FLASHBACK: Liberals are fine with Harvard getting a tax break but were against it for a Christian college
Democrats are now defending elite universities like Harvard and Columbia from threats to their federal funding and tax-exempt status for allegedly violating public policy despite once championing the same legal precedent now being used against them. The left championed the 1983 Bob Jones University v. United States ruling, which upheld the IRS’ decision to revoke tax benefits from a religious college that banned interracial dating. At the time, Democrats agreed with the federal government’s argument that no institution engaging in discrimination should receive public funds, even on religious grounds. Now, as the Trump administration cites that very precedent in urging the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status over claims the university is tolerating antisemitism and campus unrest, the left is accusing the administration of violating free speech laws to target ideological opponents. ‘SAFER WITHOUT HIM’: COLUMBIA STUDENT CLAIMS CLASSMATE ARRESTED BY ICE ‘HATES AMERICA’ “The Bob Jones case is a very strong precedent in the government’s corner on this,” Joe Bishop-Henchman, vice president of tax policy and litigation at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital in an interview. “The Bob Jones precedent makes it a hard case for Harvard to win. It’d be a lot easier if that case wasn’t there, because I think they’ll have to argue that they’re being singled out, that this is politics,” he said. “If the administration can argue that it’s a violation of public policy, then the Bob Jones precedent follows.” Today, Bob Jones University, a Christian liberal arts college in Greenville, South Carolina, has a student body of more than 2,700. In 1983, it had policies banning interracial dating and marriage among students and expelled students who violated that policy. The IRS said that because of those racially discriminatory policies, the school did not qualify for tax-exempt status. TRUMP ADMIN ASKS IRS TO REVOKE HARVARD’S TAX-EXEMPT STATUS The school argued that revoking its tax-exempt status violated its religious freedom and that it was being punished for adhering to sincerely held beliefs. However, the government countered that it should not subsidize organizations—through tax breaks—that defy established public policy, particularly laws against racial discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of the federal government in the landmark Reagan-era case. The justices determined the IRS was allowed to deny tax-exempt status to schools that practice racial discrimination since it was against public policy. Even though the school claimed religious freedom, fighting racial discrimination was a “compelling government interest.” “That is the letter of what Bob Jones said, but maybe it shouldn’t just be one university,” Henchman said. The high court held that the institutions failed to provide the “beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life” required to receive special tax status supported by taxpayers, according to the judicial archive Oyez. Because of their bans on interracial relationships, the schools could not meet that standard. The justices concluded that racial discrimination in education conflicted with a “fundamental national public policy.” While acknowledging the schools’ religious beliefs, the Court found that the government may limit religious liberties when it is necessary to serve an “overriding governmental interest,” in this case, prohibiting racial discrimination. As the court noted, “not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP As such, the Trump administration argues that Harvard’s handling of antisemitism on campus should disqualify the university from keeping its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The IRS is expected to make a final decision soon, according to a report from CNN, which first broke the story.
Could Trump invoke Insurrection Act – and what powers would that give him?
