This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man has been charged with a felony under a federal law that makes it illegal to point a laser at an aircraft.
The reasoning isn't complicated. Lasers, even those hand-held pointer units, can blind a pilot, even injure his eyes, and when the pilot is in control of a jet the consequences can be dire.
In this case, it was President Donald Trump's helicopter that allegedly was the target.
So Jacob Winkler was charged.
But now a magistrate judge, Zia Faruqui, has decided that Winkler doesn't need to be kept in custody.
Investigative reporter Julie Kelly confirmed, "He [Faruqui] just denied Trump DOJ's request to detain Jacob Winkler.
Police reports confirmed, "The red laser beam hit Officer Santiago's eyes and briefly disoriented him. At this time, Marine One flew at a relatively low height and directly above Officer Santiago and [Winkler's] location. Marine One was close enough that the rotor noise was loud, and the aircraft appeared large overhead. Officer Santiago approached [Winkler] after being flashed in the face with the red laser. Upon approach, [Winkler] looked up, oriented the same red laser pointer at the direction of Marine One and activated the red laser beam."
A report at the Gateway Pundit explained the situation.
"Radical magistrate judge denied the Justice Department's request to detain a man who tried to take down Marine One with a red laser pointer."
The federal complaint said Winkler immediately was handcuffed, but it also noted the danger of "risk of flash blindness and pilot disorientation," especially in a presidential helicopter flying at low altitudes.
Winkler was charged with 18 U.S. Code § 39A, a law that prohibits aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.
The penalties under the law could be up to five years in prison.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man who was sentenced to months in a federal prison for an online joke about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race, which she lost, has been formally cleared.
Douglass Mackey posted on social media the statement "TOTAL EXONERATION" along with a copy of a federal court order declaring, "It is ordered that the defendant is acquitted, discharged, and any bond exonerated."
He was charged, by a Department of Justice weaponized by Joe Biden, with interfering with an election, and convicted and sentenced to seven months in prison. His appeals kept him out, and while the court case was dropped as illegal some time ago, the final ruling just arrived.
He had joked, about Clinton, that her supporters should avoid the lines on election day and vote online.
Leftist prosecutors wildly claimed that Mackey tricked some 5,000 people into voting by text or social, even thought that was impossible, since there is no process for online voting.
It was in 2020, right after Biden moved into the White House, "one of the very first things his weaponized DOJ did was launch a political hit job on Douglass Mackey, a conservative influencer who dared to mock Hillary Clinton with a satirical meme during the 2016 election. The meme was obviously a joke and clearly protected speech. But that didn't matter. What mattered was the message it sent: mock the regime, and we'll destroy your life. So, that's exactly what the Biden regime did," Revolver commented.
That publication contacted Mackey after the court released its order.
He said, "Although personally satisfying, this victory is for the American people. This victory is for all who donated and prayed and lawyered and spread the word to help win this case. It was an honor to stand for free speech," he said. "After pouring many hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars into this case, I look forward to winning a settlement with the Trump DOJ, which is doing a great job righting the wrongs of the last administration."
He cited a lawyer he's retained for those negotiations.
He also said he's excited to have another legal team to pursue "accountability and reforms" inside the DOJ to prevent future weaponization like that which Biden demanded.
WND had reported when he confirmed his plan to seek damages.
It was the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that destroyed the Biden administration's years-long war against Mackey by vacating his conviction.
Revolver reported, "Many also believe the Mackey case was a test run. Because if they could twist a meme into a federal crime and throw a young guy in prison, could they also go after a former president? Turns out, yes. They could. And they did."
Mackey's lawyer said it's a priority to secure compensation for damages Biden's DOJ inflicted.
Also possible? Suing DOJ attorneys in their personal capacity and filing misconduct complaints against them, the report noted.
Also they will work with Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate how the case could come about, "who originated it, and whose heads need to roll for it."
When the Biden DOJ weaponization was at its strongest, Mackey was convicted and sentenced to prison.
