Newark mayor arrested at ICE facility claims he was ‘targeted’ after court hearing
Ras Baraka, the Democratic mayor of Newark, New Jersey, and a candidate for governor, appeared in federal court Thursday for a status conference after being arrested at an ICE facility last week on a trespassing charge. “We believe that I was targeted in this,” Baraka told reporters after his court date that discussed the charge against him after he was arrested at the Delaney Hall facility last week. “I was the only person arrested. That’s right. You know, I was the only person identified. I was the only person, you know, they put in a cell. You know, the only person, I think that was in cuffs to the whole process that’s here this morning, going through this humiliation for these people.” In court, Baraka’s defense team contested his arrest and declined to take a plea deal while arguing that the government has not provided enough evidence to prove that he was lawfully arrested. WATCH: NEWARK MAYOR COMPARES SELF TO BIBLICAL HERO IN WAKE OF ICE PROTEST ARREST: ‘THIS IS OUR DAVID MOMENT’ The defense had been hoping to go to trial by late July, but the judge said there may be aggressive discovery and time is needed to set a trial schedule. Both the prosecution and defense will submit a schedule for the court’s consideration and no next date has been set. The defense requested all exculpatory evidence be provided by May 19 and discovery by May 22, which both parties agreed to. The trespassing charge against Baraka, a class C misdemeanor, has a statutory maximum sentence of 30 days in prison. Dozens of protesters gathered outside the federal court building where several activists railed against the arrest of Baraka during a protest at Delaney Hall attended by three members of Congress, who said they were in attendance to perform their congressionally-mandated oversight duties related to federal detention facilities. “Newark has become an epicenter for ICE’s terror and overreach,” Viri Martinez, manager of member empowerment at New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, told the crowd outside the court. AGITATORS CLASH WITH POLICE, ARRESTS MADE AS CLERGY MEMBERS DESCEND ON NEWARK ICE FACILITY “They tried their best to humiliate me and degrade me, you know, as much as they possibly can,” Baraka said after the court proceeding, explaining that he was fingerprinted and his mug shot was taken in the basement of the court. “But, I still feel. I still I feel like what we did was completely correct. Yes. We did not violate any laws. We stood up for the Constitution of this country, the Constitution, the state of New Jersey. And we stood up for the local laws, that were put together by the people of this city. And by the people of this state.” The three congressional lawmakers and Baraka were outside the ICE facility last week with a group of protesters when the gates opened to allow an ICE bus in. All four officials then allegedly rushed through the gates and past security, according to officials from the Department of Homeland Security. The arrest came as activists had been calling for access to the facility for days, which is a privately run facility that was revamped as an immigration detention facility this year. “The Mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon,” U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba, who was present at the courtroom on Thursday, posted on social media after Baraka’s arrest. Protesters could be heard shouting “Shame, shame, shame” at Habba as she entered the courtroom. House Republicans are warning that consequences are in store for the three Democratic members of Congress who accompanied Baraka at the protest. “Look, there’s three possible disciplinary actions in Congress that the House can take,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters at his weekly press conference Wednesday regarding Reps. Robert Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman. Fox News Digital’s Sandy Ibrahim contributed to this report
Justice Kagan snaps at Trump lawyer in major case: ‘Every court has ruled against you’
Justice Elena Kagan grilled U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on the practicalities of ending universal injunctions on Thursday, a major sticking point in a highly watched case centered on birthright citizenship and the power of lower courts to rule against the executive branch. Kagan pressed Sauer Thursday on the practicalities of ending universal injunctions and how the higher court should then be tasked with managing the flow of lower court challenges. She also noted that the Trump administration has been “losing uniformly” in lower court cases on the “substantive question” in dealing with birthright citizenship. SUPREME COURT TAKES ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: LIBERALS BALK AT TRUMP ARGUMENT TO END NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS “If I were in your shoes, there’s no way I’d approach the Court with this case!” Kagan quipped. After he attempted to answer, she responded that “This is not a hypothetical – this is happening out there.” “Every court is ruling against you.” Justices on the High Court agreed in April to hear the case, which centers on three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year blocking President Donald Trump‘s executive order on birthright citizenship. The order reinterprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother is unlawfully present or temporarily in the country, and if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. Trump’s action remains on hold nationwide pending Supreme Court intervention. A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump’s second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis.