Social media posts have warned for more than a month that President Donald Trump would declare martial law on April 20, which typically means suspending civil law while the military takes control of civilian functions such as courts. But many of the posts appeared to conflate martial law with the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which was mentioned in a recent executive order. “I just learned about this executive order (section 6-b) which says Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 on April 20th which will (amount) to declaring martial law,” a Reddit user posted on March 19. “That’s the end of the USA.” The narrative spread beyond Reddit to Facebook posts and videos shared on TikTok, X and Threads. Trump’s January 20 executive order declared a national emergency at the US southern border and required the defence and homeland security secretaries to submit a report on border conditions within 90 days. The report should include “any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807”, the executive order said. Advertisement April 20 is the 90-day deadline. Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow Trump to direct federal military personnel to enforce federal law at the US southern border. But legal experts told PolitiFact it would not amount to martial law. They said they do not see a clear path for Trump to lawfully implement martial law in the way it’s commonly understood. Trump, on his part, has not publicly discussed martial law. In a statement to PolitiFact, the Defense Department said the agency is working with the Homeland Security Department to develop the requested report on the southern border conditions. PolitiFact contacted the Homeland Security Department and the White House and received no response. What would the Insurrection Act invocation allow? Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends another US law that forbids federal troops from conducting civilian law enforcement. A president can invoke the law after determining that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the federal government make it “impracticable to enforce” US law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”. In those cases, the Insurrection Act would allow the president to direct federal troops “as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion”. The Insurrection Act is broadly written and does not define terms such as “insurrection” or “rebellion”. In 1827, the US Supreme Court ruled that the authority to decide whether a situation represents an acceptable reason to invoke the Insurrection Act “belongs exclusively to the President”. Advertisement Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government, said the law provides a “limited authority for the president to use the military to respond to genuine emergencies – a breakdown in regular operational law when things are really falling apart”. The act was invoked when southern governors refused to integrate schools and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Experts expressed doubt that the situation at the US southern border constitutes a breakdown or obstruction of federal law that would necessitate the use of the Insurrection Act the way the law was intended. Tung Yin, a Lewis and Clark Law School professor, said it’s hard to see how immigrants coming into the country illegally were obstructing state or federal laws. Obstruction is “more like an invading army or maybe such severe riots that the government has lost control”, he said. Martial law, on the other hand, typically refers to imposing military law on civilians. Edelson said the Insurrection Act “does not allow the president to completely replace regular authorities with military authority”. Chris Mirasola, University of Houston Law Center assistant professor, said military law is more stringent and has fewer protections for people than civilian law. US constitutional protections would not disappear if the Insurrection Act were invoked, Mirasola said. Yin said that when a president uses the Insurrection Act to call on the military to enforce civilian law, “that might seem like ‘martial law’ to a layperson. But it’s not a military government, which might be what people generally think of.” Advertisement Can Trump impose martial law at the southern border? In a 1946 ruling, the US Supreme Court wrote that the term martial law “carries no precise meaning” and said it wasn’t defined in the Constitution or an act of Congress. Edelson said because of this, “At the federal level, it’s not clear that presidents can declare martial law at all.” Mirasola said some other countries’ constitutions include provisions that outline when a president can declare martial law, but the US Constitution lacks such detail. Still, martial law has been declared before. The US imposed martial law in Hawaii for three years after the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. President Abraham Lincoln also declared martial law in certain parts of the US during the Civil War. President Andrew Johnson restored civilian law. At that time, the Supreme Court “more or less found that martial law could only be declared in an active war zone”, Mirasola said, citing an 1866 Supreme Court ruling that held that martial law cannot be imposed unless civilian courts aren’t open and functioning. For that reason, Mirasola said he could see no legal or constitutional basis for Trump to declare martial law to control the southern border, which “is not an area of active hostilities, notwithstanding how the administration continues to talk about the actions of cartels”. “The circumstances within which presidents have invoked martial law and that the Supreme Court has understood martial law are incredibly narrow,” he said. “It would require an active hostility on US territory that prevents civilian legal proceedings from occurring.” Advertisement Experts said Trump’s suggestions about using military powers could be one reason for the martial law speculation: In October, Trump said “radical left lunatics” in the US “should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military”. In June
Israel’s water war
[unable to retrieve full-text content] Pinch Point looks at how Israel uses water as a strategic aim and a weapon of war.