He pointed out in his appeal that the government's case, left standing, would criminalize not just political misinformation and satire, but also "lies about also whether and for whom to vote. Such a sprawling political speech code is in the teeth of every applicable canon for reading criminal laws, and grossly offends the First Amendment."
WND also reported that a "progressive activist told Trump supporters to vote by text, but Biden's weaponized DOJ gave her a pass.
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's administration couldn't withhold billions of dollars in aid from states that refused to enforce immigration law, Newsweek reported. Judge William E. Smith of the District of Rhode Island, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, sided with 20 Democrat-led states in his decision.
The Department of Homeland Security linked Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief funds to each state's compliance with illegal immigration enforcement. The lawsuit against this action was spearheaded by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha and the attorneys general from the other states that reject border security and immigration measures.
"We are experiencing creeping authoritarianism in this country, and as a people we must continue to resist. Using the safety of Americans as collateral, the Trump Administration is once again illegally subverting the Congress, bullying the states to relinquish their right, ensured by the Constitution, to enact policies and laws that best serve their residents," Neronha charged.
"By threatening to withhold these congressionally allocated funds, used for projects like fixing highways and preparing for natural disasters, the President is willing to put our collective safety at risk," he added. Smith granted a permanent injunction to the enforcement of this rule.
According to the Boston Globe, the DHS guidance originated with a Trump executive order stating that "sanctuary" jurisdictions, which don't enforce immigration law, should be denied funding from federal agencies, including the DHS and FEMA. In February, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued guidelines for all agencies under her direction to hold states wishing to receive financial assistance grants to that standard.
The DHS doubled down in March by requiring states receiving grants to certify that they wouldn't administer any program that "benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration" currently or in the future. This triggered several states to file lawsuits challenging the DHS's authority to impose such guidance without a statutory basis.
The attorneys general from California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and all New England states except New Hampshire joined the lawsuit. FEMA and the DHS argued that the agencies were given Congressional permission to administer funds as they see fit, including homeland security grants.
The judge disagreed, calling those conditions on funding "unlawfully ambitious" and "hopeleslly vague," Smith said in his 45-page ruling. “States cannot predict how DHS will interpret these vague terms, yet they risk losing billions in federal funding for any perceived violation,” Smith wrote in his decision.
"Nor did DHS consider the public safety consequences of undermining state emergency budgets in this way. As a result, the conditions not only jeopardize states’ fiscal planning but also threaten their capacity to protect public safety in the areas where federal and state cooperation is most critical," Smith said.
Smith decided that the rule couldn't be enforced "regardless of DHS’s arguments related to its authority to promulgate them because the contested conditions are both arbitrary and capricious under the APA and unconstitutional under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution," the judge wrote. Smith said that since the states would "suffer irreparable harm," the only remedy would be "injunctive relief."
However, that might not be the end of it for the Trump administration. As attorney Andrew Branca pointed out, the Trump administration has had much success getting these lower court rulings overturned at the Supreme Court.
"Trump is currently 19-0 at the Supreme Court this year alone, and has many more wins at the Court of Appeals level," the podcast host wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter on Wednesday. "Final judicial losses for Trump? ZERO," Branca added. He noted that the "anti-Trump, anti-Constitutional 'rulings' of these unelected, tyrannical, inferior, federal district court judges" often don't stand.
These lower court rulings are so frequently and consistently reversed either by the Court of Appeals or by SCOTUS that it's not worth the effort to cover them anymore.
Trump is currently 19-0 at the Supreme Court this year alone, and has many more wins at the Court of Appeals… https://t.co/XpEL6vLPdO
— Andrew Branca Show (@LawSelfDefense) September 24, 2025
The court's ruling means that the DHS rule is not enforceable at the moment, but a reversal on appeal could allow the Trump administration to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable through funding. Trump's agenda includes many avenues for tamping out illegal immigration, and this is just out of a plethora of options that are still on the table.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge has thrown out a lawsuit by Peter Strzok, the ex-FBI agent to openly conspired with an FBI lawyer about how to stop Donald Trump from being president at his first election, and who already negotiated a $1 million plus payout from the FBI for his dismissal, has lost his latest legal fight.
