Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is framing his plan to defeat President Joe Biden should he ultimately decide to toss his hat into the 2024 presidential race.

During an interview with Fox Nation’s Piers Morgan, which will air Thursday on ‘Piers Morgan Uncensored,’ DeSantis pointed to his massive reelection victory in Florida last year as the formula for him to prevail in a potential matchup with Biden.

‘I won with independents by 18 points,’ he told Morgan, ‘and so that will be the same formula that we would take, and honestly forget about me, I think anybody should take the formula like that nationally.’

‘You can’t win with just Republicans. You’ve got to win with independents, and you need to convince some of these Democrats, which I was able to do in Florida because they’re not woke, they don’t like some of the nonsense going on. They want their streets safe, and they want quality education. So, I think you could appeal to people across the canvas,’ he added.

DeSantis told Morgan that if he ‘were to run,’ he would put his focus squarely on Biden and his failures as president.

‘I think he’s failed the country. I think the country wants a change. I think they want a fresh start and a new direction, and so we’ll be very vocal about that,’ he said.

When asked specifically if he thought he could beat Biden, he said, ‘I think so.’

DeSantis reiterated that he has not yet made a final decision on whether he will ultimately run, but he has begun making trips to the early primary contest states. He visited Iowa for an event earlier this month and is set to headline the New Hampshire GOP’s annual Amos Tuck Dinner on April 14.

He told Morgan it was ‘humbling’ that people have been urging him to run but said to ‘stay tuned’ on what the future holds.

‘That sounds like almost a ‘yes,’ Morgan said.

‘It’s a stay-tuned,’ DeSantis responded.

The Biden administration expressed its concern Tuesday over the Mexican military’s seizure of an American company’s property in Mexico, and suggested the situation could lead to negative impacts on the ability of the country to do business.

According to Vulcan Materials, a Birmingham, Alabama-based company and the largest producer of construction aggregates in the U.S., members of the Mexican navy, local state police, along with federal investigators, entered the quarry just south of Playa del Carmen in Mexico’s Quintana Roo state in the early morning hours of March 14 and has remained since.

The company said the seizure was likely due to the breakdown of contract negotiations between it and CEMEX, a Mexican materials company with which it had previously provided services, and ongoing tensions with the Mexican government over its mining operations.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for the State Department said the administration was concerned about the treatment of American companies in Mexico, and that they speak regularly with Mexican officials about the expectation that they are treated fairly and in accordance with trade obligations.

The spokesperson noted that such obligations provide trade and investment certainty within Mexico, and said that cases like these have the potential to impact the ability of the U.S. to achieve its shared vision with the Mexican government for improving the livelihoods of the country’s economically disadvantaged regions.

They added that the situation could also impact Mexico’s efforts to attract future investments.

The spokesperson also told Fox that the U.S. Embassy in Mexico and the State Department were actively engaged on the issue.

The seizure of Vulcan’s property sparked outrage among U.S. government officials, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who represents the state in which Vulcan is based.

‘For more than 30 years, Vulcan Materials Company has operated a limestone quarry in Mexico that has created good jobs both in Mexico and in Alabama,’ he said in a statement. ‘Yet time and again, President López Obrador and the Mexican government have undermined Vulcan’s ability to operate in Mexico.’

Tuberville said he urged President Biden to confront Mexico’s president about its aggression toward Vulcan last year, but that Biden ‘buried his head in the sand.’

‘President Biden’s failure of leadership has only emboldened Mexico to continue taking hostile action against Vulcan that puts employees at risk and jeopardizes our supply chains in the southeast region of the United States. The illegal seizure of Vulcan’s port facility is just the latest example of the Mexican government exploiting President Biden’s weakness, and the situation will only get worse until the President addresses it head on,’ he said.

U.S. regulators say they need more time to wrap up a final safety report and make a decision on whether to license a multibillion-dollar complex meant to temporarily store tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants around the nation.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a new schedule Monday, citing unforeseen staffing constraints. The agency was initially expected to issue a decision by the end of March. It will now be the end of May.