On the rise: New poll indicates Trump’s approval ratings are edging up
A new national poll released this week is one of the first to indicate a bump up in President Donald Trump‘s approval ratings after a steady edging down in the president’s numbers since he returned to office in January. Trump stands at 44% approval and 52% disapproval in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Monday and Tuesday (May 12-13). The president’s approval rating edged up two points – which is within the survey’s sampling error – from the previous Reuters/Ipsos national survey, which was in the field late last month. US-CHINA TRADE TRUCE IGNITES STOCK MARKETS Likely fueling the modest increase in the president’s overall approval rating is his performance on the economy. The new poll indicates 39% of adults nationwide give Trump a thumbs up on how he is handling the economy, up three points from last month. The new poll was conducted amid this week’s surge in the stock markets following a truce between the U.S. and China in their tariff standoff, and in the wake of last week’s signing of an initial trade deal with the United Kingdom – which is the first since Trump implemented massive tariffs on friends and foes across the globe six weeks ago. WHAT’S IN THE TRADE TRUCE WITH CHINA Trump’s blockbuster tariff announcement in early April sparked a trade war with some of the nation’s top trading partners and triggered a massive sell-off in the financial markets and increased concerns about a recession. However, as Trump has partially reversed course in recent weeks by easing back on his sharpest trade moves, public concerns about recession have also slightly eased, while still remaining at heightened levels. Sixty-nine percent questioned in the new poll said they were worried about a recession, down from 76% a month ago. Additionally, concerns about the stock market dropped seven points, to 60%. Veteran Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News that the president has “been very clear-eyed about the fact that you are going to have to break some eggs to make an omelet and his voters will give him the latitude to do so. “We’re still less than 150 days in, he’s got some time to make the hard calls that have to be made and still give the economic plane runway to take off ahead of the midterms, which is when all of these early decisions will be graded,” Reed added. WHERE TRUMP STANDS IN THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLL Most, but not all, of the most recent national public opinion surveys indicate Trump’s approval ratings in negative territory, which is a slide from the president’s poll position when he started his second tour of duty in the White House nearly four months ago. Trump stood at 44% approval and 55% disapproval in the most recent Fox News national poll, which was conducted April 18-21. An average of the latest national surveys puts the president’s approval rating underwater by around four points, but that is a slight improvement from late last month. The economy, and inflation in particular, were pressing issues that kept former President Joe Biden‘s approval ratings well below water for most of his presidency, and which greatly contributed to Trump’s White House victory last November. They were behind Trump’s slide in the polls so far this year. “Trump’s return to office did not begin as he and his supporters had hoped. Campaign promises about inflation and interest rates appeared deferred while the daily news coverage focused on the many distractions plaguing the White House,” longtime political scientist and analyst Wayne Lesperance noted. However, Lesperance, president of New England College, said that “signs of progress may be emerging. Possible trade deals with Britain, China, and India are providing hope that some good may come from his tariff strategy. Add to that a rebounding stock market and lower gas prices at the start of summer vacation season and the president may see some calming of public nervousness.”
Dems divided on Trump’s executive order aimed at slashing drug prices
President Donald Trump‘s executive order aimed at slashing U.S. drug prices has divided Democrats on Capitol Hill, with some cautiously optimistic while others dismissed the move as a bluster. Most Democratic lawmakers who spoke with Fox News Digital about the order noted they had not read into the details, but the reactions were mostly split. “It certainly seems more bark than it is bite,” Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Ways & Means Committee, told Fox News Digital. Neal said it “strikes me as though it’s another example of the executive order that garners a lot of attention” with little impact, though he noted he was still looking into the details. ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION Rep. George Latimer of New York, a first-term Democrat who unseated a former member of the progressive “Squad,” ex-Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., signaled he was hopeful about the initiative. “If we can keep drug costs low, that’s a positive thing,” Latimer said. “I don’t, you know, oppose everything the president does, things that help people lower costs. If that’s what this turns into, then yes, it’s a worthwhile idea. But I have to be honest, I’ve got to read it more closely to understand it better.” Trump announced Monday that he was directing the Department of Health and Human Services to set price targets for pharmaceutical companies. The president said the order would have pharmaceutical companies set drug prices on par with the lowest prices in other developed countries. He said, “some prescription drug and pharmaceutical prices will be reduced almost immediately by 50 to 80 to 90%.” Democratic Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., told Fox News Digital when asked about the order, “It’s always a good thing to reduce drug costs.” “I think it’s a move in the right direction, let’s just see the details,” Correa added. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, like Neal, told Fox News Digital he was more skeptical. “My feeling is that, like his…announcements during his first term, there’s much talk and no meaningful reduction of drug prices,” Doggett said. “It remains to be seen whether any patient in America will see a price reduced on a single drug as a result of this order. So, until I see action, I will not believe that he has truly committed to reducing prices.” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., also said he did not believe Trump was “serious” when asked. “All of this is just a disingenuous effort…on the part of House Republicans and Donald Trump, to pretend like they were looking out for people,” Aguilar said. “If they were serious about it, the policy would be placed within their reconciliation bill. It’s not. This is just a performance effort by the president.” BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT’S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a House bill to make Trump’s order permanent. “I rise today, to introduce as legislation, President Trump’s executive order for the most favored nation status on drug pricing,” Khanna said on the House floor. “My legislation will codify President Trump’s executive order, which basically says that Americans should not pay more for drugs than people in other countries and other parts of the world.” In an exclusive Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Trump argued that his executive order should offset Democrats’ concerns with his “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill being pushed by Republicans. Democrats have accused Republicans of using the bill to gut critical programs like Medicaid for millions of people who need it, while the GOP has contended it was just trying to eliminate waste and abuse within the system. “It’s the Democrats’ fault that people are being ripped off for years and years. And now I hear Democrats saying, ‘Oh, well, we’re going to not go for the bill.’ It’s going to be very hard for them not to approve of the big, beautiful bill that we’re doing,” Trump said. “We’re doing the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country because people are going to be getting a 50 to a 90% reduction on drug prices.” Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for a response.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts reins in Sotomayor after repeated interruptions
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reined in Justice Sonia Sotomayor during argument over birthright citizenship and nationwide court injunctions on Thursday. Sotomayor dominated questioning for several minutes at the outset of Thursday’s argument after taking over from Justice Clarence Thomas. She pressed U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer for President Donald Trump’s administration on several points relating to the authority for federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, often speaking over the lawyer and interrupting him. Sotomayor argued that Trump’s order invalidating birthright citizenship violated four Supreme Court precedents, and that it was justified for a federal judge to grant an injunction against such a controversial order. “You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive from universally violating holdings by this court,” Sotomayor said. 100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT “We are not claiming that because we’re conceding that there could be an appropriate case only in class only,” Sauer said. “But I hear that–,” Sotomayor said, beginning to interrupt Sauer. “Can I hear the rest of his answer?” Roberts then interjected. APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT Sauer then elaborated on his statement, saying the government is arguing that federal courts can intervene on behalf of specific plaintiffs before them, but not nationwide. He said the Supreme Court has the authority to grant nationwide injunctions in certain circumstances. Sauer used the bulk of his opening arguments Thursday to reiterate the Trump administration’s view that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, noting that the injunctions “transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,” and “create a host of practical problems.” Universal injunctions “require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” he said. “They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere,” and “invert,” in the administration’s view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments.” A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump’s second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis. The consolidated cases before the court are Trump v. CASA, Trump v. the State of Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey. It’s unclear when the justices will rule, but their decision to fast-track the case means an opinion or order could come within weeks – or even days. Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch, Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship: Liberals balk at Trump argument to end nationwide injunctions
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Thursday in a challenge to President Donald Trump‘s effort to end birthright citizenship, a case that could more broadly call into question the powers of lower courts to block executive branch actions. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer used the bulk of his opening arguments Thursday to reiterate their view that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, noting that the injunctions “transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,” and “create a host of practical problems.” Universal injunctions “require judges to make rushed, high stakes, low information decisions,” he said. “They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere,” and “invert,” in the administration’s view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments.” During a five-minute rebuttal period, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned Sauer on what authorities the courts, under their argument, would have in this scenario – an important line of questioning likely to be revisited again. 