‘Squad’ Dems join GOP to advance contempt resolutions against Clintons in Epstein probe
The House Oversight Committee voted to refer former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for chamber-wide votes on criminal contempt of Congress charges with the help of multiple Democrats, including two members of the far-left Squad, for defying subpoenas related to the panel’s Jeffrey Epstein probe. Lawmakers voted to advance a pair of contempt resolutions against the Clintons on Wednesday after they did not appear for scheduled depositions earlier this month. The committee voted 34-9 to advance one contempt recommendation against Bill Clinton, with two members voting present, and another on Hillary Clinton in a 28-15 vote, with one member voting present. Nine Democrats voted with Republicans to advance contempt recommendations against Bill Clinton and three Democrats joined Republicans in the vote against Hillary Clinton. The Democrats who voted to advance Bill Clinton’s resolution were: Reps. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., Summer Lee, D-Pa., Stephen Lynch, D-Mass. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., Emily Randall, D-Wash., Lateefah Simon, D-Calif., Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. The Democrats who voted to advance Hillary Clinton’s resolution were Stansbury and “Squad” members Lee and Tlaib. “The committee does not take this action lightly. Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said of the Clintons’ no-show. “[Subpoenas] carry the force of law and require compliance. Former President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for depositions before this committee.” HILLARY CLINTON EXPECTED TO DEFY EPSTEIN PROBE SUBPOENA, RISKING CRIMINAL CHARGES “They refused,” he added. If the House votes to refer the Clintons for contempt, it would be up to the Department of Justice (DOJ) whether to prosecute. A contempt-of-Congress conviction can carry up to a $100,000 fine and a year behind bars. Republicans on the committee contend that by not appearing before lawmakers, the Clintons impeded congressional investigations into Epstein and his activities. Bill and Hillary Clinton originally received subpoenas to appear before lawmakers on Oct. 14 and Oct. 9, 2025, respectively, to answer questions on Epstein’s dealings, but even after working with the committee to reschedule, they did not appear for questioning. COMER RIPS ‘PAID DISRUPTOR’ AS BRIEFING ON CLINTON CONTEMPT PUSH DEVOLVES INTO CHAOS An attorney for the Clintons wrote to the committee, calling the subpoenas “invalid and legally unenforceable” and claiming they lacked a connection to a legislative purpose. Instead, the Clintons offered Comer the opportunity to travel to New York to conduct an interview by himself without an official transcript. Comer rejected the offer, calling it “insulting.” “The Clintons’ latest demands make clear they believe their last name entitles them to special treatment,” Comer said in a statement. “The House Oversight Committee rejects the Clintons’ unreasonable demands and will move forward with contempt resolutions.” Epstein, a former financier, killed himself while incarcerated on charges of sex trafficking minors in 2019, cutting short a prosecution of his crimes. Epstein was known to have rubbed shoulders with some of the world’s most powerful and wealthy figures, including Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, now-President Donald Trump and the Clintons. Recent disclosures from the DOJ in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act revealed new images and details of Clinton’s relationship with Epstein. HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO SUBPOENA LES WEXNER, 2 OTHERS IN EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION While none of them bear any proof of wrongdoing on their own, they have raised new questions among Republicans about what the former president may have known about Epstein’s crimes. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the committee, said he believes the Oversight contempt effort will ensure future compliance. “In order for Congress to do investigations, Congress has got to be able to bring people in to ask them questions and get answers so that they can do the work to fulfill our oversight function,” Jordan told Fox News Digital on Wednesday morning. Democrats at the markup called Republican efforts a partisan attack meant to target the political adversaries of President Donald Trump. Rep. Emily Randall, D-Wash., said she would not defend the Clintons but framed the contempt recommendations as an extension of Trump’s political objectives. “I do not feel it is my responsibility to defend the former President of the United States as a member of Congress, in a separate and co-equal branch of government — just like it is not your responsibility, Mr. Chair, to carry out the political retribution of the current president,” Randall said. ‘THE VIEW’ HOSTS CALL ON CLINTONS TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA, TESTIFY ON EPSTEIN Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif., said he feared the committee’s efforts would continue to weaponize Congress’ investigation powers. “I’m very troubled by this criminal contempt motion,” Min said. “I have deep concerns that this looks like a political witch hunt against Trump’s critics, that it will be referred to the Department of Justice.” The Clintons were two of 10 people subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee but are the only two facing contempt threats so far for not appearing. Despite his concerns, Min added that he also believed the Clintons should have complied with the congressional orders. “No one should be above the law, including presidents and former presidents, and congressional subpoenas are an important part of that rule of law. And I think the Clintons should be here. I think it’s very shameful that they’re not,” Min said. With the committee having voted to suggest House-wide contempt resolutions against the Clintons, the chamber will likely consider them sometime in February, according to statements Comer made to Fox News Digital last week.
