Trump signals possible strikes on Iranian nuclear sites: Iran’s ‘got a lot of trouble’
President Donald Trump said it’s up in the air whether he will sign off on military strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities — comments that come as his administration weighs U.S. involvement in the growing conflict between Israel and Iran.
Trump told reporters outside the White House Wednesday that he hasn’t ruled out whether the U.S. will strike Iranian nuclear facilities, but said that the coming days or the “next week is going to be very big.”
Additionally, Trump said that Iran’s capital, Tehran, is facing a lot of problems as it seeks to come to the negotiating table after abandoning talks scheduled for Sunday.
TRUMP SAYS ‘SOMETHING’S GOING TO HAPPEN VERY SOON’ WITH IRAN AS HE PUSHES TO NEGOTIATE NUCLEAR DEAL
“Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this that Iran’s got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “And I said, why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn’t you go? I said to people, why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country. It’s very sad to watch this.”
Trump previously has said he believes that Iran was very close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, and has pushed Iran to sign a nuclear agreement. Although talks were scheduled for the U.S. and Iran in Oman Sunday, Iran withdrew Friday from the discussions.
Trump doubled down on his previous statements Wednesday asserting that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon.
TRUMP REINSTATES ‘MAXIMUM PRESSURE’ CAMPAIGN AGAINST IRAN
“This is just not a threat you can have. And we’ve been threatened by Iran for many years,” Trump said. “You know, if you go back and look at my history, if you go back 15 years, I was saying we cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon. I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
As a result, Trump told reporters he’s offered Iran the “ultimate ultimatum.”
“Maybe you could call it the ultimate — the ultimate ultimatum, right?” he said.
Meanwhile, Iran has said that the U.S. entering the conflict would mean an “all-out war.”
TRUMP’S LATEST HIRES AND FIRES RANKLE IRAN HAWKS AS NEW PRESIDENT SUGGESTS NUCLEAR DEAL
“Any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Wednesday during an interview with Al Jazeera English.
Trump has long cautioned that Iran could face military consequences if it fails to negotiate a nuclear deal, and signed an an executive order in February instructing the Treasury Department to execute “maximum economic pressure” upon Iran through a series of sanctions aimed at sinking Iran’s oil exports.
SCOTUS rules on state ban on gender transition ‘treatments’ for minors in landmark case
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a Tennessee law banning transgender medical procedures for adolescents in the state is not discriminatory, ruling 6-3 to uphold the law.
At issue in the case, United States v. Skrmetti, was whether Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which “prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow ‘a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex’ or to treat ‘purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,'” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the law question is not subject to heightened scrutiny “because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.”
“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” he said. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.”
SUPREME COURT APPEARS DIVIDED OVER STATE BANS ON GENDER TRANSITION ‘TREATMENTS’ FOR MINORS
United States v. Skrmetti was one of the most closely watched cases of the Supreme Court’s term, with potential ripple effects for ongoing legal battles over transgender rights – including bathroom access and participation in school sports.
The ruling could also serve as a legal pretext in future cases involving LGBTQ+ protections, including whether sexual orientation qualifies as a “protected class” on par with race or national origin.
“The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,” he added. “Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us … but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
All three liberal justices notably dissented in the case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a scathing dissent that cited a long history of laws discriminating against others, noting that transgender persons in the U.S. make up less than 1% of the country’s population. There are an estimated 1.3 million adults and 300,000 adolescents aged 13 to 17 who identify as transgender, according to the UCLA law school’s Williams Institute.
She noted that SB1 “expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny.”
“The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as ‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’ might justify it,” Sotomayor said, adding: “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”
“In sadness, I dissent,” she said.
SUPREME COURT FREEZES ORDER TO RETURN MAN FROM EL SALVADOR PRISON
That law in question prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to facilitate a minor’s transition to another sex.
It also targets healthcare providers in the state who continue to provide such procedures to gender-dysphoric minors – opening these providers up to fines, lawsuits and other liability.
The court’s ruling comes after many other states have moved to ban or restrict medical treatments and procedures for transgender adolescents, drawing close attention to the case.
