The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s decision to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, sending yet another signal that the high court intends to revisit a 90-year-old court precedent about executive firing power.

The temporary decision to maintain Biden-appointed commissioner Rebecca Slaughter’s termination was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the case for December.

Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, faced legal challenges because it stood in tension with the FTC Act, which says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for cause, such as malfeasance.

Trump fired Slaughter and Bedoya shortly after he took office without citing a cause other than the president’s broad constitutional authority over the executive branch. Bedoya resigned, but Slaughter vowed to fight her firing in court and see the case through to its conclusion.

A lower court initially sided with Slaughter and reinstated her, but she has since been fired and re-hired several times as her case made its way to the Supreme Court. The decision on Monday came after the Trump administration asked the high court on an emergency basis to temporarily pause the lower court’s decision to reinstate Slaughter ahead of deciding on the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep Slaughter’s firing intact means she will remain sidelined from the FTC until after the high court hears arguments about the case in December.

Slaughter had argued to the Supreme Court that siding with Trump, even on an interim basis, disturbed the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States, which deemed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner unlawful.

Legal experts have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court is interested in narrowing or reversing Humphrey’s Executor, which could carry broad implications about a president’s ability to fire members of independent agencies.

The three liberal justices dissented and would have denied Trump’s stay request. Writing for the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan speculated that the court’s majority may be ‘raring’ to reverse Humphrey’s Executor but that it should not make hasty decisions that contravene that precedent until such a reversal happens.

‘Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,’ Kagan wrote. ‘Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.’

Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Slaughter for comment.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at his Florida golf course last year, said he would not take the stand in his own criminal case on Monday — the strongest sign yet that the defense is preparing to rest its case and kick the trial into its final phase before jury deliberation.

Routh, 59, has been representing himself in the federal criminal trial. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and possession of a firearm, among other crimes. If convicted, he could face life in prison. 

He previously floated the possibility that he could testify on his own behalf — a risky strategy that would have waived his Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and opened him up to cross-examination by federal prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon asked Routh repeatedly Monday morning whether he’d had enough time to consider his decision not to testify, and whether he wanted to consult standby counsel. He said he was sure. Prosecutors then asked for the lunch hour to decide if they would call rebuttal witnesses.

If none are called, the defense is expected to rest within hours, clearing the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

Routh opened his defense Monday with testimony from Michael McClay, a gun specialist and his only expert witness; followed by a family friend, Atwill Milsun, and a former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw.

McClay, an expert in sniper firearms and tactics with an extensive career in military and law enforcement, confirmed at the outset of Routh’s questioning that he was subpoenaed to testify, and did not want to appear on Routh’s behalf.

Routh spent most of the time questioning McClay about the operability scope of the rifle in question, including trying to cast doubt on the likelihood that the SKS rifle in question could not hit a target 375 yards away.

McClay said that it depended on the skill of the shooter — but confirmed that the rifle was capable of hitting a target from that distance.

During cross-examination, prosecutors asked McClay about whether the rifle could inflict damage to someone at that distance, which McClay confirmed it could.

Routh’s questions for McClay were buffeted by long pauses and sighs from Routh, who at one point, mused aloud: ‘I have to order my questions, or I will get confused.’

Routh’s witness list was sparse compared to the dozens of witnesses introduced by prosecutors, including forensics experts, FBI agents, and Secret Service agents over the course of a two-week period.

Instead, he used his two character witnesses to bolster his own attempts to cast himself as a person of ‘peacefulness, gentleness, and non-violence.’

Before his former colleague, Marshall Hinshaw, took the stand, Cannon reiterated to Routh the risks of introducing character witnesses, noting that personal relationships can leave such witnesses exposed to tough cross-examinations. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley told Judge Cannon in response that they planned to limit such questions.

The bulk of the questions Routh asked his witnesses focused closely on his reputation and engagement within the community. ‘You were very well-liked,’ Hinshaw told Routh, adding that he would ‘not expect’ Routh to harm anyone.

Asked whether he could have run for city council, Hinshaw responded, ‘absolutely.’

