Former Jets quarterback and commentator Mark Sanchez has been fired by Fox Sports ahead of his criminal trial for assaulting a truck driver.
“We can confirm that Mark Sanchez is no longer with the network. There will be no further comment at this time,” the network told the New York Post.
In October, Sanchez was arrested after a violent altercation outside a hotel in Indianapolis, where he was traveling to cover a Raiders-Colts game.
The 69-year-old victim, Perry Tole, sued Fox Sports for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging the network "knew or should have known” about Sanchez’s “unfitness as an employee, propensity for drinking and/or harmful conduct."
Sanchez, who was allegedly drunk during the late-night incident, was set off by the truck driver blocking an alley where Sanchez was doing sprints.
Tole said he stabbed Sanchez in self-defense after pepper spray failed to stop the crazed sports star, who allegedly threw Tole to the ground and slashed him through the cheek with his own knife - leaving Tole "permanently disfigured."
"This guy is trying to kill me,” Tole told police.
Tole suffered a "severe laceration to the side of his face, penetrating all the way through his left cheek," according to court documents, and the man's attorneys released a grisly photo of him spattered in blood in his hospital bed.
Sanchez, 38, was also seen on surveillance camera with a big blood stain on his shirt.
He was initially charged with misdemeanors, but prosecutors added a felony battery count due to the severity of the victim's injuries.
"This incident should never have happened,” Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears said in a statement. “What began as a disagreement between a 38-year-old former professional athlete and a 69-year-old man should not have escalated into violence or left anyone seriously injured. As with any case, we will follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”
While Sanchez has not commented on his firing, his family issued a statement expressing "disappointment" at the turn of events.
“It’s been a long month for Mark as he continues to recover from serious injuries while also grieving the loss of a close friend,” Mark’s brother, Nick, said in a statement from the Sanchez family.
“While the recent news — and its timing — is understandably disappointing, our priority remains his continued healing and recovery. Mark deeply values his time at Fox and the exceptional colleagues he’s had the privilege to work with. Those relationships are meaningful and will endure.”
President Trump has pardoned Rudy Giuliani and dozens of others who were charged over their efforts to challenge the 2020 election, the New York Post reports.
Trump said the 77 individuals were persecuted by the Biden administration for engaging in legitimate political advocacy after the fiercely disputed presidential race.
“This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation,” Trump wrote in the pardoning document.
The federal clemency order does not have any effect on the state-level crimes the 77 people were charged with, but it could shield them from prosecution in the future, the New York Post notes.
The text of the pardon was shared by Trump's "clemency czar," attorney Ed Martin, who declared, "No MAGA left behind."
“This pardon does not apply to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump,” Trump's pardon notes.
No MAGA left behind.
— Eagle Ed Martin (@EagleEdMartin) May 26, 2025
Those pardoned were indicted in states like Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan for their roles in coordinating alternate slates of pro-Trump electors, or so-called "fake electors."
15 of the people whom Trump pardoned had charges dismissed in September by a Democratically-appointed judge in Michigan, who found the so-called fake electors "were executing their constitutional right to seek redress."
The so-called "fake electors plot" was central to Jack Smith's federal case against Trump for "election interference," which was dismissed after Trump's triumphant victory in 2024.
While Trump's return to office has seemingly immunized him from prosecution, many of his allies continue to face legal exposure for their election advocacy - although the state-level cases have largely stalled.
In addition to Giuliani, some of the notable people on the pardon list include Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trump election lawyer and constitutional scholar John Eastman, and Trump election lawyer Sidney Powell.
They were among the people, including Trump himself, who had their mugshots taken in Fulton County, Georgia as part of disgraced prosecutor Fani Willis' sprawling case for "election interference."
In addition to criminal charges, Trump allies have also faced legal sanctions including disbarment and hefty civil penalties for their election-related activities.
Giuliani recently reached an undisclosed settlement in a $1.3 billion case from Dominion Voting Systems, after previously settling with a pair of Georgia election workers who won a $148 million judgment against him.
In response to one commenter on X, Trump's pardon czar said the administration is working on helping Tina Peters, a Republican operative in Colorado who was sentenced to nine years in state prison for breaching voting equipment.
