Politics
WATCH: House Dems blame racism, all-white jury for Karmelo Anthony’s guilty verdict
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
House Democrats are raising concerns about how race and jury selection may have impacted the guilty verdict in the Karmelo Anthony case, with several arguing the verdict highlights the racism they believe exists in the criminal justice system.
“A travesty, two lives ruined, and what struck me most is that you had an all-white jury,” Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, said when asked his thoughts on the guilty verdict. “You had preemptive strikes that were used in order to achieve an all white jury.”
After Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Tuesday for the stabbing and killing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a high school track event, many activists and Democratic lawmakers have claimed the trial to be unfair and racist.
KARMELO ANTHONY VERDICT DRAWS ANTI-WHITE RAGE AND LIES FROM RADICAL DEM CONGRESSWOMAN, ANGRY ACTIVISTS
Many are claiming the jurors were all white, and that this contributed to the rejection of Anthony’s self-defense claim.
“Juries should represent the diversity of this country, and if a white kid was convicted of murder and it was an all-black jury that did the conviction, people would say this is patently unfair,” Menefee said. “So why should it be fair if it’s the other way around?”
But sources close to the trial told Fox News Digital that there were three jurors who were racial minorities. They said that of the 18 total jurors, including alternates, six were minorities. Additionally, four Black men testified in defense of Metcalf, saying Anthony was not provoked in any way to justify stabbing the 17-year-old.
SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM IN AUSTIN METCALF SLAYING IS ‘UPHILL BATTLE’: EXPERT
Supporters of Anthony claim that he stabbed Metcalf as an act of self defense, arguing he did not receive a fair trial. Some activists and Democratic lawmakers have called for further review of the case and urged Anthony to pursue an appeal.
“Here is a case where a young man certainly appears to have been being attacked and defended himself,” Rep. Troy Carter, D-La., said about the case.
“It does bring in light the imbalance in our judicial system, as it relates to African Americans and people of color” Carter continued. “And that’s a shame. So hopefully, there’ll be an opportunity for some appeal and some further discussion.”
“Case after case, after case you see that if it is a young black person, they’re not allowed to be fearful, they’re not allowed self-defense, they don’t get the same standard ground opportunities that other people get,” Menefee said. “But then other races do.”
AUSTIN METCALF’S DAD EXPRESSES EMPATHY FOR KARMELO ANTHONY AS KILLER’S PARENTS SAY ‘THEY DID A NUMBER ON US’
Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, was among several House Democrats who raised concerns about race and jury selection following Karmelo Anthony’s guilty verdict in the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images; Texas Department of Criminal Justice)
Some lawmakers were less likely to directly blame the trial as unfair due to race, but were still sympathetic toward Anthony and were not blatantly opposed to the idea of looking further into the evidence in the case despite a verdict already being made.
“We’ve got to stop this loss and the killing of these young children, number one,” Rep. Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., said. “First of all, they need to reopen it and all the evidence needs to come forward.”
“I think it’s an unfortunate circumstance all the way around,” Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Ala., said.
He continued, “You have one young man who was killed. His family will never get to be with him again. You have another young man who, for all intents and purposes, thrown a lot of years of his life. A lot of the years of this life. If he does 35 years, he’ll be 50 — in his 50s — when he gets out. And it’s just totally unfortunate.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Throughout their criticism of the verdict, several lawmakers framed the case as part of a larger debate over race, self-defense claims and equal treatment for minorities under the law.
“The American justice system does not work equally for everybody,” Menefee said.
California’s political watchdog commission on Thursday finalized a $31,500 fine against Gov. Gavin Newsom, alleging that the Democratic leader failed to report three dozen behested payments totaling $5.5 million mostly to support wildfire recovery by the deadline under state law.
The Political Reform Act requires elected officials to disclose payments of $5,000 or more that they solicit or direct others to give to a charitable, legislative or governmental purpose within 30 days.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission said 34 of the violations were for failing to report on time that Newsom and his staff directed outreach from companies and foundations that wanted to help after the Los Angeles wildfires to the California Fire Foundation. The nonprofit was started in 1987 by the California Professional Firefighters to support the families of fallen firefighters and communities impacted by fire.
The donations include $1 million from the Chuck Lorre Foundation and $500,000 apiece from Lockheed Martin, the Anthem Blue Cross Foundation and BlackRock, among others gifts.
The governor also failed in 2024 to report on time two behested payments, totaling $100,000 from the Schmidt Family Foundation and Schwab Charitable Funds to the Institute for Local Government, a nonprofit within the League of California Cities.
The commission said the governor reported all of the payments “prior to public discovery” or contact from its enforcement division, which it considered a mitigating factor. Newsom also signed the stipulation and agreed to the fine.
Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office, said the issue involved late paperwork at a time when the governor’s staff was focused on emergency response and supporting survivors. She also underscored the fact that the reports were filed before he was contact by the FPPC.
Gallegos said the fine is unrelated to an alleged investigation into the governor and his wife by the Department of Justice, which Newsom announced this week.
Newsom alleged Monday that Trump is using the government as a political weapon to target him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Newsom announced the investigation after he learned that the FBI and Internal Revenue Service asked his associates questions about nonprofits and businesses related to the couple.
