Teachers in North Dakota can still refer to transgender students by the personal pronouns they use, after lawmakers on Monday failed to override the governor’s veto of a controversial bill to place restrictions on educators.

House lawmakers fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to block the veto. This happened days after Republican Gov. Doug Burgum’s office announced the veto and the Senate overrode it.

The bill would have prohibited public school teachers and employees from acknowledging the personal pronouns a transgender student uses, unless they received permission from the student’s parents as well as a school administrator.

It would have also prohibited government agencies from requiring employees to acknowledge the pronouns a transgender colleague uses.

Republican lawmakers across the U.S. have drafted hundreds of laws this year to push back on LGBTQ+ freedoms, particularly seeking to regulate aspects of transgender people’s lives, including gender-affirming health care, bathroom use, athletics and drag performances.

‘The teaching profession is challenging enough without the heavy hand of state government forcing teachers to take on the role of pronoun police,’ Burgum had said in a letter to state lawmakers announcing his veto. The First Amendment already protects teachers from speaking contrary to their beliefs, and existing law protects the free speech rights of state employees, he added.

Lawmakers who supported the bill have said in debates that it would free teachers from worrying about how to address each student and create a better learning environment.

Opponents have said the bill targets transgender students who already have disproportionately high risks of suicide.

In 2021, Burgum vetoed a bill that would have barred transgender girls from playing on girls’ teams in public schools. Lawmakers didn’t override that veto, but they are considering new legislation this session to replicate and expand that bill — including at the college level.

Spending on the high stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race has topped $42 million, nearly triple the previous national record for a court race, with the Democratic-backed candidate having a roughly $6 million advantage, according to a report released on Monday just before polls opened.

The winner in Tuesday’s election between Democratic-backed Janet Protasiewicz and Republican-backed Dan Kelly will determine majority control of the court, with issues like abortion access, redistricting and more than a decade of Republican priorities, hanging in the balance.

The court has been under conservative control for 15 years, helping to enshrine priorities of the GOP-controlled Legislature and former Gov. Scott Walker. Liberals have cast the race as a defining moment for their side to exert power and potentially overturn the state’s 1849 abortion ban law and redraw maps created by Republicans that have led to them increasing their control of the Legislature.

The winner will also set majority control of the court ahead of the 2024 presidential election. The current court came one vote short of overturning President Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin in 2020.

As of Monday, Protasiewicz and her backers have spent about $23.3 million compared with about $17.6 million for Kelly and his supporters, according to a report from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks campaign spending.

The previous record high for spending in a court race was $15 million in Illinois in 2004.

Protasiewicz has spent nearly $12 million compared with Kelly’s more than $2.2 million. Protasiewicz’s campaign has received nearly $9 million from the state Democratic Party, based on the latest campaign finance reports. Kelly, who previously worked for the state and national Republican parties, has also gotten financial backing and in-kind contributions in this race from the state GOP and county parties.

Special interest groups backing Kelly have spent nearly $15.4 million, compared with $11.3 million for Protasiewicz, according to the Democracy Campaign.

The liberal group A Better Wisconsin Together led all special interest spending at $6.2 million, followed by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state chamber of commerce, at $5.2 million in support of Kelly. Fair Courts America, a conservative group backing Kelly that’s funded by GOP mega-donor Richard Uihlein, was next at just over $5.3 million.

After those big three, no other special interest group had spent more than $2 million on the race.

Protasiewicz is a Milwaukee County judge. Kelly previously served on the Supreme Court from 2016 to 2020 before being defeated that year. The winner will serve a 10-year term beginning in August, replacing retiring conservative Justice Pat Roggensack.

Former President Donald Trump’s indictment has drawn comparisons in recent days to the failed hush-money case against former Democratic senator and presidential candidate John Edwards.

In 2011, Edwards faced six felony charges relating to campaign finance law violations for accepting $1 million from donors to obscure his affair during his 2008 presidential campaign. In 2012, a jury acquitted Edwards on one count of receiving illegal campaign contributions and deadlocked on the others, which the Justice Department declined to pursue again.

