Welcome home, Uncle Herschel.

Responding to a weeklong barrage of complaints from its loyal customers, Cracker Barrel announced late Tuesday it was scrapping the restaurant’s rebranding campaign and returning to its classic logo.

‘We thank our guests for sharing their voices and love for Cracker Barrel,’ the company posted on X. ‘We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away and our ‘Old Timer’ will remain.’

Critics immediately pounced on social media, suggesting the company was caving to right-wing pressure, including a call earlier in the day from former President Donald Trump, who encouraged the company to reverse course before it was too late.

‘Cracker Barrel should go back to the old logo, admit a mistake based on customer response (the ultimate poll), and manage the company better than ever before,’ Trump urged early Tuesday. They got a billion dollars’ worth of free publicity if they play their cards right. Very tricky to do, but a great opportunity. Have a major news conference today. Make Cracker Barrel a WINNER again.’

Trump then acknowledged the company’s mea culpa Tuesday night.

‘Congratulations Cracker Barrel on changing your logo back to what it was. All of your fans very much appreciate it,’ Trump wrote. ‘Good luck in the future. Make lots of money and, most importantly, make your customers happy again!’

Company executives need to go beyond restoring the logo and acknowledge that Cracker Barrel was built on moral, commonsense values. 

Attributing the company’s decision to Trump’s remarks about the logo misses the larger concern. Returning Uncle Herschel to his chair beside the barrel is a start, but if that’s where the company retreat ends, Cracker Barrel will continue to sell fewer biscuits, fried chicken and Mama’s pancakes in the years to come.

Sadly, today’s Cracker Barrel isn’t your aunt or uncle’s wholesome highway pit stop it once was.

In recent years, Cracker Barrel has sponsored Pride events, partnered with the Human Rights Campaign to fan and normalize pronoun nonsense and sexual confusion and warmly embraced corporate DEI efforts. In the process, its stock price has dropped from a high of $147.91 in 2021 to the mid-$50s today.

Corporate rebranding and cultural firestorms often flow from internal ideological ignorance and progressive arrogance to outside firms obsessed with forcing their distorted and often woke worldview on everyone else.

Reports now suggest Cracker Barrel dismissed or ignored earlier warnings from investors. Sardar Biglari, one such entrepreneur, called the entire rebranding exercise ‘obvious folly.’

How did Cracker Barrel manage to go off its rocker?

If this story sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen it before. From Coca-Cola’s ‘New Coke’ fiasco in the 1980s to Bud Light’s tone-deaf campaign celebrating Dylan Mulvaney, there’s precedent for corporations committing unforced errors. It took decades for Bud Light to cultivate its brand and just 32 hours to destroy it.

While the company says the man in the logo is a composite, ‘Uncle Herschel’ was a real man and a real uncle of Danny Evins, the company’s founder. Cracker Barrel even calls him the ‘soul of Cracker Barrel.’ He was a salesman who frequented general stores all over the South and was known to ‘sit a spell’ and visit with customers. At company headquarters in Lebanon, Tenn., there’s even a statue of him standing beside an empty bench as if to invite you to sit and converse.

I think Herschel, who died in 1998, would have some thoughts about what’s been going on.

When Coca-Cola was fielding complaints after rolling out its new formula in 1985, company president Don Keough decided to take some of the protest calls himself. One was from an elderly woman. She was crying.

‘I said, ‘Honey, what’s the matter?’’ he recalled. ‘She said, ‘You’re taking away Coca-Cola … You’re playing around with my youth.’’

The late David Ogilvy, nicknamed the ‘Father of Advertising,’ knew well the lure and idiocy of trying to fix something that isn’t broken. ‘It takes uncommon guts to stick to one style in the face of all the pressures to come up with something new every six months,’ he warned. ‘It is tragically easy to be stampeded into change.’

Cracker Barrel underestimated the emotional tug and power of its familiar logo. In a world of constant change, Herschel remained a constant. In an economy that seems to celebrate the hard-charging, the old man represents those who are comfortable and content — a reprieve from the chaos and noisy churn everywhere else.

