President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice went on offense Monday, filing a federal complaint against the State of Minnesota and Attorney General Keith Ellison over the state’s climate lawsuit targeting major energy companies. The DOJ says Minnesota is trying to use a state courtroom to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions, an area that belongs to the federal government. The filing asks a federal judge to shut the whole thing down. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, advances President Trump’s executive order directing the Justice Department to protect American energy from state overreach. DOJ sues Minnesota for attempting to force ‘woke climate preferences’ on the nation The DOJ is asking a federal court to declare Minnesota's lawsuit against oil companies unconstitutional, saying the state is "seeking to regulate conduct far beyond its territorial jurisdiction." pic.twitter.com/a8QhO2QUlh — Alpha News (@AlphaNews) May 4, 2026 The Justice Department laid out the stakes in its announcement of the filing: The Justice Department filed a complaint against Minnesota over what it describes as the state’s attempt to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions, an area DOJ says belongs to exclusive federal authority. The department says the filing advances President Donald J. Trump’s executive order directing DOJ to protect American energy from state overreach and seeks to stop enforcement of Minnesota’s state court lawsuit against energy companies. DOJ says Minnesota’s lawsuit usurps federal authority and unreasonably burdens domestic energy development. The department also says Minnesota is trying to make its climate preferences the governing policy for the entire nation rather than limiting them to Minnesota alone. The lawsuit argues that Minnesota’s state-court action is preempted by federal law and undermines affordable and reliable American energy, economic security, and national security. DOJ says the complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and that similar federal actions were previously filed against Hawaii, Michigan, New York, and Vermont. DOJ files complaint against Minnesota over climate lawsuit targeting energy companies https://t.co/SxMbPToRAd — FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) May 4, 2026 The DOJ complaint goes further, describing the constitutional and legal theories behind the federal government’s challenge: The complaint says Minnesota’s state lawsuit seeks a global remedy for a global issue by trying to change the conduct of national energy producers on a global scale. The United States argues that federal law, rather than Minnesota law, governs disputes over global greenhouse gas emissions because national energy policy, interstate air pollution, and foreign affairs require a uniform federal approach. The complaint says Minnesota’s state-law claims are preempted by the Constitution and the Clean Air Act and also interfere with the United States’ ability to conduct foreign policy and regulate interstate commerce. DOJ further argues that Minnesota is attempting to project its law beyond its borders and impose its own moral and policy preferences for energy production on other states. The United States asks the court to declare Minnesota’s climate lawsuit preempted and unlawful, and says it will seek both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop Minnesota from regulating global greenhouse gas emissions through that lawsuit. At the center of the fight is a state lawsuit Ellison filed back in June 2020 against ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, the American Petroleum Institute, and Flint Hills Resources. The Associated Press provided additional detail on the underlying case and the broader legal landscape: The Trump administration moved Monday to block a nearly six-year-old Minnesota lawsuit alleging that oil companies and a petroleum trade group deceived state residents about climate change. The Department of Justice filed its action in federal court in Minneapolis, arguing that the federal government holds authority over greenhouse gas emissions and that individual states cannot impose their own policy preferences on a national scale. The underlying state case dates to June 2020, when Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, the American Petroleum Institute, and Flint Hills Resources, a Koch subsidiary, accusing the companies and industry group of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices related to public statements about fossil fuels and their environmental effects. At least fifteen other states have brought similar lawsuits against energy companies, including Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, making the Minnesota case one thread in a much larger legal conflict over corporate climate disclosures and alleged misrepresentations. ExxonMobil officials had previously called the Minnesota action baseless, and the American Petroleum Institute stated that the industry provides reliable energy while actively working to reduce its environmental impact. Ellison responded to the DOJ filing by calling the federal intervention meritless. The federal action fits within a broader pattern of clashes between the Trump administration and Minnesota state officials, which has included prior disputes over federal immigration enforcement operations and separate federal investigations conducted within the state. The DOJ’s legal theory, if upheld, could potentially limit the ability of state attorneys general nationwide to pursue climate-related litigation against energy producers and trade organizations under state consumer protection statutes. The pattern here is unmistakable. Progressive attorneys general in deep-blue states have been filing climate lawsuits against American energy producers for years, hoping sympathetic state courts will do through litigation what these officials could never accomplish through legislation. The DOJ has now taken legal action against five states pursuing this strategy: Hawaii, Michigan, New York, Vermont, and now Minnesota. Ellison can call the filing meritless all he wants. The federal government’s argument is straightforward: one state does not get to use a consumer fraud lawsuit to dictate global energy policy for the entire country. The complaint is now before a federal judge in Minnesota. The DOJ says it will move quickly for a preliminary injunction to halt the state’s climate case while the federal challenge plays out. This fight is just getting started.

