Judge William Sullivan, who drew national attention earlier this month after declaring a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case, also presided over another closely watched child-killing trial that a retired Massachusetts judge says would look dramatically different if retried.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last month vacated the murder convictions of Brockton mother Latarsha Sanders, ruling jurors were improperly prevented from seeing psychiatric records central to her insanity defense and ordering a new trial.

"They ordered a new trial which will fundamentally change the way the case is going to be tried," retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu told Fox News Digital.

LINDSAY CLANCY MISTRIAL DECLARED AFTER JURY DEADLOCKS IN KILLINGS OF HER THREE CHILDREN

Sullivan, who presided over Sanders' 2022 trial and later sentenced her to two concurrent life terms without parole, has returned to the national spotlight following the closely watched Clancy trial, which ended in a mistrial after jurors deadlocked over whether Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children. Like Sanders, Clancy admitted killing her children but argued she lacked criminal responsibility because of mental illness.

"There is no doubt the defendant committed these incomprehensible crimes," Justice David Gaziano wrote for the unanimous court in Sanders' case. "The sole issue before a Superior Court jury was whether she lacked criminal responsibility."

LINDSAY CLANCY JUDGE CALLS MISTRIAL, THEN GRANTS DEFENSE ONE HOUR STAY FOR APPEAL

The justices concluded Sanders was entitled to a new trial because jurors never saw medical records documenting diagnoses and treatment of mental illness that were relevant to the only issue disputed at trial: whether she lacked criminal responsibility.

Lu said the ruling does far more than simply order another trial.

"Thousands of pages of mental health records will be admitted ... and the jury's gonna get it all," he said.

Lu cautioned against judging Sullivan's decision with the benefit of hindsight.

"The trial judge did an excellent job ... but now I'm a great Monday morning quarterback just like everybody else," Lu said, explaining that the evidentiary issue was unusually difficult before the SJC clarified the law.

Sanders admitted killing her sons, 8-year-old Edson "Marlon" Brito and 5-year-old La'Son Brito, but argued she was legally insane at the time of the attacks.

Her attorneys contended she was suffering from severe mental illness and psychosis, while prosecutors argued she appreciated the wrongfulness of her actions despite bizarre statements she made before and after the killings.

According to evidence summarized by the Supreme Judicial Court, Sanders had become consumed by conspiracy theories involving the Illuminati and expressed fears about voodoo before the killings.

After the deaths, investigators said she gave police multiple conflicting accounts before eventually telling detectives the stabbings were part of a "ritual" tied to voodoo and the Illuminati.

At trial, Sanders' defense called a clinical neuropsychologist who testified she was "grossly psychotic" at the time of the killings and suffered from a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder.

The expert based that opinion in part on thousands of pages of psychiatric treatment records from prison and a state psychiatric hospital.

Those are the records Lu said a future jury would likely hear if prosecutors pursue another trial.

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

The Supreme Judicial Court said that was an error, concluding the excluded records documented repeated observations of paranoia, hallucinations, delusional thinking and schizophrenia-spectrum diagnoses that formed the medical foundation of Sanders' defense.

Read the court's ruling:

"We hold that the exclusion of the MCI-Framingham and WRCH medical records documenting the defendant's post-arrest diagnoses or treatment of mental illness ... impermissibly stripped the sole defense 'of the medical foundation that supported it,'" the court wrote. "The defendant is entitled to a new trial."

SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS

Lu said the opinion should not be interpreted as a determination that Sanders was legally insane or wrongly convicted. Instead, he described it as the resolution of a difficult evidentiary question that changes what evidence jurors would be permitted to consider if the case is retried.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Judicial Court, Sanders' attorney, Robert Shaw, argued the trial judge's exclusion of medical evidence deprived his client of "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense," FOX 25 in Boston reported.

LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Assistant Plymouth County District Attorney Melissa Johnson countered that Sanders showed no documented psychotic behavior for months after the killings and that the records were properly excluded, the station reported.

SEND US A TIP

The justices also addressed two issues that would likely shape any future trial.

GOT A TIP?

First, they said prosecutors could refer to Sanders describing herself as "evil" because the statements were relevant to whether she appreciated the moral wrongfulness of her actions, so long as the argument remained tied to that legal issue rather than serving as a personal attack.

LISTEN TO THE NEW 'CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO' PODCAST

However, the court found prosecutors improperly suggested Sanders may have borrowed elements of her story from episodes of "Law & Order: SVU," ruling there was no evidence supporting that theory.

GET BREAKING NEWS BY EMAIL

The ruling vacates Sanders' convictions and sends the case back to Plymouth Superior Court for a new trial.

An overturned conviction does not clear Sanders of the charges, Lu said.

"It just means you have to do it all over again," he said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Sullivan, Sanders' attorney and the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office for comment.

FIRST ON FOX: A report released this week examining America’s election-law pipeline found law schools that are overwhelmingly left-leaning, leaving conservatives outnumbered in both law-school classrooms and election litigation, which has resulted in a real world effect on courtroom outcomes, the report says.

After reviewing election-law courses and faculty at all 198 ABA-accredited law schools, The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group, found that liberal professors outnumber conservative professors nearly 7-to-1.

"Among those few law schools that make election law classes available, leftist and liberal election professors outnumber right of center and conservative ones 76 to 12," the report states, adding that most of the election law centers are based in universities in blue states like New York and California.

"There are so many left-wing lawyers in election law that it creates policy outcomes, election law changes, adapts, and election integrity statutes get struck down because there's so many lawyers on the other side," PILF President J. Christian Adams told Fox News Digital.

INSIDE THE FAR-LEFT 'BREEDING GROUND' UNIVERSITIES ALLEGED WHCD SHOOTER CALLED HOME FOR YEARS

"So nobody ever studied what's going on in law schools. We just always assumed, oh, there's just so many of them, but we never asked why. So, for the first time ever, Public Interest Legal Foundation went in and quantified the election law professors in the country and figured out if they're liberal or conservative and it's overwhelming. An absolute dangerous imbalance."

PILF also examined curriculum at the top schools and characterized 70% of election-law classes as taught by professors with a left-leaning ideological bias.

The report argues that students are being trained to challenge voter ID laws, citizenship-verification requirements, redistricting maps, voter-roll maintenance and other election-integrity measures. As a result, the law school graduates then move into liberal nonprofits and major law firms that litigate those issues.

EXCLUSIVE: BAD BUNNY, MARXISM AND 'NASTY WOMEN' AMONG COURSES OFFERED AT IVY LEAGUE, ELITE COLLEGES

The report cites examples from course descriptions that include references to "voter suppression," racial and partisan gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, the Electoral College and "election subversion."

The report also highlights what it describes as ideological course offerings at several law schools, including Harvard’s "Bonobo Sisterhood" class, which examines what bonobos can teach humans about creating a society free of male sexual coercion. PILF points to election-law courses at Harvard, Michigan, UC Berkeley and other schools that address social justice, racial inequity, voter suppression, election subversion and proposals to restructure the Electoral College.

The report makes the case that the political imbalance in law schools makes its way into courtrooms across the nation. Adams, who litigated a redistricting case in Galveston County, told Fox News Digital that the left brings "a swarm of lawyers" to court, outnumbering conservatives "five, six, seven times" in some hearings.

"In that trial, it was so many lawyers on the other side, not only at the regular lawyer table, they filled the jury box," Adams said. "It was like 25 to five." Adams added that "anytime voter ID hangs in the balance, the left sends an army," while "conservatives defending election integrity just don’t have the horses."

Adams told Fox News Digital that the current political culture on campuses exacerbates the divide and that part of the solution is law schools in red states establishing election law centers.

"There’s definitely a culture on campuses that makes it hard," Adams said. "I’ve spoken at 75 law schools, and at many of them, conservatives show up as an anomaly rather than as active participants. But that’s not true everywhere."