During the December oral arguments, justices on the Supreme Court appeared reluctant to overturn Senate Bill 1, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting that state legislatures, rather than courts, are best equipped to regulate medical procedures.
Roberts noted at the time that the Constitution leaves such questions “to the people’s representatives,” rather than to nine justices on the Supreme Court, “none of whom is a doctor.”
SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRANSGENDER YOUTH TREATMENTS IN LANDMARK CASE
Justice Samuel Alito cited “hotly disputed” medical studies on the alleged benefits of such medical treatments, and told the government’s attorney that those studies “found a complete lack of high-quality evidence showing that the benefits of the treatments in question here outweigh the risks.”
“Do you dispute that?” Alito asked during oral arguments.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, however, countered that with evidence from underage individuals who were denied treatment.
“Some children suffer incredibly with gender dysphoria, don’t they? I think some attempt suicide?” she asked.
“The state has come in here and, in a sharp departure from how it normally addresses this issue, it has completely decided to override the views of the parents, the patients, the doctors who are grappling with these decisions and trying to make those trade-offs,” she said then.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on behalf of the parents of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based doctor who treats transgender patients.
The Biden administration had previously joined the petitioners in the case via a federal law that allows the administration to intervene in certain cases certified by the attorney general to be of “general public importance.”
LGBTQ+ ADVOCATES, FAMILIES SUE TRUMP ADMIN FOR ENDING FUNDING OF TRANSGENDER HEALTHCARE UNDER 19
However, the Trump administration notified the Supreme Court in February that the government would be changing its stance on the constitutionality of the law, saying the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause.
Also at issue was the level of scrutiny that courts should use to evaluate the constitutionality of state bans on transgender medical treatment for minors, such as SB1, and whether these laws are considered discriminating on the basis of sex or against a “quasi-suspect class,” thus warranting a higher level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
That was another focus of the oral arguments in December, as petitioners and respondents battled for more than two hours over the level of scrutiny that the court should apply in reviewing laws involving transgender care for minors, including SB1.
Tennessee argued then that its law can still withstand even the test of heightened scrutiny, contending in a court brief that it does have “compelling interests” to protect the health and safety of minors in the state and “in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.”
SUPREME COURT CAN TAKE MASSIVE STEP IN PREVENTING TRANS ATHLETES IN GIRLS’ SPORTS WITH HISTORIC HEARING
Speaking to reporters after oral arguments in December, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said that the Constitution “alows the states to protect kids from unproven, life-altering procedures based on uncertain science.”
The high court’s decision comes at a time when transgender rights are a hotly contested topic.
President Donald Trump cracked down on the issue almost immediately after being sworn in to his second White House term in January.
Just weeks after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order preventing biological men from competing in women’s sports.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The order, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” was signed on National Girls and Women in Sports Day. It prohibits schools and colleges that receive federal funds and are subject to Title IX from allowing transgender-identifying biological men onto women’s sports teams and into women’s locker rooms and restrooms.
The Trump administration’s policies on transgender rights have inevitably become the targets of legal challenges launched by advocacy groups, medical organizations and individuals who claim they are discriminatory.
Obama criticizes affluent liberals in speech, warns they will face tough choices
Former President Barack Obama took aim at affluent liberals on Tuesday, saying they would be “tested in some way,” unlike during his presidency, warning the crowd they would have to decide what their priorities would be.
The former Democratic president said during remarks in Hartford, Connecticut that liberals “felt comfortable in their righteousness” during his presidency because it wasn’t challenged. “You could be as progressive and socially conscious as you wanted, and you did not have to pay a price,” he said.
Obama offered no direct rebukes to current events while conversing with historian Heather Cox Richardson, according to The New York Times, only issuing veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump during his remarks. He didn’t mention the president by name once.
“You could still make a lot of money. You could still hang out in Aspen and Milan and travel and have a house in the Hamptons and still think of yourself as a progressive,” Obama said, according to the Times. “We now have a situation in which all of us are going to be tested in some way, and we are going to have to decide what our commitments will be.”
CHRIS MATTHEWS SAYS IT’S FAIR TO CALL OBAMA’S IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL A ‘JOKE’
“Now things are a little different,” he said. “You might lose some of your donors if you’re a university and if you’re a law firm, your billings might drop a little bit, which means you cannot remodel that kitchen in your house in the Hamptons this summer.”
