A federal appeals court delivers a substantial blow to President Biden's telecommunications policy agenda.
According to the Washington Examiner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has invalidated the Federal Communications Commission's 2024 net neutrality regulations, ruling that the agency lacks the legal authority to classify broadband providers as telecommunications services.
The court's decision specifically targets the "Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order," which was implemented in 2024 as part of Biden's efforts to restore Obama-era internet regulations. This ruling effectively blocks the FCC's attempt to prevent internet service providers from charging different rates based on data sources or destinations.
The ruling draws significant influence from the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron doctrine. This development fundamentally altered how courts interpret agency regulations. The three-judge panel utilized traditional statutory interpretation methods to determine that broadband providers only offer information services, placing them outside FCC's regulatory reach.
The judicial panel explained their position in their 26-page ruling. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel responded by urging Congressional action to establish net neutrality principles in federal law. The decision has garnered attention from both supporters and critics of net neutrality regulations.
Former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai expressed strong support for the ruling on social media. He emphasized that regulators should shift their focus toward improving internet access and fostering online innovation rather than pursuing net neutrality regulations.
The ruling represents the latest development in a decade-long policy battle over internet regulation. The Obama administration initially classified broadband providers under Title II in 2015, only to have these rules reversed during the Trump presidency in 2017. The Biden administration's attempts to restore these regulations have now met a significant legal obstacle.
President-elect Trump's nomination of Brendan Carr as the incoming FCC chairman signals a continued opposition to net neutrality regulations. Carr has previously criticized Biden's regulatory approach, characterizing it as government overreach.
The Republican majority in both chambers of Congress further diminishes the likelihood of legislative action supporting net neutrality in the immediate future. This political composition suggests that the Obama and Biden administrations' regulatory vision for internet service providers faces substantial hurdles.
From the court ruling, the judges stated:
Today we consider the latest FCC order, issued in 2024, which resurrected the FCC's heavy-handed regulatory regime.
FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel emphasized the need for legislative action, stating:
Take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law.
The appeals court's decision marks a decisive moment in telecommunications policy. The 6th Circuit's ruling invalidates the Biden administration's attempt to reinstate net neutrality regulations through the FCC's authority.
With Republican control of Congress and an incoming Trump administration, the future of net neutrality regulations remains uncertain, while the debate over internet service provider regulation continues to evolve within the changing legal and political landscape.
A mysterious explosion outside Donald Trump's Las Vegas hotel involving a Tesla Cybertruck draws attention to possible connections with a deadly New Year's Day attack in New Orleans.
According to The Standard, Matthew Livelsberger, a 37-year-old active-duty U.S. Army member from Colorado Springs, was identified as the driver who died when his rented Tesla Cybertruck exploded outside Trump International Hotel, injuring seven others.
The incident occurred around 8:40 am on Wednesday when the £63,000 vehicle, manufactured by Trump ally Elon Musk's company, pulled up near the hotel's glass entrance. Law enforcement discovered firework mortars and camp fuel canisters stuffed in the truck's bed, leading to an explosion that sent flames shooting upward rather than sideways.
Investigators are examining potential connections between Livelsberger and Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the man responsible for a pickup truck attack in New Orleans that killed 15 people on New Year's Day. Both men had previously served at Fort Bragg, though officials have not confirmed any overlap in their assignments at the military base.
The FBI's Las Vegas office is working to determine whether the explosion constitutes an act of terrorism. Acting Special Agent Jeremy Schwartz emphasized that proper identification of the subject remains their primary objective.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk addressed the situation on his social media platform X, sharing his team's findings. He stated:
We have now confirmed that the explosion was caused by very large fireworks and/or a bomb carried in the bed of the rented Cybertruck and is unrelated to the vehicle itself. All vehicle telemetry was positive at the time of the explosion.
Video surveillance from Tesla charging stations helped authorities track the vehicle's movements. The Cybertruck arrived in Las Vegas at approximately 7:30 am local time, then drove to the Trump International Hotel's valet area an hour later, where it remained for 15 to 20 seconds before exploding.
