New US military GenAI tool ‘critical first step’ in future of warfare, says expert
The recently launched “GenAI” tool for U.S. service members and Department of War workers is a “critical first step” in the future of warfare, according to a military expert. This month, the Pentagon announced the launch of GenAI.mil, a military-focused AI platform powered by Google Gemini. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the platform is designed to give U.S. military personnel direct access to AI tools to help “revolutioniz[e] the way we win.” On Monday, the Department of War also announced that the Pentagon is further integrating Elon Musk’s xAI Grok family of models into the GenAI platform, allowing employees to use xAI safely on secure government systems for routine work, including tasks involving sensitive but unclassified information. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Emelia Probasco, a Navy veteran, former Pentagon official and senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, explained that the tool will help train Department of War service members and civilians on the use of artificial intelligence in their everyday workflow, preparing them for further integration of AI in military matters. WAR DEPARTMENT REFOCUSES ON AI, HYPERSONICS AND DIRECTED ENERGY IN MAJOR STRATEGY OVERHAUL Probasco said the tool will have a “big impact” on the everyday functioning of the Department of War. “Prior to the rollout of this new website and having Gemini 3 available to the force, folks were either using sort of a tool that wasn’t as capable … or even worse, they were sort of going to their home computers and trying to do various things on their home computers, which they’re not supposed to do, but it was probably happening,” Probasco explained. “Now they’ve got a more secure environment where they can experiment with these tools and really start to learn what they’re good for and what they’re not good for.” While Probasco said she does not believe the tools, such as the GenAI platform, “fully changes war,” she thinks “it’s the critical first step in training so that we know how to use it well.” She said that the Department of War has “made it very clear in the past year that they want to forge ahead and be innovative and try new things and adopt AI.” The GenAI tool, Probasco said, gives the department a type of sandbox to experiment with for still bigger innovations to come. FOX NEWS AI NEWSLETTER: HEGSETH MOVES TO REVOLUTIONIZE AMERICAN WARFIGHTING “There are responsible people in the department who are trying to figure out what is the best use of this tool. Let’s try lots of experiments in sort of sandboxes or in safe places so that when a conflict comes, we are ready and ahead, frankly, of any adversary who has started to play with the tools,” she explained. Probasco said the Department of War understands that adversaries such as China are also developing and experimenting with artificial intelligence. Indeed, this month, President Donald Trump announced he would be partially reversing a Biden-era restriction on high-end chip exports, permitting Nvidia to export its artificial-intelligence chips to China and other countries. The H200 chips are high-performance processors made by Nvidia that help run artificial intelligence programs, like chatbots, machine learning and data-center tasks. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill voiced that they are split over the decision, with some seeing the move as a dangerous concession and others as strategic. HEGSETH TO HIGHLIGHT REBUILDING THE ‘ARSENAL OF FREEDOM’ IN SPEECH AT REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE FORUM Either way, Probasco said “we have lots of evidence” that China “is doing rapid experimentation [with AI] across all domains of warfare.” “And it’s not, can I use a chatbot, but rather, ‘Can I gather up lots of information to start to target individuals for espionage?’ For example, [and], ‘Can I use data to create more sophisticated cyber-attacks?’” she explained. “There is this sort of dynamic of a race between the two sides trying to figure out how to adopt it,” she explained. Though important, Probasco said the GenAI tool is “not going to necessarily be the weapon system that gains [the U.S.] an advantage.” KYRSTEN SINEMA WARNS US ADVERSARY WILL PROGRAM AI WITH ‘CHINESE VALUES’ IF AMERICA FALLS BEHIND IN TECH RACE She assured the AI tool that will truly give the U.S. a military advantage “is underway,” but said “that’s not the sort of thing you just roll out for every service member to use.” “It’s important to remember that using a chatbot to help you think through certain problems or do talking points is not what’s going to win the war. There are much more sophisticated military systems that use generative AI; they use other kinds of what’s called ‘good old-fashioned AI.’ There are lots of other techniques that militaries need to use,” she said. “Those are already in the works, and they’ve been in the works for years,” Probasco explained, adding, “That’s not going to be rolled out in a big public announcement where everybody can play with it.”
