Former Attorney General Bill Barr’s closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee wrapped after over four hours on Monday, and lawmakers on opposite sides of the aisle had very different interpretations of how it went.

Reps. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, and Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., who represented committee Democrats during the staff-led sit-down, said they were left with ‘more questions now’ than before Barr’s deposition began.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., the lone Republican present, said Barr ‘shed a lot of light’ on the Epstein case and said he ‘answered all the questions’ presented to him.

Both sides only spoke with reporters partway through Barr’s testimony, which began at 10 a.m. Monday. Fox News Digital witnessed him leaving roughly 30 minutes before 3 p.m.

‘I think the Democratic side is doing most of the heavy lifting, and I don’t think we’re learning much from the questioning from the House Republicans,’ Subramanyam said. 

‘It doesn’t seem like this is something where they are truly caring about the victims and about trying to get to the bottom of what’s happening.’

Crockett said, ‘It seems like they are going through the motions, and they want people to believe that they are digging in. But at the end of the day, I don’t think that we’ve learned anything through the Republican questioning that you couldn’t find in one of the articles that most likely your outlets have printed.’

Comer told reporters later by contrast, ‘Our goal with this investigation is to be transparent.’

He even lauded Democrats for taking the matter ‘seriously,’ adding, ‘This is a bipartisan investigation, and hopefully, we’ll be able to get the answers the American people want and deserve.’

When asked about the Democratic lawmakers’ attacks on Republicans’ line of questioning, however, Comer accused them of playing politics with the situation.

‘It’s unfortunate the Democrats are trying to, it seems to me, politicize this. When you look at the basis of this, horrific crimes against young girls, and, of course, the Democrats’ goal is to try to dig up some type of dirt on President Trump,’ Comer said.

He said Republican staff were ‘asking a lot of tough questions’ and accused Democrats of operating on a double standard.

‘I don’t ever remember the Democrats subpoenaing a former Democrat attorney general for anything,’ he said.

Comer accused Democrats of trying to create a ‘false narrative’ connecting Trump and Epstein, after Subramanyam floated the possibility of a ‘cover-up’ by Trump and his allies.

‘This is a serious investigation. This is a sincere investigation. I hope this will be a bipartisan investigation. I would encourage my Democrat colleagues not to politicize this,’ Comer said.

‘I think General Barr answered a lot of questions that probably burst their bubble with respect to, he had never communicated with President Trump on a potential Epstein list or anything else. And he had never seen anything that would implicate President Trump.’

Barr arrived on Capitol Hill nearly an hour before his scheduled deposition, only quipping that the ‘early bird gets the worm’ in response to a flurry of reporter questions.

He was similarly soft-spoken on his way out, even as Fox News Digital and others questioned what he told House investigators.

Barr only said ‘absolutely’ when asked if he had a good conversation Monday.

A source familiar with his deposition told Fox News Digital that Barr ‘made clear that President Trump never provided any views or instructions related to the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein or his death, and that he never saw any evidence suggesting President Trump committed a crime.’

‘He further stated that he believed the Biden Department of Justice would have released any incriminating evidence against President Trump if such evidence existed,’ said the source, who described Barr as ‘cooperative.’

Barr is the first of several people who were subpoenaed to appear before the House Oversight Committee after Republicans and Democrats voted to direct Comer to open the probe last month.

Several other former attorneys general, ex-FBI directors, and even former First Couple Bill and Hillary Clinton were also subpoenaed.

Fox News Digital reached out to Barr’s lawyer for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel are bringing on Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as an additional deputy director of the bureau, Fox News Digital has learned.

Bailey will serve as a co-deputy director, alongside Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Fox News Digital has learned.

‘I am thrilled to welcome Andrew Bailey as Co-Deputy Director of the FBI,’ Bondi told Fox News Digital. ‘He has served as a distinguished state attorney general and is a decorated war veteran, bringing expertise and dedication to service. His leadership and commitment to country will be a tremendous asset as we work together to advance President Trump’s mission.’ 

‘The FBI, as the leading investigative body of the federal government under the Department of Justice, will always bring the greatest talent this country has to offer in order to accomplish the goals set forth when an overwhelming majority of American people elected President Donald J. Trump again,’ Patel told Fox News Digital, adding that Bailey will be an ‘integral part of this important mission’ and said he looks forward to ‘the continued fight to save America together.’

