Connect with us

Politics

It’s over, and other takeaways from Trump's defeat of Haley in New Hampshire

Published

on

It’s over, and other takeaways from Trump's defeat of Haley in New Hampshire

Former President Trump won the first Republican primary Tuesday in New Hampshire over his closest competitor, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, according to a projection by the Associated Press. Though the outcome was expected, it was significant.

Here are some takeaways.

It’s over

Yes, Haley remains in the race, for now. But Trump’s victory in the first primary state — which happens to have one of the more moderate and least Trump-friendly electorates in the GOP — all but seals hisparty’s nomination, setting up an expected rematch with President Biden.

The not-terribly-competitive nominating contest has underscored how much the GOP has become Trump’s party.

Advertisement

Trump left office with low approval ratings and two impeachments that followed an unprecedented attempt to overturn a lawful election. But he entered the nominating fight with many of the advantages of an incumbent, then scored wins in both Iowa and New Hampshire, a rare feat for a Republican presidential hopeful.

Endorsements tell part of that story. They don’t often matter, but two recent nods from former opponents demonstrate why Trump has been the default choice from the beginning. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott both got behind Trump soon after they left the race.

Neither man had much personal reason to embrace Trump. The former president relentlessly targeted DeSantis, who entered the race with high approval ratings, calling him “Desanctimonious” and mocking his appearance, among other insults. But both men endorsed Trump for the same reason they held back from attacking his vulnerabilities during the race: GOP voters still adore him. The two believe that if they want to have a future in the party, at least in the near term, they need to stay with Trump.

Does Haley drop out with her home state looming?

Haley has said repeatedly that she will not depart the race after New Hampshire — as she did again Tuesday night after the race was called for Trump.

“New Hampshire is first in the nation, it is not last in the nation. This race is far from over,” she told supporters.

Advertisement

Most candidates make similar statements until the moment they leave the race. Haley’s underdog strategy depended on winning New Hampshire, which is filled with highly educated Republican and independent voters whom Haley has been seeking.

The race next heads to Nevada and the Virgin Islands, which hold Republican caucuses Feb. 8.

Polls show Haley down by nearly 40 percentage points to Trump in South Carolina, her home state, which holds its Republican primaryFeb. 24. A big loss there would be damaging to her prospects, though not fatal. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio drew only 27% against Trump in his home state in 2016; though he soon exited the presidential race, he won reelection easily to his Senate seat that fall.

But many candidates, including Kamala Harris when she was a California senator, choose to avoid the potential stain on their resume that would come from losing in their home state. They dropped out before any ballots were cast in the 2020 race. In Harris’ case, it paid off with a nomination for vice president, though Haley seems unlikely to get the nod from Trump.

Nikki Haley supporters listen as the candidate speaks after her primary defeat.

Advertisement

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Another historic moment for a twice-impeached president

Trump’s win Tuesday, coupled with last week’s caucuses victory in Iowa, marked another historic moment: It was the first time he faced voters since leaving office, still refusing to accept the election results while encouraging an angry mob that stormed theCapitol.

He’s facing 91 criminal charges and has threatened, among other things, to terminate the Constitution and give himself dictatorial powers for a day, while claiming that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution, even for acts that “cross the line.”

The question is a dividing line for many voters. In preliminary network exit polling, 85% of Haley’s voters said Trump, if convicted of a crime, is unfit to be president. Only 11% of Trump’s voters said that.

Advertisement

Democrats hope voters will start comparing Biden to ‘the alternative’

Biden for months has repeated the aphorism “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.” He argues that his low approval rating — below 40% — will matter less once people zero in on the binary choice between him and Trump.

That process is likely to intensify as Trump gets closer to securing the nomination. The big question is whether the election, now forecast as close, will shift to Biden’s favor when voters take a closer look at Trump. Historically, Trump’s approval rating in polls has dropped as he gets more public exposure.

Turnout for a Trump-Biden rematch could fade

Voters showed up in huge numbers in 2018, 2020 and, in some states, 2022, in part because Trump inspires such strong positive and negative feelings. Abortion also played a large role in 2022, after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a constitutional right to the procedure.