Russia’s Putin, Qatar’s emir discuss Syria and Gaza at Moscow talks
Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s new leader, would like better relations with Moscow, Qatar said. Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has told Russian President Vladimir Putin that Syria’s new leader is keen to build ties with Moscow. At talks in the Russian capital on Thursday, Al Thani assured the Russian leader that interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa was seeking to build relations with Russia, after the removal of former President Bashar al-Assad, who was a close ally of Moscow. “As for Syria, a few days ago President al-Sharaa was in Qatar, and we spoke with him about the historical and strategic relationship between Syria and Russia,” Al Thani told Putin. The talks come as Putin attempts to retain Russia’s use of two military bases in Syria to maintain its influence in the region after al-Assad fled the country in December as opposition fighters led by Ahmed al-Sharaa closed in on the capital. Putin said Syria’s situation, rocked by sectarian violence in recent weeks, was of serious importance. “We would like to do everything to ensure that Syria, firstly, remains a sovereign, independent and territorially integral state, and we would like to discuss with you the possibility of providing assistance to the Syrian people, including humanitarian assistance,” the Kremlin leader told the emir. Advertisement The two men also discussed the situation in Gaza, where Qatar played a key role in brokering a January ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas for a three-phase ceasefire. Israel restarted its offensive in the besieged enclave in March, and talks to try to restore the ceasefire have so far failed to achieve a breakthrough. “We reached an agreement regarding Gaza a few months back, but Israel has not adhered to the agreement,” Al Thani said. “Qatar, in its role as a mediator, will strive to bridge differing perspectives in an effort to reach an agreement to end the suffering of the Palestinian people.” Putin told the emir, “We know that Qatar is making very serious efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, the initiatives put forward, including by you, have not been implemented. Peaceful people continue to die in Palestine, which is an absolute tragedy of today.” Interfax quoted Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov as saying there was no substantive discussion of the war in Ukraine, but Putin expressed thanks for Qatar’s involvement in arranging the return of children from both countries who were separated from their parents during the war. Adblock test (Why?)
Who was gangster Ashok Joshi, involved in the Manya Surve gang?
Ashok Joshi also teamed up with gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli, who killed one of the close aides of Dawood.
East Texans united to stop a water sale to Dallas suburbs — for now
After a deal to pipe water from Lake O’ the Pines to North Texas came to light, residents voiced opposition everywhere they could to block it.
Democrats’ vice chair ignites civil war, targeting ‘asleep at the wheel’ incumbents in primaries
A move by a top Democratic Party official to spend millions of dollars through his outside political group to primary-challenge some older Democrats in blue districts is further igniting intra-party tensions that have rocked the party since President Donald Trump’s convincing election last November. The reverberations started instantly after Leaders We Deserve, a political organization led by recently elected Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice chair David Hogg, announced on Wednesday that it will spend $20 million to help elect younger Democrats. The effort includes supporting primary challengers to House Democrats in safe seats that Hogg argues “are asleep at the wheel.” The move by the 25-year-old Hogg, a survivor of the horrific shooting seven years ago at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in south Florida, to spend money against fellow Democrats is seen as an unprecedented action by a DNC official. FIRST ON FOX: REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOWCASES MASSIVE HAUL “There are strong opinions on both sides,” a DNC voting member told Fox News Digital. The voting member, who asked for anonymity to speak more freely, said that “behind the scenes, people are expressing their strong opinions towards each other. There’s certainly not a consensus.” DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S FAVORABLE RATINGS DROP TO HISTORIC LOWS DNC chair Ken Martin, who along with Hogg and other party officials, were elected to their positions at the beginning of February, praised Hogg in a statement but also spotlighted the DNC’s longstanding position of staying neutral in primaries. “David Hogg is a passionate advocate and we are grateful for his service to the Democratic Party, whether it be in his role as a DNC Vice Chair or in an outside capacity,” Martin said in his statement. But Martin added, “In order to ensure we are as effective as possible at electing Democrats to office, it