The announcement comes just days after New Mexico approved legislation aimed at stopping the project. It’s expected that supporters of the storage facility will take the fight to court, but New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Tuesday asked the NRC to suspend its consideration of the license application.

New Jersey-based Holtec International already has spent an estimated $80 million in its pursuit of a 40-year license to build and operate the complex in southeastern New Mexico. Company officials said Tuesday that the delay in licensing would have only a minimal impact on the original timeline.

‘With a project of this complexity, we understand the need for the regulating and licensing authority to have all the time and resources necessary to issue a licensing decision,’ Holtec spokesman Patrick O’Brien said in an email.

Holtec, elected officials from southeastern New Mexico and other supporters have been pushing hard to offer what they call a temporary solution to the nation’s problem of spent nuclear fuel, which has been piling up at commercial reactors for years.

Since the federal government has failed to build a permanent repository, it reimburses utilities to house the fuel in either steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel and concrete containers known as casks at sites in nearly three dozen states. That cost is expected to stretch into the tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.

The legislation signed by Lujan Grisham last week requires that the state provide consent for bringing in such radioactive material. Consent from the Democratic governor would be unlikely, as she has argued that without a permanent repository, New Mexico stands to be the nation’s de facto dumping ground.

She reiterated her opposition in the letter to NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson.

‘Thank you for respecting the state of New Mexico’s laws and the voices of our citizens, tribes and pueblos who overwhelming(ly) supported this legislation,’ she wrote.

Similar battles have been waged in Nevada, Utah and Texas over the decades as the U.S. has struggled to find a home for spent fuel and other radioactive waste. The proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada was mothballed and a temporary storage site planned on a Native American reservation in Utah was sidelined despite being licensed by the NRC in 2006.

That project would have been located on land belonging to the Skull Valley Band of Goshute. Utah’s governor at the time — Republican Mike Leavitt — was among those fighting the effort. He and others were successful in getting Congress to amend a defense spending bill, essentially landlocking the site by creating the Cedar Mountain Wilderness and blocking a rail spur that would have delivered casks.

But it was only six weeks later that the NRC issued a license for the project.

ADVOCATES ASK NM COURT TO RECONSIDER ELECTRICITY RATE CASE

Don Hancock with the nuclear watchdog group Southwest Research and Information Center pointed to the Utah case.

‘If congressional action doesn’t affect NRC decision making, there’s no reason to think that New Mexico action has an effect,’ he said in an email Tuesday.

Elected leaders in Texas also were unsuccessful in keeping a similar project from being licensed by the NRC in 2021. Integrated Storage Partners LLC’s initial plans call for storing up to 5,512 tons of spent fuel and about 254 tons of low-level radioactive waste for 40 years. Future phases could boost that capacity to 44,092 tons of fuel.

Holtec officials are disappointed in the New Mexico legislation and argue that their project is safe, would be an economic boon for the region and would not affect ongoing operations in the Permian Basin, which is one of the world’s most productive oil and gas plays.

‘Passing a bill that is pre-empted by federal law and will be adjudicated accordingly in the courts is a counterproductive action that inhibits the state’s growth in the area of clean energy,’ O’Brien said, adding that local support has solidified the company’s belief that the project is still viable.

President Joe Biden has received dueling letters from supporters of the project and from Lujan Grisham and others in opposition. The administration has acknowledged the role nuclear power will have to play in reaching its carbon emission goals and earlier this year put up $26 million in grants for communities interested in studying potential interim storage sites.

EXCLUSIVE: Subpoenaed documents showed there was ‘no legitimate basis’ for the Biden administration to use federal law enforcement and counterterrorism resources on school board-related threats, the House Judiciary Committee claimed in its interim report on the controversial issue exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital.

The House Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government completed an interim staff report in its investigation, which alleges the Biden administration targeted parents at school board meetings who were ‘voicing concerns about controversial curricula and education-related policies.’

The GOP-led committee subpoenaed Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and members of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) for documents related to the investigation.

‘From the initial set of material produced in response to the subpoenas, it is apparent that the Biden administration misused federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources for political purposes,’ the report states.

