Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced new efforts to ‘clean up’ the nation’s energy sector amid a corruption scandal and near-constant attacks from Russia.

Zelenskyy met with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko on Sunday morning, saying he called on lawmakers to revamp the leadership at the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate and the State Energy Supervision Inspectorate, in addition to other efforts to expunge Russian influence in the sector.

‘In full coordination with law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies, ensure the renewal of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency and to promptly complete the competition for the position of Head of ARMA so that the new Head of the Agency can be selected by the end of this year,’ Zelenskyy wrote on X.

He further called on lawmakers to ‘promptly conduct an audit and prepare for sale the assets and shares in assets that belonged to Russian entities and to collaborators who fled to Russia. All such assets must operate one hundred percent in Ukraine’s interests – to support our defense and to contribute to Ukraine’s budget.’

The new energy initiative also comes after a former associate of Zelenskyy’s was accused of being the mastermind behind a $100 million embezzlement scheme involving nuclear energy.

Tymur Mindich, who was once Zelenskyy’s business partner, was identified by Ukraine’s anti-corruption watchdogs as being the orchestrator of a scheme involving top officials and Ukraine’s state nuclear power company. Prior to the scandal, some feared Mindich’s growing influence over Ukraine’s lucrative industries that he had access to because of his ties to Zelenskyy.

Mindich allegedly exerted control over loyalists who then pressured contractors for Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear power company, demanding kickbacks to bypass bureaucratic obstacles. The requested kickbacks were reportedly as high as 15%.

Zelenskyy himself was not implicated in the investigation.

The new effort comes as Zelenskyy says that his team is ‘working to ensure another start to negotiations’ on ending the war with Russia.

‘We are also counting on the resumption of POW exchanges – many meetings, negotiations, and calls are currently taking place to ensure this. I thank everyone who is helping. Thank you to everybody who stands with Ukraine,’ Zelenskyy wrote.

Ukraine’s president further said that he is preparing for a full week of diplomacy with Greece, France and Spain, as well as renewed negotiations over prisoner of war exchanges with Russia.

Zelenskyy will meet with officials in Greece on Sunday to discuss natural gas imports, while talks with France on Monday and Spain on Tuesday will center on bolstering Ukrainian air defenses.

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

From new stealth bombers to AI-enabled drones, the U.S. and China are reshaping airpower for a Pacific showdown — each betting its technology can keep the other out of the skies.

The U.S. is charging ahead with its next-generation F-47 fighter, while China scrambles to catch up with jets designed to match the F-35 and F-22.

After a brief program pause in 2024, the Air Force awarded Boeing the contract in March for the F-47, a manned sixth-generation fighter meant to anchor America’s next air superiority fleet. The first flight is expected in 2028.

At the same time, the B-21 Raider, the stealth successor to the B-2, is deep into testing at Edwards Air Force Base. The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 Raiders — each built to survive inside heavily defended Chinese airspace.

The Pentagon is also betting on Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs — drones designed to fly alongside fighters as ‘loyal wingmen.’ Prototypes from Anduril and General Atomics are already in the air. Officials say CCAs will let one pilot control several drones at once.

China outpaces the rest of the world in the commercial drone market, but that doesn’t necessarily give it the advantage from a military perspective. 

‘I’m not sure that’s really true. In terms of high-end military drones that are really important to this fight, the U.S. still has a pretty significant edge.’ said Eric Heginbotham, a research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies. 

He pointed to the Air Force’s stealth reconnaissance platforms — the RQ-170 and RQ-180 — and upcoming ‘loyal wingman’ drones designed to fly with fighters as proof that the U.S. still leads in advanced integration and stealth technology.

China’s leap forward

China’s airpower modernization has accelerated as the U.S. reshapes its force. Beijing has zeroed in on three priorities — stealth, engines, and carriers — the areas that long held its military back.

The Chengdu J-20, China’s flagship stealth fighter, is being fitted with the new WS-15 engine, a home-built powerplant meant to rival U.S. engines.

‘It took them a while to get out of the blocks on fifth generation, especially to get performance anywhere near where U.S. fifth gen was,’ Heginbotham said. ‘The J-20 really does not have a lot of the performance features that even the F-22 does, and we’ve had the F-22 for a long time.’