is the DNC’s longstanding position that primary voters — not the national party — determine their Democratic candidates for the general election.” The move by Hogg comes as the party’s base is angry, and very energized, in fighting back against Trump’s sweeping and controversial moves, since returning to the White House three months ago, in upending the federal government and longstanding national policies. That anger is directed not only at Trump and Republicans, but also at Democrats many in the party’s base feel haven’t been effective or vocal enough in pushing back against the president. CASH DASH: BERNIE SANDERS, AOC, AND OTHER LEADERS ON THE LEFT LEADING FIGHT AGAINST TRUMP SEE SURGE IN FUNDRAISING The energy has been evident at town halls this winter and early spring held by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. And progressive champions Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have drawn very large crowds to their “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies across the country over the past six weeks. Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and other politicians who are leading the fight against Trump — including Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut — have seen a surge in their fundraising over the past three months. Another leader on the left who has been among those vocal in their resistance to the Trump administration, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, emphasized in a Fox News Digital interview that “we have to have a whole rebrand of the Democratic Party with a coherent platform and a future-oriented platform, and many leaders need to do that, new leaders, not the old guard. And I hope to be part of that.” Khanna, who was interviewed on Tuesday, ahead of Hogg’s news, added that “we need Democrats speaking out, not just on the economy. We need them speaking out on civil liberties, on the rights of immigrants and on the rights of universities.” While Democrats are increasingly energized to resist Trump, a slew of national polls earlier this year indicated the favorability ratings of the Democratic Party sinking to all-time lows. Hogg, in a series of social media posts, pointed to one of those polls as he explained his move. “The party has hit an all-time low approval rating of 27%,” Hogg wrote on X. And he argued that “too many elected leaders in the Democratic Party are either unwilling or unable to meet the moment and are asleep at the wheel while Trump is demolishing the economy, challenging the foundations of our democracy, and creating new existential crises for our country by the day.” Pointing to Democrats whom his group may target, Hogg said “through all of this, some incumbents will rise to the challenge and emerge stronger. Others will demonstrate why they should be replaced. Either way, we all win. Especially when we are not challenging frontline Democratic incumbents — we all want the House back.” A Democratic Party operative who works on campaigns and who asked to remain anonymous told Fox News Digital that “this is unusual, but we do need some better Democrats in office and there’s been a push to have a new generation come in and replace the 70- and-80-year-olds who have been in elective positions and shown that they’re not up to the fight.” Chris Moyer, a Democratic strategist and communicator who is a veteran of presidential and statewide campaigns, noted the timing of Hogg’s move. “It’s all about how you break through, and the old ways of doing things have not worked. And this is an inflection point,” Moyer said. “So it’s understandable that there’s a desire to get some new blood into important roles and take the party in a more effective direction.” But a DNC voting member who was granted anonymity to speak more freely said that “because we are so close to winning the [House] majority, having that money spent picking up seats to win the majority is probably a better use of the funds.”
‘Down to zero’: Veteran suicide crisis targeted in VA bill by bipartisan House coalition
EXCLUSIVE: A bipartisan group of lawmakers is joining forces to introduce a bill aimed at strengthening veteran suicide prevention programs. “Too many veterans are dying by suicide every day, and we have to do more to prevent it,” Rep. Greg Landsman, the Ohio Republican leading the effort, told Fox News Digital. “If we focus the VA resources on the most effective programs, we can make a significant impact in reducing these heartbreaking and entirely unacceptable rates of veteran suicide. Our veterans deserve the best care possible.” The comments come as Landsman readies to introduce the “What Works at Preventing Veteran Suicide Act,” a bill that would require the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) to establish new pilot and grant programs aimed at eliminating veteran suicide. The new legislation would aim to make the VA secretary responsible for “setting clear and measurable objectives for funding and programs” that would evaluate “how effective those funding programs are” in helping to prevent veteran suicide, according to a release about the bill provided to Fox News