FIRST ON FOX: South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham sent a letter to each of the 51 former intelligence officials who signed a memo suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. 

“In your letter, you claimed that the laptop story was ‘Russia trying to influence how Americans vote,’” Graham’s letter read to former CIA directors Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence [DNI] James Clapper and 48 others. 

“I ask you to respond publicly to one simple question: if you knew then what you know now about the laptop, would you still have signed the October 19, 2020 letter?” 

Graham, a Republican, has previously suggested yanking the security clearances of officials who signed the letter. 

Vice President-elect JD Vance pledged during the campaign that the incoming Trump administration would strip the clearances of all 51 signatories. 

REPUBLICAN SENATOR SAYS TRUMP SHOULD NOT PARDON HUNTER BIDEN

Over the summer, Fox News Digital asked all 51 officials whether they regretted signing on to the now-debunked letter. 

“No,” Obama-era DNI James Clapper responded. 

Mark Zaid, an attorney representing seven of the signatories, said it was “patriotic” for his clients to sign on to the letter. 

“There continues to be by many a calculated or woefully ignorant interpretation of the October 2020 letter signed by fifty-one former intelligence officials concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop,” Zaid said. 

Greg Treverton, a signatory who previously served as chair of the National Intelligence Council, defended the letter in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

Over the summer, Fox News Digital asked all 51 officials whether they regretted signing on to the now-debunked letter claiming Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared to be Russian disinformation. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

BIDEN COMMITTED ‘IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT,’ DEFRAUDED UNITED STATES TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY’: HOUSE GOP REPORT

“This is very old news,” Treverton said. “What we said was true, we were inferring from our experience, and it did look like a Russian operation. We didn’t, and couldn’t, of course, say it was a Russian operation. Enough said.”

The now-infamous letter had said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

“If we are right,” they added, “this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”

Despite claims from former officials that the laptop had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, Fox News Digital reported that federal investigators with the Department of Justice knew in December 2019 that Hunter Biden’s laptop was “not manipulated in any way” and contained “reliable evidence,” but were “obstructed” from seeing all available information, according to an IRS whistleblower involved in the probe – nearly a year before the former intelligence officials and President Joe Biden declared it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

The laptop was introduced into evidence in a Delaware courtroom last week by prosecutor Derek Hines and handed to FBI agent Erika Jensen, who had earlier explained how the FBI authenticated the laptop and extracted data. In the gun trial, she testified about dozens of text messages, metadata, photos and short videos found on phones and iCloud accounts belonging to Hunter Biden. 

A group of House Republicans is pushing to overhaul how funds are organized at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to more quickly get aid to communities devastated by Hurricane Helene.

Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., chair of the House GOP Policy Committee, is leading a new bill that would move unspent funds the agency has from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as certain unspent funds earmarked for previous natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, into the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund.

It comes just hours before the House Oversight Committee is set to hold a high-stakes hearing over accusations that FEMA aid was politicized, with FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell expected to testify.

“Millions of Americans were impacted by devastating hurricanes, and many are still seeking assistance and aid from FEMA to this day. Reports have now surfaced that a FEMA official recently instructed relief workers to avoid homes displaying support for President Donald Trump,” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said last week when announcing the hearing.

MIKE JOHNSON WINS REPUBLICAN SUPPORT TO BE HOUSE SPEAKER AGAIN AFTER TRUMP ENDORSEMENT

“Not only are these actions by a FEMA employee completely unacceptable, but the committee remains deeply concerned that this is not an isolated incident at the agency.”

Palmer’s bill is backed by a wide spectrum of GOP lawmakers, from House Freedom Caucus members, like Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., and Byron Donalds, R-Fla., to more moderate Republicans, like Reps. Don Bacon, R-Neb., and Young Kim, R-Calif.

It’s one of several solutions proposed in Congress to help get more immediate dollars to FEMA’s disaster fund. 

MATT GAETZ FACES GOP SENATE OPPOSITION AFTER TRUMP SELECTION FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

Parts of North Carolina, like Chimney Rock, were hit hard by Helene. (Getty Images)

Criswell told reporters on Monday that her agency “will need additional funding of approximately $40 billion beyond its 2025 budget request to support the ongoing recovery efforts to these storms and meet our overall mission requirements through the end of the fiscal year.”

The White House also requested $98 billion in additional disaster relief funding from Congress.

Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle have pledged to act swiftly once getting a formal request from the Biden administration.

JOHNSON BLASTS DEM ACCUSATIONS HE VOWED TO END OBAMACARE AS ‘DISHONEST’

Helene ravaged part of the U.S. Southeast in late September, killing more than 100 people in North Carolina alone.