Company executives need to go beyond restoring the logo and acknowledge that Cracker Barrel was built on moral, commonsense values. They should politely pivot from politically correct corporate silliness and simply embrace the wholesome, sensible and timeless standards that have driven the company’s success: truth, fairness, kindness, respect and good old-fashioned hospitality.

The lesson here is simple: If you don’t want your company to go broke, resist the urge to go woke.

Cracker Barrel says it’s listening — but time will tell who the company is listening to in the days to come.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is hitting the road this week to promote President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ to Americans across the country.

Among his first stops was Tennessee’s iconic Nashville Palace, where he spoke with employees about the massive GOP agenda bill’s provisions eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages.

‘We’re so glad to see y’all. We’re here to talk about the no tax on tips provision,’ Johnson said in a video obtained exclusively by Fox News Digital. ‘You know what this means, at the end of the day, everybody has more money in their pockets and less money they’ve got to send to Washington.’

The footage also shows Nashville Palace general manager Cole noting that his staff were ‘happier.’

‘Everybody’s a little more happy when they make a little more money,’ Cole said.

Johnson also spoke directly with workers Vince and Shelby at the event, with Shelby telling the speaker she was ‘really happy to hear’ about the new tax provisions.

‘We think the numbers for Tennessee are pretty extraordinary,’ Johnson replied, noting ‘there’s a lot of tipped workers in Music City.’

Bartender Vince noted that eliminating taxes on tips would make his life ‘easier,’ later noting that it would give him a chance to travel and worry less about money.

It comes as Republicans have launched a full-court press tour promoting Trump’s agenda bill, even as Democrats attempt to wield it as a political cudgel ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Critics of the bill have positioned it as a tax giveaway for wealthy Americans at the expense of vulnerable Americans, citing provisions including new heightened work requirements for certain people on Medicaid and who receive federal food benefits.

Johnson took on those criticisms as well later that evening, while speaking at an event for the Tennessee Republican Party.

‘That’s real money for real people,’ Johnson said of the legislation. ‘Now, we can never forget. We never forget that every single Democrat in Congress – House and Senate – voted against every one of those big wins for the people. And we’ve got to remind the voters of that when the left lies about our bills.’

He accused Democrats of ‘lying’ about the legislation as their only political crutch.

‘How many of you know that’s all they got left? They don’t have a leader, no platform, no policies that are digestible by the American people. They just have to lie about what we’re doing,’ Johnson said.

‘Democrats voted against the prosperity and security of the American people. And they voted against working families’ tax cuts. It’s that simple, and they cannot escape it.’

Trump himself called the legislation ‘the largest working-class tax cuts in American history’ in comments to reporters ahead of a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday.

The bill passed the House and Senate just before GOP leaders’ self-imposed Fourth of July deadline, with Trump marking the holiday in a large signing ceremony.

But the Democratic opposition this August has been fierce. 

In addition to holding events in their own constituencies, both House and Senate Democrats have traveled across the country criticizing the bill.

‘Just spoke with seniors in Martinsville about some of the fallout from Trump’s Big Ugly Bill,’ Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., wrote on X of a recent event he held in his state. ‘When the impacts of this scam start, we’re all going to be stuck footing the bill with worse and more expensive health care.’

President Donald Trump boasted that he has raised more than $1.5 billion ‘in various forms and political entities’ following the 2024 presidential contest.

‘I am pleased to report that I have raised, since the Great Presidential Election of 2024, in various forms and political entities, in excess of 1.5 Billion Dollars. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! President DJT,’ he wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

Trump, who is currently serving his second term in office, is constitutionally barred from being elected president a third time.

‘No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,’ the 22nd Amendment states.

But despite being term-limited from running again, Trump remains a Republican juggernaut.

And with the 2026 midterms on the horizon, and the Republican majority in each chamber of Congress on the line, the money could help the GOP maintain its grip on power through the end of the president’s White House tenure.

Fox News Digital reported in late June that Trump had secured commitments for $1.4 billion following Election Day in 2024. ‘The president’s political operation, including the cash on hand at the Republican National Committee, has raised a historic $900 million since November, and other commitments will bring the total to more than $1.4 billion,’ the report noted.

House Democrats are urging the Trump administration to allow children injured in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war to enter the U.S. for emergency medical care.

