Live Nation reached a tentative settlement with the US Justice Department on Monday in the federal antitrust case brought against the entertainment giant.
The settlement, which still requires the approval of District Judge Arun Subramanian, comes just days after the antitrust trial began in New York.
The case was initiated under then-president Joe Biden, with prosecutors accusing Live Nation — which owns Ticketmaster — a monopolist that controlled virtually all live entertainment in the United States.
The settlement requires Live Nation to open up the ticketing platform to competitors and to allow other promoters to stage events at certain Live Nation venues, a senior Justice Department official said.
💰 More Business
Live Nation will divest up to 13 amphitheaters and pay $280 million in damages to the nearly 40 states that were parties to the antitrust lawsuit against the California-based company, the official said.
The increased competition should result in ticket prices coming down, the official said.
Live Nation shares surged nearly six percent on the New York Stock Exchange following the announcement.
New York and a number of other states declined to join the settlement and said Monday that their litigation against Live Nation would continue.
“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
“The settlement recently announced with the US Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers,” James said in a statement.
“We will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.”
A spokesperson for the New York attorney general, a Democrat, said prosecutors would file a motion with the court seeking a mistrial and file a new case against Live Nation brought solely by the states.
The Justice Department official said talks with a number of the states were ongoing and was hopeful some of them will eventually sign off on the settlement.
Live Nation is a behemoth in its industry: in 2025 it organized more than 55,000 events worldwide, drawing 159 million attendees.
Beyond promotion, it holds stakes in 460 venues and, since 2010, has controlled Ticketmaster, the world’s leading ticket seller.
The Justice Department had accused Live Nation of abusing its dominant position to pressure artists and venues into signing with it, stifle competition, and impose excessive fees on fans.
The Trump administration’s decision to press forward with the case against Live Nation had surprised many observers, who had interpreted the recent resignation of Justice Department competition chief Gail Slater as a sign the case would be dropped.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren condemned the settlement in a post on X.
“Donald Trump just betrayed every fan who’s been exploited by Ticketmaster,” Warren said. “This fine is less than one percent of Live Nation’s revenue last year. We need to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation.”
John Kwoka, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, said the settlement appeared “inadequate.”
“It does not deal with the fact that Ticketmaster is still an integrated company that has incentives that remain pretty much intact to disadvantage competitors,” Kwoka said.
“This is a minor accomplishment in the face of what the Justice Department laid out as a course of business,” he said.
A high-stakes antitrust trial that could lead to the possible breakup of Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, got underway Tuesday in a case over whether the entertainment giant’s dominance of the concert industry amounts to an illegal monopoly.
In opening statements, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer pointed to the company’s infamously problem-plagued effort to sell Taylor Swift tickets in 2022 as he implored the Manhattan federal jury to end the company’s hold on the market and reward artists and consumers with a competitive marketplace that will leave them with more money.
“This case is about power, the power of a monopolist to control competition,” said the attorney, David Dahlquist. “Today, the concert ticket industry is broken.”
David Marriott, arguing on behalf of the companies, disputed the government’s claims.
“We’ll let the numbers do the talking,” he said. “We do not have monopoly power.”
Judge Arun Subramanian has told jurors that evidence will be presented over the next six weeks before they’ll be left to decide whether Live Nation and Ticketmaster broke antitrust laws.
The trial stems from a lawsuit filed in 2024 that alleged the companies have dominated the industry by suffocating competitors and controlling everything from concert promotion to ticketing.
💰 More Business
Ticketmaster, which was established in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010, is the world’s largest ticket seller across live music, sports, theater and more.
Dahlquist noted that the ticket seller sparked outrage in November 2022 when its site crashed during a presale event for Swift’s Eras Tour.
The company said the site was overwhelmed by both fans and attacks from bots, which were posing as consumers to scoop up tickets and sell them on secondary sites. The debacle prompted congressional hearings and bills in state legislatures aimed at better protecting consumers.
Dahlquist said Live Nation’s anti-competitive practices include using long-term contracts ranging from five to seven years to keep venues from choosing rivals and blocking venues from using multiple ticket sellers.
Ticketmaster’s clashes with artists and fans date back three decades. Pearl Jam took aim at the company in 1994, years before the Live Nation merger, although the Justice Department ultimately declined to bring a case.
Live Nation has maintained that artists and teams set prices and decide how tickets are sold.
Marriott said Live Nation was the world’s biggest supporter of musical artists, enabling 159 million people in 2025 to see 11,000 artists at 55,000 concerts.