"A lot of schools that aren’t ideologically driven still don’t have election law programs. There’s no reason almost none of the law schools in Texas should teach election law. That’s something the legislature could fix by funding an election law chair at one of the state’s public universities."

The report does not argue that every professor it identified as left-leaning advocates for a particular legal outcome or that ideology alone determines the result of election cases. Rather, PILF makes the case that the imbalance shapes the pipeline of students and lawyers entering election litigation, leaving conservative attorneys with fewer specialized colleagues, fewer academic resources and less experience to draw on when defending election-integrity laws.

The result, according to PILF, is a self-enforcing imbalance where left-leaning professors shape how students are introduced to election law, those students move into voting-rights nonprofits and major law firms, and they eventually become the attorneys challenging election-integrity laws in court.

According to report, that translates into more than just an ideological disparity on campus but a nationwide advantage in the lawyers, research and resources available to each side of election litigation.

"We can solve this problem of this dangerous imbalance in election litigation, but we have to start to solve it," Adams told Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital reached out to Harvard, UC Berkeley, and University of Michigan law schools for comment.

Critics are slamming Norway over new legislation that they say singles out Jews. The proposed law could send individuals to prison for up to three years for knowingly conducting certain forms of business with Israeli communities in the West Bank.

The proposal, introduced by Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, would prohibit the importation of goods originating in Israeli communities in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the exportation of goods to those communities. It would also restrict certain real estate transactions, construction and engineering services and investments in businesses headquartered and operating there.

Intentional violations could result in fines, imprisonment for up to three years or both, while negligent violations could carry fines, imprisonment for up to six months or both, according to Section7 of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ official consultation document.

ISRAEL’S E1 PLAN EXPLAINED: THE JERUSALEM-AREA CORRIDOR SPARKING INTERNATIONAL BACKLASH

The measure remains under public consultation, with responses due Sept. 19, and has not yet been enacted.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, condemned the proposal in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"Norway’s proposal to criminalize trade with Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria is the latest expression of their obsessive and openly hostile policy toward Israel. Instead of contributing to peace or regional stability, Norway has chosen political grandstanding, selective outrage and punitive measures against Israel. This approach damages bilateral relations, encourages rejectionism, and exposes just how detached Norwegian policy has become from the realities of the Middle East."

The Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Northern Europe Department also referred Fox News Digital to a statement it posted on X condemning the proposal.

US AMBASSADOR HUCKABEE SLAMS EXTREME GROUP OF ISRAELI SETTLERS FOR SEIZING PALESTINIAN HOMES ON WEST BANK

"Norway’s legislative proposal to criminalize trade with Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria is the latest example of the Norwegian foreign minister’s obsessive anti-Israel activism on the global stage. Norway has repeatedly chosen to sacrifice its bilateral relationship with Israel in favor of one-sided rhetoric and hostile actions that serve domestic interests, undermine efforts to reach peaceful solutions, and are completely detached from the reality in the Middle East."

In response to a request for comment from Fox News Digital, Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred the outlet to its June 19 press release announcing the proposed legislation. The release states that Israeli settlements violate international law and undermine prospects for a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and freedom.

"By proposing legally binding prohibitions, the government makes it clear that Norwegian citizens and Norwegian companies must not profit from or support activities that help sustain Israel’s unlawful settlement activity in Palestine," Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said in the release.

Eide also said the settlements contribute to "displacement, extreme violence and a situation that makes a peaceful solution impossible."

UN AGENCY ACCUSED OF HAMAS TIES SEES ANOTHER EUROPEAN NATION CUT FUNDING

The ministry cited United Nations Security Council findings and International Court of Justice advisory opinions supporting its position on the settlements’ illegality. It said the proposed restrictions would cover imports and exports, property purchases, certain property-related services and acquisitions of businesses with headquarters and production in the settlements, while safeguarding legitimate Palestinian activities and humanitarian assistance.

The proposed legislation would exempt humanitarian activities, as well as transactions the government determines have "sufficient Palestinian ties" and do not contribute to the construction, expansion or maintenance of Israeli communities.