In an Aug. 25 letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, more than 140 lawmakers asked for the reversal of a recent move to halt the approval of all visitor visas for people from the Gaza Strip, including children in need of medical care.

‘This pause will deny children the medical care they desperately need. It is wrong to prevent children who are caught in the middle of this horrific conflict from receiving lifesaving medical care,’ the letter reads.

‘In addition, this decision ignores the fact that all Palestinians leaving Gaza for medical treatment or to accompany family members receiving medical treatment are already subject to rigorous vetting by the Israeli government, including an Israeli security clearance, identity verification, and an assessment whether they are linked to Hamas,’ it continued.

The letter comes after the State Department abruptly announced earlier this month that it would stop issuing travel visas to people from Gaza, including medical-humanitarian visas, while it reviewed the process that allowed some of those individuals to enter the U.S. Some had already done so before the pause.

‘All visitor visas for individuals from Gaza are being stopped while we conduct a full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days,’ the State Department wrote in a social media post on Aug. 16, without offering additional details.

Rubio has said the change was made after several congressional offices reached out with allegations ‘that some of the organizations bragging about, and involved in, acquiring these visas have strong links to terrorist groups like Hamas.’

‘It’s not just kids, it’s a bunch of adults that are accompanying them,’ Rubio said during an appearance on CBS News’ ‘Face the Nation’ the day after the announcement.

Before the agency’s announcement, several children from Gaza arrived in the U.S. to receive medical treatment ‘without incident,’ the House Democrats wrote in the letter.

‘We appeal to you to immediately reverse the State Department’s decision and resume allowing those from Gaza with approved temporary medical-humanitarian visas to enter the United States to receive the lifesaving care they need,’ the lawmakers wrote to Rubio.

The letter asks Rubio to specify the national security concerns that sparked the change to visa approvals. The lawmakers also requested a timeline for the agency’s review process and asked what safeguards are being considered to prevent the disruption of emergency medical care programs.

The Democrats also called on the department to allow children from Gaza requiring emergency medical attention to be exempt from the pause.

‘We would appreciate any clarification regarding the policy’s basis and a reassessment of its impact on vulnerable individuals and families in desperate need,’ the letter reads.

President Donald Trump is pushing a new economic strategy: having the U.S. government take direct stakes in major U.S. companies. He argues it’s a way to make the country stronger by shoring up industries that fuel prosperity and safeguard national security.

The first big example came last week, when the White House announced the government now owns nearly 10% of Intel. The California-based chipmaker had received federal grants to boost U.S. production, but those funds have now been converted into a formal ownership share.

The U.S. government has historically offered loans, tax breaks, or contracts to private companies — but owning stock in them is much less common, raising questions about how far Trump’s approach might go and how Intel’s competitors may view the move.

One of those competitors, SkyWater Technology, a Minnesota-based semiconductor foundry with deep ties to the defense sector, welcomed the precedent while underscoring its all-American footprint.

‘We view equity stakes as an important tool to ensure accountability when taxpayer dollars support companies whose global structures raise questions about long-term U.S. benefit,’ Ross Miller, SVP of Commercial and A&D Business, told Fox News Digital. 

He contrasted that with SkyWater’s position as a fully domestic manufacturer: ‘SkyWater is different — we are U.S.-headquartered and U.S.-operated, with no foreign ownership or entanglements.’

‘Every dollar invested here directly strengthens America’s infrastructure, workforce, and independence,’ Miller added.

Looking ahead, he said SkyWater hopes to deepen collaboration with the Trump administration to expand domestic capacity in foundational chip technologies — the tried-and-true manufacturing methods that still power reliable systems in airplanes, automobiles, defense, biomedical equipment and even quantum computing.

SkyWater isn’t the only U.S. chipmaker that could be affected by Trump’s new approach. New York-based GlobalFoundries, a semiconductor manufacturer, operates large-scale chip fabs in New York and Vermont. Supported by federal funding, these sites play a central role in U.S. efforts to bring back more domestic chip production.

Given the firm’s federally-backed fabs on U.S. soil, GlobalFoundries could become a candidate for equity-linked deals tied to Trump’s semiconductor resilience goals. 

