The Senate confirmed its first nominee of the week ahead of what is expected to be a jam-packed schedule to ram through as many of President Donald Trump’s picks as possible.

David A. Wright, Trump’s pick to lead the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a five-year term, was confirmed in the upper chamber on a 50to 39 vote on Monday. It’s not Wright’s first time as chair of the commission, having first served in the role beginning in 2020.

Trump had previously tapped Wright during his first term, and again selected him to lead the NRC earlier this year. His new term is set to end in 2030.

The NRC is an independent regulatory agency tasked with regulating commercial nuclear power plants, reactor licensing and renewal and other elements related to protecting public health and safety when it comes to nuclear energy. Wright’s confirmation comes on the heels of Trump’s announcement that the U.S. and European Union were entering a trade deal that would see the bloc purchase $750 billion of U.S. energy over the next three years. 

While the commission is independent from other arms of the government, Senate Democrats have balked at recent attempts to make the regulatory body, in their view, more partisan.

Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order that demanded the agency consider making its safety standards less stringent, shortening the timelines for environmental reviews and a quadrupling of the nation’s nuclear power capacity by 2050: all part of the president’s quest to ensure America’s energy dominance. 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., argued that over the last seven years that Wright has been a part of the commission, first as a commissioner beginning in 2018 and then as chair, he would fulfill the president’s wishes. 

‘Achieving this will require experienced and highly qualified Commissioners who are empowered to lead the Agency through a period of high expectations,’ she said in a statement. ‘Well, David Wright meets that mark.’

Then Trump fired a Democratic member of the commission last month, and a staffer from the president’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was reportedly detailed from the Department of Energy to the regulatory agency.  

That prompted Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, to warn of a ‘hostile takeover’ of the commission by the Energy Department.

The move hurt what began as bipartisan support for Wright’s nomination — Whitehouse initially backed him but changed his position.

‘I hoped to see Chairman Wright rise to the occasion, but circumstances right now at the NRC continue to deteriorate,’ he said in a statement. ‘I cannot presently support his renomination.’

Still, Wright’s confirmation is a win for both Senate Republicans and the White House after Trump called on the Senate GOP to ram his nominees through blockades set up by Senate Democrats.

There are now over 140 pending ‘civilian’ nominations for positions across the gauntlet of federal agencies, ambassadorships and judgeships. The Senate has moved at a blistering clip over the last six months to confirm nominees—they’ve clocked nearly 100 so far — the president has called on Senate Republicans to consider canceling the forthcoming August break to get more done. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., warned that if his colleagues across the aisle continued to slow walk the process in the upper chamber for the slew of remaining ‘uncontroversial’ nominees, or be prepared to stick around Washington. 

‘Or they can rein in their reflexive anti-Trump sentiment and allow some of his rank-and-file nominees to proceed by unanimous consent or voice vote — just as Republicans did when the roles were reversed,’ he said. ‘And I’d remind my colleagues about the dangerous and ugly precedent that they’re setting here. But the choice is theirs. But whether it’s the slow way or the fast way, we’re getting President Trump’s nominees confirmed.’

The Department of Justice has filed an official complaint alleging misconduct by US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg. Fox News has reviewed the complaint which was written by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle and addressed to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sri Srinivasan.

Fox News has learned that the complaint was written and filed at the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi.

‘The Department of Justice respectfully submits this complaint alleging misconduct by U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Donald J. Trump to the Chief Justice of the United States and other federal judges that have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,’ says Mr. Mizelle.

Judge Boasberg is presiding over a high-profile case involving the deportation of several migrants to El Salvador and has talked about holding DOJ lawyers in contempt because of his assertion that his order to turn airborne planes around was not followed. President Trump has also made critical comments about Judge Boasberg.

The complaint details two occasions on which Judge Boasberg made comments the Justice Department alleges undermine the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

‘On March 11, 2025, Judge Boasberg attended a session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which exists to discuss administrative matters like budgets, security, and facilities. While there, Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders. Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions.’

‘Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders. First, although he lacked authority to do so, he issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Government from removing violent Tren de Aragua terrorists, which the Supreme Court summarily vacated.