A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump last Thursday as part of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s years-long investigation into his alleged hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

While Edwards faced federal charges and Trump now faces state charges, experts see similarities in both cases, which they say could benefit Trump.

Fox News Digital spoke with several experts – including a law professor, former Federal Election Commission members and a former federal prosecutor – who spelled out why Edwards’ case could be bad news for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Here’s what they had to say.

Bradley Smith – Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault designated professor at Capital University School of Law and former Federal Election Commission member

‘The Edwards scenario is relevant for two reasons. First, as much as I criticize the theory of District Attorney Bragg, it’s worth noting that the federal district court judge in the Edwards case let the case go to trial on basically what was that theory – that friends of the candidate were paying a woman off to be quiet that counted as a campaign expenditure,’ Smith told Fox News Digital in a phone interview.

‘The other point about it is the jury found in favor of Edwards. They hung on some charges, and on others, they acquitted,’ he continued. ‘I think that illustrates the tremendous difficulty of winning this kind of case both on the law and the facts.’

‘In the Edwards case, they were actually trying a federal case. Here, they’re not actually trying a federal case,’ Smith said. ‘If they go ahead to go to trial and find Trump guilty, he’s not going to be found guilty of federal campaign finance violations; he’s going to be found guilty of violating the New York state law on altering business records in order to cover up other crimes, which are allegedly these campaign finance crimes.’

‘So, the prosecutor has sort of a case within a case,’ Smith added. ‘He’s got to prove Trump committed this New York crime, but to prove Trump committed this New York crime, he’s going to have to prove that had he been the U.S. attorney, he would have brought this federal crime and won on that.’

‘That’s a very tough thing for a prosecutor to do, but on the other hand, it could be a helpful thing,’ Smith said. ‘If you get [to] the jury, you don’t have to show the federal crime beyond a reasonable doubt; you just have to [get the] jury thinking, ‘Trump’s probably a bad guy and probably did it,’ then maybe that’s enough, and they convict on the state crime.’

Hans von Spakovsky – Senior legal fellow at Heritage Foundation and former Federal Election Commission member

‘I think that what it foreshadows is that Alvin Bragg is trying to make out that there was a violation of federal of campaign finance law, but when the Justice Department moved against John Edwards – and remember the claim was that big political donors of Edwards didn’t give money to the campaign but gave money directly to his mistress that was somehow a violation of campaign finance law – and they failed,’ Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. ‘The jury didn’t buy that.’

‘I think that shows that the one time the Justice Department tried to pursue a case like this, it failed,’ he continued. ‘That was probably the biggest reason why the Justice Department and the FEC didn’t go after Trump because they didn’t believe that it was – based on prior experience – a violation of federal campaign finance law, and that’s the biggest flaw in this whole case.’

‘The FEC long ago established what they call the ‘irrespective test,’ which is the way the FEC determines whether something is a campaign-related expense and, therefore, is covered by all the laws and regulations – ‘would that expense exist irrespective if you’re running for office?”

‘That’s why you can’t use campaign money, for example, to pay the mortgage on your house, buy a car, because all those expenses would exist whether or not you were running for office or not,’ Spakovsky added.

‘I think here, a settlement of a personal injury claim – because that’s essentially what this was – that claim would exist irrespective of whether you’re running for office or not. It might be more important because you’re running for office, but when you apply the FEC’s test to it, it’s not a campaign-related expense and, therefore, none of the federal rules apply to it.’

Katie Cherkasky – Former federal prosecutor and criminal defense and civil rights attorney

‘The John Edwards case is the exact same type of charge, except the Edwards case was much stronger from a criminal prosecutorial perspective than this Trump case,’ Cherkasky told Fox News Digital.

‘Even in that case, they obviously were not able to get a conviction,’ Cherkasky said. ‘The reason for that is when you’re charging these campaign finance violations, it’s a specific intent crime. The prosecution has to prove the individual not only failed to properly account for campaign finance funds but that the reason that they did that was for purposes of campaign fraud, not for some other purpose.’