The Times reported that Obama urged businesses, law firms, and universities to counter Trump’s policies.
The former president posted on X about immigration on Sunday, suggesting immigrants were “being demonized and treated as enemies” in the U.S.
“Thirteen years ago, my administration acted to protect young people who were American in every single way but one: on paper,” the Democrat said in a social media post.
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS QUESTION INFLUENCE OF OBAMA-ERA CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES IN PARTY’S FUTURE
“DACA was an example of how we can be a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. And it’s an example worth remembering today, when families with similar backgrounds who just want to live, work, and support their communities, are being demonized and treated as enemies,” the former president said, referring to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
The Atlantic reported on June 8 that some progressives have been frustrated by the former president’s lack of more vocal opposition to Trump.
“There are many grandmas and viewers who have been more vocal in this moment than Barack Obama has,” co-founder of the Progressive Change Institute, Adam Green, told the Atlantic.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“It is heartbreaking,” Green said, “to see him sacrificing that megaphone when nobody else quite has it.”
Rock band lead singer declares Trump voters are unwelcome ‘forever’ in fiery rant
The lead singer of the alternative rock band “The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus” told supporters supporters of President Donald Trump they are permanently banned from his shows Saturday.
Frontman Ronnie Winter made the declaration in a video posted to his band’s official Instagram page, saying, “If you voted for Donald Trump, do not come to my shows — forever, not just like these four years.”
He specifically attacked Christian Trump supporters, stating, “If you’re Christian and you voted for Donald Trump, shame on you. You are not allowed to come to my shows. I don’t want you there. Don’t come to my shows.”
FLASHBACK: BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN ENDORSES KAMALA HARRIS
Winter continued, “Do not come to my shows because you’re going to hear a lot of propaganda, and you’re going to hear like the actual words of Jesus.”
“You’re going to see a lot of acceptance from all areas of life and races, and um, you’re just going to see a lot of harmony, OK? That’s not what you’re about, OK? Don’t come. Refunds are available. Forever, don’t come. Goodbye.”
“It’s awesome that you love ‘Face Down’; it’s not for you. It’s not your song, OK? It is not your song,” Winter added, mentioning the band’s most successful song that they debuted in 2006. “The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus” last released an album in 2018.
During the clip, Winter also slammed critics who attacked his liberal beliefs in the past, telling followers he is proudly “woke,” and that woke people have been right in their predictions about the country’s decline under Trump.
“Look man, the thing about being woke is you’re awake, and once you’re awake you can never go to sleep,” he said. “Not only has nothing changed, but everything they said was going to happen – the woke people – has happened. You have done nothing but prove them right.”
KID ROCK CALLS OUT BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN’S ANTI-TRUMP RANT ON EUROPEAN TOUR, SAYS IT WAS A ‘PUNK MOVE’
Winter joins a growing list of musicians who have spoken out against Trump’s second term in recent months. Classic rock legend Bruce Springsteen had made an anti-Trump screed a fixture of his current world tour.
“In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration,” Springsteen told the crowd on multiple legs of his latest tour.
Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello said, “F— that guy,” in reference to Trump at a recent Boston music festival.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
Longtime Trump critic Neil Young wrote on his website in April that he was worried that Trump could detain him when he does his next American tour.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Officials begin excavation of mass grave containing remains of 800 babies
Irish officials have begun excavating the grounds of a former home for unwed mothers which authorities say contains the remains of around 800 babies and young children who died there.
“It’s a very, very difficult, harrowing story and situation,” Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin said Monday. “We have to wait to see what unfolds now as a result of the excavation.”
MYSTERIOUS ‘DUMPED’ BODIES OF WOMAN AND CHILD FOUND BY ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN PICTURESQUE TOWN
The former Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in western Ireland — which closed in 1961 and was run by Catholic nuns — was one of many mother-and-baby homes during the 20th century in the European country. The homes housed unmarried pregnant women as well as tens of thousands of orphans, according to The Associated Press.
Historian Catherine Corless tracked down death certificates in 2014 for nearly 800 children who died at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home between the 1920s and 1961. However, she could only find a burial record for one child, the AP reported.