Digital. DOGE UNCOVERS MASSIVE VA CONTRACT FOR ‘SALARY SURVEY DATA AND ANALYSIS’ — SAYS IT CANCELED IT, SAVING MILLIONS “Veteran suicide is a crisis we cannot afford to ignore,” Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, a former U.S. Navy SEAL joining the effort, told Fox News Digital. “As someone who’s worn the uniform and served alongside some of the best this country has to offer, I’m committed to driving that number down to zero. Reintroducing this bill is about accountability and results. We need to know which programs are actually saving lives so we can invest in what works and get our veterans the support they deserve.” “I have lost many friends and teammates to suicide, and until we are using every available resource to prevent it, we are simply not doing enough,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., another military veteran lawmaker, added in comments to Fox News Digital. “This bill ensures the VA is focused on proven, effective programs to combat veteran suicide. One veteran lost is one too many – we owe it to them to get this right.” Veterans still account for a disproportionate share of the national suicide rate, according to the VA’s most recent National Veteran Suicide Prevention Report, released in December 2024. Analyzing dates from 2001 to 2022, with 2022 being the most recent year with available data, the report found that 6,407 of the 47,891 (13.3%) nationwide suicides were committed by veterans. TIM WALZ HECKLED BY VETERANS FOR STOLEN VALOR CLAIMS, CHINA CONNECTIONS That number comes despite U.S. military veterans representing only 6% of the U.S. adult population, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In all, there were roughly 17.6 veteran suicides per day in 2022, the VA found. The release notes that the legislation is currently endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and Save a Warrior. “Save A Warrior is proud to be a supporting organization of this important bill, and we stand ready to assist in its advancement,” Jack Retzer, Save a Warrior founder and president, told Fox News Digital. “We thank you for your continued leadership on this issue and for your commitment to those who have served our nation so honorably.” The legislation has also picked up bipartisan support, with Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Chris Deluzio, joining in on the effort. “We have got to use all of the tested and effective tactics available to take on the suicide crisis facing America’s veterans,” Deluzio told Fox News Digital. “I am grateful to partner with Congressman Landsman to introduce this legislation that would create more guidelines for suicide prevention pilots and outreach through the VA. I will never stop fighting to protect and serve my fellow veterans.”
CIA director says China is #1 priority, poses biggest challenge from adversary in US history
CIA Director John Ratcliffe declared in an internal memo that China is the top priority for his agency, warning that “no adversary in the history of our Nation has presented a more formidable challenge or a more capable strategic competitor than the Chinese Communist Party.” The internal CIA memo directed to the agency’s rank and file was provided to Fox News by a senior CIA official on Thursday. “For CIA to continue successfully defending our Nation, we will build upon our strong foundation and pursue with laser-like focus the near-term priorities for CIA that our President and our country demand. China sits at the very top of that list,” Ratcliffe wrote. “No adversary in the history of our Nation has presented a more formidable challenge or a more capable strategic competitor than the Chinese Communist Party,” he continued. “It is intent on dominating the world economically, militarily, and technologically, and it is aggressively trying to out-compete America in every corner of the globe.” UNITED KINGDOM URGED TO ALIGN WITH TRUMP ON CHINA OR LOSE FAVORED STATUS IN WASHINGTON Ratcliffe said the CIA must continue to respond to the threats China poses “with urgency, creativity, and grit.” “I’ve emboldened CIA’s leadership team to take on more risks, smartly, and to aggressively seek out short- and long-term opportunities that give the United States the advantage it needs to keep China in our rear-view window. It won’t be easy, but I pledge to lead the charge in helping us do just that,” he added. CHINA RAMPS UP MILITARY ‘REHEARSALS’ AROUND TAIWAN, OUTSTRIPS US IN AIR, MARITIME, SPACE Ratcliffe said, “Technology is another top priority; one that is in many ways intertwined with the threat posed by the CCP. “Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing will define the future of national security and geopolitical power,” he wrote in the memo. “Concurrently, our adversaries – China, Russia, and Iran – seek to gain footholds in countries in our near-abroad. We must continue to push back against these efforts,” Ratcliffe also said. “To best position CIA in addressing this priority, we are taking a close look at how we can create a unified effort across the range of policy objectives in this region. The American people deserve our best.”