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily restored broad access to the abortion pill mifepristone by mail. Two companies that manufacture mifepristone asked the high court to “pause a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a lawsuit by Louisiana that reinstated the requirement that the drug, which is used in about 60% of abortions nationwide, be dispensed only in person,” SCOTUSblog reports. The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito allows women seeking an abortion to obtain the pill at pharmacies or by mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor, until May 11. In the order, Alito instructed the FDA and Louisiana to respond by 5 p.m. on May 7 while the justices consider the drug companies’ request. BREAKING: The Supreme Court restores access to abortion pill mifepristone through telehealth, mail and pharmacies. https://t.co/vZFyy470BC — The Associated Press (@AP) May 4, 2026 SCOTUSblog shared further: Nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that doctors and medical groups opposed to abortion did not have a legal right to sue, known as standing, to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s expansion of access to mifepristone. The 2024 case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, was filed in federal court in Texas by several individual doctors who are opposed to abortion on religious or moral grounds, as well as medical groups whose members are opposed to abortion. The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to rescind both the FDA’s initial approval of the drug in 2000 and its 2016 and 2021 expansions of access to the drug, arguing that mifepristone is unsafe and that the process that the FDA used to approve the drug was flawed. The FDA, as well as several leading medical groups, countered that, based on extensive evidence, mifepristone is safe and effective. Kacsmaryk, however, suspended the FDA’s approval of the drug and the agency’s later changes, made in 2016 and 2021, to the conditions on the use of the drug – which included allowing the drug to be used through the 10th week of pregnancy, allowing health-care providers who are not physicians to prescribe the drug, and permitting it to be prescribed without an in-person visit. The FDA and Danco, which manufactures mifepristone, appealed to the 5th Circuit. The court upheld the part of Kacsmaryk’s ruling that rolled back the agency’s 2016 and 2021 changes that had expanded access to mifepristone. In April 2023, the Supreme Court temporarily put the 5th Circuit’s ruling on hold, ensuring continued access to the drug. In June 2024, it reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower courts. “While mifepristone access returns to where it was on Friday morning, the whiplash and chaos that patients and providers are navigating have already had real consequences for real peoples’ lives and futures,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), according to NBC News. “Mifepristone is usually taken with a second drug, misoprostol, for abortions. According to the FDA label on mifepristone, the combination completes medical abortion 97.4% of the time,” the Associated Press stated. The US Supreme Court temporarily paused a lower court decision that would require patients to visit a healthcare provider in person to get a widely used abortion pill. Listen to that and the latest stories on Bloomberg News Now. https://t.co/kjRFpcMjNJ — Bloomberg (@business) May 4, 2026 NBC News has more: Medication abortion is harder for states to regulate than surgical procedures, especially if pills are available through the mail. The drugmakers say that, like in the earlier case, Louisiana does not have legal standing to bring the claims. In their lawsuit against the FDA, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that opposes abortion, alleged that data did not support lifting the in-person dispensing requirement. “Big abortion pharma claims they need an emergency stay because they will lose massive amounts of money if they can’t kill more babies quickly and efficiently by mail without medical oversight,” Murrill said in a statement after Monday’s Supreme Court action. “The administrative stay is temporary, and I am confident life and the law will win in the end.” In January, the FDA requested the case be paused until the agency finished conducting its own safety review of mifepristone. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. commissioned the review last year in response to a report that claimed to find a higher rate of serious complications from mifepristone than reported by the FDA. But researchers who study reproductive health said the report amounted to junk science and exaggerated the risks of the medication. The report was released online by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank. It was not peer-reviewed nor published in a medical journal. A district judge in Louisiana agreed to the FDA’s request to pause the case last month before the appeals court stepped in.