A federal judge has dismissed his claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was fired during the first Trump administration.
A report at the Gateway Pundit said, "U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, said Peter Strzok did not show his firing violated his First Amendment rights."
Strzok had claimed that his FBI managers retaliated against him because he criticized Trump and they wanted to placate the president, the report said.
Strzok was integral to the FBI agenda that brought an investigation against Trump over his 2016 campaign, the so-called "Russiagate" conspiracy theory that has since proven to have been based on lies.
The judge said Strzok's lawyers failed to show his dismissal violated the First Amendment.
Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, paramours, had discussed an "insurance policy" to keep Trump out of office.
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office…that there's no way [Trump] gets elected…but I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Strzok told Page in August 2015.
He was referring to FBI official Andrew McCabe.
"It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40," Strzok described.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "Other profanity-laced text messages between Strzok and Page showed their contempt for Donald Trump. Peter Strzok also said in a text message to Lisa Page 'we'll stop' Trump from becoming President."
His launch of the falsified "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into the lies about Trump's campaign working with Russia violated bureau policies and actually prompted his firing, the report said.
President Donald Trump and his administration are riding high after a string of Supreme Court victories in key cases, NBC News reported. The success has come in part from being particular about which issues to argue in front of the high court, which leans to a conservative majority of 6-3 among the justices.
The news outlet views Trump's choices as a careful strategy to accumulate as many wins as possible, and it appears to be working. So far, the administration has successfully argued 19 cases before the Supreme Court and has enjoyed a 16-case winning streak since its last loss in May, after another win this week.
"They’re ecstatic," a source close to the administration said of the impressive outcome. Of the emergency petitions the Trump administration brought to the Supreme Court, only two out of 28 were denied while four are still pending.
This comes as more than 300 active lawsuits are also pending against the Trump administration, while only a handful have been heard by the Supreme Court. "We are being very careful. We’re dotting our i’s, crossing our t’s. But we prepare for loss, of course. We never just assume," a White House official told NBC News.
Trump's impressive record was illustrated in a bar graph by NBC News White House reporter Katherine Doyle just before Trump notched yet another win, allowing him to dismiss the Federal Trade Commissioner. "The White House has won 18 times at the Supreme Court since Trump took office and is on a 15-case winning run. The last loss was in May," she captioned the image in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
NEW: White House ‘ecstatic’ after a long string of Supreme Court victories
The White House has won 18 times at the Supreme Court since Trump took office and is on a 15-case winning run. The last loss was in May.
W/ @lawrencehurley pic.twitter.com/qJwNMrOvXv
— Katherine Doyle (@katiadoyl) September 22, 2025
Trump's team, which includes White House counsel David Warrington, as well as former law clerks for the Supreme Court, said that these wins stem from a careful legal strategy. The orders filed are ones that they believe are solidly based in legal precedent, and also what the president thinks is most important to take on.
"We do take into consideration the fact that some things are more of a priority versus others, and most of what we’re appealing is a priority," the unnamed official explained. While the legal team expected to be sued over policy, they did not anticipate how many of Trump's executive orders would be blocked by lower courts.
"The Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings," Abigail Jackson, White House spokeswoman, explained in a statement. "The President will continue implementing the policy agenda that the American people voted for in November lawfully, and the winning will continue!"
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has been instrumental in many of Trump's wins, including his crackdown on illegal immigration and efforts to slash government waste. Sauer is a fighter and was successful in pushing back against the lawfare against Trump, arguing at the Supreme Court on his behalf before he took office.
The cases previously leveled against Trump as an individual have now been directed against his policies, with lower courts blocking many of his executive orders. As Fox News reported, these nationwide injunctions have become a significant challenge to the Trump administration's agenda, as the Supreme Court chips away at them through favorable decisions for the Administration.
