Former Vice President Kamala Harris detailed her running mate Tim Walz’s debate performance in her new book and recounted a showdown with then-Sen. JD Vance, which ultimately left her disappointed. 

Harris writes in her new book, ‘107 Days,’ that she needed the Minnesota governor to be the ‘closer’ at the Oct. 1, 2024, debate given that she was not going to have another opportunity to debate Trump. But during the debate, she turned to her husband in frustration.

‘When Tim fell for it and started nodding and smiling at J.D.’s fake bipartisanship, I moaned to Doug, ‘What is happening?” Harris wrote, explaining how she believed Walz was duped by Vance’s ‘mild-mannered aw-shucks’ attitude. 

‘I told the television screen: ‘You’re not there to make friends with the guy who is attacking your running mate.’’

Harris, who lamented that there was ‘more riding on Tim’s debate than there should have been,’ said that being the ‘closer’ and debating on such a large scale was ‘not a comfortable role’ for Walz. 

‘He had fretted from the outset that he wasn’t a good debater,’ Harris wrote. ‘I’d discounted his concerns. He was so quick and pithy in front of the crowds at our rallies, I thought he’d bring those qualities to the podium.’

Harris referred to Vance as a ‘shape-shifter’ and said he ‘complained petulantly,’ along with more critiques of Walz. 

‘Tim fell into a pattern of defending his record as a governor,’ Harris wrote. ‘Then he fumbled his answer when the moderator, predictably, questioned why he had claimed to be in Hong Kong during the democracy protests in Tiananmen Square.’

‘Tim had been on his way to teach in China that summer but hadn’t yet left the United States on the date of the massacre. Instead of simply stating that he’d gotten his dates mixed up, but that being in China during a period of human rights oppression had profoundly influenced him, he talked about biking in Nebraska.’

Harris mentioned a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit after the debate that depicted Harris and her husband Doug watching the debate and spitting out wine in shock. Harris wrote that while she did not actually spit out wine while watching, ‘it was otherwise uncanny in its portrait of our evening.’

‘Tim felt bad that he hadn’t done better,’ Harris wrote. 

‘I reassured him that the election would not be won or lost on account of that debate, and in fact it had a negligible effect on our polling. In choosing Tim, I thought that as a second-term governor and twelve-year congressman he would know what he was getting into. In hindsight, how could anyone?’

Harris wrote that she encouraged Walz to be ‘resilient’ during the campaign and suggested that he struggled with the ‘unfair’ attacks on his record and that it took a toll on his family. 

‘For the candidate, the family that is your source of strength can become your weakness in a presidential campaign,’ Harris wrote, adding that Tim was ‘outraged by the unfairness.’

‘When I was a newly elected DA, an elderly gentleman in Atlanta pulled me aside with a bit of advice: ‘Baby, you be sure and don’t make it look too easy,’’ Harris wrote. ‘He knew it was not. And the higher you rise in the political food chain, the harder it gets. This is not a genteel profession. You must be ready to brawl.’

Harris also detailed in her book the decision process she used to ultimately choose Walz over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Harris made a point of noting that her senior staff ‘strongly favored Tim’ and that her godson, along with her sister and brother-in-law, also preferred Walz.

‘Doug and I went back and forth,’ Harris wrote. ‘He had known Josh longer and leaned that way. It was always going to have to be my decision. I told my staff and family that I didn’t want any more input, and I went to do something practical: I made a tasty rub and seasoned a pork roast. By the time I went to bed, I’d decided on Walz.’

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., criticized recent remarks by President Donald Trump as ‘unhinged’ during a press conference on Tuesday, as the federal government lurches toward a potential shutdown at the end of this month.

Jeffries held a media availability in his Brooklyn, New York district after Trump canceled a planned meeting with congressional Democrat leaders on the issue of government funding.

Trump accused Democrats of making ‘unserious and ridiculous demands’ in their push for a compromise deal to avert a shutdown.

‘The statement that Donald Trump issued today was unhinged, and it related to issues that have nothing to do with the spending bill that is before the Congress, and the need to try to avoid a government shutdown,’ Jeffries said in response.

He said at an earlier point, ‘Leader Schumer and I are ready to meet with anyone, anytime, at any place, to discuss the issues that matter to the American people and avoid a painful, Republican-caused government shutdown.’

‘Democrats do not support the partisan Republican spending bill because it continues to gut the healthcare of the American people,’ he added.

Schumer held his own press conference later in the afternoon, where he charged ‘Today seems to be tantrum day for Donald Trump.’ 

‘Mr. President, do your job,’ he said. ‘Stop ranting, stop these long diatribes that mean nothing to anyone. Get people in a room and let’s hammer out a deal.’

The House passed a short-term extension of fiscal year (FY) 2025’s government funding levels intended to keep federal agencies running through Nov. 21, in order to give Senate and House appropriators more time to reach a deal on FY 2026.

If not passed by the Senate by the end of Sept. 30, Congress risks plunging the government into a partial shutdown.

Democrats, infuriated by being sidelined in discussions on the bill, have been pushing for the inclusion of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are set to expire at the end of 2025 without congressional action.

During his press conference, Jeffries also appeared to reference Republicans’ ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill,’ conservative policy legislation that imposed new restrictions and work requirements on Medicaid coverage for certain able-bodied Americans.

‘Our top priority is to make sure that we cancel the cuts, lower the costs and save healthcare for the American people. That’s eight words – not difficult for Donald Trump to process. Cancel the cuts, lower the cost, save healthcare. Eight words,’ Jeffries said.

‘And we’ve been very clear that if Republicans want to go it alone, then go it alone and continue to do damage to the American people. But as House Democrats, partnered in lockstep with [Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer] and Senate Democrats, we are not going to participate in the Republican effort to continue to gut the healthcare of the American people. That’s immoral, and we want no part of it.’

Jeffries and Schumer were set to meet with Trump on Thursday to discuss a path forward to avert a partial government shutdown.

But Trump nixed the meeting in a lengthy post on his social media platform Truth Social, where he blasted the duo for pushing ‘radical Left policies that nobody voted for.’ 

‘I have decided that no meeting with their Congressional Leaders could possibly be productive,’ Trump said. 

‘They must do their job! Otherwise, it will just be another long and brutal slog through their radicalized quicksand. To the Leaders of the Democrat Party, the ball is in your court. I look forward to meeting with you when you become realistic about the things that our Country stands for. DO THE RIGHT THING!’ the president continued.

The Senate already voted against moving forward with the House GOP stopgap bill on Friday.

With 60 votes needed to proceed on the measure, at least some Democratic support will be needed to avert a shutdown.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for a response to Jeffries’ comments.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s push for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations clashed sharply with Donald Trump’s message — but the two leaders’ rivalry also played out in the streets of New York in an unexpected way.

At the UN General Assembly, Macron formally announced France’s recognition of a Palestinian state, insisting the move was ‘essential to peace.’ Trump, speaking today, blasted the recognition as a ‘reward’ for Hamas’s ‘horrible atrocities, including October 7,’ that would only prolong conflict.

But away from the UN stage, the two presidents collided in an unusual moment when Macron was stopped at a crosswalk by New York police as Trump’s motorcade rolled through Manhattan. ‘Sorry President, everything is frozen, the motorcade moving now,’ one officer told him. Macron, visibly frustrated, replied, ‘If you don’t see it, let me cross.’

With the road blocked, Macron picked up his phone and called President Trump directly. According to a video circulating online, the French president said: ‘Guess what, I’m waiting in the street because everything is frozen for you.’ Only after the call was the road eventually cleared.

Macron then walked through the city for nearly half an hour, trailed by passersby who stopped him for selfies. One person planted a kiss on his head. Macron laughed off the encounter, saying, ‘It’s just a kiss, makes no harm.’

France’s embassy in the U.S official X account leaned into the moment with humor: ‘It’s a good thing our presidents have each other on speed dial… If you’ve ever had to walk through NYC during UNGA, this is 110% relatable content.’

A conservative climate policy group is urging House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to subpoena records from the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project as part of an ongoing probe into the influence of climate advocacy groups in climate policy litigation. 

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, a conservative pro-U.S. energy production policy group, wrote a letter to Jordan last week pointing to evidence from a Sept. 12 Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil et al. court filing that he says suggests ‘covert coordination and judicial manipulation.’

‘This new evidence raises serious red flags about the credibility of both the so-called science being used in climate lawsuits and the judicial training programs behind the bench,’ Isaac told Fox News Digital. 

According to Isaac’s letter to Jordan, the court filing submitted by Chevron Corporation earlier this month reveals that ‘one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys, Roger Worthington, had undisclosed involvement in at least two so-called scientific studies that the county is presenting as independent, peer-reviewed evidence.’

One of those studies ‘acknowledged funding from the Climate Judiciary Project in a draft version, but that disclosure was inexplicably removed from the final publication,’ Isaac said in the letter. 

Earlier drafts of the study, labeled ‘DO NOT DISTRIBUTE,’ were found on Worthington’s law firm website, the letter revealed. 

According to the American Energy Institute, the study seeks to ‘attribute global economic losses from climate change to specific oil companies.’ The website also included a ‘pre-publication draft of a CJP judicial training module’ with internal editorial comments, according to the letter. 

Isaac told Jordan this mark-up raises ‘serious questions about how and why a plaintiffs’ attorney had early access to, and possibly editorial influence over, materials being presented to state and federal judges as ‘neutral’ science.’

Another module was designed to ‘educate’ participant judges on how to apply ‘attribution science’ in the courtroom, according to Isaac. 

Attribution science seeks to measure how much human-caused climate change is responsible for certain extreme weather events, per Science News Explores’ definition. 

‘The Environmental Law Institute has claimed neutrality, yet documents suggest coordination with plaintiffs’ counsel who stand to profit from the outcomes,’ Isaac told Fox News Digital. ‘If the same lawyers suing energy companies are shaping the studies and educating the judges, that is not justice; it is manipulation. Congress is right to dig deeper, and the American Energy Institute is proud to support that effort.’ 

Isaac is requesting that Jordan formally request ‘communications, draft documents, funding agreements, and internal editorial notes related to the scientific studies and CJP curriculum.’

While commending Jordan’s leadership, Isaac said, ‘Judges and the public deserve to know whether the courtroom is being quietly shaped by coordinated climate advocacy posing as neutral expertise.’

Isaac said the Environmental Law Institute and Worthington should answer several questions about their involvement in the studies, including the ‘judicial education module on attribution science.’

‘Does ELI regularly seek input from plaintiffs’ attorneys on its judicial education modules?’ Isaac questioned. 

‘ELI did not fund the Nature study, and the Climate Judiciary Project has not coordinated with Mr. Worthington,’ Environmental Law Institute spokesman Nick Collins told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

‘CJP does not participate in or provide support for litigation,’ Collins added. ‘Rather, CJP provides evidence-based continuing education to judges about climate science and how it arises in the law. Our curriculum is fact-based and science-first, grounded in consensus reports and developed with a robust peer review process that meets the highest scholarly standards.’

When 23 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter last month to Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin calling on him to cancel funding to the Environmental Law Institute, Collins told Fox News Digital that the Climate Judiciary Project’s projects are far from ‘radical.’

‘The programs in which the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) participates are no different than other judicial education programs, providing evidence-based training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend,’ Collins said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Jordan and Worthington for comment on the letter but did not immediately hear back. 

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this story. 

President Trump just fired a top federal prosecutor because he failed to bring charges against two despised opponents, New York Attorney General Letitia James and ex-FBI chief James Comey.

The ouster of Erik Siebert, U.S. attorney for Virginia’s Eastern District — and Trump’s own appointee — came after he couldn’t find sufficient evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud.

The president blamed the firing on Siebert having been put forward by two Democratic senators – hardly a secret – under the archaic ‘blue slip’ requirement that should be abolished.

‘Yeah, I want him out,’ Trump said after ABC broke the story. Tish James is ‘very guilty of something.’

What’s more, ‘he didn’t quit, I fired him!’

It’s a blip of a story, compared to Trump and his team naming a special prosecutor to again investigate Russiagate allegations from 2016; dropping corruption charges against New York’s Mayor Eric Adams, and suspending security clearances for the law firm that Robert Mueller left four years ago (later blocked by a judge).

The larger point is that perhaps we’ve become inured to the serious spectacle of a president not just interfering with the Justice Department but literally dictating who should be charged and who should be protected.

Trump told Pam Bondi over the weekend, ‘They impeached me twice, and indicted me (five times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!’ 

He said he believes James, Comey and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff are ‘all guilty as hell’ but that nothing is being done.

As someone who used to roam the halls of the Justice Department — and covered three independent counsels involving Ronald Reagan’s AG, Ed Meese — I am acutely aware of the ethical boundaries. 

After the Watergate scandal, which included Attorney General John Mitchell going to prison, led to reforms, the idea of a wall between the White House and DOJ was further cemented. 

Joe Biden saw any involvement in criminal probes as radioactive, and no evidence of his tampering has surfaced (though he did pardon a bunch of allies, including his son).

There was a huge uproar back when Bill Clinton had a chance tarmac meeting with his AG, Loretta Lynch, while his wife was under investigation over her private email server. She said they talked about grandchildren and travel. A CBS reporter called the meeting ‘absolutely shocking.’ 

But you don’t have to rely on unnamed sources to learn about Trump giving his attorney general marching orders. He broadcasts it, even boasts about it.

Of course, Trump stretching his executive powers goes well beyond DOJ. There are his funding freezes against universities, dispatching of the National Guard in D.C. and elsewhere, and attempting to fire members of supposedly independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve.

The escalation against the media has been nothing short of stunning. Trump cheered ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel against the backdrop of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatening to take action against its local licenses. ‘We can do this the easy way or the hard way,’ he said, prompting some conservatives to say he sounded like a mafioso.

Trump won a $16 million settlement from ABC over George Stephanopoulos saying Trump had been held liable for ‘rape,’ not sexual abuse. He also won $16 million from CBS over the biased editing of a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Kamala Harris. 

It just so happens that Nexstar, which preempted Kimmel and owns many CBS affiliates, needs administration approval to take over Tegna, another media conglomerate.

Trump filed suit against the Wall Street Journal for reporting he’d sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a silhouette of a naked woman–and when that surfaced with what closely resembled his signature, continued to deny he had done it.

And then there is his $15 billion suit against the New York Times, which a judge threw out after just four days for its ‘inexcusable’ breaking of the rules in a filing filled with ‘vituperation.’ It’s a strange suit because it wasn’t triggered by any particular story, just a general charge that the Times campaign coverage was illegal, including a Harris endorsement that ran on the front page.

Even the largest corporations have to spend big bucks to defend such suits, which is sort of the point.

But nothing is as sensitive and powerful as law enforcement, whose officials can shield allies and prosecute opponents.

The president’s position is that DOJ was weaponized against him during the Biden administration, and therefore he’s entitled to payback.

The latest news just broke. The Justice Department was investigating border czar Tom Homan for allegedly offering to help win federal contracts to businessmen — who were actually undercover FBI agents — in exchange for $50,000.

But as MSNBC reports, Trump’s DOJ dropped the case after he took office.
Since the hidden-camera encounter took place before Trump was elected, when Homan was a private citizen, I could argue he was just doing what hundreds of lobbyists do. Except for one nagging detail — Homan took the 50K in cash, in a Cava fast-food bag. No paper trail.

And yet Pam Bondi’s department gave him a pass.

Prosecutors in every administration must make difficult judgment calls about whether they have enough evidence to convict, especially against government officials or high-profile figures. 

And next time there’s a Democrat in the White House, what’s to stop that person from playing the same kind of hardball, saying their party was entitled to payback? The cycles could be endless.

As for now, it would be easier to have confidence in these prosecution decisions if the president wasn’t openly calling the shots. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and Commerce Minister Li Chenggang in Madrid last week. They announced a ‘framework agreement’ over TikTok, the Chinese-owned app used by millions of Americans. 

But the story isn’t only about TikTok. It’s also about how America uses TikTok as a lever – and why that lever is more necessary than ever.

TikTok is an important issue in and of itself: control over data, algorithmic influence, foreign ownership – all of which are critical for national security. In addition, however, TikTok is a tool the U.S. can and should use in ongoing trade engagement, as well as to counter China’s growing leverage in rare earths, critical minerals and semiconductors.

When I served in President Donald Trump’s first administration (‘Trump 45’), the core issues we confronted included a massive trade imbalance, intellectual property theft, cyber-theft and China’s Belt and Road infrastructure expansion. These were predatory practices in trade, tech and finance. Today, in ‘Trump 47,’ the battlefront has broadened – but one thing that hasn’t changed is the psychological warfare the Chinese employ any time negotiations are underway.