DOJ walks back Biden-era abortion policy, bars VA from funding procedures
A Department of Justice opinion published Monday reversed a Biden administration directive that allowed Veterans Affairs to provide taxpayer-funded abortions, concluding that federal law bans the VA from offering abortion services in most circumstances. The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said in the opinion that a rule the Biden administration issued in 2022, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs decision, flouted the law. OLC Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock wrote that while the secretary of Veterans Affairs has wide latitude over what types of medical services it offers to the millions of veterans under its purview, “that discretion is not limitless.” The Veterans Health Care Act “makes clear” that the VA is restricted to providing abortion services only when a pregnancy carries certain types of risks, Craddock wrote. WHITE HOUSE WARNS VETERANS’ SERVICES AT RISK IF DEMS BLOCK GOP FUNDING BILL “That language is unambiguous,” Craddock said. A footnote noted that the only exceptions consistent with the law were abortions for “life-threatening circumstances, including treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages.” Asked about whether the VA was providing abortions, press secretary Peter Kasperowicz told Fox News Digital it was not, attributing the halt to the DOJ’s new interpretation of the law. “The DOJ’s opinion states that VA is not legally authorized to provide abortions, and VA is complying with it immediately,” Kasperowicz said, noting that the DOJ’s opinion was consistent with a new Trump administration rule proposal that was still going through the regulatory process. That Trump administration’s rule also suggested that the Biden administration had oversold the need for an abortion policy change. The prior administration had predicted the agency would need to provide some 1,000 abortions per year in the wake of post-Dobbs restrictions on abortions in various states. However, the VA has since 2022 been providing roughly 140 per year, the administration said. The VA, led by Secretary Doug Collins, operates dozens of medical centers throughout the country and offers lifelong health services to about 9 million veterans and other eligible beneficiaries. The DOJ OLC advises the executive branch on the legality of its policies, and the administration views the OLC’s opinions as binding interpretations of the law. NEARLY 37,000 VA EMPLOYEES FURLOUGHED OR WORKING WITHOUT PAY AMID GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN The progressive group Democracy Forward blasted the VA for shifting its policy, noting it was “fueled by” OLC’s opinion and did not include an exception for rape. “Denying veterans essential health care and abortion access – even in cases of rape or serious health risk – after they have sacrificed so much for our country is callous and inhumane,” Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman said, adding that veterans should have the “freedom to make their own health care decisions.”
Supreme Court rules on legality of Trump National Guard deployment to Illinois
The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s request to allow the president to proceed with immediately deploying National Guard troops to Chicago — delivering a blow, if temporary, to President Donald Trump as he seeks to expand his federalization push across the U.S. The justices declined the Trump administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. An appeals court also had refused to step in. The Supreme Court took more than two months to act. “At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the high court majority wrote. Three justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, publicly dissented. The outcome is a rare Supreme Court setback for Trump, who had won repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office again in January. ‘UNTETHERED FROM REALITY’: LAWYERS FOR TRUMP, OREGON, SPAR OVER NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT IN COURT CLASH The White House told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration plans to keep working “day in and day out to safeguard the American public.” “The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda.” In a statement, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul praised the court’s decision. “Nearly 250 years ago, the framers of our nation’s Constitution carefully divided responsibility over the country’s militia, today’s U.S. National Guard, between the federal government and the states – believing it impossible that a president would use one state’s militia against another state,” he said. “The extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state’s objection do not exist in Illinois, and I am pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts.” The update comes after the Trump administration asked the high court last week to stay a lower court order blocking Trump from immediately deploying federalized National Guard troops to Chicago. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court that a federal judge’s earlier order, as well as the partial stay granted by a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, “improperly impinges on the president’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.” Blocking the deployment of National Guard troops, Sauer argued, risks “jeopardizing the lives and safety of DHS officers,” and prevents officials from taking what he argued are “reasonable and lawful measures” to protect federal agents from the “violent resistance” that they argue has persisted in Chicago. Lawyers for Illinois and Chicago disputed that contention, however. ‘UNTETHERED FROM REALITY’: LAWYERS FOR TRUMP, OREGON, SPAR OVER NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT IN COURT CLASH They argued in their Supreme Court filing that the Trump administration’s arguments “rest on mischaracterizations of the factual record or the lower courts’ views of the legal principles.” They also cited the lower court judge’s order, which found the administration’s declarations