President Biden will win the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, the Fox News Decision Desk projects.

Biden will claim victory solely from write-in-ballots after failing to file in the state last year.

No delegates will be allocated Tuesday night as the primary is unsanctioned, but the Democratic National Committee is expected to review the matter down the line.

Biden is projected to defeat his Democrat rivals, including Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who is likely to finish in double digits, and self-help author Marianne Williamson.

Phillips entered the race calling for a ‘new generation of leaders.’ 

Biden’s victory is a symbolic one. Because of the dispute between the DNC and New Hampshire over which states should vote first, there will be no delegates on the line tonight.

Democrats in the state launched a write-in campaign in an attempt to prevent an electoral embarrassment for the president as he runs for a second term in the White House.

Biden, last year, proposed a nominating calendar for the 2024 election cycle that would move New Hampshire from its first-in-the-nation standing and replace it with South Carolina — a much more diverse state that Biden won in a landslide in 2020. That win ultimately catapulted him to the Democrat nomination and eventually the White House.

In the 2020 New Hampshire Primary, though, Biden came in fifth place.

But New Hampshire ignored the proposal and moved its primary up, in accordance with a state law that mandates its presidential primary be held seven days ahead of a similar contest.

That move put the state out of compliance with the Democratic National Committee, which resulted in Biden’s move to not file to place his name on the ballot.

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

FIRST ON FOX — Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is urging the Supreme Court not to buy into arguments from Big Tech platforms that they should have First Amendment freedom to censor user content while simultaneously demanding legal protection from content posted on their platforms. 

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a set of cases that question whether state laws that limit Big Tech companies’ ability to moderate content on their platforms curbs the companies’ First Amendment liberties.

The Missouri Republican filed a brief in the cases Tuesday, arguing the platforms want to keep liability protections granted by Congress for content on their sites, while simultaneously asking for unfettered ability to censor content, citing their First Amendment liberties.

The court ‘should not bless the platforms’ contradictory positions, much less constitutionalize them,’ Hawley argued, adding that ‘doing so would effectively immunize the platforms from both civil liability in tort and regulatory oversight by legislators.’

The cases before the high court originate from separate laws that passed in Florida and Texas that would require large Big Tech companies like X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook to host third-party communications but prevent those businesses from blocking or removing users’ posts based on political viewpoints. 

A federal appeals court had ruled for the tech industry in the Florida case, saying, as private entities, those companies were ‘engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate the content that they disseminate on their platforms.’ But the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of a similar law in Texas, creating a circuit split on the issue ripe for the nine justices to take up. 

Hawley in his brief explains that, in the 1990s, following the advent of the internet, Congress and the courts needed to square the longstanding principle in American publication law that ‘individuals who play an active role in disseminating others’ speech are liable for any unlawful harm that speech causes.’

The result was Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly insulates platforms from civil liability for hosting user-generated content. 

‘At the time, Section 230 was justified on the theory that platforms could not exercise publisher-level control over the speech generated by third-party users,’ Hawley said.

‘Despite decades arguing for this position, today the tech platforms take precisely the opposite line. They claim that their content hosting and curation decisions are in fact expressive — expressive enough that they enjoy First Amendment protection,’ the lawmaker’s brief states. 

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Hawley charged that the social media giants ‘always have some excuse as to why the law doesn’t apply to them.’

‘It doesn’t matter that they’ve made exactly opposing arguments in court. They don’t care about that. All they care about is preserving their ability to control speech and censor at will,’ he said. 

The platforms told the Supreme Court state laws in Florida and Texas ‘openly abridge’ their ‘First Amendment right to exercise editorial judgment over what content to disseminate on their websites via requirements that are speaker-based, content-based, and viewpoint-discriminatory.’

But Hawley says the platforms’ argument ‘completely undercuts the logic of Section 230,’ which the platforms have long sought to keep in place despite bipartisan pressure to repeal all if not some of that statute. 

‘Extending an historical blanket immunity to this sector will have real-world consequences. To invoke a frighteningly realistic hypothetical, nothing could stop a web platform’s algorithm from promoting content designed to addict and harm young people,’ Hawley wrote in his brief. 

