Hannity popped the question at their home church over the holiday, the couple announced

Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Ainsley Earhardt are engaged.

Hannity, 62, proposed to Earhardt, 48, over Christmas at their home church after years of long-distance dating, according to an announcement by Fox News Thursday.

​​”We are overjoyed and so thankful to our families for all of their love and support during this wonderful time in our lives,” the happy couple told the network.

Given their deep faith, they said a church was the “perfect place” for the proposal. They haven’t announced where or when they plan to tie the knot but given their devotion to President-elect Donald Trump, could Mar-a-Lago be the perfect place for their wedding?

Sean Hannity and Ainsley Earhardt attend FOX Nation’s 2024 Patriot Awards at Tilles Center for the Performing Arts on December 05, 2024 in Greenvale, New York. The pair got engaged over Christmas after years of long-distance dating, they announced Thursday (Getty Images)

On the air, both hosts have welcomed Trump as a guest on their respective shows over the years and praised him during his first term and during his 2024 bid.

Behind the scenes, Hannity has advised him, calling and texting the then-president at the White House. The Fox News host even purchased a home in Palm Beach just a six-minute drive from Mar-a-Lago, records show.

Meanwhile, Earhardt lives in New York, where Fox & Friends is filmed.

As the Covid-19 pandemic raged, she praised Trump’s work ethic by citing his penchant for watching “every show” in January 2021, days before he was set to leave office and Joe Biden was about to be inaugurated. “They’ll criticize President Trump but no one can argue—he is a worker,” Earhardt said. “He doesn’t drink alcohol. He stays up late at night. He watches every show. He’s working. He got to work immediately.”

Hannity has hosted a series of interviews and town halls with Trump. During one such town hall in December 2023, Hannity asked Trump whether he would “abuse power as retribution against anybody” should he reclaim the presidency, to which the then-GOP hopeful replied that he wouldn’t be a “dictator” — “except for day one.”

While Hannity has been a strong ally to Trump over the years, the presenter broke with his claims that the 2020 election had been stolen while testifying under oath in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case.


Hannity and Earhardt pose in Christmas Instagram post (@aearhardt / Instagram)

The president-elect has not yet commented publicly about the Fox News hosts’ engagement.

He and Melania held their wedding reception at the Palm Beach estate in 2005. The president-elect’s children Don Jr., Eric, and Tiffany all exchanged vows at Mar-a-Lago.

“For Weddings, Galas & Private Parties, The Mar-a-Lago Club is Beyond Compare,” the Florida golf club’s website says. “Our Donald J. Trump Grand Ballroom is perfect for large galas, weddings, or bar/bat mitzvahs.”

Both Hannity and Earhardt have children from previous marriages.

Their children “couldn’t be happier” about the engagement, the pair told Fox News.

They both “still get along well” with their exes and “everyone is supportive of each other,” the couple said. “We actually made them aware this was happening ahead of time.”

READ MORE

Jasmine Crockett, a rising star within the Democratic Party, recently found herself at the center of a firestorm of controversy following remarks she made at a rally that many have condemned as racially insensitive.

The comments, which appeared to link the current immigration crisis with the painful legacy of slavery, have sparked outrage across the political spectrum and raised uncomfortable questions about her political direction. As a relatively young and vocal member of the Democratic Party, Crockett’s words have ignited a debate about race, immigration, and how the party engages with sensitive topics.

The Controversial Remarks

The controversy began during a discussion of immigration and labor during a rally, where Crockett made a remark that many listeners found troubling. With a sarcastic tone, she commented on the reluctance of Americans to take up agricultural jobs, particularly in farming, which has historically relied on immigrant labor. Crockett said, “Ain’t none of y’all trying to go and farm right now,” before adding, “We done picking cotton.”

The implication of this remark was clear: Crockett was drawing a comparison between the reluctance of African Americans to take on certain types of hard manual labor in today’s economy and the forced labor of enslaved individuals during the Civil War era. While the statement was clearly an attempt to comment on the economics of labor and immigration, it struck a nerve due to the painful historical references to slavery and its ongoing impact on African American communities.