Bailey, as Missouri’s attorney general, launched an anti-human trafficking task force and addressed more than 1,100 reported incidents in Missouri. He also cleared the backlog of Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence (SAFE) kits to improve prosecution of sexual assault cases.

Bailey’s office also defended the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department in civil litigation and has consistently advocated for law enforcement. Bailey was endorsed by the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police.

Bailey’s office also reported a 133% increase in trial court-level criminal prosecutions.

Bailey also has held public officials accountable during his time as attorney general. He demanded the resignation of a sheriff for financial mismanagement and misconduct, and, separately, announced a grand jury indictment against a St. Louis county executive for stealing and election law violations.

‘I am eternally grateful for the opportunity to serve as the Co-Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,’ Bailey told Fox News Digital. ‘I extend my deepest gratitude to President Trump, U.S. Attorney General Bondi and Director Patel for the privilege to join in their stated mission to Make America Safe Again.’ 

A senior administration official told Fox News Digital that President Donald Trump ‘wants to see bad guys prosecuted, illegals deported, and corrupt politicians held accountable.’

‘We need all hands on deck to accomplish all of these important goals,’ the official said. ‘Andrew Bailey will serve as another set of credible, experienced hands to help Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Patel carry out the President’s mission.’

The FBI, under Patel’s leadership, already has seen 19,000 arrests nationwide — that’s double the arrests made in all of 2024.

Of those, 1,600 individuals have been arrested for violent crimes against children — including 270 arrests for human traffickers, according to the FBI. One thousand have been arrested from investigations of foreign terrorist organizations, and three of the ‘Top 10 Most Wanted’ have been arrested in 2025.

Patel’s FBI has rescued 4,000 child victims — a 33% increase from 2025; seized 1,500 kilos of fentanyl; and seized 6,300 kilos of methamphetamines.

A senior official told Fox News Digital that the murder rate is currently on track to be the lowest ever recorded in history. 

‘President Trump wants to see America quickly become the safest country in the world, and he has put together the best law and order focused team in the business to accomplish that goal,’ White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital.

The addition of Bailey comes amid the expanding nature of Trump’s law and order agenda. As for the federal takeover of Washington, D.C., Bondi is in charge, and the FBI is playing a large role. 

Bondi, on Friday, announced there have been nearly 200 arrests ‘and counting’ in the nation’s capital, including those of murder suspects and illegal gun offenders, since the Trump administration federalized the city to tackle crime.

Among those arrested were two homicide suspects, 17 suspected drug traffickers, 39 suspected illegal gun offenders and two sexual predators, according to Bondi.

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump said that his meeting at the White House Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy isn’t a last attempt to help Ukraine secure a peace deal ending its war with Russia. 

‘I can never say that. It’s never the end of the road,’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Monday. ‘People are being killed, and we want to stop that. So I would not say it’s the end of the road. No, I think we have a good chance of doing it now. It’s been almost four years now that, a lot of people were killed last week, a lot of people last week. I mean, millions of people killed, but a lot of people last week, for whatever reason, a big number, a lot of soldiers, both on both sides. And, I know the president. I know myself, and I believe Vladimir Putin wants to see it ended.’ 

Trump’s comments come days after he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, Friday. Trump also said Monday that he called Putin ahead of his meeting with Zelenskyy, and would call the Russian leader again after talks with Zelenskyy and other European leaders wrapped up. 

Zelenskyy, who hasn’t visited the White House since February, is joined by other European leaders who have supported Ukraine. Leaders also in Washington include British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. 

Trump told reporters that he wouldn’t eliminate the possibility that U.S. troops could be deployed to Ukraine following a peace negotiation to ensure Russia upholds its end of the bargain. 

‘We will give them very good protection, very good security. That’s part of it,’ Trump told reporters Monday. 

Trump said more details would be forthcoming on what it would mean to deploy U.S. troops to Ukraine, and that he would be discussing the matter with other European leaders Monday. 

‘They’ll all be involved, but there’ll be a lot of help when it comes to security, there’s going to be a lot of help, it’s going to be good,’ Trump said. ‘They are first line of defense, because they’re there, they’re Europe, but we’re going to help them out also, we’ll be involved.’

