Politics
Trump Supports the Police, Just as Long as They Support Him
On Monday, the Washington police union was decrying President Trump’s use of pardons when he let off rioters who attacked more than 150 officers on Jan. 6, 2021. By Wednesday, the same union was praising Mr. Trump after he pardoned two of their own who had been convicted in connection with the death of a young Black man.
With his flurry of pardons this week, Mr. Trump sent contradictory messages about his support for police. He showed he would support them in many situations, even when prosecutors and juries say they have gone too far. But his decision-making appeared centered less on “backing the blue” than on whether those in blue backed him.
Mr. Trump made this clear when he used his clemency power to wipe clean the records of around 1,600 Jan. 6 defendants, including those who had used stun guns and chemical spray on police officers. A day later, he teased that he would soon issue clemency to help police officers convicted after a chase that killed a 20-year-old Black man, Karon Hylton-Brown, in 2020. Mr. Hylton-Brown’s death — and a coverup by the police — led to protests in the nation’s capital.
To some degree, the one-two punch of decisions was typical politics. Mr. Trump’s pardons angered a constituency he prizes, so he followed up with a move meant to appease police. But some saw a distinct racial dynamic at play, with the president siding with a largely white mob on Jan. 6 and with white police officers in Mr. Hylton-Brown’s killing.
David L. Shurtz, a lawyer for Mr. Hylton-Brown’s family, said he “absolutely” believed race had played a role in the pardons.
Amaala Jones-Bey, the mother of Mr. Hylton-Brown’s 4-year-old daughter, said the contradictions in Mr. Trump’s decisions on pardons were baffling. “You just pardoned people who caused harm to your police officers but now he’s pardoning police officers who harmed citizens,” she said.
Wednesday was not the first time Mr. Trump has backed military or law enforcement officers accused of breaking the law. During his first term, he granted clemency to U.S. military officers who had been convicted or accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Throughout his time in office, Mr. Trump often used his pardon power to benefit friends and allies, something other presidents have done as well.
But at no time was that impulse as clear or as wide-ranging than when he granted clemency to nearly 1,600 people arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 attack. Many of the rioters wore Make America Great Again hats, and, at one point, they even took down an American flag flying at the Capitol to replace it with a Trump flag — a symbol their loyalty was to a man, not to the nation.
Police unions are another area of support for Mr. Trump, including the National Fraternal Order of Police, which endorsed his campaign but condemned the pardon of the Jan. 6 rioters.
Even in condemning the Jan. 6 pardons, though, the Washington police union continued to advocate clemency for Officer Terence Sutton and Lt. Andrew Zabavsky of the Metropolitan Police Department, the men convicted in the case of Mr. Hylton-Brown. The union had argued that the men were victims of overzealous prosecutors who had criminalized actions that could have been addressed with training.
In announcing that he planned to issue clemency in the case, Mr. Trump mangled the facts and accused Mr. Hylton-Brown, an American citizen, of being an “illegal.”
“It just shows who has the power here in America,” Ms. Jones-Bey said. “I also feel a little shaken because if he thinks he’s an illegal citizen, where is he getting his information from? Is he actually paying attention?”
Mr. Sutton had been sentenced to more than five years in prison for second-degree murder and obstruction of justice in the unauthorized pursuit. Mr. Zabavsky was sentenced to four years in prison for conspiring with Mr. Sutton to cover up the deadly police chase. The two had been free pending the outcome of their appeals.
The Washington police union celebrated the clemency, praising Mr. Trump for carrying out a “monumental correction” of what it called an “injustice.”
Gil Kerlikowske, a former police chief in Seattle and three other cities, said he believed Mr. Trump’s pardoning of the two D.C. police officers was an attempt to restore his relationship with the police after the Jan. 6 pardons.
But he said he believed the decision to pardon Jan. 6 rioters would be remembered in the law enforcement community, in part because the video footage of the day is readily available.
“They say it’s all in the past,” Mr. Kerlikowske said. “With all the videos, clearly it’s not in the past. You can relive this.”
Officer Daniel Hodges, who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, said he agreed with Mr. Trump’s pardons in the case of Mr. Sutton and Mr. Zabavsky. But he cautioned against viewing Mr. Trump as a friend of law enforcement.
“He really isn’t a friend of police,” he said. “He’s a friend of people who flatter him.”
Mr. Hodges has been outspoken about the display of racism he saw on Jan. 6, and famously said at the time that it had been his “pleasure to crush a white nationalist insurrection.”
But four years later, Mr. Trump has returned to Washington victorious, and Officer Hodges was assigned to work the inauguration, protecting the president.
“It’s what the people voted for,” he said of Mr. Trump’s inauguration. “So it’s my job to make sure that it happens peacefully and securely. I’m not going to let my personal feelings influence how I perform my job.”
By John Ismay, Gilad Thaler, Nikolay Nikolov, Rafaela Balster, Stephanie Swart and Whitney Shefte
June 19, 2026
Politics
Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.
“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”
It was Washington whiplash.
“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)
“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.
All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.
They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.
“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”
The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”
Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”
Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.
Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.
In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.
The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.
When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.
A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.
But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.
Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.
Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.
The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.
-
Virginia2 seconds ago
Predicting Virginia Tech’s 2026 Statistical Leaders
-
Washington7 minutes agoWashington Nationals vs. Tampa Bay Rays prediction, pick for Friday 6/19/26
-
Wisconsin9 minutes agoWisconsin Weekend: Pride bar crawl, Father’s Day deals, and more
-
West Virginia15 minutes agoCharleston commemorates Juneteenth with downtown parade and celebration – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming22 minutes agoGordon hosts panel on New World screwworm; no outbreaks in Wyoming
-
Crypto25 minutes agoBest Crypto Recovery Law Firms in 2026: Leading Cryptocurrency Lawyers for Asset Recovery, Fraud Investigations and Digital Asset Disputes
-
Finance30 minutes agoHomegrown Music Festival looks to right finances, hire new leadership
-
Fitness37 minutes agoWhy this unexpected exercise is most effective for building arm muscle in your 50s – and how to do it properly