Similarly, Micron Technology, which is investing tens of billions of dollars to build memory chip fabs in New York and Idaho with the support of CHIPS Act funding, could also fall under consideration. The Boise, Idaho-based company has positioned itself as a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to restore leadership in advanced memory manufacturing.

GlobalFoundries and Micron did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

On Monday, Trump suggested this was just the beginning. ‘I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,’ he told reporters at the White House, hinting that his administration could pursue similar deals in other sectors.

But not everyone sees the move as positive. 

‘This is bad policy and the most glaring example to date of the administration’s tilt towards socialism. It’s an unprecedented move, so I’m hesitant to make any predictions,’ explained Jai Kedia, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives.

Kedia also warned the policy could display ‘favoritism towards large firms that can negotiate deals with the executive at the expense of small and mid-size firms that do not have the political clout to arrange such deals.’

President Donald Trump is pushing a new economic strategy: having the U.S. government take direct stakes in major U.S. companies. He argues it’s a way to make the country stronger by shoring up industries that fuel prosperity and safeguard national security.

The first big example came last week, when the White House announced the government now owns nearly 10% of Intel. The California-based chipmaker had received federal grants to boost U.S. production, but those funds have now been converted into a formal ownership share.

The U.S. government has historically offered loans, tax breaks, or contracts to private companies — but owning stock in them is much less common, raising questions about how far Trump’s approach might go and how Intel’s competitors may view the move.

One of those competitors, SkyWater Technology, a Minnesota-based semiconductor foundry with deep ties to the defense sector, welcomed the precedent while underscoring its all-American footprint.

‘We view equity stakes as an important tool to ensure accountability when taxpayer dollars support companies whose global structures raise questions about long-term U.S. benefit,’ Ross Miller, SVP of Commercial and A&D Business, told Fox News Digital. 

He contrasted that with SkyWater’s position as a fully domestic manufacturer: ‘SkyWater is different — we are U.S.-headquartered and U.S.-operated, with no foreign ownership or entanglements.’

‘Every dollar invested here directly strengthens America’s infrastructure, workforce, and independence,’ Miller added.

Looking ahead, he said SkyWater hopes to deepen collaboration with the Trump administration to expand domestic capacity in foundational chip technologies — the tried-and-true manufacturing methods that still power reliable systems in airplanes, automobiles, defense, biomedical equipment and even quantum computing.

SkyWater isn’t the only U.S. chipmaker that could be affected by Trump’s new approach. New York-based GlobalFoundries, a semiconductor manufacturer, operates large-scale chip fabs in New York and Vermont. Supported by federal funding, these sites play a central role in U.S. efforts to bring back more domestic chip production.

Given the firm’s federally-backed fabs on U.S. soil, GlobalFoundries could become a candidate for equity-linked deals tied to Trump’s semiconductor resilience goals. 

Similarly, Micron Technology, which is investing tens of billions of dollars to build memory chip fabs in New York and Idaho with the support of CHIPS Act funding, could also fall under consideration. The Boise, Idaho-based company has positioned itself as a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to restore leadership in advanced memory manufacturing.

GlobalFoundries and Micron did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

On Monday, Trump suggested this was just the beginning. ‘I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,’ he told reporters at the White House, hinting that his administration could pursue similar deals in other sectors.

But not everyone sees the move as positive. 

‘This is bad policy and the most glaring example to date of the administration’s tilt towards socialism. It’s an unprecedented move, so I’m hesitant to make any predictions,’ explained Jai Kedia, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives.

Kedia also warned the policy could display ‘favoritism towards large firms that can negotiate deals with the executive at the expense of small and mid-size firms that do not have the political clout to arrange such deals.’

Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin Tuesday, calling on him to cancel funding to a left-wing environmental group accused of training and lobbying judges on climate policy, Fox News Digital exclusively learned. 

‘As attorney general, I refuse to stand by while Americans’ tax dollars fund radical environmental training for judges across the country,’ Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital of his push to encourage the EPA to end its funding of the Climate Judiciary Project. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call ‘neutral’ education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system,’ he said. ‘I commend President Trump’s efforts to cut waste and abuse during the first eight months of his presidency, and I am optimistic that his Administration will do the right thing and halt all funding to ELI.’ 