about the nature of the protests in Chicago and nearby Broadview were “unreliable” and overstated the violence and difficulties officers faced enforcing the law. “As the district court found, state and local law enforcement officers have handled isolated protest activities in Illinois, and there is no credible evidence to the contrary,” lawyers for the state of Illinois said Monday. The update comes as Trump has sought to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to a growing list of Democratic-led cities, despite stated opposition from local and state leaders. He has faced opposition from a handful of federal courts, including U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, who described Trump’s actions in a restraining order this month as “untethered to reality,” and failing to reflect the situation on the ground. A three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit later stayed her order, allowing Trump to proceed with his deployment to Portland. TRUMP IS THREATENING TO ‘FEDERALIZE’ DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT In D.C., a federal judge on Friday will hear updates on the status of Trump’s National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital, after the city’s attorney general said in a new court filing that it appears the National Guard troops will remain deployed through at least summer 2026. It is unclear whether that is the Trump administration’s plan — and if so, how many of the 2,500 National Guard troops originally sent to D.C. in August would remain through that date. The fight comes as Trump officials argue that the deployments are a necessary step to crack down on what they have said is an uptick in violent crime and protect against threats from protesters, including anti-ICE demonstrations. Democrats, meanwhile, argue that Trump has failed to satisfy the criteria needed to federalize National Guard troops under USC § 12406, which allows a president to do so in cases of a foreign invasion, if there is “danger of a rebellion” or in cases when regular officers are unable to enforce the law. They have also argued that Trump’s characterizations are hyperbolic and merely a pretext to “federalize” Democratic-led cities and states. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Republicans consider using reconciliation again after Trump’s biggest legislative win
As the year closes, Republicans are looking to the past for another dance with a partisan exercise that tested the party’s unity and delivered President Donald Trump his crowning legislative achievement of the year. Budget reconciliation is how congressional Republicans rammed through Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” earlier this year. But it’s a time-consuming, labor-intensive process that laid bare intra-party divisions and nearly exploded before liftoff. Still, some Republicans want to take another stab at reconciliation, which allows a party in power to advance legislation with just a simple majority in the Senate as long as it adheres to strict, budgetary parameters. SENATE QUIETLY WORKS ON BIPARTISAN OBAMACARE FIX AS HEALTHCARE CLIFF NEARS “We can do two more reconciliation bills without a single Democratic vote,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. “Doesn’t mean we wouldn’t welcome Democratic votes, but we can do them without a single Democratic vote.” Turning once again to reconciliation would help Senate Republicans, in particular, address one of Trump’s desires to kill the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the upper chamber without changing the precedent that Democrats, for years, have threatened to do. But they need a plan, first. That would come from Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the de facto maestro of the reconciliation process. His committee was responsible for drafting the budget resolution that unlocked the process in the upper chamber earlier this year, and he is reportedly eying drafting another resolution in the new year. SEN MURPHY WARNS ‘PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE’ AS CONGRESS PUNTS ON EXPIRING OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES “It would be political malpractice not to do another reconciliation,” Graham told Semafor. But many Republicans acknowledged just how difficult reconciliation is, especially after the latest exercise that dominated much of Congress’ attention for the first half of the year. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital that “it’s always hard, but it’s an option, and one that we’re not ruling in or ruling out.” “I would say you have to have a reason to do it, you know,” Thune said. “I mean, you don’t just do reconciliation for the heck of it. You got to have a, you know, a specific purpose. And so we’ll see. I mean, that purpose may, you know, may start getting some traction.” TRUMP’S PUSH TO ‘KNOCK OUT’ FILIBUSTER GAINS NEW GOP TRACTION AS FUNDING DEADLINE NEARS Kennedy floated using reconciliation to tackle affordability issues, but some see the painstaking process as an avenue to grapple with another issue that has dominated Congress for several months: healthcare. Lawmakers left Washington, D.C., without a fix to expiring Obamacare subsidies, effectively setting up a drastic hike in out-of-pocket healthcare costs for millions of Americans. There are bipartisan negotiations in the works to deal with the issue when lawmakers return, but Republicans have a gnawing appetite to drastically change the program. Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital that Republicans “have to do something” on healthcare. “Reconciliation is one pathway to do something, but it also limits what we can do,” Banks said. “So we need bipartisan support to pass something that will help everybody.” And Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., who has been critical of Republicans’ inability to get a healthcare solution across the line, told Fox News Digital that reconciliation “may be an answer.” “The healthcare situation is really, it’s a big deal,” Justice said. “It’s more than difficult, you know? And so we need to, we need to try to fix it. That’s for sure.”