Supreme Court appears ready to keep Lisa Cook on Federal Reserve board despite Trump efforts to fire her
The Supreme Court appeared poised to give President Donald Trump one of his biggest legal setbacks in office, offering strong support Wednesday for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook remaining in her leadership position — at least for now. The justices debated in their packed courtroom whether Trump has broad unilateral executive authority to fire someone from the central bank, despite its special status as a stand-alone federal agency. During nearly two hours of oral arguments, a majority seemed to agree the Fed’s unique public-private hybrid structure limited removal without clear “cause,” and that Trump did not meet his legal obligations when seeking Cook’s dismissal for alleged private mortgage fraud. REPUBLICAN SENATOR VOWS TO BLOCK TRUMP FED NOMINEE OVER POWELL INVESTIGATION The case comes before the Supreme Court on an emergency basis — with the government seeking to dismiss Cook now, for as long as the courts decide the matter, a process that could last months. The justices could decide the larger constitutional questions now or give the lower federal courts a chance for a full examination of the facts, with some guidance from the high court on the standards of “for cause” removal. In arguments, most on the court seemed skeptical of Trump’s actions. “That’s your position that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Very low bar for cause that the president alone determines. And that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.” “Let’s talk about the real-world downstream effects of this. Because if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me just thinking big picture, what goes around, comes around,” added Kavanaugh, who has typically been an ardent defender of executive power. “All the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029 — if there’s a Democratic president or January 20th, 2033. And then, we’re really at, at will removal.” Others on the bench raised questions of “public confidence” if the president could fire Fed governors without fully explaining or justifying the reasons. “We have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is” fired, asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “that it can trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?” Cook’s lawyer told the nine-member bench court the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress in 1913 as a wholly independent entity, to insulate it from political influence, and from any one president “stacking the deck” with their own nominees. The first Black female Fed governor claims to be a political pawn in Trump’s very public efforts to dictate the board’s interest rate policies and by exploiting what she calls “manufactured charges” of wrongdoing. GOP SENATOR SUGGESTS FED CHAIR POWELL RESIGN NOW TO DODGE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL INDICTMENT With Cook in the audience as a show of support was Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, whom Trump has also sought to remove in a broader, ongoing feud with the agency over the pace of lowering benchmark interest rates to spur the domestic economy. But the Trump Justice Department said he had executive authority to seek Cook’s removal, free from judicial review. The conservative court has allowed much of Trump’s challenged executive actions to be enforced at least temporarily — including upholding firings of members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, despite federal laws protecting them against removal without good cause. The justices last month heard arguments in a separate case, on Trump’s efforts to remove Democrat-appointed Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which, like the Fed, is a congressionally-created independent, multi-member regulatory agency. The 6-3 conservative majority in that petition appeared ready to rule for the president when it involves semi-autonomous agencies like the FTC. But in the Federal Reserve dispute, the high court clearly indicated this institution was different. In the Cook case, lower courts ruled she did not receive due process when the president tried to fire her. The current posture of the case is whether Trump can remove Cook — at least temporarily — while the dispute continues to play out on the merits. The “for cause” removal restriction’s constitutionality is not directly before the justices, but nevertheless played a key role in the oral argument session. The Supreme Court could go ahead and settle the competing issues now — which seems unlikely — or leave it to the lower courts to continue hearing the appeal, with guidance on how to proceed. Though its leaders are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the seven-member board is considered an independent government agency, since its monetary policy decisions do not need presidential or legislative approval. But the agency does provide Congress with regular reports on its work. It also does not receive any federal funding, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Under law, the Federal Reserve’s leadership has a three-fold mandate: “maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the federal government, but set up like private corporations, and regionally located across the country. In arguments, most justices agreed Cook deserved some chance to make her case that a dismissal would be improper. SUPREME COURT PREPARES FOR MAJOR TEST OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR “Why are you afraid of a hearing?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett, at one point. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked: “Let’s, just suppose with me, hypothetically, for the moment, that the court read the act to require notice and a hearing … What would that hearing look like?” Gorsuch asked if the president could just call Cook into the White House Roosevelt Room. “So just a meeting across a conference table, finish with ‘you’re fired?’” But Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly said a hearing on