Meanwhile, the administration has remained intentional about which issues to fight back on and how, which Jonathan Adler, a professor at the William & Mary Law School, said is part of the game. "There are some cases that are very likely to be losers they haven’t brought," Adler said.
"That suggests to me it has been very strategic," he added. Other significant cases could land in court, such as Trump's ability to impose tariffs, and former Federal Election Commission chairman and litigator Michael Toner believes they might break that winning streak. "They’ve had a very good few months. But the real ballgame still lies ahead," Toner said.
The Trump administration is on point with its strategy so far, as evidenced by its winning streak. Regardless of how much his opponents attack him, Trump will continue to notch victories because he has a legal team that was trained by the many attacks leveled at him for many years.
President Trump has replaced a top prosecutor in Virginia who failed to bring charges against one of his Democrat enemies, ABC reports.
In a social media post, Trump announced that he had fired Erik Siebert, who was the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Siebert was reportedly struggling to build a mortgage fraud case against New York attorney general Letitia James (D), a longtime foe of Trump.
Trump nominated a White House aide and former defense lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, to take Siebert's place.
In a series of posts, the president praised Halligan as "tough, smart, and loyal," noting she represented him during the infamous raid of Mar-A-Lago.
"What we don’t need is a Democrat Endorsed 'Republican,' I will be nominating Lindsey Halligan to be the United States Attorney in this very important part of our Great Country. She will be Fair, Smart, and will provide, desperately needed, JUSTICE FOR ALL!"
Trump cast Siebert as a pawn of the Democrats, noting he had support from both of Virginia's Democratic senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner.
"Today I withdrew the Nomination of Erik Siebert as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, when I was informed that he received the UNUSUALLY STRONG support of the two absolutely terrible, sleazebag Democrat Senators, from the Great State of Virginia,” Trump wrote.
"Next time let him go in as a Democrat, not a Republican."
After Siebert resigned on Friday, Trump said he had forced Siebert out.
"He didn’t quit, I fired him!" Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Letitia James allegedly listed a Virginia home she bought in 2023 as her "principal residence," the New York Post notes, but there is no evidence she lives there.
James targeted Trump's business empire in a controversial civil fraud case that grabbed headlines during his 2024 campaign. Trump frequently clashed with James and the judge in the case, Arthur Engoron, who handed down a staggering $500 million penalty that was thrown out by an appeals court last month.
In a post on Truth Social over the weekend, Trump complained to attorney general Pam Bondi about the inaction of the Justice Department against James and others. Trump said there is a "GREAT CASE" against James but Siebert, a "woke RINO," refused to do anything.
"Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility," Trump wrote to Bondi.
James denies all wrongdoing.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A California abortion business has found a way to circumvent the Supreme Court's constitutional rights precedents and has obtained a ruling from a radical judge that terminates two rights protected by the Constitution for a pro-life advocate.
And the American Center for Law and Justice said it is joining the fight on behalf of Chad Hunt, who is represented by the Life Legal Defense Foundation, by filing a friend-of-the-court brief in his case.
The focal point is that the trial court simply refused to use the precedents that already exist for First Amendment protections.
The case is Women's Health Specialists (WHS) v. C.H. and many parts of the case are familiar already.
"The plaintiff WHS is an abortion facility, i.e., a place that kills babies for money before they are born. The defendant, Chad Hunt, is a pro-lifer who opposes such killing. WHS has 'escorts' whose job is to disrupt pro-life advocates who are reaching out to abortion 'customers' with life-giving alternatives. One of those escorts accused Chad of bumping her three times with his stomach when she tried to interfere with other pro-life counselors outside the abortion clinic," the ACLJ explained.
While such claims routinely would involve a police citation or a civil suit, the abortion business went another direction.
