InsiderWire Staff

The Department of Justice has indicted former FBI Director James Comey for a second time, this time over a 2025 social media post featuring seashells arranged to display &quot;86 47&quot; — a reference Republicans interpreted as targeting President Trump, the 47th president.The charges stem from Comey's social media activity in 2025, where the former FBI chief posted an image showing seashells deliberately arranged to form the numbers &quot;86 47.&quot; The phrase &quot;86&quot; is slang meaning to remove or eliminate something, while 47 refers to Trump's position as the 47th president of the United States.This marks the second federal indictment against Comey, who served as FBI director from 2013 to 2017 before Trump fired him. The former FBI chief has remained a vocal critic of Trump throughout and after his presidency, frequently posting commentary on social media platforms.Republican lawmakers had flagged the seashell post when it first appeared, arguing it represented a veiled threat against the sitting president. The DOJ's decision to pursue criminal charges suggests prosecutors believe they can prove criminal intent behind what Comey may claim was artistic expression or political commentary.The timing proves particularly sensitive given ongoing debates about free speech, political expression, and the weaponization of federal law enforcement. Critics of the prosecution will likely argue the DOJ is criminalizing protected political speech, while supporters contend that former federal officials should be held to higher standards when their statements could be interpreted as threatening.Legal experts <a href="https://insiderwire.com/news/legal-expert-calls-comey-indictment-over-shell-art-facially-unconstitutional">previously called</a> similar charges against Comey &quot;facially unconstitutional,&quot; raising questions about whether these prosecutions will survive First Amendment challenges in federal court.The case also highlights the broader political tensions surrounding Trump's return to office and the treatment of his critics within the federal bureaucracy. Comey's dismissal as FBI director in 2017 sparked significant controversy and multiple investigations, making him a lightning rod figure in debates over executive power and law enforcement independence.For American taxpayers, the prosecution raises questions about prosecutorial resources and priorities. Federal prosecutors must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that arranging seashells in a specific pattern constitutes a federal crime — a case that will likely require significant time and money to pursue through the courts.The DOJ has not yet announced when Comey will be arraigned on the new charges or provided details about which specific federal statutes prosecutors believe the seashell post violated. Legal observers expect Comey's defense team to file immediate motions challenging the charges on First Amendment grounds.This is a developing story and will be updated.

The Department of Justice has indicted former FBI Director James Comey for a second time, this time over a 2025 social media post featuring seashells arranged to display "86 47" — a reference Republicans interpreted as targeting President Trump, the 47th president.

The charges stem from Comey's social media activity in 2025, where the former FBI chief posted an image showing seashells deliberately arranged to form the numbers "86 47." The phrase "86" is slang meaning to remove or eliminate something, while 47 refers to Trump's position as the 47th president of the United States.

This marks the second federal indictment against Comey, who served as FBI director from 2013 to 2017 before Trump fired him. The former FBI chief has remained a vocal critic of Trump throughout and after his presidency, frequently posting commentary on social media platforms.

Republican lawmakers had flagged the seashell post when it first appeared, arguing it represented a veiled threat against the sitting president. The DOJ's decision to pursue criminal charges suggests prosecutors believe they can prove criminal intent behind what Comey may claim was artistic expression or political commentary.

The timing proves particularly sensitive given ongoing debates about free speech, political expression, and the weaponization of federal law enforcement. Critics of the prosecution will likely argue the DOJ is criminalizing protected political speech, while supporters contend that former federal officials should be held to higher standards when their statements could be interpreted as threatening.

Legal experts previously called similar charges against Comey "facially unconstitutional," raising questions about whether these prosecutions will survive First Amendment challenges in federal court.

The case also highlights the broader political tensions surrounding Trump's return to office and the treatment of his critics within the federal bureaucracy. Comey's dismissal as FBI director in 2017 sparked significant controversy and multiple investigations, making him a lightning rod figure in debates over executive power and law enforcement independence.

For American taxpayers, the prosecution raises questions about prosecutorial resources and priorities. Federal prosecutors must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that arranging seashells in a specific pattern constitutes a federal crime — a case that will likely require significant time and money to pursue through the courts.

The DOJ has not yet announced when Comey will be arraigned on the new charges or provided details about which specific federal statutes prosecutors believe the seashell post violated. Legal observers expect Comey's defense team to file immediate motions challenging the charges on First Amendment grounds.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Former FBI Director James Comey faces second federal indictment over 2025 social media post featuring seashells arranged to display '86 47,' targeting Trump.