Dag Juliussen, national director of the Norwegian branch of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, said that the exemption could permit business with Palestinian residents while criminalizing comparable transactions involving Jewish residents in the same territory.

"The bill is based on a fundamentally misguided understanding of the Middle East conflict, which in turn rests on a rewriting of history," Juliussen said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "In addition, such a law would effectively serve as a reward for terrorism and, at its core, is deeply racist toward Jews."

CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS TAKE ON ANTI-ISRAEL ‘PROPAGANDA’ FROM BIBLICAL HEARTLAND

The consultation document does not characterize the proposal as targeting Jews. Instead, it says the measure is intended to prevent commercial activity that helps maintain Israeli communities beyond the pre-1967 lines, while shielding qualifying Palestinian commerce and humanitarian assistance.

Under the proposal, exemptions would be evaluated according to the people involved who benefit from the transaction and whether the activity contributes to the construction, expansion or maintenance of an Israeli community.

Juliussen said purchasing agricultural products from Muslim, Christian, Arab or Bedouin residents could be permitted, while purchasing similar products from Jewish residents could become a criminal offense. He argued that the determining factor would effectively be the identity of the seller.

Norway formally recognized a Palestinian state in 2024 and has become one of Israel’s strongest European critics since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks of Oct. 7, 2023.

Juliussen warned that the proposed legislation would not bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace but could instead deepen divisions and encourage extremist forces in the region.

Voters aren't convinced that President Donald Trump will make good on his new promise to send eligible Americans $5,000 dividend checks if Republicans maintain their majorities in the House and Senate this midterm cycle.

The proposal, which Trump unveiled during the Republican National Committee's midterm convention in Dallas last week, has ignited a national debate over whether the payments are financially feasible — and whether they'll ever become reality.

Asked what they thought of the proposal, and whether they believed it would ever become reality, most voters were skeptical with several dismissing the idea as unrealistic while pointing to Congress, the nation's debt and previous promises they said never materialized.

A few were hopeful.

"Personally, I think it's just a publicity stunt and I don't think that it's ever gonna happen," a voter named William said when speaking with Fox News Digital.

"It'll need to go through Congress, and I don't think with the midterm elections... the possibility of that happening is just so far down the road."

TRUMP'S $5,000 DIVIDEND CHECKS WOULD COME WITH A MAJOR CATCH UNDER GOP SENATOR'S PLAN

As Fox News Digital previously reported, the dividend proposal would require congressional approval and it's unclear where the money would come from the fund the program.

Another voter was clued into the dilemma and questioned whether the federal government under it's 40.1 trillion in national debt could afford the proposal.

"I don't think we have the money for that," said Daniel from Maryland. "And I think if we did, it should be going a couple different other places than that for sure."

Liz from Alexandria, Virginia, was even more blunt, calling the idea "absolute nonsense."

"I don't believe a word that man ever says," she added in reference to Trump.

Another cited previous promises they believed had fallen short. "Last time I remember he promised a stimulus and a couple other things. None of that happened," the voter said.

The president argued the checks would be funded through tariff revenue — but with an estimated price tag of roughly $1.2 trillion, the total needed far exceeds the record customs duties the federal government has collected under Trump's tariff agenda.

TRUMP DANGLES $5,000 CHECKS AS DEBT SURGES — BUT ONLY IF GOP CAN CLEAR MAJOR MIDTERM HURDLE

Some voters said they welcomed the proposal, arguing that taxpayer dollars should go to hardworking Americans.

"I think he's limiting it to American citizens and adults who work," one supporter told Fox News Digital.

"We've given a hell of a lot of money to people who don't deserve it," they added. "It's about time hardworking citizens of America get the money they deserve."

King Charles III has drawn a firm "line in the sand" with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after sending a letter spelling out their royal standing.

The claim was made by British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex told People magazine they were "surprised" by the timing of a letter circulated by Buckingham Palace clarifying their non-working royal status.