ARCHAEOLOGISTS MAKE GRIM DISCOVERY AFTER FINDING ANCIENT ROMAN BUILDINGS
A mass grave was later discovered by investigators in an underground sewage structure at the home. DNA analysis found the structure contained the remains of infants and young children between the ages of 35 weeks gestation and 3 years old, according to the AP.
Family members and survivors will soon have the opportunity to view the works, according to Daniel MacSweeney, who is leading the exhumation of the infant remains.
“This is a unique and incredibly complex excavation,” MacSweeney said in a statement.
ARCHAEOLOGISTS UNEXPECTEDLY UNCOVER HUNDREDS OF SKELETONS, MEDIEVAL CHURCH BENEATH UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
Any remains recovered from the site will be analyzed and preserved by forensic experts. Identified remains will be returned to family members, while unidentified remains will be buried. The work is expected to take two years to complete, the AP reported.
The sisters who ran the former Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home previously offered a “profound apology,” acknowledging they failed to protect the dignity of the women and children that lived there, according to the AP.
In 2021, Prime Minister Martin issued a former state apology after a report found that 9,000 children died in 18 mother-and-baby homes during the 20th century in Ireland.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Daniel MacSweeney and Ireland’s National Police and Security Service, An Garda Síochána, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Patel slams ‘destructive’ Comey post after arrest in Trump assassination threats
FBI Director Kash Patel took to social media on Tuesday to condemn a former Coast Guard officer who was arrested for allegedly threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump, which Patel claimed resulted, in part, from a “destructive” Instagram post shared earlier this year by his predecessor, former FBI director James Comey.
“This is a guy who threatened President Trump’s life using the ‘86 47’ language,” Patel said of Peter Stinson, the former Coast Guard official who was charged with making threats to kill the president. Stinson, who served from 1988 to 2021 in the Coast Guard – where he held roles as a sharpshooter and FEMA instructor – will appear in federal court for the first time on Wednesday.
Stinson appears to have made multiple, graphic threats against President Donald Trump, according to court documents, including 13 references to the “86 47” message shared in a now-deleted Instagram post by former FBI director James Comey.
Comey in May posted a photo of shells arranged in the sand with the number “86 47” on Instagram. The post, which he deleted hours later, prompted backlash, including from Trump himself, and sparked at least two interviews with the Secret Service, as Comey later detailed.
COMEY CLAIMS HE HAD NO ‘DARK INTENTION’ WITH ’86 47′ SEASHELL POST, ISN’T SCARED OF TRUMP
The former FBI director has said in multiple public interviews since that he did not have any dark intentions in sharing the photo and that his wife had associated it with her time as a restaurant server to mean taking something off the menu.
According to Merriman Webster, “86” is slang that can mean “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” Trump, of course, is the 47th president.
“I regret the distraction and the controversy around it,” Comey said of the incident on MSNBC. “But again, it’s hard to have regret about something that, even in hindsight, looks to me to be totally innocent.”
Comey is not currently under investigation for the post and has said that neither he nor his wife, who was with him at the time, believed it had any nefarious meaning.
Still, the Comeys’ repeated public statements and his compliance with Secret Service personnel have done little to assuage some Trump administration officials, including Patel, who now has Comey’s former job.
“Tragically, this case was predictable,” Patel told Fox News Digital on Tuesday in regard to Stinson’s alleged threats.
FLORIDA MAN THREATENS TO ASSASSINATE TRUMP, DESTROY NEW YORK WITH MISSILES IN 911 CALLS: REPORT
“When former Director Comey first pulled his destructive Instagram stunt, it forced the FBI to pull numerous agents off of critical portfolios, taking key personnel away from important initiatives protecting the American people to deal with an overwhelming number of copycats following Comey’s lead and posting threatening messages against the president of the United States,” Patel said.
“Thankfully, law enforcement did excellent work preventing a potential violent actor, and we’ll continue to be on guard,” he added.
Stinson is a Northern Virginia resident, and while it is unclear to what degree Stinson was influenced by the Comey Instagram post or the resulting media coverage of it, court documents show that many of Stinson’s threats were posted long beforehand, including in the run-up to Election Day and during the 2024 presidential campaign.