The report said DOJ’s ‘own documents demonstrate that there was no compelling nationwide law-enforcement justification for the Attorney General’s directive or the Department components’ execution thereof.’

The committee was referring to Garland’s October 2021 memo, which directed the FBI to partner with local law enforcement and U.S. attorneys to discuss parental threats at school board meetings against faculty and ‘prosecute them when appropriate.’

Garland’s memo came after a September 2021 NSBA letter to President Biden requesting federal law enforcement assistance to target parents.

‘After surveying local law enforcement, U.S. Attorney’s offices around the country reported back to Main Justice that there was no legitimate law-enforcement basis for the Attorney General’s directive to use federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources to investigate school board-related threats,’ the report said.

The report said the FBI acknowledged that it opened ’25 ‘Guardian assessments’ of school board threats, and that six of these investigations were run by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.’

‘According to the FBI, none of the school board-related investigations have resulted in federal arrests or charges, highlighting the political motives behind the Attorney General’s actions,’ the report said.

The report claims the Biden administration’s ‘goal’ was to silence the critics of ‘its radical education policies and neutralizing an issue that was threatening Democrat Party prospects’ ahead of the close Virginia gubernatorial election in November 2021.

‘This weaponization of law-enforcement powers against American parents exercising their First Amendment rights is dangerous,’ the report saId. ‘The Justice Department subjected moms and dads to the opening of an FBI investigation about them, the establishment of an FBI case file that includes their political views, and the application of a ‘threat tag’ to their names as a direct result of their exercise of their fundamental constitutional right to speak and advocate for their children.’

The committee has previously called on Garland to rescind his October 2021 memo, but lawmakers said Garland has ‘refused to do so.’

‘From the documents and information received pursuant to the subpoena, it is crystal clear that Attorney General Garland should rescind his unwise and unsupported directive to insert federal law enforcement into local school board matters,’ the report said.

Garland, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, testified that his October 2021 memo ‘was aimed at violence and threats of violence against a whole host of school personnel.’ 

‘It was not aimed at parents making complaints to their school board,’ Garland said. ‘And it came in the context of a whole series of other kinds of violent threats and violence against other public officials.’ 

The committee’s report cited evidence showing there was no actual sign of rising threats against school board members when the initiative began.

‘If the Justice Department performed due diligence before promulgating the Attorney General’s memorandum, the Department would have learned it lacked a legitimate predicate,’ the report added, saying there was ‘no ‘distributing spike’ in alleged threats and violence at school board meetings.’

The report cited an email from a chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana’s Criminal Division, Brian Frazier, in which he said he met with FBI representatives to ‘ensure coordination, if needed, on any violence or threats related to school board proceedings.’

‘The FBI representatives acknowledged that DOJ has seen fit to elevate perceived school board security issues to a national level,’ Frazier wrote in the email, adding, that, ‘nevertheless they did not see any imminent threats to school boards or their members … nor did they ascertain any worrisome trends in that regard.’

The committee said ‘other reported threats were too vague to be independently substantiated or so innocuous as to not be of any real concern.’

Another email from a U.S. attorney acknowledged that officials ‘could remember only one incident’ regarding an ‘irate parent, who was upset about mask mandates,’ and who ‘had to be removed from a school board meeting by the school resource officer.’ That U.S. attorney clarified that ‘no threats were made to board members or school staff.’

The committee said the Biden administration ‘acted out of political motivations rather than for law-enforcement reasons’ and said, because of that, ‘parents around the country had FBI ‘assessments’ opened into them.’

The committee said its work ‘is not complete’ and that it will continue to conduct its oversight as the Biden administration continues to produce responsive documents.

The committee also slammed the FBI for producing ‘only fourteen pages of documents’ in response to the subpoena issued earlier this year.

The committee said it also has outstanding subpoenas for testimony from NSBA officials Chip Slaven and Viola Garcia, who signed the initial letter to Biden in September 2021.

‘Until all responsive documents are produced and interviews with the necessary parties take place, the Committee and Select Subcommittee will continue its oversight to uncover facts that will inform potential legislative reforms,’ the report said.