Ted Cruz’s 2026 game plan: Lose weight, skip the drinks, read the Bible daily
EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Ted Cruz has three New Year’s resolutions — and he’s making it his 2026 mission to stick to them. In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Cruz, R-Texas, laid out his 2026 promises. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SHARES HIS NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION “The first is one that a lot of people make in the New Year, which is hard to deliver on — to lose some weight,” Cruz said. “In particular, to drop 30 pounds this year.” Cruz told Fox News Digital he weighed in at 236 pounds Jan. 1, 2026. “My goal by January of next year is to be 206,” he said. “When I graduated from college I was 135 — skinny as a rail,” Cruz continued, joking that some say he is “twice the man I used to be.” “Dropping 30 pounds is something that would be good to do, so I’m going to work on diet and exercise,” Cruz said. Cruz told Fox News Digital he is focusing on a ketogenic diet to start. “I’m cutting out carbs and focusing on eating meat and cheese and vegetables,” he said. “Keto can be tough to do, but it can produce real effects.” Cruz’s second New Year’s resolution is to stick to “dry January,” meaning no alcoholic beverages for the month of January. “I’ve long enjoyed red wine with dinner, and you can have fun at dinners and laugh a lot, but at the same time, wine is filled with calories, and if you’re trying to drop 30 pounds, pouring grape juice into your midsection is not exactly conducive to that objective.” Cruz said he’s replaced that red wine with sparkling water with lime, vitamin water and more. “You know, drinks that taste good and that I enjoy,” he said. “I’ve been amazed at how many friends of mine are doing dry January,” Cruz said. “We had good friends who came to the house. They brought a six-pack of nonalcoholic beer, and we had that beer and cheese and meat charcuterie board. It was just a good chance hanging out with friends, but I didn’t know they were doing that, but it turns out, we all were.” And finally, Cruz’s third resolution for 2026 is to read the Bible every day. SEN. TED CRUZ BREAKS DOWN THE HIGH-STAKES STRATEGIC FIGHT FOR GREENLAND “This is something I’ve done during different times of my life. With all the demands of work and family and kids, it is easy to get pulled in different directions and lose that discipline,” Cruz said. Cruz recalled that he and his wife, Heidi, would do an “evening devolution” when his daughters, now 17 years old and 15 years old, were younger, but told Fox News Digital that as they have gotten older, it has been more difficult to stick to. “I want to read the word and reflect on it and have your spirit open to listen — listen to the Holy Spirit. Let the words of Jesus impact your daily life,” Cruz said. “It is something I’ve always wanted to do, and in fact, after I made my resolutions, my pastor texted me and suggested we’d spend a Sunday afternoon a month and spend some time together in prayer and in Bible study together.” Cruz said faith and Bible study has “been a part of my life since I was a kid.” “There are different times in life where you have more or less discipline and consistency,” he said. “Every day, we should start with Jesus first, and that has remained true in my prayer life, but at times, the demands of the moment have distracted me from reading the word consistently every day and I’m going to return to that.” It’s been 21 days into 2026 and Cruz says he is going strong. “Its going well,” he said. SUCCEEDING TRUMP IN 2028: SIX REPUBLICANS TO KEEP YOUR EYES ON As for the diet, he said he has been “keeping to it,” and is going to be working more exercise into his routine. “I already play basketball twice a week,” he said. “I’m going to be working in daily pushups.” As for other priorities for the new year, Cruz said he and his wife are focused on their daughters. “Our girls are 15 and 17 — one is a senior in high school and one is a freshman. They are teenagers getting ready to go off to school,” he said. “You reflect on the limited number of days they’re going to be home much longer.” He added: “When they leave for school, I’ll go into their bedrooms and just cry. I love my girls.” “The days that the girls are home and not out in the world are rapidly dwindling, and that makes you want to make sure you’re carving out time right now,” he said. “Because the time right now, today, will never be back tomorrow.” As for a potential 2028 presidential run, Cruz told Fox News Digital that his “focus right now is representing 31 million Texans, and it is an incredible privilege to serve them and represent the great state of Texas in the U.S. Senate.” “That is my priority right now and my sole focus,” Cruz said.
