U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska Dan Osborn is reportedly restructuring his campaign following complaints he has been improperly steering funds for personal use to his relatives, including his wife, who, a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleges, received funds illegally via the Osborn campaign, a web of political action committees and consulting firms. 

While paying family members is not illegal under federal election law, there are certain guidelines that must be followed, including that the services rendered are bona fide campaign services, and that they are paid at fair-market value. Fox News Digital reported last month that conservative watchdog Americans for Public Trust filed a complaint with federal election officials alleging the Osborn campaign and two political action committees were engaging in an illegal «scheme» to pay nearly half-a-dozen of his relatives. 

Osborn’s wife was among the relatives at the center of the complaint, having been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from her husband’s campaigns and his affiliated PACs, both directly and via two political consulting firms she was working for, or had an ownership stake in, according to the complaint. But, on Thursday, Osborn and his wife informed the Omaha-World Herald that she would be stepping away from her roles with the two consulting firms and would be joining her husband’s campaign as its full-time operations manager. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMPLAINT ALLEGES AOC MISUSED CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PSYCHIATRIST SERVICES

«I am not going to let Pete and his cronies dictate who runs my campaign,» Osborn told the Omaha-World Herald. «No one works harder than my wife. Along with running our household and raising our kids, she has been instrumental in running my campaign.» 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, campaign spokesperson John Dolan called the concerns about Osborn’s campaign spending «a joke.»

«Why is a billionaire like Pete Ricketts so afraid of a mechanic?» Dolan questioned, referring to incumbent GOP Nebraska Sen. Pete Ricketts, whom Osborn is challenging. «Ricketts and his allies are doing what they always do: throwing mud to distract voters from the fact that they’re getting rich while bankrupting the country.»

Osborn has been steadfast that his wife, reportedly a former bar manager, has been an instrumental part of his campaign and that payments have been in line with fair-market value rates. In some cases, Megan has gotten money directly from her husband’s campaign, and in other cases she has received it from two firms, one called Independent Campaigns LLC, which Megan has a one-third ownership stake in, and Dark Forest LLC, which official candidate disclosures show Megan gets compensation from. The firms were being paid for campaign services as well.

Just two days after Independent Campaigns was set up, Osborn’s Working Class Heroes Fund (WCHF) made its first $50,000 payment to the firm, according to the Lincoln-Journal Star. Per Americans for Public Trust’s FEC complaint, Independent Campaigns has received nearly $200,000 from Osborn’s principal campaign, WCHF and another PAC called the League of Labor Voters (LLV), which Americans for Public Trust also alleges is controlled by Osborn.

In total, per the Americans for Public Trust complaint letter, Osborn’s wife has been able to rake in close to $300,000 for herself for things like «strategy consulting» and work reimbursements.

OMAR CALLS GOP PROBE INTO HUSBAND’S $30M BUSINESS SURGE A ‘POLITICAL STUNT’ AS RECORDS DEADLINE PASSES

Meanwhile, the complaint against Osborn’s campaign also includes payments made to two of Osborn’s sisters-in-law, his brother-in-law and his daughter.

Placards for U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn are seen as he speaks during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Osborn’s daughter, Georgia, a part-time dancer who Osborn says still needs help paying her bills, was given $4,200 from Osborn’s first failed campaign that was defunct at the time. The payment came between when Osborn’s first 2024 campaign lost and before launching his 2026 bid. The money was for «assistant services» from the then-dormant campaign.

«Perhaps the Osborn family is teeming with previously undiscovered, dynastic political talent, akin to the Kennedys or Roosevelts,» states the Americans for Public Trust complaint to the FEC. «Or perhaps Mr. Osborn has realized his ability to funnel large amounts of unchecked campaign cash to his own family.»

Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn chats with attendees after speaking during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb., on Oct. 14, 2024. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

According to the Omaha-World Herald, Osborn’s wife will not only no longer be working for the consulting firms she was with previously, but would also be divesting her stake in Independent Campaigns. The outlet also reported that Osborn and his wife indicated she would be paid a salary of $8,000 per month, which is slightly lower than the $9,000 per month that Osborn said his wife was making from multiple income sources prior to beginning work with her husband’s first failed campaign in 2024.