Will that fervor persist in November, or are voters too fatigued and uninspired for a likely rematch that has turned off many? That’s one of the biggest questions and one that both parties will pursue now that the general election is taking shape.

Biden needs to shore up support from younger and Black voters, key groups for him in 2020 whose excitement has waned, polls show. Trump needs to minimize losses in the suburbs, where educated Republican women have defected.

Advertisement

What happens to third parties? Will they fade as usual or play spoiler?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been drawing double digits in some polls as an independent candidate. A centrist group called No Labels has been floating a third-party ticket, though no one has signed up to run.

History shows that these candidacies tend to fade by the time voters cast ballots. But they have had an impact, including in 1992, when Ross Perot drew 19% of the vote. Debate continues over which of the two major candidates he hurt worse: Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush with a mere 43% of the popular vote. In 2000, Ralph Nader may have tipped the balance for George W. Bush in his race against Al Gore.

Conventional wisdom holds that Biden will be hurt by a third-party candidate because Trump’s core base is so loyal. But that is unclear, especially in the case of Kennedy, whose conspiratorial views on vaccines and other topics align with those of many Trump supporters.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

Published

on

Video: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

new video loaded: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

transcript

transcript

President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

Marijuana was downgraded from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug on Thursday. The reclassification does not legalize cannabis, but it does ease restrictions on the substance and allows for more research.

Today, I’m pleased to announce that I will be signing an executive order to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance with legitimate medical uses. We have people begging for me to do this. I want to emphasize that the order I am about to sign is not the legalization or it doesn’t legalize marijuana in any way, shape, or form, and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug — has nothing to do with that.

Advertisement
Marijuana was downgraded from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug on Thursday. The reclassification does not legalize cannabis, but it does ease restrictions on the substance and allows for more research.

December 18, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump quietly signs sweeping $901B defense bill after bipartisan Senate passage

Published

on

Trump quietly signs sweeping 1B defense bill after bipartisan Senate passage

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Trump signed into law a nearly $1 trillion defense policy bill Thursday and approved what looks to be the largest military spending package in U.S. history.

The fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act authorizes $901 billion in military spending, roughly $8 billion more than the administration requested, according to Reuters.

It also delivers a nearly 4 percent pay raise for troops, provides new funding for Ukraine and the Baltic States, and includes measures designed to scale back security commitments abroad.

In a release shared online, Rep. Rick Allen said: “With President Trump’s signature, the FY2026 NDAA officially delivers on our peace-through-strength agenda with a generational investment in our national defense.”

Advertisement

TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES $11B TAIWAN ARMS SALES DEAL

U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. December 11, 2025. (Al Drago/Reuters)

“Not only does this bipartisan bill ensure America’s warfighters are the most lethal and capable fighting force in the world, but it also improves the quality of life for our service members in the 12th District and nationwide,” he added.

As previously reported by Fox News Digital, the Senate passed the NDAA on Wednesday, sending the compromise bill approved with bipartisan support to the president’s desk. 

Trump signed it quietly Thursday evening, according to Reuters.

Advertisement

The NDAA includes $800 million for Ukraine over the next two years as part of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which pays US firms for weapons for Ukraine’s military.

It also includes $175 million for the Baltic Security Initiative, which supports Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

TRUMP TOUTS BRINGING COUNTRY BACK FROM ‘BRINK OF RUIN’

President Donald Trump announced his proposal for a ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system in the United States on May 20, 2025. (Reuters/Leah Millis/File Photo; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The bill prohibits reducing U.S. troop levels in Europe below 76,000 for more than 45 days without formal certification by Congress.

Advertisement

The legislation also restricts the administration from reducing U.S. forces in South Korea below 28,500 troops.

Trump ultimately backed the bill in part because it codifies some of his executive orders, including funding the Golden Dome missile defense system and getting rid of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, per Reuters.

TRUMP TO HAND OUT $2.6B IN ‘WARRIOR DIVIDENDS’ — AND THE SURPRISING POT HE’S PULLING THE MONEY FROM

The seal of the Department of War is displayed inside the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (elal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“Under President Trump, the U.S. is rebuilding strength, restoring deterrence, and proving America will not back down. President Trump and Republicans promised peace through strength. The FY26 NDAA delivers it,” House Speaker Mike Johnson had said in a statement Dec. 7 on the new measures.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

State regulators vote to keep utility profits high, angering customers across California

Published

on

State regulators vote to keep utility profits high, angering customers across California

Despite complaints from customers about rising electric bills, the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4 to 1 on Thursday to keep profits at Southern California Edison and the state’s other big investor-owned utilities at a level that consumer groups say has long been inflated.

