Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy attacked by bird live on air
The moment happened as he was broadcasting from outside the White House.
After breaking down the latest developments in the trade war between the US and China, co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked Doocy about President Donald Trump 's latest Truth Social post on the topic.
Fox's White House correspondent was midway through answering when a bird swooped into shot and momentarily landed on his head. It then proceeded to dive-bomb him before flying away.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ice chief says he will continue to allow agents to wear masks during arrest raids
The head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) said on Sunday that he will continue allowing the controversial practice of his officers wearing masks over their faces during their arrest raids. As Donald Trump has ramped up his unprecedented effort to deport immigrants around the country, Ice officers have become notorious for wearing masks to approach and detain people, often with force. Legal advocates and attorneys general have argued that it poses accountability issues and contributes to a climate of fear. On Sunday, Todd Lyons, the agency's acting director, was asked on CBS Face the Nation about imposters exploiting the practice by posing as immigration officers. 'That's one of our biggest concerns. And I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks,' Lyons said. 'However, if that's a tool that the men and women of Ice to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it.' Lyons has previously defended the practice of mask-wearing, telling Fox News last week that 'while I'm not a fan of the masks, I think we could do better, but we need to protect our agents and officers', claiming concerns about doxxing (the public revealing of personal information such as home addresses), and declaring that assaults of immigration officers have increased by 830%. While data from January 2024 to June 2024 does show 10 reported assaults on Ice officers compared to 79 during the same period last year, those six months have also seen Ice agents descend in record numbers on streets, businesses, farms and public spaces, rounding up and detaining mostly Latino people as part of a massive Trump administration push to rid the US of as many as 1 million immigrants every year. Videos have flooded social media showing Ice agents wearing masks over their faces, detaining people without immediately identifying themselves, refusing to answer questions or explaining why people are being detained, and pushing them into unmarked cars with tinted windows. 'I do kind of push back on the criticism that they don't identify themselves,' Lyons said. 'Men and women of Ice, and our DoJ partners, and local law enforcement partners who do help us are identified on their vest.' The interview was described as the first major network sit-down at Ice headquarters in Washington. As well as the tens of thousands of arrests, there have been several reported cases of masked criminals posing as Ice officers, such as a man in Raleigh, North Carolina accused in January of kidnapping and raping a woman, threatening to deport her if she didn't comply, or a man in Brooklyn attempting in February to rape a 51-year-old woman. In April 2025, a Florida woman posed as an immigration officer to briefly kidnap her ex-boyfriend's wife from her job. Ice agents have also been reported to overstate assaults, such as in New York City mayor candidate Brad Lander's arrest by immigration officers, where Lander was accused of assaulting officers despite charges being dropped later that day. Critics say using a mask allows Ice agents to obscure accountability and avoid transparency for their actions. 'The use of masks is one among a panoply of legal issues presented by the administration's recent actions against immigrants and visitors (and some citizens) but a significant one that can – and should – be immediately addressed and remedied,' said the New York City Bar Association in a statement on the practice. A coalition of 21 state attorneys general, including New York's Letitia James, wrote to Congress last week urging it pass legislation prohibiting 'federal immigration agents from wearing masks that conceal their identity and require them to show their identification and agency-identifying insignia'. In California, state legislators last month proposed the No Vigilantes Act, which would require federal agents to provide identification, including their last name and badge or ID number. 'We have a Los Angeles Police Department that has to deal with crime in this city every single day – and they're not masked, and they stay here,' said the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, in a Sunday interview with ABC News. 'I don't think you have a right to have a mask and snatch people off the street.'