Just six months after passing what was billed as the largest tax cut in Missouri history, the Republican-led state House voted Tuesday for an even bigger income tax cut that could return over $1 billion annually to individuals, corporations and retirees.

The Missouri legislation is the latest in a series of aggressive tax reductions that swept across U.S. states last year and have continued into 2023 — even as some warn that it might be wise for states to hold on to record large surpluses amid economic uncertainty.

‘Wouldn’t it be a good idea for us to all just pause for a year?’ Democratic state Rep. Deb Lavender asked rhetorically before her Republican colleagues endorsed the tax cut on a 109-45 party-line vote.

The Missouri legislation still has a ways to go — it needs a second House approval before it can move to the Senate and then to the governor. But legislatures and governors in several states already have given final approval to tax cuts and rebates in the first few months of this year. In some states, those tax breaks have been pushed by Republicans, but in others by Democrats.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, signed legislation Tuesday that will lower the state’s sales tax for a four-year period, though she had originally wanted the GOP-led Legislature to eliminate the sales tax on groceries.

In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte last week signed a $1 billion package of bills passed by the GOP-led Legislature that will provide both income and property tax rebates, reduce the top income tax rate and increase income tax credits for lower-income working families.

In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a bill passed by the Democratic-led Legislature that provides tax relief to retirees and to lower-income families.

And in West Virginia, Republican Gov. Jim Justice signed a measure passed by the GOP-led Legislature that reduces the income tax rate while also enlarging an income tax credit to offset personal property taxes paid on vehicles. The tax cut package is expected to return more than two-thirds of the state’s record $1.1 billion surplus to taxpayers, as opposed to spending it on state programs.

Nationwide, states’ total financial balances reached a record $343 billion at the end of their 2022 fiscal years — up 42% from the previous year, according to a recent report by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Two-thirds of states approved some sort of tax relief last year, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Those surplus-induced tax breaks were enabled by stronger than expected state tax collections and an influx of federal pandemic aid both directly to states and to businesses and individuals that, in turn, injected more spending into the economy. But those federal payments are winding down, inflation remains persistently high and new challenges in the banking sector have raised questions about the overall economy.

‘This extraordinary chapter in state finances appears to be coming to an end,’ said Justin Theal, an officer with Pew’s State Fiscal Policy Project.

‘Tax cuts or new spending initiatives aren’t inherently bad or uncommon during good budgetary times,’ Theal said. But ‘if policymakers aren’t careful, these long-term commitments can place them in a more vulnerable fiscal position when the economy inevitably turns.’

In Missouri, some Republican lawmakers argued that more tax cuts ultimately would give residents more money to spend and lead to continued growth in state tax revenues.

Last October, Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation cutting the top individual income tax rate from 5.3% to 4.95% effective Jan. 1 and allowing for an eventual reduction to 4.5% if revenues continue to grow. This year’s bill doesn’t wait to see whether that growth occurs. Instead, it would cut the individual income tax rate to 4.5% beginning in 2024 while also reducing taxes on corporations and Social Security benefits and enabling even more income tax cuts if future revenue targets are met.

‘This is not reckless. This is a meaningful step,’ Republican state Rep. Doug Richey said in response to critics. ‘This is simply slowing down the rate of growth for tax revenue.’

Other states also are following last year’s tax breaks with even more this year.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat up for re-election this year, signed a plan passed by the Republican-led Legislature to cut the state’s individual income tax rate to 4% effective in 2024. That comes on the heels of a tax overhaul passed last year, which lowered the income tax rate from 5% to 4.5% in January.

In 2022, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia suspended the state motor fuel tax for 10 months, and lawmakers approved a $1 billion income tax refund worth $250 to $500 for most tax filers. Earlier this month, Kemp signed an additional $1 billion income tax refund. He also signed a budget bill that includes nearly $1 billion for a property tax break.

Tax cut proposals are awaiting action elsewhere.

New Mexico’s Democratic-led Legislature recently passed a $1.1 billion tax relief package that includes $500 individual rebates, tax credits of up to $600 per child and a gradual reduction in taxes on sales and business services. Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has until April 7 to sign or veto bills.

