and state and local law enforcement officers.