Meanwhile, China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was commissioned this fall — the first with electromagnetic catapults similar to U.S. Ford-class carriers. The move signals Beijing’s ambition to launch stealth jets from sea and project power well beyond its coast.

Together, the J-20, the carrier-based J-35, and the Fujian give China a layered airpower network — stealth jets on land and at sea backed by growing missile coverage.

Chinese military writings identify airfields as critical vulnerabilities. PLA campaign manuals call for striking runways early in a conflict to paralyze enemy air operations before they can begin. Analysts believe a few days of concentrated missile fire could cripple U.S. bases across Japan, Okinawa, and Guam.

‘The U.S. bases that are forward deployed—particularly on Okinawa, but also on the Japanese mainland and on Guam—are exposed to Chinese missile attack,’ said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘In our war games, the Chinese would periodically sweep these air bases with missiles and destroy dozens, in some cases even hundreds, of U.S. aircraft.’

Heginbotham said that missile-heavy strategy grew directly out of China’s early airpower weakness.

‘They didn’t think that they could gain air superiority in a straight-up air-to-air fight,’ he said. ‘So you need another way to get missiles out — and that another way is by building a lot of ground launchers.’

Different strategies, same goal

The two militaries are taking different paths to the same target: air dominance over the Pacific.

The U.S. approach relies on smaller numbers of highly advanced aircraft linked by sensors and artificial intelligence. The goal: strike first, from long range, and survive in contested skies.

China’s model depends on volume — mass-producing fighters, missiles, and carrier sorties to overwhelm U.S. defenses and logistics.

‘U.S. fighter aircraft—F-35s, F-15s, F-22s—are relatively short-legged, so they have to get close to Taiwan if they’re going to be part of the fight,’ Cancian said. ‘They can’t fight from Guam, and they certainly can’t fight from further away. So if they’re going to fight, they have to be inside that Chinese defensive bubble.’

Both sides face the same challenge: surviving inside that bubble. China’s expanding missile range is pushing U.S. aircraft farther from the fight, while American bombers and drones are designed to break back in.

The fight to survive

Heginbotham said survivability — not dogfighting — will define the next decade of air competition.

‘We keep talking about aircraft as if it’s going to be like World War II — they go up, they fight each other. That’s not really our problem,’ he said. ‘Our problem is the air bases themselves and the fact that aircraft can be destroyed on the air base.’

China, he warned, is preparing for that reality while the U.S. is not.

‘They practice runway strikes in exercises, they’re modeling this stuff constantly,’ Heginbotham said. ‘Unlike the United States, China is hardening its air bases. The U.S. is criminally negligent in its refusal to harden its air bases.’

Cancian’s war-game findings echo that vulnerability. He said U.S. surface ships and aircraft would likely have to fall back under missile fire in the opening days of a conflict.

‘At the initial stages of a conflict, China would have a distinct advantage,’ Cancian said. ‘Now, over time, the U.S. would be able to reinforce its forces, and that would change.’

Looking ahead

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2026–27 budget will determine how fast the U.S. can build out its F-47s, B-21s, and CCAs — systems that will shape American airpower through the 2030s.

China’s rapid modernization is closing what was once a wide gap, but the U.S. still holds advantages in stealth integration, combat experience, and autonomous systems.

‘The ability to protect our aircraft, whatever form those aircraft take, on the ground is going to be central to our ability to fight in the Asia theater,’ Heginbotham said.

‘Survivability is going to be key … The ability to protect and disperse your firepower is going to be central to whether we can really stay in this game.’

For decades, U.S. air dominance was taken for granted. In the Pacific, that advantage is no longer guaranteed. 

Former first lady Michelle Obama said Americans are ‘not ready’ to elect a woman to the White House, citing former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential election loss to President Donald Trump.

Obama made the comments to a crowd of women at the Brooklyn Academy of Music while promoting her new book, ‘The Look.’

‘As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,’ she said on Friday.

‘That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying. You’re not ready for a woman. You are not,’ she continued.

The former first lady went on to say that she does not believe men in America are comfortable with a woman leading them.

‘You know, we’ve got a lot of growing up to do, and there’s still, sadly, a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman, and we saw it,’ Obama said.