The former president of South Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, was indicted Monday on charges of abusing power and aiding an enemy state for his attempt to impose martial law on the country briefly last year.
Yoon allegedly tried to engineer military conflict between South and North Korea so that he could be justified in declaring martial law, according to evidence found on his cell phone.
Former defense minister Kim Yong-hyun and former military intelligence chief Yeo In-hyung were also involved in the conspiracy and were indicted on the same charges, a spokesperson for North Korea said.
Yoon is accused of ordering a covert drone operation into North Korea in October. North Korea published photos of a smashed drone around the same time and said that it was dropping anti-North Korea pamphlets over Pyongyang.
At the time, South Korea did not disclose whether it had sent the drone.
Martial law was declared on December 3, but the National Assembly overturned the order within hours.
The apparent motive for declaring martial law was for Yoon to disband the National Assembly and rule by decree, turning South Korea back into an authoritarian dictatorship.
The National Assembly was able to thwart Yoon's alleged plans and he was impeached and suspended from office by the end of the month.
He, Kim, and Yeo were arrested, and Kim tried to commit suicide in prison.
Yoon and Kim have denied that the martial law attempt was a self-coup to get rid of political enemies, but Yeo said he regretted following the order from Yoon.
Yoon may also have been trying to end investigations into him and his wife, Kim Keon-hee and top officials.
His administration was plagued with dissension and a lack of consensus that made it difficult to get anything done.
Yoon was far-right politically, and his demise brought about the election of Lee Jae-myung, of the liberal Democratic Party, during a special election in April.
It's easy to see how liberals in this country could think our right-wing politicians are anti-Democratic if they use South Korean politics as an example, but let's remember that President Donald Trump has not tried to declare martial law or abolish Congress. It's just not the same, but American Democrats don't seem to get it.
Over the weekend, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) wrote in a memo that states must "undo" sending full SNAP payments to residents for the month of November.
“To the extent states sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” the Saturday memo reads. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”
The administration has only authorized partial benefits for November, and said that states might incur financial "consequences" if they pay out full benefits.
Specifically, states might forfeit the federal portion of their SNAP benefits for November as well as future payments if they don't comply with the memo.
A Rhode Island federal judge ordered Trump to pay full SNAP benefits, but U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order while the appeals process plays out.
Before the Supreme Court ruling, the USDA had ordered states to comply with the lower court ruling and pay full benefits.
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Oregon, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania moved on Friday to issue full benefits in accordance with the lower court order. Colorado, North Carolina, and Illinois set a timeline to do the same, and Delaware used state money to issue benefits on an emergency basis.
A court in Massachusetts blocked the memo temporarily and said that states did not have to comply. A virtual hearing is set for Monday afternoon.
The whole situation has devolved into a confusing mess, with food banks being stretched beyond their limits as people wait to hear when their benefits will come.
Of course, people should not be depending on SNAP to provide their food, but this kind of rapid shift in the system caught many people unawares.
The Senate has moved to (finally) end the shutdown with the votes of eight Democrats on Sunday, enough for cloture so the spending bill can be passed.
Hopefully, the end of the shutdown will make all of these court cases moot and people can go back to the status quo, at least until the next round at the end of January.
Republicans stuck to their guns despite not having a great election last week, and it paid off for them as Democrats had to give in without getting their ACA subsidies back.
There will be a vote on the subsidies, though, so hopefully Congress will be able to close the loophole for illegal immigrants getting them and alleviate the steep increases for everyone else.
The Trump administration said on Monday that it would continue to seek a block of an order to pay full SNAP benefits for November in the midst of a federal government shutdown.
A Rhode Island court issued the order last week after President Donald Trump agreed to pay partial benefits to SNAP recipients using existing funding, but said that full benefits would not be paid because the funding was not yet approved by Congress.
A Boston appeals court twice ruled that it would not stay the lower court ruling while the Supreme Court considered the case.
Besides the issue of whether a court can rule that payments be made in the absence of funding by Congress, the Trump administration also argued that the ruling violated a SCOTUS decision about lower courts being able to issue nationwide injunctions.