Although Trump said Sunday that NATO membership for Ukraine was not an option for a potential peace deal, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said Sunday that Putin has agreed to allow the U.S. and other European allies to provide additional protection for Ukraine, similar to protections included in NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause. 

‘We were able to win the following concession that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO,’ Witkoff said in an interview with CNN. 

Former Attorney General Bill Barr told House investigators on Monday that he never saw anything that could tie President Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein’s sordid crimes, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said.

‘He said that he had never seen anything that would implicate President Trump in any of this, and that he believed if there had been anything pertaining to President Trump with respect to the Epstein list, that he felt like the Biden administration would probably have leaked it out,’ Comer told reporters partway through Barr’s testimony.

The ex-Trump administration official is the first person to appear in the House Oversight Committee’s probe into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case.

Like others subpoenaed to testify after him, Barr’s deposition is being conducted behind closed doors.

Comer said Barr told investigators that he ‘didn’t know anything about a client list,’ and did not have conversations with Trump about such a list.

‘Barr said he’s never seen any information that showed that he was in the files, and that he would be shocked if there was anything pertaining to President Trump that was negative that the Biden administration wouldn’t have leaked out prior to the presidential election,’ Comer said.

Democrats who were in the room for the first two hours of Barr’s deposition were much more vague about what went on, but they accused Republicans of taking too soft an approach.

‘I have more questions now than I did before going in,’ Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., told reporters before Comer’s remarks. ‘Just generally, though, I think the Democratic side is doing most of the heavy lifting. I don’t think we’re learning much from the questioning from the House Republicans.’

Comer said when asked about those comments, ‘I think it’s unfortunate that the Democrats are trying to, seems to me, politicize this.’

Barr served as attorney general from February 2019 through December 2020, during Trump’s first administration. It was his second stint leading the Department of Justice (DOJ) after first holding the job under former President George H.W. Bush.

Barr notably led the DOJ when Epstein died by suicide in August 2019 while awaiting trial in a New York City jail.

He said days later at aFraternal Order of Police event in New Orleans that he was ‘appalled’ and ‘angry’ at what he said was the facility’s ‘failure to adequately secure this prisoner.’

Barr told the Associated Press later that year that he was personally involved in investigating Epstein’s death, specifically that he reviewed security footage from that night that he said showed no one entering the cell the night the late pedophile died.

He eventually concluded Epstein did die by suicide, Barr told the outlet, owing to ‘a perfect storm of screw-ups’ at the jail.

When asked if Barr told as much to House investigators on Monday, Comer declined to ‘speak for’ the former attorney general but added he believed the ‘general consensus’ was that Epstein killed himself with no external foul play.

Barr’s testimony is part of a wider bipartisan investigation into the handling of Epstein’s case, which has also reached several former attorneys general, FBI directors, and former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The Trump administration will begin handing over documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case to the House Oversight Committee on Friday, Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said.

House investigators originally requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce a tranche of files pertaining to the late pedophile and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, by 12 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19. 

It’s part of a wider bipartisan investigation into the handling of Epstein’s case, which has also reached several former attorneys general, FBI directors, and former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Comer announced Monday afternoon that he would delay the deadline until Friday in light of the DOJ’s cooperation.

‘Officials with the Department of Justice have informed us that the Department will begin to provide Epstein-related records to the Oversight Committee this week on Friday. There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,’ Comer said in a statement.

‘I appreciate the Trump administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.’

Comer told reporters earlier Monday that his panel was having ‘good conversations’ with the DOJ related to document production but was noncommittal when asked if the Aug. 19 goal would be met.

‘You can imagine how many documents there are,’ Comer said. ‘I think we’ll receive the documents very soon. They’re compiling everything together.’

Comer said the DOJ was cooperating ‘in a good faith effort.’

Requested materials included all documents and communications in the DOJ’s possession relating to both Epstein and Maxwell, as well as files ‘further relating or referring to human trafficking, exploitation of minors, sexual abuse, or related activity.’

Documents relating specifically to the DOJ’s prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell, Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida, and any materials related to Epstein’s death were requested.