DOJ Indicts James Comey Again Over '86 47' Seashell Post

The White House confirmed Tuesday that President Trump's portrait will appear on a limited number of commemorative US passports released for America's 250th anniversary celebrations in July. The special edition passports will only be available at the Washington Passport Agency to &quot;any American citizen&quot; who applies, according to an administration official.The State Department rendering shows Trump's image surrounded by text from the Declaration of Independence and the American flag, with the president's signature displayed in gold. &quot;President Trump's new patriotic passport design provides yet another great way Americans can join in the spectacular celebrations for America's 250th birthday,&quot; a White House spokesperson told the BBC.Current US passports feature historical scenes like the Moon landing and American symbols including the Statue of Liberty. The administration has not clarified whether citizens can opt out of receiving the commemorative design when applying for new passports during the rollout period.The passport represents the latest effort by the Trump administration to associate the president's name and likeness with government programs and federal buildings. The US Mint recently announced plans for a commemorative gold coin featuring Trump for the 250th anniversary, and Trump will become the first sitting president to have his signature on US banknotes.The Kennedy Center board voted to rename the performing arts venue the Trump-Kennedy Center, drawing criticism from members of President John F. Kennedy's family. Federal officials have given preliminary approval for a 250-foot &quot;Arc de Trump&quot; victory arch in Washington DC, despite overwhelming public opposition from preservation groups.Trump has also made permanent changes to the White House itself, demolishing the East Wing to build a ballroom, as Insider Wire <a href="https://insiderwire.com/news/doj-officials-use-trump-gala-shooting-to-push-white-house-ballroom-plan">previously reported</a>. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued the White House, alleging construction began before proper permits were filed with the National Capital Planning Commission.The commemorative passport initiative comes as the administration promotes multiple events for the semiquincentennial celebration, including the UFC250 Fight, the Great American State Fair, and the Freedom250 Grand Prix. Americans seeking new passports after the July rollout will need to monitor availability, as the commemorative edition will be distributed on a first-come basis until supplies are exhausted.

The White House confirmed Tuesday that President Trump's portrait will appear on a limited number of commemorative US passports released for America's 250th anniversary celebrations in July. The special edition passports will only be available at the Washington Passport Agency to "any American citizen" who applies, according to an administration official.

The State Department rendering shows Trump's image surrounded by text from the Declaration of Independence and the American flag, with the president's signature displayed in gold. "President Trump's new patriotic passport design provides yet another great way Americans can join in the spectacular celebrations for America's 250th birthday," a White House spokesperson told the BBC.

Current US passports feature historical scenes like the Moon landing and American symbols including the Statue of Liberty. The administration has not clarified whether citizens can opt out of receiving the commemorative design when applying for new passports during the rollout period.

The passport represents the latest effort by the Trump administration to associate the president's name and likeness with government programs and federal buildings. The US Mint recently announced plans for a commemorative gold coin featuring Trump for the 250th anniversary, and Trump will become the first sitting president to have his signature on US banknotes.

The Kennedy Center board voted to rename the performing arts venue the Trump-Kennedy Center, drawing criticism from members of President John F. Kennedy's family. Federal officials have given preliminary approval for a 250-foot "Arc de Trump" victory arch in Washington DC, despite overwhelming public opposition from preservation groups.

Trump has also made permanent changes to the White House itself, demolishing the East Wing to build a ballroom, as Insider Wire previously reported. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued the White House, alleging construction began before proper permits were filed with the National Capital Planning Commission.

The commemorative passport initiative comes as the administration promotes multiple events for the semiquincentennial celebration, including the UFC250 Fight, the Great American State Fair, and the Freedom250 Grand Prix. Americans seeking new passports after the July rollout will need to monitor availability, as the commemorative edition will be distributed on a first-come basis until supplies are exhausted.

The White House confirms limited Trump commemorative passports will be available at Washington Passport Agency for America's 250th anniversary celebrations in J

Trump's Portrait to Appear on Limited-Edition US Passports for July Anniversary

The White House confirms limited Trump commemorative passports will be available at Washington Passport Agency for America's 250th anniversary celebrations in July.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley declared the Justice Department's indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over beach shell art &quot;facially unconstitutional,&quot; arguing prosecutors cannot meet the legal standard for proving a &quot;true threat&quot; under federal law.The DOJ filed charges in North Carolina against Comey for posting an image showing &quot;86 47&quot; spelled out in shells on a beach, which prosecutors claim constituted a threat against President Trump. The post, later deleted by Comey, reached his more than 1 million followers on X before being removed. Many interpreted &quot;86-ing&quot; as slang for killing or eliminating someone.Comey maintains he discovered the shell arrangement rather than creating it himself. This marks his second federal indictment after a court dismissed earlier charges for false statements in November due to questions about the acting U.S. attorney's authority.Turley, who has written dozens of columns criticizing Comey over the years, reluctantly defended the former FBI chief on First Amendment grounds. &quot;For over a decade, I have been one of Comey's most vocal and consistent critics,&quot; Turley wrote. &quot;For that reason, I would prefer to crawl into one of Comey's conversant shells than write a column supporting him.&quot;The prosecution must prove Comey's social media post constituted a &quot;true threat&quot; under federal statutes 18 U.S.C. § 871 and § 875(c). Turley argued this standard cannot be met based on the shell image alone, absent additional unknown evidence.Turley cited the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Watts v. United States, where justices protected speech from an 18-year-old anti-war protester who made more direct threatening statements. &quot;The First Amendment is designed to protect unpopular speech,&quot; he explained. &quot;It also protects bad and hateful speech. It even protects lies so long as those lies are not used for the purpose of fraud or other criminal conspiracies.&quot;The case represents an unusual prosecution where the government must prove criminal intent behind what Turley called &quot;adolescent&quot; social media behavior. <a href="https://insiderwire.com/news/comey-faces-second-indictment-over-alleged-trump-death-threat-on-social-media">As Insider Wire previously reported</a>, Comey has faced escalating legal scrutiny over his post-FBI conduct and public statements.Legal observers expect Comey's defense team to challenge the charges on constitutional grounds, potentially creating new precedent for social media speech cases. The outcome could influence how prosecutors pursue similar cases involving coded or symbolic threats against public officials in the digital age.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley declared the Justice Department's indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over beach shell art "facially unconstitutional," arguing prosecutors cannot meet the legal standard for proving a "true threat" under federal law.