He said the government has exaggerated how much the companies make, including by saying Ticketmaster pockets $7 a ticket, when it actually gets $5 and clears less than $2 after expenses.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster, he said, “are all about bringing joy to people’s lives.”
In a performance that Republicans praised as cooperative but critics dismissed as evasive, Clinton insisted he “saw nothing that gave me pause” during his multiple interactions with the disgraced financier, whose crimes against underage girls have shocked the nation and exposed a web of elite enablers.
“I did nothing wrong,” Clinton declared, a refrain that echoes his past defenses amid allegations of misconduct, but one that rings hollow to many given the mounting evidence of his proximity to Epstein’s predatory world.
The closed-door session, held in Chappaqua, New York, near the Clintons’ residence to avoid a public spectacle in Washington, marked a historic low for a former commander-in-chief: the first time a ex-president has been compelled to testify under subpoena before Congress.
This came after months of negotiations and threats of contempt charges, underscoring the gravity of the committee’s probe into Epstein’s network—a sordid empire built on exploitation, manipulation, and connections to powerful figures, including those in influential financial circles that Epstein navigated with ease. Republicans, led by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), hailed Clinton’s appearance as a step toward transparency, while Democrats accused the GOP of partisan gamesmanship aimed at shielding President Donald Trump from similar scrutiny.
Clinton’s testimony followed that of his wife, Hillary Clinton, who appeared the day before and claimed she never met Epstein—a stark contrast to her husband’s documented ties. In his opening statement, released publicly, Clinton portrayed his relationship with Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” that ended well before the financier’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
“I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing,” he said. “I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn’t see. I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn’t do.” Yet, skeptics point to flight logs showing Clinton aboard Epstein’s infamous “Lolita Express” private jet at least 26 times between 2001 and 2003, often without Secret Service detail, raising questions about what exactly transpired on those trips to destinations including Epstein’s private island, Little St. James.
Lawmakers grilled Clinton on a trove of recently unsealed documents from the Department of Justice, including photographs depicting him in compromising settings with redacted women—images that have fueled speculation about his involvement.
Jeffrey Epstein (left) and Bill Clinton (center) in a photo released by the justice department on Friday. (Department Of Justice/Zuma Press Wire/Shutterstock)
One particularly infamous photo showed Clinton in a jacuzzi with an unidentified woman, her face obscured. Sources familiar with the deposition told outlets that Clinton denied knowing her or engaging in any sexual activity, a response he repeated for each image presented. “No matter how many photos you show me,” he stated, “it won’t change the fact that I saw nothing wrong and did nothing wrong.”
But these denials do little to dispel the cloud of suspicion, especially given Epstein’s modus operandi of using his wealth and connections—often within elite, predominantly Jewish social networks—to lure and abuse vulnerable girls, all while hobnobbing with global leaders like Clinton.
The committee also probed Epstein’s donations to the Clinton Foundation, a charitable entity that has faced its own controversies over foreign influence and opaque finances. Epstein contributed tens of thousands of dollars, and records show him visiting the White House multiple times during Clinton’s presidency.
Clinton maintained that these interactions were innocuous, focused on philanthropy, but critics argue they exemplify how Epstein ingratiated himself with power brokers to mask his criminal enterprise. “We are only here because he hid it from everyone so well for so long,” Clinton said in his prepared remarks, shifting blame squarely onto Epstein—a convenient narrative that ignores the red flags many believe should have alerted someone of Clinton’s stature.
Republicans on the panel, including Comer, described Clinton as “charming” and “very cooperative,” noting he answered every question without invoking the Fifth Amendment. “He’s a charming individual, obviously,” Comer remarked, adding that the testimony “exonerated President Trump” by recounting a early-2000s golf tournament conversation where Trump allegedly told Clinton he severed ties with Epstein over a land deal dispute. This anecdote, volunteered by Clinton, aligns with Trump’s longstanding claim that he distanced himself from Epstein before the 2008 charges.
Trump himself weighed in from the White House, expressing reluctance about the deposition: “I like Bill Clinton, and I don’t like seeing him deposed.” Yet, Democrats seized on the moment to demand Trump testify, pointing to his own extensive socializing with Epstein in the 1990s and 2000s, as well as mentions in Epstein-related files.
From left, Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, Epstein and Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida on February 12, 2000 [File: Davidoff Studios/Getty Images]
The broader investigation stems from Epstein’s 2019 death in custody—ruled a suicide but mired in conspiracy theories—and the subsequent conviction of his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, for sex trafficking. Epstein’s crimes, which involved grooming and abusing dozens of underage girls, often at his lavish properties, have implicated a roster of high-profile names, from British royalty to Wall Street titans.