Political connections have drawn attention, as Musk has recently joined Trump's inner circle. Both men attended Trump's New Year's Eve celebration in South Florida, and Musk was appointed to co-lead an initiative focused on reducing government size and spending.
Sheriff Kevin McMahill highlighted the political implications during a press conference. He stated:
This is a Tesla truck, and we know that Elon Musk is working with President-elect Trump, and it's the Trump Tower. So there's obviously things to be concerned about and it's something we continue to look at.
The incident has garnered attention from the highest levels of government, with President Joe Biden receiving briefings on the situation. The White House is actively monitoring potential connections between the Las Vegas explosion and the New Orleans attack.
The vehicle rental company Turo confirmed its cooperation with authorities, noting that neither renter involved in the Las Vegas or New Orleans incidents had criminal backgrounds that would have flagged them as security threats.
The explosion's impact extended beyond the immediate vicinity, with witness Ana Bruce from Brazil reporting three separate explosions. The 64-story Trump International Hotel's location near the Las Vegas Strip and the Fashion Show Las Vegas shopping mall raised additional security concerns.
The Tesla Cybertruck explosion in Las Vegas, resulting in the death of U.S. Army member Matthew Livelsberger and injuries to seven others, has prompted a coordinated response from federal and local authorities. The incident's potential connection to the New Orleans attack that killed 15 people, combined with both perpetrators' military backgrounds at Fort Bragg, has elevated the investigation to a matter of national security, with the FBI working to determine whether these events constitute acts of terrorism.
After reshaping Texas' highest civil court for over three decades, Justice Nathan Hecht prepares to step down from his position due to mandatory retirement age requirements.
According to the Austin American-Statesman, Hecht's retirement marks the end of a remarkable 43-year judicial career that saw him transform from a dissenting conservative voice to an influential leader who modernized the state's legal system.
The Yale-educated justice began his journey in 1988 as the first Republican ever elected to the Texas Supreme Court. His election marked a pivotal moment that foreshadowed the court's eventual transformation into one of the country's most conservative benches. Throughout his tenure, Hecht heard more than 2,700 oral arguments and authored 7,000 pages of opinions.
Hecht's arrival on the court coincided with a period of significant change in Texas politics. His successful campaign against an incumbent Democrat in 1988 set a precedent for future Republican victories in down-ballot races. The transition was swift and decisive, with the last Democrat being elected to the court in 1994, just six years after Hecht's groundbreaking win.
His conservative positions on crucial issues like abortion, school finance, and property rights initially put him at odds with the Democratic majority and moderate Republicans. As Texas shifted politically, Hecht's once-minority opinions became mainstream views on the bench.
Former Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson praised Hecht's intellectual prowess, noting that his analytical approach elevated the court's deliberations.
Under Hecht's leadership as Chief Justice, the court underwent significant technological and procedural modernization. He championed the implementation of e-filing before many other states, a decision that proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hecht has been particularly passionate about improving access to justice for low-income Texans. He told lawmakers in 2017:
If justice were food, too many would be starving. If it were housing, too many would be homeless. If it were medicine, too many would be sick.
His efforts led to increased legal aid funding and reduced barriers to accessing the justice system. He also supported allowing paraprofessionals to handle certain legal matters without attorney supervision, addressing what he calls the "justice chasm."
Governor Greg Abbott will now be responsible for filling the vacancy left by Hecht's departure. The appointee, whether elevated from within the court or chosen externally, must run for reelection in 2026.
The court faces several significant cases in the coming months, including matters related to oversight of immigration detention facilities and religious institutional governance. Despite Hecht's departure, former Chief Justice Tom Phillips expressed confidence in the court's ability to maintain its course.
Hecht remains committed to improving court administration both in Texas and nationally. He has hinted at writing a memoir while continuing to advocate for judicial system improvements.
Nathan Hecht's retirement represents the conclusion of a transformative period in Texas judicial history. His departure on Tuesday comes after serving as the longest-tenured Supreme Court justice in Texas history, during which he played a pivotal role in reshaping the state's highest civil court from a Democratic-majority institution to a conservative stronghold.