The DOJ filed charges in North Carolina against Comey for posting an image showing "86 47" spelled out in shells on a beach, which prosecutors claim constituted a threat against President Trump. The post, later deleted by Comey, reached his more than 1 million followers on X before being removed. Many interpreted "86-ing" as slang for killing or eliminating someone.

Comey maintains he discovered the shell arrangement rather than creating it himself. This marks his second federal indictment after a court dismissed earlier charges for false statements in November due to questions about the acting U.S. attorney's authority.

Turley, who has written dozens of columns criticizing Comey over the years, reluctantly defended the former FBI chief on First Amendment grounds. "For over a decade, I have been one of Comey's most vocal and consistent critics," Turley wrote. "For that reason, I would prefer to crawl into one of Comey's conversant shells than write a column supporting him."

The prosecution must prove Comey's social media post constituted a "true threat" under federal statutes 18 U.S.C. § 871 and § 875(c). Turley argued this standard cannot be met based on the shell image alone, absent additional unknown evidence.

Turley cited the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Watts v. United States, where justices protected speech from an 18-year-old anti-war protester who made more direct threatening statements. "The First Amendment is designed to protect unpopular speech," he explained. "It also protects bad and hateful speech. It even protects lies so long as those lies are not used for the purpose of fraud or other criminal conspiracies."

The case represents an unusual prosecution where the government must prove criminal intent behind what Turley called "adolescent" social media behavior. As Insider Wire previously reported, Comey has faced escalating legal scrutiny over his post-FBI conduct and public statements.

Legal observers expect Comey's defense team to challenge the charges on constitutional grounds, potentially creating new precedent for social media speech cases. The outcome could influence how prosecutors pursue similar cases involving coded or symbolic threats against public officials in the digital age.

Jonathan Turley argues DOJ's case against James Comey over '86 47' beach shells fails First Amendment 'true threat' standard despite offensive message.

Legal Expert Calls Comey Indictment Over Shell Art 'Facially Unconstitutional'

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic attempt to force a vote restricting President Trump's military authority against Cuba, after Trump repeatedly warned the communist island is &quot;next&quot; following U.S. operations in Venezuela and Iran.The procedural vote failed along party lines, with GOP senators arguing the measure was premature. &quot;The issue is moot,&quot; said Senator Rick Scott of Florida, claiming the U.S. isn't currently engaged in hostilities with Cuba.Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced the resolution in March, part of his broader effort to rein in Trump's unilateral military actions. &quot;I've never heard the suggestion that Cuba poses an imminent security threat to the United States,&quot; Kaine said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.Trump has escalated his rhetoric against Cuba since U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The president said he would have &quot;the honor of taking Cuba&quot; and that &quot;Cuba's going to be next.&quot; Earlier this month, Trump told reporters military action against Cuba remains &quot;on the table,&quot; saying &quot;We may stop by Cuba after we're finished with this,&quot; referring to ongoing operations in Iran.Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been more direct about regime change goals. Testifying to Congress in January, Rubio said &quot;we would love to see the regime there change&quot; and called it of &quot;great benefit&quot; to the U.S. The administration maintains it prefers diplomatic solutions but hasn't ruled out military force.Kaine argued the U.S. is already engaged in hostile actions through Trump's oil blockade of Cuba, which has devastated civilians on the island. &quot;The U.S. is using force to block energy from going to Cuba,&quot; he said, adding America would consider such a blockade an act of war if roles were reversed.The failed vote mirrors more than half a dozen similar attempts by Democrats to restrict Trump's military authority in Venezuela and Iran, all blocked by Republicans defending presidential war powers. Cuban leadership has warned the country is prepared to fight any U.S. aggression.Despite rising tensions, diplomatic channels remain open. A State Department delegation traveled to Cuba earlier this month, marking the first U.S. government plane to land there since President Obama's 2016 visit. A State Department official told CBS that Trump remains open to diplomacy but &quot;will not let the island collapse into a major national security threat if Cuba's leaders are unwilling or unable to act.&quot;The vote sets up another constitutional clash over war powers as Trump expands military operations across multiple theaters without explicit congressional authorization.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic attempt to force a vote restricting President Trump's military authority against Cuba, after Trump repeatedly warned the communist island is "next" following U.S. operations in Venezuela and Iran.