Certain questions, including about Routh’s ex-wife, prompted Cannon to interject several times, noting that they were far beyond the scope of the case. 

His family friend, Atwill Milsun, echoed that Routh is not a violent person. ‘You’ve always been a jolly person,’ he told Routh, who he said offered ‘everything he had’ to the local community. 

Still, Routh’s absence of counsel was starkly on display. His questions prompted visible frustration from Cannon, who at times had to stop the proceedings and instruct the jury to disregard questions or statements from Routh.

At times, his questions veered into deeply unconventional territory, leaving Cannon seemingly at a loss for words.

At one point, Routh asked Milsun whether he had ‘ever met Tony Hawk.’ Milsun responded, ‘yes,’ though not because of Routh. 

Routh then asked, ‘Would you be willing to go with me to Taiwan to host an international music festival?’ prompting Cannon to cut Routh off from his questions completely.  

‘I’ve given you a great deal of latitude, [but] this must cease,’ she told him.

On a cross-examination, prosecutors asked Milsun if he was aware that Routh ran over an employee with his truck. Milsun responded that he had not been aware of this. 

Both witnesses acknowledged during cross-examinations they had not spoken to Routh for years.

Routh was also not expected to present any evidence on his own behalf. He suggested, at one point, the idea that had a ‘new flashlight item’ to submit, though it is unclear what, exactly, he was referring to. 

Cannon told him that he would need to ‘lay a proper foundation’ before submitting any evidence. Asked whether the flashlight had an exhibit number, Routh told her, ‘It’s a brand new item we just created.’

Cannon told him to defer the matter to standby counsel and return to questioning his witness. 

His earlier submissions to the court were deemed to be inadmissible evidence. Prosecutors noted the exhibits in question include books that were authored by Routh, as well as handwritten drawings and Eagle Scout awards from his childhood. Cannon previously said she would keep the exhibits on the docket to give Routh the ability to challenge the court’s ruling, if he felt the need to do so.

Routh’s attempt to defend himself in his own criminal trial, using scant evidence and a thin list of witnesses, starkly contrasts with the prosecution, which spent nearly two weeks carefully and extemporaneously making its case against Routh to a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

In that span, jurors heard from 38 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits — text messages, call logs, bank records, and cellphone data — linking Routh to the alleged gun purchase and placing him near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in the weeks before the attempted assassination.

Prosecutors also presented extensive digital and forensic evidence. FBI officials testified last week that Routh’s DNA was found on the rifle scope grip, a glove, a bungee cord, and a bag recovered from the ‘sniper’s nest’ near the sixth hole, where he allegedly waited at least 12 hours for the president’s arrival.

Before resting its case Friday, the government’s final witness, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Kimberly McGreevy, walked the jury through extensive cellphone data, license plate records, surveillance footage, and other information prosecutors alleged tied Routh to Trump’s movements in the weeks before the alleged attempt.

Cannon, despite her visible frustration, seemed to hope Routh would take the opportunity to testify on his own behalf.

‘Have you had enough time to decide?’ she pressed him at one point during the day. 

‘A year,’ Routh told her in response.

After the defense rests, both sides will present their closing arguments to the jury before they deliberate on the verdict. Closing arguments are expected Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest. 

The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s decision to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, sending yet another signal that the high court intends to revisit a 90-year-old court precedent about executive firing power.

The temporary decision to maintain Biden-appointed Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter’s termination was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the case for December.

Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, faced legal challenges because it stood in tension with the FTC Act, which says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for cause, such as malfeasance.

Trump fired Slaughter and Bedoya shortly after he took office without citing a cause other than the president’s broad constitutional authority over the executive branch. Bedoya resigned, but Slaughter vowed to fight her firing in court and see the case through to its conclusion.

A lower court initially sided with Slaughter and reinstated her, but she has since been fired and rehired several times as her case made its way to the Supreme Court. Monday’s decision came after the Trump administration asked the high court on an emergency basis to temporarily pause Slaughter’s reinstatement while it considers the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep Slaughter’s firing intact means she will remain sidelined from the FTC until after the high court hears arguments about the case in December.