A significant cybersecurity breach targeting one of America's most vital financial institutions has raised concerns about escalating digital espionage activities.
According to Fox Business, a Chinese government-affiliated actor successfully infiltrated the U.S. Treasury Department's system in what officials have labeled a "major incident," gaining unauthorized access to workstations and documents through a security key.
The Treasury Department discovered the breach on December 8 and promptly notified Senate Banking Committee leadership through an official letter. Upon detection, the department immediately engaged with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and collaborated with various law enforcement partners to assess the breach's impact.
The Treasury incident occurs amid an ongoing Chinese state-sponsored espionage campaign targeting multiple U.S. government institutions. This recent breach follows a series of attacks on American telecommunications companies, with nine providers already affected by Chinese hacking operations.
Deputy national security adviser Anne Neuberger revealed that Chinese hackers had successfully accessed private text messages and phone conversations of American citizens. The exact number of affected individuals remains unknown due to the hackers' sophisticated methods of concealing their activities.
The majority of the victims were located in Washington, D.C., and Virginia, suggesting a targeted approach to gathering intelligence on government-related targets. Neuberger explained the attackers' motives, stating:
We believe it was the goal of identifying who those phones belong to and if they were government targets of interest for follow-on espionage and intelligence collection of communications, of texts and phone calls on those particular phones
In response to the security breach, the Treasury Department has taken the compromised BeyondTrust service offline. Officials have confirmed that there is no evidence suggesting the threat actor maintains ongoing access to Treasury systems or information.
The White House has announced plans to implement additional measures in the coming weeks to address the broader Chinese hacking campaign. However, specific details about these countermeasures remain undisclosed, highlighting the sensitive nature of the government's response strategy.
The cybersecurity community is particularly focused on an espionage unit known as Salt Typhoon, which has been actively conducting operations for the past four years. While it remains unclear whether this unit was responsible for the Treasury breach, their activities represent a significant portion of Chinese government-sponsored cyber operations against U.S. targets.
The White House's measured approach to addressing Chinese cyber threats reflects the complex nature of modern digital warfare. The administration's commitment to taking action demonstrates the seriousness of these security breaches while carefully avoiding escalation.
A comprehensive investigation involving multiple federal agencies continues as authorities work to determine the full extent of the compromise. The incident has prompted increased scrutiny of cybersecurity measures protecting critical government infrastructure.
International observers note that this event may impact already strained U.S.-China relations, particularly in areas of technology and national security cooperation.
The Treasury Department security breach, perpetrated by a Chinese government-affiliated hacker, represents a significant escalation in state-sponsored cyber operations against U.S. financial institutions. The incident, discovered on December 8, involved unauthorized access to Treasury workstations and documents through a compromised security key, prompting immediate intervention from federal cybersecurity agencies.
President-elect Donald Trump welcomes another Democratic defection in Florida's political landscape, marking a significant shift in the state's legislative makeup.
According to The Hill, Florida State Representative Hillary Cassel has become the second Democratic lawmaker this month to switch her party affiliation to Republican, prompting congratulations from former President Trump on Truth Social.
The party switch further strengthened the Republican supermajority in the Florida Legislature, closely following State Representative Susan Valdés's similar decision to leave the Democratic Party. Both representatives cited profound disagreements with their former party's direction and values as primary motivations for their transitions.
The consecutive departures of two Democratic state representatives highlight the increasing Republican control in Florida, a state that was considered politically competitive less than a decade ago.
These shifts have amplified the GOP's already substantial legislative advantage, demonstrating a notable transformation in the state's political dynamics.
Cassel, expressing her reasons for the switch, emphasized her concerns as a Jewish legislator regarding the Democratic Party's stance on Israel. She stated:
As a proud Jewish woman, I have been increasingly troubled by the Democratic Party's failure to unequivocally support Israel and its willingness to tolerate extreme progressive voices that justify or condone acts of terrorism. I'm constantly troubled by the inability of the current Democratic Party to relate to everyday Floridians.