The House Oversight Committee asked for the documents to be largely unredacted, according to a subpoena obtained by Fox News Digital, ‘except for redactions to protect the personally identifiable information of victims, for any child sex abuse material as defined by the Department of Justice Manual, and any other redactions required by law.’

The deadline comes a day after former Attorney General Bill Barr was deposed by the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors. Barr was the first person scheduled to appear in the committee’s probe under subpoena.

The Clintons both have separate deposition dates scheduled for October.

Comer was directed to send the flurry of subpoenas after a House Oversight Committee subcommittee panel voted in favor of them during an unrelated hearing in July.

Renewed furor over Epstein’s case engulfed Capitol Hill after intra-GOP fallout over the Trump administration’s handling of the matter.

The DOJ effectively declared the case closed after an ‘exhaustive review,’ revealing Epstein had no ‘client list,’ did not blackmail ‘prominent individuals,’ and confirmed he did die by suicide in a New York City jail while awaiting prosecution.

In response to the backlash by some on the right, Trump directed the DOJ to release grand jury testimony related to Epstein – a request that’s been tied up in courts since then – while Attorney General Pam Bondi had her deputy, Todd Blanche, interview Maxwell in person to uncover any possible new information.

Comer also subpoenaed Maxwell but agreed to defer her scheduled deposition until after the Supreme Court heard her appeal to overturn her conviction.

Fox News Digital reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Just as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Washington, D.C., to meet President Donald Trump at the White House, Russia routed his nation with airstrikes on Monday, killing 10.

Seven people, including a toddler and a 16-year-old, were killed by a Russian drone strike on the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, according to local authorities.

Ukrainian officials took the strikes as a message from Russian President Vladimir Putin that he has no intention to end the war. 

‘That’s why Putin doesn’t want to cease fire,’ Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, wrote on Telegram. ‘He enjoys shelling peaceful cities while talking about his desire to end the war.’

Video footage of the aftermath released by local authorities shows a residential building where the upper levels collapsed, with firefighters hosing it down as smoke rises from the rubble. 

A partially blurred photo released by Ukraine’s emergency services appeared to show a firefighter holding the limp body of a child. 

Ihor Terekhov, the mayor of Kharkiv, wrote on Telegraph that he believed the attack on the residential building was ‘deliberate.’

‘Five enemy ‘Shaheds’ approached it from different directions and targeted people who were peacefully sleeping at five in the morning,’ he said, referring to armed drones.  

At least three others were killed in an attack in the southern city of Zaporizhzhia, and nearly 20 people injured, local authorities said. 

Zelenskyy addressed the Monday bombings at the start of his meeting with Trump, noting a one-and-a-half-year-old had been killed. 

‘We need to stop this war, to stop Russia. And we need support, American and European partners. We will do our best for this,’ Zelenskyy said.

Russia had made gains in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region ahead of Putin’s summit with Trump in Alaska, in a movement onlookers believed was designed to gain territorial leverage ahead of high-stakes negotiations. 

But since at least the start of this month, Russia has seemingly reduced the number of drones and missiles it fires toward Ukrainian cities each night. 

Trump, ahead of his meeting with Putin, had said he would be ‘unhappy’ if the Russian leader did not agree to a ceasefire. 

And while Putin did not appear to agree to a ceasefire at that meeting, Trump touted the meeting as a win and said the pair had reached agreement on a number of issues. 

A United Nations report found that between December 2024 and May 2025, 1,000 civilians in Ukraine, including Russian-occupied areas, had been killed. 

The European Union is preparing a new round of sanctions against Russia in retaliation for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine, signaling continued resolve as the war drags past its three-and-a-half-year mark.

The announcement of the upcoming sanctions package, the 19th such round, comes as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets with President Donald Trump at the White House to discuss prospects for ending the war. Zelenskyy, who will be flanked by key European leaders during his visit, has consistently endorsed coordinated Western sanctions as a vital tool against Russia’s economic war chest.

‘As long as the bloodshed in Ukraine continues, Europe will maintain diplomatic and, in particular, economic pressure on Russia. We will continue to strengthen sanctions,’ European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Sunday during a joint press conference with Zelenskyy.

