For months, headlines warned of an impending famine in Gaza — images of starving children, shattered infrastructure and humanitarian collapse filled the news. On Aug. 22, 2025, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) declared that while full data was lacking, expert inference indicated famine was underway. Governments pledged aid; humanitarian agencies sounded alarms. Yet today, the word ‘famine’ has nearly vanished from headlines. What happened?

This is not to deny the human suffering in Gaza; it is to ask difficult, necessary questions. Was famine averted, exaggerated or politically reframed?

Famine has been described as a tree swaying in the wind — at some point it cannot recover and cannot be returned upright. But Gaza’s ‘famine tree’ never appeared to fully sway. If aid efforts or local resilience truly prevented catastrophe, where is the evidence? On August 22, 2025, famine was declared, and the global press carried that narrative. Then came a shift to the word ‘starvation.’ Now, even that language has faded.

The distinction matters. Famine is a technical classification grounded in data — household food security surveys, acute malnutrition rates and mortality. Starvation, by contrast, is a moral and legal term implying intent; under international law, using starvation as a weapon constitutes a war crime. In Gaza, this rhetorical shift occurred before comprehensive data was gathered — an escalation of accusation without empirical foundation.

Recovery from famine typically takes eight to 12 months, even under ideal conditions with full humanitarian access and functioning medical systems. Historical precedents — Somalia in 2011, South Sudan in 2017 and Sudan in 2023 — show that malnutrition persists long after headlines fade. If Gaza truly met famine standards this summer, the signs would still be unmistakable: rising mortality, overwhelmed clinics and a generation of weakened children. Yet no such surge has been confirmed by independent medical reporting.

Another inconsistency is behavioral. True famine unleashes chaos — hunger overrides social norms and people fight to survive. In August, 84% of Gaza aid convoys were reportedly looted. Yet after the Oct. 10 ceasefire, U.N. 2720 data show interceptions fell to 6%, and by November, below 1%. Where did the desperation go? Where is the looting? Where are the crowds of thousands?

Following the ceasefire, Hamas rapidly reasserted control, executing accused defectors and projecting an image of order. Recent videos show bustling markets and calm streets — a façade of normalcy meant to reinforce legitimacy. Within six weeks, famine conditions seemingly vanished. Can that be real?

If famine had truly taken hold, it would not have dissipated so quickly. Either the crisis was overstated, the data manipulated or public perception deliberately managed.

We cannot shy away from uncomfortable questions. Asking what happened to the famine in Gaza is responsible, not callous. Truth demands transparency, even when it challenges narratives we’ve grown accustomed to believing.

Former Rep. Louie Gohmert blasted ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith for allegedly targeting his personal phone records as part of his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots, telling Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview that his action ‘destroys the checks and balances that the founders counted on.’

Fox News Digital exclusively reported Thursday morning that Smith targeted then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s personal, private phone records, as well as Gohmert’s. 

Fox News Digital exclusively reviewed the document that FBI Director Kash Patel recently shared with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson containing the explosive revelations. Grassley and Johnson have been leading a joint investigation into Smith’s ‘Arctic Frost’ probe.

According to the document, Smith, on Jan. 24, 2023, allegedly sought the ‘toll records for the personal cell phones of U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (AT&T) and U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (Verizon.)’

The information was included as part of a ‘significant case notification’ drafted by the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division May 25, 2023.

‘It is astounding that Jack ‘Frost’ Smith went on this persecution,’ Gohmert told Fox News Digital Thursday. ‘Apparently, this guy has never read the Fourth Amendment because you have to describe with particularity what it is you’re going after — there should be probable cause, and they had no probable cause. They were going on a witch hunt.’

Smith had sought Gohmert’s personal cellphone records from November 2020 through the end of January 2021.

‘They don’t have any regard for the Fourth Amendment,’ he said. ‘It makes Watergate look like school yard folly.’

But Gohmert said it is the ‘principle.’

‘It is the separation of powers that is the problem,’ Gohmert explained. ‘People and whistleblowers contacted me regularly from within the DOJ and the FBI about overreach within the FBI and DOJ. By grabbing my records, they could stifle reporting of potential crimes by people within the agencies.’

‘You can’t just go seize members of Congress’ records even with a warrant because of that separation of powers,’ Gohmert said. ‘There has to be a wall and that’s what troubles me more than anything.’

Gohmert told Fox News Digital that he didn’t remember who he spoke with during the time period Smith sought records, but said that ‘the last thing I want is for someone who trusted me to keep their name private to have some jack-booted thug like Jack ‘Frost’ Smith grab my records and find out who is tattle tailing on him.’ 