The procedural vote failed along party lines, with GOP senators arguing the measure was premature. "The issue is moot," said Senator Rick Scott of Florida, claiming the U.S. isn't currently engaged in hostilities with Cuba.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia introduced the resolution in March, part of his broader effort to rein in Trump's unilateral military actions. "I've never heard the suggestion that Cuba poses an imminent security threat to the United States," Kaine said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.

Trump has escalated his rhetoric against Cuba since U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The president said he would have "the honor of taking Cuba" and that "Cuba's going to be next." Earlier this month, Trump told reporters military action against Cuba remains "on the table," saying "We may stop by Cuba after we're finished with this," referring to ongoing operations in Iran.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been more direct about regime change goals. Testifying to Congress in January, Rubio said "we would love to see the regime there change" and called it of "great benefit" to the U.S. The administration maintains it prefers diplomatic solutions but hasn't ruled out military force.

Kaine argued the U.S. is already engaged in hostile actions through Trump's oil blockade of Cuba, which has devastated civilians on the island. "The U.S. is using force to block energy from going to Cuba," he said, adding America would consider such a blockade an act of war if roles were reversed.

The failed vote mirrors more than half a dozen similar attempts by Democrats to restrict Trump's military authority in Venezuela and Iran, all blocked by Republicans defending presidential war powers. Cuban leadership has warned the country is prepared to fight any U.S. aggression.

Despite rising tensions, diplomatic channels remain open. A State Department delegation traveled to Cuba earlier this month, marking the first U.S. government plane to land there since President Obama's 2016 visit. A State Department official told CBS that Trump remains open to diplomacy but "will not let the island collapse into a major national security threat if Cuba's leaders are unwilling or unable to act."

The vote sets up another constitutional clash over war powers as Trump expands military operations across multiple theaters without explicit congressional authorization.

GOP senators blocked Democrats' attempt to restrict Trump's military authority on Cuba after president warned island nation is 'next' following Venezuela, Iran 

Senate Republicans Block Cuba War Powers Vote After Trump's 'Next' Warning

GOP senators blocked Democrats' attempt to restrict Trump's military authority on Cuba after president warned island nation is 'next' following Venezuela, Iran operations.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee fired executive director Abed Ayoub and a board member in April after Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and current staff publicly accused the organization's leadership of enabling sexual harassment and creating a toxic workplace for women.Tlaib posted a video last week detailing harassment she faced within the organization and demanded ADC remove her photo from their website. Within hours, the group replaced Ayoub with national legal director Jenin Younes. Tlaib specifically named Ayoub as complicit in downplaying harassment complaints.Current ADC employees, all Arab women, launched an Instagram account on April 25 demanding the entire 10-member board resign to make way for a transitional team. &quot;We stand with over a dozen women, including Representative Rashida Tlaib, who were harmed and failed by the institution that should have protected them,&quot; their statement reads.The civil rights organization now faces a coordinated revolt from former staffers, volunteers, and sitting members of Congress over what accusers describe as years of sexual harassment and assault by men in leadership positions. Documents reviewed by Middle East Eye show written complaints dating back to 2006.ADC board chair Safa Rifka's lawyers directed inquiries to the group's Monday social media statement, which acknowledged &quot;incidents from more than a decade ago after which we took corrective action.&quot; The organization claimed it has maintained &quot;a zero-tolerance policy for harassment&quot; for over a decade while offering &quot;our previous apology sincerely and without reservation.&quot;Several women told Middle East Eye they delayed speaking up due to fears of reprisals, particularly given cultural taboos around such issues within Arab communities. The accusations strike at the heart of an organization founded to protect Arab-Americans from discrimination and defend their civil rights.The ADC characterized Ayoub's removal as &quot;a deliberate one that comes at a moment when ADC's legal advocacy work has never been more urgent in courts, on campuses, and in Congress.&quot; The timing comes as Arab-Americans face increased scrutiny and discrimination amid ongoing Middle East conflicts.For Arab-American voters who increasingly influence elections in swing states like Michigan, the scandal represents a crisis of confidence in one of their community's most prominent advocacy organizations. The group's ability to effectively lobby Congress and coordinate civil rights litigation now hangs in the balance as internal turmoil consumes leadership attention.The controversy exposes how harassment scandals can cripple organizations that serve as crucial bridges between ethnic communities and the broader American political system. With Tlaib's high-profile support lending credibility to accusers, the pressure for wholesale leadership changes appears unlikely to subside.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee fired executive director Abed Ayoub and a board member in April after Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and current staff publicly accused the organization's leadership of enabling sexual harassment and creating a toxic workplace for women.

Tlaib posted a video last week detailing harassment she faced within the organization and demanded ADC remove her photo from their website. Within hours, the group replaced Ayoub with national legal director Jenin Younes. Tlaib specifically named Ayoub as complicit in downplaying harassment complaints.

Current ADC employees, all Arab women, launched an Instagram account on April 25 demanding the entire 10-member board resign to make way for a transitional team. "We stand with over a dozen women, including Representative Rashida Tlaib, who were harmed and failed by the institution that should have protected them," their statement reads.