Knudsen spearheaded the letter sent to Zeldin Tuesday, which included the signatures of 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calling for the EPA to axe its funding to the left-wing environmental nonprofit, called the Environmental Law Institute, which oversees the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). 

The Environmental Law Institute founded the Climate Judiciary Project in 2018, which pitches itself as a ‘first-of-its-kind effort’ that ‘provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.’ 

The group, however, has been accused of trying to manipulate judges to make them more amenable to left-wing climate litigation. 

The letter sent Tuesday called on the EPA specifically to end any grants and awards endowed to the group. 

‘We write to bring to your attention grants made by EPA to the Environmental Law Institute (‘ELI’),’ the letter reads. ‘According to its 2024 financial statements, ELI received approximately 13% of its revenue in 2023, and 8.4% in 2024, from EPA awards. ELI also apparently still expected to receive funds from the federal government; its financial statement warned that the collectability of federal grant funds ‘is subject to significant uncertainty related to collectability and continual funding due to (the federal grant) funding freeze or other federal actions.”

The Environmental Law Institute received $637,591 from the EPA in 2024 and $866,402 in 2023 from the EPA, according to nonprofit tax documents published by ProPublica detailing the group’s federal expenditures that year. 

‘The Climate Judiciary Project’s mission is clear: lobby judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts,’ 23 state attorneys general wrote in the letter. ‘An alumni magazine profile said the quiet part out loud, writing that the Climate Judiciary Project co-founder was ‘explaining the science of climate change to a group of people with real power to act on it: judges.’ The Climate Judiciary Project’s tampering raises serious legal and ethical questions.’ 

The Environmental Law Institute, however, in a recent comment to Fox News Digital, has maintained that its educational programs through Climate Judiciary Project are in accordance with the standards established by national judicial education institutions. 

Climate Judiciary Project educational events are done ‘in partnership with leading national judicial education institutions and state judicial authorities, in accordance with their accepted standards,’ a spokesperson for the group said in an emailed statement in July. ‘Its curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

‘CJP’s work is no different than the work of other continuing judicial education organizations that address important complex topics, including medicine, tech and neuroscience,’ an Environmental Law Institute spokesperson previously told Fox News Digital when asked about its educational programs.

The call for EPA to slash any funds to the Environmental Law Institute was celebrated by leading groups such as the American Energy Institute and the Alliance for Consumers, who lamented in a comment to Fox Digital that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund the group and that ‘courtroom maneuvering’ threatens day-to-day life. 

‘The State Attorneys General are right to call for the elimination of taxpayer funding for the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project,’ Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox Digital. ‘This is a coordinated campaign to advance the Green New Deal through the judiciary using so-called climate litigation in the courts. Its curriculum is developed by climate alarmist allies of the plaintiffs and delivered to judges behind closed doors. Public funds should never be used to finance political advocacy disguised as judicial education.’

O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which is a nonprofit focused on advocating on behalf of American consumers, remarked that ‘as we have long warned, the left has a plan to reshape American society by using lawsuits in courts all across the country, especially in places like Hawaii and other coastal enclaves.’

‘The new wave of revelations about ELI is further concerning evidence of how committed the left is to imposing mandatory Progressive Lifestyle Choices through this courtroom maneuvering and how big a threat it really is to all our ways of life,’ Skinner added. 

The Tuesday letter specifically argued: ‘State consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive and misleading statements to market a product. ELI is representing its training as objective when reality shows that it is not. State Attorneys General are responsible for protecting consumers, and we are concerned by ELI’s statements.’

The EPA has taken a hatchet to millions of dollars doled out under the Biden administration to left-wing groups and other programs deemed a waste of taxpayer funds upon Zeldin’s Senate confirmation as EPA chief in January. 

The EPA under the Trump administration has canceled $20 billion in grants under the Inflation Reduction Act — which has led to an ongoing court battle. Zeldin said in March that the $20 billion in U.S. tax dollars were ‘parked at an outside financial institution in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight, doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified, and in some cases brand-new NGOs.’

The state attorneys general reflected on the previous cuts in their call to Zeldin to do the same to ELI funding. 

