The Justice Department has reached a settlement with a New Jersey county over language barriers for Spanish-speaking voters, emphasizing a growing challenge for certain minority communities nationwide.

The agreement with Union County comes after federal prosecutors filed a lawsuit alleging it failed to make registration and voting notices, forms, instructions and ballots available in Spanish, violating sections of the federal Voting Rights Act.

‘We know firsthand how language barriers hurt our community,’ said Hector Sanchez Barba, chief executive of Mi Familia Vota, a national group seeking to boost Latino political influence. ‘Eliminating language barriers is not only legally sound but also the right thing to do to strengthen our democracy.’

The county, which has nearly 28,000 Spanish-speaking citizens of voting age, will be required to print all election materials in English and Spanish, and ensure that someone is available to assist Spanish-speaking voters in person. It also will have to assist voters with disabilities, who have long been overlooked in the fight for access to the polls.

The consent decree, announced Tuesday, will need approval from a federal judge.

New Jersey is one of several places across the U.S. where language barriers hamper access to the ballot for minority communities, according to voter advocacy groups. Some Asian American and Asian immigrant communities are particularly affected, said Susana Lorenzo-Giguere, the associate director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund’s Democracy Program.

‘Despite a long history in the U.S., Asian Americans still face bias that views them as perpetual foreigners who aren’t ‘real Americans’ and don’t deserve to be a part of the fabric of our democracy,’ she said.

Under the federal Voting Rights Act, communities must provide language assistance for voting if more than 5% of the voting-age citizens — or over 10,000 — have limited English proficiency.

It can be harder for Asian-speaking communities to be covered under federal law because there are so many languages to consider, said Bob Sakaniwa, director of policy and advocacy of Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote. Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Hmong and Vietnamese are just some, he said.

For example, Asian communities make up a significant portion of Mercer, Hudson and Somerset counties in New Jersey, but the populations don’t meet the federal threshold for providing assistance. Arabic-speaking communities also are not reflected in New Jersey’s voting rights legislation, which state advocacy groups are still fighting to change.

Union County did not immediately respond when asked how it intended to implement the consent decree.

The New Jersey agreement underscores the importance of the federal Voting Rights Act, despite the landmark law being undermined by Supreme Court decisions and voting restrictions in Republican-led states. Henal Patel, law and policy director at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, said it’s important for local officials to comply with the act and for the federal government to enforce it.

‘This is necessary for voters in these areas so that they can cast their ballots with a full understanding of what they’re voting for,’ Patel said.

Rare momentum in the Texas Capitol for a tougher gun law flickered out Wednesday after Republicans stalled a bill that would raise the purchase age for AR-style rifles, virtually assuring the GOP-controlled Legislature will in no major way restrict gun access after more mass shootings.

The legislation — always a longshot at best — now has little chance of coming back after unexpectedly coming within reach of a full vote in the state House with the help of two Republicans, which sent Texas’ powerful gun lobby scrambling into action.

The unusual forward progress in Texas of a proposed gun restriction jolted the Capitol on Monday, two days after a gunman near Dallas opened fire at an outdoor shopping mall with an AR-style rifle, killing eight people.

But late Tuesday night, House Republicans let a deadline lapse that stops the bill from going any further.

‘Uvalde families didn’t fail. Texas politicians did,’ tweeted Kimberly Mata Rubio, whose 10-year-old daughter Lexi was among the 19 children and two teachers killed by a gunman at Robb Elementary School nearly a year ago in Uvalde, Texas.

The deadline to move the bill toward a full House vote came and went as protesters chanted outside the chamber, including Brett Cross, who had been raising his 10-year-old nephew Uziyah Garcia in Uvalde before the fourth-grader was killed in the shooting. Video on social media showed four Texas Department of Public Safety troopers escorting Cross out of the Capitol during the protest.

Cross said troopers removed him from the Capitol for being too loud. DPS officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the incident Wednesday. State Rep. James Talarico, a Democrat, said he was concerned by the removal and planned to seek more information.

The failure of the bill was not unexpected: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has long rejected calls for tighter gun laws after mass shootings in Texas. He did so again this week after another shooting Saturday in Allen, Texas.