Backlash and Criticism

The immediate response was one of discomfort, particularly because of the “picking cotton” reference, a direct and painful reminder of the brutal labor endured by enslaved Black people in the United States. The comment, which drew uncomfortable laughter from the audience, was quickly shared online and sparked widespread criticism. Many commentators pointed out that comparing modern labor issues with the history of slavery trivialized the suffering of generations of African Americans and misrepresented the complexities of today’s economic and immigration challenges.

Critics accused Crockett of using slavery as a rhetorical tool to make a political point, while also dismissing the significant legacy of racism and exploitation that Black Americans continue to face. The remark, made in an offhand manner, quickly gained traction on social media, with many questioning whether she understood the historical weight of her words.

Crockett’s Defensiveness and Public Outcry

In the face of mounting criticism, Crockett has yet to publicly address the controversy directly. However, some have speculated that her comments were an unfortunate slip of the tongue, a case of speaking too hastily while trying to make a point about immigration and labor issues. But for many, the damage was already done.

Fox News’ Jesse Watters was one of the more vocal critics, calling the remarks racist and pointing to the real-world consequences of immigration policies, such as job displacement and wage suppression in working-class communities. Watters, who has a history of challenging Democratic rhetoric on immigration, highlighted how such comments could fuel resentment and division, particularly in areas that are already grappling with economic struggles.

The situation has prompted discussions about the broader implications of Crockett’s comments on the Democratic Party, especially as it relates to how the party navigates sensitive issues like race, immigration, and labor. For some, the controversy signals a disconnect between progressive rhetoric and the realities of working-class Americans.

A Deeper Divide in the Democratic Party?

Crockett’s remarks highlight an ongoing ideological rift within the Democratic Party. Her comments, while attempting to address the intersection of immigration and labor, were criticized for focusing too much on identity politics rather than proposing concrete policy solutions. Some have argued that the Democratic Party’s increasing focus on identity politics, such as race, gender, and “wokeness,” is alienating moderate and working-class voters who feel that their concerns are being overlooked in favor of more divisive rhetoric.

The Democratic Party has struggled in recent years to balance social justice issues with economic concerns. Critics of Crockett’s approach believe that the party needs to refocus on the issues that matter most to ordinary Americans—like job creation, healthcare, and affordable housing—while ensuring that the voices of marginalized communities are heard in a meaningful way.

Moreover, the situation exposes a broader tension regarding the language used in political discourse. The backlash against Crockett’s comments shows that language that may be seen as politically charged or controversial can quickly backfire, especially when it involves historical trauma and deeply rooted societal issues.

As one of the rising stars of the Democratic Party, Crockett’s controversial remarks have significant implications not just for her personal career, but for the party’s future. Some believe that the party’s increasing reliance on divisive language and identity-based politics is eroding its ability to connect with voters across the spectrum. Crockett’s comments raise critical questions about how the party addresses race and immigration, and whether it is doing enough to engage in substantive discussions about economic inequality, while also addressing the concerns of working-class Americans.

There are also concerns about how the public reacts to such controversies, especially in the age of social media. What begins as a single misstep can quickly snowball, making it difficult for politicians to recover from their words. Whether Crockett’s comments ultimately harm her political future depends on how the Democratic Party decides to address this issue and whether it continues to push forward with the same strategies that have led to recent electoral losses.

The controversy surrounding Jasmine Crockett’s remarks underscores the ongoing battle within the Democratic Party over the balance between identity politics and practical, solution-oriented policy. The party’s internal divide is becoming increasingly evident, and Crockett’s comments are just the latest example of how difficult it is to navigate these issues in today’s polarized political landscape.

As the party moves forward, it will need to reflect on how it engages with both its progressive base and working-class voters, ensuring that it doesn’t lose sight of its core values while addressing the realities of a changing world. Crockett’s comments, while controversial, could serve as a critical moment of reflection for the Democratic Party as it seeks to redefine its vision for the future.