In her book, which was released on Nov. 4, Obama touches on her journey with fashion, hair and beauty, as well as her time in the White House as the first Black woman to serve as first lady. She wrote that women in politics are often judged based on their physical appearance instead of their ability to lead.

‘During our family’s time in the White House, the way I looked was constantly being dissected — what I wore, how my hair was styled. For a while now, I’ve been wanting to reclaim more of that story, to share it in my own way. I’m thankful to be at a stage in life where I feel comfortable expressing myself freely — wearing what I love and doing what feels true to me. And I’m excited to share some of what I’ve learned along the way,’ Obama wrote on Facebook in June while promoting her book ahead of its release.

”The Look’ is about more than fashion. It’s about confidence. It’s about identity. It’s about the power of authenticity. My hope is that this book sparks conversation and reflection about the ways we see ourselves — and the way our society defines beauty,’ she added.

In his iconic dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988), the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia brilliantly articulated why the Independent Counsel Statute unconstitutionally intruded upon the Executive Branch. This dissent laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s current constitutionalist majority to restore sanity to separation-of-powers jurisprudence by returning power to its rightful place: the Executive Branch, all of whose power is vested in the President of the United States who is elected by all Americans.

Leftists and other anti-democratic big-government types call this view the ‘unitary executive theory.’ In reality, it is just Article II of the United States Constitution. We The People loan executive power to our duly-elected President; we do not divvy it up among unelected, leftist federal bureaucrats. Scalia’s most famous line in the Morrison dissent was his characterization of the statute as ‘a wolf in wolf’s clothing,’ a play on the idiom of ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing.’ Scalia was illustrating how the violation of the separation of powers was unambiguous.

Former U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of Massachusetts is another wolf in wolf’s clothing, despite his effort–aided by the leftist media–to package himself otherwise. Wolf was appointed to the bench by President Reagan in 1985, but he is no judicial conservative. Wolf received the stamp of approval from the most leftist home-state duo in Senate history: Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. The reason the approval of these radical senators was necessary lies in a century-old Senate tradition called the blue slip. Home-state senators can veto nominations of U.S. district judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals. Nominees will not move forward without the return of blue slips from both home-state senators. Senators will not relinquish this extraordinary power because they are power-hungry and self-serving. They want to hand-select the federal prosecutor who could indict them, the federal judge who could try them, and the federal marshal who could escort them to prison.

Recently, Wolf resigned from his lifetime appointment. He had assumed senior status (a form of semi-retirement) during the Obama administration, allowing Obama—instead of the next Republican president–to appoint a leftist to replace Wolf in full-time judicial service. According to Wolf, President Trump has disregarded the rule of law in innumerable ways. Wolf wants to speak out about it and serve as a self-appointed spokesman for sitting judges who cannot. Wolf also has blasted the Supreme Court, claiming that the constitutionalist majority has enabled President Trump. Wolf has whined the Court has ruled 17 out of 20 times in the Trump administration’s favor on its emergency docket. Wolf has compared this success rate to that of players like Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa during Major League Baseball’s steroid era.

Wolf’s claim is absurd. The administration has succeeded so much at the Supreme Court thanks to its stellar team of legal all-stars, headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Solicitor General John Sauer. Many other brilliant attorneys also deserve credit for the administration’s sterling Supreme Court performance.

Moreover, the rulings by Wolf’s fellow activist judges are clearly partisan and lawless. How many cases does Wolf think the administration should have won before the Court? Eight out of 20? Ten? Twelve? His statistical conspiracy gibberish is devoid of even a scintilla of legal analysis. Wolf is only interested in peddling nonsense to bash justices he plainly detests. Wolf also conveniently ignores the other side of the statistical coin. According to analysis from former top Senate counsel Michael Fragoso, district judges in Massachusetts ruled against the Trump administration on 27 out of 29 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Wolf apparently has no issue with this disparity; rather, he seems to view these rulings as coming from beacons of judicial integrity.

Wolf has a history of conspiracy hogwash. For over a decade, he pursued a baseless case against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, history’s greatest justice. According to Wolf, Thomas had wilfully failed to make required disclosures. The Judicial Conference categorically rejected Wolf’s theory. Yet, over a decade after the case had been closed, Wolf testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee chaired by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, another partisan and deranged conspiracy theorist. During one exchange, Wolf told a U.S. senator that former Reagan Solicitor General Rex Lee would have been disturbed by, as Wolf saw it, unethical behavior of Thomas. That senator was Mike Lee of Utah, and Solicitor General Lee was his deceased father. Sen. Lee rightfully erupted at Wolf’s despicable statement.