The civil rights organization now faces a coordinated revolt from former staffers, volunteers, and sitting members of Congress over what accusers describe as years of sexual harassment and assault by men in leadership positions. Documents reviewed by Middle East Eye show written complaints dating back to 2006.

ADC board chair Safa Rifka's lawyers directed inquiries to the group's Monday social media statement, which acknowledged "incidents from more than a decade ago after which we took corrective action." The organization claimed it has maintained "a zero-tolerance policy for harassment" for over a decade while offering "our previous apology sincerely and without reservation."

Several women told Middle East Eye they delayed speaking up due to fears of reprisals, particularly given cultural taboos around such issues within Arab communities. The accusations strike at the heart of an organization founded to protect Arab-Americans from discrimination and defend their civil rights.

The ADC characterized Ayoub's removal as "a deliberate one that comes at a moment when ADC's legal advocacy work has never been more urgent in courts, on campuses, and in Congress." The timing comes as Arab-Americans face increased scrutiny and discrimination amid ongoing Middle East conflicts.

For Arab-American voters who increasingly influence elections in swing states like Michigan, the scandal represents a crisis of confidence in one of their community's most prominent advocacy organizations. The group's ability to effectively lobby Congress and coordinate civil rights litigation now hangs in the balance as internal turmoil consumes leadership attention.

The controversy exposes how harassment scandals can cripple organizations that serve as crucial bridges between ethnic communities and the broader American political system. With Tlaib's high-profile support lending credibility to accusers, the pressure for wholesale leadership changes appears unlikely to subside.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee fired its executive director and board member after Rep. Rashida Tlaib and staff demanded resignations over hara

Arab-American Civil Rights Group Fires Leaders Amid Sexual Harassment Scandal

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee fired its executive director and board member after Rep. Rashida Tlaib and staff demanded resignations over harassment claims.

Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic war powers resolution Tuesday that would have prevented President Trump from taking military action against Cuba without congressional approval. The move comes as Trump wages an ongoing military campaign against Iran while <a href="https://insiderwire.com/news/trumps-iran-campaign-stalls-two-months-of-strikes-fail-to-force-nuclear-deal">two months of strikes fail to force a nuclear deal</a>.Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced the resolution after Trump said in March: &quot;All my life I've been hearing about the United States and Cuba — when will the United States do it? I do believe I'll be the honor, having the honor of taking Cuba.&quot; The communist island sits just 90 miles from Florida's coast.Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., successfully moved to block the bill from reaching a full floor vote. Only three Republicans broke ranks — Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Susan Collins of Maine — joining nearly every Senate Democrat to force the vote. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the lone Democrat who supported killing the resolution.Kaine's resolution would have required the removal of U.S. forces from within or around Cuba and classified any Coast Guard blockade or quarantine of the island as a hostile act requiring Congress' approval. The measure represents a rare Democratic attempt to restrict Trump's war powers outside the Middle East, where Republicans have already defeated five similar resolutions.&quot;You gotta ask Republicans about their position,&quot; Kaine told Fox News Digital when asked about GOP unity on the vote. He noted that many Republicans have cited the 60-day War Powers Act timeframe as relevant to their decision-making on military action.The failed Cuba resolution highlights the constitutional tension between executive war powers and congressional authority. Republicans have consistently supported Trump's military discretion while Democrats push for legislative oversight of overseas operations. Trump has not yet taken action against Cuba while U.S. forces remain engaged in Iran.Democrats face a critical test this week as they prepare another Iran war vote approaching the 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution. &quot;We'll see that because we'll have an Iran war vote close to the 60-day [deadline] by the end of this week,&quot; Kaine said.The Cuba vote underscores how Trump's expansive foreign policy ambitions are forcing Congress to grapple with war powers across multiple theaters simultaneously — a challenge that will intensify if military operations expand beyond Iran.

Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic war powers resolution Tuesday that would have prevented President Trump from taking military action against Cuba without congressional approval. The move comes as Trump wages an ongoing military campaign against Iran while two months of strikes fail to force a nuclear deal.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced the resolution after Trump said in March: "All my life I've been hearing about the United States and Cuba — when will the United States do it? I do believe I'll be the honor, having the honor of taking Cuba." The communist island sits just 90 miles from Florida's coast.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., successfully moved to block the bill from reaching a full floor vote. Only three Republicans broke ranks — Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Susan Collins of Maine — joining nearly every Senate Democrat to force the vote. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the lone Democrat who supported killing the resolution.

Kaine's resolution would have required the removal of U.S. forces from within or around Cuba and classified any Coast Guard blockade or quarantine of the island as a hostile act requiring Congress' approval. The measure represents a rare Democratic attempt to restrict Trump's war powers outside the Middle East, where Republicans have already defeated five similar resolutions.

"You gotta ask Republicans about their position," Kaine told Fox News Digital when asked about GOP unity on the vote. He noted that many Republicans have cited the 60-day War Powers Act timeframe as relevant to their decision-making on military action.

The failed Cuba resolution highlights the constitutional tension between executive war powers and congressional authority. Republicans have consistently supported Trump's military discretion while Democrats push for legislative oversight of overseas operations. Trump has not yet taken action against Cuba while U.S. forces remain engaged in Iran.

