Politics
Litman: Does it matter that Donald Trump just became a convicted criminal? Of course it does
It’s of course true that come Nov. 5, the nation’s voters could well decide to shrug off the historic guilty verdict that a Manhattan jury rendered against Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon. And that is the conclusion many have already reached about the seismic event that just took place in Room 1530 of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse: It’s hollow unless it ignites the will to deliver a popular denunciation of the former president this fall.
That analysis is, in my view, myopic.
It’s always been the case that the American people can override the rule of law — a normally slight risk that has roared forward in recent years under the whip hand of a would-be tyrant. That’s the message that a furious and ashen Trump delivered when he emerged from the courtroom where a jury of seven men and five women gave the prosecution all it asked for by convicting him on 34 felony counts. “The real verdict,” Trump barked, “is going to be November 5th by the people.”
In fact, the jury that delivered the real verdict, and the judge who presided over the hush money trial and is expected to sentence him in July, did their work conscientiously and even doggedly under a hailstorm of insults and threats from the defendant and his supporters. We have for years hoped for such a measure of accountability for the unrepentant former president. It finally arrived, and the center held.
Unlike the insults, the accolades showered on the jurors and Judge Juan M. Merchan are more than deserved. Having attended most of the trial, I think their seriousness of purpose matched the gravity of their duties.
But it wasn’t just the determination of the jury, judge and prosecutors that forced Trump to endure weeks of damning testimony in person and to now face at least the possibility of a short prison term. And it wasn’t just the resolve of the witnesses, some of whom retain loyalty or at least affection for Trump but understood their legal duty to testify truthfully.
Merchan’s firm hold of the reins bolstered his authority, but what really made the difference was his robe, or what his robe represents. Trump was forced to submit to a whole regime that ultimately springs from our deepest constitutional values of fairness and equality before the law. How galling for a man who holds such deep contempt for — indeed seems incapable of apprehending — the rule of law rather than men.
Now what? First of all, Trump is an altered figure in the eyes of that law. No longer presumed innocent, he is proven guilty, a convict, a serial offender. And like any other convict, he will have to sit down for an interview with the probation office, which will prepare a report and recommendation for the judge based on its assessment of Trump’s offenses and his acceptance of responsibility, among other factors. That doesn’t augur well for a man who has spent a lifetime failing to own up to misconduct.
Merchan set sentencing for July 11, when he may well take into account Trump’s perverse lack of remorse and contempt for the system that convicted him. The sentence will be at the discretion of the judge, who will no doubt strive to handle it as he would for any other similarly convicted felon.
Next will come the inevitable appeal of the conviction, in which Trump’s lawyers will likely allege that the trial was tainted by several serious errors. And the legal issues here were complicated enough to present a risk of reversal regardless of how Merchan handled them.
But the measured pace of justice has finally ceased to serve Trump’s interests in this case. It will be a year and a half or more before there is any possibility of a reversal of the sentence or conviction. By then, Trump figures to be either a convict in other forums — and today’s groundbreaking result can only make convictions in his three other criminal cases more plausible — or a president taking a wrecking ball to the entire legal system.
Again, though, that prospect has always been on the horizon. The full and fair operation of the rule of law to hold a former president accountable, however, was not.
On the contrary, it has often seemed over the last few years as if some combination of power-mongering, legal bluster, friends in high places (some of them wearing judicial robes) and bizarre good luck would invariably combine to insulate Trump from the law that is supposed to apply to all of us. Indeed, we can fairly expect that at some point in the coming weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will render an opinion that will serve both to elevate future presidents above the law to an extent and to forestall the most important trial Trump faces, the federal Jan. 6 case, until after the election.
Today, though, the law prevailed in a fashion that was at the same time basic and majestic. Trump received a fair trial and due process, no more and no less than the next defendant who will be in the same seat in the same dilapidated courtroom where he spent most of the last six weeks. Given all the powerful forces aligned against the rule of law in recent years, we should see that as nothing less than a triumph in and of itself.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the Talking San Diego speaker series. @harrylitman
Politics
Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
transcript
transcript
Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.
-
“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”
By Shawn Paik
March 5, 2026
Politics
DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.
“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.
“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”
Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)
Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”
“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”
“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”
‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING
Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.
Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”
However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”
Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.
Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business.
WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS
Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)
“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”
The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.
“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.
DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS
Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.
Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available.
Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”
“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said.
“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”
KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3
The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first. (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)
Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.
A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself.
“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”
The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”
“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.
“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”
Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.
Politics
Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.
The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.
In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.
The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.
“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.
Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.
Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.
“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.
Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.
“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.
Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.
The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.
“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”
Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.
GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.
In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.
In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Wisconsin3 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Maryland4 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Florida4 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Oregon6 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks