This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. Fox News senior strategic analyst Jack Keane joins 'Fox & Friends' to discuss the status of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and the latest on a prisoner swap between Russia and Ukraine as the U.S. pushes for peace. President Donald Trump signed several executive orders (EOs) on nuclear energy proliferation and an order removing political considerations from public-sector science, as conservatives claimed the latter was scandalized in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump also signed restoring "gold standard science" as the cornerstone of federal research. A senior White House official said on Friday there has been a decline in "disruptive research" and investments in biomedical research, along with "serious cases" of fraud and misconduct and the inability to reproduce scientific methods for the purpose of restoring public trust. President Donald Trump is set to sign executive orders regarding nuclear energy. Now-retired NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci was repeatedly denounced for flip-flopping and obfuscating during his time engineering the federal response to COVID-19, leading many particularly on the right to disregard and dismiss the legitimacy of federal health authorities outright. That order cites the fact the Biden administration included political edits from teachers unions in school-reopening guidance, instead of leading with any scientific evidence. The order will enforce "gold standard science," defined as reproducible, transparent and falsifiable – as well as being subject to peer review and making sure that scientists are not discouraged from discovering outcomes that run counter to a narrative. In terms of nuclear energy, one order will reform nuclear R&D at the Energy Department, accelerate reactor testing at national labs and establish a pilot program for new construction. Energy Secretary Chris Wright previously told Fox News Digital that revitalizing and highlighting the work of U.S. national labs is paramount to his agenda. In a move that appears to support Wright's push for nuclear power, Trump will sign an order aimed at advancing new reactor construction on public lands. A senior White House official cited the importance of that type of reliable power-source for critical defense facilities and AI data centers. Another order being signed Friday will overhaul the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to require it to rule on reactor license applications within 18 months. Only two new nuclear reactors have begun construction and entered into commercial operation since the Carter administration. A typically risk-averse culture that requires, for example, nuclear facilities to emit as little radiation as possible, including below naturally-occurring levels, which critics said has hindered the NRC from licensing new reactors as technology begets safer and cheaper means of production. Another order will establish a vision to mine and enrich uranium within the U.S., decreasing another avenue of foreign reliance – and "reinvigorate" the nuclear fuel cycle. Trump is expected to leverage the Defense Production Act – which last helped secure COVID-19 paraphernalia like masks and ventilators – to seek agreements with domestic nuclear energy companies for the procurement of enriched uranium, as well as finding ways to manage spent nuke fuel. Charles Creitz is a reporter for Fox News Digital. He joined Fox News in 2013 as a writer and production assistant. Charles covers media, politics and culture for Fox News Digital. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today? On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court handed down a brief order, which temporarily permits President Donald Trump to fire two federal officials who, by law, are shielded from being summarily terminated. That, in itself, is not particularly significant because, on April 9, Chief Justice John Roberts acted on his own authority to temporarily permit Trump to fire the same two officials. While the Republican justices have signaled for quite some time that they are eager to give the president broad authority to fire officials that Congress intended to insulate from presidential control, the order includes a paragraph signaling that they will not allow Trump to fire members of the Federal Reserve. From a legal perspective, the paragraph is difficult to parse. And, as Justice Elena Kagan writes in a dissenting opinion, is not supported by the legal authority it cites. But it is likely to reassure investors that, while the Supreme Court does appear eager to expand Trump's authority over previously independent parts of the federal government, it won't permit him to disrupt the Fed's ability to make technocratic decisions about interest rates. The immediate stakes in Wilcox involve a former member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which enforces labor laws and adjudicates union-related disputes, along with a former member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which hears disputes claiming that a civil servant's employment protections were violated. Trump fired both shortly after taking office, despite the fact that federal law only permits them to be fired for some sort of neglect or malfeasance. For at least 15 years, when the Court handed down Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Board (2010), a majority of the justices have signaled that they are eager to strip Congress of its authority to create such independent agencies, and give the president full authority to fire these agencies' leaders at will. Many economists and investors, meanwhile, have warned that it would be particularly dangerous to strip the Federal Reserve — which is supposed to set interest rates based on delicate economic calculations and not based on what will benefit the sitting president — of its independence, as doing so could throw the US economy into chaos. Thursday's order is a clear signal that the Court has heard these concerns and does not intend to eliminate the Fed's independence. It is unlikely to satisfy many constitutional scholars, as its explanation for why Federal Reserve leaders should be treated differently than the leaders of any other independent agency is so baffling that it appears contrived. Trump v. Wilcox is the culmination of a longstanding grudge many Republican legal elites hold against Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court case establishing that Congress may create independent agencies whose members may only be fired for cause. Though the leaders of these agencies are typically nominated by the president for a term of several years, and confirmed by the Senate, Humphrey's Executor explained that laws protecting them from being fired while in office are supposed to ensure that they “act with entire impartiality,” and “exercise the trained judgment of a body of experts.” All six of the Court's Republicans, however, have made it clear they believe in a theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is incompatible with Humphrey's Executor. The Constitution provides that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” In a 1988 dissenting opinion, which many legal conservatives now treat as if it were a holy text, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.” And thus, if a federal official is charged with executing federal laws in some way, they must be fully subject to presidential control. If you take this unitary executive theory seriously, then there should be no doubt that Federal Reserve governors may be fired at will by the president. The Fed's authority over interest rates, after all, derives from federal statutes instructing it to pursue the dual goals of “maximum employment” and “stable prices.” So the Fed is charged with executing federal laws. In 1971, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed chair Arthur Burns to lower interest rates in advance of Nixon's reelection race — the idea was to juice the economy right while voters were weighing Nixon's record — and Burns complied. In the short term, this worked out great for Nixon. The economy boomed in 1972, and Nixon won reelection by a historic landslide. But Burns's action is often blamed for years of “stagflation,” slow economic growth combined with high inflation, in the 1970s. It's not hard to see how presidents could abuse their power if they can fire members of the Federal Reserve who refuse to give the economy such a temporary and costly high. One might think that these risks would be enough to caution the justices against overruling Humphrey's Executor. But the Republican justices appear quite committed to the unitary executive theory, and they have been that way for quite some time. (If you want to know more about why they feel this way, I can refer you to three separate explainers I've written on this subject.) And so those justices spend the bulk of Thursday's Wilcox order laying out the process they are likely to use to formally overrule Humphrey's Executor. The order announces that the Trump administration is “likely” to prevail in its bid to fire NLRB and MSPB officials, and it temporarily blocks lower court decisions that reinstated the two officials at issue in this case. It's certainly possible to parse the components of this sentence. But it is hardly unusual for members of the private sector to be given a formal role within government — just ask Elon Musk. The Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to create national banks in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), but the nation abandoned national banking under President Andrew Jackson, setting off a period of economic turmoil, including an economic depression shortly after Jackson left office. If the theory of the unitary executive is correct, then no entity — regardless of whether it is “quasi-private” or is part of a “distinct historical tradition” involving banks — may execute federal laws, unless that entity is controlled by people who are themselves under presidential control. But nothing in that footnote provides any support for this claim. Kagan had argued that “federal regulators” historically have enjoyed some insulation from the president. The Court, in other words, waved away Kagan's argument that institutions like the Fed should be shielded from presidential control in Seila Law. Now, however, the justices in the majority appear to be signaling they believe there is some merit to Kagan's argument. The best reading of the Wilcox order's one paragraph about the Fed is that a majority of the justices have already decided that they want to protect it, and they would now like some smart lawyers to file briefs coming up with an argument for that position — one that uses terms like “quasi-private” and that refers to the early history of national banking. But this also will hardly be the first time that the Roberts Court started with its intended outcome and reasoned backward to get there. It's just being more transparent this time around. One of the GOP justices must have defected in a case about religious schools, but the Court didn't reveal who it was. Much of the hearing focused on whether Richard Nixon can save Trump's tariffs.

Millions of low-income Americans, including families with children, could lose their food stamp benefits under House Republicans' newly passed tax and spending cuts package, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Thursday. The legislation would provide trillions of dollars in tax cuts while slashing federal support for food stamps and Medicaid to help offset the cost. The package, however, is expected to undergo multiple changes in the Senate, where some lawmakers have already expressed concerns about the safety net provisions. As written, the bill would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, the official name for food stamps, by roughly $286 billion over the next decade, according to the CBO analysis, which was requested by Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Angie Craig, ranking members of the Senate and House agriculture committees, respectively. Among the most consequential and controversial provisions are expanding the program's existing work requirements to many older Americans, and, for the first time, to many parents. Also, states would have less flexibility in waiving these requirements during tough economic times. These measures would strip roughly 3.2 million people of their food stamp benefits in an average month over the next decade, CBO estimates. This includes 800,000 people who live with children ages 7 and older. State responses would vary, but some “would modify benefits or eligibility and possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,” CBO projects. Related card How the House GOP passed Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' The provision would lead states to reduce or eliminate food stamp benefits for about 1.3 million people in an average month over the decade, CBO estimates. Other measures in the bill, including capping annual increases in benefits, would also reduce monthly assistance. CBO noted that the coverage loss projections are for each set of provisions individually and do not account for overlap in the people who could be affected. Its analysis does not provide an overall figure for how many people would lose access to food stamps. The House bill also calls for introducing the first-ever work requirement to Medicaid, which could leave millions of low-income Americans without health coverage, according to experts.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. Fox News national correspondent Bryan Llenas provides an update on American student Sudiksha Konanki missing in the Dominican Republic as the key witness leaves the island. A California State freshman died in an accidental drowning while vacationing with fellow fraternity members in Arizona over the weekend, according to the Sigma Pi Fraternity at Cal State Fullerton. Simon Daniel, 18, was visiting Lake Havasu River with his fraternity on Saturday when he decided to go for a swim with friends. The college freshman entered the water with three fraternity brothers and two sorority members when "unbeknownst to them, recent heavy rains in the Havasu Valley region had significantly increased water flow, creating hazardous conditions including strong currents, crosswinds and swells," the fraternity said in a statement on Facebook. Boaters enjoy Lake Havasu, Arizona, on June 30, 2021. Sigma Pi Fraternity's national chapter and Cal State Fullerton did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Several members of the fraternity jumped in to save the six students, according to Sigma Pi's Cal State Fullerton chapter. "Tragically, Simon was swept away by a sudden wave that separated him from one of the rescuers," the fraternity said. The entrance to California State University's Fullerton campus on Feb. 22, 2022. The students called 911, with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, along with additional agencies, deploying divers, remotely operated vehicles and sonar to search for Daniel. Daniel "went under the water on Saturday and did not resurface," sheriff's deputies said, according to FOX 11. The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for additional information. Daniel's body was recovered Sunday morning following an extensive search by authorities. Daniel was studying computer science and is survived by his mother, according to the fraternity. Members of Daniel's family did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. "[Simon] was known for his love of music, boundless energy and kind spirit," Sigma Pi's Cal State Fullerton chapter said in a statement. "He was the heart of the fraternity – genuine, joyful and someone who brightened every room with his brilliant smile." You can follow her at @juliabonavita13 on all platforms and send story tips to julia.bonavita@fox.com. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today? Even other right-wing populists can't count on Trump's support. Is President Donald Trump leading a vanguard of right-wing populist world leaders, working together to lay waste to the liberal international order while consolidating power at home? Possibly — but based on his recent foreign policy actions, he doesn't appear to think so. Some, notably Hungary's Viktor Orbán and Argentina's Javier Milei, have cultivated ties to the Trump-era American right, becoming fixtures at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and making the rounds on US talk shows and podcasts. Trump himself has occasionally weighed in on other countries' political debates to endorse right-wing politicians like France's embattled far-right leader Marine Le Pen. In his combative speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, Vice President JD Vance described what he sees as the unfair marginalization of right-wing parties in countries like Romania and Germany as a greater threat to Europe's security than China or Russia. But just because Trump and his officials like to see politicians and parties in their own mold win, that doesn't mean countries led by those politicians and parties can count on any special treatment from the Trump administration. Just ask Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has spent years cultivating close ties with the US Republican Party, and with Trump in particular, and has followed a somewhat similar path in bringing previously marginalized far-right partners into the mainstream. All that has been of little use as Trump has left his Israeli supporters aghast by carrying out direct negotiations with the likes of Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran and being feted by Gulf monarchs on a Middle East tour that pointedly did not include Israel. India's Hindu nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, has likewise been compared to Trump in his populist appeal, majoritarian rhetoric, and dismantling of democratic norms. Trump has cultivated a massive coterie of fans among Hindu nationalist Modi supporters as well as a close working relationship with Modi himself. But after Trump announced a ceasefire agreement in the recent flare-up of violence between India and Pakistan, Trump enraged many of his Indian supporters with remarks that appeared to take credit for pressuring India to halt its military campaign and drew equivalence between the Indian and Pakistani positions. Adding insult to injury, Trump publicly criticized Apple for plans to move the assembly of American iPhones from China to India, a move that in other administrations might have been praised as a victory for “friendshoring” — moving the production of critical goods from adversaries to allies — but doesn't advance Trump's goal of returning industrial manufacturing to the US. His government has described its close economic relationship with China as a “red line,” vowing not to decouple its economy from Beijing's, no matter what pressure Trump applies. Overall, there's simply little evidence that political affinity guides Trump's approach to foreign policy, a fact made abundantly clear by the “Liberation Day” tariffs the president announced in April. Taking just Latin America, for example, Argentina — led by the floppy-haired iconoclast and Musk favorite Javier Milei — and El Salvador — led by Nayib Bukele, a crypto-loving authoritarian willing to turn his country's prisons into an American gulag — might have expected exemptions from the tariffs. But they were hit with the same tariff rates as leftist-led governments like Colombia and Brazil. Ultimately, it's not the leaders who see eye to eye with Trump on migration, the rule of law, or wokeness who seem to have his fear. And based on the probably-at-least-partly Trump-inspired drubbing inflicted on right-wing parties in Canada and Australia in recent elections, it's not clear that being known as the “Trump of” your country really gets you all that much. Whatever his ultimate legacy for the United States and the world, he doesn't seem likely to be remembered as the man who made global far-right populism great again, and he doesn't really seem all that concerned about that. Rapid changes from AI may be coming far faster than you imagine. How violence like this became thinkable — and what it means for the future of Palestine. Trump's new resettlement program ignores the history of apartheid. Presidents can't keep gifts that are worth more than $480 unless they buy them.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today? This is what happens when you put a clownfish in hot water. During a severe heat wave in 2023, scientists scuba diving off the coast of Papua New Guinea captured clownfish to measure their bodies. Those measurements revealed something peculiar: Most of the fish shrank. “We were so surprised to see shrinking in these fish that, to be sure, we measured each fish individual repeatedly over a period of five months,” said Melissa Versteeg, a doctoral researcher at Newcastle University, who led the study in collaboration with Mahonia Na Dari, an environmental organization, and Walindi Resort. Versteeg and her colleagues don't know how, exactly, the fish are shrinking — one untested idea is that the fish might be reabsorbing some of their bone material or tissue. In fact, the study found, it may be an adaptation to help clownfish survive hotter ocean temperatures. This level of warming impacts wild animals in a number of strange, mostly bad, ways, from fueling koala-killing wildfires to causing corals to bleach and then starve. But rising temperatures also appear to be making many species smaller. One especially striking study, published in 2019, found that birds shrank by an average of about 2.6 percent between 1978 and 2016. More recent analyses have linked rising temperatures to a reduction in body size of small mammals in North America and marine fish. Most of these existing studies report that animals, on average, are simply not growing as large. Being tiny has its advantages in a hot climate: Warm-blooded animals, like mammals, shed heat more easily when they're small and this helps them cool down. The benefits for cold-blooded creatures, such as clownfish, aren't as clear, though researchers think they may have an easier time meeting their bodies' energy requirements when they're small. Regardless of the reason, being small seems to help clownfish when it's hot. Heat waves linked to climate change, like the one that occurred during this study, are utterly devastating coral reefs — and in severe cases, are nearly wiping out entire reef sections. These colorful ecosystems are home to countless marine animals, including those we eat, like snappers, and clownfish. Amid that loss, animals are proving highly resilient. Yet if warming continues, even the best adaptations may not be enough. Ganaderos han matado jaguares desde hace mucho tiempo. Now they're earning thousands of dollars to help save them. Dozens of countries have promised to end deforestation. The administration's attack on nature, explained by a dancing chicken. What most of us get wrong about animal instincts. The next big cicada eruption is upon us.

In a time of noise, confusion, and spin, we're committed to clarity, truth, and depth — even when it's hard. We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today? Rapid changes from AI may be coming far faster than you imagine. Let's imagine for a second that the impressive pace of AI progress over the past few years continues for a few more. Companies are pouring billions of dollars and tons of talent into making these models better at what they do. Imagine that later this year, some company decides to double down on one of the most economically valuable uses of AI: improving AI research. The company designs a bigger, better model, which is carefully tailored for the super-expensive yet super-valuable task of training other AI models. With this AI trainer's help, the company pulls ahead of its competitors, releasing AIs in 2026 that work reasonably well on a wide range of tasks and that essentially function as an “employee” you can “hire.” Over the next year, the stock market soars as a near-infinite number of AI employees become suitable for a wider and wider range of jobs (including mine and, quite possibly, yours). This is the opening of AI 2027, a thoughtful and detailed near-term forecast from a group of researchers that think AI's massive changes to our world are coming fast — and for which we're woefully unprepared. The authors notably include Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI researcher who became famous for risking millions of dollars of his equity in the company when he refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement. “AI is coming fast” is something people have been saying for ages but often in a way that's hard to dispute and hard to falsify. AI 2027 is an effort to go in the exact opposite direction. Like all the best forecasts, it's built to be falsifiable — every prediction is specific and detailed enough that it will be easy to decide if it came true after the fact. The authors describe how advances in AI will be perceived, how they'll affect the stock market, how they'll upset geopolitics — and they justify those predictions in hundreds of pages of appendices. AI 2027 might end up being completely wrong, but if so, it'll be really easy to see where it went wrong. While I'm skeptical of the group's exact timeline, which envisions most of the pivotal moments leading us to AI catastrophe or policy intervention as happening during this presidential administration, the series of events they lay out is quite convincing to me. (And some of them may already be doing this internally.) If that happens, we'll see improvements even faster than the improvements from 2023 to now, and within a few years, there will be massive economic disruption as an “AI employee” becomes a viable alternative to a human hire for most jobs that can be done remotely. But in this scenario, the company uses most of its new “AI employees” internally, to keep churning out new breakthroughs in AI. As a result, technological progress gets faster and faster, but our ability to apply any oversight gets weaker and weaker. We see glimpses of bizarre and troubling behavior from advanced AI systems and try to make adjustments to “fix” them. But these end up being surface-level adjustments, which just conceal the degree to which these increasingly powerful AI systems have begun pursuing their own aims — aims which we can't fathom. This, too, has already started happening to some degree. It's common to see complaints about AIs doing “annoying” things like faking passing code tests they don't pass. Not only does this forecast seem plausible to me, but it also appears to be the default course for what will happen. Sure, you can debate the details of how fast it might unfold, and you can even commit to the stance that AI progress is sure to dead-end in the next year. But if AI progress does not dead-end, then it seems very hard to imagine how it won't eventually lead us down the broad path AI 2027 envisions, sooner or later. And the forecast makes a convincing case it will happen sooner than almost anyone expects. By 2027, enormous amounts of compute power would be dedicated to AI systems doing AI research, all of it with dwindling human oversight — not because AI companies don't want to oversee it but because they no longer can, so advanced and so fast have their creations become. The authors expect signs that the new, powerful AI systems being developed are pursuing their own dangerous aims — and they worry that those signs will be ignored by people in power because of geopolitical fears about the competition catching up, as an AI existential race that leaves no margin for safety heats up. I'd argue it wouldn't even be that hard. After all, we've certainly failed at much easier tasks. Vice President JD Vance has reportedly read AI 2027, and he has expressed his hope that the new pope — who has already named AI as a main challenge for humanity — will exercise international leadership to try to avoid the worst outcomes it hypothesizes. We live in interesting (and deeply alarming) times. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Here at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country. Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change. We rely on readers like you — join us. Here's what happened when I ditched my iPhone for a month. The record drop in drug overdose deaths, briefly explained.

But multiple federal agencies under President Donald Trump have dropped those suits. Consumer advocates say the dropping of those legal actions removes protections that consumers can't replace on their own – giving businesses the green light to take advantage of customers without fear of penalty. “They're basically trying to take consumer financial protection down to zero and not defend people at all when they've been ripped off by banks and other financial services companies,” said Chuck Bell, financial policy advocate of Consumer Reports. Boeing agreed last year to plead guilty to defrauding the Federal Aviation Administration for its role in two fatal 737 Max crashes that killed 346 people. But now, the attorneys for families of those crash victims say the Justice Department has notified them it's prepared to drop that case. “Dismissing the case would dishonor the memories of 346 victims who Boeing killed through its callous lies,” said Paul Cassell, an attorney for many of the families, in a statement last Friday. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The Securities and Exchange Commission also dropped a case it had previously brought in 2023 against Coinbase, America's largest cryptocurrency exchange. The SEC accused the company of unlawfully making billions of dollars by acting as an exchange, broker and clearing agency “without having registered any of those functions with the Commission as required by law.” The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Capital One during the final days of the Biden administration, accusing the company of “cheating millions of consumers” by not paying more than $2 billion in interest to holders of its high-interest savings accounts. The Department of Transportation sued Southwest Airlines in January under former President Joe Biden, seeking “maximum civil penalties” for operating two “chronically delayed flights” in 2022 that resulted in 180 flight disruptions. The Justice Department dropped that case quietly on Friday afternoon, with little comment. “This was a lawsuit that should have never been brought forward,” the department said in a statement to CNN. “Southwest has remedied the underlying issues and USDOT will work with them fairly, not sue them for political gain.” “We appreciate the DOT's decision to abandon its lawsuit against Southwest, which we believe is the correct result in this case,” said Southwest. “The two flights at issue occurred years ago when the industry faced unprecedented challenges from the Covid-19 pandemic and were delayed due to issues outside of Southwest's control in numerous cases.” It dropped a case brought in January by the Biden administration against PepsiCo that had accused the company of “unfair pricing advantages” with a large retailer. FTC chair Andrew Ferguson in a statement called the Biden administration suit a “nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law.” “PepsiCo is pleased with the FTC's further consideration and withdrawal of this matter,” said the company in a statement. Walmart did not immediate respond to a request for comment. Trump has made clear he believes American businesses need to be freed from what he sees as unfair and undue enforcement actions. But it's not just less enforcement – the Trump administration also wants to make it easier for companies to move ahead with mergers, particularly in financial services. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a regulator that is part of the Treasury Department, announced new rules this month to make it easier to grant approvals of deals, including Capital One's effort to buy Discover. Consumer advocates are bringing legal challenges to combat the Trump administration's actions. But they say there is little hope they can entirely stop the gutting of consumer protection cases over the next three and a half years of Trump's term. “I think much of what the Trump administration has done is go after the very foundation of consumer protection,” said John Breyault, vice president of public policy for the National Consumers League. But they're seeking to make these agencies non-functional. US market indices are shown in real time, except for the S&P 500 which is refreshed every two minutes. Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor's and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices Copyright S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and/or its affiliates. Market holidays and trading hours provided by Copp Clark Limited.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. Julie Chapon, co-founder of the New York-based Yuka food rating app, tells Fox News Digital how it scores different food products to help shoppers make informed decisions about what they buy. As health-conscious Americans look for ways to eat better, there is a mobile app that shoppers can use to guide them at the grocery store, sometimes with surprising outcomes. Yuka is a free app that proponents of the Make America Healthy Again movement are embracing – even U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "I use Yuka," Kennedy told Fox News Digital in April. It has been gaining ground, with about 25,000 new users each day, co-founder Julie Chapon told Fox News Digital. "I think consumers are really being more conscious now about what they want to eat – and there is really this need to have access to more transparent information," said Chapon from New York City. Sam Stark, a public relations consultant in New York City, said she uses the app "about every other shopping trip, mostly when I'm considering adding something new to our meals." "My husband and I eat as [healthfully] as possible with minimal processed foods, but we also want variety," she told Fox News Digital. The Yuka app was developed in France. "It's become a regular part of my shopping routine when I'm browsing unfamiliar products." Many times, Stark said, she'll avoid a food product that has scored poorly. "I often use it to compare similar products, such as which granola is actually the healthiest option," she said. Some users of the Yuka app have said they use it routinely while shopping. Stark also introduced her friend to Yuka. Cristina Cote, a New York-based real estate broker, told Fox News Digital that she uses the app every time she shops, "especially when exploring new products." "I appreciate Yuka as a tool to be mindful and make healthy choices," Cote said. Sam Stark (left) introduced her friend, Cristina Cote (right), to the Yuka app. She's also cut out products that score poorly on the app. The scores are then color-coded into four different categories: excellent (dark green), good (light green), poor (orange) and bad (red). "You also have access to a detailed information sheet on each product to understand why the rating is good or bad," Chapon said. "I think the MAHA movement has also fueled this interest," Chapon said. Since the feature launched in November, more than 600,000 callouts have been made, Chapon said. Julie Chapon, shown above, says the Yuka app she co-founded is steadily growing since it was introduced to the U.S. in 2022. "A lot of brands have received a lot of emails – and they are very mad," Chapon said. "But that's part of our mission and we know it's risky." Among the brands that have had dialogue with Yuka are Tru drinks and Chobani, Chapon said. Both companies "were really interested in improving their ratings and understanding why they don't have good ratings." Fox News Digital made multiple requests for comment to Tru drinks and Chobani about the app's rating system. Yuka's co-founder (not pictured) hopes the app will "help people make better choices for their health" when shopping for groceries. Ultimately, Chapon said she hopes the app will "help people make better choices for their health" and "push manufacturers to improve what they put in their products." "We have many brands starting to really pay attention and trying to understand how they can do better. Ashley DiMella of Fox News Digital contributed reporting. Peter Burke is a lifestyle editor with Fox News Digital. A look at the top-trending stories in food, relationships, great outdoors and more. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. Charlie Hurt tours an oil rig in the Gulf of America with Energy secretary Doug Burgum on 'Fox & Friends Weekend.' As the Secretary of Energy honored to play a role in implementing the historic agenda of President Trump's first term, it was deeply troubling to watch Joe Biden spend four years undoing that progress with a relentless war on American energy. President Biden failed to grasp that affordable, reliable energy is the cornerstone of fighting inflation, creating jobs, and ensuring our national security. Thankfully, the voters delivered a mandate last November, ushering President Trump back to restore America's energy dominance – and he has been putting on a clinic the last four months by ramping up homegrown energy production at an unprecedented pace. By declaring a National Energy Emergency on his first day in office, the President showed that reviving our energy capabilities is a top priority. He followed this by rescinding Biden's efforts to freeze domestic oil and natural gas production. And in April, the White House issued executive orders to increase coal production, safeguard the energy industry from state overreach, and protect an energy grid that had become increasingly unreliable during the prior administration. These actions have already led to a 12% year-over-year gas price reduction. While this is a powerful blueprint for growth, there is one significant shortfall: the bill's approach to certain energy tax credits. The House budget bill indiscriminately phases out or repeals nearly every major tax credit from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act—including credits for electricity generation (45Y and 48E), hydrogen production (45V), and advanced manufacturing (45X). While it may be sensible to phase out credits during a carefully planned transition period, it is not good policy to make abrupt changes that stifle investment and create uncertainty. With so much at stake right now, it is crucial that we do not eliminate the policies that support actual U.S. energy production and keep energy costs low. In the face of soaring demand—driven by AI, data centers, industrial reshoring, and electrification—every molecule or megawatt we disincentivize contributes to market scarcity and rising costs. These are not academic choices, but critical price signals. Pulling energy production offline now—whether fossil, renewable or otherwise— makes America less secure and American consumers poorer. As Vice President Vance noted earlier this year, the surest way to fight Biden-era inflation is to lower energy costs – that means growing, not shrinking, our domestic supply. Gutting these incentives indiscriminately would strain the economy and risk political backlash in key districts at a time when conservative leadership has never been more necessary. That's why he created the National Energy Dominance Council and embraced an all-of-the-above energy approach – not as a slogan, but as a strategy. America wins when we produce everything: oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables. Taking any of them off the table – whether by regulation or tax policy – weakens our position. We should celebrate the wins this administration has already delivered. But we shouldn't offset them by slashing energy tax credits that genuinely drive production, create jobs, and enhance our national security. Dan Brouillette is the former U.S. secretary of Energy and senior advisor to the Restoring Energy Dominance (RED) Coalition. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

Senate Republicans are vowing a major rewrite of President Donald Trump's “one big, beautiful bill” despite House leadership's pleas not to undo the carefully crafted legislation. House and Senate leaders are broadly aligned on the tax bill and have been meeting regularly to avoid points of conflict. But Senate Republicans made clear the compromise, a product of frenzied last-minute negotiations, must be negotiated again after it passed the House by a single vote on Thursday. In some ways, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) will inherit the same headaches that plagued Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) for weeks. Both have a three-seat majority, lending little margin for error despite an ideological gulf between fiscal hawks and a bloc of centrists. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), one of those hawks, suggested the Freedom Caucus had failed despite extracting $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. “It's a lot easier to pressure House members than it is us; that's just a basic fact,” Johnson said. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), among others, is taking issue with changes to a provider tax that helps states finance Medicaid programs. “If you fool around with that provider tax in my state, you really risk getting to benefit cuts there,” Hawley said. The House speaker reached delicate compromises on those and other political flashpoints. The deal came together shortly after Trump made a final push to win over holdouts. After a hard-fought win in the House, Speaker Johnson has urged the Senate “to modify this as little as possible” to avoid another showdown when the bill is sent back. Senate Republicans seem open to the higher cap on the state and local tax deduction, a key demand of blue-state House members who ensured the $10,000 limit was lifted to $40,000. One of Johnson's steepest concessions to fiscal hawks, an accelerated rollback of Biden-era green energy tax credits, is also expected to face Senate scrutiny, given that many red states benefit from them. “I think that even if we're going to revise them, we've got to make sure that businesses who believe the government was setting this as a priority don't have a lot of stranded costs,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told reporters. “We don't know,” Boozman said of what will be permitted. And then that doesn't necessarily mean that we'll do them all, but we'll know what's possible and what's not.” He also noted concern from some Republican members over changes to food stamps that shift the cost burden onto states. Hawley separately indicated his interest in a higher child tax credit than the $2,500 currently contemplated in the bill. He also revealed that Trump again lobbied for the so-called carried interest loophole to be closed in a Wednesday evening phone call, though that change is unlikely. Senate leaders were reluctant to put a date on when they would pass their version of the megabill, but have set Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's requested date of July 4 as an aspirational goal. “Yet to be determined,” Thune told the Washington Examiner when asked about a Senate timeline. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), the Senate's top tax writer, said the threat of default creates a hard-and-fast deadline for Congress, with Bessent predicting the Treasury will run out of money in August. Complicating that deadline is the risk that Republicans must reconcile their two bills and pass them through each chamber. Senators departed town on Thursday for a one-week Memorial Day break, but Boozman insisted the recess was not time wasted, telling the Washington Examiner that staff will continue coordinating on the bill text.

Revelations about former President Joe Biden's mental and physical decline in office have set off a credibility crisis in the Democratic Party that may take years to overcome, according to political strategists. New reporting from several books, such as Original Sin, suggests that the former president's allies knew he was cognitively unable to handle reelection and purposely hid that knowledge from the public. Biden's surprise announcement last week of aggressive prostate cancer has reignited questions about his tenure in the White House. “This is a catastrophic ethical line that they've crossed. Even their biggest defenders in the media have turned on them. Carney said the Democratic Party will require a massive change in leadership before anyone buys what it's selling, and that regaining trust is very difficult in politics. The decisions of Biden's inner circle have rippled out to the entire Democratic Party, which is suffering from historically low approval ratings. But as they go on offense, including against the GOP budget reconciliation bill as a giveaway to billionaires, Republicans counter that Democrats who defended or even downplayed Biden's health problems can't be trusted on any issue. “The same people who have been telling you that President Biden's health was just fine are now telling you all these other things about millionaires and billionaires,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) said on the House floor before final passage of the “one big, beautiful bill” legislation. Republicans intend to keep the spotlight on Democrats with investigations into Biden's use of an autopen to conduct presidential business and whether the former president's physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor, lied to the public about Biden's health problems. “As we keep learning, the concerns over Biden's health as president were very real and deeper than most know, and questions of how we were being governed are legitimate,” said Douglas Heye, a GOP strategist and a former Republican National Committee communications director. This can never happen again, regardless of party, because you're talking about national security,” said O'Connell. “And add in all the other stuff that went on during this, like Lloyd Austin just disappears for three days. There's some people that need to be legally held accountable after the dust settles.” O'Connell was referencing the stunning revelation that Biden's former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin kept his prostate cancer diagnosis and hospitalization for treatment hidden from the public last year. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Democrats' handling of Biden's health “truly one of the worst political scandals this country has ever seen. A Democratic operative, who requested anonymity to speak freely, claimed, “Democrats will restore accountability when we produce candidates voters can trust.” In addition to Biden's decline, Democrats are also in a fierce internal debate over age and elderly lawmakers blocking the next generation from leadership. To fix it, Ohio-based GOP strategist Jai Chabria says the party will need not only its own Trump-like figure to give it new direction in 2028, but its own Joe Rogan to carry that message to the masses because the media is also wrapped up in the Biden scandal.

A U.S. district judge in California blocked the Trump administration on Thursday from revoking the legal status of international students. District Judge Jeffrey White blocked the government until the case is resolved from arresting, imprisoning, or transporting foreign students anywhere else, with exceptions made for those who have been convicted of a violent crime carrying a prison sentence of a year or more. The nationwide injunction was enacted after lawyers for nearly two dozen students sued following Immigration and Customs Enforcement's termination of their legal status, and the legal status of thousands of other foreign students, in April amid President Donald Trump's deportation effort. Lawyers with the U.S. government have contended that such legal protections are unneeded, citing the reinstatement of the visas, but White countered that the rescindments, still in the students' records, hindered their ability to change or receive a new visa and “wreaked havoc” on the lives of those using such visas. GERRY CONNOLLY'S DEATH REIGNITES DEMOCRATIC DEBATE OVER AGE The Department of Homeland Security had canceled the visas of students after running the names of suspects who were arrested on charges of their involvement in pro-Palestinian rallies. These students may have had the charges dropped or were never charged, though the Trump administration argues it was executing its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The news comes as the Trump administration blocked Harvard University from admitting international students on Thursday. International students attending the school must transfer to other universities to maintain their nonimmigrant status. Robert Blankenship contributed to this story.

Kennedy sat down with CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Thursday shortly after a White House event to release the Make America Healthy Again Commission's first report, which argued that ultaprocessed foods, environmental toxins and overmedication are driving a rise in childhood chronic illnesses. The commission's next report, spelling out strategies to combat chronic diseases across health, agricultural and environmental agencies, will be released this August, Kennedy said. But his self-declared deadline to distill the drivers of autism by September — as Kennedy announced in an April Cabinet meeting — is slipping. To get the most solid information, it will probably take us another six months,” Kennedy said Thursday. That research has already identified likely factors leading to autism, including genetics and prenatal exposures. Related article First MAHA health report calls for reassessing medicines, processed foods, pesticides Yet Kennedy said Thursday that HHS “will have some studies completed by September,” primarily replications of previous research. National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has suggested that results could take longer. “Science happens at its own pace,” he told reporters in April, adding that he would like to see “preliminary results” within a year. Kennedy also addressed his terse exchanges in Senate hearings this month with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who has questioned his response to an ongoing lead crisis in Milwaukee public schools. Kennedy told senators during an appropriations hearing this week that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a team on the ground in Milwaukee to help. In his interview with CNN, Kennedy clarified Thursday that the CDC is giving Milwaukee assistance “with their lab, their analytics and advice,” but said he did not know how many CDC officials were onsite in Milwaukee. CNN's Collins said there was one technician on the ground, before Kennedy referenced those hearings. “You could hear my other exchanges with Tammy Baldwin,” he said. “And anyway, I'm not necessarily believing what Senator Baldwin says.” Kennedy also addressed the pushback from major agricultural groups Thursday over the MAHA report's inclusion of studies suggesting toxic exposure from commonly used herbicides. Related article Cracks emerge in MAHA-MAGA alliance as RFK Jr. builds out his team of health ‘renegades' “We don't want to put a single farmer out of business. Collins also asked Kennedy about the affordability of whole foods compared to less expensive ultraprocessed options. “It's an illusion to think that processed food is cheap, because you end up paying for it with diabetes, you end up paying for it with autoimmune dysregulation, with mitochondrial dysfunction, with inflammation, and you end up paying much higher costs in the long run,” he said. Kennedy also doubled down on comments during a budget hearing last week, when he said that Americans should not take medical advice from him. “They probably shouldn't take medical advice from any HHS secretary,” he said Thursday. But they should also be skeptical about any medical advice. Kennedy pointed to frustrations with medical experts during the Covid-19 pandemic. My father told me that when I was a young kid, people in authority lie,” the health secretary said.