Two Republicans had unexpectedly helped advance the legislation that would raise the purchase age of semiautomatic weapons from 18 to 21. For gun control advocates in Texas, it was nothing short of a milestone.

But that was followed by gun rights groups — which are rarely forced to play defense in the Texas Capitol — mobilizing pushback in an effort to swiftly stamp out even a glimpse of momentum for gun control supporters.

Texas Gun Rights, one of the most outspoken groups, was joined by Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people during a Wisconsin protest in 2020 and was later acquitted of murder.

‘This is a perfect example of a knee jerk ‘just do something’ mentality,’ said Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights.

It underlined how almost any attempt to tighten gun laws in Texas is off the table in the state’s GOP-controlled Legislature, which in recent years has made gun access easier following other mass shootings and shows no appetite for reversing course. That includes Abbott, who after the shooting in Allen, called mental health the root of the problem.

One of the Republicans who voted to advance the bill was state Rep. Sam Harless, who represents a solidly GOP-leaning suburb near Houston. He said he received no pushback form his House colleagues over his decision.

‘I just voted my heart and my constituents are likely not the gun groups,’ Harless said.

Another Republican, state Rep. Justin Holland, also joined Democrats on the House Select Committee on Community Safety in voting 8-5 to advance the measure that would raise the purchase age of certain semiautomatic weapons from 18 to 21.

In a statement defending his vote, Holland said, ‘I do not believe in gun control.’ He noted that he previously voted in support of Texas removing training and background checks to carry a handgun. He also said he had earned three consecutive ‘A’ ratings from the National Rifle Association — but acknowledged he now has ‘no idea’ if they will rate him so highly going forward.

He said testimony given to the committee convinced him that a law raising the purchase age might serve as a ‘significant roadblock’ to a young person acquiring certain semiautomatic weapons and causing harm.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Wednesday signed a law providing full disability benefits to Chicago police officers and firefighters struck by COVID-19 before vaccines were available, presiding over an emotional statehouse ceremony which marked the end of a financial struggle for responders including the brother of Comptroller Susana Mendoza.

The Act-of-Duty law, HB3162, ensures disability benefits of 75% of salary plus health insurance for anyone unable to work after contracting the coronavirus from March 9, 2020, when the flare-up intensified in Illinois, until June 30, 2021. The law grants them the presumption that they picked up the illness on the job.

Pritzker said after COVID-19’s arrival in early 2020, police, fire and medical personnel were both a line of defense and a lifeline.

‘Our first responders were key to our national response, transporting infected patients to hospitals, disbursing masks and testing kits or providing care to those in distress…,’ Pritzker said. ‘But even with social distancing, masks and mitigations in place, many of our first responders became infected with COVID-19.’

Mendoza’s brother, 58-year-old police Det. Joaquin Mendoza, was a veteran officer who worked the midnight shift. With no spouse or children, the comptroller said work was his only focus. In November 2020, when the city canceled days off, he worked 17 straight days, woke up one morning with a cough and two days later was rushed to the hospital with COVID-19.

He moved in with his sister and her family and since then, he’s had five strokes and lost both kidneys, requiring thrice-weekly dialysis. But the Policeman’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago denied his claim for full disability because there was no proof that he contracted the virus on the job. The board also denied Officer Diana Cordova-Nestad.

‘This has been the most hellacious experience…,’ Mendoza said. ‘I don’t want any police officers to feel that their only recourse is to recognize that they’re worth more dead than alive and decide to eat a bullet because they don’t want to deal with this. … I know it sounds dramatic, but it’s real.’

Mendoza said she know of about 20 others who will benefit from the law — after her brother and Cordova-Nestad were denied, no one else sought benefits.

‘It’s a small universe… so you’re not talking about opening up the floodgates,’ she said.

Joaquin Mendoza had planned to attend the bill signing but underwent surgery again on Tuesday and remains hospitalized.

‘He told me that maybe it had to happen… because he’s the only one with a sister who knows how to navigate this crazy system and can right the wrong for brothers and sisters on the force,’ the comptroller said.

House Republicans talk about border security all the time.