‘Take, as an example, content promoting eating disorders (a shockingly common phenomenon on modern social media). Companies could choose to affirmatively undermine the mental and physical health of America’s youth, while enjoying the protections of Section 230. While teens starved and parents looked on, no private action would lie. And then, when the government stepped in, the platforms could simply invoke their First Amendment immunity. Promoting eating disorders could be, after all, an editorial choice,’ he argues. 

‘Nestled in a comfortable fissure between legal doctrines, the platforms could look on as their algorithms — or affirmative curation decisions — devastated a generation,’ he added. 

The court will hear arguments in the cases, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice LLC v. Paxton Feb. 26. 

Two top White House advisers are headed to President Biden’s re-election campaign, where they’ll play key roles in the effort to secure a second term for Biden, Fox News has confirmed.

Strategists Jen O’Malley Dillon and Mike Donilon will leave their posts in the White House in the coming weeks, as the Biden campaign begins to ramp up for a likely general election rematch with former President Donald Trump.

The move comes amid grumblings for months among many top Democrats about the way the Biden re-election effort was being run, with decisions being made at the White House and carried out by campaign officials based in Wilmington, Delaware.

O’Malley Dillon, who steered Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign and is currently White House deputy chief of staff, will steer the organizing and execution of the 2024 campaign’s path to the 270 electoral votes needed to secure re-election.

Donilon, a senior White House adviser and longtime Biden aide, is expected to play a central role in the campaign’s messaging and paid media strategy.

Current Biden re-election campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez is expected to maintain her role. 

The moves, first reported earlier Tuesday by the New York Times, are seen as an effort to bolster the campaign with the general election campaign soon to commence.

‘Mike and Jen were essential members of the senior team that helped President Biden and Vice President Harris earn the most votes in American history in 2020, and we’re thrilled to have their leadership and strategic prowess focused full-time on sending them back to the White House for four more years,’ Chavez Rodriguez said in a statement.

A new Defense Department inspector general report reveals that a little-known in-house pharmacy at the White House erroneously dolled out prescription medications to staff and wasted $750,000 in taxpayer money.

One former pharmacy staff member told investigators that a doctor once asked if the staffer could ‘hook up’ someone with a controlled substance ‘as a parting gift for leaving the White House.’

The report, according to an article in Stat News, revealed that the pharmacy office dispensed controlled medications like Ambien and Provigil without verifying the patient’s identity.

Stat reported that in an office in the White House there was a sign that read ‘Pharmacy,’ but the people in charge of it insisted it wasn’t actually one.

The investigation, which was published this month, was conducted by the Department of Defense’s independent Office of the Inspector General as the White House pharmacy is run by the White House Military Office and its associated medical unit. 

The probe was prompted by internal complaints the DOD received in 2018 about a senior military medical officer, who is not named, engaging in ‘improper medical practices.’ It covers only activity in the office through early 2020 under the Trump administration, but investigators interviewed staffers who also worked there under former President Obama, according to Stat.

According to the report, the ‘pharmacy’ let people grab over-the-counter medicines from open bins.

It also found that a larger affiliate of the office inappropriately covered care for a whole host of personnel who weren’t eligible, costing more than $750,000 in wasted taxpayer funds in just three years. Stat notes that even that number is ‘fuzzy’ because so many records were poorly kept and even handwritten.

‘If this had been a traditional pharmacy, they certainly would have been cited by their state board of pharmacy,’ Douglas Hoey, CEO of the National Community Pharmacists Association, told the outlet. ‘And there’s probably even an outside chance that they’d be shut down by their state board of pharmacy, if this was a pharmacy operating outside of the cocoon of the White House.’.

A massive arched monument that stood in North Korea for more than 20 years and symbolized the goal of reconciliation with South Korea has been demolished weeks after Kim Jong Un ordered it to be destroyed, according to a report by NK News, an online outlet that monitors North Korea.

The concrete straddled monument, known as the ‘Arch of Reunification,’ opened in 2001 to commemorate Korean reunification proposals put forward by former leader and dictator Kim Il Sung. At 100 feet high and 300 feet wide, it towered over the multi-laned Reunification Highway leading from Pyongyang to the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and consisted of two Korean women in traditional dress holding an emblem of the entire Korean Peninsula, symbolizing the North and the South.