Stinson, a “self-identified” member of Antifa, made at least one threat appearing to invoke the July 13 assassination attempt against Trump while he campaigned in Butler, Pennsylvania.
“Those secret service agents moved very slowly,” Stinson said in a post at the time. “They left him in the open way to (sic) long. A missed opportunity will not come around again. They will teach this to future agents as a failure to protect and act.”
FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTS MAN FOR THREATENING TO ASSASSINATE TRUMP AFTER REELECTION
In February, Stinson posted on his X account, “Sure. This is war. Sides will be drawn. Antifa always wins in the end. Violence is inherently necessary.”
The most recent post referenced in the document was published on BlueSky on June 11, when Stinson allegedly wrote, “When he dies, the party is going to be yuge.”
Comey did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on Patel’s remarks nor on any role that the Instagram post in question may have inadvertently played in the case.
News of Stinson’s arrest comes after a federal grand jury indicted a San Bernardino County, California, man just weeks earlier for allegedly threatening to assassinate then-President-elect Donald Trump after he was elected to a second White House term.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“This defendant is charged with threatening the life of our President – a man who has already survived two deranged attempts on his life,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time.
“The Department of Justice takes these threats with the utmost seriousness and will prosecute this crime to the fullest extent of the law,” Bondi added.
Actor sues Tyler Perry for $260M, alleges character’s survival depended on sexual favors
Tyler Perry is being sued by actor Derek Dixon for $260 million for alleged sexual assault, harassment and retaliation.
The complaint, which was filed on June 13, showed Dixon accusing Perry of creating “a coercive, sexually exploitative dynamic” while filming “The Oval” and “Ruthless.” Dixon starred in Perry’s shows as the character Dale.
The complaint, obtained by Fox News Digital, accused the filmmaker of “initially promising him [Dixon] career advancement and creative opportunities, such as producing his pilot and casting him in his show, only to subject him to escalating sexual harassment, assault and battery, and professional retaliation when Mr. Dixon did not reciprocate Mr. Perry’s unwanted advances.”
Matthew Boyd, an attorney for Tyler Perry and TPS Production Services, LLC, shared a statement with Fox News Digital.
TYLER PERRY’S LATEST DONATION AIMS TO ‘BRIDGE UNITY’ BETWEEN ATLANTA POLICE AND RESIDENTS
“This is an individual who got close to Tyler Perry for what now appears to be nothing more than setting up a scam. But Tyler will not be shaken down and we are confident these fabricated claims of harassment will fail,” the statement read.
“Tyler will not be shaken down and we are confident these fabricated claims of harassment will fail.”
Dixon said that he met Perry in September 2019 while working at the opening party of Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta. By November 2019, Perry offered Dixon a role in “Ruthless” that would “change his life,” according to the complaint.
After filming a few small scenes in Perry’s show, Dixon was asked to work at another party for the filmmaker in December 2019. At that point, Dixon accuses Perry of calling him and texting him often, demanding he give Perry “some attention.”
Dixon claims he was sexually assaulted by Perry in January 2020 and was offered a role as a series regular in “The Oval” the following month.
After reading the script for the first season, Dixon learned that his character’s fate was left up in the air by the season finale.
“Mr. Perry made it clear to Dixon that if Dixon ignored Perry or failed to engage with the sexual innuendos, Dixon’s character would ‘die’ in the next season.
“Indeed, Dixon’s character ‘Dale’ was shot four times in the chest at the end of his first season on ‘The Oval,’ and Perry always held this over Mr. Dixon’s head, implying that ‘Dale’ would survive if Dixon kept Perry ‘happy,’” the complaint stated.
After filming the scene, Dixon stated that he went to Perry’s trailer and was groped by the star. He claimed a similar incident happened during a cast trip to the Bahamas in October 2020.
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
Dixon alleged in the complaint that he visited a doctor in December 2020 who “indicated that Dixon’s exhibited severe symptoms of acute stress, insomnia, stomach issues, and dangerously low cortisol levels due to the sexual harassment and assault.”
He claims he was prescribed Zoloft, which is an antidepressant.