The commission vote will slightly decrease the profit margins of Edison and three other big utilities beginning next year. Edison’s rate will fall to 10.03% from 10.3%.

Customers will see little impact in their bills from the decision. Because the utilities are continuing to spend more on wires and other infrastructure — capital costs that they earn profit on — that portion of customer bills is expected to continue to rise.

The vote angered consumer groups that had detailed in filings and hearings at the commission how the utilities’ return on equity — which sets the profit rate that the companies’ shareholders receive — had long been too high.

Among those testifying on behalf of consumers was Mark Ellis, the former chief economist for Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas. Ellis estimated that the companies’ profit margin should be closer to 6%.

Advertisement

He argued in a filing that the California commission had for years authorized the utilities to earn an excessive return on equity, resulting in an “unnecessary and unearned wealth transfer” from customers to the companies.

Cutting the return on equity to a little more than 6% would give Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, SDG&E and SoCalGas a fair return, Ellis said, while saving their customers $6.1 billion a year.

The four commissioners who voted to keep the return on equity at about 10% — the percentage varies slightly for each company — said they believed they had found a balance between the 11% or higher rate that the four utilities had requested and the affordability concerns of utility customers.

Alice Reynolds, the commission’s president, said before the vote that she believed the decision “accurately reflects the evidence.”

Commissioner Darcie Houck disagreed and voted against the proposal. In her remarks, she detailed how California ratepayers were struggling to pay their bills.

Advertisement

“We have a duty to consider the consumer interest in determining what is a just and reasonable rate,” she said.

Consumer groups criticized the commission’s vote.

“For too long, utility companies have been extracting unreasonable profits from Californians just trying to heat or cool their homes or keep the lights on,” said Jenn Engstrom at CALPIRG. “As long as CPUC allows such lofty rates of return, it incentivizes power companies to overspend, increasing energy bills for everyone.”

California now has the nation’s second-highest electric rates after Hawaii.

Edison’s electric rates have risen by more than 40% in the last three years, according to a November analysis by the commission’s Public Advocates Office. More than 830,000 Edison customers are behind in paying their electric bills, the office said, each owing a balance of $835 on average.

Advertisement

The commission’s vote Thursday was in response to a March request from Edison and the three other big for-profit utilities. The companies pointed to the January wildfires in Los Angeles County, saying they needed to provide their shareholders with more profit to get them to continue to invest in their stock because of the threat of utility-caused fires in California.

In its filing, Edison asked for a return on equity of 11.75%, saying that it faced “elevated business risks,” including “the risk of extreme wildfires.”

The company told the commission that its stock had declined after the Jan. 7 Eaton fire and it needed the higher return on equity to attract investors to provide it with money for “wildfire mitigation and supporting California’s clean energy transition.”

Edison is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims of the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena. The company has said the fire may have been sparked by its 100-year-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which it kept in place even though it hadn’t served customers since 1971.

Return on equity is crucial for utilities because it determines how much they and their shareholders earn each year on the electric lines, substations, pipelines and the rest of the system they build to serve customers.

Advertisement

Under the state’s system for setting electric rates, investors provide part of the money needed to build the infrastructure and then earn an annual return on that investment over the assets’ life, which can be 30 or 40 years.

In a January report, state legislative analyst Gabriel Petek detailed how electric rates at Edison and the state’s two other biggest investor-owned electric utilities were more than 60% higher than those charged by public utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The public utilities don’t have investors or charge customers extra for profit.

Before the vote, dozens of utility customers from across the state wrote to the commission’s five members, who were appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, asking them to lower the utilities’ return on equity.

“A profit margin of 10% on infrastructure improvements is far too high and will only continue to increase the cost of living in California,” wrote James Ward, a Rancho Santa Margarita resident. “I just wish I could get a guaranteed profit margin of 10% on my investments.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending