Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told House investigators that she did not see a change in former President Joe Biden’s competency over several years, but she acknowledged that he was ‘not the same speaker he was when she met him.’

Jean-Pierre was the latest in a string of former Biden White House officials to be interviewed by House Oversight Committee investigators over an alleged cover-up of the ex-president’s mental acuity.

She did not speak to reporters on her way into the interview just off Capitol Hill, nor did she speak after the nearly five-hour, closed-door transcribed interview.

But a source familiar with the interview shared with Fox News Digital that Jean-Pierre told investigators that while working for Biden in various capacities from 2009 to 2025, ‘she did not see a change in President Biden’s competency.’

‘She did acknowledge President Biden is not the same speaker he was when she met him,’ the source noted.  ‘She does not know why his speaking changed and never asked him.’

Jean-Pierre, who is one of the most high-profile figures from the Biden administration to appear before the committee, was among those who publicly defended Biden after his June 2024 debate against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

During the debate, Jean-Pierre said she was told by ‘senior staff that President Biden had a cold,’ the source said.

Shortly after the debate, she told reporters at a press briefing in early July that Biden was ‘as sharp as ever.’

Jean-Pierre told investigators that talking points were entered into her binder for press briefings by ‘various advisors,’ but specifically ones related to Biden’s health and mental acuity ‘were handled exclusively at the senior level.’

She cited the ‘cheap fakes’ talking point, which at the time, Jean-Pierre charged were people online manipulating videos of Biden to mislead the public on his health and cognitive ability. She told investigators that point in particular ‘appeared as a talking point in her binder, but she does not know specifically who added it.’

She also said that she never spoke with anyone in the White House ‘personally concerned about President Biden’s health.’

Jean-Pierre began her role as White House press secretary in 2022, shortly after former White House press secretary Jen Psaki left the position, and she stayed on until the end of Biden’s presidency in January.

But her relationship with Biden-world became estranged after her departure from the Democratic Party earlier this year, which was announced in a press release for her forthcoming book, ‘Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.’

Jean-Pierre’s appearance before investigators came as House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said earlier this week that his panel’s ongoing probe into Biden’s use of an autopen was coming to its conclusion.

The focus in particular was whether top officials engaged in a cover-up of Biden’s mental and physical state in the White House, and whether any executive actions or a litany of pardons were approved via autopen without the then-president’s full awareness.

Comer said heading into the hearing that one of the questions at the top of his mind were whether ‘these pardons and executive orders [are] legal?’

‘I don’t think anyone’s going to argue that the process that was used for these autopens is the ideal process,’ Comer said. ‘And what we’ve seen with the emails that have surfaced in the last week — even the Merrick Garland Department of Justice was very concerned about how this administration was using the autopen.’

‘When people in the Department of Justice email people who they believe were the ones making the decisions on the autopen,’ he continued. ‘And asked the question via email from the Department of Justice, ‘Does the president even know who they just pardoned?’ I mean, that’s very concerning.’ 

Fox News Digital reached out to Jean-Pierre’s lawyers and Biden’s office but did not immediately receive a response.

Lawmakers are divided on whether to tone down heated rhetoric after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University on Wednesday, reigniting debate over the role fiery language plays in America’s surge of political violence.

Political violence has been a steady constant in recent years, including a pair of assassination attempts against President Donald Trump in 2024 and the slaying of a Democratic state lawmaker in Minnesota earlier this year.

Kirk’s death has again reignited the discussion on what role political rhetoric, be it inside the walls of Congress or around the country, has to play in political violence in the U.S.

‘This is on all of us, right?’ Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., told Fox News Digital. ‘I mean, you know, everyone’s been ramping up the rhetoric, right?

‘If the left is going to blame the right, and the right is going to blame the left, and we’re going to continue to say ‘It’s your fault,’ and we’re not collectively going to try to bring it down together, then this cycle is just going to continue to go on.’

And Republican leaders are hoping to turn the temperature down in Congress in the wake of Kirk’s death.

‘I’m trying to turn the temperature down around here,’ House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said. ‘I always do that. I’ve been very consistent.’

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News Digital he believed reining in hostile or divisive rhetoric is ‘always a conversation with people in leadership.’