‘This package will be forthcoming in early September. We know that sanctions are effective. We have already put Russia’s immobilized assets to work for the benefit of Ukraine, and we will continue to put pressure on Russia’s war economy to bring President Putin to the negotiation table,’ she added.

Zelenskyy thanked von der Leyen for the additional sanction measures, adding that ‘sanctions show we are serious.’

Following waves of coordinated Western sanctions over its war in Ukraine, Russia has become the world’s most sanctioned nation—more economically isolated than any country in modern history.

In 2024, Russia was the primary target of U.S. financial sanctions, with 1,706 Russian persons placed on the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list. In addition, Russia drove the bulk of U.S. sanctions activity, making up 70% of new names added to the Treasury’s blacklist.

The EU’s most recent package, which was announced in July, targeted Russia’s energy revenues, banking sector, military industrial base, and tightened loopholes for sanctions evasion.

In this round, the EU also blacklisted 444 vessels tied to the Kremlin’s so-called ‘ghost ships’ — a covert network of tankers that transport Russian oil around the world in defiance of G7 price caps and EU sanctions. The measure also imposed sanctions on more than 2,500 people. 

Judges for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Louisiana’s request to allow it to enforce its long-stalled congressional redistricting map, delivering a near-term blow to Republicans in the state by ruling that it amounts to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

All three judges on the bench voted to uphold a lower court’s ruling that the map in question — originally passed by Louisiana’s Republican-majority legislature in 2022 — violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting the votes of Black residents in the state.

They also affirmed the district court’s ruling that the map in question violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by, ”packing’ Black voters into a small number of majority-Black districts, and ‘cracking’ other Black communities across multiple districts, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to form effective voting blocs.’ 

Judges on the panel also rejected the state’s contention that conditions in Louisiana have changed enough to render race-conscious remedies obsolete.

‘There is no legal basis for this proposition, and the state offers no evidence that conditions in Louisiana have changed’ enough to negate that need, the court said in its ruling. 

One judge on the panel issued a stay before the court’s ruling could take force, though the issue is something of a moot point, since the Supreme Court, which is also reviewing the map, had already done so earlier this year.

The ruling from the Fifth Circuit, which has a reputation as one of the more conservative appeals courts, is a victory in the near term for the ACLU and other plaintiffs who sued to block the state’s map from taking force.

Still, any relief for plaintiffs from the appeals court ruling is likely to be short-lived.

The Supreme Court in March heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, which also centers on the legality of Louisiana’s redistricting map and whether race should be considered a factor in drawing new congressional districts.

Oral arguments then focused heavily on whether Louisiana’s redistricting efforts were narrowly tailored enough to meet constitutional requirements and whether race was used in a way that violated the law, as the appellees alleged.

The Supreme Court in June said it would hear additional arguments in the case in the fall term, citing the need for more information before it could issue a ruling.

Earlier this month, justices ordered both parties to file supplemental briefs by mid-September, outlining in further detail arguments for and against Louisiana’s proposed map and whether the intentional creation of a second majority-Black congressional district ‘violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.’

The careful consideration from the Supreme Court is the clearest sign yet that redistricting issues remain top of mind in the run-up to the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.

It also comes at a pivotal time in the U.S., as new and politically charged redistricting fights have popped up in other states ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

Louisiana, for its part, has revised its congressional map twice since the 2020 census. 

The first version, which included only one majority-Black district, was blocked by a federal court in 2022. The court sided with the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP and other plaintiffs, ruling the map diluted Black voting power and ordering the state to redraw it by January 2024.

The new map, S.B. 8, created the second Black-majority district. But it was almost immediately challenged by a group of non-Black plaintiffs in court, who took issue with a new district that stretched some 250 miles from Louisiana’s northwest corner of Shreveport to Baton Rouge, in the state’s southeast.

They argued in their lawsuit that the state violated the equal protection clause by relying too heavily on race to draw the maps and created a ‘sinuous and jagged second majority-Black district.’

The intense court fights in Louisiana underscore the broader redistricting battles playing out in Republican- and Democrat-led states across the country, as they spar over new congressional maps with an eye to the looming midterm elections.