SCOOP: Pence urges Republicans to hold the line on tax hikes for the rich as Trump weighs options
EXCLUSIVE: Former Vice President Mike Pence is urging House Republicans to stand firm against hiking takes on the country’s top-earners, as sources tell Fox News Digital the White House is floating a millionaire tax hike proposal to offset the cost of eliminating taxes on overtime pay, tipped wages and retirees’ Social Security. Advancing American Freedom (AAF), the conservative policy advocacy group Pence launched in 2021, sent a letter to congressional Republicans, including House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, advising Congress to “stand firm against tax hikes.” “President Trump and Republicans in Congress promised to make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent and work to secure further tax cuts. Republicans should stick to their promises and not pull pages from Kamala Harris’ losing policy platform,” AAF President Tim Chapman and Board Chairman Marc Short wrote in the letter, referring to Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is set to expire this year. WHITE HOUSE QUIETLY FLOATS MILLIONAIRE TAX HIKE PROPOSAL IN CONGRESS AS GOP LEADERS SIGNAL OPPOSITION “The American people voted for tax cuts, not tax hikes. Advancing American Freedom calls on Republicans to swiftly renew the across-the-board tax cuts that unleashed prosperity during President Trump’s first term and deliver on the promise to make America prosperous again,” they wrote. Pence added in a statement to Fox News Digital, “The Trump-Pence tax cuts lowered taxes across the board – for working families and businesses large and small. The results were historic. We got America’s economy booming like never before and created more opportunity for all Americans. Republicans know that less taxes mean more jobs.” HAWLEY URGES REPUBLICANS TO CUT TAXES FOR WORKING-CLASS VOTERS WHO ‘PUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE’ Two sources familiar with the discussions told Fox News Digital that White House aides have been quietly floating a proposal to House Republicans that would raise the tax rate for people making more than $1 million to 40%. The plan is intended to mitigate the cost of Trump’s ambitious 2024 campaign promise to cut taxes on overtime pay, tipped wages and retirees’ Social Security. The sources stressed the discussions were only preliminary, and the plan is one of many being discussed as congressional Republicans work on advancing Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” Pence responded to Fox News Digital’s reporting on Wednesday, urging House Republicans to resist tax increases on the wealthy. “Republicans Don’t Raise Taxes. Republicans Cut Taxes,” Pence responded on X. “Raising the Top Marginal Rate would be a Huge Tax Increase on Small Business America.” Pence has often criticized Trump’s policies during his second term, most recently critiquing Trump’s tariff uncertainty, arguing even 10% tariffs would drive inflation higher and hurt American families. In a call for limited government, Pence also advocated for Congress to reclaim their authority over tariffs during remarks this week. Trump’s former vice president refused to endorse him in 2024. Pence, who himself launched a short-lived 2024 presidential campaign, unexpectedly dropped out of the race for the White House during remarks at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual event in Las Vegas in October 2023. Trump spoke on the same stage soon after Pence’s announcement without acknowledging the news. However, Trump and Pence were seen shaking hands at former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral in December – their first public appearance together in nearly four years. Pence congratulated Trump on winning the 2024 election, despite refusing to endorse him. Pence has distanced himself from his former boss since the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when Pence defied Trump’s wishes by affirming that former President Joe Biden rightly won the 2020 election. Rioters called for Pence to be hanged, and the former vice president has faced the ire of Trump’s most loyal supporters ever since. The former vice president’s campaign failed to gain traction as Trump’s lead over the crowded Republican Party widened, and Republican voters proved they had not forgotten Pence’s “disloyalty” to Trump during the attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Pence ran on a traditional conservative platform, framing the future of the Republican Party against what he called the rise of “populism” in the party. Among the slim anti-Trump base of the Republican Party, Pence received praise for his courage on that day. As Pence campaigned in Iowa and New Hampshire, voters at town halls often thanked Pence for standing up to Trump. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “Mike Pence stood for the Constitution. He deserves, not grudging credit. He deserves our thanks as Americans for putting his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States before personal, political and unfair pressure,” former Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., the candidate who rejected Trump most during the Republican primary, said on the debate stage. The White House did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment by deadline.