作者： root

Noncitizen charged with voting in Minnesota 2024 election after admitting ‘mistake’ to investigators

2026-04-15 12:40:07 EDT / Fox News

The charges come as Republicans push voter ID legislation against Democratic pushback that noncitizen voting is rare

By Andrew Mark Miller , Kiera McDonald Fox News

Published April 15, 2026 12:40pm EDT

A man in Minnesota is facing felony charges after being accused of registering to vote and then voting in the 2024 election despite not being a citizen of the United States.

Mukeshkumar Somabhai Chaudhari, 39, was charged with perjury and a voting violation on Monday after authorities say they obtained records showing he submitted a ballot in the 2024 election after registering to vote in 2023, Fox 9 Minneapolis reported.

Authorities say that Chaudhari denied he voted at first when interviewed but later claimed he “made a mistake” and admitted to voting while also telling investigators he is not a U.S. citizen.

FLORIDA, MISSISSIPPI JOIN WAVE OF STATES TIGHTENING VOTER CITIZENSHIP RULES

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz testifies during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2026, in Washington, D.C.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Chaudhari, according to investigators, received a voter registration notice from the state of Minnesota in a move that was likely triggered in the system after he obtained his driver’s license. Chaudhari is said to have told authorities that he didn’t learn he should not have voted until his lawyer informed him during his green card process.

“Only U.S. Citizens are eligible to vote in Minnesota,” the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State told Fox News Digital, adding that ineligible voting is “extremely rare.”

“When an individual completes a voter registration application, they attest that they meet all eligibility requirements, including that they are a U.S. citizen,” the office said. “Before casting a ballot, one must again swear to their eligibility before they are allowed to vote. If a noncitizen attempts to vote in an election, they will be caught and held to account. Penalties for voting while ineligible may include deportation, a permanent bar on future citizenship, a fine of up to $10,000, and up to five years in prison.”

HOUSE OVERSIGHT PROBE PUTS MINNESOTA ELECTIONS UNDER SCRUTINY OVER NONCITIZEN VOTING CONCERNS

A polling place in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on March 3, 2020.(Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

News of the charges come as Republicans continue to push voter ID legislation, known as the SAVE America Act, against fierce pushback from Democrats who make the argument that voter fraud and non-citizens voting are rare.

Conservatives on social media were quick to point the finger at Democrats in response to Chaudhari’s charges.

“That thing that never ever happens happened again,” Center of the American Experiment policy fellow Bill Glahn sarcastically posted on X.

MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL SPARKS PUSH TO SCRUTINIZE BILLIONS IN BIDEN-ERA ENERGY GRANTS

People rally in support of the SAVE Act at Upper Senate Park in Washington, D.C.(Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

State Rep. Pam Altendorf, a Republican, called out Minnesota Democrats in a post on X for three specific actions that she said have weakened election safeguards and invited scrutiny: loosening election laws in 2023 and 2024, issuing driver’s licenses to noncitizens, and creating a 46-day voting season during which the state mass-mailed voter registration cards and absentee ballots.

“Welcome to Tim Walz’s Minnesota,” Townhall columnist Dustin Grage posted on X.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Glahn previously spoke to Fox News Digital about his concerns over the lack of safeguards in Minnesota’s voting system, including registered voters being able to “vouch” for up to eight other voters’ residency who want to sign up for same-day voter registration without an ID.

Fox News Digital reached out to Gov. Tim Walz’s office.

Andrew Mark Miller is a reporter at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

5 takeaways from recent Iran polls that look increasingly grim for Trump

2026-04-15T17:07:20.798Z / CNN

Analysis by

Aaron Blake

3 hr ago

PUBLISHED Apr 15, 2026, 1:07 PM ET

Donald Trump The Middle East Election polls National security

See all topics

President Donald Trump attends a UFC event in Miami, Florida, on April 11.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/Pool/Getty Images

President Donald Trump in a new interview airing Wednesday said the Iran war was “very close to over.” (Take that for what it’s worth, though, since it’s been five weeks since he said it was “very complete”.)