«Dan Osborn only restructured how he pays his wife after we filed a complaint with the FEC that he was running afoul of campaign finance laws,» Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told Fox News Digital on Friday. «However, questions still remain regarding his payments to his daughter, his brother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law, and his control over two federal PACs. Rest assured, Osborn may have changed tactics, but he isn’t off the hook in his attempt to funnel campaign cash to his entire family.»

Osborn, who is running as an Independent, has also been criticized for his affiliations with Democrats despite committing to not caucusing with either major party if elected. Osborn is looking to unseat incumbent Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., after losing his 2024 challenge against Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb. 

Estados Unidos duplicará, hasta alcanzar los 40.000 millones de dólares, su compromiso de proporcionar garantías de reaseguro a los buques que transiten por el estrecho de Ormuz, con la incorporación de nuevos socios aseguradores, entre ellos AIG y Berkshire Hathaway.

Esta medida, anunciada el viernes, representa el último esfuerzo estadounidense por aliviar la preocupación por esta vía marítima vital y fomentar la reanudación del tráfico, a pesar del bloqueo iraní y la persistencia de las hostilidades en la guerra que ya dura cinco semanas.

La Corporación Financiera de Desarrollo Internacional de Estados Unidos (DFC) anunció el mes pasado un programa de reaseguro de 20.000 millones de dólares. El viernes, la agencia informó que Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Berkshire Hathaway, AIG, Starr y CNA se unirán a Chubb para aportar 20.000 millones de dólares adicionales en reaseguro para su programa marítimo.

El anuncio del viernes constituye la primera información relevante que la DFC ha revelado públicamente sobre su programa de reaseguro desde la creación del proyecto hace casi un mes. El cierre efectivo del estrecho, por donde normalmente transita aproximadamente una quinta parte del flujo mundial de petróleo y gas natural licuado, ha convulsionado los mercados y desencadenado una amplia crisis energética.

“Junto con Chubb, estas aseguradoras estadounidenses líderes aportan una amplia experiencia en la suscripción de pólizas marítimas y de guerra marítima, lo que fortalece nuestros esfuerzos para ayudar a restablecer la confianza en el comercio marítimo”, declaró Ben Black, director ejecutivo de la DFC, en un comunicado.

El viernes, Trump reiteró su frustración por el cierre del estrecho y la falta de apoyo de sus aliados para reabrir la vía marítima.

“Con un poco más de tiempo, podemos abrir fácilmente el estrecho de Ormuz, extraer el petróleo y hacernos ricos”, publicó Trump en redes sociales. No quedó claro de inmediato qué medidas estaba considerando el presidente.

Sin embargo, las navieras siguen mostrándose escépticas ante un regreso generalizado al estrecho de Ormuz, incluso después de la promesa de Trump de proteger a los buques y su discurso del miércoles en horario estelar, en el que reiteró que la guerra pronto terminará. La principal preocupación sobre el tránsito por esta ruta marítima es que pone en riesgo la vida de las tripulaciones, ya que Irán continúa amenazando a los buques con ataques de drones, misiles y minas acuáticas.

La DFC también indicó en el comunicado que la agencia y sus socios aseguradores determinarán qué buques son elegibles para el programa de reaseguro. Para calificar, la DFC exige a los solicitantes que proporcionen, entre otros datos, el país de origen y destino del buque; los principales beneficiarios finales del buque y su domicilio; el propietario de la carga y su domicilio; e información sobre las entidades financieras que financian los buques.

Recuperar la confianza de los transportistas dispuestos a transitar por el Estrecho de Ormuz es uno de los objetivos más urgentes de Estados Unidos. Los precios mundiales de la energía han aumentado debido a la escasez de una línea de suministro de petróleo esencial para los países. India, el tercer mayor consumidor de petróleo del mundo y un importante comprador de gas, se ha visto particularmente afectada por la crisis.

