John Bolton, who served in high-ranking national security and diplomatic positions under both Presidents Donald Trump and George W. Bush, is expected to plead guilty on federal charges of retaining classified information, according to reports. CNN first reported that Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, would plead guilty to one count of illegal retention of sensitive national security documents. He was indicted on 18 charges for obtaining classified information while on the job and illegally storing it. Following his time in the Trump White House, Bolton became a critic and arguably a target of Trump. Though the Justice Department faces criticism for issuing indictments and launching investigations against some of Trump’s political foes, a Daily Signal analysis noted that the Bolton case was potentially much stronger than charges brought against other Trump foes. Bush tapped Bolton to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as a recess appointment after he failed to get Senate confirmation. CNN also reported that Bolton would agree to pay a more than $2 million fine. A conviction on one count in the case could include up to 60 months in prison. Federal law enforcement says it obtained information from a foreign adversary’s spy service, including emails that allegedly show Bolton may have sent sensitive information on an unclassified system while working in the Trump White House. The information was allegedly sent to people helping him write his 2020 memoir, “The Room Where It Happened.” Prosecutors determined that he shared more than 1,000 pages of information about his daily activities with unauthorized individuals, including his wife and daughter, CNN reported. After being indicted last year, Bolton was dismissive of the charges and compared Trump to a notorious Soviet dictator. “When my email was hacked in 2021, the FBI was made fully aware. In four years of the prior [Biden] administration, after these reviews, no charges were ever filed,” Bolton said in a statement. “Then came Trump 2, who embodies what Joseph Stalin’s head of secret police once said, ‘You show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’” In recent years, Trump, former President Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have faced federal investigations for alleged mishandling of classified information. None were charged. However, other high-profile individuals have been charged in such cases. Retired Gen. David Petraeus, the former CIA Director in the Obama administration, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in 2015 for sharing classified information with a biographer and girlfriend and was sentenced to probation. Sandy Berger, a former Clinton administration national security adviser, was caught on video removing information from the National Archives reading room and stuffing it into his socks before his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. He pleaded guilty in 2005 to a misdemeanor and paid a fine.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided 8-1 with the Federal Communications Commission against two telecom giants over a combined $100 million in fines. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. The lone dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas. Telecom companies AT&T and Verizon claimed the FCC violated their rights to a jury trial by issuing fines for an alleged violation of the law. The FCC had found that both companies violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which requires carriers to protect the confidentiality of customer data. The commission fined AT&T $57 million and fined Verizon $46.9 million. Both companies sued, saying the fines imposed by an administrative body violate the right to a jury trial. The government argued that the fines are similar to an indictment. As an indictment is only a notice of charges before a criminal trial, similarly, an FCC fine is an assertion that the government could proceed with a lawsuit, the government argued. The companies paid the penalties but later claimed they were misled and sought to retrieve the payments. The chief justice and the longest-serving justice on the high court wrote clashing opinions. “The carriers contend that the FCC’s forfeiture proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment. We disagree,” Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority. “Forfeiture orders issued under §503(b)(4) do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations. And the Commission’s factual findings are not conclusive. It thus does not offend the Constitution for the Commission to issue forfeiture orders without the involvement of a jury.” However, Thomas agreed with the majority on procedures going forward, but argued the procedures that the FCC now applies were not used in issuing the hefty fines against Verizon and AT&T. “And, when AT&T and Verizon paid their penalties, no carrier had ever received a jury trial in a §504 enforcement action,” Thomas wrote in the dissent. “AT&T and Verizon therefore had no way to ensure that they would proceed in a court that would respect their constitutional right to an Article III trial.” Thomas further pointed to the FCC notice to cast doubt on the majority’s view that the companies should have known they could challenge in court. “In the orders, the Commission took the position that it could issue the orders not because they were nonbinding, but because such orders could be imposed, from start to finish, without the involvement of ‘Article III courts,’” he wrote. The high court previously ruled in 2024 that the Securities and Exchange Commission violated the Seventh Amendment by imposing heavy civil fines through administrative proceedings. However, the court held that an FCC fine is different, as the 1996 communications law specifically says a company can refuse to pay the fine. Furthermore, if it does so, the Justice Department has five years to file a lawsuit. The lawsuit would entitle the company to a jury trial, thus giving the FCC an effective loophole around an argument that it was violating the Seventh Amendment by issuing the fines. Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with AT&T and tossed the FCC fine. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit sided with the FCC against Verizon. When there is a circuit split, a case is decided by the Supreme Court.

Rep. Al Green, best known for shaking a cane at President Donald Trump and filing several articles of impeachment, is being mocked for labeling Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin a racist, then screaming at him to “shut up” when he tried to respond. It happened Wednesday at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, but the roots of the exchange go back to the State of the Union. Days before the address, Trump’s social media account shared an election-integrity-themed video that inexplicably included a brief animated image of Barack and Michelle Obama depicted as primates. Trump immediately took the video down. At the State of the Union, Green, a Texas Democrat, held up a sign reading “Black people aren’t apes.” Mullin, then a senator from Oklahoma, maneuvered over and grabbed the sign. Green was then removed from the House chamber, just as he had been a year earlier for screaming and waving his cane at the president. During Wednesday’s hearing, Green brought up an image from the incident when addressing Mullin. “A racist would depict people of color as apes. A racist would take offense at a peaceful protest. This was a peaceful protest, Mr. Secretary,” Green said. When Mullin attempted to defend himself, repeatedly asking, “Are you calling me a racist?” Green erupted. “Reclaiming my time,” Green said, growing more heated. “Ask him to shut up. It’s my time. Tell him to shut up! Shut up! Shut up! It’s my time!” “I’m not gonna let anybody call me a racist, chairman,” Mullin said. Then, as the exchange continued, “I will continue to interrupt as long as someone’s … calling me a racist.” After this moment of theatrics, committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., banged his gavel. “No — the gentleman will suspend,” Garbarino said. “There will be no addressing anyone’s character in a negative way.” Mullin, a former undefeated mixed martial arts fighter, then threw his own verbal punch Green’s way. “Evidently, his constituents heard enough of him because they voted him out,” Mullin said, referring to Green’s recent primary loss to freshman Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, after Texas redistricting merged their two districts. Reaction to Green’s Rant “Thank God this unhinged lunatic was voted out,” Libs of TikTok posted in response to the exchange. “This is the modern Democratic Party in one clip,” political commentator Benny Johnson observed. “Green’s response? ‘Shut up, up, up, up. Shut up.’ No respect. No argument. No facts. No substance. Just ‘shut up’ and a temper tantrum. This is all they have left.” The Republican National Committee had a simple one-word reaction on X to Green’s rant: “UNHINGED.” UNHINGED Democrat Rep. Al Green slanders DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin as a racist and tells him to "shut up." pic.twitter.com/D9ccSsFHd4— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 3, 2026 As of 10 a.m., that X post had 1.4 million views. Mullin has not commented further on Wednesday’s exchange. Green posted a clip boasting how he “confronts” Mullin. However, the post included a correction: “The individual on the poster referenced by Rep. Al Green during the hearing depicted Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine, and not Ruby Bridges, as stated.” Confusing two Black female civil rights icons—a curious mistake to make when dubbing someone a racist.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Two House members plan to introduce a bill developing a federal standard on artificial intelligence that for a period of three years will preempt state limits on the development of AI, according to a copy obtained by The Daily Signal. Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., will introduce the bill answering the White House’s call to develop a federal AI standard. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Dec. 11 ordering the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to recommend federal AI legislation preempting any state laws in conflict with the administration’s policy on artificial intelligence. The White House released an draft framework in March to provide a template for federal legislation.  Obernolte and Trahan’s bill could serve as a vessel for passing the first federal AI standard, although Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., has also made a bid to be the author of the first official framework. Her version contains strict child safeguards. The 260-page House bill includes no mentions of protection for children, but a spokesperson for Obernolte said the congressman intends for child protections to be enacted in separate legislation. Obernolte supports Congress passing multiple bills to accomplish the various aspects of the White House’s framework. If the bill passes, no states will be able to “establish, continue in effect, or enforce any law or regulation specifically regulating the development of any artificial intelligence model.” Some critics of that approach have argued that states present a first line of defense against threats posed by AI chatbots to children. The bill does not limit state laws “applicable to activities occurring upon or after the deployment of an artificial intelligence model.” The president recently signed an executive order “asking some artificial intelligence companies to give the federal government 30 days to review their frontier models before release.”

The pro-life advocacy group Students for Life Action says it will give lawmakers a failing grade if they let Planned Parenthood funding resume on July 4. President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” passed last summer, defunded Planned Parenthood for one year. However, the abortion giant will once again receive Medicaid reimbursements beginning on America’s 250th birthday. A measure extending the defund doesn’t have the 60 votes necessary to pass the Senate, so lawmakers will need to pass it through the process of reconciliation, which they used for the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the new reconciliation bill will be released “in the coming weeks.” Usually Students for Life Action, on its “pro-life generation report card,” scores lawmakers based on votes on particular bills. However, this time an “F” grade could appear on every member’s record if they don’t meet the July 4 deadline to defund Planned Parenthood. President Donald Trump said the question of defunding Planned Parenthood again for another year is a “very thorny issue.”  The Daily Signal recently asked Trump if he wants Congress to extend the one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood that was passed in the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Trump said the issue is “under negotiation right now.” “Congress is now negotiating,” he said. “We’ve been very good for the people that want it, for the people that are here, and we’ll see how that goes.” “It’s been very thorny,” he added. “To put it mildly, it’s been a very thorny issue.” The Planned Parenthood Federation of America reported that in the 2025 fiscal year its affiliates received $832 million in taxpayer funding from reimbursements and grants.