He also made arguably his most extensive case to date that the war has been worth the spike in energy prices and the stock market volatility. He said it was all about stopping Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon.

“To stop that, it was certainly worthwhile,” Trump told Fox Business Network, arguing oil prices haven’t risen as much as he thought they might.

“I think we’re doing very well,” he added. “And maybe people assume we’re going to win this thing pretty soon. We’ve beaten them militarily, totally.”

But this is a rosy view of the situation that doesn’t match Americans’ perceptions.

In fact, the war is getting more unpopular over time. And as we’ve gotten more extensive polling, we learning more about why that is.

Here are a few key points on that front.

Americans don’t see objectives being met

While Trump has declared the war is close to being over and a success, Americans don’t see it that way. And they certainly don’t see it as a strategic success.

A CBS News-YouGov poll over the weekend showed 36% said the military operations were successful. Another 31% said it was too soon to say, while 33% said they were not successful.

But Americans were even less sold on the strategic side of things. Just 25% said the war was a strategic success — far less than the 42% who deemed it a failure.

And when it comes to key objectives, Americans overwhelmingly don’t see them being met:

• Just 7% said Iran’s leaders are more pro-US now (despite Trump claiming that Iran has a “new regime” that is “pretty reasonable.”)
• Just 8% said the war has prevented Tehran from threatening other countries (despite Trump saying the war “stopped” Iran from taking over or taking out the Middle East.)
• And just 11% said it has permanently stopped Iran’s nuclear program (despite Trump saying that’s the No. 1 goal and having said his June strikes in Iran “obliterated” its nuclear facilities.)

Even Trump might concede that last one is a work in progress. But the other key point is that Americans just don’t think the war is going to accomplish it.

In fact, they don’t even think the war has been a net positive on that front.

A recent Pew Research Center poll showed only 27% of Americans said the war would ultimately make Iran’s development of a nuke “less likely.” That’s the same as the 27% who viewed it as “more likely.” (Another 4 in 10 were neutral.)

They don’t see the benefits

Trump’s pitch, as he laid it out in the Fox Business interview, was that today’s costs will be worth the long-term benefits.

But Americans aren’t just worried about the short-term economic costs; they also don’t see the long-term security payoff.

A new Ipsos poll this week showed 51% said the benefits of the war wouldn’t be worth the costs, compared to just 24% who said they would. (The rest were neutral.)

It also asked whether the war would make US national security better or worse “over the long run.” Just 26% said it would improve national security, while 41% said it would actually make it worse.

And a University of Massachusetts Amherst poll showed similar skepticism.

Only about 3 in 10 Americans said the war would make the world “more stable,” compared to half who disagreed.

Republicans are not enthusiastic

Despite self-identified MAGA supporters backing this war, evidence is building that Trump’s base, defined more broadly, is quite skeptical.

In many polls, 20% or 25% of Republicans and Trump voters generally disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war. But there’s also the mushy middle. These people don’t outright oppose the war, but don’t really see the point, either.

The Ipsos poll showed just 57% of Republicans thought the war would improve US national security over the long run, and just 55% said the cost-benefit analysis would be worth it.

Similarly, the CBS poll showed just 56% of Republicans said the war has been successful in terms of strategic interests.

In both cases, most of the rest chose a middle-ground option. A huge chunk of Trump’s base is clearly not bought in.

Faith in Trump is dropping

Even as Trump has leaned increasingly into a more militaristic and interventionist foreign policy, Americans have less confidence in him to carry that out.

The Pew poll features some pretty staggering charts and numbers:

• The percentage of Americans who are not confident that Trump will make good decisions on Iran has increased from 50% during the 2024 campaign to 56% after the June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to 64% in March.
• We’ve seen similar increases when it comes to the war in Ukraine and dealing with China.
• Only 66% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are at least “somewhat” confident in Trump’s handling of Iran.

Similarly, the CBS poll showed just 23% of Americans had “a lot” of confidence in Trump to make the right decisions about Iran. Another 18% had “some,” while about 6 in 10 had “not much” or “none.”

The war has exacerbated Trump’s inflation problem

Perhaps most politically troubling for Trump and the GOP ahead of the midterms is inflation, which just jumped amid the oil shock.

Americans were already down on Trump on that issue — and that’s worsened for him since the war started. The percentage of Americans who disapprove of his handling of inflation has been at 67%, 68%, 69% and 71% in recent polls.

It’s pretty rare that 7 in 10 Americans agree on anything, but Trump’s failure on inflation is now one of them.

And it appears to be bleeding into the president’s overall number on the economy. A CNN poll two weeks ago showed his approval rating on that issue dropping to 31% — lower than it ever was for either himself or Joe Biden.

Trump reveals he has multi-pick SCOTUS plan ready as retirement speculation heats up

2026-04-15 14:09 EDT / Fox News

Speculation about the 76-year-old justice’s retirement has grown amid concerns about the GOP Senate majority before midterms

By Ashley Oliver Fox News

Published April 15, 2026 2:09pm EDT

President Donald Trump said he is “prepared” to appoint up to three Supreme Court justices if vacancies arise, signaling he is ready to further reshape the high court as speculation swirls around a potential retirement from Justice Samuel Alito.

Trump told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo that Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, could retire and that he has a shortlist of nominees in mind, though he did not mention any names.

The remarks sharpen the stakes around any potential vacancy, as Trump signaled he is ready to seize the opportunity to deepen the court’s conservative majority. With retirement speculation around Alito intensifying and Republicans eyeing the window before the 2026 midterms, the prospect of an opening is already putting fresh focus on succession politics.

“In theory, it’s two — you just read the statistics — it could be two, could be three, could be one,” Trump said. “I don’t know. I’m prepared to do it. But when you mention Alito, he is a great justice.”

JONATHAN TURLEY: KAMALA HARRIS BACKS RADICAL PLAN TO BLOCK TRUMP SCOTUS PICKS

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito testifies about the court’s budget during a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee’s Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee March 7, 2019, in Washington, D.C.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Rumors about Alito, 76, potentially retiring have grown because of his age, his two-decade tenure on the bench and speculation that he may want to make sure a conservative successor is confirmed by the current Republican-led Senate, especially before the upcoming midterm elections in which Republicans are at risk of losing or seeing a diminished majority.

The rumors were further fueled when it was revealed Alito was treated last month for dehydration after becoming ill at a Federalist Society dinner. A Supreme Court spokesperson clarified at the time that the justice was “thoroughly checked” and returned to the bench the following Monday.

TRUMP DISMISSES CALLS FOR ALITO, THOMAS TO STEP DOWN FROM SUPREME COURT, CALLING THEM ‘FANTASTIC’

Justice Clarence Thomas, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, has drawn less retirement speculation despite being one year older than Alito at 77 and his own lengthy tenure. Thomas has been a conservative fixture on the court for more than three decades and holds a record as the second-longest serving justice in history.

President Donald Trump and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, center, and Samuel Alito, right.(Chip Somodevilla/AFP/Getty Images)

Trump noted what he viewed as an upside to replacing Alito, who sides with him on nearly every high-profile court case, but said it would come at a cost.

“Justice Alito is an unbelievable justice, and a brilliant justice, and he gets the country,” Trump said. “He does what’s right for the country. It’s the law, and he goes by it as much as anybody, but he gets to the point. That’s good for our country. So … one way you should be, ‘Oh, I’m thrilled,’ but he’s so good.”

While many prominent conservative judges, from appellate court Judge James Ho to Florida-based federal Judge Aileen Cannon, have been floated as options in legal circles, Trump has not publicly revealed any of his preferences at this stage.

Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told reporters this week he would recommend Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, or Mike Lee, R-Utah, as top candidates if Alito were to retire. Grassley emphasized that he hoped Alito would not step down but said his committee is “fully prepared” to process a nominee before the upcoming midterm elections if needed.

Cruz said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital that having his name in the mix was a “high honor” but that he did not want the job.

“The reason I’ve said no is that a principled federal judge stays out of policy fights and stays out of political fights. … But I don’t want to stay out of policy fights. I don’t want to stay out of political fights,” Cruz said. “I want to be right in the middle of them.”

Lee’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks to the 2025 Supreme Court Fellows Program Feb. 13, 2025, at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.(Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

No president since Ronald Reagan has influenced the Supreme Court more than Trump, who secured three appointments during his first term, underscoring how Trump has shaped the 6-3 ideological divide on the court in favor of conservatives.

George H.W. Bush appointed two, as did George W. Bush and former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Former President Joe Biden appointed one, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.

House Democrats file articles of impeachment against Hegseth

April 15, 2026 / 12:58 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — House Democrats unveiled articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, making serious allegations about his handling of the war in Iran and his leadership more broadly.

The resolution, led by Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, lists six impeachment articles:

• Unauthorized war against Iran and reckless endangerment of U.S. service members;
• Violations of the law of armed conflict and targeting of civilians;
• Negligence and reckless handling of sensitive military information;
• Obstruction of congressional oversight;
• Abuse of power and politicization of the armed forces;
• Conduct bringing disrepute upon the U.S. and its armed forces.

The impeachment push almost certainly won’t go anywhere in the House this year, since Republicans have a narrow majority. But its Democratic sponsors could renew their efforts if the party takes control of the chamber following the midterm elections.

The seven-page impeachment resolution claims Hegseth engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional basis for impeachment. It says he has “demonstrated a willful disregard for the Constitution, abused the powers of his office, and acted in a manner grossly incompatible with the rule of law.”

Axios first reported on the resolution.

The resolution also accuses Hegseth of failing to prevent the use of military force “in a manner inconsistent with the law of armed conflict,” pointing to civilian casualties, including the Feb. 28 bombing of a girls’ school in Iran that killed 168 people. A preliminary U.S. assessment suggested that the United States was “likely” responsible for the attack but did not intentionally target the school and may have hit it in error.

The impeachment resolution argues that Hegseth has engaged in conduct “that raises serious concerns of violations of the Geneva Conventions,” along with other binding U.S. obligations, citing his comments about giving “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends an all-Congress briefing on Iran at the U.S. Capitol on March 3, 2026. Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images

The impeachment articles cite Hegseth’s sharing of details about U.S. military operations in Yemen in a private Signal group chat last year, saying he has “demonstrated gross negligence in the handling of sensitive and classified military information.” The resolution claims he has engaged in efforts to obstruct constitutional oversight by withholding information on the Venezuela and Iran operations. And it claims he has “shaken public confidence in the integrity and ability of the Department of Defense” in part by undermining the U.S. commitment to NATO.

Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said the impeachment effort represents “just another Democrat trying to make headlines as the Department of War decisively and overwhelmingly achieved the Presidents’ objectives in Iran.”

“Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and project peace through strength,” Wilson said in a statement. “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by a number of Democrats, including Reps. Sarah McBride of Delaware, Lauren Underwood of Illinois, Al Green of Texas, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Nikema Williams of Georgia, Dina Titus of Nevada, Dave Min of California, Shri Thanedar of Michigan, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Mike Quigley of Illinois and Brittany Pettersen of Colorado.

Ansari teased the plan last week amid President Trump’s increasing threats to target Iranian infrastructure if a deal was not reached to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Ansari, the first Iranian-American Democrat elected to Congress, said in a post on X that the “rhetoric has crossed every line,” claiming “Hegseth is complicit.”

“I’ve called for the 25th Amendment and am introducing Articles of Impeachment against Hegseth,” Ansari added.