A Georgetown University scholar who was targeted for deportation by the Trump administration said he was terrified during his time in immigration jail. Badar Khan Suri was released on bond last week as his lawsuit against the U.S. government's deportation case continues. Badar Khan Suri poses for a portrait, Thursday, May 22, 2025, in Arlington, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) Mapheze Saleh speaks during an interview with The Associated Press, Thursday, May 22, 2025, in Arlington, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) Badar Khan Suri hugs his wife Maphaze Saleh as he arrives at Dulles International Airport May 14, 2025, in Dulles, Va. (Phuong Tran/ACLU of Virginia via AP) Badar Khan Suri holds hands with his wife Maphaze Saleh as he arrives at Dulles International Airport May 14, 2025, in Dulles, Va. (Phuong Tran/ACLU of Virginia via AP) Badar Khan Suri poses for a photo with his wife Maphaze Saleh as he arrives at Dulles International Airport May 14, 2025, in Dulles, Va. (Phuong Tran/ACLU of Virginia via AP) The Trump administration was trying to deport the Georgetown University scholar over statements he made against Israel's war in Gaza. Then Khan Suri had to use the plane's bathroom. He said the guards refused to unshackle his wrists. “They said, ‘No, you have to use it like this or do it in your trousers,'” Khan Suri recalled of the trip, taking him to a Louisiana detention center. Khan Suri, 41, was released on bond last week as his lawsuit against the U.S.'s deportation case continues. In an interview with The Associated Press, he spoke Thursday of a cramped cell, crowded with other detainees, where he waited anxiously, fearful about what would happen next. He also addressed the Trump administration's accusations that he spread “Hamas propaganda.” Khan Suri said he only spoke in support of Palestinians, who are going through an “unprecedented, livestreamed genocide.” And it is so deceiving for some people who just publish canards ... Yet, because of his comments, he said U.S. authorities treated him as if he had committed a high-level crime. Fellow inmates said his red uniform was reserved for the most dangerous offenders. He said more than a hundred people from the Georgetown community wrote letters on his behalf to the federal judge overseeing his case, including some who are Jewish. A crowd also greeted him when he arrived back in the Washington, D.C., area. “Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims — everyone together,” said Khan Suri, a postdoctoral fellow who studies religion, peace and violence. “That is the reality I want to live with. That's the reality I want to die for. U.S. Immigration authorities have detained international college students from across the country — many of whom participated in campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war — since the early days of Trump's second administration. The administration has said it revoked Khan Suri's visa because he was “spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media,” while also citing his connections to “a senior advisor to Hamas,” which court records indicate is his wife Mapheze Saleh's father. Saleh is a Palestinian American whose father worked with the Hamas-backed Gazan government in the early 2000s, but before Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Khan Suri's attorneys have said. They also said he barely knew his father-in-law, Ahmed Yousef. Khan Suri's attorneys said he wouldn't comment on Yousef during Thursday's interview, which mostly covered his arrest and time in custody. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding Khan Suri's statements. Khan Suri said he was arrested just after he taught his weekly class on minority rights and the majority. Other than saying his visa was being revoked, they refused to explain the reason for his arrest, which he described it as a “kidnapping.” “This is not some authoritarian regime,” Khan Suri said. “I was not in Russia or North Korea. The “dehumanizing procedures” came next: A finger scan, a DNA cotton swab and chains binding his wrists, waist and ankles, he said. They also said he could talk to his wife at a detention center in Virginia, but “that never happened.” The next day, he said he and other detainees were placed in a van, which soon rolled up to an airplane. Nobody would reply anything,” Khan Suri said. He said the bathroom situation did not get better at a federal detention center in Louisiana, where Khan Suri was taken next. He was not able to speak to a lawyer, while fellow inmates said everyone there is deported within three days, Khan Suri said. “I was crying from inside, ‘How can this be happening?” he said. “A few hours back, I was in Georgetown teaching my students, talking about peace and conflict analysis.” Afterward, Khan Suri was transferred to a detention facility in Texas, where he said he slept on the floor of a crowded cell for the first two weeks. “My eyes would become wet, and I would give that blanket a hug as my son so that this hug should reach him,” Khan Suri said. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.