The House probe, launched amid calls for accountability, has drawn bipartisan support but devolved into partisan sniping. Democrats accuse Republicans of selective outrage, noting the Justice Department’s reluctance under Trump to release records on allegations against him, including a claim of sexual abuse of a minor—which the department is reviewing.
Clinton’s spokesperson has reiterated that he cut ties with Epstein before the 2006 charges and was unaware of the crimes, denying any visits to Little St. James. However, a 2025 FBI document lists Clinton among figures with unverified sexual assault allegations tied to Epstein’s orbit, though no charges have been filed. This deposition, while not accusing Clinton of wrongdoing, revives painful memories of his own impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair and allegations of sexual misconduct from women like Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones—patterns that, for detractors, make his Epstein denials less credible.
As transcripts from both Clintons’ testimonies are expected to be released soon—possibly as early as this weekend—the political fallout intensifies. Republicans frame the sessions as vindication for Trump, with Comer slamming Democrats for “weaponizing” the probe.
Democrats, like top panel member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), counter that the precedent now demands Trump’s appearance, along with others like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who admitted visiting Epstein’s island.
WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 decision that dealt a temporary blow to President Donald Trump’s bold trade agenda, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that the administration overstepped its bounds by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners. Chief Justice John Roberts, authoring the majority opinion, argued that IEEPA does not grant the president “unbounded” authority to levy peacetime tariffs at will, labeling it a “transformative expansion” of executive power.
Yet, in a display of unyielding resolve, Trump swiftly unveiled a robust backup plan, announcing a new 10% global tariff under alternative legal authorities and vowing to restore—and potentially exceed—the original rates that have already delivered billions in revenue and narrowed key trade deficits.
The ruling, which invalidated about 75% of the tariffs imposed in 2025—including the 10% baseline “reciprocal” duties on imports from nearly every nation—stemmed from a lawsuit by Learning Resources Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials. Justices sided with the company, emphasizing that Congress must explicitly delegate such broad tariff powers.
Roberts, joined by Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the administration’s IEEPA interpretation, though the liberal justices diverged on the application of the “major questions” doctrine. Dissenters Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito warned of chaos, including potential refunds of billions in collected duties—a “mess” that could burden taxpayers.
Trump, undeterred, wasted no time in countering the decision. At a White House press conference hours later, he declared the imposition of a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows temporary duties to address trade imbalances for up to 150 days. “We have alternatives—great alternatives,” Trump asserted. “We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it.” He also directed the U.S. Trade Representative to launch Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by several nations, paving the way for targeted tariffs post-probe—a process that could take months but ensures compliance with the ruling.
🏛️ More Tariffs
This nimble pivot highlights the enduring strength of Trump’s pro-America trade strategy, which has already yielded tangible wins. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis data released Thursday, U.S. tariffs narrowed the goods trade deficit with China by 32% to $202.1 billion in 2025—the lowest since 2006—while slashing imbalances with Canada (25%), South Korea (14%), Germany (14%), and Japan (8%). Overall, the U.S. trade deficit dipped 0.2% despite a surge in high-tech imports for AI investments, with tariffs generating $216 billion in revenue that helped shrink the federal budget deficit from $1.84 trillion in 2024 to $1.78 trillion. “It’s ultimately pretty clear that tariffs weighed on imports,” noted Wells Fargo economists Shannon Grein and Tim Quinlan, crediting the duties for reshaping global flows in America’s favor.
Critics, including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s Maya MacGuineas, decried the ruling as a $2 trillion “hole” in the debt fight, but proponents argue tariffs have revitalized manufacturing and jobs. The immediate post-ruling drop in effective tariff rates—from 16% to 13%, per Wells Fargo—offers short-term relief for importers, but Trump’s plan aims to reclaim that ground. “The administration retains the ability to re-impose tariffs,” economists at Morgan Stanley observed, suggesting a “lighter-touch” recalibration could balance affordability with protectionism.
The decision injects uncertainty into global markets, with the S&P 500 dipping 0.8% Friday amid fears of refund lawsuits—potentially chaotic, as Justice Kavanaugh warned. Yet, Trump’s tariff threats have historically spurred deals, like those easing duties with allies.
As he eyes higher rates, the move reaffirms his commitment to fair trade, countering what he calls decades of exploitation. “We’re screwed if we don’t fight back,” Trump posted on Truth Social last month—a sentiment echoed by supporters who see tariffs as essential for American sovereignty.