The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the order while the White House decided whether to continue to seek a block on the lower court decision.
A supplemental brief is being filed today, and plaintiffs were ordered to respond by Tuesday morning.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration also sent a memo to states that unilaterally said they would pay the full SNAP benefit amount to recipients, telling them they had to "undo" the payments.
A judge in Massachusetts quickly blocked that memo, however.
To me, it seems like a lot of to-do over nothing. When the shutdown ends, which it looks like will happen this week, full benefits will be paid.
It seems like a lot of court activity over a few days of delay, and I'm not sure why that's a hill Trump wants to die on.
The Senate finally advanced a spending bill on Sunday after working through the weekend, and the terms seem pretty favorable to Republicans, which means it will likely pass in the House as well.
The bill funds the government through January, but funds SNAP benefits through most of 2026.
It also guarantees a vote on extending ACA subsidies for an additional year, but did not approve the subsidies yet.
The end of the shutdown also seems likely to alleviate shortages at food banks and other issues stemming from a lack of payments to lower-income individuals.
Well, folks, in the wild world of Texas politics, a Democratic contender for the U.S. Senate has just stumbled into a digital minefield.
James Talarico, a current Texas state representative and a Presbyterian seminarian, has found himself under scrutiny after a recent Axios review revealed that his Instagram account follows several profiles linked to adult entertainment and escort services, the Daily Caller reported.
Now, let’s be clear—this isn’t about explicit content, as Instagram’s rules don’t allow such material on their platform. But the optics of a faith-focused candidate trailing accounts tied to OnlyFans models? That’s the kind of digital footprint that raises more than a few conservative eyebrows.
Talarico, who is gearing up to challenge either Republican Sen. John Cornyn or Attorney General Ken Paxton in the 2026 general election, has made his Christian beliefs a cornerstone of his campaign. He’s often spoken out against what he sees as hypocrisy among Republican leaders, accusing them of straying from true Christian values in their governance.
One of his favorite analogies is straight from the Good Book—Jesus driving out the money changers from the Temple, which Talarico uses to critique the influence of billionaires in politics. It’s a bold comparison, but one wonders if his own social media choices might invite a sermon on glass houses.
After all, following 10 accounts associated with the adult industry, as Axios uncovered, doesn’t exactly scream “Sunday school teacher,” even if the content itself stays within Instagram’s boundaries.
The campaign’s response to this revelation is, shall we say, a masterclass in sidestepping. Spokesperson JT Ennis told Axios, “While James was unaware of how these women make money, he does not judge them for it and will not play into an effort to smear them for clickbait articles.”
That’s a nice sentiment, but let’s unpack it—ignorance of who you’re following on a public platform isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of digital savvy for a future senator. And while nonjudgment is a Christian virtue, conservatives might argue that discernment in one’s public associations is just as important.
Ennis added that this aligns with Talarico’s faith, but skeptics might see it as a convenient dodge of accountability in an era where personal responsibility is a conservative rallying cry.
Talarico’s campaign website pushes a message of bridging divides, stating, “Those billionaires want to keep us from seeing all that we have in common.” It’s a lofty goal—uniting folks across party lines, race, gender, and religion to tackle systemic issues.
Yet, this social media snafu could easily fracture that narrative of unity. When a candidate’s personal choices clash with the image they project, it hands ammunition to opponents who are all too eager to paint Democrats as out of touch with traditional values.
Texas voters, especially those leaning right, may question whether Talarico’s digital follows reflect a progressive agenda that’s more performative than principled.
At the end of the day, Talarico’s situation is a reminder of how tightly faith and politics are woven in the Lone Star State. His critiques of Republican leaders for failing to live up to Christian ideals are sharp, but this Instagram issue might dull that edge for some.
For conservatives, this isn’t about shaming anyone’s profession—it’s about expecting leaders to align their public personas with their preached values. Talarico’s challenge now is to convince voters that this isn’t a contradiction but a quirk of the digital age.
Whether he can turn this stumble into a teachable moment about compassion over judgment remains to be seen, but in Texas politics, forgiveness often comes with a side of skepticism.
