Politics
RFK Jr. could be a spoiler in November. But will it help Biden or Trump?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign was once viewed as a quixotic quest by a scion of a storied political family — an environmental warrior who sullied his family’s name most recently by aligning himself with a political party founded by a segregationist to get on the November ballot in California.
But a combination of voter apathy about President Biden and former President Trump, the two main parties’ presumptive nominees, and the Kennedy campaign’s successful targeting of ballot qualification rules across the nation has prompted growing alarm among Democrats and Republicans alike.
“When you have nail-bitingly close elections, nearly any candidate can be a spoiler,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “Now, the interesting thing, unlike a Jill Stein [a perennial Green Party candidate], it’s not 100% clear which major party candidate he hurts most. That uncertainty is going to lead to a lot of churning on what the parties do … to keep him off the ballot.”
Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, has no real chance of being elected to the White House in November. However, the Californian could be a spoiler in the race, tilting the vote. Two names are frequently raised: H. Ross Perot in the 1992 race and Ralph Nader in 2000, though there is debate about how much their candidacies resulted in Bill Clinton and George W. Bush winning their respective elections.
Kennedy has qualified to appear on the ballots of three states, most recently California, and his campaign claims to have collected enough signatures to appear on the ballots of seven others, including Nevada.
In California, the American Independent Party submitted paperwork to have Kennedy appear on the ballot as its standard-bearer, the candidate announced this week.
George Wallace, a segregationist Alabama governor who opposed federal civil rights laws, helped found the party and ran on its ticket in the 1968 presidential campaign. Kennedy’s father, a staunch supporter of such rights, was assassinated in Los Angeles during that campaign.
Leaders of the party, which currently exists only in California, say it has disavowed its segregationist roots and is focused on conservatism and the Constitution. In a video Kennedy released Tuesday, he called Wallace a “bigot” who “was antithetical to everything my father believed in.”
Mainstream Democrats are incredulous about Kennedy’s association with the party. When Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama, trying to block two Black students from registering, President Kennedy called in the Alabama National Guard at a time when his brother, Robert, was the nation’s attorney general.
Paul Mitchell, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he previously believed Kennedy had a shot of winning California based purely on his last name. That is no longer the case, based on how he has run his campaign and whom he has chosen to associate with, Mitchell said.
“If he was a Kennedy and acting like a Kennedy and professional, I wouldn’t put [a California victory] out of the bounds,” said Mitchell, who noted that Kennedy associated with the fringe party after gathering a paltry number of signatures for a political party he was trying to form. “Now he’s a loony anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist and running a campaign like a loon. It’s so embarrassing.”
Biden supporters have been concerned about Kennedy for some time. The Democratic National Committee earlier this year established a team to oppose third-party candidates, chiefly Kennedy. Their first act was filing a Federal Election Commission complaint arguing that Kennedy’s campaign coordinated inappropriately with a Super PAC to qualify Kennedy for some states’ ballots.
“We know this is going to be a close election and we’re not going to take anything for granted,” said Matt Corridoni, a DNC spokesman working on the anti-third party effort, noting that the biggest donor to a pro-Kennedy PAC is a Trump mega-donor and that a New York-based campaign official pitched his candidacy by arguing that Kennedy would help Trump defeat Biden.
In April, several members of the Kennedy family endorsed Biden, including Kerry Kennedy, sister of the presidential candidate.
“We want to make crystal clear our feelings that the best way forward for America is to reelect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for four more years,” she said at a campaign event in Philadelphia.
On Wednesday, Kennedy challenged Biden to agree that whichever of them did worse in a head-to-head poll in the fall would drop out of the race to prevent Trump being elected to a second term.
But Republicans including Trump have recently signaled growing concern about Kennedy eating into the former president’s support.
“RFK Jr. is a Democrat ‘Plant,’ a Radical Left Liberal who’s been put in place in order to help Crooked Joe Biden, the Worst President in the History of the United States, get Re-Elected,” Trump posted on Truth Social on April 26, arguing that the candidate opposes gun rights and the military and supports raising taxes, open borders and radical environmental policy. “A Vote for Junior would essentially be a WASTED PROTEST VOTE, that could swing either way, but would only swing against the Democrats if Republicans knew the true story about him.”
Trump posted that before a Monmouth University poll released Monday found that after voters were told about Kennedy’s skepticism of vaccines, their views changed — prior polling showed that Kennedy pulled support evenly from Biden and Trump.
In the new poll, the percentage of Republicans who said they would support Kennedy nearly doubled to almost one out of five after being told about his views about vaccines, while Democrats’ support dropped sharply to roughly 10%.
Kennedy has also been receiving attention on conservative media, such as Wednesday evening on “Jesse Watters Primetime” on Fox News Channel, where he argued that his campaign’s polling shows him winning in a head-to-head matchup against either Biden or Trump.
But “if I’m in the race, in a three-way race, I lose because people are voting out of fear, because they think the other guy — a vote for me is going to put somebody they hate in office,” he said. “But if I go head to head with either of them, I win.”
Trump’s advisors are piqued by Kennedy receiving attention from such outlets.
“For the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone on a conservative platform would feature the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who believes the NRA is a terrorist organization, whose positions on the environment are more radical than [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], and who believes in a 70% tax bracket,” said Chris LaCivita, a lead strategist for Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee’s chief of staff.
“From our standpoint, only one person is more liberal than Joe Biden and that’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” LaCivita said, adding that Kennedy “is a blank canvas and we are going to fill it with paint.”
Politics
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.
December 18, 2025
Politics
Trump quietly signs sweeping $901B 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.”
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.
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.
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.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.
Politics
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%.
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.
“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.
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.
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.”
-
Iowa4 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa6 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine3 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland4 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota5 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Culture1 week agoCan You Identify Where the Winter Scenes in These Novels Took Place?