‘The border’s wide open,’ said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., on Fox.

‘We expect massive waves of people to come,’ said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn.

‘There’s drug trafficking,’ said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Tex.

‘Unaccompanied children!’ thundered Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Tex., on Fox.

But doing something about the border proved elusive for the House Republican majority for months. Perhaps until now. Republicans aim to pass a bill this week.

This accomplishes two goals for the GOP. The bill coincides with the end of Title 42 and an expected surge at the border. But Republicans also campaigned on border security during the midterm elections.

‘I will promise you this if we get the majority, we will secure this border,’ promised House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., last September as the GOP rolled out its policy agenda.

But consensus evaded Republicans on the issue. They hoped to pass a border security package over the winter but plowed into trouble. The GOP lacked the votes with its narrow majority.

‘We’ve only been in power for just four months,’ protested House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., on Fox. ‘It’s not about a timeframe.’

But the ‘timeframe’ arrived this week as the pandemic-era Title 42 policy at the border expires. That’s why the GOP is angling for passage of the bill.

Like with the debt ceiling bill last month, McCarthy hoped to make the package a ‘take it or leave it’ proposition – not open to amendments or changes. But that goal found reality Tuesday night as the House Rules Committee prepped the border bill for debate.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., indicated early in the week he was a nay. On Twitter, Massie characterized the inclusion of E-Verify (a program to document the eligibility status of workers in the U.S.) in the GOP bill as ‘a huge mistake.’ He argued that the Biden administration could use E-Verify as ‘the ultimate on/off switch for EMPLOYMENT.’ 

Some members also opposed a plan to grant the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to designate cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The House Rules Committee met until the early hours of Wednesday morning to establish the playing field to consider the bill. But Republicans knew they had to alter the bill to appease potential no votes.

The House can’t bring an actual bill to the floor unless it irons out the ‘rule’ for debate on the issue.

‘I wouldn’t bet against McCarthy and our Whip team. It will be close,’ said one senior Republican with ties to the leadership. 

Fox is told the ending of Title 42 alone could persuade some reluctant GOPers to vote yes even if they have reservations about the bill. 

‘Every vote in the House is like the Perils of Pauline,’ said one source about the tight vote margins the GOP must navigate in the House. ‘But somehow she always seems to avoid  being run over by the train.’

That’s likely the scenario on most big votes in the House for this Congress.

Again, this will be about the math.

Democrats have struggled to get all of their Members to the floor on other major votes of late. But if all Democrats are present and voting (213), that means Republicans can only lose four on their side. Repeated Democratic absences on big votes has helped Republicans advance bills with narrow margins. Democrats could make the GOP sweat if they get everyone to the floor.

However, GOP horse-trading could yield the votes to pass the bill.

McCarthy said two weeks ago that the debt ceiling bill was ‘closed.’ Yet McCarthy opened the bill back up in the dead of night with changes in order to court a coalition of conservatives and midwestern Republicans who were ‘noes’ on the bill for different reasons. Some Republicans viewed that precedent as an opportunity to extract concessions from McCarthy. Not budging would cause problems with approving the measure.

A failure to pass a border security package would be a blow to the House GOP – especially since this was a primary part of the Republican agenda. 

Democrats won’t help on this bill – much like they didn’t assist House Republicans with their debt ceiling package in April.

‘Can you tell me what the final construct of the border bill really is?’ asked House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. ‘In the dark of night, they made more changes. I haven’t seen every change they have made to this bill.’

Other Democrats argued the GOP bill would make things worse.

‘It just kind of shows the failure of Title 42,’ said Senate Majority Whip and Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill. ‘Their bill provides no new legal pathways for entry into this country, erases nearly all humanitarian protection for families seeking asylum and makes the situation at the border even worse.’

Republicans believe that the Biden Administration’s handling of the border is a winning issue for them. They’re happy to underscore problems with the expiration of Title 42.

‘It is going to be an invasion like we have never seen in the history of this country,’ said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. 

Barrasso then called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ‘malicious’ and accused him of lying about the border. 

‘With the open border system we have, the drug cartels are taking advantage of it,’ said Tennessee Rep. Mark Green on Fox.