The case raises a pivotal question of whether Trump has the ability to fire members of independent agencies as the president pushes for a more unified executive branch. Independent agencies, such as the FTC, various labor boards and the Securities and Exchange Commission, have long been insulated by law from at-will firings.

Slaughter had argued to the Supreme Court that siding with Trump, even on an interim basis, directly flew in the face of the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States, which deemed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner unlawful.

Legal experts have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court is interested in narrowing or reversing Humphrey’s Executor, which could carry broader implications about a president’s ability to fire members of certain independent agencies.

The three liberal justices dissented and would have denied Trump’s stay request. Writing for the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan speculated that the court’s majority may be ‘raring’ to reverse Humphrey’s Executor. She said, though, that it should not make decisions on the shadow docket that contravene that precedent and instead wait until such a reversal happens.

‘Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,’ Kagan wrote. ‘Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.’

Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Slaughter for comment.

The House of Representatives censured the late Roderick Butler, R-Tenn., in 1870 for taking a bribe for a military academy appointment. 

The House also censured late Rep. Thomas Blanton, D-Texas, in 1921 for inserting a document into the Congressional Record which contained obscene language.

And late Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., faced censure in 1983 for having sex with a 17-year-old page. 

Those are three of the 28 Members ever censured by the House.

 Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., did not become the 29th Member slapped with censure recently.

That’s probably because Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., was one of four Republicans who joined Democrats to block a censure of Omar. And in so doing, Mills may very well have prevented himself from becoming the 30th House Member to be censured.

Censure is the second-highest form of discipline in the House. It falls between a reprimand and expulsion. Censure is more than a regular foul in a soccer game. Kind of like a yellow card, which serves as a caution. But it’s not a red card, either, which triggers ejection.

That said, censure has become a ‘thing’ in recent years on Capitol Hill. If the House were to ever consider censuring any Member, such an inquest would go behind closed doors with the Ethics Committee. An inquiry may take months.

No more. ‘Snap’ censures are now fashionable in the House of Representatives.

Here’s how it works:

Someone thinks someone says a colleague says something outrageous. So they just prep a censure measure, go over the head of the Congressional leadership by making their resolution privileged (meaning the House must consider it within two days) and, if the House votes in favor of your gambit, that Member is censured.

Done.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., crafted a resolution to censure Omar and strip the Minnesota Democrat from her committee assignments. Mace accused Omar of using inflammatory rhetoric in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

During an appearance on the news outlet Zeteo, Omar claimed ‘there is nothing more effed up, than to completely pretend that his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so.’ Mace’s resolution quoted from a profane social media video not produced by Omar — but reposted by her — which fired invective at Kirk.

Mace’s maneuver came as leaders from both sides tried to urge calm at the Capitol amid the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

‘Every leader has an obligation to lower the temperature right now,’ said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. ‘I disagree with the retweet of one of our one of our colleagues.’

Aguilar said that Mace’s resolution to sanction Omar was not ‘helpful.’

‘Every member of Congress, and certainly the President of the United States, have a responsibility to take the temperature down,’ said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. ‘Nancy Mace wants to lecture Ilhan Omar and Democrats about civility? Are you kidding me? It’s not a serious effort. It’s an effort to drive donors into her gubernatorial campaign.’

For his part, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., didn’t try to sidetrack Mace. He declared that ‘Members have a prerogative to file privileged motions.’ 

‘What she did was outrageous and dangerous. And there has to be accountability in the House for these kinds of activities,’ said Johnson. ‘I don’t understand why she uses that kind of language.’

Mace and Omar wound up tangling over the censure resolution on X. 

‘One-way ticket to Somalia with your name on it, Ilhan Omar,’ posted Mace.

‘I am going soon, so please drop off the tickets on your way to your office. I am next door,’ retorted Omar. 

The Minnesota Democrat added that Mace was either not ‘well or smart.’ She added ‘you belong in rehab, not Congress.’

Democrats defended Omar.

‘When we are all trying to take the political temperature down, when we are all trying to work to be able to approach our differences with humanity and stand out against political violence, this is the wrong move,’ said House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass.

But lawmakers from both sides are growing weary of the censure trap.

‘Every time a Republican in this House is offended, they pile on censure resolution,’ said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. ‘I’m not here to be fighting over whatever people’s schoolyard thing is for the day.’ 

‘It’s escalation,’ said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., of Mace’s maneuver. ‘You’ve got to remember, we’re going to be in the minority someday. We’ll be on the receiving end of this.’

Bacon added that Congress is now ‘better at shaming people versus legislating.’

Ultimately, the House never took a direct vote on sanctioning Omar. Democrats instead moved to ‘table’ or kill the resolution. That blocked an actual up/down vote on disciplining Omar. The House then voted 214-213 in favor of tabling Mace’s measure. All 210 Democrats who cast ballots voted to table. But four Republicans joined Democrats: Reps. Mike Flood, R-Neb., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and Mills.

A ballot by Mills against tabling would have reversed the final tally to 214-213. That means the House would have proceeded immediately to the actual vote to censure Omar. But Mills’ vote with the Democrats froze Mace’s effort.

It’s unclear if Mills based his decision on self-preservation. But had the House censured Omar, it would have undoubtedly triggered a resolution by Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, to sanction Mills.

Casar’s resolution accused Mills of assault – which Casar denies. It also alleged that Mills improperly received the Bronze Star when he served in the Army. But once the House diffused the Omar measure, Casar withdrew his plan for Mills.

Flood explained his vote to table.

‘I’m going to vote in ways that support the Ethics Committee,’ said Flood. ‘If we were to pursue a censure action against this Representative, that should be referred to the Ethics Committee. It should be investigated. There should be due process. There should be a back and forth before you issue a censure.’

Mace excoriated her Republican colleagues who voted to table.

‘They didn’t stand with Charlie Kirk. They didn’t stand with the millions of Americans mourning his death. They stood with the one who mocked his legacy. They showed us exactly who they are. And we won’t forget,’ said Mace in a statement.

But censure is now en vogue.

The House censured no members between Studds in 1983 and late Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. in 2010. But five Members have felt the weight of censure since 2021.

The House voted to censure Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., for posting a cartoon video depicting him killing Ocasio-Cortez.

Republicans then began returning the favor.

The House voted to censure former Rep. and now Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for how he handled the Russiagate investigation. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., faced censure for her comments after Hamas attacked Israel. The House censured former Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., for pulling a false fire alarm. And the House voted earlier this year to censure Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, for heckling President Trump during his State of the Union speech. 

Members have embraced censure lately. Those censured have characterized it as a ‘badge of honor.’ They’ve fundraised off censure. Their colleagues have even engineered a pep rally in the well of the chamber to drown out the House Speaker when he issues the censure.

This probably won’t be the House’s last dalliance into the realm of censure.

‘It just seems like every week or so we want to censure somebody for something,’ lamented Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Tex., who is no fan of Omar. ‘A lot of people say a lot of stupid stuff around here.’ 

This is Congress. So you can bet that someone will say some ‘stupid stuff’ soon. And unless lawmakers can restore some calm, there will be another effort to censure someone else any day now.

In the end, Disney and ABC had absolutely no choice but to rehire Jimmy Kimmel.

The reason the late-night host is returning to the air tonight is that this whole thing has been an utter PR debacle for ABC, and more personally for Disney chief Bob Iger, who even got whacked by his predecessor as CEO, Michael Eisner, accusing him of bowing to ‘out-of-control intimidation.’

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in saying that Iger’s reputation is shattered forever.

The company became the poster child as a high-profile opponent of free speech — a deadly label for a news organization like ABC.

So the ‘indefinite’ suspension is over.

I could sniff that things were moving in this direction when I learned the two sides were talking. And when Disney asked Kimmel for a second meeting the other day, I knew the only question was which day he’d be back.

Let’s revisit the dumb and inaccurate comment that got Kimmel in trouble. And remember, like Stephen Colbert, he is so vociferously anti-Trump that he surrendered half his audience:

‘We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.’  

First, it was beyond tone-deaf, with feelings rubbed so raw over Charlie Kirk’s assassination. And the killer is not ‘MAGA,’ just another crazed lunatic who said he was acting out of ‘hatred’ for Kirk, but also sympathetic to gays and transgender people like his roommate and romantic partner.

At the same time, there was pressure from the FCC, with Chairman Brendan Carr blundering by saying he would act on Kimmel if ABC didn’t. Even Carr’s allies, like Ted Cruz, said he sounded like a mob boss by declaring ‘we can do it the easy way or the hard way.’

Nice little network you got here – be a shame if anything happened to it. Carr walked it back the next day.

What Kimmel said wasn’t the worst thing ever uttered on the air, and maybe in a month it would have passed unnoticed. But not so soon after the targeted assassination.

With that kind of blatant government pressure, ABC caved and took Kimmel off the air as he was about to tape last Wednesday’s show – and was said to be preparing an even tougher monologue about the Kirk killer. Again, he failed to read the electronic room.

It was downhill from there.

For anyone who believes in free speech – and that includes some Democrats who don’t agree with Kirk on just about anything–Disney and ABC were now the enemy.

Howard Stern, Kimmel’s closest friend – their families vacation together – said yesterday he had canceled his Disney+ subscription, as did Robin Quivers. After conferring with Kimmel, he said on his first live show since the suspension:

‘When the government says, ‘I’m not pleased with you, so we’re going to orchestrate a way to silence you,’ it’s the wrong direction for our country. It isn’t good.’

Stern called the suspension ‘horrible’ and ‘outrageous’ for such a ‘big talent… You can’t support this kind of a move. I don’t care whether you like Jimmy or not. It’s about freedom of speech. If ABC wanted to fire Jimmy because they didn’t like him, or he had low ratings — they didn’t want to fire him. They’re being pressured by the United States government. We can’t have that, not if we’re going to have a democracy.’

Howard has an awful lot of followers on Sirius XM that would take their cue from him. 

Some 400 celebrities signed an ACLU letter calling this ‘a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation.’ These include Jennifer Aniston, Jason Bateman, Robert De Niro, Jane Fonda, Selena Gomez, Tom Hanks, Olivia Rodrigo, Ben Stiller, Jamie Lee Curtis, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Keaton, Regina King, Diego Luna, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Natalie Portman, Maya Rudolph, Martin Short and Kerry Washington.

This is the kind of thing that Hollywood really cares about, the bold-faced names.

Kimmel is said to be concerned about the jobs of dozens of producers, staff members and contractors who would lose their livelihoods if the show was deep-sixed.

Disney made a point of saying in its statement that Kimmel was suspended because ‘we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.’ But ‘thoughtful’ conversations led to Jimmy’s return.

Whether you like Kimmel or not, no company can withstand that kind of pressure, even if it goes against the wishes of Donald Trump, who celebrated the suspension.

Now here’s the challenge Kimmel and Disney/ABC faced.

The suits had already been urging Kimmel to tone down the attacks against Trump. But Kimmel, who has hosted the program since 2003, and parlayed that into Oscars-hosting gigs, has always insisted on his independence. He’s arguably the most famous face at the network.

I played a small role in this last year by asking Trump about Kimmel after the Oscars, and the candidate slammed him, escalating their feud. Jimmy even took a swipe at me (horrors).

So perhaps with a wink and a nod, Kimmel has now agreed to tone things down a tad and the brass has agreed to let him basically say what’s on his mind.

Jimmy Kimmel is the only clear winner in this.

Everyone else – Disney, Bob Iger, Brendan Carr, ABC – is unmistakably a loser and will forever be branded, fairly or otherwise, as cowardly opponents of free speech.

And hey, ratings for tonight’s show should be through the roof. 

President Donald Trump will highlight the ‘return of American strength’ in his second administration during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday, while delivering ‘blunt’ and ‘tough talk’ about the ‘failures of globalism,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital.

The president is scheduled to deliver his first address of his second administration at the UN General Assembly in New York City Tuesday just before 10 a.m.

A White House official gave Fox News Digital an exclusive preview of the president’s address.

‘President Trump has effectively restored American strength on the world stage,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital. ‘His historic speech at the United Nations General Assembly will highlight his success in delivering peace on a scale that no other president has accomplished, while simultaneously speaking bluntly about how globalist ideologies risk destroying successful nations around the world.’

The president is expected to highlight his successful efforts to negotiate peace around the world—specifically, Armenia and Azerbaijan; Thailand and Cambodia; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; among others.

The president is also expected to highlight his strikes against narcoterrorists from Venezuela.

Earlier this month, a U.S. military strike blew apart a Venezuelan drug boat in the southern Caribbean, leaving nearly a dozen suspected Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists dead. And last week, the president announced that the U.S. military had carried out its second kinetic strike on Venezuelan drug trafficking cartels.

Also last week, the president announced that he ordered a lethal strike on a vessel allegedly linked to a designated terrorist organization conducting narcotrafficking in the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility. That strike left three narcoterrorists dead.

‘Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking illicit narcotics, and was transiting along a known narcotrafficking passage en route to poison Americans,’ Trump posted to his Truth Social announcing the strike.

The president is also expected to highlight his ‘Operation Midnight Hammer,’ which marked the largest B-2 operational strike in history and represented the United States’ move to deliver a decisive blow against Iran’s nuclear program back in June.

Trump’s historic precision strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites hit their targets and ‘destroyed’ and ‘badly damaged’ the facilities’ critical infrastructure—an assessment agreed upon by Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Israel, and the United States.

Trump is also set to detail his work to ‘deliver historic peace deals in decades-long conflicts,’ the official told Fox News Digital.

Meanwhile, the president’s speech will also feature ‘some blunt, tough talk about the failures of globalism.’

‘This will include the global migration regime, energy and climate, and how these ideologies pushed by globalists are on the verge of destroying successful nations,’ a White House official told Fox News Digital.

The president is also expected to discuss America’s position as a ‘defender of western civilization.’

‘As the president delivers peace in major conflicts around the world, what has the United Nations been doing?’ the official said.

After his speech at the United Nations, the president is expected to have meetings with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; the president of Argentina, Javier Milei; and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

The president is also scheduled to have a multilateral meeting with leaders from Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.  

Jurors in Fort Pierce, Florida, are expected to begin deliberations Tuesday on the federal criminal charges brought against Ryan Routh, the man accused of attempting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at his golf course in Florida last year.

Routh, who has been representing himself in the federal criminal trial, ended his defense after less than a day on Monday. He called only three witnesses, and told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that he would not be taking the stand to testify in his own case, a notion he had previously considered. 

Both the prosecution and defense formally rested their cases at 2:20 p.m., and Cannon ordered the court to reconvene for closing arguments Tuesday at 9 a.m.

Prosecutors and Routh will take turns presenting their closing arguments to jurors, followed immediately by jury deliberations, Cannon said, before instructing the jury on the deliberation process.

Cannon instructed jurors to consider whether prosecutors met the standard for conviction on each of the five federal charges against Routh. The 59-year-old has pleaded not guilty to all counts, which include attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and multiple firearms offenses.

A verdict in the case could come as early as Tuesday or Wednesday, pending the length of the closing arguments and the deliberation time needed. If convicted, Routh could face a maximum of life in prison.

The closing arguments come after Routh rested his case after just hours of presenting arguments to jurors. He called only three witnesses, and did not introduce new evidence.

His ‘pro se’ defense starkly contrasts with the prosecution’s, which spent nearly two weeks carefully and extemporaneously making its case against Routh to a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.

In that span, jurors heard from 38 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of exhibits — text messages, call logs, bank records, and cellphone data — linking Routh to the alleged gun purchase and placing him near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in the weeks before the alleged attempted assassination.

Shortly before the defense rested, Cannon asked Routh if he had any more motions for acquittal. He said he did not.

President Donald Trump canceled a meeting with top congressional Democrats on Tuesday over ‘unserious and ridiculous demands’ as the deadline to fund the government fast approaches.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., were set to meet with Trump on Thursday to discuss a path forward to avert a partial government shutdown before the Sept. 30 deadline.

Lawmakers are still away from Washington, D.C., this week to observe the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, and the Senate is expected to return on Sept. 29. Meanwhile, the House is expected to be out until the deadline passes.

But Trump nixed the meeting in a lengthy post on his social media platform Truth Social, where he blasted the duo for pushing ‘radical Left policies that nobody voted for.’ 

‘I have decided that no meeting with their Congressional Leaders could possibly be productive,’ Trump said. 

The now canceled meeting with Trump came on the heels of a letter from Schumer and Jeffries sent over that weekend where the top congressional Democrats laid the possibility of a shutdown on his and Republicans’ feet.

They argued that the Trump-backed short-term extension was ‘dirty,’ which would mean it had partisan policy riders or spending attached to it, and panned it for continuing ‘the Republican assault on healthcare,’ ignoring expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies, and possibly leading to the closure of hospitals and other healthcare facilities across the country.

‘With the September 30th deadline fast approaching, Republicans will bear responsibility for another painful government shutdown because of the refusal of GOP congressional leadership to even talk with Democrats,’ they wrote at the time.

But Trump argued that their bill would allow for the nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts in his ‘big, beautiful bill’ to be repealed, and also blasted the Democratic continuing resolution (CR) for ending his megabill’s $50 billion rural hospital fund. 

‘We must keep the Government open, and legislate like true Patriots rather than hold American Citizens hostage, knowing that they want our now thriving Country closed,’ he said. 

‘I’ll be happy to meet with them if they agree to the Principles in this Letter,’ Trump continued. ‘They must do their job! Otherwise, it will just be another long and brutal slog through their radicalized quicksand. To the Leaders of the Democrat Party, the ball is in your court. I look forward to meeting with you when you become realistic about the things that our Country stands for. DO THE RIGHT THING!’

Schumer and Jeffries last month demanded a meeting with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to strike a deal, given that Thune will need Democratic support in the Senate.

However, that meeting has so far not come to fruition — though Thune has pushed back on Schumer’s characterization and argued that if the Democratic leader wants to talk, it’s on him to make it happen.

‘After weeks of Republican stonewalling in Congress, President Trump has agreed to meet this week in the Oval Office,’ they said in a joint statement. ‘In the meeting, we will emphasize the importance of addressing rising costs, including the Republican healthcare crisis. It’s past time to meet and work to avoid a Republican-caused shutdown.’

The last time Schumer went to negotiate with Trump at the White House ahead of a looming deadline in 2018, the government shut down for 35 days, which marked the longest partial closure in history. At the time, Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., were at odds with Trump on a deal to fund construction of a wall on the southern border.

Prior to the meeting being announced, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that if the government shuttered, it ‘would be the fault of the Democrats.’

‘We want a clean funding extension to keep the government open, that’s all we’re advocating for,’ she said.

However, the House Republicans’ bill is relatively ‘clean,’ save for tens of millions in spending for increasing security measures for lawmakers in the wake of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Congressional Democrats’ counter-proposal, which also failed last week, included more funding for member security, but also sought to repeal the healthcare portion of Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ claw back billions of canceled funding for NPR and PBS, and permanently extend the expiring ACA credits.

Thune noted last week that CRs ‘aren’t places to load big health policy changes in.’  

‘I think that we are open to the conversation about what we do with the ObamaCare premium tax credit,’ Thune said. ‘Is that something in which members, Republican senators, and I think, for that matter, Republican House members, have an interest, as well.’

‘But this isn’t the place to do that,’ he continued. ‘This is the place to fund the government, to allow our appropriations process to continue that issue.’