The Biden administration is green-lighting a massive offshore wind farm off the coast of southern New Jersey despite calls for a pause on such development amid a spate of marine mammal deaths along the Atlantic Coast.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced Wednesday that it is approving the construction and operations plan for Ocean Wind 1, a 1,100-megawatt project that will be located 15 miles off the New Jersey coast, power 380,000 homes and enter commercial operations in 2025. The project will be made up of 98 wind turbines spread across a 68,450-acre lease area.

‘Since Day One, the Biden-Harris administration has worked to jump-start the offshore wind industry across the country – and today’s approval for the Ocean Wind 1 project is another milestone in our efforts to create good-paying union jobs while combatting climate change and powering our nation,’ Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement.

‘Ocean Wind 1 represents another significant step forward for the offshore wind industry in the United States,’ BOEM Director Elizabeth Klein added. ‘The project’s approval demonstrates the federal government’s commitment to developing clean energy and fighting climate change.’

White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi said the project, which was first proposed in 2019, is ‘Bidenomics in action’ and not an accident. 

As part of its climate agenda, the Biden administration has aggressively moved forward with rapid offshore wind development across millions of acres of federal waters, primarily along the East Coast. Shortly after taking office, President Biden outlined goals to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, the most ambitious goal of its kind worldwide.

In May 2021, BOEM approved the 800 megawatt Vineyard Wind project 12 miles off the coast of Massachusetts, marking the first-ever large-scale offshore wind approval. Then, in November 2021, the agency approved the 130-megawatt Southfork Wind project off the coast of Long Island, New York, the second commercial-scale offshore project.

The Ocean Wind 1 project is the third-ever and largest-ever approved offshore wind development.

‘Ocean Wind 1 is on the cusp of making history as construction on New Jersey’s first offshore wind farm is set to begin in a few short months, delivering on the promise of good-paying jobs, local investment and clean energy,’ said David Hardy, the top U.S. executive for Orsted, the Danish energy firm developing the project.

In addition, Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and Reps. Donald Norcross and Bill Pascrell both cheered the action Wednesday along with various environmental groups and labor unions.

However, lawmakers, local officials, fishing industry associations and wildlife groups along the Atlantic Coast have called for an offshore wind development moratorium amid an uptick in marine mammal deaths. Since December, at least 39 whales and 37 dolphins have been found stranded on East Coast beaches near where energy developers have been conducting offshore wind surveys, according to local officials. 

And the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan federal agency tasked with conducting oversight of government operations, announced last month it would investigate the potential impact offshore wind development has on wildlife, military operations and commercial fisheries.

‘Despite the GAO beginning to investigate potential harmful impacts of offshore wind development on our national defense, fishing industry, and environment, BOEM has chosen to move full steam ahead ignoring these warning signs,’ Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘We are still also seeing an unprecedented number of marine mammals washing ashore, yet offshore wind in New Jersey has cleared one of the last hurdles before full on construction can begin.’ 

‘It is disappointing to see these federal agencies force these projects on Americans in order to meet President Biden’s aggressive Green New Deal agenda rather than doing what is right for our coastal communities, industries, and environment,’ he continued. ‘This fight is still not over and I will continue to use every means possible to halt this industrialization of our ocean. It is truly a fight between right and wrong and I will not give up. God help our coastal communities and our oceans.’

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., who like Van Drew represents a district along the New Jersey coastline, similarly blasted the Biden administration’s approval Wednesday.

‘Just days after New Jersey Democrats approved massive, taxpayer-funded subsidies for foreign wind developer Orsted, the Biden Administration is once again recklessly greenlighting the unprecedented offshore wind industrialization of our shore before we know all of the potentially catastrophic impacts of these projects,’ Smith told Fox News Digital.

‘These offshore wind projects must — at a minimum — be paused until the Government Accountability Office concludes its ongoing independent investigation,’ he continued. ‘New Jersey residents deserve to have their concerns addressed and questions answered before it is too late.’

Alex Soros, the 37-year-old son of George Soros who recently took control of the mammoth multi-billion dollar Open Society Foundations (OSF), has now visited President Biden’s White House at least 20 times, records show. 

In late March, Alex attended three meetings with Nina Srivastava, who previously served as an advisor for Biden’s former chief of staff, Ron Klain; Amanda Sloat, the National Security Council’s senior director for Europe; and Jon Finer, the principal deputy national security adviser, according to recently released visitor logs.

The meetings follow the 17 former visits Alex had with Biden personnel since the administration took power. The objective of the discussions remains unclear. The White House did not answer Fox News Digital’s email on the matter.

OSF, which George Soros helmed, announced on June 11 that Alex would take over the network from his father. Since then, he’s been jet-setting around and meeting with top Democratic officials, former President Bill Clinton and even attending meetings with Pope Francis. 

Shortly after the announcement, Alex hosted an event featuring House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other top New York Democrats, including Reps. Jerry Nadler and Gregory Meeks, according to an Instagram post. 

‘Back in a New York minute to host distinct members of the New York for hmp with [Rep. Hakeem Jeffries] and members of the New York house delegation, [Rep. Pat Ryan, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Rep. Gregory Meeks, Rep. Ritchie Torres] on their quest to take the back [sic] the 2024 majority! And always supporting the sneaker caucus!’ Alex wrote June 17.

Alex, meanwhile, spent the 4th of July in Albania with former President Bill Clinton, he said on Twitter.

‘What a treat to be with President Clinton in Albania,’ Alex wrote on Tuesday. ‘One of the most pro-American countries in the world & a stalwart ally thanks in part to its prime minister [Edi Rama] who is coincidently born on July 4th. Great to spend today with an [American] hero and one of the US’s best friends.’

The younger Soros and Clinton were also part of a ‘private audience’ at Pope Francis’ residence on Wednesday, which the Vatican and press did not announce, reporter Edward Pentin announced.

Additionally, Alex has remained cozy with top Democrats and posted dozens of photos of him and leading House and Senate Democrats since 2018. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California appear the most often on his social media feeds.

He also posted a photo weeks ago with Vice President Kamala Harris, writing, ‘Great to recently catch up with Madame Vice President, [Kamala Harris]!’ 

OSF is getting a massive overhaul under his leadership. After Alex took the network’s reins, they announced they planned to slash 40 percent of their global workforce as part of restructuring efforts.

05 July 2023 – President Biden can’t choose his direct opponent next year. But Mr. Biden and Democrats can certainly manufacture one. 

The Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024.

Liberals are incensed at the latest spate of Supreme Court opinions. Several of the decisions went against causes important to the left.

The High Court undid the President’s plan to cancel $400 billion in student loans. LBGTQ groups are infuriated that the Court ruled that a Colorado web designer doesn’t have to make sites for same-sex weddings. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action requirements in higher education.

Expect Democrats to resort to a page in their playbook which likely helped the party gain a seat in the Senate and nearly cling to control in the House in 2022. The Dobbs opinion on abortion last year emerged as a game changer. It energized progressives and pro-choice Democrats and independents. The ruling infused the polls with a stream of voters, serving as a political life preserver to the party. 

Democrats have a lot more to campaign on in 2024 when it comes to the Supreme Court. Questions about the ethics of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas abound. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to take part in a hearing called in the spring by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., about the conduct of the justices. The panel is prepping another clash with the Court as Senate Democrats write a bill about the ethics of justices.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told CNN the justices are ‘destroying the legitimacy of the Court.’ She endorses issuing subpoenas for justices.

‘They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on the danger of this court and the abuse of power in this Court, particularly as it is related to the entanglements around conflicts of interest as well,’ said Ocasio-Cortez.

This is why left-wing Members hope to expand and potentially ‘pack’ the Court with jurists who may do the bidding of progressives.

‘Expanding the court is constitutional. Congress has done it before and Congress must do it again,’ said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

Markey is right. The composition of the Supreme Court has bounced around for decades. The size of the Court is not established by the Constitution. Congress set the makeup of the Court via statute. Congress would periodically increase or decrease the number of seats on the Court for political reasons.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a Supreme Court comprised of six justices. But in 1801, Congress reduced the size of the Court to five justices. That was an effort to undercut President Thomas Jefferson from filling the Supreme Court with one of his nominees. Don’t forget that the House of Representatives elected Jefferson as president in what is known as a ‘contingent election’ following a dispute over the Electoral College. 

Because of the burgeoning size of the federal judiciary, Congress added a seventh justice to help oversee lower courts in 1807. The Court grew to nine justices in 1837.

In 1863, Congress added a 10th seat to the Supreme Court for President Lincoln. This came right after the pro-slavery Dred Scott decision in the late 1850s. There was hope that Lincoln could retool the Court following the Dred Scott case by appointing a jurist aligned with the Union who opposed slavery. However, Lincoln never filled that seat. But after Lincoln’s assassination, there was fear that President Andrew Johnson may alter the court. So in 1866, Congress shrunk the size of the Supreme Court to seven justices. That prevented Johnson from nominating anyone to the Supreme Court as the nation was in the midst of Reconstruction.

Once Johnson was out of office Congress switched the number back to nine for President Ulysses S. Grant. It’s remained at nine ever since. 

But there have been efforts to change the Court’s composition since then.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to ‘pack’ the Court in 1937. He hoped to add justices for every member of the Supreme Court who was over the age of 70.

In a radio ‘Fireside Chat’ on March 9, 1937, FDR squarely challenged the High Court.

‘The Courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions,’ said Roosevelt.

FDR accused the Supreme Court of an ‘arbitrary exercise of judicial power’ when it came to opinions about banks and railroads. So the president hoped to change the Court by adding more youthful members who might align more closely with his political agenda.

‘There is nothing novel or radical about this idea,’ said FDR, noting that Congress also changed the Court’s membership in 1869. ‘It seeks to restore the Court to its rightful and historic place in our Constitutional government.’

But FDR failed to marshal enough support for the plan with his Fireside Chats. The public opposed the idea and the Senate Judiciary Committee emphatically torpedoed the plan.

It’s doubtful that the Democrats efforts to increase the size of the Supreme Court will go anywhere. It’s unclear that the proposal has anywhere close to 51 votes to pass in the Senate. Commandeering 60 votes to overcome a filibuster is even more daunting.

However, this gives liberals another chance to rail against Senate procedures and call for an end to the filibuster. It energizes the base and helps Democratic candidates raise money. 

That’s why this effort is more about the ballot box in 2024.

‘If you want to motivate American voters, you need to scare them,’ said Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer. 

Bitzer says that Democrats used last year’s abortion opinion ‘as a weapon in the campaign.’ It helped Democrats mitigate losses in the midterms.

Bitzer believes Democrats now have the opportunity to lean on three key voting blocs to help them in 2024. Democrats will lean on younger voters upset about student loans. There are minority voters upset about the Affirmative Action decision. Finally, Democrats will rely on the LBGTQ+ community. 

However, the closing argument could be the composition of the Supreme Court itself. 

‘Democrats will look at the Court and argue there are individuals that should not be on the Court and that they are on the Court and we have to play hardball,’ said Bitzer.

Dial back to February 2016. 

Late Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly. Former President Obama nominated current Attorney General Merrick Garland to fill his seat. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is the Majority Leader at the time. He refuses to grant Garland a hearing. McConnell says the next president should fill that seat. 

So former President Trump prevails in the 2016 presidential election and nominates Justice Neil Gorsuch. McConnell then shepherds Gorsuch’s nomination to confirmation after Democrats threatened a filibuster.

Upset by filibusters, Senate Democrats established a new precedent in the Senate in 2013 to short-circuit most filibusters of executive branch nominees, known as the ‘nuclear option.’ But they left in place the potential to filibuster a Supreme Court Justice. The Senate had never filibustered a Supreme Court nomination. However, the Senate did filibuster the promotion of late Justice Abe Fortas from Associate Justice to U.S. Chief Justice in the late 1960s. 

Facing a filibuster, McConnell deployed the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch. McConnell again relied on the nuclear option to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the fall of 2018. 

After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, McConnell ignored what he said in 2016 about confirming justices in a presidential election year. The GOP-controlled Senate rammed through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett days before the 2020 presidential election. 

This is why liberals are apoplectic about the Supreme Court.

‘Republicans have been very willing to change the rules of the game,’ said Bitzer. ‘Democrats are slowly coming to the realization that if (Republicans) are going to play that game by their rules, then (they) need to be playing that game by (their) own set of rules.’

You can’t always pick your opponent in politics. 

NBA teams often pine to secure a certain matchup in the playoffs. Team A pairs up really well against Team B. Then team A is often disappointed it didn’t get the opponent it ‘wanted.’

You can’t manufacture a potential adversary in sports. But you can in politics. 

President Biden can’t choose his direct opponent in 2024. But Mr. Biden and Democrats can certainly aim to put the Supreme Court on the ballot in 2024.

Former Republican Senate candidate and Afghanistan war veteran Sam Brown is considering a second bid for the U.S. Senate, this time to unseat Nevada’s other vulnerable Democratic senator, Jacky Rosen, a source close to Brown confirmed to Fox News on Wednesday.

Fox also obtained an email invitation Brown sent earlier in the day for a July 10 event in Reno, Nevada, where he will make a ‘special announcement.’

‘These last two years I’ve had the honor of traveling around our state and listening to Nevadans one-on-one. Whether at homes, schools, or businesses, they tell me they are deeply concerned with the direction our country is headed,’ Brown wrote in the invitation.

‘While everyday families are struggling with inflation, failing schools, and public safety concerns, D.C. politicians are completely disconnected from the reality that families live every day. Something has to change!’ he wrote. 

‘Nevadans see the damage caused by failed politicians, who serve special interests instead of listening to you and me. Their message to me has been loud and clear: they want someone to stand up for them and lead,’ he added.

Brown is a retired Army captain and a Purple Heart recipient who sustained serious injuries from an IED explosion during a 2008 deployment in Afghanistan, which left his face severely burned. 

As a first time Senate candidate in 2022, he came in second to former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt in the Republican primary, losing 56% to 34%. Laxalt went on to lose narrowly to incumbent Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto.

Laxalt, a longtime ally of Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who’s steering the Never Back Down super PAC that’s backing the governor’s 2024 presidential bid, has indicated he won’t make another Senate run next year.

Should Brown enter the race, he will be the fourth candidate to enter the Republican field, which includes former state assemblyman Jim Marchant.

The Nevada Senate seat currently held by Rosen is considered a top target for Republicans in 2024, similar to 2022, as the party looks to capitalize on President Biden’s unpopularity across the country. Cortez Masto won re-election with just 49% of the vote and by a margin of less than 8,000 votes.

A Biden administration proposal that would lock up federal land and block traditional uses of public land like energy development is facing stiff opposition from a wide range of stakeholders.

In March, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unveiled federal regulations that would allow environmental organizations that are opposed to fossil fuel drilling and mining projects to lease land for conservation uses, thereby blocking resource development. The agency extended its public comment period for the rule until Wednesday and has received more than 170,000 comments.

‘What you’ve got now is BLM trying to shove through another overarching, sweeping rule that’s not supported by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,’ Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘They’re trying to argue that conservation now somehow fits within the definition of uses under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and trying to do it by rule.’ 

‘It’s just flagrantly in violation of federal law. But they’re trying to do it on the sly,’ he continued. ‘They can’t get done what they want done in Congress and through the Senate, so they try to do it via rule.’

Knudsen added that the proposal represents a broad policy change that should come through legislation, not BLM regulations. He suggested the proposal is also in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that requires federal agencies to provide sufficient reasoning for regulations they implement.

