Former Vice President Kamala Harris offered a take so ‘weird’ and ‘not good’ in an interview with social media personality Kareem Rahma that they both agreed to nix airing the footage, according to Rahma. 

Rahma, who hosts the popular series ‘Subway Takes,’ where he asks commuters and sometimes celebrities their opinions, previously told the New York Times that he conducted an interview with Harris during the summer of 2024, but that it was never released. 

Rahma said in an interview clip with Forbes’ Steven Bertoni posted on social media Monday that Harris’ take was so ‘bad’ he felt fortunate it didn’t make the cut. 

‘Her take was really confusing and weird – not good,’ Rahma told Bertoni. And we ‘mutually agreed to not publish it. And I got lucky, because I didn’t want to be blamed for her losing.’

‘Her take was that bad?’ Bertoni said. 

‘It was really, really bad… it like, didn’t make any sense,’ Rahma said, revealing Harris’ take was ‘bacon as a spice.’ 

Neither Harris nor Rahma immediately responded to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Rahma, who is Muslim, told the New York Times in a story published in November 2024 that Harris’ team originally proposed she would share a ‘hot take’ against people removing their shoes on airplanes.

But Harris went on to declare that bacon was a spice – a food that Rahma and other Muslims do not consume for religious reasons. The Times reported that Rahma was ‘taken aback’ by Harris’ statement. 

‘Think about it, it’s pure flavor,’ she said, per the unaired footage obtained by the Times. 

The Times’ story said two senior campaign managers for Harris said the topic of bacon had been previously raised, while Rahma and his manager said that wasn’t the case. Harris’ campaign reportedly apologized for sharing her take on bacon and offered to re-film the episode, but Rahma declined, according to the Times. 

Rahma told the Times that his reasoning for not airing the interview was because he didn’t want to upset the Muslim community, and that he was hoping to ask Harris questions about the Biden administration’s policy regarding the Israel–Hamas war. 

‘It was so complicated because I’m Muslim and there’s something going on in the world that 100% of Muslims care about,’ Rahma told the Times. ‘And then they made it worse by talking about anchovies. Boring!’

Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, also appeared on Rahma’s series leading up to the 2024 election, where he discussed gutter maintenance. Walz’s interview was posted in August 2024. 

Fox News’ Yael Halon contributed to this report. 

As the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran continues, the Jewish State’s leader said that he would be open to having access to some of America’s most powerful military equipment.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a stop on Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon to meet with House Speaker Mike Johnson before a later confab with the Senate. It’s his first trip to Washington since the 12-day war between Israel and Iran erupted, and comes on the heels of a stoppage in fighting between the two countries.

When asked if he would be open to Israel gaining access to B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-busting bombs — the same U.S. military equipment used to cripple Iran’s nuclear program — Netanyahu appeared to relish the thought.

‘Would I like to see Israel have the capacities that the United States has? Of course we’d like it. Who wouldn’t want it?’ he said.

‘But we are appreciative of what assistance we’ve received, and I think it’s served not only the interest of Israel’s security but America’s security and the security of the free world,’ Netanyahu continued.

Netanyahu’s sentiment comes as a bipartisan duo in the House, Reps. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., are pushing to allow President Donald Trump the capability to send Israel the stealth bomber and powerful, 30,000-pound bombs capable of burrowing 200-feet into the ground before exploding, if Iran is found to still be marching forward with its nuclear program.

Their bill currently has three other Democratic co-sponsors, including Reps. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Juan Vargas, D-Calif.

The same aircraft and munitions were used in Operation Midnight Hammer, the secretive strike authorized by Trump last month to hit some of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, including Fordow, a facility buried below layers of rock that previous Israeli strikes couldn’t crack. Currently, the U.S. does not loan out any of its fleet of B-2s to allies.

Netanyahu’s remarks also came after he met with Trump on Monday, and he lauded his work with the president since his return to the White House.

‘I have to say that the coordination between our two countries, the coordination between an American president and Israel Prime Minister has been unmatched,’ he said. ‘It offers great promise for Israel, for America, for our region and for the world.’

