How to Know if Your Leftover Chicken Is Safe to Eat
Leftover cooked chicken can be safe to eat if it is handled and stored properly. The main risk comes from the “temperature danger zone,” which is between 40°F (4°C) and 140°F (60°C). In this range, bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli can multiply quickly. Cooked chicken should not sit out for more than 2 hours, or just 1 hour if the surrounding temperature is hot.
Even if the chicken looks or smells fine, it may still contain harmful bacteria or toxins that reheating cannot remove. These bacteria can cause serious foodborne illness, so caution is essential. To keep leftover chicken safe, refrigerate it as soon as possible—ideally within 2 hours of cooking. In hot weather, it is best to refrigerate even sooner to reduce the risk of bacterial growth.
Store the chicken in shallow, airtight containers so it cools quickly and evenly. Leftover chicken can be kept safely in the refrigerator for 3–4 days. For longer storage, freezing is a good option, as it preserves the chicken for weeks without compromising safety. When reheating, make sure the chicken is steaming hot all the way through.
This helps kill most bacteria, although it cannot remove toxins that may have already formed. Always check for signs of spoilage such as unusual odor, slimy texture, or discoloration before eating. Bottom line: if you are ever unsure about the safety of leftover chicken, it is always safer to throw it out. Following proper storage, refrigeration, and reheating practices will help minimize the risk of foodborne illness and ensure that your chicken remains safe and enjoyable to eat.
Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory In Foreign Aid Fight
Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory In Foreign Aid Fight
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow the federal government to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid payments that President Trump tried to cancel last month using a rare “pocket rescission.”
The justices voted 6-3 to grant the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, which stopped a lower court’s order to release the funds that had already been set aside.
A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said, “This is a huge win for restoring the President’s power to carry out his policies. Left-wing groups can no longer take over the president’s agenda.”
Most of the justices agreed that “the harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.” The Post said that the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and Global Health Council are some of them.
The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t answer the bigger question of whether President Trump has the power to “impound” money that Congress has approved on his own.
Trump recently told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he was going to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid. This included $3.2 billion in programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations.
The request, called a “pocket rescission,” was sent to Congress so close to the end of the fiscal year on September 30 that it would automatically go into effect, no matter what Congress did.
It is the first time in almost fifty years that a president has done this.
The funding in question had been designated for nonprofit organizations currently suing the Trump administration, as well as for foreign governments.
A U.S. District Judge named Amit Mehta Ali, who was appointed by Biden, said earlier this month that the administration could not keep the money without Congress’s approval of the proposal to cancel it.
Ali wrote, “So far, Congress has not responded to the President’s proposal to rescind the funds.” “And the [Impoundment Control Act] makes it clear that it is congressional action, not the President sending a special message, that ends the previous appropriations.”
The nonprofit groups that are fighting the Trump administration’s funding freeze said that the pocket rescission broke federal law and put important, life-saving programs abroad at risk.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the majority ruling on Friday.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on Monday that will decide whether President Donald Trump can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. This case could change the definition of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies.
The justices said in a short order that Trump could fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case is still going on. The stay that lets her go will stay in place until the court makes a decision, which is set for December.
The case asks if laws that protect FTC commissioners from being fired violate the separation of powers and if the court’s 1935 decision to uphold those protections should be changed. It will also look into whether lower federal courts can stop removals, like they did when Trump fired Democratic appointees.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who are on the left side of the high court, disagreed. Kagan wrote that the order effectively gives the president “full control” over independent agencies that Congress wanted to keep out of politics.
“He can now fire any member he wants, for any reason or no reason at all,” says the majority, even though Congress said otherwise. She wrote, “And he may do this to end the agencies’ independence and bipartisanship.”
BREAKING NEW: Bret Baier cuts into live broadcast with urgent update on Trump
BREAKING NEW: Bret Baier cuts into live broadcast with urgent update on Trump
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dramatic and unexpected moment that immediately captured national attention, Fox News interrupted its regular live programming to deliver an urgent announcement concerning former President Donald Trump.
The sudden break-in left viewers across the country momentarily stunned and sparked widespread discussion across social media and political circles.
A Sudden Interruption
The interruption occurred during a routine live segment when the network abruptly cut away from its scheduled broadcast. Veteran anchor Bret Baier appeared on screen, signaling the significance of the moment with a composed yet serious tone. Baier informed viewers that the network had just received important information related to Trump, emphasizing the urgency and relevance of the development.
While the initial announcement was brief, the gravity of the interruption suggested that the update carried substantial political or legal implications. Such unscheduled cut-ins are rare in modern broadcasting and are typically reserved for events of major national importance.
Immediate Public Reaction
Within minutes, the news spread rapidly across social media platforms, with hashtags related to Trump and Fox News trending nationwide. Supporters of the former president expressed anticipation and optimism, while critics called for additional context and verification. The interruption underscored Trump’s enduring influence on the American political landscape, even outside of formal office.
Media analysts noted that the swift public response highlighted the continued polarization of U.S. politics. Any major update involving Trump tends to generate intense interest, reflecting his central role in shaping contemporary political discourse.
Potential Implications
Although the precise details of the announcement were still emerging at the time of the broadcast, experts suggested several possible areas the update could involve, including:
Legal Developments: Ongoing court proceedings or judicial decisions.
Political Strategy: Announcements related to campaign activities or endorsements.
Policy Statements: New positions on domestic or international issues.
Organizational Changes: Shifts within political or media alliances.
Regardless of the specific nature of the news, the decision by Fox News to interrupt its programming indicated that the development was considered highly significant.
Trump’s Continued Political Influence
Since leaving the White House, Donald Trump has remained a dominant figure in American politics. His statements and actions continue to shape the direction of the Republican Party and influence national conversations. Political strategists argue that moments like this demonstrate his ability to command media attention and mobilize public engagement.
The relationship between Trump and Fox News has also been closely observed over the years. While generally aligned in reaching conservative audiences, the dynamic has experienced periods of both cooperation and tension, making any major announcement involving the two particularly noteworthy.
Media Practices and the Significance of Breaking News
Breaking into live programming is a longstanding journalistic practice used to inform the public about urgent and consequential events. Such interruptions signal to viewers that the information being delivered is both timely and significant. In this case, the network’s decision reinforced the perceived importance of the announcement and its potential national impact.
Media experts emphasize that while immediate reporting is essential, audiences should also look for follow-up coverage and official confirmations to fully understand the context and implications of the news.
Looking Ahead
As additional details continue to emerge, political observers anticipate further analysis regarding how the announcement may influence upcoming political developments. Whether the update pertains to legal matters, campaign strategy, or policy initiatives, it is likely to have ripple effects across the political spectrum.
For now, the interruption serves as a reminder of the powerful intersection between media and politics in the United States. Moments like these not only inform the public but also shape the broader national conversation.
Conclusion
The sudden decision by Fox News to cut into its live broadcast underscores the enduring significance of Donald Trump in American public life. While the full scope of the announcement continues to unfold, the event highlights the speed at which major political developments can capture national attention and ignite widespread debate.
As the story develops, viewers and analysts alike will be watching closely to assess its broader implications for the political landscape in the months ahead.