Impeachment is the first step in the process of removing executive and judicial branch officials from office. The House is responsible for approving impeachment articles, which are akin to charges in an indictment. The Senate is tasked with holding a trial to determine whether the accused is guilty and should be removed from office.

Only two Cabinet officials have ever been impeached: Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024. Belknap was ultimately acquitted. In Mayorkas’ case, the Senate’s Democratic majority dispensed with the charges shortly after the trial began.

Trump aide Sebastian Gorka signals he’s interested in top counterterrorism post

2026-04-15 12:52 EDT / CBS News

Washington — Sebastian Gorka, a national security aide to President Trump, has signaled interest in becoming the next director of the National Counterterrorism Center, according to two U.S. officials who spoke to CBS News.

The position would place Gorka at the hub of the nation’s counterterrorism enterprise at a time of unusual strain and redefinition across the national security apparatus. It has been moving toward an “America First” framework that emphasizes restraint abroad, despite Trump administration initiatives like the war with Iran and the removal and arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolàs Maduro.

Gorka and a National Security Council official did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka, center, with FBI Director Kash Patel, left, at the State Department on March 9, 2026. Brendan SMIALOWSKI /AFP via Getty Images

Gorka formerly held academic roles at the Marine Corps University and at the National Defense University at Fort McNair. His career in U.S. politics has been built around an uncompromising view of Islamist extremism and a restrictive approach to immigration policy, making him a familiar presence on conservative media, where his commentary often blends praise for Mr. Trump with sharp attacks on administration critics.

Joe Weirsky, a Marine veteran with special operations experience, is currently the acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, following the resignation of Joe Kent. Kent, an Army Special Forces veteran, stepped down last month after breaking with Mr. Trump over the administration’s move to begin military action against Iran — a decision that critics, including some within the president’s own orbit, say clashes with campaign promises to avoid new foreign conflicts.

Kent, who was nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate last year, said in a post on X that he could not “support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives.”

He added: “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Kent is currently under investigation by the FBI for alleged leaks of classified information. Gorka has publicly called Kent an “utter disgrace.”

The Washington Post first reported Wednesday that Gorka was angling for the top counterterrorism job. Contacted by CBS News, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence led by Tulsi Gabbard, a close ally of Kent, referred questions to the White House.

A White House official told CBS News that “Any announcements regarding nominees will come from the President or administration directly.”

If nominated to the position, Gorka would face a Senate confirmation vote.

A naturalized American citizen, Gorka was born in the United Kingdom to Hungarian parents and served as a national security strategist to Mr. Trump during his first term but departed shortly after John Kelly, a retired Marine general, took over as chief of staff.

‘We need to have another reckoning’, that’s what one Democratic influencer says Congress needs nearly a decade after #MeToo

2026-04-15 1:26 PM EDT / CNN Politics

By Dana Bash, CNN

Cheyenne Hunt, a Democratic influencer, shared some of the first allegations against former Rep. Eric Swalwell on her social media. She tells CNN’s Dana Bash that the #MeToo movement “didn’t make it all the way up to Capitol Hill.” She said there needs to be a movement “to adequately address that radical imbalance of power that we see between powerful congressmen and staffers.”

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/15/politics/video/inside-politics-cheyenne-hunt

US Senate Republicans block latest bid to rein in Trump Iran war powers

2026-04-15T18:46:10.802Z / Reuters

By Patricia Zengerle

April 15, 2026 6:46 PM UTC Updated 48 mins ago

节点运行失败

Burnt-out vehicles at the site of a car repair shop and dealership damaged by a strike, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 28, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) – A majority of ​the U.S. Senate backed President Donald ​Trump’s military campaign against Iran on Wednesday, voting to block a Democratic-led resolution aiming to stop ​the war until hostilities are authorized by ​Congress.