The political realignment comes at a crucial time when party loyalty and ideological divisions are increasingly scrutinized nationwide. Trump's enthusiastic response to these changes indicates the strategic importance Republicans place on such defections.
Valdés's departure followed her unsuccessful bid to lead the Hillsborough County Democratic Party, reflecting internal party tensions. Her decision was influenced by concerns about effectively representing her community's interests within the Democratic caucus during her final term.
Trump seized the opportunity to extend an invitation to other Democratic lawmakers, viewing these switches as potential catalysts for further party realignment. His message on Truth Social actively encouraged other "disillusioned" Democrats to join the Republican Party.
These developments underscore broader questions about party loyalty and representation in Florida's political landscape. The shifts contribute to an evolving political environment where traditional party boundaries are increasingly fluid.
The consecutive party switches by Cassel and Valdés represent more than individual decisions; they symbolize a broader trend in Florida's political evolution. These changes have strengthened the Republican Party's position in a state that continues to move away from its previous status as a battleground territory.
The impact of these transitions extends beyond immediate legislative numbers, potentially influencing future political strategies and party dynamics in Florida. These shifts may encourage other Democratic lawmakers to reconsider their party affiliations, particularly in areas where Republican influence continues to grow.
Both representatives' decisions reflect personal and political calculations, considering their constituencies' needs and their ability to effect change within their previous party structure. Their moves highlight the complex interplay between personal values, constituent representation, and party allegiance in contemporary American politics.
A recent court ruling has stopped the sale of border wall construction materials by the Biden administration, prompting discussions on future immigration policies.
As former President Donald Trump prepares for another term, the controversy surrounding the U.S.-Mexico border wall project resurfaces with a court order against Biden's attempts to sell materials meant for the wall's construction, as Just the News reports.
On Friday, a court directed the Biden administration to desist from selling resources meant for the construction of the controversial border wall. This decision has significant implications as the administration had been making these materials available at reduced prices. The materials were initially acquired to continue building the border wall -- a project that was halted under President Joe Biden's leadership.
The decision comes as Trump, who initiated the wall project during his first term, prepares to once again assume the presidency. Trump's vision to extend the border wall has been met with various legal and political challenges, especially under the subsequent Democrat-led administration. The move to sell these materials was seen as an effort to diverge from Trump's border security policies.
According to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the administration is set to abide by the court's decision, halting any further sales within a month. This compliance reflects the ongoing political maneuvers that shape U.S. immigration policy. The court's ruling is the latest development in the ongoing tug-of-war between differing political ideologies concerning the nation's southern border.
The disposal of unused construction materials was initially permitted by Congress, which last year allowed for such sales through the National Defense Authorization Act. However, this authorization is now paused by the recent court order. The ruling represents a victory for those advocating for the continuation of the wall's construction, including prominent figures in Texas.
Texas leaders have expressed their willingness to assist Trump in the wall's completion, reinforcing the state's alignment with border security priorities akin to his. Paxton, in discussing the court's decision, highlighted the success in preventing further sales of these materials, implying a win for those favoring stricter border controls. The state's involvement underscores its critical role in border politics, as it shares a large portion of the U.S.-Mexico border. This geographical reality makes Texas a pivotal player in the border wall saga, impacting state and national security concerns.
Trump has been vocal about his dissatisfaction with the Biden administration's handling of the border wall materials. He criticized their decision to sell these materials as imprudent both financially and strategically, further escalating the political discourse around the issue.
In his remarks, Trump accused the administration's actions of being wasteful, emphasizing the potential for increased costs if materials need to be reacquired for the wall's completion. "It's almost a criminal act," he said, expressing his frustration with the financial implications. The border wall project, according to Trump, risks becoming more expensive if the existing materials are not utilized as intended.
He added, "They know we're going to use it," highlighting the perceived necessity of these resources for future construction endeavors. Trump's comments reveal the complexity of the challenges involved in managing border security, with financial prudence playing a crucial role in decisions made by each administration.