In June 2021, Dixon claimed that Perry invited him to his home to discuss his pilot episode for “Losing It,” which Perry had expressed an interest in producing, according to the complaint. Dixon claimed Perry sexually assaulted him during this meeting.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER
Dixon claimed over the next five months, he “suffered from severe depression, anxiety, stomach pains, and nausea” and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
After his diagnosis, Dixon said that Perry had “fixers” who came in and offered him a raise to return to “The Oval” and the filmmaker would buy the right to produce “Losing It.”
Dixon told Perry in January 2023 that he was moving to California to put “some distance” between the two of them, according to the complaint. Dixon continued to star in “The Oval” until the final season – which cost him close to $400,000.
The complaint shows Dixon suing Perry for quid pro quo sexual harassment, sexual battery, sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation and more.
The actor is requesting a jury trial and $260 million in damages.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Fast-food giant maintains iron grip on customer satisfaction amid industry changes
Americans have a lot of choices when they want to eat out, whether it be at a fast-food chain or a full-service restaurant, with customer satisfaction being a significant factor in where they go.
A new report from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI) offers insight into how brands stack up in terms of customer satisfaction.
In general, customer satisfaction with quick-service restaurants stayed the same as last year, coming in at 79 out of 100, according to the ASCI Restaurant and Food Delivery Study 2025. Of fast-food brands, Chick-fil-A notched the highest customer satisfaction score, at 83, the study said. It also ranked highest out of chicken-focused fast-food joints specifically.
SUMMERTIME FAVORITE RETURNS TO CHICK-FIL-A FOR A 16TH YEAR
The chain, which has over 3,000 locations throughout the U.S. and Canada, has now held the top spot for customer satisfaction among quick-service restaurants for 11 consecutive years.
In the overall fast-food scoring, there was a two-way tie for second-place. Panda Express and Starbucks received scores of 80, according to the ASCI. Starbucks posted a 4% jump in customer satisfaction year-over-year, the study found.
Arby’s, Panera Bread, Papa Johns and Pizza Hut, with scores of 79, were not far behind, according to the data.
The fast-food brand with the lowest customer satisfaction score in the study was McDonald’s, at 70. That was 1% lower than last year.
However, the ASCI said the company’s “new efforts to speed up R&D to drive faster technology and menu changes may reverse this trend.”
McDonald’s recently debuted McCrispy Strips on its U.S. menus and will reintroduce its fan-favorite snack wraps next month. The company has also said beverages are an area where it can see major growth.
MCDONALD’S CONFIRMS PERMANENT RETURN OF SNACK WRAPS AS MENU FAVORITE RETURNS
The full-service restaurant sector, meanwhile, had a customer satisfaction score of 82, according to the ASCI.
That marked a decrease of 2% from last year.
The ASCI said full-service restaurant customers “perceive less value and are frustrated with their carry-out and delivery experiences” but noted food and service benchmarks were still “quite high.”
Texas Roadhouse, which tied for first with LongHorn Steakhouse last year, held onto the top customer satisfaction score for sit-down restaurants this year despite a 1% drop. It scored 84.
With a decrease in customer satisfaction of 2%, LongHorn Steakhouse dropped to No. 2, receiving an 83, per the study. Darden Restaurants-owned Olive Garden, at 81, was below LongHorn.
Two brands – Applebee’s and Cracker Barrel – scored 80 for customer satisfaction, the ASCI study found.
ASCI Director of Research Emeritus Forrest Morgeson said in a statement that restaurants “can’t simply rely on their traditional playbooks anymore.”
“The brands that succeed will be the ones that adapt quickly to shifting tastes without compromising consistency or experience,” he said.
The ASCI’s study also looked at how food delivery services were faring on customer service. It found “smaller” services saw higher customer satisfaction compared to major companies such as Uber Eats, DoorDash and Grubhub.
The small services had a score of 77, two points higher than Uber Eats and five points higher than DoorDash and GrubHub.
In general, customer satisfaction for food delivery services hit 74, a 1% year-over-year increase.