"King Charles' narrative is decisive as he draws a line in the sand — nothing new here, no more discussion required," Chard told Fox News Digital. "I'm sure the Sussexes expected flexibility. Prince Harry may be the king's son, but he lacks power to amend and dictate the monarch's statement."

KING CHARLES III CLARIFIES PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE WILL NOT RESUME ROYAL DUTIES AFTER UK MOVE

On Sept. 7, a senior palace official reiterated that Harry and Meghan are non-working royals, according to People magazine. The letter, which was issued on behalf of the king, was said to have been shared with the Sussexes. A spokesperson for the couple said they were "a little surprised not to have been told about this in advance," the BBC reported.

Those close to the couple told People magazine they received the letter and, 20 minutes later, sent back some questions. However, they were told that the letter had already been circulated to the media.

The letter issued by the Lord Chamberlain, Richard Benyon, Lord Benyon, at the king's direction, pointed out that the couple were "private citizens" and their His and Her Royal Highness styles remain in abeyance and are not used.

WATCH: KING CHARLES CONFIRMS PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE WILL NOT RETURN TO ROYAL DUTIES

Chard told Fox News Digital the guidance made one thing clear: they "do not represent the Crown."

"There is no ambiguity about who is in and who is out," she said. "The king is protecting the institution. The public has made it clear they do not want the monarchy to be undermined or damaged by confusion. The letter's statement puts minds at rest."

"In part, yes, the monarchy can only have one voice," Chard shared. "Prince William and Princess Catherine are the future king and queen. They officially speak for the crown alongside King Charles and Queen Camilla. It's constitutional, and the crown takes precedence."

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams said there's another, more silent message the king wants to convey.

"The letter states the palace’s position, but it’s clearly intended as a put-down after the way the royals were blindsided by the Sussexes returning to Britain," he claimed.

"The Sussexes see themselves as public figures, not private citizens," he said. "So, they are ‘surprised,’ but are unlikely to alter their plans. The king was never going to debate anything with the Sussexes. The royals don’t debate, although Queen Elizabeth’s ‘recollections may vary’ is legendary."

GET ENTERTAINMENT SCOOP DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL BY CLICKING HERE

The couple relocated to Britain in August ahead of their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, starting school.

"It is well known that in January 2020 the Duke and Duchess stepped down from undertaking representative duties on behalf of The Sovereign, and are no longer working Members of The Royal Family," stated the letter, as quoted by People. "This position, distinct from the State and Royal duties undertaken by the working Royal Family, and with the personal latitude it brings the couple in respect of financial independence and protection of their privacy as they would wish, will continue to be fully respected."

"It follows that there is no change to the current status of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex," it continued. "Their styles as His and Her Royal Highness remain in abeyance and are not used. The charitable work of the Duke and Duchess is a personal matter for them both and undertaken in their private capacity. In short, their position is akin to private citizens with commercial and charitable interests."

Chard called it a "reality check" for the Sussexes.

"It shouldn’t have been a shock," she said. "The update was inevitable and warranted. Harry and Meghan unexpectedly swanned back to the U.K. and seemingly hoped to continue as if they were still working royals. The blurred lines created an air of confusion, with the majority wondering if Harry was back in the fold of the institution. The petty comment batted back from Team Sussex highlighted bruised egos."

"Allegedly the Sussexes were caught off guard. The irony when you consider Harry’s book ‘Spare,’ their Netflix documentaries and the Oprah interview catching the British royal family off guard over the years."

LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

According to People, Harry is preparing to kick off a series of charitable engagements that were planned well ahead of the couple’s return to the U.K. These events will highlight charities and causes he supports, including the Invictus Games. The next iteration of the sporting competition is taking place in 2027 in Birmingham, England.

However, Harry is already facing a rocky arrival.

On Sept. 9, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and head of the country's armed forces, announced that his country was withdrawing from the Invictus Games.

"In order not to be construed as being opposed to His Majesty King Charles III of the United Kingdom, whom we deeply revere, Uganda hereby withdraws from the Invictus Games," he wrote on X. "We shall not participate in anything that does not have His Majesty's approval."