Democrats face a critical test this week as they prepare another Iran war vote approaching the 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution. "We'll see that because we'll have an Iran war vote close to the 60-day [deadline] by the end of this week," Kaine said.

The Cuba vote underscores how Trump's expansive foreign policy ambitions are forcing Congress to grapple with war powers across multiple theaters simultaneously — a challenge that will intensify if military operations expand beyond Iran.

Republicans defeated Sen. Tim Kaine's resolution to restrict Trump's military authority against Cuba after president said he'd have 'honor of taking Cuba.'

Senate GOP Blocks Democrat War Powers Resolution on Cuba Action

Former FBI Director James Comey faces a second federal indictment since Donald Trump returned to office, with prosecutors alleging the fired law enforcement chief threatened the president's life through a social media post.The charges mark an escalation in the Justice Department's pursuit of Comey, who Trump dismissed in May 2017 during the Russia investigation. Bloomberg reported the indictment centers on allegations that Comey made threatening statements against Trump on social media platforms, though specific details of the post were not immediately available.This represents the second time prosecutors have brought criminal charges against Comey since Trump's return to the White House, as Insider Wire <a href="https://insiderwire.com/news/doj-hits-comey-with-second-federal-indictment-press-conference-today">previously reported</a>. The pattern suggests the Trump administration is systematically targeting former officials who clashed with the president during his first term.Comey led the FBI from 2013 until Trump fired him amid the bureau's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The dismissal triggered the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and became a defining moment in Trump's first presidency. Comey later testified before Congress that Trump had pressured him to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.The charges come as Trump has repeatedly promised to pursue his political opponents through the justice system. During his campaign, Trump vowed to investigate and prosecute officials he blamed for what he called the &quot;Russia hoax&quot; and other investigations that targeted him and his associates.For Americans concerned about government accountability, the case raises questions about whether the Justice Department is being weaponized for political retribution. Critics argue that prosecuting former officials for social media posts could set a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political speech, even when directed at sitting presidents.The timing also coincides with Trump's broader effort to reshape federal law enforcement agencies. The president has installed loyalists throughout the Justice Department and has signaled his intention to root out what he considers a &quot;deep state&quot; conspiracy against his administration.Comey's legal troubles extend beyond his own case. His daughter Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor, recently won a court victory allowing her lawsuit against the Justice Department to proceed after she was forced out of her position during Trump's transition.Legal experts will be watching whether prosecutors can prove that Comey's social media activity crossed the line from protected political speech into criminal threatening behavior. Federal law requires prosecutors to demonstrate that threats were credible and intended to intimidate or harm the target.The case will test the boundaries of free speech protections for former government officials who criticize sitting presidents, potentially setting precedent for how far political discourse can go before becoming criminal conduct.

Former FBI Director James Comey faces a second federal indictment since Donald Trump returned to office, with prosecutors alleging the fired law enforcement chief threatened the president's life through a social media post.

The charges mark an escalation in the Justice Department's pursuit of Comey, who Trump dismissed in May 2017 during the Russia investigation. Bloomberg reported the indictment centers on allegations that Comey made threatening statements against Trump on social media platforms, though specific details of the post were not immediately available.

This represents the second time prosecutors have brought criminal charges against Comey since Trump's return to the White House, as Insider Wire previously reported. The pattern suggests the Trump administration is systematically targeting former officials who clashed with the president during his first term.

Comey led the FBI from 2013 until Trump fired him amid the bureau's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The dismissal triggered the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and became a defining moment in Trump's first presidency. Comey later testified before Congress that Trump had pressured him to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

The charges come as Trump has repeatedly promised to pursue his political opponents through the justice system. During his campaign, Trump vowed to investigate and prosecute officials he blamed for what he called the "Russia hoax" and other investigations that targeted him and his associates.

For Americans concerned about government accountability, the case raises questions about whether the Justice Department is being weaponized for political retribution. Critics argue that prosecuting former officials for social media posts could set a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political speech, even when directed at sitting presidents.

The timing also coincides with Trump's broader effort to reshape federal law enforcement agencies. The president has installed loyalists throughout the Justice Department and has signaled his intention to root out what he considers a "deep state" conspiracy against his administration.

Comey's legal troubles extend beyond his own case. His daughter Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor, recently won a court victory allowing her lawsuit against the Justice Department to proceed after she was forced out of her position during Trump's transition.

Legal experts will be watching whether prosecutors can prove that Comey's social media activity crossed the line from protected political speech into criminal threatening behavior. Federal law requires prosecutors to demonstrate that threats were credible and intended to intimidate or harm the target.

The case will test the boundaries of free speech protections for former government officials who criticize sitting presidents, potentially setting precedent for how far political discourse can go before becoming criminal conduct.

Former FBI Director James Comey indicted again under Trump administration, with prosecutors alleging he threatened the president's life in social media post.