‘When you’re looking at the Edwards case, the reason they likely couldn’t get a conviction on that was because of the intent for the payment – remember, hush-money payments are lawful; it’s just a matter of how they’re reported if that’s what they’re for – the intent for those payments could have very well been for a personal purpose to avoid embarrassment to his wife, who was very ill at that time, and any other option besides the fact that it was solely for the purpose of impacting an election – that’s going to get you an acquittal,’ Cherkasky said.

‘The Edwards case was a prime example of this being tried by a prosecutor, and that case was much stronger because there was no dispute that the money had been paid and Edwards was personally involved with that. Trump is not even conceding that much,’ she added.

‘The prosecution in the Trump case has even more hurdles to get over. Even if they were able to get to the point where they could show Trump was directly involved with those payments, they still have those intent problems: ‘Why did he pay her off?”

‘If it was a nuisance payoff or anything other than an intent to interfere with the election, then they’re going to have a problem with their proof,’ Cherkasky said.

Fox News Digital’s Andrew Murray and Thomas Catenacci contributed to this report.

Former New York Yankees’ third baseman Alex Rodriguez was spotted Monday outside of Trump Tower as crowds waited for the arrival of former President Trump, who will be arraigned in court on Tuesday.

A-Rod was seen walking in Manhattan near Trump Tower as press gathered outside to catch Trump’s arrival.

It’s unclear why A-Rod was in Manhattan by Trump Tower. Representatives for A-Rod did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Trump is slated to arrive at Trump Tower Monday afternoon ahead of his Tuesday court appearance following his indictment in a matter related to hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels leading up to the 2016 election.

On Monday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, joined by NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell, hosted a briefing regarding security preparations ahead of Trump’s arraignment. They said that as of midday Monday, there have ‘been no specific, credible threats to our city at this time.’

‘Control yourselves,’ Adams warned at City Hall, recognizing anticipated protests and the unique nature of the situation. ‘New York City is our home, not a playground for your misplaced anger. We are the safest large city in America because we respect the rule of law in New York City. And although we have no specific threats, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is known to spread misinformation and hate speech, says she’s coming to town.’

‘While you in town be on your best behavior. As always, we will not allow violence or vandalism of any kind. And if one is caught participating in any act of violence, they will be arrested and held accountable no matter who you are,’ Adams said.

Trump is expected to arrive at the New York City courthouse at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, hours ahead of his scheduled arraignment in front of Judge Juan Merchan at 2:15 p.m. The proceedings are expected to take 15 to 30 minutes and extensive security around the building is expected to search everyone in the courtroom twice.

Critical drug shortages in the U.S. are on the rise due to a deal that gave China dominance over the global supply chain, posing a national security threat, Sen. Josh Hawley told Fox News.

Drug shortages in the U.S. increased 30% in 2022 compared to the year prior, according to a Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs report released last month. Some antibiotics, anesthetics, cancer treatments, emergency room supplies and kids’ medicines are among the drugs facing shortages. 

‘We are dependent on China overwhelmingly for our critical medical supply chains,’ Hawley, who sits on the committee, said. ‘You talk about being dependent, you talk about a national security threat, that’s a national security threat.’

‘That is a direct threat to our independence and to the health of our people,’ he said.

CHINA CONTROLLING THE GLOBAL DRUG SUPPLY CHAIN THREATENS U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: HAWLEY

In some cases, 90% of the key ingredients originate in China or India, according to the Senate report. It also found that active drug shortages peaked in the U.S. at the end of 2022. 

‘We are dependent on China overwhelmingly for our critical medical supply chains,’ Hawley said. ‘You look at the precursors, the key precursors for making pharmaceutical drugs, prescriptions that Americans rely on, 60% of those are made in China or India.’

‘We should make these drugs, including the precursors in the United States of America,’ the Missouri Republican told Fox News. ‘We can start by withdrawing China’s most favored nation status, the sweetheart trade deal that we gave them 20 years ago.’

The U.S. Senate granted China most favored nation status ahead of Beijing joining the World Trade Organization. In practice, the U.S. is obligated to provide China with preferential treatment for trade deals and tariffs. 

Hawley recently proposed a bill that would rescind China’s most favored nation trade status. The legislation would also ‘subject imports from China to higher tariff rates,’ according to his office.