The debate over the U.S.-Mexico border wall encompasses wider issues of immigration policy and national security. Supporters of the wall argue it is instrumental in curbing illegal immigration and enhancing security measures. Opponents, on the other hand, often criticize the project as politically motivated and financially inefficient.
Biden’s pause on the wall's construction was guided by calls for more humane and comprehensive immigration reforms. His administration's focus diverges from Trump's approach, emphasizing a balanced strategy to manage border security while addressing the root causes of migration.
As these issues unfold, the court's ruling to stop the sale of border wall materials highlights the ongoing contest over control and implementation of U.S. border policy. The transition of power back to Trump’s leadership is likely to reignite efforts to resume construction, amidst continued political opposition and legal scrutiny.
A federal court took action this week, leading the Biden administration to pause the sale of materials originally intended for border wall construction.
This decision comes as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to resume that construction, following legal maneuvers and pressure from the state of Texas, as Fox News reports.
In a statement on Saturday, officials confirmed that the Biden administration will halt the disposal of border wall materials for 30 days, in response to legal challenges and a recent court order. The materials had been subject to auctions since the construction halt in January 2021, a change initiated as one of President Biden’s early administrative actions. Border wall parts have been auctioned on platforms like GovPlanet.com, where the Defense Department's logistics agency had arranged for the sale as excess materials. Weekly auctions, notably in Arizona, have been reported, attracting attention and criticism.
The decision was influenced significantly by a legal challenge spearheaded by Texas, marking a victory for state Attorney General Ken Paxton. His office argued that the administration’s actions subverted national security laws and demonstrated intentions to obstruct President-elect Trump's immigration plans.
Paxton expressed triumph over the pause in material sales, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal orders. He warned that premature disposal of materials, acquired under previously protected funding, could result in severe legal repercussions for federal officials. The court's injunction represents a strategic win for Texas, which has committed to aiding the upcoming Trump administration in renewing border wall construction efforts.
Videos of unused wall components being transported fueled public discourse, amplifying scrutiny over the material auctions. President-elect Trump openly criticized these sales, describing them as financially disadvantageous to taxpayers.
He stressed the economic implications, estimating potential rebuilding costs if the sold materials were found necessary again. Trump highlighted the inefficiency of duplicating efforts, projecting his administration's renewed focus on border infrastructure. His remarks underscored his readiness to restore projects that stalled during the current administration.
The auctions, which began in earnest in 2023, followed the Biden administration's decision to halt border wall construction promptly after taking office. This initiative redirected national resources, reflecting a shift in immigration strategies. Amid this administrative transition, excess materials were entrusted to governmental logistics agencies, which facilitated the auctions. Arizona served as a primary hub for these transactions, symbolizing a regionally significant shift in federal asset management practices.
Paxton and other Texas officials have opposed the sales vigorously, filing legal challenges aimed at maintaining border security infrastructure. They view this as an essential measure to ensure continuity and resource availability for future administrations committed to wall development.
Paxton's office issued stern warnings to the Biden administration about potential ethical violations if material disposition continued against court orders. These pronouncements suggest further legal confrontations may ensue should compliance falter in these remaining administration days.
Moreover, Texas has iterated its willingness to hold the current administration accountable for any perceived violations before Trump officially assumes office. This sets a tone of legal vigilance and readiness to defend state interests regarding immigration policy execution.
The situation highlights the intricate relationship between federal responsibility and congressional oversight, with border security often a contentious topic. The pause ordered by the court allows time for reassessment and potential policy recalibrations. Government authorities remain under pressure to adhere to established legal frameworks while balancing national security obligations and political transitions. This has sparked a wider discourse on the future trajectory of U.S. border initiatives, as legal and administrative landscapes continue to evolve.
Each legal proceeding and administrative decision adds layers of complexity to already intricate immigration and national security policy frameworks. Thus, as the Trump administration prepares to step in, stakeholders are closely monitoring developments that may redefine border management priorities.
A heated exchange between North Carolina Republican lawmaker Greg Murphy and California Governor Gavin Newsom intensifies over the state's proposed immigrant support programs.