Senate quietly works on bipartisan Obamacare fix as healthcare cliff nears
Obamacare subsidies that have dominated the conversation on Capitol Hill are set to expire after Congress failed to act, but a cohort of bipartisan senators are quietly working to find a solution for when lawmakers return next year. It has engulfed Congress since September and played a starring role in the longest-ever government shutdown. And both Republicans and Democrats tried, and failed, to pass their partisan plans to either extend or replace the Biden-era enhanced tax credits. They are guaranteed to expire, and millions of Americans who use the subsidies are set to experience hikes to their out-of-pocket costs for healthcare that can vary widely depending on the state. SANDERS BLASTED AFTER BLOCKING BIPARTISAN KIDS’ CANCER RESEARCH BILL: ‘GRINCH,’ ‘SELFISH’ Still, some in Congress haven’t given up on the issue. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held bipartisan confabs last week as lawmakers readied to leave Washington, D.C., to hash out a framework for an Obamacare fix that could meet the desires of both sides of the aisle. There are several political landmines that the group will have to overcome, like Democrats’ demands for a relatively clean, multiyear extension of the subsidies and Republicans’ desires to add income caps and anti-fraud measures. “We have some momentum to enact a bipartisan bill that includes reforms,” Collins said. “As you know, Senator Moreno and I convened an ideologically diverse group of both Democratic and Republican senators who met for nearly two hours on Monday night, and we’re now working on drafting a specific bill to incorporate those conversations that will include reforms as well as the two-year extension.” FOUR REPUBLICANS BUCK MIKE JOHNSON TO JOIN HAKEEM JEFFRIES’ OBAMACARE PUSH The plan has yet to see the light of day, but Collins and Moreno both already have a public proposal, as do several other lawmakers in the upper chamber. Their original plan, released earlier this month, would extend the subsidies by two years, put an income cap onto the subsidies for households making up to $200,000 and eliminate zero-cost premiums as a fraud preventive measure by requiring a $25 minimum monthly payment. That initial offering could give a glimpse into the final product, but there are still hurdles to getting a bill on the floor that could pass. Namely, Senate Republicans are largely against any kind of extension to the subsidies without major reforms and a built-in off-ramp to wean off the credits, which they say are rife with fraud and funnel money directly to insurance companies rather than patients. There’s also another wrinkle in the House, where Democrats and a handful of Republicans rebelled to force a vote on their own extension to the subsidies. That bill is expected to get a vote next month. SEN MURPHY WARNS ‘PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE’ AS CONGRESS PUNTS ON EXPIRING OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES Lawmakers see it as changing the dynamic of negotiations in the Senate, but whether it ever makes it to a vote in the upper chamber is an open question. “Well, we’ll see,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said. “We’ll obviously cross that bridge when we come to it.” Some Republicans in the upper chamber see the momentum building in the House as a pressure point on them that could further drive the conversation around the subsidies and, more broadly, healthcare. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said, “It will apply pressure on us, which isn’t a bad thing.” “I’m ready to start talking about healthcare at any time,” Kennedy said. “I just don’t, I mean, I’m a pragmatist. I live in the real world, and I just don’t see a lot of appetite to make reforms. I just don’t — I see the vast majority of my Democratic colleagues just want an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies.” And Senate Democrats welcome the development, given that the House’s plan mirrors their own, three-year extension of the subsidies, which already failed in the upper chamber earlier this month. “Well, it seems to me the basic proposition is, is it progress or not? And I think it is, because what we have felt all along is the only timely tool is the tax credits,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.