Republicans are blessed to have one of the deepest benches for the next election that the party has had in quite some time, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio is near the top of the list.
However, according to Breitbart, though the idea of Rubio running in 2028 is a somewhat popular one among Republican circles, it appears that Rubio will opt out of running if Vice President J.D. Vance decides to punch the GOP ticket.
Politico first broke the news, indicating that Rubio has been "privately" telling his circle that he will not go up against Vance if Vance decides to run.
Rubio has already hinted in public that he isn't interested in running if Vance runs. The two have a solid relationship and Rubio remains in the good graces of the MAGA movement.
Unnamed sources told Politico that Rubio will not mount a challenge for the Republican nomination, though some pointed out that potential candidates often say that regardless.
Breitbart noted:
“Marco has been very clear that JD is going to be the Republican nominee if he wants to be,” one source told Politico. “He will do anything he can just to support the vice president in that effort.”
Not only would it be awkward for Rubio to resign from President Donald Trump's Cabinet to run against Vance, it was noted that the two are also good friends.
“No one expects Marco to resign from the Cabinet and start taking potshots at the sitting vice president,” per a second source, Politico wrote. “Beyond that, they’re friends."
Perhaps the best of both worlds, according to a third source's confirmation, is that Rubio could run as Vance's vice president in 2028 if the two decide that would be best for the party.
Even if Rubio skips out and lets Vance have two terms in the White House, Rubio could still be fairly young -- at least for a president -- at 65 to run in 2036.
President Trump has already essentially offered both men his endorsement for 2028 and beyond, as both are in his good graces.
Breitbart noted:
Best of all, choosing between Vance and Rubio is what’s known as a luxury problem. These are two appealing, very skilled politicians who can be trusted to keep the GOP on the MAGA tracks.
Most believe that Vance will make the 2028 run, as it makes the most sense, especially given his popularity within the MAGA movement.
Either way, Republicans are seemingly set up for success.
President Donald Trump's tariff fight has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the arguments are already flying on both sides as the justices scrutinize whether he had the ability to impose the tariffs under his authority.
According to Fox News, Justice Amy Coney Barrett took the lead on determining whether or not Trump had the authority to impose global tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
She joined other justices, from both sides, in scrutinizing the ability for the president to use the emergency law to impose an aggressive tariff scheme on numerous countries since taking office.
Solicitor General John Sauer, during a nearly three-hour back-and-forth, argued in favor of Trump's ability to use the emergency law to impose the tariffs, pointing to language in the law that he believes allows it.
Justice Barrett pressed Sauer on his arguments, seemingly especially skeptical of the law's language regarding how Trump's lawyers interpreted it.
Fox News noted:
Solicitor General John Sauer repeatedly argued during the lengthy 2½-hour oral arguments that the emergency law Trump used to enact the tariffs for nearly every U.S. trading partner contained language about regulating imports, which Sauer said included using tariffs. The relevant statute permits the president to "regulate … nullify [and] void … importation," but it does not use the word "tariff." Barrett pressed Sauer on this point.
"Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together, ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?" Barrett asked Sauer.
Sauer apparently had a difficult time convincing Barrett.
Fox News added:
Sauer noted one other trade law that had served as a precursor to the emergency law in question, but Barrett appeared unconvinced, repeating her question as Sauer failed to offer direct responses.
As Sauer continued to try to prove his point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal justice, demanded Sauer "just answer the justice's question."
Sotomayor wasn't done there. She challenged Sauer's argument and proclaimed that, contrary to Sauer's argument, tariffs are taxes.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax," Sotomayor said. "And you want to say tariffs are not taxes. But that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
The two continued to go back and forth, offering a glimpse at how tough a fight Sauer and the Trump administration have ahead of them.
It'll be interesting to see how SCOTUS comes down on the issue, that's for sure.
President Donald Trump, along with many other Republicans, is convinced that the Democrats are exploiting the Senate filibuster rule in a continued effort to stall or fight against Trump's agenda.
According to the Washington Examiner, as the president expresses increasing frustration at the Democrats using the filibuster, he pitched Republicans once again to consider "nuking" the filibuster, which, of course, comes with its own risks.
