Politics
Biden claims Hunter charges were politically motivated. Here is what the facts show
In announcing that he was pardoning his son Hunter in two federal cases, President Biden said the criminal charges “came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.”
The president’s claim that the cases were politically motivated — which his son’s camp has long asserted — has been met with skepticism from some corners.
Biden was convicted by a jury of illegally purchasing a handgun in Delaware, and he pleaded guilty to tax charges in Los Angeles.
Here is what we know about the cases and the pardon.
What is the gun case?
Earlier this year, a federal jury in Delaware convicted Biden of federal gun crimes, including lying about being drug-free when he purchased and briefly owned a gun while he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Biden was on trial for three felony charges, and the jury convicted him of all three. In addition to lying on a federal background check form and giving a false statement to a federal firearms dealer, he was also convicted of possessing a gun while being an illicit drug user.
The testimony the jurors heard centered around a question Biden answered on a background check form at a Delaware gun store on Oct. 12, 2018: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Biden checked “No.”
Prosecutors told jurors that there was “overwhelming evidence” of Biden’s drug use in the years before and the months after the gun purchase. They summoned ex-girlfriends and photos of L.A. hotel rooms where Biden had gone on drug-fueled benders. Prosecutors also played excerpts of Biden’s memoir, Beautiful Things, in which he recounted years of hard partying following his brother’s death.
Abbe Lowell, the defense attorney, argued to jurors that his client had completed a rehab program in L.A. and that the gun salesman did not perceive Biden to be under the influence or glassy-eyed. No witness at the trial testified to observing Biden using drugs in the days after purchasing the Colt Cobra revolver.
His attorneys contended that the gun was never fired and remained locked up until Hallie Biden, his brother’s widow, found it on the morning of Oct. 23, 2018, and in a panic, disposed of it in a trash bin outside a nearby grocery store. Biden, who was dating Hallie Biden at the time, urged her to retrieve the gun once he discovered it missing, asking her, “Are you insane?”
When Hallie Biden returned to the supermarket, the gun was gone from the trash can, and Biden instructed her to contact police.
What did jurors say about the politics of the case?
The Times interviewed two jurors — a 51-year-old woman from northern Delaware and a 68-year-old man from the southern half of the state. Speaking on condition of anonymity, both said there was clear evidence that Biden knowingly lied about his drug addiction in order to buy the gun.
The male juror said that despite repeatedly noticing the first lady in the courtroom, he rarely thought of the fact that Hunter Biden was the president’s son.
“You are looking at him. You are looking at his family,” the juror said of the experience in court. But he said he “tried to block the rest of it out” because Biden “was just like everybody else.”
“It was not politically motivated. Politics played no part in this whatsoever. Again, we just went by the evidence,” the juror said.
What about the tax case?
In September, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to all nine federal tax charges he faced, just as jury selection was about to begin in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom.
The indictment in the tax case included racy details of Biden’s life between 2016 and 2019 — the period during which now he admits he failed to pay at least $1.4 million in federal taxes — including the hundreds of thousands of dollars he spent on escorts, a pornographic website, hotels, luxury car rentals and other lavish personal expenses.
As part of his guilty plea, Biden had acknowledged improperly classifying his personal expenses as business expenses.
Did Hunter Biden face prison time?
In the tax case, Biden faced a maximum of 17 years in federal prison, although he was likely to be sentenced to a few years in prison at most. In the gun case, he faced a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison, although as a nonviolent first-time offender, he was likely to face no more than two years behind bars.
In the tax case, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi was scheduled to sentence him in Los Angeles on Dec. 16. In the handgun case, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika was set to hand down her sentence in Delaware on Dec. 12. Both judges were appointed to the bench by President Trump.
What does the pardon do?
The pardon covers offenses that Hunter Biden “may have committed or taken part in” from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024. It effectively wiped away the two pending criminal cases in which the younger Biden faced years in prison.
However, it also offers immunity for other conduct in that period, when he was active in foreign business dealings, including his seat on the board of Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company he joined in 2014 while his father was vice president.
“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” Biden said in his statement. “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution.”
Shortly after the pardon was issued, Hunter Biden’s lawyers filed petitions to have both criminal cases dismissed.
How is this a change in the president’s position?
The White House and President Biden himself have long insisted he would not pardon his son.
Shortly before the trial testimony began, President Biden told ABC journalist David Muir that he would accept the jury’s verdict in the Delaware case.
“Have you ruled out a pardon for your son?” Muir asked.
“Yes,” Biden replied.
After the gun verdict, the president said he would continue to “respect the judicial process” while his son considered an appeal.
What has Hunter Biden’s team claimed about the prosecutions?
Hunter Biden has long been the target of ire from right-wing political figures, activists and the media.
In both criminal cases, Hunter Biden and his legal team had sought to paint him as a victim of selective, unfair, and politically motivated prosecution. His lawyers had pointed to a plea deal reached in 2023 that would have spared Hunter any prison time. It unraveled under questioning from a judge in Delaware, and after the deal collapsed, David C. Weiss, the special counsel, secured indictments in both cases.
Hunter Biden filed but later dropped a defamation lawsuit against Fox News over a fictional program that depicted his legal troubles.
Hunter Biden’s lawsuit asserted that Fox News defamed him in a six-part series called “The Trial of Hunter Biden: A Mock Trial for the American People” that was shown on its streaming platform Fox Nation.
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