Trump promises cheaper drugs under TrumpRx, but economists say the long-term costs may be hidden
As President Donald Trump rolls out his TrumpRx proposal to cut prescription drug prices, economists are raising questions about what happens when prices are capped and whether short-term savings for consumers come at the expense of future medical breakthroughs. On Friday, Trump announced deals with nine pharmaceutical companies to lower prices on certain medications for Americans, along with $150 billion in promised new investments in domestic manufacturing and pharmaceutical research. The announcement builds on the administration’s Trump Rx initiative, a government-run portal designed to steer consumers toward lower-cost prescription drugs offered directly by manufacturers. The program is central to Trump’s effort to tie U.S. drug prices to those paid in other wealthy countries, a policy known as “most favored nation” pricing. But economists caution that price-lowering agreements don’t eliminate costs and often shift them elsewhere, particularly into reduced drug development, delayed innovation, or higher prices in other parts of the market. TRUMP SECURES AGREEMENTS WITH MAJOR DRUGMAKERS TO LOWER MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION COSTS FOR AMERICANS Michael Baker, director of healthcare policy at the American Action Forum, said government price setting shifts costs rather than eliminating them. “At the most basic level, government price setting only limits what patients pay for a drug — usually reflected in an out-of-pocket or co-insurance payment,” Baker said. “This does nothing to address the overall cost of the drug, which someone still has to pay, nor does it lower the cost associated with development.” As a result, Baker said, patients ultimately bear those costs through tighter coverage rules, fewer treatment options or reduced future innovation. “Patients will experience far less of the crown jewel of the U.S. healthcare system that they are currently accustomed to receiving,” he added. Economists say the effects of permanent price caps would also be felt upstream, in research and development. “We know for sure that if drug prices are capped permanently below the levels the firm would have set, that will lead to lower incentives for R&D to discover new drugs and bring them to market,” explained Mark V. Pauly, professor of healthcare management at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. EXPERTS SAY MEDICAID CHANGES IN ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ ARE ‘COMMON SENSE’ FOR HEALTHCARE POLICY Pauly added that the impact is expected to be negative, but its scale — including how many drugs might never be developed and their potential value — remains highly uncertain. “I do not know the answer, but I know for sure no one else does either,” he added. FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS SOUND ALARM ON HEALTHCARE COSTS Others argue the administration’s approach avoids the most damaging forms of price control. Ed Haislmaier, an expert in healthcare policy and markets at The Heritage Foundation, said recent agreements appear to involve companies trading lower prices for benefits such as expanded market access or relief from other costs, including tariffs. “In such cases, companies are likely calculating that revenue losses from lower prices will be offset by revenue gains from more sales,” Haislmaier told Fox News Digital. “The kind of government price controls that are most damaging to innovation are ones that limit the initial price a company can charge for a new product. That is the situation in some countries, but fortunately not yet the in the United States,” he added. Ryan Long, Paragon’s director of congressional relations and a senior research fellow, suggested that pricing pressure abroad could force foreign governments to shoulder a greater share of drug development costs. Long said this strategy would lead “to lower prices for American consumers without sacrificing U.S. leadership in biopharmaceutical innovation that leads to new treatments and cures.”
Student loan defaults trigger paycheck garnishment as Trump admin ends COVID-era pause
The Department of Education will begin garnishing wages of those with defaulted federal student loans starting in January. The Trump administration announced in May that it would resume collections on defaulted federal student loans — including wage garnishments and seizure of Social Security benefits — for the first time since 2020. In March 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government paused referring federal student loans to collections. Now, the Trump administration has said that it will introduce garnishing wages in early January after providing student and parent borrowers ample heads up to repay their debts. Garnishing wages means that the U.S. government is authorized to order employers to withhold up to 15% of their employees’ wages after taxes, which would contribute toward paying off their student loans. “We expect the first notices to be sent to approximately 1,000 defaulted borrowers the week of January 7, and the notices will increase in scale on a month-to-month basis,” a Department of Education spokesperson told Fox News Digital. “All (Federal Student Aid) collections activities are required under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans.” TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RELEASES OVER $6B IN FROZEN EDUCATION FUNDS TO THE STATES Meanwhile, Democrats have sought to stop the Trump administration from garnishing wages for student loan borrowers. After the Trump administration announced in May it would resume collections, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., introduced legislation that would suspend the Department of Education’s ability to garnish wages, tax refunds, Social Security checks and other benefits. TRUMP STILL NEEDS CONGRESS’ HELP WITH PLAN TO ABOLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT “No one should have their hard-earned wages, tax refunds, and Social Security checks seized by Donald Trump—and our bill would ensure they do not,” Pressley said in a statement in May. “The Trump Administration should not be in the business of picking the pockets of our most vulnerable borrowers, gutting the Department of Education or exacerbating the student debt crisis.” In May, the Trump administration said that approximately 43 million student borrowers had federal student loan debt, which translated to an outstanding federal student loan balance of $1.6 trillion. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has sought to overhaul and eliminate the Department of Education and shift its functions to other agencies. Should Trump successfully dissolve the Department of Education, he’s indicated that an agency such as the Department of the Treasury could oversee student loans instead. Fox News’ Patrick Ward contributed to this report.