Knudsen joined letters led by other state attorneys general in opposition to the proposal. The comment letters from him and the other top law enforcement officials stated the BLM action would substantially harm the energy, mining, agriculture and cattle industries while violating the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976.

Under FLPMA, Congress established BLM’s so-called ‘multiple-use’ and sustained yield mandate. The statute requires the BLM to open the lands it manages to various uses including energy development, grazing, recreation and mining.

The BLM action seeks to put conservation ‘on equal footing’ with other uses, and the agency said it would improve the climate change resilience of public lands, conserve wildlife habitats and landscapes and preserve cultural and natural resources on public lands. Under the rule, organizations would be allowed to bid on land to conduct specific restoration or mitigation activities on.

‘Uses are all defined in FLPMA. Nowhere in there does the term conservation — conservation is basically non-use,’ Knudsen said. ‘So what this would amount to is locking up swaths of federal land for ‘conservation.’ That’s not an approved use under the law. If you want to do that, fine. Go to Congress, pass the bill, get the president to sign it. But they know they don’t have the juice to do that.’

In addition to Knudsen and several other attorneys general, various industry groups have also weighed in and opposed the proposal during its comment period.

For example, mining groups National Mining Association (NMA) and American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA), local cattlemen’s associations, farmers’ groups and oil industry organizations submitted comments expressing concern about the rule.

‘In our view, the proposal represents a fundamental shift in the way BLM currently manages federal lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple use mandate,’ NMA counsel Katie Mills wrote to the BLM. ‘The potential impacts on NMA’s members that conduct mining operations or other activities on federal lands are significant.’

‘The Proposed Rule is illegal and should be withdrawn immediately. While the Proposed Rule pays lip service to [FLPMA] as amended, it fundamentally violates FLPMA in multiple ways, including illegally adding ‘conservation’ as a ‘use’ when Congress did not include it in FLPMA’s specific list of uses,’ AEMA Executive Director Mark Compton wrote in a separate letter.

The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation said the rule should be withdrawn and expressed concern about its potential impact on small businesses including ranchers who depend on public lands.

The South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association similarly wrote that BLM’s proposal was ‘developed with no stakeholder involvement or awareness.’ It argued BLM should rescind the rule until it consults producers — it noted farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists — who will be impacted by it.

‘In light of the numerous legal infirmities and substantial policy concerns for implementation, IPANM respectfully requests that BLM withdraw and reconsider the proposed Planning Rule,’ Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico (IPANM) Executive Director Jim Winchester wrote in a comment letter.

‘BLM should refocus its efforts on facilitating multiple use of the public lands within the confines of its Congressionally delegated FLPMA planning authority, ACEC designation, and wilderness withdrawals,’ he continued. ‘To the extent BLM proceeds with the rulemaking, it must remove any allowance for conservation leasing.’

In another letter, the Montana Electric Cooperatives’ Association, which represents large electricity providers in the state, said the rule could ultimately prevent electricity infrastructure development, potentially hurting renewable energy sources. 

EXCLUSIVE: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., recently toured the home of Frederick Muhlenberg, the first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and reflected on the historical importance of his position.

During the tour in Trappe, Pennsylvania, located about 30 miles north of Philadelphia, leaders of a local historical society took McCarthy around Muhlenberg’s property — dubbed ‘The Speaker’s House’ — and the Henry Muhlenberg House which was owned by Frederick Muhlenberg’s father, a well-known 18th century Lutheran minister.

‘I wanted to come to the house of the very first speaker of the House of Representatives, Frederick Muhlenberg. You learn from history,’ McCarthy told Fox News Digital in an exlusive interview following the tour. ‘Think about if you became the very first speaker of Congress — setting up a new nation, how did you create the tradition, the history?’

‘And when you study his time of being speaker, there’s something that stands out: I might have a little in common with him. He didn’t win on the first ballot. It took him a couple ballots to win there,’ he continued. ‘So, he had some fortitude, some grit, which you needed back in the time. How did he make sure the Constitution was upheld? How did he make sure committees did the work, that the speaker didn’t suck in all the power?’