Fired under Trump, former military officers launch Democratic bids for Congress
Two officers who were pushed out of the military during President Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House have launched new missions this week: running for Congress as Democrats. A retired U.S. Space Force colonel, who was forced out of the military under the Trump administration’s ban on transgender service members, announced a run for Congress in Northern Virginia. And a senior Navy official removed from her post last year by War Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a congressional bid in South Carolina. Their candidacies highlight a growing political backlash to Trump-era military policies, as former officers removed from service look to re-enter public life through Congress. PENTAGON SCORES COURT VICTORY IN TRANSGENDER BAN LEGAL FIGHT Bree Fram joined the U.S. Space Force in August 2021, where she rose to the rank of colonel. President Donald Trump signed an executive order and the Pentagon, under Hegseth, issued guidance that barred most transgender people — including those with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria — from military service. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in March 2025 blocking enforcement, but courts later allowed the policy to move forward while litigation continued. According to Fram, she was placed on administrative leave in June 2025 pending separation, and was forced to retire at the end of 2025 due to presidential policy. Fram pledged that “I’m not going to run away from my oath to the Constitution.” In a campaign launch video posted on Tuesday, Fram said, “I served 23 years wearing the flag on my shoulder, reaching the rank of colonel. But then Donald Trump fired me, not because of my performance but because of who I am.” Fram said she’s running for Congress “because too many Americans are afraid of what the federal government will do to them instead of being confident of what it can do for them.” Virginia is likely to redraw its congressional map ahead of November’s midterm elections, as part of the high-stakes redistricting battle between Trump and Republicans versus Democrats. And Fram plans to run in whichever district she resides in once the new congressional lines are finalized. Fram’s hometown of Reston, Virginia, is currently in the state’s 11th Congressional District, which is represented by Democratic Rep. James Walkinshaw, who last year won a special election in a landslide to succeed the late Rep. Gerry Connolly, who died from cancer in May. Walkinshaw was a former Connolly chief of staff. In South Carolina, former three-star vice admiral Nancy Lacore on Tuesday jumped into the open seat race in the state’s 1st Congressional District. Lacore, a 35-year military veteran who served as a Navy helicopter pilot and later as chief of the Navy Reserve, a 60,000-person force, was removed last August. The reason for her firing was not made clear, but it occurred as part of a high-profile leadership purge headed by Hegseth which included the dismissal of Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, and Rear Adm. Milton Sands, a Navy SEAL officer who oversees Naval Special Warfare Command. “After decades of service to our country, a career that started as a Navy pilot and finished as a three-star admiral, I was removed from my position without cause,” Lacore claimed in her campaign launch video. HEGSETH FIRES TOP PENTAGON OFFICERS And she emphasized, “I still have more to give, more to fight for, more work to do — and I am not done serving.” The War Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment when asked about Lacore’s claim. Lacore joins a crowded field of Democrats and Republicans running to succeed three-term GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, who is running for South Carolina governor. Democrats are aiming to flip the right-leaning coastal congressional district in the state’s Lowcountry. “The South Carolina First isn’t a District that Democrats can concede if we’re going to build a lasting and winning coalition, and Nancy is the only candidate in a position to win,” said Matt Corridoni, a spokesperson for The Bench, a Democrat-aligned group that highlights it’s “building the next generation of Democratic leaders by recruiting and supporting great candidates in tough districts.”
Trump says framework of ‘future deal’ on Greenland reached after NATO talks as tariffs put on hold
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he will not impose tariffs that were set to take effect Feb. 1, citing a “framework of a future deal” with NATO involving Greenland and the Arctic region. “Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Trump said the deal, if finalized, “will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations,” adding that the agreement led him to halt the planned tariffs. “Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st,” he said. TRUMP CHALLENGES CARNEY AT DAVOS, ASSERTS CANADA SHOULD BE ‘GRATEFUL’ FOR GOLDEN DOME MISSILE DEFENSE Trump added that talks are continuing, saying, “Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland,” and said Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff will lead negotiations and “report directly to me.” In a spray later in the afternoon at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the president said the proposed deal framework “gets us everything we need to get.” “The deal is going to be put out pretty soon, we’ll see. It’s right now a little bit in progress, but pretty far along,” Trump said to reporters. “It gets us everything we need it to get.” NATO CHIEF PRAISES TRUMP AT DAVOS, SAYS HE FORCED EUROPE TO ‘STEP UP’ ON DEFENSE After being asked by another reporter about what NATO Secretary Rutte had to say during their meeting, Trump simply referred to him as “a great leader” and “fantastic.” “The Secretary General was representing the other side, which is really us too, because, you know, we’re a very important member of NATO,” he said. “I’ve done a lot for NATO. And it’s really nice. I mean, it’s a deal that everybody’s very happy with.” NATO confirmed to Fox News Digital in a statement from Spokesperson Allison Hart that negotiations are aimed “at ensuring Russia and China never gain a foothold” in Greenland. “The Secretary General had a very productive meeting with President Trump during which they discussed the critical significance of security in the Arctic region to all Allies, including the United States,” Hart said in a statement. “Discussions among NATO Allies on the framework the President referenced will focus on ensuring Arctic security through the collective efforts of Allies, especially the seven Arctic Allies. Negotiations between Denmark, Greenland, and the United States will go forward aimed at ensuring that Russia and China never gain a foothold – economically or militarily – in Greenland,” Hart added. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “As President Trump said, the details of the framework will continue to be unveiled as discussions continue,” White House Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said to Fox News Digital. “The White House has nothing more to add at this time.”