‘The cartels are doing the trafficking,’ said Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., ‘They are making thousands of dollars on every child they bring into the country through this horrific and dangerous process.’

‘We are in a crisis,’ said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind.

The onus is on House Republicans. They campaigned on border security. Their border security bill won’t make it through the Senate let alone hit President Biden’s desk. But this is the GOP’s issue. 

Passage of the bill would be a big win for the party.

Otherwise, they have a lot to talk about.

FIRST ON FOX: Ethics experts tell Fox News Digital that President Biden is flirting with crossing ethical lines in talking about the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation into his son, Hunter Biden.

Fox News Digital reached out to several ethics experts to weigh in on the president proclaiming his son’s innocence as Hunter faces down potential DOJ charges.

Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that like ‘most fathers, President Biden is going to defend his son.’

‘However, as the President of the United States, Biden knows (or should know) that it is entirely inappropriate for him to weigh in on an ongoing federal investigation of a suspect because as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and the person assigned the Pardon Power under the Constitution, he should not pre-judge any federal case until the case has come to its natural conclusion,’ Stimson said.

Mike Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT), told Fox News Digital there ‘is a reason that officials, including the President in past occasions, normally refuse to comment on ongoing investigations.’

‘Especially in the case of the President, whom DOJ officials are ultimately responsible to, any statement commenting on a case or investigation could likely sway those working on the case and could tend to manipulate the outcome,’ Chamberlain warned.

‘While this is clearly irresponsible, it may be worse,’ he continued. ‘Given that the DOJ is already under fire after reports that a whistleblower has alleged political interference in career officials’ recommendations to prosecute Hunter Biden, the President’s statement could be interpreted by some as akin to potential obstruction of justice.’

Former Obama administration ethics chief Walter Shaub told Fox News Digital that Biden’s weighing in on his son’s potential criminal charges ‘highlight’ the dangers of the president or his White House personnel talking to the DOJ or Internal Revenue Service (IRS) about Hunter’s case.

Shaub said he hopes Biden and his administration keep their distance from Hunter’s investigation but believes it’s likely okay for a presidential father to exercise caution while proclaiming his son’s innocence as to not appear as attempting to influence the decision.

‘I think these remarks highlight exactly why neither President Biden or anyone from the White House should talk to anyone at the IRS or Justice Department about the investigation of his son,’ Shaub said. ‘I hope they continue to maintain a strict firewall.’

‘As long as he stays away from doing that, it’s probably ok for a father to say he believes his son is innocent,’ he continued. ‘But he should exercise caution to avoid appearing to try to influence a potential jury pool or undermine the credibility of the investigation, which may mean refraining from going further than answering an interviewer’s questions, for instance, by raising the topic in a speech.’

The Justice Department is reportedly nearing a decision to charge Hunter Biden on federal tax-and-gun-related charges. 

The first son has been under federal investigation since 2018 for two misdemeanor tax filing charges, a felony tax evasion charge, and a false statement charge over a gun purchase. 

President Biden was asked how the potential looming charges would impact his presidency in an interview last Friday with MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle. 

‘First of all, my son’s done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him and, it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him,’ Biden explained.

FIRST ON FOX: Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is blaming President Biden for the ongoing migrant crisis at the southern border as border officials prepare for the ending of the Title 42 public health order this week — with Haley promoting her plan to secure the border if she were to become president.

‘Never forget that Joe Biden created this crisis. He urged migrants to ‘surge’ the border,’ she said, referring to remarks Biden made as a presidential primary candidate.

Haley then noted Biden’s reversal of Trump-era policies such as the Remain-in-Mexico policy and border wall construction — which Republicans have argued were working to bring down apprehensions.

‘He caved to the radical wing of his party and reversed polices that were working. Now, Biden has turned every state in America into a border state,’ she said. ‘The first step to securing the border is to vote Joe Biden out. My plan calls for implementing a national E-Verify program, defunding sanctuary cities, stopping handouts to illegal immigrants, and firing Biden’s new IRS agents and hiring 25,000 new Border Patrol and ICE agents.’