It’s estimated to have caused billions of dollars worth of damage as well.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., previously told Fox News Digital that he believed it could be one of the most expensive storms in U.S. history. 

Postelection analyses continue to ignore the political and economic power of Latinas. The big story about the Latino vote is that the electoral bets the Trump and Harris campaigns made to galvanize men of color paid off for MAGA extremists. But both candidates’ willful neglect of Latina voters is another threat to American democracy.

Many are saying this election was a referendum on the economy and needs of working-class voters. Where do Latinas fit into that story?

Latinas made up about 12% of all registered female voters in 2024. They constituted more than 20% of registered voters in five important states: Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas. Despite being the nation’s most underpaid demographic group, in 2021 Latinas contributed $1.3 trillion to the nation’s gross domestic product, an amount larger than the economy of Florida. This year they headed to the ballot box with their wallets, livelihoods and futures on the line. And they did not back the GOP: Exit polls estimate that 3 in 5 Latina voters supported Vice President Kamala Harris. For the third time they rejected MAGA extremism in the face of majority support for the Trump ticket by non-Hispanic white voters, both men and women.

Yet the 2024 election did show that the significant shifts toward former President Trump included Latinos. The polls indicate that a majority of Latino men supported the Republican presidential ticket for the first time since data on Latino voters have been collected, and the share of Latina voters supporting the Democratic ticket has narrowed over the last three cycles with Trump as the Republican nominee.

Messaging around the economy has been deemed the real takeaway from this election cycle. Yet neither party offered voters a comprehensive approach or addressed the issues of most concern to Latinos.

Both campaigns failed to address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Great Recession, both of which annihilated Latino households in terms of their health and wealth. Latinos were disproportionately affected by the pandemic, causing many to exit the workforce to care for their families less than a decade after their demographic lost 66% of their wealth in the housing crisis. Worse, neither campaign’s economic messaging spoke to Latinas. At the 11th hour, the Harris campaign rolled out an “opportunity agenda” for Latino men with no equivalent for Latinas.

Electoral postmortems have reinforced the invisibility of Latina voters and their contributions to the American economy. Their economic grievances, like those of men of color, are well-founded even if they did not react to them by voting for Trump.

Our recent report at Latina Futures 2050 Lab reveals a troubling disparity in hourly wages, placing Latinas at the bottom of the earnings spectrum in America. To achieve the weekly earnings of non-Hispanic white men, Latinas have to work 64 hours — 24 beyond the typical workweek. Rather than shrinking with educational attainment, the wage gap with white men in fact widens among the college-educated. Research suggests that for Latinas who enter the workforce today, the wage disparity amounts to more than $1.2 million over the 40 years of a typical career.

Latinas are also now more likely than Latino men to be their households’ breadwinners, partly as a result of their higher educational attainment. Their households are often multi-generational, including spouses, children and elderly family members, creating a heavier financial burden with each additional dependent. In the face of inflation and rising inequality, Latinas’ earnings have been insufficient to survive, let alone thrive.

The economy consistently ranks as a top issue for Latinas, with two-thirds identifying the wage gap as a big problem in a Pew survey this year. So why did the majority still support the Democratic ticket this election? And why is there a large well-documented gender gap for Gen Z between young Latina voters, who overwhelmingly backed Harris, and their male peers, who supported Trump?

Perhaps women also prioritized issues such as democracy and abortion, which mattered far more to Harris voters. And Trump’s repeated invitations this cycle to men of color to join the MAGA movement catapulted his misogyny — pledges to “protect women” whether they “like it or not” — to new, persuadable audiences. Whatever the reasons, Latino men’s support for Trump seemed to overcome their party affiliation — most lean Democrat — and down-ballot choices, with Democratic Senate wins in Arizona and Nevada.

The GOP’s uniform control of the Oval Office, Senate and House of Representatives come January confirms that voters believe they were better off four years ago than they are now. Yet Democrats must not heed calls to pander selectively to Latino men. Instead they must also meaningfully engage Latina voters, who have higher electoral participation rates and preferences for the Democratic ticket than their male peers.

If candidates and parties continue to overlook the economic needs of Latina voters, they risk alienating one of America’s most influential blocs. According to data from the National Women’s Law Center and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Georgia, a swing state, ranks 45th in the nation for wage equity among Latinas; Texas and California, where Latinos are the plurality population, rank 48th and 50th respectively (despite the latter’s reputation as a progressive stronghold).

In the Golden State and elsewhere, Latinas will not wait quietly for change. They want to see economic justice delivered, not deferred.

Sonja Diaz is a civil rights attorney and co-founder of the Latina Futures 2050 Lab.