Gen. Kainerugaba also told The Times of London, "I have factions in the Ministry of Defence that support that Harry-Meghan nonsense. I had to quash it straight away. I support the monarch. Period."

A source close to Harry went on to tell People, "They made it very clear that the reason they pulled out was a direct result of perceived guidance from the Lord Chamberlain. This was an unintended or intended consequence of the letter — and that was always going to happen. Hence the wish not to rush it out."

PUT YOUR ENTERTAINMENT KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST AND SEE HOW YOU SCORE

"The only people suffering as a result are the competitors from Uganda who would have been taking part in next year’s Invictus Games," the insider added.

British royal expert Hilary Fordwich wasn't buying it.

"Harry blaming this letter for Uganda pulling out of the Invictus Games is a ghastly move on his part," she said. "No doubt Harry and Meghan thought King Charles would accommodate their return or at least consult with them. But their expectations weren't relevant for the royals."

Royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital he believes the letter has caused more harm than good in any peace talks Harry is willing to have with his estranged family.

"My personal opinion on the decision by King Charles to make public a letter conceived by the Lord Chamberlain to reiterate that Harry and Meghan were not working royals was an act of malicious intent initiated by those intending to disrupt their return," he explained.

"The message was unjustified," said Turner. "I hope Harry and Meghan will not rise to the bait and retaliate but calmly move on."

People reported that the king remains supportive of organizations and initiatives, like the Invictus Games, that help wounded service personnel. Palace insiders also pointed out that the letter does not represent a new policy but instead reiterates the terms agreed to at the 2020 "Sandringham Summit" led by the late queen. The family meeting took place shortly before Harry and Meghan stepped back as senior working royals and moved to California.

Royal author Robert Jobson previously told The Daily Mail that "there won't be any war of words" between the king and his younger son.

"Perhaps predictably, there was an immediate response from the couple," he told the outlet. "But don’t expect to see anything similar coming from the palace. The king has no intention of being drawn into responding further."

While the Sussexes have returned to the U.K. for an extended stay, they won't resume their roles as working royals. They will live in a private, nonroyal residence outside London while maintaining their California home and a property in Portugal.

The United States produces roughly 3% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in the world. Meanwhile, China produces a whopping 45%. A Johns Hopkins study found that China supplies more than 60% of the essential components American manufacturers need for antibiotics.

That’s not just a trade imbalance, it is surrendering sovereignty.

The health of our military, our leaders, our children and our neighbors is beholden to an adversary who could weaponize not just the availability of and access to essential medications but the safety of those very products.

ROBERT F KENNEDY JR: THE FUTURE OF MEDICINE SHOULD BE BUILT IN AMERICA

We didn’t get here by accident. Decades of offshoring gutted the American industrial base and shipped critical manufacturing jobs overseas. As recently as 1981, the United States produced 25% of the world’s pharmaceutical ingredients. Today, China controls nearly half the global market. A nation that cannot make its own antibiotics and cannot stop adversary-sourced chemicals from crossing its border does not fully govern itself.

The Council on Foreign Relations called this what it is: a pharma choke point. The dependence is structural, deep and spreading from generics into advanced biologics.

CORPORATE AMERICA'S CHINA ADDICTION HAS BECOME A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT

Beijing has already shown it will weaponize supply chains. It did so with rare earths, semiconductor inputs and defense-critical metals. Why would we believe the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would treat medicine any differently in a crisis when it has the capacity to poison an entire people?

The same chemical networks that feed Chinese precursors into American pharmacies also feed the fentanyl pipeline through Mexico. Research from the University of Virginia’s National Security Data and Policy Institute describes Chinese suppliers and Mexican cartels as a singular adaptive supply chain: precursors bought cheaply online, air-shipped in bulk, converted into pills, and pushed across the border.