He added: ‘It violates and destroys the checks and balances that the founders counted on.’

Gohmert, though, told Fox News Digital that he trusts the current Justice Department and FBI leadership.

‘I trust the DOJ and trust the people running the FBI,’ he said. ‘We’ll see if there were any crimes committed and, if following the Constitution, they can be properly prosecuted.’ 

Meanwhile, McCarthy said he will take legal action against Smith. 

‘Jack Smith’s radical and deranged investigation was never about finding the truth,’ McCarthy told Fox News Digital. ‘It was a blatant weaponizing of the Justice Department to attack political opponents of the Biden administration. Perhaps no action underscores this point more than the illegal attempt to access the phone records of sitting members of the House and Senate — including the Speaker of the House.’ 

‘His illegal targeting demands real accountability,’ McCarthy continued. ‘And I am confident Congress will hold hearings and access documents in its investigation into Jack Smith’s own abuses.’ 

‘At the same time, I will ask my own counsel to pursue all areas of redress so this does not happen to anyone else,’ McCarthy said. 

The revelations come after Fox News Digital exclusively reported in October that Smith and his ‘Arctic Frost’ team investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots were tracking the private communications and phone calls of nearly a dozen Republican senators as part of the probe, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania.

An official told Fox News Digital that those records were collected in 2023 by Smith and his team after subpoenaing major telephone providers. 

Smith has called his decision to subpoena and track Republican lawmakers’ phone records ‘entirely proper’ and consistent with Justice Department policy.

‘As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,’ Smith’s lawyers wrote in October to Grassley.

Grassley, R-Iowa, and Johnson, R-Wis., have been investigating the matter. 

An FBI official told Fox News Digital that ‘Arctic Frost’ is a ‘prohibited case,’ and that the review required FBI officials to go ‘above and beyond in order to deliver on this promise of transparency.’ The discovery is part of a broader ongoing review, Fox News Digital has learned.

Smith, after months of investigating, charged President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request. 

Smith’s case cost taxpayers more than $50 million. 

Smith did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

A rare filing from economic heavyweights could shape how Supreme Court justices view the limits of presidential control over the Federal Reserve and U.S. monetary policy.

On Wednesday, the nation’s highest court heard oral arguments for two hours on whether President Donald Trump has the authority to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. 

That debate has drawn an extraordinary amicus brief from some of the most influential figures in U.S. economic policy. An amicus brief is a submission from a group not directly involved in a suit that offers information, expertise or arguments to help a court decide the matter.

It was signed by every living former chair of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, as well as six former Treasury secretaries who served presidents of both parties.

The group, which also includes seven former White House economic advisers, spans roughly five decades of U.S. economic policymaking.

Such intervention is almost unheard of, as former Fed chairs and Treasury secretaries typically steer clear of public legal battles.

In the 32-page amicus brief, the group argues that allowing the Trump administration to remove a sitting Fed board member would ‘erode public confidence in the Fed’s independence and threaten the long-term stability of the economy.’

Expanding the president’s power over Fed board membership is ‘neither necessary nor appropriate’ and would be counterproductive, the group writes, because it would weaken the central bank’s independence and lead to higher inflation and economic instability.

That concern, the group argues, is already playing out in real time. 

‘Sectors that pay close attention to the Federal Reserve — including the financial markets, the public, employers and lenders — are watching the current dispute over the President’s removal of Governor Cook to judge how credible the Fed will be going forward.’

John Sauer, the solicitor general, said Cook’s amici filing did not address the ‘legal issues at the heart of this case.’

‘Most of Cook’s amici emphasize policy arguments, touting the perceived benefits of the Federal Reserve Board’s independence in setting monetary policy,’ Sauer wrote, adding that ‘policy preferences are not the law, and these particular preferences lack any logical limit.’

In deciding Cook’s case, the justices could also shape Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s future at the Fed.

In a notable departure from his typically measured and low-profile approach, Powell attended the oral arguments at the Supreme Court. His appearance comes amid a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., related to his congressional testimony on a multibillion-dollar renovation of the Fed’s headquarters. 

Powell described the investigation as ‘unprecedented,’ calling it another instance of the Trump administration using legal threats to pressure the central bank on policy decisions.

Cook’s ascent to the Federal Reserve was historic from the start. 

Now, she stands at the center of an even more consequential moment, as President Donald Trump moves to fire her — a step that would be unprecedented in the Fed’s 112-year history.