Taken together, Judge Boasberg’s words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation.’ 

The DOJ is asking Chief Judge Srinivasan to refer the complaint to a special investigative committee as an inquiry is essential to determine whether Judge Boasberg’s conduct constitutes ‘conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.’ The complaint also asks that Judge Boasberg be taken off the case involving Venezuelan migrants who were deported to El Salvador, ‘to prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds.’

The case in question is J.G.G. v Trump.

This is the second time the Bondi DOJ has filed an official complaint against a federal judge. In late February, the DOJ filed a complaint about US District Judge Ana Reyes, concerning what the DOJ calls Judge Reyes’ ‘misconduct’ during the proceedings in Nicolas Talbott et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., which is a case brought by two LGBTQ groups challenging the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders barring transgender individuals from serving in the US military.

News of the complaint comes at a time when the Trump administration has excoriated dozens of so-called ‘activist’ judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s sweeping executive orders from taking force in his second White House term.

Judge Boasberg in particular found himself at the center of Trump’s ire and attacks on so-called ‘activist’ judges this year, following his March 15 temporary restraining order that sought to block Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.

Boasberg had ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be ‘immediately’ returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen.

His emergency order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of federal court challenges across the country – though the one brought before his court on March 15 was the very first – and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants’ due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Boasberg, as a result, emerged as the man at the center of the legal fallout. 

Trump administration officials have repeatedly excoriated Boasberg both for his order and his attempt to determine whether they acted in good faith to comply with his orders, and Trump himself has floated the idea that Boasberg could be impeached earlier this year – prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public warning. 

The complaint, focused on months-old behavior and allegations surrounding Judge Boasberg— first tapped as a judge by then-President George W. Bush in 2002, comes at a time when he could again have a say in a major class action case brought by lawyers representing the former CECOT migrants. 

Lawyers for the ACLU and others in the class asked Judge Boasberg earlier this month to reopen discovery in the case, citing allegations from a United Nations report regarding custodial status of migrants at CECOT, and the recent decision to remove the 252 migrants sent from the U.S. to El Salvador to Venezuela under the prisoner exchange.

Asked at a status hearing in court last week whether the Justice Department would comply with the court’s orders, DOJ lawyer Tiberius Davis said they would, ‘if it was a lawful order.’

They also said they would likely seek an appeal from a higher court.

In April, Judge Boasberg also ruled that the court had found ‘probable cause’ to hold the Trump administration in contempt for failing to return the planes to U.S. soil, in accordance with his March 15 emergency order, and said the court had determined that the Trump administration demonstrated a ‘willful disregard’ for his order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed his original motion in April, and has yet to move on the matter.

When the ambulance arrived in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia two years ago, an angry EMT got out and barked at the crowd, ‘Who called this in?’ 

Standing next to my cameraman and above the prone body of a shirtless soul bedecked in boils and not moving, I said, ‘I did.’ He didn’t say a word, he looked at me, then down the street at the dozens of strung out bodies, then back at me as if to say, ‘Look at all this, what do you want me to do?’

I had no answer.

Last week, President Donald Trump did answer that question with a much-welcome executive order (EO) intended to bring back civil commitment, in other words, the ability to put people who are a danger to themselves or others in institutions, even against their will.

Civil libertarians are in a tizzy over the EO. They insist this is an abuse of due process and harkens to the bad old days, when hundreds of thousands of Americans were committed to mental institutions, sometimes for dubious reasons.

But in examining and judging Trump’s proposed policy here, it is important to understand and accept what the status quo on the ground is right now, and it is nothing short of horrific.

I’ve traveled to homeless encampments all over America, from tucked-away Manhattan underpasses to the sprawling chaos of San Francisco’s Tenderloin, a place you literally smell a block before you enter.

In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die.

For decades now, Democrats have spent endless dollars on fruitless efforts to fix the homeless problem. In California alone, Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent $20 billion on failing to fix it, and only recently admitted the encampments have to go.

In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die.