Debate that began Tuesday on a Nebraska bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors, which led one lawmaker to stage an epic weekslong filibuster, quickly grew contentious, with supporters and opponents angrily voicing their frustration and admonishing each other for a lack of collegiality.

Sen. John Lowe, of Kearney, cited an activist group’s claim that gender dysphoria in youth ‘is just temporary,’ while Sen. Brad von Gillern, of Omaha, compared gender-affirming treatment to shock treatments, lobotomies and forced sterilizations of years’ past. Bellevue Sen. Carol Blood countered that if lawmakers really cared about medical procedures affecting children, ‘how come we’re not talking about circumcision?’

And that was only the first three hours of an eight-hour Senate debate expected to stretch into Thursday.

The bill introduced by Republican Sen. Kathleen Kauth, a freshman lawmaker in the officially-nonpartisan state Legislature, would outlaw gender-affirming therapies such as hormone treatments, puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery for those 18 and younger.

The proposal had already caused tumult in the legislative session, cited as the genesis of a nearly three-week filibuster carried out by Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh over her opposition. Cavanaugh had followed through on her vow in late February to filibuster every bill before the Legislature — even those she supported — declaring she would ‘burn the session to the ground over this bill.’

She stuck with it until an agreement was reached late last week to push the bill to the front of the debate queue. Instead of trying to eat time to keep the bill from getting to the floor, Cavanaugh decided she wanted a vote to put on the record of which lawmakers would ‘legislate hate against children.’

Lawmakers convened Tuesday to begin that debate with the understanding that the bill didn’t have enough votes to break a filibuster. But Kauth introduced an amendment to drop the restriction on hormone treatments, instead banning only gender reassignment surgery for minors. That amendment, she said, does have enough votes to advance.

Cavanaugh has said if the bill advances on a vote expected Thursday, she will resume filibustering every bill through the end of the 90-day session in early June.

The hard feelings by lawmakers on both sides of the bill emerged almost immediately Tuesday, with Kauth calling Cavanaugh’s filibuster ‘self-serving and childish.’ Kauth said the purpose of her bill is to protect youth from undertaking gender-affirming treatments they might later regret as adults, citing research that says adolescents’ brains aren’t fully developed.

Omaha Sen. Megan Hunt called out that argument as hypocritical, noting that Kauth supports an abortion ban bill introduced this session that would also affect adolescents.

‘In a couple of weeks, she’s going to turn around and vote for a bill that would force 12-year-olds to have a baby,’ Hunt said. ‘She thinks they’re mature enough for that.’

Cavanaugh called the trans treatment bill ‘an assault on individuals that members of this body love,’ and appealed to Republican members of the body to get back to their core principles of getting government out of people’s lives.

‘So many of you have talked to me about government overreach time and time again,’ she said. ‘This bill stands in opposition to the tenets that many of you have expressed to me are the foundation of why you are here.’

The Nebraska bill, along with another that would ban trans people from using bathrooms and locker rooms or playing on sports teams that don’t align with the gender listed on their birth certificates, are among roughly 150 bills targeting transgender people that have been introduced in state legislatures this year.

Bans on gender-affirming care for minors have already been enacted this year in some Republican-led states, including South Dakota, Utah and Mississippi. Arkansas and Alabama have bans that were temporarily blocked by federal judges. Other states legislatures have given final approval to measures similar to the Nebraska bill, with Georgia sending to the governor Tuesday a bill that would ban most gender-affirming surgeries and hormone replacement therapies for transgender minors.

A divided Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a portion of the state’s near total ban on abortion, ruling women have a right to abortion when pregnancy risks their health, not just in a medical emergency.

It was a narrow win for abortion rights advocates since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The court ruled that a woman has the right under the state Constitution to receive an abortion to preserve her life if her doctor determines that continuing the pregnancy would endanger it due to a condition she has or is likely to develop during the pregnancy. Previously, the right to an abortion could only take place in the case of medical emergency.

‘Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman and does not serve a compelling state interest,’ the ruling states.

In the 5-4 ruling, the court said the state law uses both the words ‘preserve’ and ‘save’ the mother’s life as an exception to the abortion ban.