‘And it should be in both parties to make sure that you don’t incite this kind of an activity,’ he said.  ‘And you just don’t know somebody, and based on their mental health, what kind of activity they may — what role that may play in this. We still don’t know what’s happened here.’

Some lawmakers fear that the escalation in political violence has America returning to the violent and chaotic time of the 1960s, which saw the assassinations of civil rights leaders Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Medgar Evers, John F. Kennedy and his brother and presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy, among others.

‘The message was love and not violence,’ Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., said of the turmoil in the 1960s. ‘So, you know, returning to a message like that could be good, but it didn’t change the outcome of the assassinations during that era. So, I don’t know that there’s an easy answer.’

Still, emotions were running high on the Hill in the days following the shooting at Utah Valley University, which resulted in a two-day manhunt and the eventual arrest of 22-year-old Tyler Robinson.

When asked how much of a role rhetoric had to play in Kirk’s slaying, Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said, ‘A lot.’

‘You say you’re a Nazi and a fascist and a threat to democracy, how does that help? If you disagree on issues, that’s one thing, but [you’re] not saying that,’ Norman said. ‘The left is a poster child.’

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital he had known Kirk for a decade and noted that the late founder of Turning Point USA ‘stood for the open exchange of ideas.’

‘I think what we have to learn from that is that we need to go back to the principles that built this country, which is that it is actually a positive and healthy thing to debate ideas,’ Moreno said. ‘We don’t have to be mad at each other because we have a different point of view, let alone escalate the violence.’

But Moreno noted that for the last decade, Trump and Republicans like himself have been compared to Adolf Hitler, Nazi sympathizers and fascists, ‘which the Democrats do every single day.’

‘What’s the problem?’ Moreno said. ‘Like, you signed up for politics, you got to be able to have a thick skin. It’s not about that. It’s about that you send a message to crazy people, that says, ‘You’re actually doing a good deed if you kill somebody who would otherwise be a Nazi and a fascist who will end our democracy.”

Trump put the blame, in part, on Democrats in an address to the nation on Wednesday night, where he charged that ‘those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.’

He repeated that sentiment during an appearance on ‘Fox & Friends’ Friday morning when he was asked about radical elements on the conservative side of the aisle.

‘I’ll tell you something that’s gonna get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less,’ Trump said. ‘The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. The radicals on the left are the problem.’

When asked for his response to Trump’s address, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, ‘This is a time that all Americans should come together and feel and mourn what happened.

‘Violence affects so many different people, so many different political persuasions,’ he said. ‘It is an infliction on America, and coming together is what we ought to be doing, not pointing fingers to blame.’

Taiwan’s foreign minister says China has ‘clearly become a troublemaker that is maliciously attempting to disrupt the cross-strait status quo and intimidate peaceful countries.’

In exclusive comments to Fox News Digital, Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung said China’s intensifying ‘authoritarian expansionism not only directly threatens Taiwan’s security and democratic system but also poses significant challenges to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world.’

‘Last June,’ Lin said, ‘[Chinese] aircraft carriers Liaoning and Shandong maneuvered beyond the second island chain, marking China’s first simultaneous, dual-carrier deployment into the Western Pacific. These developments demonstrate that Beijing’s expansionist ambitions extend far beyond Taiwan and pose an increasingly serious threat to the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and the world.’

Communist China was founded in 1949 and has not ruled Taiwan for a single day. Officially known as the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan is currently recognized by eleven small countries, plus the Holy See. Beijing nonetheless rejects the reality of nearly 80 years of separate rule, describing Taiwan as a ‘sacred and inseparable part of China’s territory.’

China’s posture toward independently ruled Taiwan has hardened in recent years as President Xi Jinping removed term limits and consolidated near-total power. While earlier Chinese statements included talk of ‘peaceful unification,’ Beijing now openly threatens to use force. 

In 2024, Xi directed the Chinese military to complete preparations for a Taiwan operation by 2027. Most defense analysts agree that an invasion would be costly, bloody and highly risky for China, Taiwan and any countries that come to Taiwan’s aid, such as the United States or Japan.

Lin echoed those warnings that a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would reverberate worldwide. ‘Peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are vital to global security and prosperity,’ Lin said, noting that approximately 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors are produced in Taiwan and that roughly 50% of global commercial shipping passes through the strait. He added that Taiwan is grateful to the United States and other partners for resisting China’s efforts to unilaterally alter the status quo.

The foreign minister said Taiwan’s central role in geopolitics, technology and supply chains ensures that Washington places a high priority on cross-strait stability. He said U.S. policymakers understand that Taiwan’s semiconductor industry and related supply chains are critical to American economic security.

‘There is clear strategic continuity between the policies of President Trump’s first and second terms,’ said Lin, adding that Taiwan’s government will seek ways to coordinate with the United States ‘through values-based, alliance and economic diplomacy.’

Commenting on Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy, Lin said, ‘The Trump administration and U.S. Congress continue to demonstrate a steadfast commitment to safeguarding peace and security across the Indo-Pacific region,’ Lin said, ‘which was emphasized in the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS).’ The foreign minister also noted that ‘the recent NSS released by the Trump administration underscored Taiwan’s geopolitical importance as a link between the Northeast and Southeast Asian theaters.’

Lin said Taiwan is working to rebalance trade with the United States while strengthening strategic cooperation on AI. ‘The Trump administration’s AI Action Plan,’ he said, ‘underscores the importance of innovation, infrastructure and international cooperation for AI development.’ 

He also touted Taiwan’s growing investments in the U.S., including a $165 billion commitment by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in Arizona, and said Taipei is working to make it easier for Taiwanese companies trying to invest in the U.S.. ‘Against the backdrop of U.S.-China strategic competition and the restructuring of global supply chains,’ said Lin, ‘Taiwan’s enterprises understand the remarkable potential of investing in the United States.’

The foreign minister said Taiwan appreciates increasing American military support, highlighting that ‘Last December, the United States approved an arms sales package to Taiwan totaling $11 billion as well as signing the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. These measures underscore the firm bipartisan support for Taiwan in the U.S. government.’

But he stressed that Taiwan is accelerating its own defense investments. ‘Last year, [Taiwan] President Lai Ching-te announced that Taiwan’s defense budget would increase to over 3% of GDP by 2026 and rise to 5% by 2030,’ he said. While parts of that plan have faced resistance in the opposition-led legislature, both major parties have publicly backed closer security cooperation with the United States and a stronger deterrence posture.

The horror that unfolded at Utah Valley University is still hard to process. A few minutes into a joyous meeting before thousands of people, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gunned down in cold blood. 

As they tried to make sense of this senseless murder, the broadcast networks roughly suggested that Kirk was shot because he was ‘polarizing.’ ABC correspondent Kyra Phillips explained that Kirk was ‘known for his outspoken views on politics, culture, religion, often taking his messages to colleges and universities, sparking sometimes pretty heated debates on campus.’ 

Reporter Aaron Katersky added, ‘there were people on both sides debating whether he should even be allowed to bring his message, often loyal to the agenda of President Trump, to campus.’ White House reporter Mary Bruce doubled down: ‘It’s no secret that Kirk has said a number of controversial things over the years, in particular about DEI, Jews, women, LGBTQ community, people of color.’ 

As Kirk was bleeding out, ABC News was suggesting this was how ‘pretty heated debates’ ended on campus, and that maybe it wouldn’t have happened if Kirk’s ‘controversial’ appearance hadn’t been ‘allowed.’ 

Leftists surely found Kirk’s conservative arguments ‘polarizing’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘controversial.’ But they seem to lack any introspection inside the liberal bubbles of their ‘news’ networks. Spreading their leftist arguments on DEI or LGBTQ or abortion or Trump — often implying that dissent is unacceptably hateful — somehow never polarizes people and is somehow the opposite of controversy. How can their sweet reason be ‘controversial?’ 

By the time the Wednesday evening newscasts came on, there was an appropriate tone of horror at the shooting. But on Thursday, ‘CBS Mornings’ co-host Nate Burleson told former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that Kirk’s speech was ‘offensive to specific communities’ and asked if Republicans needed to watch their mouths. ‘Speaking of this tragedy, is this a moment for your party to reflect on political violence? Is it a moment for us to think about the responsibility of our political leaders and their voices and what it does to the masses as they get lost in misinformation or disinformation that turns into and spills into political violence?’ 