What the Trump administration realizes is that Democrats refuse to accept is that homelessness is, actually, two very distinct problems. One is financial, the other is a matter of addiction and mental health.

Financial homelessness is fairly easy to address. The evicted mother living in her car can be given temporary housing and job assistance. She really does just need a hand up.

Homelessness related to mental illness and addiction, however, isn’t really a homelessness problem at all, it’s an addiction and mental illness problem, and shockingly, just letting people in tents shoot up in what was once a thriving commercial district doesn’t solve it.

As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn’t really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren’t in a de facto open-air institution already.

What does it matter if these places lack walls and locks? They are cages nonetheless, cruel prisons whether voluntary or not.

As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn’t really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren’t in a de facto open-air institution already.

Opponents of civil commitment insist you cannot take away people’s freedom! But freedom to do what? Shoot fentanyl every day until they die on a curbside, pockets rifled by another desperate junkie?

If it was your child on these broken and brutal streets of death, would you want them to be left in freedom to waste away, or would you want them taken somewhere where they could be protected and helped?

Opponents will say that civil commitment can be abused. They will point to the 1950s when homosexuals were sent to institutions, but it’s not 1950. We aren’t going to institutionalize gay people, and we cannot be paralyzed by a bigoted past when trying to save lives today.

Could there be abuses or mistakes made regarding civil commitment? Sure, but people are dying in the streets right now, and we must trust ourselves to actively help them, without stepping over the line.

Annoyed with me, or not, that day in Kensington, the EMT revived the man at my feet, who, it turns out, wasn’t dead, after all. Instead, he was angry, because the Narcan that woke him up also negated the high he had paid for.

There are really only two sides to be on here: the side that says we are going to do everything we can to save that man’s life, even against his will, or the side that condemns him to an open-air prison of his own making.

President Trump has chosen wisely, and if local governments take heed, it is going to save a lot of lives across America.

President Donald Trump’s new deadline for Russia to end the conflict with Ukraine is an additional ‘step towards war,’ according to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.  

Medvedev, now the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, cautioned that Trump’s announcement Monday that Russia must end the conflict with Ukraine in 10 to 12 days would not end well for the U.S. 

‘Trump’s playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10… He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country,’ Medvedev said in a post on X on Monday. ‘Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!’

While Trump announced on July 14 that he would sign off on ‘severe tariffs’ against Russia if Moscow failed to agree to a peace deal within 50 days, Trump said Monday that waiting that period of time was futile amid stalled negotiations. 

‘I’m going to make a new deadline, of about 10 — 10 or 12 days from today,’ Trump told reporters from Scotland. ‘There’s no reason for waiting. It was 50 days. I wanted to be generous, but we just don’t see any progress being made.’

Trump’s remarks come as his frustration with Putin has grown in recent weeks amid no progress toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, and just a day after Russia launched more than 300 drones, four cruise missiles and three ballistic missiles into Ukraine, according to the Ukrainian air force.

Trump called out Putin for providing lip service during their discussions while not taking proactive steps to end the war. As a result, Trump said he’s grown ‘disappointed’ in the Russian leader and that he’s ‘not so interested in talking anymore’ with Putin. 

‘He talks — we have such nice conversations, such respectful and nice conversation. And then, people die the following night,’ Trump said Monday. 

Following Trump’s announcement about whittling down the deadline for a peace deal, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Trump for his ‘clear stance and expressed determination’ to resolve the conflict.

‘I thank President Trump for his focus on saving lives and stopping this horrible war,’ Zelenskyy said in a post on X on Monday. ‘Ukraine remains committed to peace and will work tirelessly with the U.S. to make both our countries safer, stronger, and more prosperous.’

Zelenskyy previously came under scrutiny from Vice President JD Vance in February during an Oval Office meeting for not voicing more gratitude for U.S. support for Kyiv as it battles Moscow.

Although Trump has historically boasted about having a solid relationship with Putin, he has publicly voiced increased frustration with Putin in recent weeks as the war rages on between Russia and Ukraine. 

‘We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,’ Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on July 8. ‘He’s very nice to us all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.’

Fox News Digital’s Caitlin McFall contributed to this report.