100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT “Your theory here is arguing that Article III and principles of equity [clause] both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to have your argument,” she said. “If that’s true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn’t have that power,” she noted later. Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, noted the purely practical problems that the high court would face in trying to weigh in on all the issues heard now by the lower courts, which have already been hit by hundreds of federal lawsuits in Trump’s second term. She also noted the adminstration’s poor track record with the lower courts. “This is not a hypothetical; this is happening out there,” she told Sauer. “Every court is ruling against you.” APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT As expected, several conservative justices on the court expressed skepticism on the use of universal injunctions. Justice Clarence Thomas, who in 2018 described their use as “legally and historically dubious,” noted Thursday that it was not until 1963 that the first universal injunctions were used, appearing to agree with the government’s assertion that they could survive without them. But Justice Samuel Alito, for his part, expressed a somewhat surprising degree of skepticism. He asked Sauer about the possibilities of plaintiffs seeking emergency class certification, and de facto nationwide relief via other avenues, to highlight the point that blocking universal injunctions would not resolve the practical problems raised by the government. And if that’s the case, he said, “then what is the point of this argument about universal injunctions?” Justices on the high court agreed in April to hear the case, which centers on three lower courts that issued national injunctions earlier this year blocking Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The order reinterprets the 14th Amendment to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their mother is unlawfully present or temporarily in the country, and if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at time of birth. Trump’s action remains on hold nationwide pending Supreme Court intervention. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in March to review the case, arguing that the three lower courts in question had exceeded their authority in issuing the universal injunctions. SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS REINS IN SOTOMAYOR AFTER REPEATED INTERRUPTIONS “These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told justices on the high court in a filing before arguments began. “Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria.” Plaintiffs told the high court that there is no reason for them to intervene here, objecting both to the executive order in question, which one lawyer described in a brief as “citizenship stripping,” as well as any effort to block the nationwide injunctions. The lower court orders “preserve the status quo that has existed for more than a century, and the federal government suffers no harm, much less irreparable harm, by continuing to follow long-settled laws while the appeals proceed,” Nicholas Brown, the Attorney General of Washington state, said in its filing. Oral arguments are expected to focus not only on the lower courts that blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order – but also on whether federal judges can issue universal injunctions halting executive actions nationwide. The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the practice, though several conservative justices, including Justice Thomas, have raised concerns. A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump’s second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis. The consolidated cases before the court are Trump v. CASA, Trump v. the State of Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey. It’s unclear when the justices will rule, but their decision to fast-track the case means an opinion or order could come within weeks – or even days.
Espionage, constitutional concerns abound from Trump detractors, allies over Qatari jet offer
Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized President Donald Trump after he announced the Department of Defense plans to accept a jumbo jet from the government of Qatar, arguing the gift is riddled with both espionage concerns and constitutional questions. But as one expert tells Fox, the latter concern is likely overblown. Trump ally Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for example, said during an interview on Tuesday that the acquisition of the plane poses “significant espionage and surveillance problems,” while Democrats such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., declared, “Trump cannot accept a $400 million flying palace from the royal family of Qatar. Not only is this farcically corrupt, it is blatantly unconstitutional.” Reports spread Sunday morning that the Trump administration was expected to accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar’s royal family, setting off concerns that Trump would personally take ownership of the plane and violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. ABC News reported that Trump would use the jet until the end of his term, when it would be given to his presidential library. Trump confirmed and clarified in a Truth Social post later on Sunday that the Department of Defense was slated to receive the gift, while slamming Democrats for their criticism of the offer. HOUSE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR ‘IMMEDIATE’ ETHICS PROBE OF QATARI PLANE GIFT TO TRUMP “So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane,” Trump wrote. “Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!! MAGA.” At the heart of Democrats’ concern over the matter is the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” “Trump is literally trying to fly around on a plane from a foreign government while serving as president. That’s a violation of the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause wasn’t a suggestion. It’s the LAW,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said Monday morning following the announcement. Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that it’s questionable if the emoluments clause even applies to the president, as the Constitution typically stipulates when a clause specifically affects a president and cites the title, such as in the impeachment clause. “The clause was specifically inserted because of concerns by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention over corruption of our foreign diplomats, especially by the French government. It is questionable whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president since he is not named and the Constitution usually names the president when a provision applies to him. That is why the impeachment clause specifically provides that it applies to the ‘president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States.’ If ‘officers’ of the U.S. included the president, there would be no need for him to be separately listed,” von Spakovsky explained. He added that the president is the individual “who appoints the ‘officers’ who are subject to the emoluments clause.” “Antonin Scalia, when he worked at the Justice Department, certainly agreed since he issued an opinion in 1974 pointing out that when the Constitution refers to an ‘officer,’ ‘it invariably refers to someone other than the President or Vice President,’” he continued. FLASHBACK: DEM CRITICAL OF TRUMP’S QATARI JET GIFT RODE CAMEL IN EXPENSES-PAID 2021 TRIP TO GULF EMIRATE The jet offer comes after Trump railed against Boeing for pricey government deals to construct a new fleet of Air Force Ones. Even ahead of his first administration, Trump posted on social media in December 2016 that the Boeing “costs are out of control, more than $4 billion” to build the two aircraft. Trump in 2018 awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price agreement to manufacture two new jets. The construction of the jets, however, is not expected to be completed until 2029. “We’re very disappointed that it’s taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One,” Trump said during a press conference on drug prices Monday morning. “You know, we have an Air Force One that’s 40 years old. And if you take a look at that, compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it’s not even the same ballgame.” TRUMP CLARIFIES OWNERSHIP OF AIRCRAFT IN DEFENSE OF QATAR’S GIFT “When I first came in, I signed an order to get (the new Air Force One fleet) built,” he continued. “I took it over from the Obama administration, they had originally agreed. I got the price down much lower. And then, when the election didn’t exactly work out the way that it should have, a lot of work was not done on the plane because a lot of people didn’t know they made change orders. That was so stupid, so ridiculous. And it ended up being a total mess, a real mess.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also brushed off concern over the Qatari royal family donating a Boeing jumbo jet to the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing on Monday there will be no quid pro quo arrangement and that the donation is under legal review to ensure full compliance with the law. Von Spakovsky said that if the plane is in fact a government-to-government gift – and not a personal gift to the president – the Trump administration is likely in the legal clear to accept the gift. “If this gift is being considered as a gift to the government of the U.S., there is no legal issue to consider, since there is no constitutional or legal problem with such
Dem senator says ‘no doubt’ Biden declined cognitively during presidency
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Politico that there is no question that President Joe Biden declined cognitively during his White House tenure. “There’s no doubt about it,” Murphy said when the outlet asked whether Biden had undergone cognitive decline while serving as president. “The debate is whether it was enough that it compromised his ability to act as chief executive,” the senator said, according to Politico. Fox News Digital reached out to Murphy’s office to request additional comment from the senator but did not receive a response by the time of publication. BIDEN MADE HARRIS CAMPAIGN A ‘NIGHTMARE,’ DESTROYED HER CHANCES BY STAYING IN 2024 RACE TOO LONG, AIDES CHARGE During an appearance on “The View” last week, Biden pushed back against the idea that he suffered significant cognitive decline during the last year of his presidency. RAHM EMANUEL SAYS BIDEN IS ‘NOT WHERE WE NEED TO BE AS A PARTY,’ ADDS HIS COMMENTS ARE UNHELPFUL Fox News Digital reached out to the Office of Joe and Jill Biden but did not receive a response by the time of publication. During an interview on CNN last year before Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential contest, Murphy said that Biden’s debate performance had “raised questions for voters” regarding whether he was “still the old Joe Biden.” Murphy suggested during that interview that Biden should “show the country that he is still the old Joe Biden,” saying that he took Biden “at his word” that he was still able to do his job. “I have seen him do this job at an absolutely exceptional level. No president has had this level of legislative accomplishment in their first four years as Joe Biden,” Murphy said. Politico also reported that Murphy said it would have helped the Democratic Party if Biden had not run in 2024. CHUCK TODD BLAMES SCHUMER, DEMOCRATS’ SILENCE ON BIDEN DECLINE FOR PARTY’S CREDIBILITY COLLAPSE “I mean, isn’t that self-evident? We lost,” he said, according to the outlet. “Obviously, in retrospect, we should have done something different. The likelihood is the odds were pretty stacked against us no matter what, but clearly people were looking for change and neither Biden nor Harris were going to be able to offer a real message of change.”