Comey Faces Second Indictment Over Alleged Trump Death Threat on Social Media

The Justice Department hit former FBI Director James Comey with a second federal indictment and will address the charges at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.The Trump administration's latest legal action against Comey follows two federal charges filed last September stemming from testimony he gave before the Senate in 2020. The DOJ has not yet disclosed the specific nature of the new charges or which aspects of Comey's conduct they target.Comey's legal troubles center on his actions during and after his tenure leading the FBI from 2013 to 2017. His September indictment focused on Senate testimony from 2020, though prosecutors have remained tight-lipped about the evidence underlying those charges.The timing of the second indictment signals the Trump administration's commitment to pursuing accountability for what it views as FBI misconduct during the previous administration. Comey has faced sustained criticism from conservatives over his handling of the Clinton email investigation and his role in the Russia probe that dominated Trump's first presidency.The press conference will likely provide the first detailed look at the new charges and the DOJ's broader strategy for prosecuting the former FBI chief. Legal experts will be watching to see whether the charges relate to Comey's handling of classified information, his interactions with Congress, or his post-FBI media appearances and book deals.For Americans concerned about FBI accountability, the case represents a test of whether top law enforcement officials can be held to the same legal standards they enforce on others. The outcome could set precedents for how future administrations handle alleged misconduct by senior intelligence and law enforcement officials.Comey's daughter Maurene recently <a href="https://insiderwire.com/news/judge-clears-maurene-comey-lawsuit-over-doj-firing">won a legal victory</a> when a judge cleared her lawsuit over her firing from the DOJ, adding another layer of complexity to the family's ongoing legal battles with the department.The press conference will reveal whether the DOJ plans additional charges or considers this the conclusion of its investigation into Comey's conduct.

The Justice Department hit former FBI Director James Comey with a second federal indictment and will address the charges at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.

The Trump administration's latest legal action against Comey follows two federal charges filed last September stemming from testimony he gave before the Senate in 2020. The DOJ has not yet disclosed the specific nature of the new charges or which aspects of Comey's conduct they target.

Comey's legal troubles center on his actions during and after his tenure leading the FBI from 2013 to 2017. His September indictment focused on Senate testimony from 2020, though prosecutors have remained tight-lipped about the evidence underlying those charges.

The timing of the second indictment signals the Trump administration's commitment to pursuing accountability for what it views as FBI misconduct during the previous administration. Comey has faced sustained criticism from conservatives over his handling of the Clinton email investigation and his role in the Russia probe that dominated Trump's first presidency.

The press conference will likely provide the first detailed look at the new charges and the DOJ's broader strategy for prosecuting the former FBI chief. Legal experts will be watching to see whether the charges relate to Comey's handling of classified information, his interactions with Congress, or his post-FBI media appearances and book deals.

For Americans concerned about FBI accountability, the case represents a test of whether top law enforcement officials can be held to the same legal standards they enforce on others. The outcome could set precedents for how future administrations handle alleged misconduct by senior intelligence and law enforcement officials.

Comey's daughter Maurene recently won a legal victory when a judge cleared her lawsuit over her firing from the DOJ, adding another layer of complexity to the family's ongoing legal battles with the department.

The press conference will reveal whether the DOJ plans additional charges or considers this the conclusion of its investigation into Comey's conduct.

Justice Department brings second federal indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, holds press conference Tuesday afternoon on new charges.

DOJ Hits Comey with Second Federal Indictment — Press Conference Today

The Trump administration has cut federal funding for fentanyl test strips, reversing previous policy that allowed government money to purchase and distribute the devices that detect deadly contaminants in street drugs.The policy change represents part of the administration's broader opposition to harm reduction practices in drug policy. Federal agencies can no longer use taxpayer dollars to buy or hand out the strips that help drug users identify whether their substances contain fentanyl or other dangerous additives.Fentanyl test strips became a frontline tool in combating the overdose crisis that kills more than 70,000 Americans annually. The synthetic opioid is 50 times more potent than heroin and often mixed into other drugs without users' knowledge. Test strips allow people to check their substances before use, potentially preventing fatal overdoses.The funding reversal affects state and local health departments, nonprofits, and community organizations that previously relied on federal grants to distribute the strips. These groups now must find alternative funding sources or eliminate their testing programs entirely.Public health advocates argue the strips save lives by giving drug users information to make safer choices. Critics of harm reduction contend such programs enable drug use rather than promoting treatment and recovery.The administration's approach aligns with its emphasis on enforcement and treatment over harm reduction strategies. This includes opposition to supervised injection sites and needle exchange programs that received federal support under previous administrations.States like California and New York continue funding fentanyl test strip programs with state money. However, rural areas and smaller communities often lack resources to replace federal funding, potentially creating gaps in overdose prevention efforts.The policy shift comes as Mexican cartels continue flooding American communities with fentanyl-laced drugs, as Insider Wire <a href="https://insiderwire.com/news/mexican-forces-arrest-top-cartel-commander-potential-successor-to-cjng-leader">previously reported</a> in coverage of cartel operations. Border security and drug interdiction remain administration priorities, but the test strip funding cut removes one tool from the domestic response arsenal.Congress could restore funding through appropriations legislation, though Republican lawmakers generally support the administration's tougher approach to drug policy that prioritizes enforcement and treatment over harm reduction measures.