Haley became the first announced 2024 candidate to visit the border last month, where she made a number of stops in Texas. She also used that trip to roll out her plan for the border, which includes the mandate for E-Verify. Haley had previously backed the program when she signed legislation as governor of South Carolina to require all businesses to use the immigration status verification tool.

‘We did a mandatory E-Verify program that said none of our businesses could hire anyone that was in this country illegally,’ she said on ‘One Nation with Brian Kilmeade.’ ‘That is what got them out of South Carolina because there were no jobs for them to come to, that’s what will get them out of this country, we’ve got to make sure none of our businesses hire anyone that is here in the country illegally, and we’ve got to start taking this seriously. Every state is a border state.’

Her plan would also restore the ‘Remain-in-Mexico’ policy — which kept migrants in Mexico while their immigration hearings proceeded, instead of releasing them into the U.S. Republicans have credited that policy with reducing the pull factors which drew migrants north. 

Additionally, she has said she would cut funding to states that have been used to give money to illegal immigrants — such as the billions used by New York to cut checks to illegal immigrant workers who lost their jobs during the pandemic.

Haley’s remarks come as Title 42 — which has allowed for the rapid expulsion of migrants at the southern border due to the COVID-19 pandemic — is set to expire on Thursday along with the COVID-19 national emergency.

Migrants are already flooding to the border, and numbers are expected only to surge in the coming days when the order ends as migrants believe they are more likely to be released into the U.S.

The Biden administration has been warning people not to make the journey, and has taken a number of actions, including cooperation with Mexico on deportations and an increase of penalties for illegal entry — but so far it does not seem to be dissuading migrants. 

California’s reparations task force is calling on the state legislature to mandate ‘anti-bias training’ and an assessment based on that training as graduate requirements for medical school across the Golden State.

The task force, which was created by state legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020, formally approved over the weekend its final recommendations to the California Legislature, which will then decide whether to implement the measures and send them to the governor’s desk to be signed into law.

Much of the public’s attention has been focused on the price tag of the proposed reparations: up to $1.2 million for qualifying Black Californians as initial ‘down payments’ while they wait for the purported full amount of money loss due to slavery and subsequent racism to be calculated.

Economists predicted in a preliminary estimate in March that California’s reparations plan could cost the cash-strapped state more than $800 billion. The task force said at the time that the total didn’t include compensation for property deemed to be taken unjustly or for the devaluation of Black-owned businesses.

However, several aspects of the committee’s recommendations have received little attention, including its proposals regarding health care.

One of the more striking health-related proposals is to mandate anti-bias training in order for medical professionals in California who study at state-funded programs to graduate.

‘To address discrimination against African Americans in health care, the task force recommends the legislature add the completion of an evidence-based anti-bias training and an assessment based on such training to the graduation requirements of all medical schools and any other medical care provider programs in California receiving state funding and not already covered, including mental health professional programs (psychologists, Ph.D, or Psy.D), masters-level programs in psychology or therapy (for counselors, clinicians, and therapists), and programs for clinical social workers,’ the committee states in its proposal.

The reparations plan also calls for similar training and testing to be ‘graduation requirements of all dental schools in California receiving state funding’ and ‘requirements for licensure by the Dental Board of California for licensed dentists and registered dental assistants.’

Meanwhile, the task force is pushing another controversial measure that could face backlash in the legislature: a universal, single-payer health care system as a way to achieve health ‘equity’ for Black residents.

‘The task force recommends closing the health coverage gaps through the adoption of a comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and health care cost control system for the benefit of all African Americans in Californian, with a special consideration for those who are descendants of persons enslaved in the United States,’ the panel’s final draft report states.

It’s unclear whether the task force is recommending the legislature create a government-run health care system that would extend coverage only to California’s Black residents or to everyone in the state. The task force didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story.

Either way, California lawmakers have previously tried and failed to implement a universal health program. The state currently operates Medi-Cal, its own Medicaid program meant to provide health coverage to people with low incomes and limited ability to pay for their own health care. According to the task force, the state should put more money into the program to ‘achieve parity’ with private health insurers.