‘Under President Trump’s bold leadership, federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency have saved an estimated $190 billion, including terminating more than 15,000 grants that saved approximately $44 billion,’ the letter states. ‘You have heeded President Trump’s directive and achieved monumental savings for taxpayers. You canceled $20 billion in climate grants under the Inflation Reduction Act. You canceled another $1.7 billion in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants.3 And you canceled 800 environmental justice grants.’ 

Climate Judiciary Project and the Environmental Law Institute previously have come under fire from lawmakers such as Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused the groups of working to ‘train judges’ and ‘make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics.’

The Texas Republican recently has argued 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.’

Climate Judiciary Project is a pivotal player in the ‘lawfare’ as it works to secure ‘judicial capture,’ according to Cruz, Fox Digital has previously reported. 

The FBI’s raid on John Bolton’s home and office is tied to an investigation that reaches beyond his controversial book, a source told Fox News Digital, fueling speculation that the former Trump adviser could face criminal charges.

The scope of any potential charges against Bolton, who served under President Donald Trump before falling out of favor with him in 2019, is uncertain, but experts tend to agree that Bolton has some legal exposure.

Prominent D.C.-based attorney Mark Zaid, who specializes in national security, said that while there are many unknowns about the Department of Justice’s investigation into Bolton, his memoir, ‘The Room Where It Happened,’ could be an area of vulnerability for him.

‘With respect to Bolton’s book, he is potentially vulnerable if he maintains any copies of early drafts which were determined to contain ‘voluminous’ amounts of classified information when it was first submitted to the White House for review,’ Zaid told Fox New Digital. ‘Those drafts were likely disseminated, per normal course of business, to his literary agent, publisher and lawyer.’

Zaid added that those transmissions could be unlawful under the Espionage Act, a serious set of charges used throughout history to punish spies and leakers of government secrets.

During the first Trump administration, Attorney General Bill Barr opened an investigation into Bolton and brought a civil lawsuit against him over the book days before it was set for release.

The DOJ alleged in the lawsuit that Bolton skipped over normal prepublication review processes and allowed his publisher to move forward with printing a book that contained several passages of classified national security information.

In court papers, Bolton said he did not initially believe his memoir contained classified information, but then he edited some information out of the book after consulting with the National Security Council. Bolton never received a final signoff from the National Security Council before moving forward with publishing. He argued in court papers that the Trump administration’s refusal to approve the memoir’s contents violated his First Amendment rights and that the National Security Council’s review process ‘had been abused in an effort to suppress’ the book, which contained harsh criticisms of Trump.

Judge Royce Lamberth, a D.C.-based Regan appointee, denied the Trump DOJ’s request to block publication of Bolton’s book because, among several reasons, it had already been exposed to publishers. Still, Lamberth faulted Bolton.

‘Defendant Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States,’ Lamberth wrote in an order at the time. ‘He has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability.’

Lamberth found it was likely Bolton ‘jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information’ in violation of various nondisclosure agreements he signed as part of his national security role.

The DOJ never brought charges against Bolton, and the investigation was closed under the Biden administration. The Biden DOJ dismissed the civil lawsuit against Bolton over his book in June 2021.

While Bolton’s book controversy has been at the forefront since the raids at his home and office, one well-placed source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital on Monday the investigation is far more expansive than the book. 

The search warrants, which were authorized by a judge, were based on evidence collected overseas by the CIA, the New York Times reported.

Critics note Bolton is the latest target of the Trump DOJ, which despite pledging to end ‘weaponization’ has pursued several of the president’s political rivals. The department has launched grand jury probes into New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and is examining Obama-era national security officials who Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says tried to undermine Trump’s 2016 victory. Trump has also urged an investigation of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, citing ‘criminal acts’ tied to the George Washington Bridge lane-closure scandal.

Former U.S. Attorney John Fishwick of Virginia suggested the line between honest scrutiny of potential wrongdoing and political revenge has become blurred.

‘Trump DOJ targeting enemies of Trump — Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Federal Reserve Governor [Lisa] Cook and now John Bolton. Trump appears to want them harmed for personal/political reasons but if they broke the law are the investigations justified?’ Fishwick told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘That question is putting an incredible stress test on our legal system.’

Zaid noted that Bolton could bring claims of a selective or vindictive prosecution if he were indicted but that those are difficult to prove.