The president said in a recent post calling on the GOP to take action that he believes the filibuster is contributing to destroying the U.S. economy.
President Trump made it clear in a Truth Social post this weekend that he wants Republicans to end it. Now.
While Trump has made a number of suggestions regarding ending the filibuster, his most recent was straight to the point.
"The Democrats are winning in that they are destroying our great, miracle economy, which is exactly what they set out to do. TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!" he wrote on his Truth Social account Saturday.
In another post, he made it even clearer, writing, "TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!"
BREAKING 🚨 President Trump has a message for every Republican: “TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER”
IT’S TIME TO GET IT DONE IMMEDIATELY
TIME TO GET LOUD MAGA pic.twitter.com/VkiflXBRTH
— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) November 8, 2025
On Friday, he had the same message to his followers and to Republicans, writing, "Republicans, Terminate the Filibuster and bring back the American Dream. If you don’t do it, the Dems will, and you’ll never see office again! President DJT."
Experts say that Trump's push to end the filibuster was ramped up in the wake of the latest election, in which Democrats scored predictable, but key victories in a variety of offices and states.
Users across social media reacted to Trump's latest call for the filibuster to be terminated.
"He’s right, the filibuster isn’t protecting democracy, it’s protecting the swamp’s deadlock. Democrats kill it the second it blocks their agenda, but Republicans freeze when it’s ours. Stop playing defense and govern like you mean it," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Trump’s right—time to clear the roadblocks and move."
Only time will tell if Trump can levy enough pressure to make it happen.
Disputes between environmentalist interests and those working to enhance the reliability of America’s power grid are nothing new, but a standoff in a key state has just concluded in favor of the latter.
As the Daily Caller reports, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a permit last week that will advance a significant gas pipeline project that garnered backing from President Donald Trump but drew the ire of activists and liberal lawmakers alike.
It was on Friday that the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued the aforementioned permit, reversing a series of prior rejections.
At issue is the Northeast Supply enhancement pipeline, a project that has been the subject of opposition from the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and other Empire State lawmakers who suggested that potential environmental fallout from the endeavor was too much to risk.
Hochul, however, stood firm in the face of those critics, saying in a statement, “As Governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer.”
The governor continued, “We need to govern in reality. We are facing war against clean energy from Washington Republicans, including our New York delegation, which is why we have adopted an all-of-the-above approach that includes a continued commitment to renewables and nuclear power to ensure grid reliability and affordability.”
According to NYSDEC, the project, if seen through to completion, will encompass an underwater pipeline that will cover roughly 24 miles and transport natural gas from Pennsylvania through New Jersey, with parts of New York City as its final destination.
Though the president and members of his administration have long pushed for more pipeline infrastructure on the East Coast, Hochul is facing backlash from members of her own party who have been voicing concerns about this particular project for quite some time.
As the Times Union in Albany reports, state Sen. Peter Harckham, chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, declared on Friday, “I am extremely disappointed in today’s ruling regarding the NESE pipeline.”
He further opined that New York authorities would be better served focusing on fast-tracking renewable energy projects rather than greenlighting an endeavor of this nature.
Adding his voice to those criticizing Hochul’s decision was Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who lamented in a press release, “I am profoundly disappointed by New York State’s decision to approve the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) fracked-gas pipeline.”
Nadler cited a series of what he characterized as grave environmental threats posed by the project and said that over “120 environmental, civic, and faith-based organizations from across New York have spoken out against the NESE pipeline.”
Despite the critiques on the left, approval of the permit was not without its backers, a group that included the New York State Building Trades Council and a host of economic development advocates. Those supporters noted in a letter to the governor their belief that “by enhancing system reliability during peak demand and extreme weather events, NESE will help ensure that no family or business is left without heat or power when it matters most.”
The Trump administration was so supportive of this and other pipeline projects that reports suggested that a work-stop order on an offshore wind farm was lifted by the White House in exchange for Hochul’s sign-off on the NESE permit, and though the governor has denied such an arrangement, the president’s position on the importance of this endeavor is clear for all to see.