McCarthy added that he was especially interested in learning about how Muhlenberg was able to work with the first U.S. President George Washington in the late 1700s as they established the foundations of the federal government for years to come. 

‘Being a speaker of the House is not an easy job — you know that going in,’ he said. ‘But how do you wrangle and help people come together, uphold the Constitution, but pass the type of legislation through committees that puts America onto a better track, that tomorrow will be better than today?’

In January, after multiple unsuccessful votes over the course of four days, McCarthy was elected the 55th ever Speaker of the House on the 15th ballot. The tight vote came after a group of Republicans demanded a series of concessions — such as ensuring certain committee assignments, creating a new ‘weaponization’ subcommittee, and giving lower-ranked members power to alter bills — and for McCarthy to prioritize various conservative priorities.

And McCarthy’s speakership hit another snag last month when House Freedom Caucus Republicans delayed votes on protecting gas stoves, a major GOP priority, in response to the way McCarthy and other leaders pushed the debt ceiling bill. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said he and others were fighting back against the ‘era of the imperial speakership.’

McCarthy broadly reflected on the first six months of his speakership following the tour in Trappe, saying he understood the job isn’t easy, but that he is willing to make the right decisions even if they aren’t immediately popular.

‘Muhlenberg, a lot of people may not know him, but he literally made a decision following George Washington on a Jay Treaty that cost him his political career — literally was attacked by a family member over it,’ McCarthy told Fox News Digital. ‘It was the right decision going forward. But emotionally, where the country was at, they wanted another decision.’ 

‘He took the leadership upon himself to make that tie-breaking vote where George Washington believed our nation was too young to go to war with Britain again,’ he continued. ‘You can learn so many times in history that people putting the country first, made the right decision. It might not make you popular at the moment, but history will be very kind when they look back upon you.’

The current Speaker said reflecting on history reminds him democracy isn’t going to be ‘smooth,’ but will ultimately yield the best results.

‘Democracy, as Abraham Lincoln put it, of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from Earth. There’s a reason why: because our power doesn’t rest with government, it’s with the people,’ McCarthy added. ‘I actually embrace the struggle when it comes because I know it’s working. You might not get everything that you want, but you know the struggle, that the people still have the power and you work through it.’

According to Lisa Minardi, the executive director of Historic Trappe which manages an array of historical sites in the area, The Speaker’s House was scheduled 20 years ago to be demolished and replaced by a CVS Pharmacy as part of strip mall expansion plan, but was rescued after a group of citizens who wanted to preserve the site banded together.

Today, the home is being renovated as part of a multi-year renovation funded, in large part, by individual donors. The largest project has been executing the restoration of the home’s roof which was successfully completed in 2017. The organization is now focused on replacing windows and refurbishing the entire exterior, and plans to soon shift its focus on the interior.

‘There’s only one first speaker of the House,’ Minardi told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘Frederick Muhlenberg is just incredibly important historically. He’s important at the local level, the county level, the state and the national level.’

‘Not just here in our community of Trappe, but throughout all of those levels,’ she continued. ‘So, we think we’ve got a great story to tell. We want to, you know, get him on the radar.’

Fox News Digital Production Assistant Aubrie Spady contributed to this report.

A U.S. District Court judge is temporarily preventing White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing that such actions in the past were likely First Amendment violations.

The Tuesday injunction by Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty was in response to recent lawsuits from Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general. The suits allege that the White House coerced or ‘significantly encourage[d]’ tech companies to suppress free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Doughty is barring several federal officials and agencies – including some of Biden’s Cabinet members and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre – from contacting social media companies in efforts to suppress speech.

Google, Meta and Twitter were all named in the lawsuits.

The injunction, which was obtained by Fox News, states that the government’s actions ‘likely violate the Free Speech Clause’ and that the court ‘is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments,’ dealing a significant blow to the White House. 

‘During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’’ Doughty wrote.

‘If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,’ the injunction adds. ‘In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.’