Attorney Jason Kander, an Army veteran and former secretary of state of Missouri, said on the podcast ‘Talking Feds’ that even if the DOJ does not secure a conviction against Bolton, the legal process itself is punishment.

‘It’s not just harassment. It’s potential financial ruin,’ Kander said. ‘When they come after you like this it doesn’t matter if there isn’t a scintilla of evidence. It’s a minimum half a million bucks in legal fees in a situation like this.’

Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro tore into John Bolton for ‘profiteering off America’s secrets’ on Tuesday after the FBI raided his home last week in a reported classified document probe.

‘I served with Bolton, and he was far too frequently a loose cannon, bent on bombings and coups — Doctor Strangelove with a mustache,’ Navarro, who also advised Trump on trade during his first term, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill.

‘He agitated for airstrikes, pushed regime-change fantasies, and obsessed over military solutions when diplomacy was working. Then, instead of honoring executive privilege and confidential debate, Bolton acknowledged that in writing his memoir he relied on the ‘copious notes’ he had conspicuously taken inside the White House.’ 

Bolton published a book in 2020, ‘The Room Where it Happened,’ reportedly receiving a $2 million advance for a tell-all of his time in the Trump administration. He served as Trump’s national security advisor starting in 2018 but fell out with the president and left the position in 2019. 

Navarro accused Bolton of ‘sharing information about Oval Office conversations and national security that should have stayed secret — either by law or under executive privilege.’

‘That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets.’

Navarro noted that Bolton had described confidential U.S. deliberations on how to fracture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s control and prompt military defections. 

‘That kind of blueprint isn’t something you hand to the public — or to Maduro’s intelligence services.’

He noted that disclosing national defense information without authorization could violate U.S. code. 

‘If evidence is found and indictments made, Bolton may one day go to prison for shredding that Constitution, defying executive privilege, and trampling safeguards meant to protect America’s security,’ Navarro said. ‘If that happens, Bolton won’t be remembered for his book tour. He’ll be remembered for the sequel he writes in prison.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to a spokesperson for Bolton for comment. 

Navarro spent four months in prison last year after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

The FBI executed a search warrant on Bolton’s home and office on Friday. 

Democrats have also fumed about Bolton’s book: when the former national security advisor refused to serve as their star witness during the first Trump impeachment related to Ukraine, they accused him of saving the juicy details for his memoir. 

In June 2020, Judge Royce Lamberth found Bolton had ‘likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.’ 

He’d submitted the 500-page manuscript for a national security review, but when the review wasn’t completed in four months, he ‘pulled the plug on the process and sent the still-under-review manuscript to the publisher for printing,’ according to the judge. 

Lamberth allowed the book to hit the shelves because ‘the horse is already out of the barn‘ – the book’s excerpts had already been leaked and 200,000 copies had been shipped.

Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin Tuesday, calling on him to cancel funding to a left-wing environmental group accused of training and lobbying judges on climate policy, Fox News Digital exclusively learned. 

‘As attorney general, I refuse to stand by while Americans’ tax dollars fund radical environmental training for judges across the country,’ Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital of his push to encourage the EPA to end its funding of the Climate Judiciary Project. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call ‘neutral’ education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system,’ he said. ‘I commend President Trump’s efforts to cut waste and abuse during the first eight months of his presidency, and I am optimistic that his Administration will do the right thing and halt all funding to ELI.’ 

Knudsen spearheaded the letter sent to Zeldin Tuesday, which included the signatures of 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calling for the EPA to axe its funding to the left-wing environmental nonprofit, called the Environmental Law Institute, which oversees the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). 

The Environmental Law Institute founded the Climate Judiciary Project in 2018, which pitches itself as a ‘first-of-its-kind effort’ that ‘provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.’ 

The group, however, has been accused of trying to manipulate judges to make them more amenable to left-wing climate litigation. 

The letter sent Tuesday called on the EPA specifically to end any grants and awards endowed to the group. 

‘We write to bring to your attention grants made by EPA to the Environmental Law Institute (‘ELI’),’ the letter reads. ‘According to its 2024 financial statements, ELI received approximately 13% of its revenue in 2023, and 8.4% in 2024, from EPA awards. ELI also apparently still expected to receive funds from the federal government; its financial statement warned that the collectability of federal grant funds ‘is subject to significant uncertainty related to collectability and continual funding due to (the federal grant) funding freeze or other federal actions.”