‘During COVID, China threatened to withhold a key precursor drug, a key precursor element for cancer treatments,’ Sen. Hawley told Fox News. ‘If they had gone through and done that, it would have cut our supply in half at all of our [Department of Veterans Affairs] hospitals across the country overnight.’ 

Additionally, the number of FDA-approved pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturers based in China more than doubled between 2010 – 2015, according to the Senate report. 

Bringing domestic drug manufacturing back to the states is also gaining bipartisan momentum in the House of Representatives.

Two Republicans and two Democrats last month launched the Domestic Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Caucus, which is intended ‘to reduce American reliance on foreign adversaries, head off potential supply chain disruptions, and ensure a steady supply of pharmaceuticals in the event of public health emergencies or natural disasters,’ according to a press release. 

‘Currently, only about 10% of our critical prescription drugs or their precursors are made in America, 90% made somewhere else,’ Hawley told Fox News. ‘Listen, not only is that bad for patients, it’s bad for workers.’

Bringing high-paying pharmaceutical jobs back to the U.S. would help the economy while simultaneously cutting reliance on Chinese manufacturing, the senator said. But building domestic drug manufacturing facilities could take years, which, in the case of any future world conflicts, could pose a threat.

‘If we don’t do anything now, ahead of the curve, we will be at their mercy,’ he told Fox News. ‘We need to bring good-paying jobs back to this country, making these critical supplies that we literally rely on to live.’

To watch the full interview with Hawley, click here.

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyer said Sunday he expects to make a motion to dismiss any charges brought by a Manhattan grand jury in District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s probe. 

‘We will take the indictment. We will dissect it. The team will look at every, every potential issue that we will be able to challenge, and we will challenge. And of course, I very much anticipate a motion to dismiss coming because there’s no law that fits this,’ Trump’s attorney Joe Tacopina told CNN host Dana Bash Sunday. 

‘And you have a situation where, you know, the federal government, the Department of Justice, turned this matter down,’ Tacopina continued on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ ‘The FEC, which governs federal election laws, said there’s no violation here. Yet somehow a state prosecutor has taken a misdemeanor and tried cobble together to make it a felony by alleging a violation of federal campaign violations. And the FEC said that doesn’t exist.’ 

In reference the grand jury’s vote to indict the former President of the United States, Tacopina called it a sign that ‘rule of law in the United States has died.’ 

‘Whether you send the right or the left or you’re a supporter or detractor of Donald Trump, this should really bother you,’ Tacopina said. ‘This should really shake the core of what we believe our justice system should be about. It should not be weaponized to go after political opponents.’ 

Trump, an early frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is expected to be arraigned in New York City on Tuesday. 

The details of the indictment have not been released, as they typically remain under seal before the arraignment takes place. The charges are expected to relate to Trump’s 2016 alleged hush money scandal, which the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has been investigating for five years. 

If the charges relate to the hush money scandal, prosecutors are expected to argue that the $130,000 sum given to Stormy Daniels and the $150,000 given to former Playboy model Karen McDougal were improper donations to the Trump campaign, which helped his candidacy during the 2016 election.

‘We are going to tape the indictment, evaluate all our legal options and pursue everyone most vigorously. This is a case of political persecution,’ Tacopina said Sunday. ‘Had he not been running for office right now for the office of the presidency, which by the way, the polls have shown since this has been announced, his numbers have gone up significantly. Had he not been running for presidency, he would not have been indicted.’

A LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP’S ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULE AHEAD OF TUESDAY COURT APPEARANCE  

Tacopina said he did not have details yet on Tuesday’s schedule but said he does not expect Trump to make a ‘perp walk’ and isn’t sure if the former president will take a mugshot either. 

‘Not normal operating procedure. Yeah, it’s all up in the air,’ he said. ‘All the Tuesday stuff is still very much up in the air. The fact that we will very loudly and proudly say not guilty.’  

The lawyer said he has no reason now to believe that New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who will be presiding over the case, is biased, admitting Trump was ‘lashing out because he’s the victim.’ Tacopina also criticized the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s key witness, Michael Cohen.