GOP reps, advocacy group to target competitive House districts in Trump tax-cut push
EXCLUSIVE: Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is hosting a day of action on Saturday in competitive congressional districts as House Republicans iron out the details of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” AFP is teaming up with GOP Reps. David Schweikert and Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, Ashley Hinson of Iowa, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania for door-knocking, phone banks and grassroots organizing in a show of support for extending Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Canvassers will encourage constituents in Arizona, Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania to urge their senators and representatives to extend Trump’s tax cuts as a key component of his “big, beautiful bill.” “Working families and small businesses throughout the country are counting on Congress to act as soon as possible to renew President Trump’s tax cuts,” AFP Managing Director Kent Strang said in a statement to Fox News Digital ahead of the day of action. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TARGETING DOZENS OF HOUSE REPUBLICAN-HELD SEATS IN 2026 MIDTERM BATTLE FOR MAJORITY “With support from AFP’s activists bringing their unmatched energy and drive this weekend, we can ensure we extend pro-growth tax policy and help Republicans prevent the largest tax hike in history from crushing the middle class.” REPUBLICANS TO TAKE AIM AT THESE 26 DEMOCRAT-HELD HOUSE SEATS IN 2026 MIDTERMS AFP is launching their day of action in conjunction with their $20 million “Protect Prosperity” campaign, which the conservative advocacy group has called the single largest investment of any outside group dedicated to preserving the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As House Republicans searched for alternative ways to offset an extension of the 2017 tax cuts and Trump’s ambitious goals to cut taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security, AFP urged Republicans to offset budget cuts by eliminating former President Joe Biden’s “Green New Deal giveaways.” The House Energy and Commerce Committee debated green energy cuts during their lengthy markup on Capitol Hill this week as part of the House budget reconciliation process. Meanwhile, House Republicans debated potentially raising taxes as Trump indicated his support for a small tax hike to fund his “big, beautiful bill.” While rumors swirled among House Republicans for weeks that the White House was floating a tax hike on millionaires, Trump confirmed on Friday he would be “OK if they do.” However, House Republicans seemed to drop their plans for a new millionaire’s tax hike as the reconciliation began. The House Ways and Means Committee released nearly 400 pages of legislation on Monday that did not include a tax hike. It’s no coincidence that AFP is focusing its attention on competitive districts in Arizona, Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as contentious races are expected in 2026. In Arizona’s sixth congressional district, Ciscomani won his House seat in 2022 with just over 50% of the vote. Schweikert narrowly won Arizona’s first congressional district by less than 2% of the vote in 2022 and 2024, as one of the most expensive House races in the country last year. And while Hinson won by a much larger margin in Iowa’s second congressional district, Democrat Kevin Techau has already announced his campaign to unseat Hinson. Both Barrett in Michigan and Mackenzie in Pennsylvania managed to pick up Republican House seats in 2024, flipping their congressional districts from blue to red. Democrats will likely seek to win those seats back in 2026.
Trump highlights potential pay raise for troops, touts military reforms in Qatar speech
President Donald Trump blasted President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and cited his wish to give troops a pay raise in an address to U.S. service members on Thursday. Trump made the comments during an address to troops at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar during his extended trip to the Middle East. “My 2026 budget includes across the board – maybe you don’t want to look for the good of the country, you don’t have to take it – pay raises for each and every one of you. Substantial pay raises,” Trump said. “You are without a doubt the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. That’s the way it is. I said it last night. I said it’s strong. We have the strongest military in the world. It’s not even a contest. We have the best equipment, nobody has equipment like us, nobody has the planes or the missiles or anything else,” he continued. RUBIO TAKES SOMBER TONE ON RUSSIA-UKRAINE PEACE DEAL: ‘CLOSE BUT NOT CLOSE ENOUGH’ “And as your commander-in-chief, I’m here to say that America’s military will soon be bigger, better, stronger and more powerful than ever,” he added. Trump went on to criticize Biden, noting the deaths of 13 U.S. troops during the evacuation from Kabul, Afghanistan. TRUMP CONSIDERS JOINING RUSSIA-UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS IN TURKEY, UNCLEAR IF PUTIN WILL SHOW Trump’s speech came less than a day after he on Wednesday signed a series of agreements with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha, Qatar. The agreements involved a purchasing agreement by Qatar for Boeing aircraft, as well as letters of intent and “joint cooperation” between Qatar and the U.S. The emir also signed an intent agreement to purchase MQ-9 drone aircraft. TRUMP SAYS HE’LL DROP SANCTIONS ON SYRIA IN MOVE TO NORMALIZE RELATIONS Al Thani said he had a “great” conversation with Trump prior to the signing ceremony on Wednesday, adding that the agreements have elevated the U.S.-Qatar relationship to “another level.” U.S. relations with Doha have come a long way since 2017, when Trump accused Qatar of harboring terrorism: “The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level,” Trump said at the time. From there, Qatar became a major non-NATO ally to the U.S. in 2022 under Biden and is home to Al Udeid Air Base, one of the U.S.’s largest Middle Eastern bases and a key hub for U.S. Central Command operations. Fox News’ Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.