‘For the many African Americans in Californian who remain on Medi-Cal, the task force also recommends increases to the Medi-Cal reimbursement rates to achieve parity with the reimbursement rates of private insurance,’ the report says.

Such measures, according to the task force, are among those required for the state of California to make amends for slavery and broader anti-Black racism and discrimination. 

‘Due to discrimination, disempowerment, and neglect of African American patients by health care institutions, African American communities have suffered major gaps in health care delivery,’ the task force writes. ‘The impact can be seen across in virtually every aspect of physical and mental health outcomes.’

California never allowed slavery in its history, but critics argue the state still worked to uphold the institution and discriminated in other ways against Black Americans.

The reparations committee argues health disparities between White and Black Americans is connected to the latter suffering from ‘constant stress from chronic exposure to social and economic disadvantage, which leads to accelerated decline in physical health,’ adding unequal health outcomes ”cannot be explained away by factors like age, income, or education level’ — through implicit biases and racism, the health care system treats Black Californians differently.’

To address what the task force describes as systemic racism, the panel recommends the legislature authorize and provide ongoing funding to a ‘California Health Equity and Racial Justice Fund’ within the California Health Department’s Office of Health Equity, which already exists.

Under the task force’s plan, the Office of Health Equity would administer an annual $115 million
grant program ‘to address health disparities, focusing on social determinants of health.’

The reparations committee’s final recommendations include dozens of additional measures concerning mental and physical health. One such proposal calls for the Office of Health Equity to conduct an annual review of California health care laws and policies and to include how to ‘design and implement consequences for health care providers who do not address and reduce identified treatment disparities.’

The report notes this recommendation builds on a California Senate resolution from 2021 that stated, ‘The legislature declares racism to be a public health crisis and will actively participate in the dismantling of racism.’

A California state bill introduced in 2020 would have declared racism a public health crisis and established the state’s first Racial Equity Commission. The bill did not pass, but Newsom went on to create a Racial Equity Commission in September 2022 by executive order.

Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., has been hit with federal charges in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), sources tell Fox News.

Santos, who is the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation, is expected to appear at EDNY Central Islip on Wednesday afternoon for his first appearance. 

The charges, first reported by CNN, come after the scandal-plagued congressman last month announced his candidacy for reelection.

Fox News has reached out to Santos’ office and the DOJ for comment.

The freshman congressman flipped New York’s 3rd Congressional District for Republicans last year, partly by selling an inspirational personal backstory to voters that he later admitted was largely fictitious.

Arizona Senate candidate Rep. Ruben Gallego twice voted to protect a Biden Administration rule allowing pension fund managers to use so-called environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors when choosing investments for workers’ retirement plans, which some lawmakers have likened to ‘woke’ banking practices focusing on left-wing agendas.

Gallego’s move, in turn, also guarded a close friend and donor’s company in which he’s invested. In 2019, the Arizona Democrat reported attaining up to $50,000 in non-public stock in Aspiration Fund Adviser LLC, a financial technology company that partners with FDIC-member banks. 

Gallego, however, had failed to divulge the purchase in his financial disclosure report until 2022 despite Congressional members having to declare assets valued at more than $1,000.

Aspiration was founded in 2013 as a ‘digital bank for environmentally conscious consumers’ but has since concentrated on selling carbon credits, according to Forbes. It’s also one of only a few financial technology companies ‘fully embracing the booming movement around environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing,’ the publication wrote in 2021. 

Aspiration disclosed that nearly 70 percent of its revenue comes from ESG services in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing from that same year.

The company was co-founded and is co-owned by Joe Sanberg, Gallego’s longtime friend and donor. The pair attended Harvard together, and Gallego took part in Sanberg’s 2021 wedding in Puerto Rico, social media posts show. Sanberg has provided more than $20,000 to Gallego’s campaigns and leadership PAC since 2014, according to a search of federal filings. 

Gallego first revealed banking with Aspiration in 2017. His most recent financial disclosure shows he owns shares in the Aspiration Redwood Fund — a ‘100% fossil fuel-free ESG fund’ with reportedly ‘high fees and lackluster performance’ — and the non-publicly traded shares in Aspiration Fund Adviser LLC. 