In Texas, tensions reached a fever pitch after Democratic state legislators fled the Lone Star State to block Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s ability to convene a legislative quorum to pass the state’s aggressive new redistricting map, which would create five additional Republican-leaning districts.

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom responded by introducing a new map of his own that favors Democrats.

The move highlights how both parties are engaged in aggressive redistricting battles, with Republican-led states pushing maps to defend the GOP’s slim House majority and Democrats seeking to expand their own advantages. As with most midterms following a new president’s election, 2026 is expected to serve as a referendum on the White House — raising GOP concerns that they could lose control of the chamber.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, for her part, vowed at a press conference earlier this month to explore ‘every option’ in redrawing state lines. 

‘We are at war,’ Hochul said, speaking alongside the Texas Democrats who fled to her state.

Lawmakers are watching President Donald Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy closely and are ready to pounce with hard-hitting sanctions against Moscow if need be.

Trump, Zelenskyy and a slew of European leaders are set to meet at the White House on Monday, just days after the president’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska.

How that meeting went depends on what side of the aisle lawmakers are on, with Republicans lauding Trump for seeking a diplomatic end to the war, while Democrats accused the president of legitimizing Putin and giving him a grand stage.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox News Digital in a statement that ‘America’s strength and leadership’ was on full display under Trump.

‘European nations are also stepping up to join us in this show of strength to Vladimir Putin,’ the Wyoming Republican said. ‘The killing needs to stop. A longstanding, verifiable peace between Ukraine and Russia is going to be good for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and the United States.’

But some lawmakers agree that, should a deal not be reached, crippling sanctions are the next best step.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., commended Trump for ‘dogged determination’ to find a peaceful end to the war, and to engage with ‘all parties in a way his predecessor refused to do.’ But, he signaled that the Senate was standing by to hit Moscow with sanctions if needed.

‘As peace talks continue today in Washington, the U.S. Senate stands ready to provide President Trump any economic leverage needed to keep Russia at the table to negotiate a just and lasting peace in Ukraine,’ Thune said on X.

Last month, Trump declared that Putin would have a 50-day deadline to reach a ceasefire agreement, which the president recently shortened to ’10 or 12′ days. While no such immediate agreement appeared to be reached between the two leaders, the Trump administration said that the Russian leader agreed to security agreements for Ukraine.

Still, Senate Democrats were not satisfied with the end of the meeting and ahead of Trump’s second high-stakes summit with Zelenskyy and demanded that Congress move ahead with a sanctions package.

Sen. Jean Shaheen, the top ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said if Trump doesn’t act, ‘Congress must do so decisively by passing crushing sanctions when we return in the coming weeks.’

‘I will also continue to press for my bipartisan legislation to bolster Ukraine’s defense and negotiating position with additional security assistance and my bipartisan bill to go after Russia’s enablers in China,’ the New Hampshire Democrat said. ‘There is no appetite in Congress to entertain a relationship with Russia while Putin continues to kidnap Ukrainian children and murder innocent civilians.’

And as for the meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy, lawmakers wanted to see a path toward peace.

‘The interests of the American people should come first, and that means finding a path to a negotiated peace,’ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘Peace is also in the best interests of the Ukrainian people, who have been unjustly used as pawns in a proxy war even as they heroically resisted Russian aggression. One way or another, Americans should not send one dollar more to prolong this disastrous conflict.’

And Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement to Fox News Digital that he was ‘glad that President Trump is engaging directly with President Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House today to discuss Russia’s war in Ukraine.’

‘Any decisions regarding next steps must involve these key leaders — they can’t be dictated by Putin’s bloodthirsty regime,’ he said. 

A prominent pro-energy group is calling on the Trump administration to investigate what it suspects is a coordinated ‘national lawfare campaign’ by left-wing climate activists aimed at influencing thousands of judges on how to approach climate litigation.

In a letter sent this week to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Power the Future Founder and Executive Director Dan Turner warned that the Federal Judicial Center, in partnership with the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, is engaged in ‘behind-closed-doors advocacy’ for climate lawfare.