He also hinted that ‘it may be very likely’ the pair may meet again before he leaves Washington. 

Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court’s injunction against the administration’s executive order.

In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court.

The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. 

It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to ‘streamline government and eliminate waste.’ Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal government.

A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself.

‘Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application,’ the Court wrote. ‘We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.’

The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court’s unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is ‘likely to succeed’ in defending the legality of the order.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that ‘this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.’ She warned that the executive action represents a ‘structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives’ and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts.

‘This unilateral decision to ‘transform’ the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court,’ she wrote. ‘The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.’

The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed ‘non-critical’ or ‘not statutorily mandated.’ The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain ‘thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service… is not in the government and public interest.’

Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees.

‘Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration,’ wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government.’

Former President Joe Biden’s persistent use of a teleprompter during public events, including during a fundraiser with just a couple dozen supporters, left donors complaining for months and dashed their expectations of hearing from the 46th president, a new book claims. 

‘For most of the campaign, Biden only ever spoke with the assistance of a teleprompter, even for small private audiences,’ a new book, ‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,’ reported. ‘The presence of the machine made for extremely awkward interactions in intimate settings, and irked donors who had paid thousands of dollars for a personal view of the president, not expecting a canned speech they could see on TV.’ 

‘He once read from a teleprompter in front of thirty people in the open kitchen of a Palo Alto mansion,’ the book continued. ‘Donors complained for months about the president’s reliance on the machine. Aides defended the teleprompter as a tool to keep the famously garrulous president on schedule.’ 

‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America’ was released Tuesday and authored by Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of the New York Times and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post. It details the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, including Biden’s cratering health issues. 

The book detailed that just days after Biden’s disastrous June 2024 debate against President Donald Trump that opened the floodgates to typical Democrat supporters turning their backs on Biden ahead of the election, the president attended a campaign event at Virginia Democrat Rep. Dan Beyers’ house without a teleprompter. The book claims Biden only spoke for about six minutes.

‘At Beyer’s house, the campaign was eager to prove Biden could speak off the cuff. There was no teleprompter to be found. The president blamed his poor debate performance on a heavy travel schedule and said he ‘almost fell asleep onstage.’ He spoke for about six minutes,’ the book detailed. 

The word ‘teleprompter’ appears in the new book a dozen times, mostly referencing the president’s reliance on the machine, as well as concern among some staffers that using a teleprompter was crucial to the president avoiding the unexpected as his health deteriorated. 

‘The officials who planned events at the White House tried to avoid any surprises or unpredictable situations. If the president was going to speak, he would go to the podium, deliver remarks from a teleprompter, and leave. There was no room for creativity or spontaneity,’ the book states in a section on how Biden had fallen during a commencement in 2023 and staff devised plans to prevent another public fall in the future. 

‘Everyone could see the president was aging. He sometimes failed to recognize former staff at functions. Still, current aides insisted his decline was strictly physical, and even then they acknowledged it only by trying to Bubble Wrap the president and avoid any more catastrophes. Staff limited direct access to the president, keeping meetings with him small,’ the book continued.

Biden entered his 2024 reelection cycle already racked by claims and concerns that his mental acuity had slipped and he was not mentally fit to continue serving as president, which was underscored by special counsel Robert Hur’s report in February 2024 that rejected criminal charges against Biden for possessing classified materials, citing he was ‘a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.’ Fox News has been reporting on Biden’s apparent health decline since at least 2020. 

Biden brushed off the claims throughout 2024, until his debate against Trump in June of that year, when he was seen tripping over his words, speaking in a far more subdued tenor than during his vice presidency, and losing his train of thought at times. The debate opened the floodgates to criticism among Democrats that Biden should step aside and pass the mantle to a younger generation of Democrats. 

After weeks of the White House and campaign staffers vowing Biden would stay in the race and to ‘keep the faith,’ Biden announced in a social media post on a Sunday afternoon in July 2024 that he dropped out of the race. He endorsed then-Vice President Kamala Harris to run for the Oval Office, giving her just over 100 days to launch her own campaign that failed to rally enough support when up against Trump. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office regarding the claims in the new book, but did not immediately receive a reply.

The Cato Institute is warning that the federal government is testing the outer limits of executive power with President Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariffs, and it wants the courts to put a stop to it.

In a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president overstepped his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries including China, Mexico and Canada.

The libertarian thinktank argues the move undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and expands executive authority over trade in ways Congress never intended.

‘This is an important case about whether the president can impose tariffs essentially whenever he wants,’ Cato Institute legal fellow Brent Skorup said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. ‘There has to be a limit — and this administration hasn’t offered one.’

‘Tariff rates went up to 145% on some products from China,’ he said. ‘And the president’s lawyers couldn’t offer a limiting principle. That tells you the administration believes there’s no real cap, and that’s a problem.’

Cato’s brief urges the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that found the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president’s use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court said the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to fight drug trafficking or trade imbalances.

Skorup said in court the administration was unable to define a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA. 

‘They couldn’t articulate a cap,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing in the law that mentions duties or tariffs. That’s a job for Congress.’

The administration has defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA provides the necessary tools for the president to act swiftly in times of national emergency. Trump officials maintain that both the fentanyl crisis and America’s trade vulnerabilities qualify.

‘There are real emergencies, no one disputes that,’ Skorup said. ‘But declaring an emergency to justify global tariffs or solve domestic trade issues goes far beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers.’

Skorup acknowledged that the real issue may be how much discretion Congress gave the president in the first place. 

‘It’s a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have taken vague laws and stretched them. Congress bears some of the blame for writing them that way,’ he said, adding that’s why courts should ‘step in and draw the line.’

For small businesses like V.O.S. Selections, the costs go beyond legal fees. Skorup said businesses who rely on imports, like V.O.S., have struggled to plan ahead as tariffs have been paused and reinstated repeatedly.

Skorup said there are several small businesses that rely on global imports and it becomes a ‘matter of survival’ when tariff rates change unexpectedly.

‘V.O.S. Selections imports wine and spirits and when the tariff rates go up unexpectedly, they can’t get products to their distributors as planned,’ he said. ‘And that’s true for others too, like pipe importers and specialized manufacturers. These companies don’t have the flexibility to absorb those costs or adjust overnight.’

If the appeals court sides with the administration, it could mark a major expansion of presidential power over trade policy. Skorup warned that such a ruling would allow future presidents to take similar actions with little oversight.

‘It would bless Congress’ ability to hand over immense economic power to the president,’ he said. ‘That would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution is supposed to protect.’

A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

In a blockbuster report, the CIA has belatedly exposed the rank corruption among top intelligence officials who connived to frame President Donald Trump and drive him from office during his first term.  

Their pernicious lie was that Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 presidential election in his favor. The principal piece of so-called evidence was a document known infamously as the dossier.  

It was secretly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democrats, conceived by a foreign agent with a checkered past in espionage, and then brokered to solicitous collaborators at the FBI, CIA, the Department of Justice and the Trump-hating media.  

The dossier was garbage, of course. The FBI largely debunked it before Trump was even sworn in and fired its author, Christopher Steele, for lying as a confidential human source. But the bureau concealed those inconvenient facts under then-Director James Comey and deftly exploited the document as a cudgel to bludgeon the newly elected president.  

Comey was aided and abetted by others in the intelligence community, including CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. This malignant force of unelected officials plotted to smear Trump with what is surely the dirtiest trick in political history.  

Recently, current CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified and released an internal agency review of the machinations that helped fuel the Russia hoax. In a statement posted on social media, Ratcliffe stated, ‘All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump.’ 

Citing previously hidden records, the review concluded that Brennan, in particular, pushed for the phony dossier to be included in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to catalyze a false narrative against Trump. Senior CIA experts on Russia objected but were sidelined and silenced.  

The CIA’s deputy director for analysis warned Brennan in writing that including the discredited dossier in any capacity jeopardized ‘the credibility of the entire paper.’ Brennan didn’t care. The fiction penned by the ex-British spy conformed to the director’s preconceived fable that Trump colluded with Russia.  