I was at the center of one of the most dramatic examples of this during Trump 45… 

After an exhausting month of prep work, I boarded my flight to Beijing in March 2018 with wary optimism. I had worked intensively leading up to this trip, drafting a comprehensive framework document outlining a new trade deal with China, a proposal that would overhaul virtually every aspect of the U.S.-China economic relationship.

We’d sent the proposal to our Chinese counterparts several days earlier, and now our high-level trade delegation was en route to Beijing to negotiate the largest change to trade relations in at least 10 years. The cast of characters illustrates just how significant this trade deal could be. It included Secretary Steven Mnuchin (head of the delegation), Under Secretary David Malpass and me (Treasury), Secretary Wilbur Ross (Commerce), U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and several of his deputies, NEC Director Larry Kudlow, Under Secretary Ted McKinney (Agriculture), and Peter Navarro (special assistant to the president and director of trade and manufacturing policy).

We arrived at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing with about an hour to review our plans one more time before we had to depart for Diaoyutai – the state guest house where Mao and every leader since has entertained foreign dignitaries. But there was a surprise waiting for us at our embassy:a brand-new proposal, drafted by the Chinese, which they were putting forth at the eleventh hour, and which we had never seen. It was about 15 pages long – and completely in Chinese!

I was one of the few people in the room who could read it. After a quick scan, I told the group: ‘This is wholly unacceptable. This document doesn’t say anything – they’re just messing with us.’ A heated debate ensued over how to respond, and how the Chinese were likely to react. But there was no time to reach a consensus; it was time to leave for Diaoyutai.

There was a mass exit from the secure room where we met at the embassy, and, almost like a well-choreographed ballet with a hundred moving parts, we all shuffled to our designated cars. As Secretary Mnuchin stepped into the limousine to take us to the meeting, Malpass insisted that I ride with the secretary and pushed me into the seat next to Mnuchin, saying, ‘We need to know exactly what this says – can you translate it on the way?’

As we sped through the streets of Beijing, I sat in the back seat, literally shvitzing as a technical term in Chinese got the better of me, and furiously translated as I read out loud, in English, what the Chinese had dropped in our laps.

Even as we climbed the stairs into the building and entered the meeting room, none of us was quite sure how Mnuchin was going to handle this hot potato. After Vice Premier Liu He’s flowing stream of diplomatic pleasantries welcoming us to China, the secretary calmly stated in response, ‘We received your draft. Thanks for sending it over – but we’re going to use our draft for today.’ It wasn’t the preamble they expected. But it was entirely consistent with the new tone that President Trump had set from the day he took office.

Today, China has moved from using tariffs and IP theft to controlling choke points – especially in rare earth elements, critical minerals, semiconductors and advanced manufacturing capacity. The numbers are clear indicators of China’s leverage. 

China accounts for about 70 % of global rare earth mining and about 90 % of the world’s rare earth refining and separation capacity. In 2023, China controlled 61 % of global mining of rare earth magnet elements and 92 % of refining capacity for those magnets. 

On semiconductors: while U.S. companies remain strong in chip design and advanced R&D, China’s share of the semiconductor industry’s value-added has surged (from about 8 % in 2001 to over 30 % by 2016), and China is pushing aggressively to become self-sufficient in mature node production.

These are not passive metrics. They are active levers China already uses in the trade negotiations through export restrictions, licensing controls or by threatening disruptions. For example, in April 2025 China – clearly in response to President Trump’s bold tariff moves – added export licenses and restrictions for seven heavy rare earth elements, including dysprosium, terbium, samarium, plus rare earth magnets—materials critical to EV motors, wind turbines, electronics and defense systems.

The challenges faced in Trump’s first term have only evolved – not eased. The trade deficit is large, IP and tech theft are growing more dangerous, predatory development finance practices continue and China’s leverage in rare earths, semiconductors and control over supply chains threatens global development and American autonomy.

TikTok is a headline issue impacting critical issues of data, influence and national security. But it is also an essential lever to counter the new pressure points China is pressing. Madrid and Friday’s Trump–Xi call offer a chance to reshape this broader contest. 

As I demonstrate in ‘A Seat at the Table,’ President Trump’s strategy and policies during his first administration allowed us to exert maximum pressure on our counterparts and to stay the course with firm negotiating positions and clear red lines. Last week’s dialogues demonstrate that Trump will continue to insist on substance over symbolism, an approach critical to our national interest.