‘The language ‘except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency’ is much different from ‘preserve her life,’’ according to the ruling.

‘Absolute certainty,’ by the physician that the mother’s life could be endangered, ‘is not required, however, mere possibility or speculation is insufficient’ to determine that an abortion is needed to preserve the woman’s life, according to the ruling.

The court, however, declined to rule on whether the state Constitution grants the right to an abortion for other reasons.

The court ruled in the lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic and others challenging the state laws passed after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

‘People’s lives have been endangered by Oklahoma’s cruel abortion bans, and now doctors will be able to help pregnant people whose lives they believe are at risk,’ Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement after the ruling.

‘We are disappointed that the Court declined to rule whether the state Constitution also protects the right to abortion outside of these circumstances,’ Northrup said.

‘This ruling leaves out too many Oklahomans. Oklahomans shouldn’t have to travel across state lines just to reach an abortion clinic, and it is heartbreaking that many will not be able to do so,’ said Dr. Alan Braid, an abortion provider and plaintiff in the case said in a statement.

Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Great Plains called the ruling a small step toward restoring the right to abortion.

‘The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized one fundamental truth: patients must be permitted to access critical care to save their lives,’ she said. ‘But the right recognized today is so limited that most people who need abortion will not be able to access it.’

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy says the idea that officers will handcuff former President Trump and arrest him after an indictment ‘couldn’t happen,’ and that it will instead be up to the U.S. Secret Service and the New York Police Department to arrange a location for him to surrender.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is weighing possible charges against Trump and could bring an indictment. Those charges stem from the $130,000 hush-money payment that then-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006.

Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the payment in 2019, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his plea deal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation of the matter in 2021.

McCarthy, who was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York and is now a Fox News contributor, told Fox News Digital that the ‘most important people in this equation’ following a Trump indictment are the Secret Service and the NYPD.

‘Trump is a Secret Service protect and the NYPD are in charge of New York City,’ McCarthy said. ‘They have good relations because a lot of Secret Service protects spend time in New York City.’

And despite the speculation, McCarthy said it is unlikely Trump will end up in handcuffs.

‘The idea cops will approach him in Florida or on the street and put cuffs on him will not happen and could not happen,’ McCarthy said. ‘The Secret Service would not let that happen.’

McCarthy said if Trump is indicted, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office would ‘invite him to come in to surrender.’

Typically, a defendant who surrenders in a nonviolent case would go to a central booking location, but McCarthy explained that due to security concerns, there are likely to be special accommodations made for a former president of the United States.

McCarthy said he anticipates the Secret Service and the NYPD would find a secure room in the courthouse in downtown Manhattan, likely at 100 Centre Street.

‘That’s where he would be fingerprinted and photographed,’ McCarthy said, noting that it would have to be a public proceeding.

‘But it should be very quick because this is not a violent case,’ he explained.

Ordinarily in a public proceeding, the defendant would not enter a plea on their first appearance before the judge, and would enter a plea at the second appearance, also known as the arraignment.

‘If I were the DA’s office, I would be pushing to get a plea done in the first appearance,’ McCarthy explained, citing the ‘logistical nightmare’ at hand.

McCarthy explained that pre-trial motions could be significant in this case due to the issue of the statute of limitations surrounding the matter.

‘The big issue is whether this is a crime,’ he said. ‘We won’t know until we see the indictment.’

McCarthy explained that the statute of limitations on the matter, if Bragg were to bring it as a misdemeanor, would be two years. If the last development on the matter took place in 2018, the statute of limitations has expired.

If Bragg chooses to bring felony charges, which McCarthy anticipates due to the fact that a grand jury has been empaneled and used, the statute of limitations extends to five years, giving Bragg until this year to indict.

Meanwhile, McCarthy said he does anticipate charges will be brought, especially because Trump was invited to testify before the grand jury last week.

‘You typically don’t invite the target in to testify unless you are really serious about bringing the case, and they did that last week,’ McCarthy said.

A new bill introduced in the Texas legislature aims to hold drug manufacturers and distributors accountable for any terminated pregnancies or deaths stemming from abortion pills.