But satellite imagery of Pyongyang on Tuesday showed that the monument had been destroyed. It is unclear when or how it was brought down, and it was last seen standing in an image taken on Jan. 19, NK News reports.

Reuters and Fox News could not independently confirm that the monument, known officially as the ‘Monument to the Three-Point Charter for National Reunification,’ had been demolished. The three charters were self-reliance, peace and national cooperation, according to South Korean government records.

Kim called the monument an ‘eyesore’ in a speech at the Supreme People’s Assembly on Jan. 15, where he ordered that the constitution be amended to say the South was a ‘primary foe and invariable principal enemy,’ official media said.

He ordered it be ‘completely removed… to completely eliminate such concepts as ‘reunification,’ ‘reconciliation’ and ‘fellow countrymen’ from the national history of our Republic,’ NK News reports.

The move indicates a further deterioration of relations between the two countries. 

Kim also asked authorities to block all channels of north-south communication along the border, including physically and completely cutting off the railway tracks ‘to an irretrievable level,’ the publication reports.

Tensions have spiked on the Korean peninsula following intensifying military maneuvers by South Korea and the U.S. in response to weapons testing by the North, which said it was readying for a ‘nuclear war’ with its enemies.

Asked if North Korea appeared to be changing its posture on conflict with the South, White House spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Tuesday, ‘We’re watching this very, very closely.’

‘I would just tell you that we remain confident that the defensive posture that we’re maintaining on the peninsula is appropriate to the risk,’ he added.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, who took office in 2022, has taken a hard line against the North, calling for immediate and tough responses to North Korea’s military actions that have raised tensions on the Korean peninsula.

North Korea claims it has produced nuclear-capable underwater drones designed to destroy naval vessels. It has also been escalating missile tests and threats, with South Korea calling on the U.N. Security Council to address the situation. 

North Korea has vowed to ‘wipe out’ South Korea if attacked by the South and U.S. forces. Late last year, the North declared as no longer valid a key agreement signed with the South in 2018 aimed at de-escalating military tensions.

Reuters contributed to this report.  

Kevin Morris, a lawyer and close friend of Hunter Biden, confirmed to lawmakers that he still holds a stake in a Chinese private equity firm that he took over from the president’s son. 

Morris, who has been dubbed Hunter’s ‘sugar brother’ for loaning him millions of dollars to pay off back taxes and other bills, told lawmakers on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees last week that he still holds a 10% stake in the Chinese private equity firm Bohai Harvest RST LLC (BHR). Morris initially acquired the shares after purchasing Skaneateles LLC, a company that Hunter had previously owned, in the fall of 2021 as pressure mounted for Hunter to divest.

In a transcript reviewed by Fox News Digital, Morris invoked attorney-client privilege when asked how ‘it came up that he would purchase Skaneateles,’ but said he eyed BHR because he thought it would be a promising investment. However, during the interview, he claimed he couldn’t recall ‘exactly what [the investments] were,’ but said he remembers ‘going through them’ and thought they were ‘infrastructure’ related.

‘I did the transaction because, you know, I evaluated it as a businessman, and I thought it was something that could be a very successful investment,’ Morris said. ‘I — you know, but I did diligence on the assets. I knew what — I knew what Hunter paid for it in the beginning, and I saw, and I still see upside.’  

Morris, who stated he purchased Skaneateles for $157,000, was then pressed on only paying that amount for the 10% stake in the Chinese equity firm. 

‘Look, I am going to do the best I can, okay? Morris responded. ‘I thought it ended up being 157 in cash. There was also a payment in there for — there was a $250,000 payment for a loan. I can’t remember if that’s part of that transaction, but if it is — that’s what it does — and whatever the — I believe those two were combined for the purchase price.’

Morris said he has not received any payout from BHR since he purchased Skaneateles in 2021.  

Before Morris took over the BHR shares, Hunter Biden continued owning a stake in the firm after his father pledged in October 2019 to keep his family free of foreign entanglements if he was elected president.