‘Specifically, Power The Future is concerned that the FJC is actively assisting in a campaign which boasts of having ‘educated’ approximately two thousand judges, including federal judges, on how to approach climate’ litigation,’ the letter explains. ”Climate’ litigation actually seeks in part to impose federal energy (rationing) policy through the courts, even though policy ‘must be addressed by the two other branches of government.’ The FJC enlisted in this campaign by hosting seminars for judges with speakers drawn exclusively from the world of plaintiffs’ witnesses or historic amicus brief filers in support of the plaintiffs.’

The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute created the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) in 2018, establishing a first-of-its-kind resource to provide ‘reliable, up-to-date information’ about climate change litigation, according to the group. The project’s reach has extended to various state and federal courts, including powerful appellate courts, and comes as multiple cities and states pursue high-profile litigation against the oil industry.

A Fox News Digital review in December shows that several CJP expert lawyers and judges have close ties to the curriculum and are deeply involved in climate litigation, while the group attempted to distance itself at the time, saying, ‘CJP doesn’t participate in litigation, support or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case.’

Power the Future included FOIA requests in the letter, which the group says shows coordination between judges and ELI’s network.

‘For example, several records obtained under FOIA, enclosed herein, reference the involvement of Judge David Tatel, who served for nearly 30 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit until 2022,’ the letter says. ‘One February 2021 email from a plaintiff’s witness who ELI arranged to serially brief judges on ‘climate’ litigation, Dr. Don Wuebbles, references ‘the kind of issues that Judge Tatel raised towards counteracting arguments from nonbelievers’ in catastrophic man-made global warming.’

Wuebbles hit back against claims there were ‘cozy ties’ between judges and climate activists in comments to Fox News Digital, calling the Power the Future letter a ‘highly distorted look at what we do as scientists,’ while defending that he is a ‘PhD atmospheric scientist and professor…,’ not an ‘activist.’

Wuebbles did explain that he has helped ‘educate judges on the science of climate change’ when asked by the courts across his career. 

‘Those meetings were very professional and just about the state of the science,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘If a senator, other politicians, or anyone with biases about the state of the climate cannot handle the truth, that is their problem. But the truth should still come out for all Americans to be aware of, including judges and the courts. As part of this, the misinformation of contrarians needs to be responded to by responses demonstrating the real state of the science and what the actual measurements and scientific analyses really show us — that is what we do as scientists. As someone with high moral standards, I could add much more, but I will leave it there.’

The letter to the DOJ included other FOIA’d emails, including one dated March 23, 2021, that was sent by CJP founder Paul Hanle to ‘a serial presenter, plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Ben Santer’ regarding presenting a climate science lecture to more than 100 judges. 

‘In another email, dated March 23, 2021, from ELI’s Paul Hanle to a serial presenter, plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Ben Santer — also a member of the board of the activist Union of Concerned Scientists, which was an original organizer of the climate litigation campaign — Hanle describes ELI as working ‘through the auspices of the National Judicial College, with which our project is partnering,” the letter to the DOJ reads. ‘Hanle later thanked Santer for Santer’s presentation ‘to a large group of judges — perhaps one to two hundred,’ stating, in relevant part, ‘I would venture you convinced many who did not know before that the science has moved far and fast and the scientific case is underpinned by very strong evidence.’ Hanle added, ‘Your approach is very effective with judges.’’

While another email, sent by an ELI official to both Hanle and Santer, the official says, ‘that [the judge] connected this material to her own docket …[is] [j]ust what we want to see!’

‘You certainly had an impact on her,’ Hanle said. 

Santer told Fox News Digital in an emailed comment Monday when asked about the correspondence that his job is to ‘improve scientific and public understanding of the nature, causes, and impacts of climate change.’ 

‘I’ve done this job for over 35 years, through my research in ‘climate fingerprinting’ and through public lecturing to a variety of different audiences. Judges are one of those audiences, along with professional societies, Rotary Clubs, universities, schools, and conservative organizations like the Pacific Club, Jonathan Club, and Bohemian Grove,’ he wrote. 

‘As of today, U.S. climate scientists still have the freedom to educate U.S. citizens on the reality and seriousness of climate change. I cherish that freedom. While it still exists, I intend to continue serving as a ‘serial presenter’ on climate science,’ he continued. 

When approached for comment on the matter, FJC’s Deputy Director Clara Altman said it had not worked with ELI since 2020, after holding a series of seminars in coordination with the group the year prior. 

