Former FBI Director James Comey hailed the federal judge who dismissed the federal indictment against him on Monday, saying the case against him was based on ‘malevolence and incompetence.’

Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false statements charges against Comey in a Monday ruling, finding that they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney. President Donald Trump’s administration maintains that the attorney, Lindsay Halligan, was legally appointed and has indicated they plan to pursue further legal action.

‘I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence, and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking,’ Comey said, before thanking the lawyers who represented him in the case.

‘This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent. That the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies. I don’t care what your politics are. You have to see that as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free,’ he continued.

Comey went on to say that he expects the Trump administration to continue coming after him despite the legal setback. He called on Americans to ‘stand up’ against the ‘fools who would frighten us,’ suggesting Trump is a ‘would-be tyrant.’

Currie’s ruling also threw out the DOJ’s case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the same reason.

‘I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. [Lindsey] Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,’ Currie wrote.

Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.

Halligan acted alone in presenting charges to the grand juries shortly after Trump ousted the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, and urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to replace him with Halligan, a former White House aide and insurance lawyer. Bondi complied, but Currie found the interim U.S. attorney term had already expired under Siebert and that the Virginia judges were now responsible for appointing a temporary U.S. attorney to serve until Trump could get one confirmed in the Senate.

Trump has been unable to persuade the Senate to confirm several U.S. attorneys in blue states, leading the president and Bondi to sidestep the upper chamber at times to install Trump’s preferred appointees, such as Halligan. Currie’s decision comes after federal judges also disqualified appointees in California, New Jersey and Nevada.

Fox News’ Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Democrats are seeking to put limits on private donations to foot the bill for President Donald Trump’s new White House ballroom amid what they say are bribery concerns. 

Trump announced in October that construction had started on the ballroom — leading to the demolition of the White House’s historic East Wing — and would be privately funded at an estimated cost of $300 million. That was up from the $200 million estimate first provided in July when the project was unveiled.

But Democrats are concerned the donors — including individuals and other organizations — are footing the bill for the project because they are seeking something in return from the Trump administration, and recently introduced legislation to try to curb it. 

Although the White House released a list of the donors in October, Democrats, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Adam Schiff of California, claim that additional oversight is needed and that the White House has not identified all donors, while others have been granted anonymity.

Among those who’ve donated to the ballroom project are Google, Apple, Meta Platforms, Amazon, Microsoft and Lockheed Martin. As a result, lawmakers argue that those who’ve contributed to the project could be doing so to curry favor with the administration, setting up a ‘pay-to-play’ relationship with the Trump administration. 

Specifically, lawmakers pointed to Google agreeing to a $22 million settlement with Trump in September, stemming from Trump’s censorship lawsuit against YouTube for banning him from the platform after the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Google, which owns YouTube, is also involved in an antitrust case leveled against it by the Justice Department, and therefore, could benefit from soliciting favor from the Trump administration, the lawmakers claim. 

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

‘Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom — and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line,’ Warren said in a statement Tuesday. ‘Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether President Trump is building a ballroom to facilitate a pay-to-play scheme for political favors. My new bill will put an end to what looks like bribery in plain sight.’

Warren, along with the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, spearheaded the legislation. Other lawmakers, including Schiff, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and others, have also cosponsored the measure. 

Specifically, the legislation would bar donations from organizations or individuals that present a conflict of interest, and would prohibit the president, vice president or their families and staff from soliciting donations. 

Once donations have been made and are cleared by the directors of the National Park Service and the Office of Government Ethics, the measure would then bar displaying donors’ names in recognition of the donation, and would also require a two-year freeze for the donor to lobby the federal government.

Additionally, it would prohibit using any remaining donated funds to then go toward personal use, or to benefit the president, vice president or their family and staff. 

Likewise, the measure also would require that donors disclose meetings with the federal government that occur in the year following the donation, and prohibit anonymous donations. 

‘President Trump has put a ‘for sale’ sign on the White House—soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars from special interests to fund his $300 million vanity project,’ Blumenthal said in a statement Tuesday. ‘Our measure is a direct response to Trump’s ballroom boondoggle. With commonsense reforms to how the federal government can use private donations, our legislation prevents President Trump and future presidents from using construction projects as vehicles for corruption and personal vanity.’ 

Meanwhile, the White House dismissed the measure and Democrats’ efforts to impose new restrictions on donations.

‘President Trump is making the White House beautiful and giving it the glory it deserves,’ White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Monday. ‘Only people with a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome would find a problem with that.’

Trump has initiated several renovation projects at the White House during his second term, including adding gold accents to the White House’s Oval Office and paving the Rose Garden. 

The FBI and Department of Justice have contacted Capitol Police to schedule interviews with the six members of Congress who appeared in a controversial video urging service members to ignore orders they may deem illegal, Fox News has learned.

Last week, a group of Democratic lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jason Crow released a video directed at service members and intelligence officers stating: ‘Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.’

In response to the video, President Donald Trump said the lawmakers should be arrested and tried for ‘seditious behavior.’ 

‘SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!’ he said. 

On Monday, the Department of War announced that it has opened a formal review into allegations of misconduct against Kelly over the video. 

The Pentagon said it may even call Kelly, a retired Navy captain, back to active duty to face court-martial proceedings or other administrative actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Four of the other Democrats are former military, but not retired and therefore are not subject to the UCMJ, according to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, while Slotkin is a former CIA officer.

Hegseth on Tuesday posted on X that the video ‘may seem harmless to civilians — but it carries a different weight inside the military.’

He called the video a ‘politically-motivated influence operation’ and listed reasons for his conclusion, including how the lawmakers never named a specific ‘illegal order,’ which ‘created ambiguity rather than clarity.’ He added that the video used ‘carefully scripted, legal-sounding language’ and argued that the lawmakers ‘subtly reframed military obedience around partisan distrust instead of established legal processes.’

‘In the military, vague rhetoric and ambiguity undermines trust, creates hesitation in the chain of command, and erodes cohesion,’ Hegseth wrote. ‘The military already has clear procedures for handling unlawful orders. It does not need political actors injecting doubt into an already clear chain of command.’ 

He continued: ‘As veterans of various sorts, the Seditious Six knew exactly what they were doing — sowing doubt through a politically-motivated influence operation. The @DeptofWar won’t fall for it or stand for it.’

This is a developing story; check back for updates.

Fox News’ Digital’s Morgan Phillips and Taylor Penley contributed to this report.

The Trump-aligned lawfare group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller is petitioning two of the government’s top federal health agencies to immediately repeal a Biden-era regulation they claim promotes organ transplantation allocation based on race, not medical need. 

Initially, the proposed rule from the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had an equity performance adjustment, but that part of the rule was scrapped before it was finalized.

The Increasing Organ Transplant Access (IOTA) Model in question scores selected hospitals, which are required to participate, across three domains as it relates to kidney organ transplantation: achievement, efficiency and quality. Based on the scores, hospitals will either get money for their efforts, owe money back to the federal government for not meeting expectations, or neither receive nor owe anything.  

Rather than an explicit score adjustment, the rule’s equity agenda was embedded more subtly through a ‘voluntary’ health equity plan that mandatory participating hospitals are encouraged to complete. The plan pushes hospitals to identify ‘health disparities’ and identify ‘equity goals to monitor and evaluate progress in reducing targeted health disparities,’ which will be measured by ‘one or more quantitative metrics that the IOTA participant uses to measure the reductions in target health disparities arising from the health equity plan interventions.’

‘A federal rule cannot invite or normalize discrimination—not even under the guise of improving ‘equity,” stated an America First Legal (AFL) press release accompanying the group’s petition. ‘Although CMS ultimately made Health Equity Plans ‘voluntary,’ the agency embedded them inside a mandatory federal model that encourages hospitals to integrate race and identity into transplant decision-making.’

The six-year mandatory payment program builds on earlier payment experiments, testing whether financial rewards and penalties can improve care and expand access for Medicare and Medicaid patients. The rule was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 4, and began operating on July 1, 

Meanwhile, according to AFL, 67 of the 103 hospitals mandated to participate in the IOTA Model are ‘still engaging’ in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts. The conservative lawfare group argues this is normalizing ‘identity-based preferences’ within the nation’s organ transplant system.

‘The IOTA Model is a leftover remnant of an unlawful equity agenda that encouraged hospitals to view lifesaving care through a DEI lens,’ said AFL attorney Megan Redshaw. ‘Federal law requires that organ allocation be based on established medical criteria, not race or identity, and no rule should push hospitals to pursue transplant volume while layering race-based pressures onto a system already plagued by ethical failures.’

Just days after Biden took office in 2021, he signed Executive Order 13985, directing all federal agencies to conduct ‘Equity Assessments’ to determine whether ‘underserved communities and their members’ faced systemic barriers to accessing federal programs. The order also required federal agencies to develop an action plan to address those barriers.

As part of this effort, in December 2021, CMS issued a request to the public for comments on how the agency could ‘Advance Equity and Reduce Disparities in Organ Transplantation.’

‘CMS is focused on identifying potential system-wide improvements that would increase organ donations, improve transplants, enhance the quality of care in dialysis facilities, increase access to dialysis services, and advance equity in organ donation and transplantation,’ the agency said at the time. ‘Black Americans are almost four times more likely, and Latinos are 1.3 times more likely, to have kidney failure compared to White Americans. Despite the higher risk, data shows that Black and Latino patients on dialysis are less likely to be placed on the transplant waitlist and have a lower likelihood of transplantation. Because of these stark inequities, CMS’ [Request For Information] asks the public for specific ideas on advancing equity within the organ transplantation system.’ 

Trump officials and allies, including AFL, have questioned the role outside groups played during the process of drafting the final IOTA Model rule, prompting AFL to file FOIA requests as part of a broader investigation into the new IOTA model and the Biden administration’s alleged push to infuse DEI into the nation’s organ transplant framework.

One example AFL has pointed to is a ‘modernization initiative’ for the national organ transplant system under the Biden administration, which included plans to strengthen ‘equity, and performance in the organ donation and transplantation system.’ The Biden admin also announced changes to the ‘labeling of race and ethnicity information for organ donors,’ on numerous data reports used by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). 

The nation’s organ transplant system has also recently been targeted for prematurely initiating organ retrievals while patients were still alive, or improving. In July, HHS released a statement announcing an initiative to reform the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), following a federal investigation that found ‘disturbing practices by a major organ procurement organization.’

AFL argues that the IOTA Model final rule, specifically, violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, the equal protection clause, precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court, and executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. 

The lawfare group added that the rule also exceeds CMS’ statutory authority under the Social Security Act, and is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ under the Administrative Procedure Act.  

‘The Biden Administration built this kidney transplant policy on the false premise that fairness requires discrimination,’ Redshaw said. ‘This rule treats race as a substitute for medical judgment, and it risks condemning patients to die on waitlists based on immutable traits instead of clinical need. Every American deserves equal treatment under the law, especially when life and death are at stake.’

HHS and CMS didn’t reply to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment on this story in time for publication.

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch, Melissa Rudy, and Angelica Stabile contributed to this report.