The governor’s office characterized the investigation as a fishing expedition. The Trump administration declined to comment.
A source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, said two federal probes have been going on for about a year, and that they originated not from Washington, D.C., but from conversations between whistleblowers and federal prosecutors based in Sacramento. The probes are linked to Newsom’s former chief-of-staff, Dana Williamson, and Siebel Newsom’s taxes, the source said.
The FPPC violations mark the second time Newsom has reported payments late, which increased his penalty for the new infractions. The commission fined Newsom in 2024 for failing to timely report 18 payments totaling $14.4 million.
new video loaded: Erika Kirk’s Message for Women at Turning Point USA
By Vivian Yee, Christina Shaman, Lauren Pruitt, James Surdam and Melanie Bencosme
June 18, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FIRST ON FOX: Americans are nearly evenly split between favoring Iranian regime change and a negotiated U.S. settlement with Iran, according to a new survey.
Some 39% of respondents favor a negotiated settlement where Iran’s current government remains in place, with verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs, according to the findings of the Reagan Institute Summer Survey, while 36% favor replacing Iran’s current government with one more favorable to the U.S.
Another 16% favor a weakened regime where the current government stays in place but is significantly diminished militarily and economically, and 8% responded that they don’t know.
The findings underscore the political challenge facing President Donald Trump as his administration pursues a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran. While the agreement seeks to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions through negotiations, Americans remain divided over the ultimate objective of U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic.
Americans are nearly evenly split between favoring Iranian regime change and a negotiated U.S. settlement with Iran, according to a new survey. (Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images)
AMERICANS AGREE WITH TRUMP THAT IRAN POSES THREAT TO UNITED STATES: POLL
Republicans who responded to the survey favored replacing Iran’s government by a 2-to-1 margin over a diplomatic deal.
Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to favor a more aggressive outcome in Iran. Half of Republican respondents said they would prefer to see Iran’s current government replaced with one more favorable to the United States, compared to 25% who said they would favor a negotiated settlement that leaves the regime in place in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs.
The findings were nearly identical among self-identified MAGA Republicans, 51% of whom favored regime change while 25% backed a negotiated settlement.
SHARP PARTISAN DIVIDE EMERGES OVER IRAN STRIKE, TRUMP’S STRATEGY: POLLS
Democrats, meanwhile, largely favored diplomacy. A majority, 52%, said they would prefer a negotiated settlement with Iran’s current government, while 25% favored regime change. Another 14% favored leaving the regime in place but significantly weakened militarily and economically.
The Reagan Institute Summer Survey was conducted May 26 through June 3 among 1,555 respondents nationwide and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The survey used a mixed-mode methodology that included live telephone interviews, an online panel and text-to-web responses.
Smoke rises over Tehran following an explosion amid ongoing U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iranian targets on March 2, 2026. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
The findings underscore the political challenge facing President Donald Trump as his administration pursues a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran. (Hamid FOROUTAN / ISNA / AFP via Getty Images)
Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to favor a more aggressive outcome in Iran. (Pool via WANA/Reuters)
To better reflect the U.S. population, the results were weighted using demographic benchmarks from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey, including age, gender, race, region and education levels. The poll also included an oversample of 331 MAGA Republicans under age 30, a group with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
The Reagan Institute is a Washington-based policy organization that advocates the Reagan foreign-policy tradition of “peace through strength” and sustained American leadership abroad.
The findings come as Trump has defended a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran as a way to reduce tensions and create a pathway toward a broader agreement addressing Tehran’s nuclear program.
The memorandum establishes a 60-day negotiating period during which the United States and Iran will attempt to reach a more comprehensive deal. The agreement also includes provisions aimed at restoring commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and provides limited sanctions waivers tied to continued negotiations. Several of the most contentious issues, including the long-term future of Iran’s nuclear program, are expected to be addressed in subsequent talks.
Trump has described the arrangement as a means of avoiding a wider conflict while pursuing what he called a “great settlement” with Tehran. He has also argued that the agreement could help stabilize energy markets by reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route, while creating an opportunity to negotiate additional restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The president added that he agreed to a settlement to avoid “economic catastrophe.”
“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened,” he told reporters at the G7 Summit in France.
-
Entertainment2 minutes agoReview: ‘Sugar,’ with Colin Farrell as an alien private eye, gets a new and improved second season
-
Politics12 minutes ago
Political watchdog fines Newsom for failing to report $5.5M in solicited donations on time
-
Sports24 minutes agoGoalkeeper Raúl Rangel’s elite play and South Korea’s mistake help Mexico advance
-
World32 minutes agoUS-Iran talks postponed as Israel attacks Lebanon
-
News57 minutes agoLuigi Mangione’s lawyers withdraw plans for psychiatric defense
-
New York2 hours agoVideo: Knicks Fans Celebrate With Ticker-Tape Parade
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoArmed, dangerous CHP pursuit suspect tied to double homicide in Pomona
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoFirst responders honored after rescuing 12 people from capsized sailboats near Belle Isle