The court is expected to issue a ruling on Cook’s case by the summer.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that President Donald Trump ‘remains in exceptional physical health’ after concerns have swirled in recent months, including when the president received an MRI scan in October. 

‘As stated in the memo provided on October 10th, President Trump received advanced imaging at Walter Reed Medical Center as part of his routine physical examination,’ Leavitt said during Wednesday’s White House press briefing. ‘The full results were reviewed by attending radiologists and consultants, and all agreed that President Trump remains in exceptional physical health.’ 

The response followed a member of the media asking for additional details as to why Trump received an MRI during a checkup at Walter Reed National Military Center in Maryland in October. 

‘I got an MRI, it was perfect,’ Trump told reporters on Air Force One in October. 

‘I gave you the full results,’ he added. ‘We had an MRI, and the machine, you know, the whole thing, and it was perfect.’ 

The checkup in October has been described as routine by the administration, with Trump’s physician reporting that Trump is in ‘exceptional health.’ 

Media outlets and others have fanned the flames of concerns around Trump’s health earlier in 2025 when he was spotted with swollen legs in July while attending the FIFA Club World Cup final in New Jersey, as well as when other photos that same month showed him with bruises on his hands.

Leavitt said in July, while reading a health memo, that Trump’s swollen legs were part of a ‘benign and common condition’ for individuals older than age 70, while the bruising on his hands was attributable to ‘frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin.’

Navy Capt. Sean P. Barbabella, the physician to the president, wrote in a memorandum to Leavitt following the October checkup that the visit was part of an ongoing health maintenance plan that included ‘advanced imaging, laboratory testing and preventative health assessments conducted by multidisciplinary team of specialists.’

Barbabella said in his October summary that Trump, ‘remains in exceptional health, exhibiting strong cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, and physical performance.’ 

The checkup was Trump’s second in 2025, following an April visit that Barbabella said found Trump ‘remains in excellent health.’

Leavitt added Wednesday that Trump is slated to hold a dinner later that evening, which she said might include press attendance where the media could see Trump’s physical state themselves. 

‘I know all of you will see with your own eyes later this evening when he opens up his dinner to the press, and perhaps you will see him when he signs the bill to reopen the federal government,’ she said. ‘So stay tuned on plans for that.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Brie Stimson contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court revealed on Monday it will consider a lawsuit, originally brought by the Republican National Committee, over whether counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is lawful.

The case will examine a state law in solid red Mississippi that allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they are received up to five days after the election. 

The RNC, which has fought to stop late-arriving ballots over allegations that they undermine trust in the vote counting process, argues the state law conflicts with federal law and is hoping the Supreme Court will ban them nationwide.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, emphasized that the court would not be weighing in on the legality of mail-in ballots, which are accepted in some form in every state, or whether ballots could be cast after Election Day.

‘What this case is about is whether a ballot that was cast on or before Election Day, sealed in an envelope, placed in the U.S. Mail and received by a state some days later can be counted if a state law says that that’s okay,’ Becker told Fox News Digital.

Mississippi’s rule went into effect in 2020, when many states implemented new emergency election policies over COVID-19. Well over a dozen, both red and blue, accept late mail-in ballots if they are postmarked by Election Day. 

The RNC sued over the law and secured a win at the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, leading Mississippi to bring the matter to the Supreme Court. The state argues ‘election’ means voters’ final choice, which occurs when ballots are cast by Election Day. Receipt of ballots that are marked and submitted effectuates the voters’ choice but are ‘not part of the election itself,’ Mississippi told the Supreme Court in a filing. As such, the state argues, federal law does not prohibit short, post-Election Day windows to receive ballots cast on time. 

Becker warned of repercussions that could come of the Supreme Court upholding the 5th Circuit’s ruling, saying it could invite a host of new litigation because close races could come down to ballots cast by Election Day that arrive a day or two after the election because of U.S. Postal Service delays.

‘We as a society do not want a bunch of ballots coming in the day or two after, delivered late, not because of the voter but because of the Postal Service, and having those ballots being the margin of victory in a close race,’ Becker said.

In a statement, RNC chairman Joe Gruters echoed broader sentiments of election security hawks who have taken issue with late-arriving ballots.

‘Allowing states to count large numbers of mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day undermines trust and confidence in our elections,’ Gruters said.

‘Elections must end on Election Day, which is why the RNC led the way in challenging this harmful state law. The RNC has been hard at work litigating this case for nearly two years, and we hope the Supreme Court will affirm the Fifth Circuit’s landmark decision that mail-in ballots received after Election Day cannot be counted.’