Brandon Johnson’s progressive tax push puts Chicago on brink of rare shutdown as mayor weighs veto
A potential veto of Chicago’s 2026 budget by Mayor Brandon Johnson could trigger the Windy City’s first-ever municipal shutdown. Johnson reportedly rebuked the budget passed by council over the weekend, which lacks the mayor’s favored per-employee “head tax” on corporations, as “morally bankrupt.” If Johnson were to veto the budget, it would place the onus back on city council to rehash a plan that could get signed before Dec. 30 – or plunge the city into shutdown. RECORDS REVEAL CHICAGO MAYOR’S ‘GIFT ROOM’ WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER INVESTIGATORS TURNED AWAY City Council lacks any Republican representation – with a Democratic majority of 48 plus two independents, so the situation represents a clash within factions of the left. One such Democratic critic was Alderman Gilbert Villegas of Belmont-Cragin on the city’s northwest side. Villegas, a noted ally of ex-Mayor Lori Lightfoot, tweeted that he will “work hard to see if we can get 38-40 votes to override the veto” – noting that it originally passed 30-18. Chicago faces a projected $1.2 billion shortfall for 2026. Johnson has argued that policies under the Trump administration favor corporations over working-class families and that businesses should “put more skin in the game.” HOW TRUMP CAN TURN THE TABLES ON THE LEFT WITH A RADICAL TAX PLAN But not all Democrats in Illinois agree. Gov. JB Pritzker has criticized the proposed $33-per-worker, per-month head tax, warning it would “penalize the very thing that we want, which is more employment.” Johnson also rebuked the Washington Post for its scathing editorial entitled, “Chicago Has Lost Its Mind,” which argued the head tax and other pressures on businesses will stifle economic growth. Johnson quipped that the paper “wouldn’t be the first time a publication got something I’ve done wrong.” CHICAGO MAYOR CREATES ‘ICE-FREE ZONES’ TO BLOCK FEDERAL AGENTS FROM CITY PROPERTY Items in the council’s budget include legalized video-gambling machines at eateries and Chicago-Midway Airport, raising the shopping-bag tax and a nationally unique proposal to tax social media companies – levying $0.50-per active Chicago user beyond 100,000 users that a platform has – with an expected windfall of $31 million, if approved. While a shutdown would be a novel development, late-year budget vetoes in Chicago are not. Popular 1980s Democratic Mayor Harold Washington vetoed several budgets in that decade, which often led to successful last-minute negotiations. Washington, the city’s first Black mayor, vetoed four budgets during his four-and-a-half-year tenure, which ended abruptly when he unexpectedly died in office after his 1987 re-election at age 65. A top Johnson ally, Alderman Pat Dowell of the South Side, is leading the pro-budget coalition, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. She said the council’s proposal is “not perfect but is a good budget and one we can work with.” Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez, a progressive from the West Side, meanwhile voiced support for Johnson’s head-tax proposal and slammed council’s oppositional plan as an “immoral, bankrupt, ‘Michael Sacks’ budget.” Sacks, a billionaire financier who runs asset manager GCM Grosvenor, is an ally of former Mayor Rahm Emanuel and donated directly to several aldermen’s campaigns before the budget fight, according to WGN. Alderman Bill Conway III, a former military intel officer who represents “The Loop” in the heart of downtown, defended Sacks, telling WGN, “Michael is someone who cares about the future of the city, and he tries to work with those who are like-minded.” Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson’s office for comment.