Under the Wrongful Death Protection Act, individuals — even those out of state — who manufacture, market, mail, distribute, transport, deliver, provision, or possess mifepristone with the intent of facilitating unlawful abortions, are liable for the wrongful deaths of Texas women and children.

‘Companies and smuggling networks are profiting from the barbaric death of children in the womb and neglecting the women who are harmed by taking these pills,’ Rep. Cole Hefner, who introduced the legislation on March 10, said in a statement. ‘They must not be allowed to escape their direct responsibility for the wrongful deaths of Texans simply because they reside outside our state, and this legislation ensures that will not be allowed to happen.’

Mifepristone is the first of two medications prescribed to a woman who plans to abort her unborn baby. Abortion medications are used for 54% of abortions in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

HERE’S WHY A CONSERVATIVE GROUP IS SUING THE FDA OVER MEDICATION ABORTION:

According to Hefner, his bill was necessary to combat abortion pills illegally trafficked into Texas.

‘We have enacted transformative pro-life laws in Texas, but more must be done,’ the Republican said in his statement. ‘The deadly abortion pill regimen is everywhere, including in our state.’

Under the legislation, anyone who helps facilitate an unlawful death from an abortion could face up to $5 million in civil penalties. The bill considers an aborted fetus as an unlawful death.

‘Abortion pills can be extremely dangerous to women, causing hemorrhaging, the need for surgery and even death,’ Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told Fox News. ‘The Biden-Harris administration has ignored these health risks as well as the 500% increase in ER visits since the FDA approved Mifepristone.’

‘In response to the federal government’s negligence, states like Texas are creatively taking steps forward to protect unborn children, safeguard the health of women and girls, and hold abortionists accountable,’ she added.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, Texas’ trigger laws took effect, making it illegal in the state to have an abortion except in limited cases where the mother’s life may be at risk. 

Texas’ abortion law is one of the strictest in the country and has led to some Texas women crossing state lines to receive abortions.

Neither Cole nor Planned Parenthood responded to a request for comment.

A California sheriff blasted Gov. Gavin Newsom for leaving the state’s prison system in ‘complete disarray’ and allowing convicted criminals to be released early.

‘He has an agenda to close prisons and there is nothing going to stop him from doing that,’ Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco told Fox News. ‘He’s let thousands and thousands of criminals, hardened criminals, out early.’

California’s prisons held roughly 122,000 inmates in 2019 when Newsom took office. That year, the Democrat told The Fresno Bee he would like to shut down a state prison during his tenure.

So far, he’s closed one prison and three more are scheduled to shutter within the next two years, according to CalMatters. The state’s prison population has plummeted more than 20% to 95,610 inmates due to sentencing reforms and a flood of releases during the pandemic.

Bianco said his office was recently notified that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation plans to release several convicted murderers into Riverside County.

‘Three murderers that are in prison for murder, that are supposed to be there for life, and [Newsom] is going to release them back into our community,’ Bianco said.

Neither the governor’s office nor the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation immediately responded to a request for comment.

WATCH: CALIFORNIA SHERIFF TORCHES GOV. NEWSOM FOR LEAVING PRISON SYSTEM IN ‘DISARRAY’

Bianco said closing prisons is the ‘wrong thing to do’ for the law-abiding public.

‘All you have to do is look out the window and see that we’re being victimized constantly,’ he said.

A recent study comparing suspects who posted bail in California with those released under ‘Zero Bail’ policies found that the latter group reoffended more often and were accused of more violent crimes.

‘The amount of repeat offenders right now is just ridiculous,’ Bianco said. ‘They’re victimizing other people. They’re killing other people. They’re stealing from other people.’

Last month, a released convict allegedly gunned down a 24-year-old officer in California.

Bianco said lawmakers and Newsom refuse to acknowledge the issue, putting police and the community at risk.

‘They are bent, hell-bent on an agenda and nothing will change that agenda,’ he said. ‘And so the jails and the prison systems are suffering for it.’

To hear more about the impacts of California’s criminal justice policies on law enforcement, click here.