This ruling, while a setback, may ultimately fortify Trump’s legacy: proving tariffs’ efficacy in deficit reduction and revenue generation, even as legal hurdles force creative enforcement. As the administration ramps up investigations, the world watches—America first, tariffs intact.
WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 ruling that exposed the limits of even a strong executive’s reach, the Supreme Court on Friday invalidated the bulk of President Donald Trump’s innovative global tariffs, deeming his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) an overstep without explicit congressional backing. Chief Justice John Roberts, penning the majority opinion, argued that IEEPA does not confer “unbounded” peacetime tariff authority, framing it as a potential “transformative expansion” of presidential power.
Yet, in a testament to Trump’s unyielding commitment to American economic sovereignty, the president swiftly pivoted, announcing a new 10% global tariff under alternative statutes and vowing to restore the protective measures that have already slashed trade deficits, generated billions in revenue, and revitalized U.S. manufacturing.
The decision, a rare check on Trump’s pro-America trade revolution, overturned about 75% of the 2025 tariffs—including the 10% baseline “reciprocal” duties on imports from nearly every nation—stemming from a lawsuit by educational materials maker Learning Resources Inc. Roberts, joined by Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasized that Congress must clearly delegate such sweeping powers.
The liberal justices concurred but split on the “major questions” doctrine’s application, while dissenters Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito highlighted potential chaos from billions in refunds—a “mess” that could undermine fiscal gains.
Trump, ever the fighter, didn’t miss a beat. Emerging from a truncated meeting with governors—where he confided his inner fury at the “disgraceful” ruling—he held a defiant 45-minute White House press conference, dimming the lights for dramatic effect.
🏛️ More Politics
“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth—the two of them,” he said of Gorsuch and Barrett, two of his own appointees who sided against him. Praising the dissenters for their “strength and wisdom and love of our country,” Trump singled out Kavanaugh as a “genius.” He even quipped that the six majority justices were “barely invited” to the State of the Union, underscoring his frustration with a court he helped solidify as conservative.
Undaunted, Trump signed an executive order Friday night imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows temporary duties for trade imbalances up to 150 days. “We have alternatives—great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he declared.
The administration also launched Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by key partners, enabling targeted tariffs post-probe—a more deliberate but equally potent tool. “Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” Trump affirmed, spinning the setback as a clarifying win that bolsters his arsenal.
This resilience highlights why tariffs remain a cornerstone of Trump’s America First doctrine. Bureau of Economic Analysis data released Thursday showed the policy’s triumphs: The U.S. goods trade deficit with China plunged 32% to $202.1 billion in 2025—the lowest since 2006—while imbalances with Canada (25%), South Korea (14%), Germany (14%), and Japan (8%) narrowed sharply.
Overall, the deficit dipped 0.2% despite AI-driven high-tech import surges, with tariffs raking in $216 billion—slashing the federal budget gap from $1.84 trillion in 2024 to $1.78 trillion. “It’s ultimately pretty clear that tariffs weighed on imports,” noted Wells Fargo economists Shannon Grein and Tim Quinlan, crediting the duties for reshaping flows in America’s favor and boosting domestic jobs.
Critics like Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget decried the ruling as a $2 trillion “hole” in debt reduction, but proponents argue tariffs have been a fiscal boon, funding infrastructure without tax hikes. The immediate drop in effective rates—from 16% to 13%, per Wells Fargo—offers short-term relief, but Trump’s plan promises restoration.
Morgan Stanley strategists Ariana Salvatore and Bradley Tian predict a “lighter-touch” approach could balance affordability with protectionism, reducing sudden shocks while concentrating on strategic sectors.
The ruling injects procedural hurdles—Section 301 probes take months—but economists at State Street Investment Management see it shifting risk to targeted, non-tariff measures like sanctions, enhancing precision in geopolitical contests. For Trump, facing midterms, it’s a chance to rally his base: “We’re screwed if we don’t fight back,” he posted on Truth Social last month. As the White House eyes congressional tweaks to IEEPA or new statutes, the decision may fortify tariffs’ legacy—proving their efficacy in deficit slashing and revenue generation, even amid legal battles.
Trump’s morning woes—Q4 2025 GDP growth slowed by shutdowns and spending dips—only amplified his defiance. “I’ve been waiting forever,” he lamented in Georgia Thursday, confident in his authority. With refunds looming but barriers high, the economic impulse leans positive: lower duties boost margins for import-heavy sectors, softening the dollar modestly. Yet, Trump’s vow for “higher” tariffs reaffirms his vision: a stronger, fairer America through bold trade action.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a swath of President Trump’s tariffs, paving the way for businesses to try to reclaim billions of dollars.
The decision was a major blow for the Trump administration, which had said the money could be used to help pay down federal debt, fund rebate checks to Americans and bail out farmers hurt by tariffs. Trump even claimed that tariff revenues would be large enough to replace the need for income taxes.
On Friday, Trump panned the decision and said he would sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under a different authority, “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
Source: Treasury Department
Through mid-December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had brought in about $133.5 billion worth of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law that was struck down. Such tariffs accounted for about 67% of the tariffs collected in the 2025 fiscal year, which runs through September, and 57% of the tariffs collected between the end of September and Dec 14.
Altogether, including a host of miscellaneous duties not related to trade measures by the president, customs collected fees of about $202 billion in the 2025 fiscal year, about 2.4 times the total amount collected the previous year.
The Supreme Court didn’t provide guidance on whether, or how, tariffs would be refunded, likely leaving those issues to lower courts. Still, trade lawyers say that hundreds of firms have already filed lawsuits to increase their chances of clawing back money.
The president declared 10% across-the-board tariffs on all imports back in April, and imposed even higher rates on a slew of nations. His team branded these “reciprocal” tariffs, saying they were intended to ensure fair treatment for American companies and goods.
Trump walked back or delayed some of the threatened reciprocal tariffs. But the government was still able to collect significant sums from major trading partners using different tariffs also imposed under IEEPA. In regard to China, the president at one point slapped the nation with 125% “reciprocal” duties and added another 20% for the country’s alleged role in the fentanyl trade. The two tariffs were each lowered to 10% under a trade agreement later.
Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted enabler in Jeffrey Epstein’s web of exploitation, stonewalled the House Oversight Committee on Monday, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to utter a word beyond prepared deflections. Appearing via videoconference from her Texas prison camp in a khaki jumpsuit, Maxwell’s deposition lasted under an hour, leaving lawmakers fuming and the public no closer to unraveling the full scope of Epstein’s elite circle—a network heavy with rich-rooted influencers whose shadows still loom over American power structures.
Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) called it “very disappointing,” lamenting missed chances to probe Epstein’s crimes and “potential co-conspirators.” Democrats like Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) accused her of “protecting” unnamed figures, but their outrage rings hollow amid their party’s own ties to the scandal-plagued Clintons.
🏛️ More Politics
Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, teased a bombshell: full testimony if President Donald Trump grants clemency. “Only she can provide the complete account,” Markus said, hinting it could clear Trump and Bill Clinton—both denying involvement—while noting “some may not like what they hear.”
Rep. Andy Biggs (R, Ariz.) and House Oversight Committee chair Rep. James Comer (R, Ky.) speak to members of the media after a closed-door virtual deposition with Ghislaine Maxwell on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2026. (Nathan Howard—Bloomberg/Getty Images)
This dangle feeds into the “nation under blackmail” theory: Epstein’s operation, with its high-society lures, may have ensnared leaders in compromising positions, holding America hostage to hidden leverage. Trump, who once wished Maxwell “well” and hasn’t ruled out a pardon, draws mixed views—pro for pushing file releases, anti for flirting with leniency that could whitewash the mess.
Republicans like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) blasted the idea: “No clemency and no mercy for child predators.” Democrats, meanwhile, cry foul over Maxwell’s prison transfer after a DOJ interview clearing Trump, ignoring Clinton’s deeper Epstein links.
The session followed the Justice Department’s unredacted file release to lawmakers, mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) accused a “cover-up,” but heavy redactions persist, fueling suspicions of elite protection. Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 amid sex trafficking charges, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor. Maxwell, convicted in 2021, appeals her 20-year sentence.
Upcoming Clintons’ testimonies on Feb. 26-27 could expose more, but expect partisan theater—Republicans dodging internal rifts, Democrats shielding their icons. In a nation possibly blackmailed by such scandals, Maxwell’s silence speaks volumes.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a bold move that underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to rectifying what many conservatives view as the weaponized excesses of the previous Biden-era Justice Department, federal prosecutors have formally requested the dismissal of Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress conviction stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol events. This development, filed on Monday, represents a significant victory for Bannon, the fiery conservative strategist and former White House chief advisor, who has long maintained that his prosecution was a politically motivated witch hunt designed to silence dissent against the establishment.
The request, led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro—a no-nonsense prosecutor known for her tough stance on crime and her appearances on Fox News—cites prosecutorial discretion and argues that dropping the charges is “in the interests of justice.” Pirro’s filing, submitted to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who originally oversaw the case, emphasizes that Bannon does not oppose the motion and requests dismissal with prejudice, ensuring the charges cannot be refiled. This comes as a welcome reprieve for Bannon, who endured four months in federal prison in 2024, a sentence many on the right have decried as unjust and emblematic of selective prosecution.
Bannon’s ordeal began in 2021 when the Democrat-led House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot subpoenaed him for testimony and documents. As a vocal supporter of President Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results—efforts rooted in widespread concerns over voting irregularities—Bannon had publicly predicted turmoil on his “War Room” podcast, stating on January 5, 2021, that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” The committee targeted him for his insights into the so-called “Green Bay Sweep,” a strategic plan discussed among Trump allies to contest electoral votes from key swing states amid allegations of fraud.
🏛️ More Politics
Refusing to comply, Bannon invoked executive privilege, a doctrine protecting presidential communications, despite having left the White House in 2017. Critics on the left painted this as defiance, but conservatives argue it was a legitimate legal stance, especially given Bannon’s advisory role to Trump. The House, under Democratic control, voted to hold him in contempt, and the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland swiftly indicted him on two counts. Bannon’s defense team later offered to testify after Trump waived privilege, but it was too late; a D.C. jury convicted him in 2022, and he was sentenced to prison time.
Throughout his appeals, Bannon has steadfastly claimed he did not willfully defy the subpoena but was following his lawyers’ advice to resolve privilege issues first. An appellate court upheld the conviction, and the Supreme Court declined to halt his sentence. Yet, Bannon’s resilience shone through—he continued broadcasting his podcast from behind bars and emerged in October 2024 as a martyr figure in conservative circles, railing against what he calls the “deep state” and the “unselect committee” that pursued him.
The Trump administration’s return to power in 2025 has brought swift changes to the DOJ, including the appointment of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, both of whom have prioritized dismantling what they describe as politically tainted prosecutions. In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Blanche declared, “Under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, this Department will continue to undo the prior administration’s weaponization of the justice system.” He specifically hailed the Bannon filing as a step to vacate the conviction arising from the “J6 ‘Unselect’ Committee’s improper subpoena.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer echoed this in a separate Supreme Court filing, urging the justices to remand the case back to Judge Nichols for dismissal. Sauer noted that even post-conviction, prosecutors retain the authority to drop charges if justice demands it—a principle that aligns with conservative values of fairness and limited government overreach.
This isn’t an isolated incident. The administration has already pardoned over 1,500 individuals charged in connection with January 6, framing the event not as an “insurrection” but as a passionate protest against a stolen election. Similar leniency was extended to Peter Navarro, another Trump advisor convicted for defying the same committee; the DOJ announced last year it would no longer defend his conviction, with his appeal ongoing.
The move has drawn predictable outrage from liberal quarters, who accuse the Trump DOJ of cronyism and undermining congressional authority. But for conservatives, it’s a long-overdue correction. Bannon, ever the provocateur, has positioned himself as a frontline warrior against elite corruption, and this dismissal bolsters his narrative. As one of the architects of Trump’s 2016 victory and a key voice in the MAGA movement, Bannon’s exoneration could energize the base ahead of future political battles.
🏛️ More Politics
Comparisons have been drawn to other contempt cases, such as the recent House Oversight Committee vote to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt for refusing to testify in a Jeffrey Epstein probe. The Clintons eventually “caved,” as Republican Rep. James Comer put it, agreeing to depositions just before a full House vote. Conservatives point to this as evidence of double standards: why were the Clintons spared prosecution while Bannon was jailed?
Legal experts on the right argue that the January 6 committee itself was flawed—lacking bipartisan balance and operating with a partisan agenda. “This dismissal acknowledges that the subpoena was improper from the start,” said a source close to Bannon’s legal team, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Steve has always been about fighting for the forgotten man, and this vindicates his stand against overreach.”
As the nation grapples with ongoing debates over election integrity and government accountability, Bannon’s case highlights the deep divides in American politics. With Trump back in the Oval Office, expect more such reversals as the administration seeks to heal what it sees as wounds inflicted by a vindictive opposition.
Bannon did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but his supporters are already celebrating online, viewing this as a triumph over “lawfare.”
In Washington, the worst-kept secrets are often the most dangerous ones. And in the case of Hunter Biden, the attempt to keep those secrets buried has created a scandal less about personal misconduct and more about how deeply politicized our justice system has become. The more we learn, the more it becomes clear: the cover-up is still very much underway — and it reaches the highest levels of American power.
This month, Hunter Biden reemerged on the national stage not to answer questions, but to posture as a victim — blaming Republicans, the media, and even some Democrats for his legal troubles. But far more revealing than his public statements was the quiet release of explosive congressional testimony from special counsel David Weiss, the man who has overseen the increasingly murky, five-year federal investigation into Hunter’s business dealings.
Weiss told the House Judiciary Committee that investigators lacked the evidence to charge Hunter under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a claim that flies in the face of years of frustration expressed by IRS agents on the case. Those agents — Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler — risked their careers and reputations to blow the whistle on what they saw as a systemic campaign of obstruction by senior DOJ officials, particularly when leads brought them close to Joe Biden.
According to their forthcoming book The Whistleblowers vs. the Big Guy, the IRS team had compelling evidence that Hunter Biden’s business model revolved around foreign lobbying while his father was Vice President — including for Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian energy giant that paid him up to $1 million a year; Chinese government-linked firms like BHR and CEFC; and clients in Romania and Kazakhstan. All roads, they say, led to “Political Figure 1” — DOJ’s euphemism for then–Vice President Joe Biden.
In fact, the very first email revealed from Hunter’s now-infamous laptop was from a Burisma executive thanking him for arranging a meeting with his father the previous night. That wasn’t just a casual hello. Hunter had reportedly invited his dad to a private dinner at Café Milano in 2015, attended by businessmen from Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan, as confirmed by his former associate Devon Archer in congressional testimony.
Emails showed that Hunter’s lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, was retained to influence U.S. officials — a textbook FARA violation. When IRS agents tried to include references to Joe Biden in search warrant requests, they were explicitly told to remove them. Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf reportedly wrote in August 2020, “There should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here.”
Why? Optics.
Wolf also blocked a warrant for a guesthouse on Joe Biden’s Delaware property where Hunter had been living. Even after agents found a July 30, 2017 WhatsApp message in which Hunter demanded $10 million from a Chinese executive — while claiming his father was physically present with him — they weren’t allowed to confirm Joe’s location at the time using geolocation data.
“I am sitting here with my father,” Hunter wrote. “We would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled… I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows… you will regret not following my direction.”
To most, this message was not only a glaring contradiction of Joe Biden’s repeated claim that he “never discussed business” with his son, but also strong circumstantial evidence of his involvement in influence-peddling. Yet investigators were denied the ability to pursue it.
“The message was clear,” wrote Shapley and Ziegler. “Although we were investigating Joe Biden’s son — who, it seemed, had often involved his father in his shady overseas business dealings — none of our materials were supposed to mention Joe Biden.”
When warrants were denied, when lines of inquiry were shut down, when Hunter’s attorneys were tipped off — it wasn’t incompetence. It was protection. And it was political.
Compare this with how the FBI handled investigations of Donald Trump. The bureau treated the unverified Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign — as legitimate evidence, using it to launch a full-blown surveillance operation. They raided Trump’s home in Florida over classified documents. They indicted his associates for FARA violations, including Paul Manafort. And when whistleblower Gal Luft provided DOJ officials with early evidence implicating Hunter and Jim Biden in Chinese influence schemes, not only was his information buried, but Luft himself was later charged with FARA violations and now sits jailed in Cyprus.
The selective enforcement is staggering. It seems FARA is used as a sword against political enemies — but becomes invisible when it implicates the sitting President’s son.
Even when Weiss finally brought felony tax and gun charges against Hunter, it was only after the sweetheart plea deal unraveled under scrutiny. That original deal would have immunized Hunter from further prosecution — even over future FARA violations. Weiss stripped Shapley and Ziegler from the investigation after suspecting whistleblowing activity. The Office of Special Counsel has since found that the IRS illegally retaliated against them for protected disclosures to Congress.
Meanwhile, the mainstream press has continued to downplay or ignore the core allegations: that Hunter Biden monetized his father’s position — and that Joe Biden, despite repeated denials, may have known, enabled, or directly participated in the scheme.
In the closing days of his presidency, Joe Biden reportedly considered — and may still pursue — a broad, retroactive pardon for his son that could sweep away lingering legal risks, including those stemming from the CEFC deal, Romanian payments, and other offshore transactions dating back over a decade.
At every stage — from laptop censorship, to law enforcement interference, to media disinterest — the effort to protect the Bidens has been unmistakable. And the result is not just the slow death of this investigation. It’s a chilling message to every future whistleblower and investigator: some people, and some families, are simply untouchable.
The Hunter Biden saga is no longer just about one man’s poor choices. It’s about the institutional corruption that has metastasized around him — a rot so deep that even the truth struggles to survive.
The Justice Departmentwill investigate whether a planned real estate development around one of North Texas’s largest mosques violates federal law, Sen. John Cornyn (R) said Friday after weeks of calling the project antisemitic and anti-Christian.
Attacks over the developmentoutside Dallas have been amplified by Cornyn, TexasAttorney General Ken Paxton (R), Gov. Greg Abbott and right-wing bloggers who baselessly claim it would create a Muslim-only community and impose Islamic law on residents.
Leaders for the East Plano Islamic Center, the mosque that is backing the project dubbed EPIC City, have repeatedly denied the accusations and called the attacks on their planned development Islamophobic. If built, EPIC City would span about 400 acres and create housing, day-care facilities, medical clinics and schools, according to marketing material.
“I am grateful to Attorney General Bondi and the Department of Justice for hearing my concerns and opening an investigation,” Cornyn said in a statement. “Religious discrimination and Sharia Law have no place in the Lone Star State. Any violations of federal law must be swiftly prosecuted, and I know under the Trump administration, they will be.”
Dan Cogdell, an attorney for EPIC City, said the development would cooperate with the federal investigation, noting that the Muslim community behind the project had nothing to hide.
“From day one, their intention was to comply completely and wholeheartedly with the law,” said Cogdell, who defended Paxton during the Republican firebrand’s 2023 impeachment trial. “And they’ve just been vilified, assailed and attacked.”
Cogdell added, “What is crazy to me is how far we haven’t come since 9/11. The words ‘mosque,’ ‘Islam,’ ‘Muslim’ in the year of our Lord 2025 are still such a triggering event.”
The Justice Departmentdid not respond to a request for comment.
EPIC City was announced about a year ago, according to its social media pages. Developers said they would use empty land in Josephine, Texas, northeast of Dallas, to build a “vibrant, multigenerational, and inclusive master planned community.”
As EPIC City was selling shares and building out its plans, none of which featured materials that required residents to be Muslim, an uproar by conservatives overshadowed the project. Cogdell said the first incidents came from right-wing accounts on X, which caught the attention of senior Republican leaders in Texas.
In late March, EPIC City wasslammed with a flurry of investigations. Abbott opened three inquirieslooking into “potential criminal activities,” discrimination in violation of the Texas Fair Housing Act and any potential “financial harm on Texas.” Paxton began an investigation intowhether EPIC City violated Texas consumer protection laws.
The scrutiny intensified in April when Abbott ordered that EPIC City cease all construction,saying that the development “did not submit the required permits to begin construction.” Cogdell saidthe project was in a “pre-planning stage” and was in the process of obtainingbuilding permits.
“We’re getting the applications for the permits,” Cogdellsaid. “Of course, in the meantime, we’ve got to comply with this document request or this motion to compel or this threat letter.”
Cornyn wrote to the Justice Department’sCivil Rights Division on April 11 requesting an additional investigation into the project that he said was an “exclusive religious settlement” governed by “Islamic principles.”
The letter drew condemnation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whichsent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi opposing a federal investigation.
“Senator Cornyn’s false claims are not supported by any facts,” the letter read. “Across the United States, faith-based communities, including Christian senior centers and Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, exist without facing similar scrutiny. Muslim-led developments must be treated equally under the law.”
EPIC City also issued its own response to the upheaval, writing in an April 5 Facebook post that it was elected officials who were spreading “isolation and exclusivity.” In response, dozens of commenters wrote on the social media post that the development wasn’t welcome in America.
Cogdell said EPIC City will continue pursuing its plans.
“They’re spending more on lawyers than they ever thought they would need,” Cogdell saidof his clients at East Plano Islamic Center. “They are committed to making sure this project gets done, and we’ll do everything we can to comply with the law — for the 1,000th time.”
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
![From left, Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, Epstein and Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida on February 12, 2000 [File: Davidoff Studios/Getty Images]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/GettyImages-2078474569-1-1752836240.jpg?w=770&resize=770%2C514&quality=80 "Bill Clinton Denies Knowledge of Epstein Crimes in House Deposition: ‘I Did Nothing Wrong’ 7")