Sitting judges cannot speak out against President Trump according to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They cannot use Wolf as their mouthpiece, either. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees need to subpoena Wolf to determine which judges are trashing President Trump through Wolf. If Wolf refuses to divulge the information, he should face contempt of Congress charges just like Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro did.

If the identities of judges who speak through Wolf to bash President Trump become public, every one of those judges must face impeachment proceedings. No matter how difficult conviction by a two-thirds Senate supermajority will be, these rogue judges must suffer through the impeachment process to deter them and other judicial embarrassments from engaging in blatantly unethical behavior. These radical judges are illegally and dangerously subverting the will of American voters.

Wolf is a Sheldon Whitehouse, not a Ronald Reagan. Wolf plans to serve as the vehicle by which sitting judges can attempt to circumvent ethical constraints. He has spouted risible conspiracy tripe to denigrate the Supreme Court in general and Thomas in particular. He even has stooped to the all-time low of bringing up a senator’s deceased father in a pathetic attempt to score a few cheap political points. In short, Wolf is a disgrace to the federal judiciary, and his resignation is welcome news. Good riddance to this wolf in wolf’s clothing.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Saturday that the suspect wanted in connection to the attack on U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s office in New Jersey this week has been taken into custody.

The FBI had identified the suspect Friday night as Keith Michael Lisa. 

Bondi said in an X post on Saturday morning that thanks to the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and Homeland Security Investigations, the suspect wanted in the attack on Habba’s office ‘is now in custody.’

‘No one will get away with threatening or intimidating our great U.S. Attorneys or the destruction of their offices,’ Bondi wrote.

‘We got him. This Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi and our federal partners will not tolerate any acts of intimidation or violence toward law enforcement,’ Habba wrote on X on Saturday in reaction to the arrest. ‘Now justice will handle him.’

The FBI said Lisa was wanted for allegedly entering the Peter W. Rodino Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey, on Nov. 12, 2025, while in possession of a bat.

‘After being denied entry, he discarded the bat and returned,’ the FBI said. ‘Once inside the building, he proceeded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office where he damaged government property.’

A federal arrest warrant was issued for Lisa on Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark after he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a federal facility and depredation of federal property, the FBI added.

Bondi had announced Thursday that an individual attempted to confront Habba on Wednesday night, ‘destroyed property in her office’ and then ‘fled the scene.’

‘Thankfully, Alina is ok,’ Bondi added. ‘Any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period. This is unfortunately becoming a trend as radicals continue to attack law enforcement agents around the country.’

Habba said following the incident that, ‘I will not be intimidated by radical lunatics for doing my job.’

Lisa, 51, was described by authorities as being around 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing between 200 and 230 pounds.

The FBI said Lisa has ties to New York City and Mahwah, N.J., and ‘should be considered dangerous.’

On its website, the Justice Department said that as Acting U.S. Attorney and Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General, Habba ‘is responsible for overseeing all federal criminal prosecutions and the litigation of all civil matters in New Jersey in which the federal government has an interest.’

‘Including the offices in Newark, Camden, and Trenton, Ms. Habba supervises a staff of approximately 155 federal prosecutors and approximately 130 support personnel,’ the Justice Department said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Saturday that the suspect wanted in connection to the attack on U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s office in New Jersey this week has been taken into custody.

The FBI had identified the suspect Friday night as Keith Michael Lisa. 

Bondi said in an X post on Saturday morning that thanks to the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and Homeland Security Investigations, the suspect wanted in the attack on Habba’s office ‘is now in custody.’

‘No one will get away with threatening or intimidating our great U.S. Attorneys or the destruction of their offices,’ Bondi wrote.

The FBI said Lisa was wanted for allegedly entering the Peter W. Rodino Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey, on Nov. 12, 2025, while in possession of a bat.

‘After being denied entry, he discarded the bat and returned,’ the FBI said. ‘Once inside the building, he proceeded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office where he damaged government property.’

A federal arrest warrant was issued for Lisa on Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark after he was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in a federal facility and depredation of federal property, the FBI added.