"Instead, it filed for a 'Workplace Violence Restraining Order' (WVRO). That is, WHS argued that their escort was at work, that Chad's alleged bumping of her constituted 'violence,' and, therefore, a WVRO should be issued," the ACLJ said.
"Sadly, the California superior court bought WHS's arguments — and did not apply the Supreme Court standards for protecting free speech rights. In effect, the superior court let WHS use the WVRO as an end-run around the First Amendment. And the result was an order that banished Chad 100 yards from WHS, forbade all contact with the escort of any kind, and — to add injury to injury — barred Chad from owning or possessing any firearms, even at home for his own self-defense."
The ACLJ noted that the court provided that the banishment of constitutional rights lasts for three years, "and can be renewed."
"Not only is the court violating his First Amendment rights, but it's using that violation to justify violating his Second Amendment rights as well – a two-for-one evisceration of his rights. Free speech rights limit what a court can do to stifle your expressive freedom. Such rights do not evaporate just because a litigant pulls a different legal tool out of the toolbox," the legal team explained.
The organization argues, "Many Left-leaning states stand ready to crush pro-life advocates if they dare speak out for the unborn – even if that means censoring or suspending the constitutional rights of advocates. We have previously written of our recent efforts in Maine, Illinois, and Ohio to defend advocates targeted by government officials. California appears ready to simply erase freedom of speech and the Second Amendment rights of a pro-life advocate."
Hunt has appealed the egregious ruling, with the Life Legal Defense representing him, and the ACLJ is filing an additional briefing for the court.
"WVROs are supposed to protect employees from creepy or hostile colleagues or supervisors, not provide an excuse to stifle public free speech rights," the ACLJ said.
Retired FBI signature expert Wayne Barnes said after analyzing President Donald Trump's signature on a letter supposedly written to Jeffrey Epstein on his 50th birthday in the early 2000s.
Trump has consistently denied writing the letter, which was part of a book Epstein's friends put together for him, since the House Oversight Committee released it earlier this month after the letter was leaked to the press.
After looking at the letter, which had a suggestive message superimposed over a woman's body, Barnes said the first-name-only signature looked similar to the one on other personal letters sent by Trump to friends.
But there was one critical difference between Trump's Epstein letter and the others: the color of the paper.
Only the Epstein letter was on white paper. Every other letter Trump sent that bore his signature was on colored paper, Barnes said.
"Whoever created the dialogue page seems to have put a good deal of thought into it, but something was overlooked," Barnes wrote. "By far, the pages where Mr. Trump signs with his first name only, are outgoing letters where there is some coloration to the paper used. It is off-white or yellow-to-beige, but it never seems to be white.
"That means that if someone cut out an appliqué of the 'Donald' signature and tried to affix (paste or tape) it to a piece of white paper, the difference in color around the 'Donald' would stand out. So, the colored paper had to be photocopied onto a white page, so the trimming around the signature could take place and not be observed because of a different tone of the paper," he continued.
"This would mean that the ultimate color of the target paper used, on which to place the applique, would also have to be white, which is the case with the dialogue page in the birthday book," he added.
Why would a different colored paper make such a difference in whether Barnes thought Trump actually wrote the letter to Epstein?
Barnes explained,
Mr. Trump’s standard is colored paper which, it is highly likely he would have used for any outgoing letter, no matter the recipient. It is just what he does. The creator of the dialogue page could not have made his creation appear 'real,' without it all appearing to be on white paper, which is against Mr. Trump’s personal standard. It is unlikely that the culprit thought this far outside of the box, but as a professional investigator, it is in my wheelhouse to consider such things.
"A thorough investigation indicates it is highly unlikely that he penned (or with a felt-tip marker or Sharpie) or wrote his name beneath those dialogue lines and the drawing," Barnes concluded.
Barnes said it wasn't a case of someone "forging" his signature, but of fraudulently affixing it to the letter.
The result is the same--he doesn't believe Trump wrote the letter, but that someone photocopied the signature onto it.