WITH ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY, AMERICANS ARE SPENDING LESS ON FAST FOOD
“While prices remain the lowest-scoring part of the food delivery experience, scores have improved somewhat with fairness of food prices and fairness of taxes and service fees both up 3% to 71,” the ASCI report said, noting customer satisfaction with food delivery mobile apps and websites also made some gains.
The average total that U.S. households spend on eating out each month averages $269 per month, according to WalletHub.
Some restaurant brands have been contending with consumers eating out less and spending less when they do in recent months as economic uncertainty has factored into their decisions.
Jurors in Karen Read trial focus on lesser charge after her comments on drinking
Were Karen Read’s unorthodox media interviews a next-level strategic move from her defense?
Maybe, according to one Massachusetts legal expert following the case.
Read, 45, is accused of killing boyfriend John O’Keefe, 46, in a drunken hit-and-run Jan. 29, 2022, outside a party in Canton, Massachusetts.
After her first trial, which ended with a deadlocked jury last year, she sat down with multiple reporters to tell her side of the story, a move many legal experts have called ill-advised. But it may have a payoff because jurors appear focused on a lesser charge that she may have admitted to on video.
KAREN READ JURY QUESTIONS SUGGEST SAME LEGAL DILEMMA AS LAST YEAR’S MISTRIAL
“She was ‘testifying’ when she made those statements, knowing they could be used in court,” said Grace Edwards, a criminal defense trial attorney. “Crazy as it seems, this may have been a strategy to give the jury something to hang their hat on and find her guilty of the OUI and get this done.”
She was referring to the charge of operating under the influence, a topic jurors asked multiple questions about Tuesday during the third day of deliberations after more than 30 days of trial testimony.
KAREN READ’S VERDICT COULD COME FAST – OR NOT: HERE’S WHAT OTHER CASES SHOW
WATCH: Prosecution in Karen Read trial uses Read’s own words to dismantle defense’s theory
“That’s an interesting theory – fall on the sword for the OUI to spare her the more serious offenses,” said Randolph Rice, the Maryland legal analyst and attorney who represents the family of slain mother of five Rachel Morin. “That would be a risky play for the defense.”
Read the amended verdict slip for Count 2:
GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB
Still, he said, the common thinking is that defendants should avoid speaking to the media.
“I’m sure the Karen Read camp is feeling good right now,” he added. “Cautious optimism.”
Read the original verdict slip:
The top charge against Read, second-degree murder, could land her a life prison sentence if she’s convicted. Lesser charges include drunken driving, manslaughter and leaving a deadly accident.
WATCH: Karen Read recounts night of drinking at local bar in 2024 television interview
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
The manslaughter charge also includes additional lesser charges that jurors could find her guilty of, including operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor, which carries a much lighter sentence and doesn’t include the homicide charge.
Read did not take the stand in her own defense but spoke to reporters outside court almost every day. After her mistrial last year, she sat for numerous news and documentary interviews and even invited a magazine writer to stay at her house for a weekend.
SIGN UP TO GET THE TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan subpoenaed the unedited source material from reporters and played a handful of clips in court in front of the jury.
In one, which appeared to be related to what jurors had questions about, Read discussed spiking her own drinks in the hours before O’Keefe’s death because she didn’t think the bartender was making them strong enough.
“The drinks that they were pouring me at McCarthy’s, which was where I consumed most of the alcohol, was the weakest vodka tonic,” she said. “It tasted just like all soda water with lime, not that I need it to be a martini, but it might have a splash of vodka in it.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Jurors asked the judge four questions Tuesday, many of them focused on the OUI charge.
- “What is the timeframe for the OUI charge? 12:45 or 5 a.m.?”
- “Are video clips of Karen’s interviews evidence?”
- “Does convicting guilty on a subcharge, for example offense 2 No. 5, convict the overall charge?”
- “If we find not guilty on two charges but can’t agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?”
Jurors failed to reach a verdict by the end of the day Tuesday. Deliberations resume Wednesday morning at 9 a.m. ET.
“I still think it’s good for her right now,” Rice told Fox News Digital. “Reading between the lines, I think they can’t find the intent needed for two counts and are trying to figure out the reckless component.”
Read faces up to life in prison if convicted on the most serious charge of second-degree murder. Some of the OUI-related charges also carry multi-year penalties, Edwards said.