Trump and first lady go all black for official White House Christmas portrait photo
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump went all black for their official Christmas portrait photo. The White House on Tuesday released the image, showing the president dressed in a tuxedo with a white shirt and Melania Trump in a sleek black dress. The photo was taken on Dec. 7 in the Cross Hall of the White House. The first lady selected the “Home is Where the Heart Is” theme for the White House Christmas decor. MELANIA TRUMP GIVES TOUR OF 2018 WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS DECOR The halls of the White House are decked with more than 25,000 feet of ribbon; more than 2,000 strands of light; more than 120 pounds of gingerbread; more than 2,800 gold stars; more than 10,000 blue butterflies; and more than 700 feet of garland. The White House has 51 Christmas trees and 75 of Trump’s signature Christmas wreaths. The wreaths have classic red bows and hang outside the windows of the White House. WHITE HOUSE UNVEILS CHRISTMAS DECOR WITH ‘SPIRIT OF AMERICA’ THEME “This season also invites us to reflect on the blessings we share,” the White House Christmas message states. “For nearly 250 years, our Nation has grown through the hopes and hard work of families who believed in something greater than themselves. Their example inspires us today, especially at Christmas, when we gather with loved ones to celebrate the faith, family, and freedom that define our national story.” The White House reopened its doors for public Christmas tours on Dec. 2, Fox News Digital reported. The tours feature the White House Christmas decorations on the state floor and give visitors the opportunity to “enjoy the beloved annual tradition that transforms the White House into a festive reflection of the spirit, warmth, faith, and hope of the holiday season.”
Boasberg orders Trump to bring back CECOT migrant class deported in March
A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to provide due process to a class of Venezuelan migrants deported to El Salvador in March, and gave it two weeks to detail how it will do so – setting up another high-stakes clash between the White House and the federal courts. In March, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to halt its plans to immediately use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act wartime immigration law to quickly deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to CECOT, a Salvadoran maximum-security prison. That did not happen, and the planes landed in El Salvador hours later. Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration’s actions were illegal, conducted in defiance of the court, and deprived the migrants in the CECOT class of their due process protections – including prior notice of removal, a “meaningful opportunity” to contest their removal from the U.S., and the ability to dispute their designation as a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. He ordered the Trump administration to submit to the court by Jan. 5 its plan to provide due process protections to the CECOT class – which he said the administration could do by either returning the migrants to the U.S. to have their cases heard in person, or to otherwise facilitate hearings abroad with members of the class that “satisfy the requirements of due process.” “On the merits, the Court concludes that this class was denied their due-process rights and will thus require the Government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing,” Boasberg said Monday. “Our law requires no less.” APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT The Justice Department is almost certain to appeal the order. Monday’s ruling adds new clarity to a complex immigration case that began 10 months prior, and which sparked a flurry of appeals, contempt inquiries and open questions as to the status of the CECOT plaintiffs and the ability the U.S. has to order their return. Boasberg said Monday that the U.S. appeared to be operating with the knowledge that it had some level of constructive custody over the migrants detained at CECOT, citing the terms of an agreement made between the U.S. and El Salvador to house the migrants for at least a one-year period. He also cited multiple public remarks from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other senior DHS officials, which appear to cast CECOT as an “extension” of U.S. detention facilities. “These statements strongly undermine the Government’s contention that El Salvador retains complete discretion over what to do with individuals” removed from the U.S., he noted. JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA If “secretly spiriting individuals to another country were enough to neuter the Great Writ, then the Government could ‘snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action,’” Boasberg concluded. The update comes after the court’s inquiry had been stalled for months, both by appeals court rulings, efforts to shield certain information from the court for national security purposes, and a separate, but related, contempt inquiry. The CECOT migrants were again moved in July from the Salvadoran prison to Venezuela as part of a broader prisoner exchange that involved the return of at least 10 Americans detained in Venezuela. That step further complicated efforts to ascertain the status of the migrants, some of whom had fled Venezuela and were in hiding. That made it difficult to contact the migrants from the CECOT class and determine how many of them still wished to proceed with their due process cases, as ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told Boasberg in court last month. The ACLU said this month that, of the 252 Venezuelan migrants deported to CECOT in March, 137 of them still wished to move forward with the due process cases. US JUDGE VOWS TO RULE ‘SOON’ ON ABREGO GARCIA’S FATE AFTER MARATHON HEARING Still, the new ruling is almost certain to face fierce opposition from Trump officials, who have assailed Boasberg and other judges who have blocked or paused the president’s flurry of executive orders as “rogue, activist” judges, whom they argue are overstepping their authority. They argue that lower court judges should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what administration officials say is a lawful agenda – though the judges in question have disagreed that the president’s actions all follow the law. Boasberg, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court, has appeared unfazed by the new level of scrutiny. He told the Justice Department in November that he “certainly intends to determine what happened” on the day the government either intentionally or unintentionally violated his emergency order intended to halt the Alien Enemies Act removals. The government, he said, “can assist me to whatever degree it wishes.”