‘The Federal Judicial Center conducted a series of small one-day seminars with the Environmental Law Institute for fewer than 100 judges in total in 2019 and early 2020.  The Federal Judicial Center has not done any programs with ELI since.  In all its programs, the Center strives to present content objectively and from a range of views,’ Altman said, adding that FJC is not affiliated with NJC.  

Fox News Digital reported in July that CJP organized a years-long, nationwide online forum with jurists to promote favorable information and litigation updates regarding climate issues — until the email-styled group chat was abruptly made private last year. The listserv was established after CJP coordinated with the National Judicial College to establish its first cohort of judges who took part in a ‘Judicial Leaders in Climate Science’ program in 2022. 

The listserv, which included at least five judges from across the nation and CJP leaders, was active from September 2022 to May 2024, and facilitated correspondence between the group’s members as they traded links on climate studies, congratulated one another on hosting recent environmental events, shared updates on recent climate cases that were remanded to state courts and encouraged participation in other CJP meet-ups. 

In one message, for example, a Delaware judge shared a YouTube video of a 2022 climate presentation delivered by a Delaware official and a Columbia University professor that focused on the onslaught of climate lawsuits since the mid-2000s. The video included claims that those lawsuits could one day bankrupt the fuel industry. 

The judge stipulated in his message to the group when sharing the link: ‘Because the link is of a judicial event that is otherwise not public, please do not forward or use without checking with me. I suspect that goes without saying, but the powers that be will be happier that I said it.’

A handful of other judges responded to Laster’s video and message, praising it as ‘great work.’

CJP, in a comment to Fox Digital at the time, defended the listserv as one to help members of its Judicial Leaders in Climate Science program communicate and network with one another for the duration of the program. The one-year program, established by CJP in coordination with the National Judicial College, ‘trains state court judges on judicial leadership skills integrated with consensus climate science and how it is arising in the law,’ the group told Fox News Digital.

Following Fox News Digital’s reporting on the listserv, CJP’s website received a facelift that included removing one of the judge’s names and his favorable testimony of the group’s work and anonymized the names of other judges who praised CJP as an ‘essential’ resource for jurists. 

‘Judges are encouraged, and many required, to participate in continuing education on topics relevant to emerging trends in the law — including those related to science. Recent changes to CJP’s website were made to protect privacy and prevent baseless criticism and harassment,’ the spokesperson told Fox News Digital in August when asked about the website revamp. 

When asked about Power the Future’s letter, a spokesperson for ELI underscored that its Climate Judiciary Project is a ‘a non-partisan organization that has been operating for over 50 years. ELI educates professionals and the public, provides objective data and analysis, and convenes diverse groups of leaders to solve problems.’

‘The programs in which CJP participates are no different than other judicial education programs, providing evidence-based training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend,’ the spokesperson continued. ‘CJP does not participate in litigation, provide support for or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case.’

News of CJP’s outreach comes as the U.S. has seen a sharp uptick in climate-related lawsuits in recent years — including cases targeting oil giants Shell, BP and ExxonMobil for allegedly using ‘deceptive’ marketing and downplaying the risks of climate change. Lawsuits have also been brought against state governments and federal agencies, including the Interior Department, for allegedly failing to address pollution risks or protect against the harms of climate change, according to the plaintiffs.

Conservative lawmakers have meanwhile put CJP under the public’s microscope for alleged ‘lawfare,’ most notably Sen. Ted Cruz, who said during a Senate subcommittee hearing in June that there is a ‘systematic campaign’ launched by the Chinese Communist Party and American left-wing activists to weaponize the court systems to ‘undermine American energy dominance.’ 

CJP, Cruz said, is a pivotal player in the ‘lawfare’ as it works to secure ‘judicial capture.’ 

Judicial communications with climate activists over litigation and environmental issues date back years. In 2019, a federal judge hit ‘reply all’ to an email chain with 45 other judges and court staff about an invitation to a climate seminar hosted by the Environmental Law Institute. Colleagues later chastised the judge for sharing ‘this nonsense’ and suggested it was an ethics violation, though others defended the judge’s decision, saying flagging the event was not unethical.

Fox News Digital reached also reached out to NJC, DOJ and Tatel for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.