Bondi had announced Thursday that an individual attempted to confront Habba on Wednesday night, ‘destroyed property in her office’ and then ‘fled the scene.’

‘Thankfully, Alina is ok,’ Bondi added. ‘Any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period. This is unfortunately becoming a trend as radicals continue to attack law enforcement agents around the country.’

Habba said following the incident that, ‘I will not be intimidated by radical lunatics for doing my job.’

Lisa, 51, was described by authorities as being around 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing between 200 and 230 pounds.

The FBI said Lisa has ties to New York City and Mahwah, N.J., and ‘should be considered dangerous.’

On its website, the Justice Department said that as Acting U.S. Attorney and Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General, Habba ‘is responsible for overseeing all federal criminal prosecutions and the litigation of all civil matters in New Jersey in which the federal government has an interest.’

‘Including the offices in Newark, Camden, and Trenton, Ms. Habba supervises a staff of approximately 155 federal prosecutors and approximately 130 support personnel,’ the Justice Department said.

The FBI identified Keith Michael Lisa as the suspect wanted in connection to an attack this week on U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s office.

A reward of up to $25,000 is being offered by the FBI for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Lisa.

‘Keith Michael Lisa is wanted for allegedly entering the Peter W. Rodino Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey, on November 12, 2025, while in possession of a bat,’ according to the FBI. ‘After being denied entry, he discarded the bat and returned. Once inside the building, he proceeded to the U.S. Attorney’s Office where he damaged government property.’

‘A federal arrest warrant was issued for Lisa on November 13, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey after he was charged with Possession of a Dangerous Weapon in a Federal Facility and Depredation of Federal Property,’ the FBI added.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Thursday that an individual attempted to confront Alina Habba on Wednesday night, ‘destroyed property in her office’ and then ‘fled the scene.’

‘Thankfully, Alina is ok,’ Bondi added. ‘Any violence or threats of violence against any federal officer will not be tolerated. Period. This is unfortunately becoming a trend as radicals continue to attack law enforcement agents around the country.’

Habba said following the incident that, ‘I will not be intimidated by radical lunatics for doing my job.’

Lisa, 51, is described by authorities as being around 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing between 200 to 230 pounds.

The FBI said Lisa has ties to New York City and Mahwah, N.J., and ‘should be considered dangerous.’

On its website, the Justice Department said that as Acting U.S. Attorney and Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General, Habba ‘is responsible for overseeing all federal criminal prosecutions and the litigation of all civil matters in New Jersey in which the federal government has an interest.’

‘Including the offices in Newark, Camden, and Trenton, Ms. Habba supervises a staff of approximately 155 federal prosecutors and approximately 130 support personnel,’ according to the Justice Department.

Fox News’ Alexis McAdams contributed to this report.

A group of former federal judges sharply criticized a top Justice Department official this week for characterizing the court fights playing out in President Donald Trump’s second term as a ‘war’ against so-called ‘activist judges,’ remarks they described as unnecessarily inflammatory and amounting to ‘pouring oil’ on an already fast-burning fire.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, spoke colorfully last week during a fireside chat hosted by the Federalist Society. Blanche used his time to excoriate federal judges for pausing or blocking some of Trump’s biggest executive orders and actions since January and to urge young lawyers and law students in the audience to fight back. 

‘It is a war,’ Blanche said, ‘and it is something we will not win unless we keep on fighting.’

The judges ‘have a robe on, but they are more political, or as political, as the most liberal governor or DA,’ Blanche added. 

His remarks prompted a rebuke from the New York State Bar Association and from the Article III Coalition, a group of 50 former federal judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents. 

This type of rhetoric, ‘especially when voiced by high-ranking officials — not only endangers individual judges and court staff, but also undermines the public’s trust in the judiciary as an impartial and co-equal branch of government,’ the judges said in a letter. 

In a series of interviews this week, several former judges told Fox News Digital they were shocked by Blanche’s remarks, which they described as a departure from longstanding Justice Department norms and a threat to the judiciary both as an institution and to the individual judges who serve on the bench.

One judge said Blanche’s remarks were ‘wildly different from all prior decades and under all prior administrations’ he experienced in his more than 60-year career in D.C.