‘Michael Cohen is a pathological, convicted liar,’ Tacopina said. ‘Perjury is like the banks, the IRS. Congress now is saying he lied to the FEC when they sent that letter saying there was no campaign violation. I heard him on CNN the other day saying that when he pled guilty under oath, when he became a new man, he really wasn’t guilty. He was forced to plead guilty. So that’s perjury. If that’s not true, he’s someone who is constitutionally incapable of telling the same story the same way twice. So I’m not really worried about what Michael Cohen is saying on this. The records and the facts will speak for themselves.’ 

Fox News’ Marta Dhanis and Andrea Vacchiano contributed to this report.

Former President Donald Trump announced he will speak from his home in Florida just hours after he appears in court in New York.

‘President Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America, will deliver remarks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida on Tuesday, April 4, 2023, at 8:15PM EDT,’ reads a statement released by the former president Sunday.

The planned remarks will come shortly after Trump is scheduled to appear in a Manhattan courtroom for his arraignment at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, a process that is expected to take less than an hour.

Afterward, the former president plans to fly back to his Florida home to deliver his remarks, though experts say it is still unknown just how much Trump will be able to say about the unfolding case.

Manhattan Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is expected to oversee the arraignment, may move to put conditions on Trump’s release following the proceedings, which will ‘most likely’ include a gag order that would prevent him from publicly discussing the case.

‘I think it’s not only a possibility, but it’s extremely likely that there will be a gag order in the case,’ Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor, told Insider Friday.

Levin said Trump may be ‘very limited’ in what he is able to say, a reality that could hinder Trump’s aim to politically capitalize on the case.

‘This is a criminal case now, so the rules have changed, and the rules are no longer in his purview to make,’ Levin said. ‘He is a criminal defendant and, you know, we see hundreds of thousands of criminal defendants across the country every day who have a lot of rights stripped away from them and he is now one of them. These proceedings are going to change his life.’

The charges against Trump, which are currently under seal, are expected to be related to alleged ‘hush money’ payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels leading up to the 2016 election and how the payments were accounted for.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Sunday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg must ‘remove all doubt’ in the American judicial process after a grand jury voted Thursday to indict former President Trump following the DA’s years-long investigation.

During an appearance on CNN’s ‘State of the Union,’ Manchin argued that the indictment risks further dividing Americans and battering their trust in the justice system.

‘It’s a very sad time for America to go through what we’re going through now,’ he said. ‘People are being divided, and they think that justice might be biased. We have to make sure that we wait to see what comes out next week, and I hope they do their job. And I’ve said this, no one’s above the law, but no one should be targeted by the law, especially through the political process. So we’ll just wait and see next week. I hope they are very thorough.’

CNN anchor Dana Bash asked Manchin to clarify whether he thinks Trump, who is the current front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential race, is being targeted by Bragg for political reasons.

‘Is that what you think is going on here? That he is a political target?’ she asked.

‘No, I’m saying you have to remove all doubt,’ Manchin replied. ‘You have to remove all doubt. You have to make sure you cross every t and dot every i, as they say. But you know that no person, the president, myself or anybody else in Congress, no matter what your status is, in the United States of America, you’re not above the law. And on the other hand, no person should be targeted by the law either. So let’s make sure that’s cleared up, and let’s see where it goes.’

There’s a ‘segment of society who believes that maybe it’s biased, that the system doesn’t work for all,’ Manchin said during a subsequent appearance on NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press.’

‘We must come together. The American people want us to do our job,’ he continued. ‘Let’s wait until what comes out next week. Let’s see the direction this goes. But the bottom line is it’s a very sad time in America. You have geopolitical unrest around the world. Just think of the people who don’t wish our society or our form of democracy to work, whether it be China, Russia or whoever. They’re looking and saying, ‘Oh my goodness, let’s just sit back and kind of watch this melee unfold.’ Well, I want to show them that as Americans, we can work together.’

Trump raked in more than $5 million in donations in the 48 hours after he was indicted on Thursday. The exact charges of the indictment are still under seal, but Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said Thursday evening Trump could face more than 30 counts next week when he’s arraigned.

The charges relate to Trump’s role in sending alleged hush payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels in an effort to prevent her from speaking out about their relationship.