The injunction also claims that ‘the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech,’ but that issues the case raises are ‘beyond party lines.’

‘Viewpoint discrimination is an especially egregious form of content discrimination,’ Doughty argued. ‘The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.’

The cases could mean that interactions between tech companies and government officials may be significantly limited in the future. Exceptions might include national security threats or criminal matters on social media.

The injunction received favorable responses from the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general on Tuesday.

‘Happy birthday America. You get your First Amendment back!!!’ Missouri AG Andrew Bailey wrote in a tweet.

‘Today’s historic ruling is a big step in the continued fight to prohibit our government from unconstitutional censorship,’ Louisiana AG Jeff Landry said in a statement. ‘We look forward to continuing to litigate the case and will vigorously defend the injunction on appeal.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House, Google, Meta and Twitter for statements, but has not heard back. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

–>

Sen. James Lankford, Oklahoma’s senior senator, is making religious liberty a pillar of his political agenda and claims the White House is failing to enforce basic protections on the issue.

The senator made the remarks in an interview with the Daily Mail published Tuesday.

‘My passion for religious liberty really draws from my personal faith, that I have the ability to be able to live my faith, practice my faith and speak about my faith,’ Lankford told the outlet.

Lankford, a Republican, served as a Christian minister for 22 years prior to taking office. He says religious liberty is much broader than simple freedom to worship.

‘Faith is not the freedom of worship. You have the freedom to be able to worship as you choose,’ said Lankford. ‘It’s the freedom of religion. It’s the freedom to have a faith and live that faith. And so that that’s been dear to me.’

The senator went on to assert that President Biden’s administration has abandoned even basic legal protections for religious belief. 

‘This particular administration is not going to protect the religious liberty of conscience protections that are already in law,’ Lankford said.

He drew particular attention to a legal case in which the University of Vermont Medical Center scheduled a nurse to assist with an elective abortion despite knowing her objections to the procedure. The Biden administration declined to act in the case.

‘They literally just trampled on her conscience rights,’ Lankford told the Daily Mail.

Lankford additionally asserted his belief that abortion is going to be one of the most prominent issues in the 2024 presidential election.

‘It’s not just an election issue. It is an issue about our culture. Do we value … every child?’ the senator asked. ‘Do we think some children are valuable and some children are disposable? Or do we think all children are valuable?’

It’s a July 4th tradition every four years in Iowa and New Hampshire – White House hopefuls marching in Independence Day parades in the year before the presidential caucuses and primaries.

Iowa and New Hampshire have led off both major parties’ presidential nominating calendars for half a century, and while the Democrats are upending their schedule, the two states will once again kick off the GOP lineup in 2024.

And on Tuesday, five Republican presidential candidates are marching in parades in New Hampshire, with three more in Iowa.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, ex-CIA spy and former Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, and Michigan businessman Perry Johnson are marching in parades in Amherst, Wolfeboro and Merrimack, New Hampshire. DeSantis was seen marching the entire route of the parade and was met with a lot of cheers – but some jeers as well.

‘The fourth is not only celebrating independence but celebrating liberty and freedom that are synonyms for independence. I love the fourth of July because it reminds me of the men and the women who are willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of freedom,’ Scott said in a Fox News Digital interview in Merrimack, New Hampshire.  ‘I can’t think of a better day to celebrate are men in uniform, whether it’s backing the blue or whether it’s our military men and women. This is a great day to celebrate who we are.’

Scott emphasized that ‘there’s not a better place to call home than America and I can’t think of a better place to celebrate it than this state – the Granite State – Live free or Die. It’s really synonymous with who we are as Americans.’ 

Former Vice President Mike Pence marched in the Urbandale, Iowa, Independence Day parade, with former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and former nationally syndicated radio host and 2021 California gubernatorial recall election candidate Larry Elder marching in Clear Lake, Iowa. Mayor Francis Suarez of Miami, Florida, is also in Iowa, taking part in July 4th festivities in Cedar Rapids.

Here are some sights from today as the presidential campaign trail and the parade routes intersected.