When it was announced last week that James Comey had been indicted on a second round of charges, reaction was a bit mixed and tepid….and understandably so. Sure, we all want to see James Comey in prison, but many are concerned that the 8647 Seashells stunt, while completely despicable, may not have enough teeth to really get the job done. And besides, why can’t we go after him for the bigger things he (allllegedly) did? That’s where the red meat is! Now comes word today that yes, the charges do extend past the 8647 Seashells post. Here is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Acting AG Todd Blanche confirms the DOJ has more evidence against Comey than just his ‘8647’ post: “This is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence the grand jury collected over 11 months.” pic.twitter.com/WJfiO6YWh9 — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 3, 2026 TRANSCRIPT: Part of what the government would have to prove is intent. James Comey deleted the post the same day, and he wrote, quote, “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me, but I oppose violence of any kind, so I took the post down.” How do you prove intent, Mr. Blanche, when Mr. Comey himself said he didn’t understand that some people would look at that and think about violence? Todd Blanche: You prove intent like you always prove intent. You prove intent with witnesses. You prove intent with documents, with materials. So, again, this is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury, and it’s not the government, it’s not the Department of Justice, it’s not Todd Blanche that returned an indictment against James Comey. It’s a grand jury, part of the judicial process, and this process has to be allowed to play out in the courts. It’s not fair to Mr. Comey. It’s certainly not fair to the prosecutors for us to be airing your view or my view of this indictment. It’s something that will be presented in court at the time set by the judge. Speaker 1: Let’s delve a little deeper. Conservative legal scholar Jonathan Turley said, quote, “This indictment is facially unconstitutional, absent some unknown new facts.” Are you, in fact, saying that there are facts beyond this Instagram post that clearly establish an intent to threaten the president’s life? Todd Blanche: I’ve said repeatedly that this was an investigation that lasted 11 months. If the only facts that existed was the posting of the Instagram, obviously, that wouldn’t have taken 11 months. And so when Mr. Turley talks about whether it’s facially unconstitutional, absent unknown facts or circumstances, we will necessarily have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial every element of this crime, which we’re prepared to do. In a longer clip, Mike Davis confirmed and expanded on the details, saying it’s about to get a LOT worse for James Comey. Watch here: James Comey’s Legal Troubles Are Not Just Over His ‘8647’ Instagram Post — It’s About to Get A LOT Worse… Mike Davis warns: “This is just the beginning..” -Comey lied to Congress-Leaked Classified info-Interfered in an election-Engaged in Grand Conspiracy It’s time to send… pic.twitter.com/CAzO0Ufz8q — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 4, 2026 TRANSCRIPT: Ben: In James Comey, there’s a lot of— There’s been a lot of breadcrumb trails about people asking Todd Blanche, Kash Patel, and various agents of the administration, then some John Solomon reporting that it’s not just the Instagram post, that there’s something much bigger that’s been architected around the James Comey indictment and charges. Do you have any illumination into that, Mike? Could you accelerate maybe that theory? Mike: Well, obviously, I wouldn’t know what was in the grand jury because that would be illegal, Ben. But let me just give you my suspicions. You have a former FBI director, a former deputy attorney general, who’s the number 2 in the Justice Department, a former US attorney who is posting coded messages, not very coded, for political violence. Well, guess what? James Comey actually wrote the book on this. His novel is about coded political violence. He knew exactly what he was doing. This was after 2 assassination attempts against then presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump survived by a millimeter and a millisecond in Butler, the hand of God. This is just a few months into Trump’s second term, and Comey is saying to 86, 47, what could that possibly have meant after Trump won a broad electoral mandate with 312 electoral votes, all 7 swing states, and the popular vote. He kept the House, won the Senate by a comfortable margin, a broad electoral mandate to lead. Comey wasn’t talking about Trump resigning or getting impeached. He was clearly messaging that he wants President Trump assassinated. That is a crime. It’s a federal crime to threaten the President of the United States. That’s a felony. It’s also a federal crime to transmit that threat online. That’s a separate felony, and that’s exactly what happens. That grand jury of fellow citizens in the Eastern District of North Carolina found probable cause that he threatened the life of the president, and he transmitted that threat online. So there’s certainly evidence that this happened, and there’s certainly probable cause. Ben: So here’s what Todd Blanche, I know you’re very close with Todd, and I know that you are supportive, obviously, of what Todd is doing as acting attorney general. This weekend, he made a lot of news saying, “No, no, no, this isn’t just about a single Instagram post. There’s a giant body of evidence that we’ve been collecting over 11 months.” Then we hear from John Solomon that the DOJ is considering reigniting the James Comey lying to Congress Virginia case. Can you talk us through the architecture here? Like, what does the landscape look like legally for James Comey here? Mike: I would say to James Comey that you are in serious legal jeopardy, and you should be because there is very clear evidence that James Comey has politicized and weaponized the FBI to go after Trump, his top aides and allies like General Michael Flynn, who James Comey set up and took out as the incoming national security advisor in 2017. This Instagram post is just the beginning of his troubles. They can bring a new case in the Eastern District of Virginia. They had uni-party judges in the DC suburbs protect him when prior US Attorney Lindsay Hogan brought those charges. Todd Blanche, as the acting attorney general, can bring new charges, and he should. I’m a huge fan of Todd Blanche. He is a bold and fearless warrior for the Constitution. People need to remember that Todd Blanche gave up a lucrative law practice and put everything on the line to protect, to defend, and to win the lawfare brought by the Democrats against President Trump in several trials in several states over several years. This guy saw how damaging this lawfare is to our republic, and Todd is going to make sure people are held accountable. Yeah, I think the biggest legal problem for James Comey and the other lawfare Democrats is down in the Southern District of Florida, in the Fort Pierce division, where the grand jury, according to news reports, is looking at the grand conspiracy against Trump. And Jason Redding Quinones, my good friend and fellow warrior, brought on another good friend and fellow warrior, Joe diGenova. And that is where the lawfare Democrats will be held accountable. Ben: Please, let’s zoom that out. So this is— Again, it’s been very mysterious, been shrouded in secrecy via how these things materialize with secret grand juries. But there have been a lot of rumors about this one, and there’s been a lot of hat tips, nods, and winks about what’s going on in Fort Pierce in Florida. And that it involves the grand conspiracy in order to entrap Trump via Russiagate, and then to spy on him and his campaign. Do I have this correct, Mike? Mike: Yeah, it’s what we’ve been talking about on your show, Ben, for almost 4 years since the Mar-a-Lago raid. I have very, very publicly called for this, and I have very publicly advocated for this, including pushing President Trump to hire Jason Redding Quinones as the US attorney in Miami and pushing Jason to hire Joe diGenova. I’ve said this very publicly. You saw there was a grand jury set up in Fort Pierce. That’s a court filing. That’s public. You see when these subpoenas go out to these lawfare Democrats, they run to their Democrat friends in the press and talk about that. And so you’ve seen the public reporting on these grand jury subpoenas. You saw the public announcements by Todd Blanche and Jason Redding Quinones to hire Joe diGenova. What’s great about Joe is he’s a former US attorney in DC. I think he’s like 81 years old. His kids are raised. He doesn’t need another job, and he is a bulldog, and he is going to make damn sure that lawfare Democrats are held accountable for the grand conspiracy going back to the Russian collusion hoax in 2016, where the Democrats made up the Russian collusion hoax to protect Hillary Clinton and her corruption at the Clinton Foundation and to hurt then-candidate Donald Trump. And when Trump won the upset victory in 2016 and became the president, they tried to sabotage his presidency. They did not want it to come out what they did in the 2016 campaign, where they weaponized the intel agencies and law enforcement to take out Trump and to help Hillary cover up her corruption. And this has been an ongoing criminal conspiracy for years. It’s still ongoing. They’re covering up the conspiracy, which continues the conspiracy. There’s no statutes of limitations problem, and the hook in Fort Pierce is that’s where they did the Mar-a-Lago raid to go get back the Crossfire Hurricane records that Trump declassified that exposes this conspiracy. Well done gentlemen! Now finish the job!

The White House went on lockdown amid reports of nearby gun shots. “The White House is on LOCKDOWN following a SHOOTING nearby, with press being pushed into the briefing room,” journalist Nick Sortor said. BREAKING: The White House is on LOCKDOWN following a SHOOTING nearby, with press being pushed into the briefing room President Trump is SAFE, thank God This is happening FAR too often anymore. You’d think the press would FINALLY realize their fake news is a clear and… pic.twitter.com/5cM0vcinhJ — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 4, 2026 “WHITE HOUSE ON LOCKDOWN AMID REPORTS OF SHOTS FIRED A FEW BLOCKS AWAY,” First Squawk confirmed. WHITE HOUSE ON LOCKDOWN AMID REPORTS OF SHOTS FIRED A FEW BLOCKS AWAY. — First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) May 4, 2026 “U.S. Secret Service just evacuated us from our camera position at the White House north lawn. We’re now gathering in the briefing room. No indication as to what’s going on,” CNBC correspondent Megan Cassella said. U.S. Secret Service just evacuated us from our camera position at the White House north lawn. We’re now gathering in the briefing room. No indication as to what’s going on pic.twitter.com/G49ZVayIHx — Megan Cassella (@mmcassella) May 4, 2026 “We’ve been cleared from the briefing room, back to our camera spot. No confirmation as of now as to what the threat was. Agents are still out,” she added. We’ve been cleared from the briefing room, back to our camera spot. No confirmation as of now as to what the threat was. Agents are still out pic.twitter.com/k6bwutWTyR — Megan Cassella (@mmcassella) May 4, 2026 “U.S. Secret Service personnel are on the scene of an officer-involved shooting at 15th Street and Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C. One individual was shot by law enforcement; their condition is currently unknown. Please avoid the area as emergency crews are responding,” the U.S. Secret Service said in a statement. U.S. Secret Service personnel are on the scene of an officer-involved shooting at 15th Street and Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C. One individual was shot by law enforcement; their condition is currently unknown. Please avoid the area as emergency crews are responding. pic.twitter.com/LNUTL2F3gM — U.S. Secret Service Office of Communications (@SecretSvcSpox) May 4, 2026 The Mirror shared further: Another person reported that a motorcade had been driving on Independence Avenue when four shots rang out. “Not known which side blasted. I was at the corner when it happened.” The shots outside of the White House came a week after an attempted assassination of the president at the White House Correspondents’ dinner shocked the country. Cole Allen, 31, stormed the security perimeter at the Washington Hilton Hotel where the dinner was taking place. This story is developing.

President Trump questioned if House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) should be “subject to impeachment” for saying the Supreme Court is “illegitimate.” “Hakeem Jeffries, a Low IQ individual, said our Supreme Court is ‘illegitimate.’ After saying such a thing, isn’t he subject to Impeachment?” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I got impeached for A PERFECT PHONE CALL. Where are you Republicans? Why not get it started? They’ll be doing this to me!” he added. Watch below: HOLY CRAP! President Trump demands House Republicans immediately begin the process of REMOVING Hakeem Jeffries from office "Hakeem Jeffries, a Low IQ individual, said our Supreme Court is “illegitimate.” After saying such a thing, isn’t he subject to Impeachment? I got… pic.twitter.com/3godK446SH — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 3, 2026 USA TODAY shared: It is possible for members of Congress to be removed by their colleagues, but it isn’t through impeachment. Here is what to know: An impeachment is akin to an indictment; it approves formal charges against a federal officeholder who has been accused of committing a crime. The impeachment clause names the president, vice president and “all civil officers of the U.S.” as eligible. The articles (charges) of impeachment must be adopted by a simple majority vote in the House before the Senate holds an impeachment trial. When a president is on trial, the Supreme Court chief justice presides. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, only then can the accused be removed from office. Sometimes, that also means they can never hold office again. The impeachment text likely does not apply to members of Congress, according to Constitution Annotated, a government-sanctioned analysis and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does grant the power of expulsion for Congress to remove an elected official, to “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” “Jeffries Derangement Syndrome,” Jeffries responded to Trump’s post. Jeffries Derangement Syndrome. pic.twitter.com/QUDHDsVWln — Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) May 3, 2026 The Hill noted: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s addition of a second majority-Black congressional district an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision, 6-3, weakened a central provision of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has historically enabled advocacy groups to force the creation of additional majority-minority districts. Wednesday’s decision does not get rid of the provision as a whole, with Justice Samuel Alito portraying it as an “update” to the framework that has governed Voting Rights Act cases for decades.