‘No one in my family will have an office in the White House, will sit in on meetings as if they are a cabinet member, will, in fact, have any business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or a foreign country,’ now-President Biden said at the time, despite Hunter reportedly living at the White House for an unknown amount of time and participating in official White House events, including state dinners and an official trip to Ireland. Other Biden family members have also visited the White House throughout his administration.

During the 2020 campaign, now-White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates, who was a spokesperson for the Biden campaign at the time, took a shot at the Trump campaign in April 2020, calling the campaign’s communications director Tim Murtaugh a ‘liar.’ 

‘When it was announced that Hunter Biden would be quitting the board of a Chinese equity firm, lots of news outlets credulously reported it,’ Murtaugh tweeted, quote-tweeting a report about Hunter still being listed as a director and owning a 10% equity stake in BHR. ‘Six months later, records indicate that Hunter has not, in fact, quit. Will the mainstream media be following up?’

Bates, who would later be implicated in the ‘Russian disinformation’ narrative to discredit Hunter Biden’s laptop, then responded to Murtaugh while quote-tweeting a Washington Post ‘fact checker’ sharing a screenshot of a letter dated the same day as the tweet, which appeared to show BHR CEO Jonathan Li confirming to Hunter’s lawyer that Hunter was no longer an ‘unpaid director’ as of October 2019.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House to inquire whether Bates was aware that Hunter still held his stake in BHR when he attacked the Trump campaign regarding Hunter’s involvement with BHR, but he did not respond. 

In late December 2020, Hunter still owned the shares in BHR less than a month before his father took office. In November 2021, Chris Clark, who was a lawyer for Hunter at the time, told The New York Times that Hunter ‘no longer holds any interest, directly or indirectly, in either BHR or Skaneateles.’

The Washington Free Beacon reported in 2023 that Hunter’s stake in the Chinese private equity firm had moved to Morris after he had purchased Skaneateles.

Hunter previously sat on the Chinese firm’s board — whose financial backers include the Bank of China — before announcing in October 2019 that he would be stepping down over mounting scrutiny of his father’s presidential bid.

In December 2013, Hunter traveled with his dad on an Asia trip, which included China as a stop, and introduced him to Li in the lobby of the hotel where the U.S. delegation was staying. A recent closed-door interview with Hunter’s former business partner, Devon Archer, revealed that the elder Biden would have coffee with him too during the visit. Less than two weeks later, Hunter would enter into a joint-venture called BHR Partners, a Beijing-backed private equity firm controlled by Bank of China Limited.

Hunter initially invested $420,000 in BHR in October 2017 through Skaneateles. His interest in the company spiked to an estimated $894,000, according to a March 2019 email from his former business partner, Eric Schwerin.

Morris told lawmakers he did not know whether Hunter could buy back BHR in the future.

Following Morris’ interview with lawmakers, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer released a statement expressing concern about the lawyer’s financial support for his own client. Comer claimed that Morris’ actions raised ethical concerns, noting the millions of dollars the lawyer had previously loaned to Hunter.

‘Shortly after meeting Hunter Biden at a Joe Biden campaign event in 2019, Kevin Morris began paying Hunter Biden’s tax liability to insulate then-presidential candidate Joe Biden from political liability. Kevin Morris admitted he has ‘loaned’ the president’s son at least $5 million,’ Comer said. ‘These ‘loans’ don’t have to be repaid until after the next presidential election and the ‘loans’ may ultimately be forgiven.’

‘Since Kevin Morris has kept President Biden’s son financially afloat, he’s had access to the Biden White House and has spoken to President Biden,’ he added. ‘This follows a familiar pattern where Hunter Biden’s associates have access to Joe Biden himself. As we continue more interviews this month and the next, we will continue to follow the facts to understand the full scope of President Biden and his family’s corruption.’

Morris said that while he did loan Hunter money, the two consulted counsel on the transactions and that he is ‘confident’ Hunter will repay him. In addition, Morris denied ever believing the president or his administration would give him anything in return for the loans, saying his ‘only goal’ was to help a friend and that there is no prohibition against that.