The former president is expected to travel from his home in Mar-a-Lago to New York City on Monday before spending his final night before his arraignment in Trump Tower.

The Secret Service will be attending him as New York authorities book the president, take his fingerprints and photograph him on Tuesday.

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., expressed support for former President Trump on Friday and blasted the indictment against him as politically motivated.

‘Here’s the thing about Donald Trump that makes him different,’ Banks said during an interview with radio host Tony Katz. ‘The man does not back down. That’s why I support Donald Trump. He doesn’t back down. He’s not going to back down on this, he’s going to fight back, and this is just the beginning, I think, of yet another chapter where Donald Trump is going to come back on top in the end.’

Banks also claimed the charges against Trump are ‘flimsy,’ describing them as ‘a despicable example of a political persecution’ and a result of Democrats weaponizing the justice system ‘because they’re afraid of him becoming the president again.’

Noting he was ‘not stunned’ by Trump’s indictment, Banks said, ‘I watched what the Democrats did when he was in the White House, from the fake Russia collusion hoax to two impeachments, to the sham Jan. 6 committee. You remember the Russian bounty story about troops in Afghanistan.’

‘I watched what the left did to this guy every single day he was in the White House and every single day since,’ Banks said. ‘I’m not surprised by how low and how far the Democrats will go to abuse their power to stop the most effective president of my lifetime from becoming president again.’

‘I’m not surprised by how low and how far are the Democrats will go to abuse their power to stop the most effective president of my lifetime from becoming president again.’

— Rep. Jim Banks

Banks went on to predict that Trump’s indictment will further embolden him and his supporters and that the Democrats will come to realize that it was ‘a political mistake on their part.’

‘Also keep in mind, Tony, that it is a federal crime to use the Justice Department to try to block someone from becoming the nominee of their party,’ Banks continued, adding that ‘there are so many angles of this that I believe are going to play out for years.’

‘It is obvious to the American people – you can count on this – it is obvious to the American people that these charges are politically timed, they’re political in nature. We’ve become used to these types of activities from the left against Donald Trump, and he’s going to fight back, and I believe he’s going to win,’ he said.

Trump, who endorsed Banks for his 2024 Senate run in Indiana, raked in more than $5 million in campaign donations within 48 hours of his indictment last Thursday.

Trump is expected to appear in court Tuesday in New York City over allegations that he gave hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 to keep her quiet ahead of that year’s presidential election amid her claims the two had a sexual encounter years earlier.

The former president has denied sleeping with Daniels or falsifying business records to keep the payment concealed.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., slammed Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as ‘cowardly’ on Sunday after the governor vowed his state would not assist in any extradition request by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg regarding the indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Schiff said DeSantis ‘will say anything, do anything in hopes of becoming president,’ though the governor has yet to officially announce a run.

‘It says also a lot about the state of the GOP, and that is you have to attack the justice system you have to speculate about motives, you have to assume the worst,’ Schiff said.

The congressman made the comments on former White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s new MSNBC show after DeSantis slammed Trump’s indictment as politically motivated.

‘The Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct,’ DeSantis tweeted Thursday. ‘Yet, now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent.’

DeSantis added, ‘Florida will not assist in an extradition request given the questionable circumstances at issue with this Soros-backed Manhattan prosecutor and his political agenda.’

Schiff said DeSantis, a Harvard Law graduate, is ‘not stupid’ and ‘knows what his obligation is – to extradite someone who is accused of crime in another state.’

‘And in that statement as well, you have to disregard the law – say won’t extradite someone accused of a crime in order to be competitive in the Republican primary,’ he said. ‘He goes beyond that and tries to tie George Soros to this, which is, you know, this not-so-thinly veiled antisemitic element that is very popular within certain portions of Trump’s base.’

Schiff labeled DeSantis’ statement a ‘cowardly action’ to try to ‘compete with Donald Trump on Trump’s own turf.’

‘But one thing he also understands is: What’s the path to power in the GOP? And the path to power is now catering to the lowest common denominator. That’s, I think, a terrible use of his legal education,’ Schiff said. ‘It is putting ambition over any principle, scruple, nothing else matters except ambition.’

DeSantis’ team did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.