The Senate voted 52-47 not to advance the ⁠war powers resolution, underscoring his party’s continuing support ​for the Republican president’s war policy more than ​six weeks after the U.S. and Israel launched air strikes on Iran on February 28.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

It was the ​fourth time that Democrats have forced ​votes on similar measures since the war began. All ‌of ⁠them have failed in the face of opposition from every Republican except Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Paul was the only Republican vote ​in favor ​of the ⁠resolution in the latest vote. The only Democratic no came from ​Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. Republican Senator ​Jim ⁠Justice of West Virginia did not vote.

Democratic party leaders have vowed to keep bringing ⁠up ​war powers resolution until the ​conflict ends or Congress authorizes continued fighting.

Reporting by Patricia ​Zengerle; Editing by Chris Reese and Chizu Nomiyama

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Why Jerome Powell — not Trump — will decide when the Federal Reserve chief exits the scene

April 15, 2026 / 2:51 PM EDT / CBS News

By

President Trump’s latest threat to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell could put them on a collision course when the latter’s term as head of the central bank ends on May 15.

In an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said he would dismiss Powell if the policymaker stuck to his pledge of staying on as a Fed governor as long as the Department of Justice continues a criminal probe into ongoing building renovations at the Fed. Powell has said the investigation is intended to pressure him into supporting lower interest rates or resigning.

“Then I’ll have to fire him, OK, if he’s not leaving on time, I’ve held back firing him,” Mr. Trump told Bartiromo. I’ve wanted to fire him. But I hate to be controversial.”

Mr. Trump’s comment follows a string of previous threats he’s made about removing Powell, with the president citing dissatisfaction with the Fed’s pace of interest rate cuts, which he has characterized as too slow.

But ousting Powell would be legally dubious, Dan Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern University, told CBS News.

“As the law currently stands, it is not legal for President Trump to fire Powell at any point — as chair or as governor — unless the firing is ‘for cause,’” he said. “The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 says the Federal Board of Governors can only be fired for serious misconduct.”

He added, “Powell has done no such thing.”

Fed governors serve 14-year terms, compared with four years for the Fed chair. As a result, the head of the nation’s central bank can remain on the Fed’s board even after exiting as chair. In Powell’s case, his term as chair ends May 15, while his term as a Fed governor runs through January 2028.

Warsh’s delayed confirmation

Another potential obstacle to the White House moving to dump Powell in the near term is the slow-moving effort to confirm former Fed official Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina has said he won’t vote to confirm any Fed nominees until the Justice Department’s investigation into the Fed renovations is dropped.

“Trump today said he intended to fire Powell if he does not leave when his term expires, which would open another legal battle that would only intensify Powell’s resolve to remain at the Fed,” said Tim Duy, chief economist at SGH Macro, in a research note. “It increasingly appears that Trump’s animosity toward Powell prevents an offramp that would allow a smooth transition to Warsh.”

Asked in March about the delay in confirming Warsh, Powell said he would serve as pro tem chair of the Fed until a successor can step into the role.

Although Mr. Trump could name Fed governor Stephen Miran as acting Fed chair on May 15, that move would likely face a legal challenge, TD Securities analyst Jaret Seiberg said in a note to investors.

“Jerome Powell has said that he would serve as ‘chair pro tem’ until his successor is confirmed. So Powell could sue, suggesting that he, not Miran, is chair. It’s quite messy,” Urman said.

Reached for a response about Mr. Trump’s remarks, the White House pointed to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s comments at a Wednesday press conference.

“I am very optimistic that Kevin Warsh will be the chair of the Fed on time, and that will be a moot question,” Bessent said.

If Mr. Trump follows through on his threats to fire Powell, investors would likely react negatively, said Columbia Business School professor Brett House, noting that financial markets value the Fed’s ability to steer monetary policy independent of political pressure.

“There’s little question that markets will sell off if President Trump attempts to fire Jerome Powell,” House said.

A crucial precedent in June?

The Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases about whether a U.S. president has the legal authority to remove leaders of independent federal agencies, with one involving Fed governor Lisa Cook. Mr. Trump tried to fire Cook in August over allegations she had engaged in mortgage fraud, which she denied. Cook hasn’t been criminally charged.