Spectator
18 hours ago
- Spectator
Inside the Lords battle on foreign media ownership
After a two-year impasse, the future of the Daily Telegraph could be resolved shortly. A £500m deal has been struck for US firm Redbird Capital to take control of the Telegraph Media Group, with state-backed Abu Dhabi investment vehicle IMI among investors. But a fresh challenge has arisen in the House of Lords. Peers are threatening to block minister's efforts to change the law to give foreign companies a greater stake in British media outfits – up from the existing five per cent to 15 cent. This is a necessary legal change to allow the Telegraph sale to go ahead. A 'fatal motion' will be held in the Lords on Tuesday; if passed, it would kill the government's plans. It is a device seldom wielded by peers, having been last used in 2012. But opponents are growing increasingly confident that the 'fatal motion' could succeed. Two separate fronts have opened up in the Lords. The first is led by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Fox, who tabled the motion. Lib Dem whips are understood to be pulling out all the stops to maximise turnout, including facilitating the attendance of their older peers who do not vote regularly. Their argument is simple: the power of the free press should not be sold to overseas companies susceptible to foreign government influence. The hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. The second front is led by the cross-party Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac) and its supporters like Lord Alton. Their focus is more directly on the Telegraph sale. Sir Iain Duncan Smith has written to Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, arguing that a Foreign State Intervention Notice (FSNI) be issued in this case. A legal opinion by Tom Cross KC details alleged links between Redbird Capital's chairman John Thornton and the Chinese state, including his advisory roles on Beijing's sovereign wealth fund. Sir Iain argues that this is compelling evidence for Nandy to 'adhere to your statutory duty and issue a FSIN without delay.' Both groups are seeking to influence their colleagues across the House. Given the government's lack of a majority, the hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. Tory whips are expected to vote against the fatal motion, though their colleagues will not be whipped to follow suit. Lord Forsyth, the respected chair of the Association of Conservative Peers, is expected to vote for the motion; others will likely follow his lead. One opponent notes that the Conservatives voted for fatal motions that successfully halted government legislation when they were last in opposition before 2010. A separate 'motion of regret' has been put down by Baroness Stowell, the former Leader of the House. Some supporters of the fatal motion fear it could frustrate their efforts, with wavering peers potentially voting for Stowell's amendment rather than Fox's. The government will argue that a statutory instrument can close the loophole whereby multiple states can each own 15 per cent of any publication. But their critics will counter that this is insufficient and will not stop the Telegraph deal from going ahead.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
JD Vance visited Murdoch ranch one month before Epstein revelations
JD Vance made a trip to Rupert Murdoch 's Montana ranch one month before his newspaper published that Donald Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein a salacious birthday card. The vice president spoke with the 94-year-old media mogul, his son Lachlan Murdoch and a group of other Fox News executives at the $280 million estate on June 11, sources told the Associated Press around the time of the visit last month. The exact nature of the meeting and Vance's conversation with the group was not disclosed - but it appeared to be brief. Murdoch and other top executives are known for hosting powerful politicians across the summer at their sprawling estates. According to flight restrictions issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, the vice presidential aircraft, Air Force Two, was only on the ground for a matter of hours. It landed in Butte – which is approximately 70 miles from the Murdoch ranch – around 2.30pm, according to NBC Montana. Murdoch bought the 340,000-acre Beaverhead cattle ranch from the billionaire Koch family, which had owned the property for 70 years, in 2021. The ranch, located near Yellowstone National Park, is one of the largest in the state, and has a nearly 28-mile long private trout fishing river and is populated by elk, antelope and mule deer. After the Murdoch meeting, the vice president and his wife, Usha, then took a hike, Montana State Auditor James Brown, who helped plan the trip, told Montana Talks. Air Force Two then departed shortly after nightfall, an airport source told Politico's West Wing Playbook. Murdoch and his media organization have long been friendly with Republicans and the Trump administration. He appeared at Trump's inauguration and was spotted earlier this year in the Oval Office. However, their relationship has appeared to have soured and Trump launched a blistering attack on Murdoch's newspaper the Wall Street Journal. One month after Vance's mysterious meeting, the Journal reported that Trump sent Epstein the card in 2003 as part of a collection collated by Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump has furiously denied the allegations and hit the newspaper and its owner with a $10 billion lawsuit. Trump's lawsuit, obtained by shows the libel suit filed in the Southern District of Florida against WSJ, Dow Jones, Rupert Murdoch and the paper's reporters who published the story in what Trump called a 'powerhouse' suit on Truth Social. Trump is requesting a jury trial and is suing 'for damages, punitive damages, court costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, not to be less than $10 billion dollars.' A bombshell report in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday claimed Trump wrote a 'bawdy' 50th birthday card to Epstein, which concluded: 'Happy Birthday - and may every day be another wonderful secret.' The newspaper said it had reviewed a typewritten letter bearing Trump's signature, framed by the seemingly hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, that Ghislaine Maxwell included in a 2003 birthday album. In the text, the paper claimed Trump wrote: 'We have certain things in common, Jeffrey' and that both of them know that 'there must be more to life than having everything.' The message is said to have included an X-rated drawing of a naked woman, with Trump's famous signature squiggle written across her genitals to mimic pubic hair. According to the Journal, the naked woman appeared to have been hand-drawn with a marker, with a pair of arcs indicating the woman's breasts and a squiggly signature reading 'Donald' appearing in her pubic region, mimicking hair. 'I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women,' Trump told the WSJ. 'It's not my language. It's not my words.' Trump has denied writing the letter or drawing the picture, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory.' The Wall Street Journal bombshell, which Trump thoroughly denounced on social media, comes amid major MAGA outrage over a DOJ and FBI report published last week indicating no further Epstein-related files will be released. Since then, Republicans in Congress have faced pressure from their constituents to force the DOJ to release the files and conservative influencers have been pressuring lawmakers to act.