According to Raw Story, Rep. Greg Murphy suggested on Fox News that the federal government should withhold funding from California in response to Governor Newsom's planned network of support programs designed to resist potential mass deportation efforts under a future Trump administration.
The confrontation began on Christmas Eve when Murphy posted on X, directly attacking Newsom and accusing him of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting. Legal experts note that while deliberately shielding unauthorized immigrants from federal agents constitutes a crime, states maintain the right to provide local services to immigrants and are not required to utilize their resources for immigration enforcement.
Murphy's appearance on Fox News further escalated the situation as he criticized both the Biden administration and Governor Newsom's approach to immigration policy. He specifically addressed California's current financial challenges, pointing to their $68 billion deficit while condemning Newsom's proposed immigration initiatives.
In a controversial comparison, Murphy likened Newsom's stance to Southern states that historically opposed school integration. The statement drew immediate attention from political observers and civil rights advocates.
The North Carolina representative emphasized his position with strong rhetoric on federal authority, suggesting that California's access to federal funding could be leveraged as a means of ensuring compliance with immigration policies.
Despite Murphy's criticism of California's fiscal management, available data presents a more nuanced picture of the state's financial relationship with the federal government. Current statistics indicate that California belongs to a select group of states that typically contribute more in federal tax revenue than they receive in federal grants and transfer payments.
The proposed Immigrant Support Network, as outlined in California's plan, would establish regional hubs connecting vulnerable individuals and their families with various community resources. These services would include legal assistance, educational support, and coordination with labor unions and local governments.
This initiative represents a direct challenge to potential immigration policies under a possible Trump administration, setting up a complex constitutional debate about state versus federal authority in immigration matters.
The confrontation highlights growing tensions between state and federal authorities over immigration policy enforcement. Murphy's threat to restrict federal funding raises questions about the limits of federal authority and states' rights.
Political analysts note that this dispute could set important precedents for future federal-state relationships, particularly regarding immigration policy implementation. The outcome of this conflict may influence how other states approach similar immigration-related decisions.
Representative Murphy expressed his views on the matter during his Fox News appearance:
We have laws in this land ... and President Biden and Vice President Harris decided they were above the law. America spoke and America gave a mandate to President Trump and the rule of law. Newsom has created his own deficit-spending debacle of a state, they're $68 billion in debt, and what he wants to do basically is break the law.
Rep. Greg Murphy's threat to defund California represents a significant escalation in the ongoing debate over state autonomy in immigration policy. The dispute centers on Governor Newsom's proposed Immigrant Support Network, designed to protect immigrant communities from potential mass deportation efforts under a future Trump administration. As this situation develops, both California's ability to maintain its proposed support programs and the federal government's capacity to influence state policies through funding mechanisms remain central questions in this unfolding political confrontation.
A shocking discovery about an 81-year-old Republican representative's prolonged absence from Congressional duties raises concerns about aging politicians in Washington.
According to The Telegraph, Kay Granger, a Republican congresswoman, has been located in a Fort Worth, Texas care home, suffering from dementia-related issues, explaining her extended absence from crucial votes in Congress.
Brandon Granger, the congresswoman's son, disclosed his mother's condition to local Texas media, while Granger herself released a statement acknowledging the health challenges that have made her Congressional duties challenging to fulfill.
Her staff continues to operate in her absence, maintaining constituent services despite her physical absence from Washington.
The revelation about Granger's condition amplifies ongoing discussions about aging leadership in American politics, particularly as the nation prepares for another elderly president to take office.
Donald Trump, at 78, is set to break the age record for assuming the presidency next month, surpassing the milestone previously set by Joe Biden in 2020.
Ro Khanna, a 48-year-old California Democrat, expressed his views on the situation. He stated:
Kay Granger's long absence reveals the problem with a Congress that rewards seniority and relationships more than merit and ideas. We have a sclerotic gerontocracy. We need term limits. We need to get big money out of politics so a new generation of Americans can run and serve.
The issue of aging leadership extends beyond Granger's case, as demonstrated by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell's decision to step down from his leadership position at age 82 following public episodes.