In informing Cook of her removal, Mr. Trump wrote in a letter shared on social media that he had “sufficient cause” to do so because of what he claimed was “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter.”

The Cook case “is directly on point and asks if the president can fire a Federal Reserve Board member,” Urman said, adding that the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision by late June — after Powell’s term as Fed chief ends. “We should know where the law stands by the summer, but any attempts to fire Powell before then would pretty clearly be unlawful.”

Edited by Alain Sherter

Over a dozen state officials rally behind game-changing Trump admin rule cracking down on fraud: ‘Essential’

2026-04-15T13:23:38-04:00 / Fox News

The proposed rule would require full disclosure of hidden fees, conflicts of interest

By Andrew Mark Miller, Kiera McDonald, Fox News

Published April 15, 2026 1:23pm EDT

White House anti-fraud task force flags $6.3 billion in potential government fraud

White House Anti-Fraud Task Force Vice Chair Andrew Ferguson discusses the task force’s discovery of $6.3 billion in potential fraudulent government contracts, criticizing Democrat governors for allowing widespread fraud and even facilitating it for decades. Ferguson reveals examples of lavish spending by alleged fraudsters and highlights states like California and Hawaii’s failure to prosecute fraud despite receiving federal funds.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

5 min

FIRST ON FOX:Financial officers from 12 states are backing a proposed Department of Labor rule that targets healthcare “middlemen” by demanding more transparency, rallying behind the Trump administration’s waste, fraud, and abuse crackdown as well as the goal of lowering healthcare costs.

In a letter to the Labor Department obtained by Fox News Digital, over a dozen state financial officers in the State Financial Officers Association (SFOF) offered their support of a proposed rule being evaluated by the Labor Department targeting pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that would expose hidden fees, conflicts of interest and overcharging that drive up costs.

“Healthcare purchasers are operating in the dark, paying inflated costs because hidden pricing and middlemen obscure where every dollar goes,” OJ Oleka, CEO of the State Financial Officers Foundation, told Fox News Digital. “By bringing those hidden prices into the light, companies can finally identify waste, negotiate better deals, and redirect those savings toward higher wages, more jobs, stronger benefits for workers, and increases to shareholder value.”

Oleka went on to explain that on a state level, the transparency brought on by the new rule is “essential to safeguarding taxpayer resources and fulfilling fiduciary responsibilities.”

LABOR DEPT DEPLOYS ‘STRIKE TEAM’ TO CALIFORNIA OVER $21B UNEMPLOYMENT DEBT, FRAUD CONCERNS

U.S. President Donald Trump waves to the media after walking off of Air Force One at Miami International Airport on April 11, 2026, in Miami, Florida.(Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

“Transparency isn’t just about accountability; it’s critical to detecting waste, preventing fraud, and ensuring that healthcare spending delivers value to the workers, businesses, and taxpayers who ultimately bear these costs.”

If implemented,the rule would require full disclosure of these “middlemen” revenue streams, expand beyond pharmacy benefit managers to insurers and third-party administrators, and allow access to claims and pricing data, which SFOF says will be a key tool in combating fraud while outlining in the letter that the administration shouldn’t stop there.

“As the guardians of billions of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, we support the Labor Department’s proposed rule and hope the administration goes even further,” Tina Cannon, Utah’s state auditor, told Fox News Digital.

“Enforcing price transparency is essential for us to perform our fiduciary duties effectively,” she said. “Greater oversight and accountability for employer-based health plans will help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in federal healthcare programs, such as the $463.7 million in inappropriate hospital payments my office uncovered in Utah last year. Expanding this rule would help us do our jobs, root out fraud and waste, and reduce the cost of healthcare for all Americans.”

A “complex web” of hidden rebates, fees, and incentives, driven by pharmacy benefit managers, has allowed fraud to go undetected for years, according to the letter.