EXPERT WARNS CHINA ALREADY WAGING ‘UNRESTRICTED WARFARE’ AGAINST US THROUGH FENTANYL, ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE

A few thousand dollars of chemicals can buy millions of doses. The wreckage in Midwestern towns is not a mystery. It is the real-life effect of a Chinese chemical distribution system operating behind a cartel front.

Congress has rightly begun to respond. The BIOSECURE Act, signed into law in December 2025, restricts federal procurement involving biotechnology products from designated companies tied to foreign adversaries. President Donald Trump also took executive action on tariffs targeting the synthetic opioid supply chain. Those steps matter. But they don’t build manufacturing plants.

EXCLUSIVE: FENTANYL DEATHS PLUNGE 22% AS TRUMP WHITE HOUSE TOUTS CRACKDOWN ON DEADLY DRUG CRISIS

Legislation alone does not build a factory, bring jobs back and secure our nation. To effectively pry China’s grip off our supply chain, we must invest heavily in domestic producers. We need to build the manufacturing facilities here at home.

Take my home state of Ohio: the Buckeye State shows this model works. The state is already becoming a center of American semiconductor manufacturing by combining investment, infrastructure and a skilled workforce. It has the same heritage to become a national hub for pharmaceutical production. CNBC recently ranked Ohio No. 1 in the country for both business and infrastructure. Incentivize American companies to build advanced manufacturing in the Midwest and you do two things at once: create secure work and close a defense vulnerability.

SEN KEVIN CRAMER: CHINA BUILDS FOR WAR WHILE AMERICA WAITS ON PERMITS

The choice is not complicated. Invest now in American pharmaceutical capacity or pay an unimaginable price later when Beijing turns the American medicine supply into a weapon.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The border is not secure as long as Chinese chemical suppliers are arming cartels. The military is not ready as long as battlefield antibiotics are manufactured in a country we may one day fight. And the American people are not safe as long as their medicine cabinet depends on the goodwill of an adversary.

Build the plants. Bring the work home. Make medical independence a national priority.

DALLAS — While President Donald Trump will not be on the ballot for the 2026 midterm elections, the former chair of Black Voices for Trump believes Republicans can maintain the momentum gained from his major performance improvements among Black voters during the 2024 presidential race.

T.W. Shannon, a former Oklahoma state House Speaker who served last year in the second Trump administration and is now the Republican lieutenant governor nominee in his home state, says that policies "the GOP has expressed," as well as the Democratic Party's leftward lurch, will help Republicans as they continue to court Black voters.

Trump won 16% of the Black vote in the 2024 presidential election, according to a Fox News Voter Analysis, nearly double his total four years earlier.

DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB

"It's because Donald Trump has transformed the Republican Party back into the working party. You see Democrats competing for the Black vote now. Something that you used to not see at all. They didn't have to, they just took it for granted," Shannon said in a Fox News Digital interview Thursday on the sidelines of the first ever GOP midterm convention.

Shannon pointed to job creation and lowering crime rates during the second Trump administration and said, "These are things that actually benefit...Black voters and Black communities."

He then took aim at Democratic candidates backed by or aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

"Look at what....the DSA is offering, you know, we're talking about raising taxes, we're talking about doing away with the Senate... disbanding the police," he said. "These are not things that are well received in the Black community."

Democrats disagree with Shannon's assessment.

"Black Americans are going to reject Trump’s billionaires-first, cost-raising agenda at the ballot box this November and elect Democrats who are fighting to lower costs and deliver for working families," a Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

The spokesperson added that the "DNC is investing critical resources to reach, register, and mobilize Black voters across the country. While the Trump administration continues to attack civil and voting rights, we are fighting to protect the core of our democracy."

Shannon, a Lawton native who became his state's youngest and first African American House speaker in 2013, and the first member of the Chickasaw Nation to hold the office, is favored to win in November in solidly Republican Oklahoma.

He said speaking in primetime at the convention gave him a chance to stand on the "national stage."

"Any time I get a chance to tell the story about how great Oklahoma is and how great America is, I won't miss a chance to do it," he said.