The Trump administration has cut federal funding for fentanyl test strips, reversing previous policy that allowed government money to purchase and distribute the devices that detect deadly contaminants in street drugs.

The policy change represents part of the administration's broader opposition to harm reduction practices in drug policy. Federal agencies can no longer use taxpayer dollars to buy or hand out the strips that help drug users identify whether their substances contain fentanyl or other dangerous additives.

Fentanyl test strips became a frontline tool in combating the overdose crisis that kills more than 70,000 Americans annually. The synthetic opioid is 50 times more potent than heroin and often mixed into other drugs without users' knowledge. Test strips allow people to check their substances before use, potentially preventing fatal overdoses.

The funding reversal affects state and local health departments, nonprofits, and community organizations that previously relied on federal grants to distribute the strips. These groups now must find alternative funding sources or eliminate their testing programs entirely.

Public health advocates argue the strips save lives by giving drug users information to make safer choices. Critics of harm reduction contend such programs enable drug use rather than promoting treatment and recovery.

The administration's approach aligns with its emphasis on enforcement and treatment over harm reduction strategies. This includes opposition to supervised injection sites and needle exchange programs that received federal support under previous administrations.

States like California and New York continue funding fentanyl test strip programs with state money. However, rural areas and smaller communities often lack resources to replace federal funding, potentially creating gaps in overdose prevention efforts.

The policy shift comes as Mexican cartels continue flooding American communities with fentanyl-laced drugs, as Insider Wire previously reported in coverage of cartel operations. Border security and drug interdiction remain administration priorities, but the test strip funding cut removes one tool from the domestic response arsenal.

Congress could restore funding through appropriations legislation, though Republican lawmakers generally support the administration's tougher approach to drug policy that prioritizes enforcement and treatment over harm reduction measures.

The Trump administration reversed course on federal funding for fentanyl detection strips, part of broader opposition to harm reduction practices.

Trump Administration Cuts Federal Funding for Fentanyl Test Strips

A federal judge cleared former prosecutor Maurene Comey to move forward with her wrongful termination lawsuit against the Justice Department, ruling she can pursue claims that she was fired because of President Trump's political vendetta against her father, former FBI Director James Comey.The decision allows the younger Comey to advance her case in court after the DOJ attempted to dismiss her claims. Maurene Comey worked as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York before her termination, which she alleges was retaliatory rather than based on job performance.The lawsuit centers on the contentious relationship between Trump and James Comey, who led the FBI during the 2016 election and early months of Trump's first presidency. Trump fired the elder Comey in May 2017, citing his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and what Trump called a lack of loyalty.Maurene Comey's legal team argues that her firing violated federal employment protections against political retaliation. The case raises questions about whether career government employees can be targeted for dismissal based on their family relationships with political adversaries of the administration.The judge's ruling represents a legal victory for government accountability advocates who argue that federal workers should be protected from political interference in hiring and firing decisions. The DOJ has defended its personnel decisions as routine and based on legitimate job-related factors.This case could set important precedent for how far political administrations can reach when making employment decisions about career federal employees. The litigation also highlights ongoing tensions between Trump and the law enforcement officials who investigated his administration during his first term.The lawsuit now moves to the discovery phase, where both sides will gather evidence to support their positions. Legal experts expect the case could take months or years to resolve, depending on whether it reaches trial or settles out of court.

A federal judge cleared former prosecutor Maurene Comey to move forward with her wrongful termination lawsuit against the Justice Department, ruling she can pursue claims that she was fired because of President Trump's political vendetta against her father, former FBI Director James Comey.

The decision allows the younger Comey to advance her case in court after the DOJ attempted to dismiss her claims. Maurene Comey worked as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York before her termination, which she alleges was retaliatory rather than based on job performance.

The lawsuit centers on the contentious relationship between Trump and James Comey, who led the FBI during the 2016 election and early months of Trump's first presidency. Trump fired the elder Comey in May 2017, citing his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and what Trump called a lack of loyalty.

Maurene Comey's legal team argues that her firing violated federal employment protections against political retaliation. The case raises questions about whether career government employees can be targeted for dismissal based on their family relationships with political adversaries of the administration.

The judge's ruling represents a legal victory for government accountability advocates who argue that federal workers should be protected from political interference in hiring and firing decisions. The DOJ has defended its personnel decisions as routine and based on legitimate job-related factors.

This case could set important precedent for how far political administrations can reach when making employment decisions about career federal employees. The litigation also highlights ongoing tensions between Trump and the law enforcement officials who investigated his administration during his first term.

The lawsuit now moves to the discovery phase, where both sides will gather evidence to support their positions. Legal experts expect the case could take months or years to resolve, depending on whether it reaches trial or settles out of court.

Former prosecutor Maurene Comey can proceed with wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she was fired due to Trump's feud with her father, FBI Director James Com

Judge Clears Maurene Comey Lawsuit Over DOJ Firing

Former prosecutor Maurene Comey can proceed with wrongful termination lawsuit claiming she was fired due to Trump's feud with her father, FBI Director James Comey.