SENATE DOGE LEADER MOVES TO FORCE ‘RECEIPT’ FOR EVERY TAX DOLLAR AFTER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The push follows months of action from the Trump administration and SFOF to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse across government. Trump recently named Vice President JD Vance the nation’s “fraud czar” to lead an anti-fraud task force, and in February the SFOF uncovered billions in taxpayer waste.

Treasurers and auditors from 12 states — including Nebraska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Mississippi and Kansas — signed onto the effort.

More than $50 billion annually in undisclosed rebates and fees is retained by top pharmacy benefit managers, which has “prevented effective oversight,” according to the letter. The letter details methods used to generate this hidden fraud.

“Healthcare overcharging in the United States erodes shareholder value by driving up costs for employers (and patients),” the letter states.

VANCE REVEALS $19B FRAUD UNCOVERED IN MINNEAPOLIS, HINTS CALIFORNIA IS NEXT TARGET

Vice President JD Vance convened the first meeting of a new anti-fraud task force, blaming the Biden administration for weakening longstanding protections.(Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

One major concern is that pharmacy benefit managers charge more for a drug than they pay at the dispensing pharmacy “to keep the difference or ‘spread’ as profit.” In turn, money hidden from regulators drives price spikes.

The letter also states that pharmacy benefit managers are buying more expensive drugs from manufacturers for higher rebates without those incentives ever being disclosed.

“These arrangements are generally not made public, so plan sponsors often do not have insight into how much pharmacy benefit managers are actually paying for drugs on their formularies,” according to the letter.

It adds that pharmacy benefit managers are steering patients away from cheaper pharmacy options to their own affiliated pharmacies to boost profits.

In 2023, U.S. healthcare spending reached nearly $5 trillion, about 17.6% of GDP, while employers spent roughly $1.3 trillion in 2024, with costs rising more than 5% annually, according to the letter.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The letter builds on recent pressure from these same officials on Fortune 500 companies to more closely examine healthcare spending data, signaling a growing investor-driven push for cost transparency.

It also follows a recent SFOF report showing that financial officers prevented $28 billion in waste and abuse in 2025 alone, along with new polling indicating that Americans view fraud as a major driver of rising living costs.

Andrew Mark Miller is a reporter at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

Jury finds Live Nation and Ticketmaster operated as a monopoly and overcharged fans

2026-04-15T18:59:02.802Z / CNN

By Kara Scannell

Updated 20 min ago

Updated Apr 15, 2026, 3:11 PM ET

PUBLISHED Apr 15, 2026, 2:59 PM ET

Live Nation corporate offices are seen in Hollywood, California in May 2024.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

A jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster operated as a monopoly in its dominance of the live events and ticketing industry, validating complaints that the industry giant was stifling competition and driving up fees for fans.

The verdict was reached following a lengthy trial in New York federal court that included testimony from top executives in the music and entertainment industries. Jurors began deliberating on Friday.

The Justice Department and 39 state attorneys general, including California and New York, and Washington, DC, sued Live Nation in 2024 alleging its combination with Ticketmaster and control of “virtually every aspect of the live music ecosystem” have harmed fans, artists, and venues.

Related article Michael Rapino, president and chief executive officer of Live Nation Entertainment Inc., departs from federal court on March 19, 2026 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images Live Nation CEO says it’s ‘disgusting’ that an employee talked about ‘robbing fans blind’ 3 min read

During the second week of trial, in a move that surprised even the judge, the Justice Department reached a secret settlement with Live Nation. A handful of states signed onto the deal, but more than two dozen proceeded to trial.

Under the DOJ deal, Live Nation agreed to allow competitors, like SeatGeek or StubHub, to offer tickets to its events, cap ticketing service fees at 15%, and divest exclusive booking agreements with 13 amphitheaters. The deal includes a $280 million settlement fund for state damages claims for the handful of states that signed onto the deal.

The DOJ settlement requires the judge’s approval.

This story is breaking and will be updated.