En Estados Unidos, los precios de la gasolina han superado los 4 dólares por galón por primera vez desde 2022, lo que agrava aún más la situación de los consumidores estadounidenses, que ya enfrentan dificultades económicas.

Si bien duplicar el compromiso de reaseguro amplía las garantías financieras, el programa aún carece de la promesa de escoltas navales que, en teoría, brindarían protección a las tripulaciones de los buques. E incluso así, podría no ser suficiente para convencer a los buques de reanudar las expediciones a través del estrecho.

“Las primas de los seguros bajarán —y la disposición de los operadores comerciales a asegurar y enviar cargamentos a través del estrecho aumentará— solo después de que se debiliten las capacidades militares de Irán», declaró Bob McNally, presidente de Rapidan Energy Group, una consultora con sede en Washington, a Bloomberg News a principios de esta semana.

(Bloomberg)

Attorneys in Colorado are claiming that the state’s court e-file system is requiring them to certify they won’t share personal information to assist ICE or federal immigration enforcement.

Multiple attorneys on X reported an electronic notification citing the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status Act, a state law passed in 2025 that prohibits collection or disclosure of information pertaining to immigration status in health care, education and government.

Covenant Law founder Ian Speir posted screenshots of an alleged electronic form that he was required to accept to access Colorado’s court filing system.

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

The page in question is not public-facing and appeared to be only accessible by attorneys registered in Colorado, Fox News Digital’s review of the website revealed.

«I certify under penalty of perjury that I will not use or disclose personal identifying information, as defined by [the act] obtained from this database for the purpose of investigating for, participating in, cooperating with, or assisting in federal immigration enforcement, including enforcement of civil immigration laws and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 or 1326, unless required by federal or state law or to comply with a court-issued subpoena, warrant, or order,» the message says, asking attorneys to «accept» or «decline.»

MINNESOTA SUES TRUMP ADMIN OVER SWEEPING IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN TWIN CITIES

«Colorado is now requiring lawyers in the state, as a condition of logging into its court e-filing system, to promise not to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing federal immigration law,» Speir said in response on X.

Speir added he doesn’t practice immigration nor criminal law, and nothing in his cases would be relevant to the law. But he «cannot log into the state’s official e-filing system without saluting ‘The Resistance’.»

DHS TORCHES NEW JERSEY’S PROFANE ‘F— ICE ACT’ AS ASSAULTS ON AGENTS SKYROCKET 1,300%

«I now cannot represent my clients, file lawsuits, access cases, file documents in existing cases,» he said, adding he chose the «accept» option «under protest.»

«The bottom line here is that Colorado seems to be unlawfully coopting private attorneys across the state to further its anti-federal sanctuary policies,» Speir told Fox News Digital later Friday.

Attorney and former law professor Matt Barber added on X that the oath the state expects lawyers to take is «indefensible.»

The announcement Barber received said the the Colorado Judicial Department deployed an «updated certification process» as of March 30 to comply with the new law.

TRUMP ADMIN SUES ILLINOIS GOV. PRITZKER OVER LAWS SHIELDING MIGRANTS FROM COURTHOUSE ARRESTS

The original implementation was paused in September amid «additional review,» the agency said in its notice.

«The majority of CCE information remains public; this requirement only impacts access to nonpublic personal identifying information as defined by statute,» the agency said in its new terms, adding that attorneys who choose to decline the agreement must complete a «brief certification» to proceed.

«Democrats going back to their Confederacy roots,» another critic quipped, citing a screenshot of the 1956 law outlining «seditious conspiracy» as opposing federal authority by force or «hinder[ing] … execution of any law of the United States.»

Fox News contributor Guy Benson added, «Big lawsuits: Now.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital reached out to the Colorado Judicial Department, Gov. Jared Polis and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for comment.

The 2025 law, authored by Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, and Sen. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, also prevents civil arrests of people present at courthouses and «military force[s]» from other states from entering Colorado without executive permission unless acting upon federal orders.

And it repeals requirements that applicants for college admission or driver’s licenses must sign an form pledging they’ve applied for lawful presence in the U.S.