Kimberly Guilfoyle has been nominated to serve as United States ambassador to Greece, President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday.

Guilfoyle, a former Fox News host now deeply enmeshed in the broader Trump orbit, was married to California Gov. Gavin Newsom when he was mayor of San Francisco. The former prosecutor announced her engagement to Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. in 2022, though questions about the couple’s current relationship status dogged tabloid headlines on Tuesday.

Guilfoyle was a prominent surrogate for Trump during the 2024 campaign.

“For many years, Kimberly has been a close friend and ally,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social website, praising her “extensive experience and leadership in law, media, and politics” and her “sharp intellect.”

The post, which requires Senate confirmation, is currently held by Biden appointee George Tsunis.

Guilfoyle said Tuesday on X that it “was the democratic values born in Greece that helped shape the founding of America,” adding that she looked forward “to delivering on the Trump agenda, supporting our Greek allies, and ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity.”

She also once worked in the San Francisco district attorney’s office with future Vice President Kamala Harris, and the rumored frosty relationship between the ambitious up-and-comers was the topic of San Francisco gossip early in their careers.

Guilfoyle and Newsom — who famously posed together on a rug in a glamorous Harper’s Bazaar profile that declared them “the New Kennedys” — divorced in 2006, the same year she joined Fox News.

The former first lady of San Francisco portrayed the city in dystopian terms during the 2020 Republican National Convention.

FIRST ON FOX: A Wisconsin parent is mulling legal action over a situation where she alleges her son was passed over being given the extra learning attention he needed due to language on the school’s website that says it prioritizes additional help for students based on race.

Attorneys for the Wisconsin Institute by Law & Liberty to the Green Bay Area Public School District, argue on behalf of their client, Mrs. Colbey Decker, that a “troubling” and “unlawful” policy in the district “explicitly prioritizes reading support resources based on race, thereby violating the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” according to a letter obtained by Fox News Digital.

“Mrs. Decker’s child, who suffers from dyslexia, has received different (and less favorable) services because he is white,” the letter states. “If he was Black, Hispanic, or Native American, Mrs. Decker’s son would have been treated more favorably and received different services.”

Decker told Fox News Digital that her son had been receiving one-on-one reading services in another district and that she assumed he would continue receiving that when he moved into the current district in January 2024 but that he was waitlisted for that additional help. 

NEARLY ALL FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES STILL MAINTAIN CORPORATE DEI COMMITMENTS: REPORT

Decker explained that she learned of the policy while looking at the school’s website.

“I asked them point blank, does he receive less services or is he less of a priority because he’s white?” Decker said. “And even asking that question made me extremely uncomfortable because to think that someone isn’t getting the services they deserve because of the color of their skin is just horrifying. So the principal did respond to me, and much to my surprise, he was very excited to explain to me the work they do in these priority groups.”

The letter alleges, citing the school’s website, that the “district’s literacy policy establishes ‘priority groups’ race—namely, Black, Hispanic, and Native American students—and states that the school will conduct intentional work educating our focus students, prioritizing additional resources to First Nations, Black, and Hispanic students.”

“This policy is in effect and has been applied to Mrs. Decker’s son, according to multiple district employees.”

SCHOOLS ACROSS COUNTRY DISBANDING DEI PROGRAMS IN DROVES; EDUCATION EXPERT EXPLAINS WHY

A Wisconsin mom said every parent ‘just wants their child to be treated equally’ (iStock)

The language on the school website also states next to an asterisk at the bottom of the page that, “Priority performance goals are established based on data that shows us we are meeting the needs of some student groups better than others.” 

“Focusing on a priority performance group of students will elevate our skills as educators and ultimately benefit all students.”

The letter to the district asks that the policy, known as the King Elementary School Success Plan, be rescinded in favor of a “colorblind approach” to resource allocation along with “immediate and adequate support” to Decker’s son “who has been unfairly excluded from the opportunity to receive necessary resources.”

“Seeing a policy that explicitly prioritizes resources based on race is really troubling, both morally and legally,” WILL associate counsel Cory Brewer told Fox News Digital. “The law demands that Colbey’s son and any child be treated equally to other children, regardless of their race. There should not be special treatment based on skin color. And the fact that this district is embracing the idea that they need to treat children differently based on race is really problematic.”