‘I’ve been in Washington since 1974, continuously, and I’ve never seen anything like it,’ Paul R. Michel, the former chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

Michel served as a special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation, a role in which he personally interviewed former President Nixon. 

‘It’s just startling for the deputy attorney general to be functioning as a PR ‘hatchet man’ instead of a law enforcement official,’ he said of Blanche’s remarks.

Michel and others in the group of retired judges told Fox News Digital they fear the rhetoric used could further erode public trust in the judiciary, a branch that the framers designed to interpret the law impartially and to serve as a check against excesses of the other branches, regardless of politics or the administration in charge. 

They noted that while parties often disagree with a decision or a near-term temporary order or motion, both the Justice Department and the opposing parties have a readily available mechanism to seek relief via the appeals process. 

Parties looking to challenge a temporary order or other form of injunctive relief can proceed with having the district court evaluate a case on its merits, kick it to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and, in some cases, the Supreme Court, for review, Philip Pro, a former U.S. district judge in Nevada appointed by President Ronald Reagan, told Fox News Digital.

Federal judges have attempted to issue near-term or emergency orders temporarily blocking some of Trump’s top policy priorities, including on immigration enforcement, birthright citizenship and sweeping layoffs across the federal government. The administration has responded to the lower court actions by seeking emergency relief from the higher courts, via emergency stays, which Blanche also touted during his remarks last week. 

Judges are ‘totally reactive’ by design, Pro said. ‘We’re sitting in our districts. The cases are randomly assigned.’

‘There is nothing ‘rogue’ about these decisions,’ Pro added. ‘Those wheels grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly well, and that’s the way you get resolution.’

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law who attended the fireside remarks, told Fox News Digital in an interview he is sympathetic to the concerns voiced by the judges, but he also understands the broader issue Blanche may have been trying to get at, which is the power the courts have to review the actions of the executive branch. 

This has emerged as a particular pain point not only for Trump but for his predecessors, each of whom has sought to enact some of their policy priorities via executive order in a bid to sidestep a clunky and slow-moving Congress.

Those actions are therefore more vulnerable to emergency intervention from the federal courts, Blackman said, though the degree to which judges can or should act in this space is the subject of ongoing debate.

‘I don’t see Blanche’s comments as calling for violence,’ Blackman said. ‘I think it’s more trying to say that there’s just this struggle between the executive branch and the judiciary that is not normal.’ 

Trump is far from the first president to publicly complain about ‘activist’ judges for hampering his policies. Such criticisms stretch back decades and include former presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, among others. 

Still, the judges say they are concerned by Blanche’s remarks, which are a stark departure from what they experienced in their own careers, including while serving as federal prosecutors.

‘Calling judges ‘rogue’ because they apply the law in a politically unfavorable way is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary in our constitutional structure,’ Allyson K. Duncan, a former judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said in a statement. 

Michel, the former special prosecutor for the Watergate investigation, noted he worked for two successive deputy attorneys general in the ‘exact post Blanche now holds,’ but who gave much different marching orders.

‘Their instructions to me were, ‘Politics are outside the boundaries for Justice Department employees,’ and politics are ‘not to have any influence,” he said. ‘We were not to pay any attention to what somebody in the White House might say, or in the media or elsewhere. We were to be a ‘politics-free zone.’

‘That seemed to me to be entirely appropriate,’ Michel said. ‘The power to investigate, the power to indict and the power to prosecute and convict are awesome, awesome powers,’ he added.

The group also cited concerns for their colleagues who remain on the bench at a time when public threats to judges have increased, according to data from U.S. Marshals. This includes online harassment, threats of physical violence and ‘doxxing’ judges at their home addresses by sending them unsolicited pizzas. Some deliveries have been made in the name of a judge’s son who was shot and killed in 2020 after opening the door to a disgruntled individual disguised as a delivery person.

The number of threats made against federal judges in 2025 has outpaced threats from the past 12-month period, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, prompting a push for Congress to take action. 

‘Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarks reflect a reality the Department of Justice confronts every day — a growing number of activist judges attempting to set national policy from the bench,’ a spokesperson for the Justice Department told Fox News Digital on Friday in response to a request for comment. 

‘The department will continue to follow the Constitution, defend its lawful authorities and push back when activist rulings threaten public safety or undermine the will of the American people.’