The ICA, which was ordered by President Barack Obama, was rushed to completion just days before Trump’s inauguration. Brennan directed its composition and handpicked the analysts who compiled the ersatz information. To stifle dissent, 13 other key intelligence agencies were deliberately excluded. To put it bluntly, Trump was set up.  

According to the new CIA review, Comey and Clapper were all in on the scheme. In an interview with the New York Post, Ratcliffe said, ‘This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding ‘We’re going to screw Trump.’’ 

They knew the dossier was junk, which motivated them to prop it up as a reliable indictment of Trump. By incorporating it in the ICA they could leak and propagate both documents as mutual corroboration. It was a clever ruse. An illusion.  

Those of us who have long covered the bogus collusion story knew it long ago. In my 2019 book, ‘Witch Hunt,’ I recounted how Brennan ‘insisted that the dossier be included in the classified intelligence report,’ but then told Congress under oath that the dossier was ‘not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment.’ Clapper’s testimony was nearly identical.  

Here is what I wrote in chapter 2: 

‘Brennan and Clapper were spinning a deception. A prominent colleague contradicted them and produced documents as proof that they were not telling the truth. In a classified letter to Congress, National Security Agency director Michael Rogers disclosed that the uncorroborated document (the dossier) ‘did factor into the ICA’ report. Having been caught in a falsehood, Clapper then repudiated his earlier statement. Brennan continued to deny all of it, the contrary evidence notwithstanding.’  

Neither Brennan nor Clapper was ever prosecuted for perjury.  

None of that bothered news organizations. MSNBC promptly hired Brennan, while Clapper went to work for CNN. I described what they did from their media perches:  

‘The two super spooks launched an all-out attack on Trump, exploiting their new television platforms to advance the toxic fiction that the president was a secret Russian asset who had ‘colluded’ with Putin. It didn’t matter to CNN that a House Intelligence Committee report determined that it had been Clapper who had leaked news of the phony dossier to the network before Trump had ever taken office.’  

The collusion narrative was a conspiracy itself. The collaborators knew it was a lie, but they manipulated the dossier and the ICA to peddle their fairy tale. With Hillary and her confederates, they engineered the hoax. Brennan even accused Trump of treason.  

Comey also knew the dossier was spurious, as I wrote in chapter 4:  

‘He knew exactly where the dossier came from and who paid for it. He used it as the primary basis for the warrants, used it as part of the nonpublic version of the intelligence community assessment, and used it to debrief President-elect Trump so that it could be leaked to the media in January 2017.’ 

They knew the dossier was junk, which motivated them to prop it up as a reliable indictment of Trump. By incorporating it in the ICA they could leak and propagate both documents as mutual corroboration. It was a clever ruse. An illusion.  

Comey’s decision to purloin and leak additional FBI documents triggered — just as he planned — the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his dilating investigation of Trump that hobbled his presidency for two years.  

On the day that Mueller issued his report concluding that there was no evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, the sheepish Brennan conceded, ‘I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was.’  

That’s quite the Jekyll-Hyde metamorphosis for a guy who enthusiastically endorsed the dossier and who kept claiming that ‘it was in line’ with his own CIA sources, in which he ‘had great confidence.’ That, too, was a fabrication, according to the newly released CIA review.  

What did Comey have to say?  In public, the master prevaricator dissembled and pleaded ignorance.  But before Congress, he was forced to admit that some of his actions would have been different had he known then what he knows now.  Not likely.  He was wedded to the artifice of collusion because he despised Trump. 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has vowed a reckoning. She told Fox News, ‘We are digging deep to find everything that has been related to this, and I guarantee you there are some U.S. attorneys who are eager to see what we are finding — in some cases are already working their own cases to bring about that necessary accountability.’  

Unless those who unscrupulously weaponized their immense power for political purposes are held to account, it will happen again. And again. The only remedy for lawlessness is justice.  

The reckoning awaits.