The Environmental Law Institute received $637,591 from the EPA in 2024 and $866,402 in 2023 from the EPA, according to nonprofit tax documents published by ProPublica detailing the group’s federal expenditures that year. 

‘The Climate Judiciary Project’s mission is clear: lobby judges in order to make climate change policy through the courts,’ 23 state attorneys general wrote in the letter. ‘An alumni magazine profile said the quiet part out loud, writing that the Climate Judiciary Project co-founder was ‘explaining the science of climate change to a group of people with real power to act on it: judges.’ The Climate Judiciary Project’s tampering raises serious legal and ethical questions.’ 

The Environmental Law Institute, however, in a recent comment to Fox News Digital, has maintained that its educational programs through Climate Judiciary Project are in accordance with the standards established by national judicial education institutions. 

Climate Judiciary Project educational events are done ‘in partnership with leading national judicial education institutions and state judicial authorities, in accordance with their accepted standards,’ a spokesperson for the group said in an emailed statement in July. ‘Its curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

‘CJP’s work is no different than the work of other continuing judicial education organizations that address important complex topics, including medicine, tech and neuroscience,’ an Environmental Law Institute spokesperson previously told Fox News Digital when asked about its educational programs.

The call for EPA to slash any funds to the Environmental Law Institute was celebrated by leading groups such as the American Energy Institute and the Alliance for Consumers, who lamented in a comment to Fox Digital that taxpayer funds should not be used to fund the group and that ‘courtroom maneuvering’ threatens day-to-day life. 

‘The State Attorneys General are right to call for the elimination of taxpayer funding for the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project,’ Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told Fox Digital. ‘This is a coordinated campaign to advance the Green New Deal through the judiciary using so-called climate litigation in the courts. Its curriculum is developed by climate alarmist allies of the plaintiffs and delivered to judges behind closed doors. Public funds should never be used to finance political advocacy disguised as judicial education.’

O.H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance for Consumers, which is a nonprofit focused on advocating on behalf of American consumers, remarked that ‘as we have long warned, the left has a plan to reshape American society by using lawsuits in courts all across the country, especially in places like Hawaii and other coastal enclaves.’

‘The new wave of revelations about ELI is further concerning evidence of how committed the left is to imposing mandatory Progressive Lifestyle Choices through this courtroom maneuvering and how big a threat it really is to all our ways of life,’ Skinner added. 

The Tuesday letter specifically argued: ‘State consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive and misleading statements to market a product. ELI is representing its training as objective when reality shows that it is not. State Attorneys General are responsible for protecting consumers, and we are concerned by ELI’s statements.’

The EPA has taken a hatchet to millions of dollars doled out under the Biden administration to left-wing groups and other programs deemed a waste of taxpayer funds upon Zeldin’s Senate confirmation as EPA chief in January. 

The EPA under the Trump administration has canceled $20 billion in grants under the Inflation Reduction Act — which has led to an ongoing court battle. Zeldin said in March that the $20 billion in U.S. tax dollars were ‘parked at an outside financial institution in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight, doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified, and in some cases brand-new NGOs.’

The state attorneys general reflected on the previous cuts in their call to Zeldin to do the same to ELI funding. 

‘Under President Trump’s bold leadership, federal agencies and the Department of Government Efficiency have saved an estimated $190 billion, including terminating more than 15,000 grants that saved approximately $44 billion,’ the letter states. ‘You have heeded President Trump’s directive and achieved monumental savings for taxpayers. You canceled $20 billion in climate grants under the Inflation Reduction Act. You canceled another $1.7 billion in diversity, equity, and inclusion grants.3 And you canceled 800 environmental justice grants.’ 

Climate Judiciary Project and the Environmental Law Institute previously have come under fire from lawmakers such as Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who accused the groups of working to ‘train judges’ and ‘make them agreeable to creative climate litigation tactics.’

The Texas Republican recently has argued 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.’

Climate Judiciary Project is a pivotal player in the ‘lawfare’ as it works to secure ‘judicial capture,’ according to Cruz, Fox Digital has previously reported.