McCarthy tried to stay on a unifying message, but Burleson’s question was ‘offensive to specific communities,’ in this case the Trump-voting half of America. Everyone who agreed with Kirk on many issues felt like this could have been the violent fate of any conservative speaker out in public, especially on ‘progressive’ campuses. 

Kirk’s alleged assassin was not a Republican. CBS didn’t wonder if the shooter had been influenced by wild leftist rhetoric from any kind of media or political figure. The rhetoric of the Left is somehow always above scrutiny. 

The morning after the murder, NPR turned to Kyle Spencer, a leftist author of a 2022 book about ‘The Untold Story About America’s Ultraconservative Youth Movement And Its Plot For Power.’ She claimed ‘Charlie really positioned himself as somebody who was supporting Whiteness, White people, White culture and the White culture of this country against what he saw as efforts that were efforts to create equity in the country and to support the disenfranchised.’ 

‘Public’ broadcasting is deeply suffused with the ‘DEI ethic’ that they must ‘center the marginalized,’ and so anyone who opposes the Black left should be marginalized as a far-right racist fringe. But they loved Black Lives Matter and their racial ‘reckoning’ in 2020. 

As news bubbled up that there were political markings on the shooter’s ammunition, on Thursday’s ‘World News Tonight’ on ABC, they took the reports of ‘anti-fascist’ and pro-transgender messaging and dumbed them down. Matt Gutman could only say law-enforcement sources found ‘a high-powered rifle wrapped in a towel, and three unspent cartridges inscribed with words and symbols. Tonight, authorities [are] working on what the markings might mean.’ 

Leftists surely found Kirk’s conservative arguments ‘polarizing’ ‘divisive,’ and ‘controversial.’ But they seem to lack any introspection inside the liberal bubbles of their ‘news’ networks. 

On Friday, authorities revealed one shell casing read: ‘Hey fascist! Catch!’ Another said ‘O bella ciao, bella ciao,’ which refers to a leftist song celebrating the end of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, but the left still uses it against the current conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. 

The news networks have spent the last 10 years wildly using terms like ‘fascist’ and ‘authoritarian’ to describe not just President Donald Trump, but Republicans and conservatives in general. By contrast, the radical left ‘Antifa’ movement has largely escaped any critical scrutiny and in recent years, the media have pretended that this is some sort of kooky invention of conspiracy theorists. 

When the network newscasts casually allow Democrats to compare Trump to Adolf Hitler and suggest he and his voters are an ‘existential threat’ to democracy, they are the ones raising national tensions. Not conservatives.

Last-minute closed-door talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats failed to prevent a ‘nuclear option’ in the upper chamber, as frustrations on both sides killed a deal to move ahead with President Donald Trump’s nominees.  

Lawmakers were inching closer to a deal that would have allowed sub-Cabinet-level nominees to be voted on in bunches, but neither side could reach a final agreement.

Senate Republicans argued that a majority of their counterparts agreed with the new proposal, but that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was still standing in the way.

‘I think the majority of Democrats are on board with it,’ Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital. ‘And Schumer is blocking it from actually having consent to come to the floor.’

The failed deal was a modified version of a proposal first unveiled by Senate Democrats in 2023, and would have allowed 15 nominees to be batched together en bloc and voted on while still requiring two hours of debate for the group.

But when Lankford brought the proposal to the floor for consideration, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, blocked it.

Schatz argued that Senate Republicans were trying to rush through the negotiating process ahead of their plan to leave Washington for the weekend.

‘What they’re asking for is unanimity, and we don’t have it,’ he said. ‘And so, if you’re interested in enacting this on a bipartisan basis, the process for doing that — It is available to you. But again, it’s more a matter of running out of patience than running out of time.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., fired back ‘how much time is enough?’

‘Give me a break,’ he said. ‘Two years. Not long enough. How about eight months? Eight months of this.’

With the prospects of bipartisan deal to move nominees through Democrats’ blockade, Senate Republicans are expected to continue down the path of the ‘nuclear option.’

That means that their initial proposal, which would allow for an unlimited number of sub-cabinet level nominees to be voted on en bloc with 30 hours of debate tacked on, is expected to pass with a simple majority, and effectively change the confirmation process in the Senate.

‘We are achingly close to doing this like adults,’ Schatz said.