Barnes is a 29-year veteran of the FBI and still testifies as an expert on cases during his retirement.
Although a Florida federal judge threw out President Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and book publisher Penguin, Trump responded to the action by saying, "I'm winning" against mainstream media outlets.
Judge Steven Merryday of Tampa, who was appointed by George H. W. Bush, tossed Trump's suit on Friday, calling it “decidedly improper and impermissible" because the filing spent most of its 85 pages talking about Trump's foes and accomplishments and also contained "superfluous allegations."
“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” Merryday wrote.
“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner,” he added, referring to a famed spot for free speech in London.
Trump responded to a question from ABC's Jonathan Karl about the lawsuit's dismissal by saying, “I’m winning, I’m winning the cases."
He then addressed Karl, saying, “You’re guilty, Jon, you’re guilty. ABC is a terrible network, a very unfair network, and you should be ashamed of yourself. NBC is equally bad. I don’t know who’s worse.”
Merryday did say that Trump could file an amended lawsuit within 28 days that was more concisely focused on the complaints against the Times, four of its reporters, and Penguin.
Trump had only filed the lawsuit on Monday. The amended suit would be limited to 40 pages, Merryday said.
Trump has been in the process of suing a number of media outlets for defamation. He has already gotten settlements from two of the biggest--hence the meaning of his comment about "winning."
In December, ABC settled with him for $15 million over comments George Stephanapolous made about him being a rapist after a civil judgement against him that found him liable of sexual abuse, but not rape.
In July, CBS settled with him for 16 million over the selective editing of comments by then-Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris the previous October, which he argued could have impacted the election.
The money will go to his presidential library, since he is a billionaire and seemingly doesn't need it.
There's every possibility that he will win against the Times as well, once his lawyers get to the point.
The Times would only say through a spokesperson, “We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognized that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing.”
In a striking testimony before the House Oversight Committee, former U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta opened up about his controversial decision to negotiate a plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein in 2007, the Daily Caller reported.
Acosta's Friday testimony detailed his role in securing Epstein’s immunity from federal prosecution, the rationale for the agreement, and addressed claims involving President Donald Trump’s ties to the case.
Back in 2007, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Acosta played a pivotal role in crafting a plea deal with Epstein, who faced severe federal charges that could have meant a life sentence.
The agreement allowed Epstein to sidestep federal trial by pleading guilty to two state charges in 2008, resulting in a mere 13-month jail term, sex offender registration, and victim compensation.
Acosta testified that a critical issue was whether to handle Epstein’s prosecution at the federal or state level, given the high stakes involved.
He mentioned that the lead prosecutor flagged significant evidentiary hurdles that might have weakened their case if it proceeded to trial.
Acosta revealed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office ultimately agreed on a negotiated settlement to mitigate the risk of a trial loss.
He feared that failing to convict Epstein could imply he dodged justice, potentially enabling further offenses.
Despite his office’s stance against work release for Epstein, Acosta noted that Palm Beach County permitted it, contrary to expectations.
Acosta emphasized that had his office foreseen the state’s lenient handling, including work release and weak prosecution, they would not have transferred the case to state authority.
He accepted accountability for the plea decision and conveyed regret over the subsequent outcomes.
A Justice Department report later determined that Acosta displayed “poor judgment” in the matter, though it found no professional misconduct.
Addressing rumors about President Donald Trump, Acosta confirmed he never encountered Trump’s name in any Epstein-related files, a view supported by former Attorney General Bill Barr.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer stated, “To be clear: former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr has stated there is no evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump. We call on Democrats to end these distractions and instead focus on what truly matters: transparency and accountability.”
Comer commended Acosta’s participation, saying, “Alex Acosta cooperated with our questions today and provided information that will help advance our investigation into the federal government’s handling of the Epstein and Maxwell cases. This information will guide our next steps as we work to bring accountability, and we expect to announce new action soon. We will also release the transcript of Mr. Acosta’s interview to ensure transparency for the American people.”