Fellow Texas Republican Tony Gonzales admitted to being unaware of Granger's move to assisted living while acknowledging the broader pattern of aging representatives. The situation has prompted discussions about term limits and the need for fresh perspectives in Congress.
Former GOP senatorial candidate Kari Lake, now appointed to lead Voice of America, offered her perspective:
Washington DC shouldn't be a retirement home, but the entrenched forces there are so desperate to hold on to power that they will reject fresh voices while pulling stunts like this.
The presidential race has not escaped scrutiny regarding age-related concerns, with both Trump and Biden facing questions about their cognitive abilities. Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race followed a problematic debate performance where he appeared to struggle with recall and articulation.
Kay Granger's situation highlights the pressing need to address age-related challenges in American politics. The 81-year-old representative, discovered in a Fort Worth care home with dementia, represents a growing concern about aging leadership in Congress and the broader political landscape.
The revelation of Granger's health condition and subsequent absence from Congressional duties has sparked renewed calls for younger representation in Washington. As the nation prepares for another elderly president to take office, the debate over age limits and political renewal continues to shape discussions about the future of American leadership.
A grieving family faces renewed trauma during the holiday season as they confront an unexpected presidential action affecting their loved one's killer.
According to Fox News, the family of Donna Major, a South Carolina bank teller murdered in 2017, has expressed outrage after President Biden commuted the death sentence of her killer, Brandon Council, to life imprisonment without parole.
The decision has left Major's daughters, Heather Turner and Katie Jenkins, along with her husband, Danny Jenkins, struggling to process this development that arrives just days before Christmas. The family revealed they had attempted to secure an in-person meeting in Washington, D.C., to share their perspective but were limited to a brief virtual conference that they feel went unheeded.
The commutation announcement has reopened deep emotional wounds for Major's family. They emphasize the brutal nature of the crime, where Council entered CresCom Bank in Conway, South Carolina, and fatally shot both Major and her coworker Kathryn Skeen, who was 36 years old at the time. The surveillance footage captured the chilling moment when Council approached Major, briefly spoke to her, and then shot her multiple times before targeting Skeen.
Heather Turner expressed her profound disappointment with the decision-making process. She shared that the family learned about the possibility of commutation in May and immediately began writing letters to the pardon attorney requesting an opportunity to be heard in person.
Danny Jenkins, Major's husband, emphasized the cold-blooded nature of the crime. Speaking on "Fox & Friends," he stated:
She was shown no mercy at all. This man walked into the bank, never said two words to her. Shot her three times in total. He went and shot her coworker, Katie Skeen as well, who was totally defenseless and unaware of anything happening.
President Biden's decision affects not just the Council but 36 other federal death row inmates. In his statement explaining the commutations, Biden emphasized his opposition to federal executions while acknowledging the gravity of the criminals' actions.
The president's announcement excluded three notable death row inmates: Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tree of Life synagogue shooter Robert Bowers, and Dylan Roof, who killed nine African Americans at a Charleston church in 2015.
Democratic Representative Ayanna Pressley publicly supported Biden's decision on CNN, characterizing it as demonstrating moral and compassionate leadership. However, Katie Jenkins strongly contested this characterization of compassion, pointing out the lack of consideration for victims' families in the decision-making process.
The controversial decision has ignited discussions about the balance between criminal justice reform and victims' rights. The family's frustration centers particularly on their limited involvement in the process, having been denied an in-person meeting and instead offered only a brief virtual conference.
The timing of the announcement, just before the Christmas holiday season, has added another layer of emotional complexity for the victims' families. The decision represents a significant shift in federal death penalty implementation, reflecting Biden's campaign promises and long-standing position on capital punishment.
Brandon Council's death sentence commutation is part of President Biden's broader initiative affecting 37 federal death row inmates, transforming their sentences to life imprisonment without parole.
The decision, announced days before Christmas 2024, has particularly impacted the families of Donna Major and Kathryn Skeen, who were killed during a 2017 bank robbery in Conway, South Carolina. While the administration frames this as a step toward ending federal executions, the victims' families view it as an oversight of their tragedy and right to participate in the justice process.