Politics
Column: The backlash on the backlash against the Hunter Biden pardon
Days later I’m still seething that President Biden gave a “full and unconditional” pardon to his troublesome surviving son.
And yet, reluctantly, I have to say that I’d have done the same thing — minus some of the self-pitying and misleading passages in Biden’s official statement.
Opinion Columnist
Jackie Calmes
Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.
First the bad stuff. With the pardon of Hunter Biden, who’d pleaded guilty to tax evasion and was separately convicted of lying about his drug addiction on a gun application, Joe Biden put his family ahead of his fealty to the animating pledge of his presidency: to restore governing norms and the rule of law after both were shredded by his predecessor, Donald Trump. Biden, who’s otherwise been stingy in using the Constitution’s mighty presidential power, by his nepotistic act adds to the pile of rancid pardons amassed by modern presidents of both parties, including Trump’s first-term grants to a scofflaw family member, sordid allies, donors and war criminals.
In Biden’s statement justifying his stay-out-of-jail-free card for Hunter, he echoed Trump’s tirades about a weaponized justice system. That alone contributes to many Americans’ loss of faith in their own institutions and gives Trump cover for his false claims of victimhood. Though Hunter Biden’s name does explain why he faced gun and tax charges for which most Americans wouldn’t be similarly prosecuted — as even Republicans have acknowledged — there is a flip side: Hunter traded on that name to peddle his purported influence globally. Despite years of probing by the feds and House Republicans, however, he faced no charges for those dealings.
The biggest reason to oppose the pardon is this: Joe Biden lied to us.
The man who likes to say “I give you my word as a Biden” broke it here, betraying himself and us. He didn’t have to make the “no pardon” promise, or allow his spokeswoman to do so as recently as last month. He could have dodged the question.
Instead, in June, then-candidate Biden said he would “abide by the jury decision” that had just convicted Hunter for the gun lie. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre assured reporters the following month that a pardon was “still a no. It will be a no.” And last month, after Trump’s election and in advance of Hunter Biden’s sentencing scheduled for Dec. 16, Jean-Pierre underscored: “Our answer stands, which is no.”
So Joe deserves the bipartisan backlash he’s getting. But how about some backlash to the backlash? For me, one consideration trumps all others, pun intended, to excuse the president: The deplorable Trump is about to reclaim power.
Had any other Republican in the 2024 mix been elected — say, Nikki Haley or Tim Scott, even Ron DeSanctimonious — there’d be no justification for absolving Hunter. But those Republicans weren’t elected, Trump was, and he’s the vengeful former and future president who vowed last year to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.”
Given such explicit threats, and Trump’s first-term record of trying to politicize the Justice Department and FBI, why should Biden leave his son to Trump’s nonexistent mercies? Especially once Trump showed by his picks of willing enforcers for his new administration just how serious he is about retribution.
The president-elect’s first choice for attorney general, attack dog and former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, fell under the weight of his own legal woes. Then Trump turned to former Florida Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, a longtime loyalist who has explicitly called for revenge against those deemed responsible for Trump’s legal travails: “The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted. … The investigators will be investigated.”
And on Saturday, Trump tapped MAGA henchman Kash Patel to be FBI director. Patel’s credentials? Last year he produced a literal enemies list for Trump and separately said he’d prosecute Hunter Biden as a foreign agent, never mind past investigations that produced nothing.
As former federal prosecutor and law professor Joyce Vance wrote recently, by way of justifying the pardon, Trump as president could have made Hunter Biden’s life in federal prison “extremely difficult.”
And a Trumpian Justice Department could have redoubled efforts to charge him for foreign dealings going back to his father’s time as veep, as Patel has suggested. The pardon preempts that sort of actual witch hunt.
President Biden has time to make up for the all but unpardonable pardon. He could endorse an effort, even if it’s a pipe dream, to amend the Constitution to repeal or at least reform presidents’ unchecked pardon power.
Better yet — because it’s achievable by Jan. 20 — Biden could put aides to work on a long list of pardons for obscure Americans truly wronged by the justice system and deserving mercy. This pattern of presidents sullying the office as they leave it with clemency for the connected should end, even if the pardon power lives on.
@jackiekcalmes
Politics
Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.
The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House.
The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Politics
Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power
One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.
Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.
“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”
The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.
While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.
The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.
And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.
That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.
It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.
That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.
That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.
That is true in the streets of America today.
Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.
The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.
USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.
The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs.
HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.
‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL
The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud. (AP Digital Embed)
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Delaware1 day agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska4 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska