Costa Ricans have elected conservative populist Laura Fernández as their next president, according to preliminary results, making her the latest right-leaning leader to win office in Latin America.

With results from 96.8% of polling places counted, Fernández of the Sovereign People’s Party won 48.3% of the vote, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal reported.

Her closest challenger, economist Álvaro Ramos of the National Liberation Party, trailed with 33.4%, the Associated Press reported. 

Ramos conceded the race on election night, with Fernández, 39, to begin her four-year term in May.

A former government minister, Fernández is the chosen successor of outgoing President Rodrigo Chaves, who is constitutionally prohibited from seeking re-election.

She campaigned on continuing Chaves’ populist agenda, which reshaped Costa Rican politics by arguing against traditional parties and promising tougher action on crime.

Fernández served as minister of national planning and later as minister of the presidency, giving her a central role in Chaves’ administration.

Crime had dominated the campaign in Costa Rica amid sharp rises in homicides, gang activity and drug trafficking by cartels.

The murder rate had increased by 50% over the last six years, according to reports.

Fernández pledged a hard-line security strategy, including increased cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and tougher measures against organized crime.

She has also floated controversial proposals inspired by El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele.

This included construction of a special prison for gang leaders, the Associated Press reported.

‘My hand won’t shake when it comes to making the decisions we need to restore peace in Costa Rican homes,’ Fernández said during the campaign.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio congratulated Fernández in a statement Monday.

‘Under her leadership, we are confident Costa Rica will continue to advance shared priorities to include combating narco-trafficking, ending illegal immigration to the United States, promoting cybersecurity and secure telecommunications, and strengthening economic ties,’ Rubio said.

‘I hope that we can immediately lower the flags of whichever political party and start working only in favor of the Costa Rican flag,’ Fernández said after the result. 

‘I believe the Costa Rican people expect nothing less of us,’ she added.

The Justice Department (DOJ) has removed its pardon attorney from an internal ‘Weaponization Working Group,’ even as officials say the politically sensitive panel is now meeting more frequently, Fox News has learned.

Ed Martin currently serves as the DOJ’s pardon attorney, a role appointed by President Donald Trump that involves reviewing clemency applications and advising the White House on pardons and commutations. He had also participated in the department’s internal Weaponization Working Group.

A DOJ spokesperson confirmed to Fox News on Monday that Martin had been removed from the working group, though it was not immediately clear why.

‘President Trump appointed Ed Martin as Pardon Attorney and Ed continues to do a great job in that role,’ a DOJ spokesperson said.

Trump nominated Martin, a former defense attorney who represented Americans charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia in February of last year.

But after concerns from lawmakers stalled Martin’s confirmation, Trump withdrew the nomination.

Trump instead nominated Jeanine Pirro for the role, and she was ultimately confirmed.

Martin was appointed to serve as U.S. pardon attorney on May 14, 2025, and was named by Trump at the time to serve as director of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, a role he held until his removal was announced Monday.

The working group was formed in early 2025 and is now meeting more frequently, with the goal of eventually meeting daily. It is an internal review body created to examine claims that federal law enforcement and prosecutorial powers were misused for political or partisan purposes.

Martin has previously drawn scrutiny over his actions involving New York Attorney General Letitia James. In August, a lawyer representing James criticized Martin for visiting her Brooklyn residence and publicly suggesting she resign, calling the visit a ‘made-for-media stunt.’

Martin later said he visited the property to ‘lay eyes on it’ and shared images of the visit on social media.

He was subsequently granted special prosecutorial authority to pursue mortgage fraud investigations involving James and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., both of whom have denied wrongdoing and described the probes as politically motivated.

Martin also urged James to step down in a letter he described as ‘confidential’ but later shared publicly on X.

Nearly half of state attorneys general will demand the House Judiciary Committee expand its probe into climate policy-related influence on federal judges to include a gold-standard guide judges use to examine subjects they are not typically versed in.

The development comes after a Fox News Digital report highlighted criticisms of the latest edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC) 1,600-page ‘Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.’ Critics said the traditionally apolitical reference guide is now rife with climate change–related ideological bias, citing extensive footnotes drawn from left-leaning and climate-alarmist sources.

The Federal Judicial Center itself is the research and education agency of the federal judiciary, and its governing board is chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers is leading the effort, writing to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, urging them to expand their improper-influence probe to include what they call an ‘inappropriate attempt to rig case outcomes in favor of one side.’

The latest edition was published December 31 and includes a foreword by Justice Elena Kagan before delving into subject matter footnoted to environmental law expert Jessica Wentz, climatologist Michael Mann, and a slew of others involved in climate change research and advocacy.

‘Those same improper influence concerns apply to the Federal Judicial Center and its new ‘Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence’,’ the attorney generals wrote in part.

They noted that Kagan’s foreword said previous editions of the manual helped ‘bring about better and fairer legal decisions,’ but argued her words would not echo the same in the latest edition.

‘Like [the] Climate Judiciary Project that the Committee is investigating, the new chapter presents a highly biased, agenda-driven view favoring radical interests pursuing lawsuits against producers and users of traditional forms of fossil fuel energy,’ the attorneys general argued, citing the inclusion of findings from Jessica Wentz, a climate change advocate at Columbia University, among other names.

They cited a court brief crafted by Wentz in opposition to the Willow drilling project in Alaska, where she was quoted as saying ‘the world needs to phase out fossil fuels as rapidly as possible in order to avert potentially catastrophic levels of global warming and climate change.’

The prosecutors also pointed to the inclusion of work from an attorney who represented the city of Honolulu in cases against traditional energy firms.

‘Not surprisingly, given the strong biases of its authors, reviewers, and sources, the climate change chapter presents as settled the very methodologies that plaintiffs rely on to impose liability on fossil-fuel defendants,’ the letter reads.

‘The chapter presents this science as authoritative without acknowledging contrary views or disclosing the many conflicts of the authors, reviewers, and sources. Ethics experts have noted that these issues raise serious ethics concerns.’

In comments to Fox News Digital, Hilgers said the FJC’s new science manual should present complex evidence impartially, but instead ‘appears to embed the views of climate activists and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideologues into what is presented as neutral guidance.’

‘When the same advocates and experts who are actively litigating climate cases help write and review a chapter that will be used by federal judges behind the scenes, it raises obvious and serious concerns about the impartiality of the judicial system,’ Hilgers said.

‘Nebraskans, and all Americans, deserve courts that are neutral and fair.’

The letter was also signed by Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman and their fellow state prosecutors in Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming.

‘We’ve seen ridiculous legal warfare grow across the country — politically motivated groups, using our courts and liberal justices to push their climate agenda. That’s bad enough,’ McCuskey told Fox News Digital, saying it is time to prevent the influence of ‘junk science.”

‘We… must protect our judicial system and its impartiality,’ he said.

McCuskey also fired off a missive to the FJC itself, co-signed by Marshall, Uthmeier, Cox and others.

He told the center’s director — Obama-appointed federal judge Robin Rosenberg of Florida — that the manual’s ubiquity must remain trusted.

‘At least up to this point, [FJC] has been careful to stress that the Manual merely ‘describes basic principles of major scientific fields… Instead, the Fourth Edition places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and ‘attribution’.’

‘Such work undermines the judiciary’s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale,’ McCuskey said.

American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac added that the FJC wrongly used taxpayer funds to publish a reference manual that ’embeds disputed, plaintiff-driven climate alarmist theories into materials judges consult.’

‘That is not education, it is outcome-shaping, and it directly undermines judicial impartiality,’ Isaac said.

O.H. Skinner of Alliance for Consumers called the development ‘the woke lawfare playbook in action’ and said climate change activists see the courtroom as their best chance to bring permanence to their ideology.

When reached for comment on the matter of her footnotes coming under scrutiny, Wentz replied, ‘no comment.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Jordan and Grassley for comment, as well as the FJC.

President Donald Trump is trying to quell a growing rebellion against the funding deal he negotiated with Senate Democrats as a growing number of House conservatives threaten to sink the legislation if a key demand is not met.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is walking a tightrope with House Republicans demanding the inclusion of election integrity legislation to the Trump-backed deal, which he negotiated with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., last week. 

The government is in its third day of a partial shutdown. Adding the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, to the package would send the legislation back to the Senate, where Schumer has already vowed to block it. 

That would likely extend what was intended to be a temporary closure.

Trump took to Truth Social to lower the temperature among House Republicans, and noted that he was ‘working hard with Speaker Johnson to get the current funding deal, which passed in the Senate last week, through the House and to my desk, where I will sign it into Law, IMMEDIATELY!’

‘We need to get the Government open, and I hope all Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting this Bill, and send it to my desk WITHOUT DELAY,’ Trump said. ‘There can be NO CHANGES at this time.’ 

‘We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown that will hurt our Country so badly — One that will not benefit Republicans or Democrats,’ he continued. ‘I hope everyone will vote, YES!’

A cohort of House Republicans, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., wants to see the SAVE Act attached to the five-bill funding package plus short-term extension for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

It would require states to obtain proof of citizenship in-person when people register to vote and remove non-citizens from voter rolls.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital on Monday that he was leaning against voting to advance the funding deal if the SAVE Act was not attached. Reps. William Timmons, R-S.C., and Eric Burlison, R-Mo., have foreshadowed similar threats.

It’s legislation that has long been shelved since advancing from the House last year. Its passage in the upper chamber is even more unlikely because of the 60-vote filibuster threshold and Senate Democrats’ reticence to even consider supporting it. 

Their demands come as the House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper for most legislation to get a chamber-wide vote, is set to meet Monday evening to consider the funding deal. Johnson met with Rules Committee members on Monday afternoon ahead of their scheduled meeting.  

Tacking on the SAVE Act would likely kill any chance of the spending deal earning support from House Democrats, who are already resistant to the deal. 

And if it were to make it to the Senate, Democrats in the upper chamber are primed to block it.

Without it, however, the group of House conservatives could kill the spending deal during a procedural hurdle called a ‘rule vote.’ The House Rules Committee advancing the bill sets up a chamber-wide rule vote, which if successful would unlock debate and set up a final vote on passage. 

Rule votes generally fall along partisan lines. And with a one-vote majority after the swearing-in of a new House Democrat who won a special election in Texas over the weekend, Johnson can afford little dissent.

Schumer laid out an edict on Monday against the idea, where he accused Republicans of pushing legislation ‘reminiscent of Jim Crow-era laws,’ that he argued would act as a means to suppress voters rather than encourage more secure elections. 

‘It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to,’ Schumer said in a statement. ‘If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown.’