“We are asking the district to rescind its discriminatory policy immediately to implement a colorblind approach to how it allocates resources, focusing on the needs of the individual student. And we’re also asking the district to provide Colby’s son with the resources that he needs,” Brewer continued. “There’s no reason it should be taking this long for him to get that support. If the district does not change its discriminatory policy, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty will pursue all legal avenues to protect the rights of Colbey’s son.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Green Bay Area School District for comment and received the following statement on Tuesday, “The District received the letter from WILL yesterday and we are investigating the allegations. However, we can state unequivocally that the District does not have a policy that includes the language included in the letter.” 

“All District policies must be approved by the Board of Education and no such policy language exists.”

The spokesperson added that the language in the School Success Plan is “developed to outline the school’s goals toward continuous improvement, but would not be considered Board (District) policy” which the spokesperson called an “important distinction.”

Decker told Fox News Digital that other parents she has spoken to “can’t believe” the situation when told about it and every parent “just wants their child to be treated equally.”

“Any time a parent or a grandparent advocates for a child, I know that their sincere hope is that that child is just treated equally,” Decker said. “And that’s not what’s happening when someone is a priority. If someone is more of a priority than someone else’s child has to be less of a priority. And I don’t think that’s the way most of America wants to move forward with education.”

“I think everybody wants us to just be completely color-blind and look at children as simply being children. My son is in the 17th percentile in the state for reading, and there are children who are performing at a higher level than him that are more of a priority only because of their skin color. And I don’t think most parents want anything like that to ever happen in any educational setting ever.”

WASHINGTON —  The Supreme Court may be about to sharply limit the reach of so-called environmental impact statements, which gauge potential harm caused by new developments and can often block or scale back large projects.

For more than 50 years, federal law has required agencies to take a hard and broad look at the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects” of a building or development project before approving it.

The justices sounded ready on Tuesday to reconsider that approach in a case involving a proposed 88-mile railroad line in Utah that would allow crude oil to be shipped to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

“Focus on the project,” argued Paul Clement, a Washington attorney representing county governments in support of the project. He urged justices to consider only the direct impact of the rail line’s construction, and not potential secondary impacts that are “remote in time and space.”

In their comments and questions, the justices appeared to agree.

If so, their ruling could rein in the reach of environmental impact statements, an outcome that would be welcomed by developers and condemned by environmentalists.

Three years ago, the Surface Transportation Board, the federal agency which regulates freight railroads, approved the construction of the Utah rail project

But it did not weigh the environmental impact of drilling new oil wells in northeastern Utah, the extra air pollution at the refineries on the Gulf or the danger of sending nine more trains per day along the Colorado River and through the Rockies.

Environmentalists sued along with Eagle County, Colo., and won a ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year that said the board had failed to consider the “upstream and downstream” impacts on the environment.

The seven Utah counties appealed, arguing the D.C. court had gone too far.

Eight justices appeared to agree that decision should be reversed.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Colorado native who is a friend of billionaire Philip Anschutz, said last week that he would not participate in the decision. Anschutz is not a party to the case, but the Anschutz Exploration Group, which produces oil and gas in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief which urged the court to limit the law’s focus to environmental effects that are under the direct control of an agency.

Clement, who represented the seven Utah counties, said the court should rein in the “bloated and anti-development” impact statements that range too broadly.

He said it made sense for the federal board to consider the railroad’s potential impact on the bighorn sheep in the area, but not “imponderables,” such as a potential rail accident hundreds of miles away or extra air pollution on the Gulf Coast.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued to challenge the Utah railroad, said environmental impact statements have been crucial to protecting the environment since the early 1970s. It said agencies have been on notice “to consider whether their actions will have long-term, and potentially irreversible, environmental effects.”

These impact statements permit the government and the public to weigh the harms as well as the benefits of a new development.

Wendy Park, an attorney at the center, said “communities in the Uinta Basin and the Gulf Coast will suffer the most from this oil railroad, while oil companies enrich themselves at the expense of the environment and people’s health. It’s disgraceful the railroad’s backers want federal agencies to turn a blind eye to those harms.”