Since 2017, Gallego has garnered as much as $12,200 in income from his Aspiration holdings, according to his financial disclosure forms.

‘This was a Republican messaging bill passed with Republican votes,’ Gallego’s communications director Jacques Petit told Fox News Digital on his two votes against H.J. Res. 30, which would have blocked a Labor Department rule allowing employers to consider ESG factors when choosing investments for workers’ retirement plans.

The joint resolution, however, did receive bipartisan support. Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden backed it in the House of Representatives, while Democratic Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin backed it in the Senate.

He did not specifically address Gallego’s investments or his relationship with Sanberg. Instead, he said the information in the inquiry was ‘grasping at straws.’

Aspiration also operates the Aspiration Impact Foundation, a nonprofit that has funneled cash to far-left endeavors. The nonprofit has given $1,000 to the Trevor Project for climate change initiatives, its tax forms show. The Trevor Project also advocates for ‘using proper trans terms,’ believes gender is a social construct and published a manual on being an ally to transgender and young nonbinary individuals. 

Additionally, the foundation provided a $5,000 grant to climate activist group 350 New Orleans, whose parent group has called for a ban on all new oil and gas projects and seeks to ‘defund’ fossil fuel companies.

The Biden administration has indicated that ESG is a top priority. Last November, the Department of Labor unveiled a rule that went into effect on Jan. 30 that allows managers to factor environmental and social issues into investment decisions for the retirement funds of more than 152 million Americans.

Gallego first voted against the resolution targeting the rule on Feb. 28. Nearly a month later, on March 20, Biden vetoed the bill. Days after the veto, on March 23, Gallego voted against overturning Biden’s veto when the effort to override the veto had failed.

A UCLA and NYU study from earlier this year discovered that over the last five years, ESG funds underperformed compared to the broader market at an average of 6.3% to 8.9%.

Republicans have since targeted ESG banking. In late April, Republican Arizona Rep. Andy Barr announced he’d roll out legislation prohibiting banks from denying fair access to financial services under the standards of ‘woke corporate cancel culture,’ preventing financial institutions from being weaponized for political purposes.

‘Banks should make lending decisions relying on objective, risk-based metrics, not the standards of woke corporate cancel culture,’ Barr previously told Fox News Digital. 

‘My legislation codifies the Fair Access Rule to ensure that Radical environmentalists, gun control advocates, crypto antagonists and other political activists cannot weaponize financial institutions in their fight to achieve their political agenda,’ he said.

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed reporting.

Reactions from Donald Trump’s GOP rivals in the 2024 race came in Tuesday after a jury found the former president liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s. 

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy questioned whether there would have been a lawsuit had the defendant been anyone other than Trump. 

‘Based on the sheer timing of the allegations – that the alleged offense occurred in the mid-1990s and Ms. Carroll did not sue until 2019-2022, far beyond the normal statute of limitations for the underlying offense, and in the middle of a spate of other legal charges against Trump for other ancient allegations – this seems like just another part of the establishment’s anaphylactic response against its chief political allergen: Donald Trump,’ Ramaswamy said. 

Ramaswamy, a 37-year-old first-time candidate and multi-millionaire entrepreneur who announced his candidacy in late February, said the 2024 presidential race would be easier without Trump, but lamented the weaponization of ‘the law with decades-old allegations to undercut’ political opponents. 

‘I want to win this race by showing voters how I will take the America First movement beyond Trump, and I look forward to facing him on the debate stage,’ Ramaswamy said. 

Former two-term Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson took a different approach from his younger rival, saying the jury’s decision ought to be taken seriously. 

‘Over the course of my over 25 years of experience in the courtroom, I have seen firsthand how cavalier and arrogant contempt for the rule of law can backfire,’ Hutchinson said in a statement to Fox News. ‘The jury verdict should be treated with seriousness and is another example of the indefensible behavior of Donald Trump.’ 

A jury found Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million. 

The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on the first day of deliberations. Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, but found Trump liable for sexual abuse and for defaming Carroll after she made her allegations public.

Trump chose not to attend the civil trial and was absent when the verdict was read.

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser and the Associated Press contributed to this report.