Former Vice President Kamala Harris offered a take so ‘weird’ and ‘not good’ in an interview with social media personality Kareem Rahma that they both agreed to nix airing the footage, according to Rahma. 

Rahma, who hosts the popular series ‘Subway Takes,’ where he asks commuters and sometimes celebrities their opinions, previously told the New York Times that he conducted an interview with Harris during the summer of 2024, but that it was never released. 

Rahma said in an interview clip with Forbes’ Steven Bertoni posted on social media Monday that Harris’ take was so ‘bad’ he felt fortunate it didn’t make the cut. 

‘Her take was really confusing and weird – not good,’ Rahma told Bertoni. And we ‘mutually agreed to not publish it. And I got lucky, because I didn’t want to be blamed for her losing.’

‘Her take was that bad?’ Bertoni said. 

‘It was really, really bad… it like, didn’t make any sense,’ Rahma said, revealing Harris’ take was ‘bacon as a spice.’ 

Neither Harris nor Rahma immediately responded to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Rahma, who is Muslim, told the New York Times in a story published in November 2024 that Harris’ team originally proposed she would share a ‘hot take’ against people removing their shoes on airplanes.

But Harris went on to declare that bacon was a spice – a food that Rahma and other Muslims do not consume for religious reasons. The Times reported that Rahma was ‘taken aback’ by Harris’ statement. 

‘Think about it, it’s pure flavor,’ she said, per the unaired footage obtained by the Times. 

The Times’ story said two senior campaign managers for Harris said the topic of bacon had been previously raised, while Rahma and his manager said that wasn’t the case. Harris’ campaign reportedly apologized for sharing her take on bacon and offered to re-film the episode, but Rahma declined, according to the Times. 

Rahma told the Times that his reasoning for not airing the interview was because he didn’t want to upset the Muslim community, and that he was hoping to ask Harris questions about the Biden administration’s policy regarding the Israel–Hamas war. 

‘It was so complicated because I’m Muslim and there’s something going on in the world that 100% of Muslims care about,’ Rahma told the Times. ‘And then they made it worse by talking about anchovies. Boring!’

Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, also appeared on Rahma’s series leading up to the 2024 election, where he discussed gutter maintenance. Walz’s interview was posted in August 2024. 

Fox News’ Yael Halon contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump disclosed he and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley clashed over leaving equipment in Afghanistan as the U.S. withdrew troops in 2021. 

Trump, who historically has pushed to recover billions of dollars’ worth of equipment U.S. troops left in Afghanistan, said Milley argued at the time it was cheaper to leave the equipment there. 

‘That’s when I knew he was an idiot,’ Trump said during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday. ‘Didn’t take long to figure that one out. But they left all that equipment. But they left their dignity behind. It was the most embarrassing moment, in my opinion, in the history of our country. Not that we got out. We should have not been there, but that we got out the way we got out with great embarrassment and death.’ 

Milley, who is now retired, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

The Taliban seized nearly all of the more than $7 billion worth of equipment U.S. troops left in Afghanistan during the withdrawal process, according to a 2022 Department of Defense report.

While U.S. troops removed or destroyed most of the major equipment, aircraft, ground vehicles and other weapons were left in Afghanistan. The condition of these items remains unknown, but the Pentagon said in the report the equipment likely would fail operationally without maintenance from U.S. contractors. 

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed off on pulling U.S. troops from Afghanistan, following up on existing plans from the first Trump administration in 2020 with Taliban leaders to end the conflict. 

However, Biden bore the brunt of criticism for the withdrawal after the Taliban rapidly took over Afghanistan again, and more than a dozen U.S. service members died supporting evacuation efforts. 

Thirteen U.S. service members were killed during the withdrawal process due to a suicide bombing at Abbey Gate, outside the then-Hamid Karzai International Airport, as the Taliban gained control of Kabul.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in May that he had instructed the Pentagon to launch a comprehensive review of the U.S. withdrawal to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the event and to hold those responsible accountable. 

‘The Department of Defense has an obligation, both to the American people and to the warfighters who sacrificed their youth in Afghanistan, to get to the facts,’ Hegseth said in a memo in May. ‘This remains an important step toward regaining faith and trust with the American people and all those who wear the uniform and is prudent based on the number of casualties and equipment lost during the execution of this withdrawal operation.’ 

While Trump tapped Milley to serve as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2019, the relationship between the two unraveled after Milley issued an apology for appearing beside Trump in uniform during a photo-op outside the White House during the 2020 protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer.

Milley said in his apology that his appearance ‘created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.’

‘As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it,’ Milley said in the apology. 

Since then, Trump has issued various threats toward Milley, such as appearing to suggest Milley deserved to face execution for actions, including speaking to Chinese officials. Prior to departing office, Biden issued a preemptive pardon to Milley to safeguard the retired general from retributive actions by Trump. 

Hegseth yanked Milley’s security clearance in January. 

Milley told lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in March 2024 that he and the commander of U.S. Central Command at the time of the withdrawal, Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., both advised Biden to keep some U.S. troops in Afghanistan after pulling most forces. 

‘The outcome in Afghanistan was the result of many decisions from many years of war,’ Milley told lawmakers. ‘Like any complex phenomena, there was no single causal factor that determined the outcome.’

The State Department is investigating an impostor who reportedly pretended to be Secretary of State Marco Rubio with the help of AI. 

The mystery individual posing as one of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet members reached out to foreign ministers, a U.S. governor and a member of Congress with AI-assisted voice and text messages that mimicked Rubio’s voice and writing style, the Washington Post reported, citing a senior U.S. official and State Department cable. 

‘The State Department, of course, is aware of this incident and is currently monitoring and addressing the matter. The department takes seriously its responsibility to safeguard its information and continuously take steps to improve the department’s cybersecurity posture to prevent future incidents. For security reasons, we do not have any further details to provide at this time,’ State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said Tuesday. 

When asked by Fox News about Rubio’s reaction to being impersonated, she said, ‘We’re not at a point here where I will discuss or portray what actions are being taken or his reaction.’ 

‘The secretary… is very transparent, quite transparent, and he’s direct with everyone. I think that any description of his reaction, of course, belongs to him. And I would suspect that at some point we’ll have that for you,’ Bruce added. 

She also said that ‘We live in a technological age that we are well enmeshed in.’ 

It’s unclear who is using AI to impersonate Rubio, but it’s suspected they are doing so in an attempt to manipulate government officials ‘with the goal of gaining access to information or accounts,’ the State Department cable said, according to the Washington Post. 

The cable reportedly said the impersonation act started in mid-June when someone created a Signal account with the display name Marco.Rubio@state.gov — which isn’t Rubio’s actual email address. 

The July 3 cable reportedly added that the fake Rubio ‘contacted at least five non-Department individuals, including three foreign ministers, a U.S. governor, and a U.S. member of Congress.’ 

‘The actor left voicemails on Signal for at least two targeted individuals and in one instance, sent a text message inviting the individual to communicate on Signal,’ the Washington Post also cited the cable as saying. 

The impersonation attempt ultimately was unsuccessful and ‘not very sophisticated,’ a senior U.S. official told The Associated Press.

Fox News’ Nick Kalman contributed to this report.  

In a blockbuster report, the CIA has belatedly exposed the rank corruption among top intelligence officials who connived to frame President Donald Trump and drive him from office during his first term.  

Their pernicious lie was that Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 presidential election in his favor. The principal piece of so-called evidence was a document known infamously as the dossier.  

It was secretly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democrats, conceived by a foreign agent with a checkered past in espionage, and then brokered to solicitous collaborators at the FBI, CIA, the Department of Justice and the Trump-hating media.  

The dossier was garbage, of course. The FBI largely debunked it before Trump was even sworn in and fired its author, Christopher Steele, for lying as a confidential human source. But the bureau concealed those inconvenient facts under then-Director James Comey and deftly exploited the document as a cudgel to bludgeon the newly elected president.  

Comey was aided and abetted by others in the intelligence community, including CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. This malignant force of unelected officials plotted to smear Trump with what is surely the dirtiest trick in political history.  

Recently, current CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified and released an internal agency review of the machinations that helped fuel the Russia hoax. In a statement posted on social media, Ratcliffe stated, ‘All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump.’ 

Citing previously hidden records, the review concluded that Brennan, in particular, pushed for the phony dossier to be included in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to catalyze a false narrative against Trump. Senior CIA experts on Russia objected but were sidelined and silenced.  

The CIA’s deputy director for analysis warned Brennan in writing that including the discredited dossier in any capacity jeopardized ‘the credibility of the entire paper.’ Brennan didn’t care. The fiction penned by the ex-British spy conformed to the director’s preconceived fable that Trump colluded with Russia.  

The ICA, which was ordered by President Barack Obama, was rushed to completion just days before Trump’s inauguration. Brennan directed its composition and handpicked the analysts who compiled the ersatz information. To stifle dissent, 13 other key intelligence agencies were deliberately excluded. To put it bluntly, Trump was set up.  

According to the new CIA review, Comey and Clapper were all in on the scheme. In an interview with the New York Post, Ratcliffe said, ‘This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding ‘We’re going to screw Trump.’’ 

They knew the dossier was junk, which motivated them to prop it up as a reliable indictment of Trump. By incorporating it in the ICA they could leak and propagate both documents as mutual corroboration. It was a clever ruse. An illusion.  

Those of us who have long covered the bogus collusion story knew it long ago. In my 2019 book, ‘Witch Hunt,’ I recounted how Brennan ‘insisted that the dossier be included in the classified intelligence report,’ but then told Congress under oath that the dossier was ‘not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment.’ Clapper’s testimony was nearly identical.  

Here is what I wrote in chapter 2: 

‘Brennan and Clapper were spinning a deception. A prominent colleague contradicted them and produced documents as proof that they were not telling the truth. In a classified letter to Congress, National Security Agency director Michael Rogers disclosed that the uncorroborated document (the dossier) ‘did factor into the ICA’ report. Having been caught in a falsehood, Clapper then repudiated his earlier statement. Brennan continued to deny all of it, the contrary evidence notwithstanding.’  

Neither Brennan nor Clapper was ever prosecuted for perjury.  

None of that bothered news organizations. MSNBC promptly hired Brennan, while Clapper went to work for CNN. I described what they did from their media perches:  

‘The two super spooks launched an all-out attack on Trump, exploiting their new television platforms to advance the toxic fiction that the president was a secret Russian asset who had ‘colluded’ with Putin. It didn’t matter to CNN that a House Intelligence Committee report determined that it had been Clapper who had leaked news of the phony dossier to the network before Trump had ever taken office.’  

The collusion narrative was a conspiracy itself. The collaborators knew it was a lie, but they manipulated the dossier and the ICA to peddle their fairy tale. With Hillary and her confederates, they engineered the hoax. Brennan even accused Trump of treason.  

Comey also knew the dossier was spurious, as I wrote in chapter 4:  

‘He knew exactly where the dossier came from and who paid for it. He used it as the primary basis for the warrants, used it as part of the nonpublic version of the intelligence community assessment, and used it to debrief President-elect Trump so that it could be leaked to the media in January 2017.’ 

They knew the dossier was junk, which motivated them to prop it up as a reliable indictment of Trump. By incorporating it in the ICA they could leak and propagate both documents as mutual corroboration. It was a clever ruse. An illusion.  

Comey’s decision to purloin and leak additional FBI documents triggered — just as he planned — the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his dilating investigation of Trump that hobbled his presidency for two years.  

On the day that Mueller issued his report concluding that there was no evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, the sheepish Brennan conceded, ‘I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was.’  

That’s quite the Jekyll-Hyde metamorphosis for a guy who enthusiastically endorsed the dossier and who kept claiming that ‘it was in line’ with his own CIA sources, in which he ‘had great confidence.’ That, too, was a fabrication, according to the newly released CIA review.  

What did Comey have to say?  In public, the master prevaricator dissembled and pleaded ignorance.  But before Congress, he was forced to admit that some of his actions would have been different had he known then what he knows now.  Not likely.  He was wedded to the artifice of collusion because he despised Trump. 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has vowed a reckoning. She told Fox News, ‘We are digging deep to find everything that has been related to this, and I guarantee you there are some U.S. attorneys who are eager to see what we are finding — in some cases are already working their own cases to bring about that necessary accountability.’  

Unless those who unscrupulously weaponized their immense power for political purposes are held to account, it will happen again. And again. The only remedy for lawlessness is justice.  

The reckoning awaits. 

The Cato Institute is warning that the federal government is testing the outer limits of executive power with President Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariffs, and it wants the courts to put a stop to it.

In a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president overstepped his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries including China, Mexico and Canada.

The libertarian thinktank argues the move undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and expands executive authority over trade in ways Congress never intended.

‘This is an important case about whether the president can impose tariffs essentially whenever he wants,’ Cato Institute legal fellow Brent Skorup said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. ‘There has to be a limit — and this administration hasn’t offered one.’

‘Tariff rates went up to 145% on some products from China,’ he said. ‘And the president’s lawyers couldn’t offer a limiting principle. That tells you the administration believes there’s no real cap, and that’s a problem.’

Cato’s brief urges the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that found the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president’s use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court said the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to fight drug trafficking or trade imbalances.

Skorup said in court the administration was unable to define a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA. 

‘They couldn’t articulate a cap,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing in the law that mentions duties or tariffs. That’s a job for Congress.’

The administration has defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA provides the necessary tools for the president to act swiftly in times of national emergency. Trump officials maintain that both the fentanyl crisis and America’s trade vulnerabilities qualify.

‘There are real emergencies, no one disputes that,’ Skorup said. ‘But declaring an emergency to justify global tariffs or solve domestic trade issues goes far beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers.’

Skorup acknowledged that the real issue may be how much discretion Congress gave the president in the first place. 

‘It’s a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have taken vague laws and stretched them. Congress bears some of the blame for writing them that way,’ he said, adding that’s why courts should ‘step in and draw the line.’

For small businesses like V.O.S. Selections, the costs go beyond legal fees. Skorup said businesses who rely on imports, like V.O.S., have struggled to plan ahead as tariffs have been paused and reinstated repeatedly.

Skorup said there are several small businesses that rely on global imports and it becomes a ‘matter of survival’ when tariff rates change unexpectedly.

‘V.O.S. Selections imports wine and spirits and when the tariff rates go up unexpectedly, they can’t get products to their distributors as planned,’ he said. ‘And that’s true for others too, like pipe importers and specialized manufacturers. These companies don’t have the flexibility to absorb those costs or adjust overnight.’

If the appeals court sides with the administration, it could mark a major expansion of presidential power over trade policy. Skorup warned that such a ruling would allow future presidents to take similar actions with little oversight.

‘It would bless Congress’ ability to hand over immense economic power to the president,’ he said. ‘That would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution is supposed to protect.’

A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

A Senate Republican wants to give the U.S. a leg up in its race against China and to ween the nation off of its reliance on imports of key raw materials needed for weapons systems.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., would like to fast-track the harvesting of raw materials in the U.S. needed for the nation’s defensive capabilities, and plans to blow through federal and judicial red tape to do it.

Cotton plans to introduce legislation that would allow critical mineral mining projects deemed necessary to bolster the nation’s military and defensive readiness by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to skirt environmental laws and possible blockages by the courts.

His bill is designed to give the U.S. an edge against China, the world’s largest producer of critical minerals like cobalt, lithium, graphite and other rare earth minerals used in weapons systems, electric vehicles and consumer electronics.

Currently, China produces roughly 60% of the world’s critical mineral supply, and processes up to 90%.

‘Current environmental laws put our readiness to counter Communist China at risk and waste taxpayer dollars on projects that stall out and die on the vine,’ Cotton said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘This bill will create jobs, better arm and prepare our soldiers, and spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently.’

Cotton’s bill, dubbed the Necessary Environmental Exemptions for Defense Act, would create a waiver for mining activities and projects related to countering China and to allow the Pentagon to ‘operate with maximum agility and efficiency to ensure it is prepared to deter and, if necessary, fight and win a conflict with the Chinese Communist Party,’ according to bill text first obtained by Fox News Digital.

Among the regulations and environmental review standards that could be skirted with the waiver are the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Cotton argued in his legislation that the aforementioned regulations ‘frequently and unnecessarily delay’ the preparedness of the military without ‘substantial benefit to the environment or protected species,’ and that time is of the essence when it comes to national defense.

The projects that would fall under the umbrella of the regulation exemption include testing and production and deployment of technologies, systems or equipment and the construction, maintenance, expansion, or repair of facilities or Defense Department infrastructure, among others.

It would also prevent projects from being snarled in the courts, as long as the initiative is deemed necessary for military preparedness by the Secretary of Defense.

The bill fits into the White House’s broader plan to jump-start critical mineral mining in the country, be it through executive action, a bid to buy Greenland, a minerals agreement with Ukraine, or opening up more offshore mining in the Gulf of America.

It also comes after President Donald Trump reached a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping to resume trade of critical minerals after shipments were stopped earlier this year following the White House’s slew of tariffs against China and other countries. 

The Trump administration landed a legal victory on Monday after a federal judge allowed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington denied a preliminary injunction that five organizations sought against the DOJ’s cancellation of more than 360 grant awards and granted a motion to dismiss the case. 

Metha described the DOJ’s actions as ‘shameful’ in his ruling, though he ultimately declared that the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection.

‘Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,’ Mehta wrote. ‘But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.’

The DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs canceled more than $800 million in grants in April as part of what it called a priority shift to include more direct support to certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault.

Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm filed the lawsuit, arguing the grant terminations did not allow due process, lacked sufficient clarity and violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers.

The loss of the federal money triggered layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships, according to many of the organizations that had the grants rescinded.

The Justice Department argued in a court filing that there was ‘no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.’

Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a ‘run-of-the mill contract dispute’ and said it belonged in a different court.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.