Rand Paul says personal experience with YouTube and Google changed his mind about platform liability
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said a personal experience with Big Tech has led him to change his thinking, and he now believes companies should be liable for the content posted on their platforms. Paul asserted that YouTube and its parent Google had refused to remove a video that falsely claimed that he had taken money from Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. “I’ve formally notified Google that this video is unsupported by facts, defames me, harasses me and now endangers my life. Google responded that they don’t investigate the truth of accusations… and refused to take down the video,” the senator asserted in the opinion piece published by the New York Post on Monday. RAND PAUL SAYS US IN ‘ACTIVE WAR’ WITH VENEZUELA: ‘I STILL HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR THE BEST’ Paul also noted that the person who posted the offending video removed it “under threat of legal penalty.” “My default position as a libertarian/conservative has been to defend the internet liability protections known in law as Section 230 of the Communications Act. The courts have largely ruled that Section 230 shields social-media companies from being sued for content created by third parties,” he wrote. “Until now, I had not sufficiently considered the effects of internet providers hosting content accusing people of committing crimes.” The experience was a turning point in his thinking. “The arrogance of Google to continue hosting this defamatory video and the resultant threats on my life have caused me to rethink Congress’ blind allegiance to liability shields,” he asserted. RAND PAUL SAYS TRUMP’S THREAT TO BOMB IRAN ‘IS NOT THE ANSWER’: NOT THE ‘JOB OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT’ Paul accused the company of being inconsistent. “So Google does not have a blanket policy of refraining to evaluate truth. Google chooses to evaluate what it believes to be true when it is convenient and consistent with its own particular biases,” he wrote. “This complete lack of decency, this inconsistent moderation of truthfulness, this conscious refusal to remove illegal and defamatory content has led me to conclude that the internet exemption from liability, a governmentally granted privilege and a special exemption from our common law traditions, should not be encouraged by liability shields and I will pursue legislation toward that goal,” the senator explained. RAND PAUL SAYS GOP COLLEAGUES ‘DON’T GIVE A S— ABOUT THESE PEOPLE IN THE BOATS’: THEY ‘SAY THEY’RE PRO-LIFE’ “I think Google is, or should be, liable for hosting this defamatory video that accuses me of treason, at least from the point in time when Google was made aware of the defamation and danger,” he asserted. Fox News Digital reached out to Google for comment on Wednesday — YouTube noted that the video had been pulled down by the user and is no longer on the platform. YouTube added that it relies on its openly available community guidelines to decide what material it will yank, and only takes down material “that poses a serious risk of egregious harm such as terrorist content.” The video platform also claimed that it has always advocated for anyone to be able to share their view, asserting that it does not check the accuracy of individual videos “and the vast majority of content stays up.”
ICE funding bill draws fire from left and right as shutdown deadline nears
Both conservatives and progressives are venting frustrations with a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill expected to get a vote this week, potentially throwing Congress’ goal to avert a government shutdown by Jan. 30 into question. The bill is part of a bundle of four spending bills the GOP hopes to pass before the end of the week, which also includes funding for the departments of War, Education, Labor and Health and Human Services, among others. Where progressive Democrats believe the package should include far stronger measures to prevent future confrontations between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and protesters, some Republicans believe the bill doesn’t go far enough to ensure DHS can carry out President Donald Trump’s immigration goals. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., one of the most vocal fiscal and border hawks in the House, said he’s still weighing whether he can support the measure. CONGRESS UNVEILS $1.2T SPENDING BILL AS PROGRESSIVE REVOLT BREWS OVER ICE FUNDING “Everything’s up in the air. If it’s full of garbage, I won’t vote for it,” Burchett said when asked about the full package. The DHS bill is a product of bipartisan negotiation and includes a handful of safeguards that Democrats argue are necessary after Renee Nicole Good was fatally shot in a deadly encounter with ICE agents in Minnesota earlier this month. In its current form, the bill requires DHS to equip ICE officers with body cameras, implements new training requirements for how agents should interact with the public, largely keeps last year’s funding flat and even reduces some funding for ICE’s removal operations. “If it’s going to be a Republican product, it can be improved,” Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., said, though he declined to say if he planned to vote for the bill. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., took issue with language that prevents government agencies from exchanging data on unaccompanied minors. “Data sharing has to occur,” the top conservative said. “It makes no sense to prohibit data sharing between departments.” HOUSE DEM BACKS THE IDEA OF REINING IN DHS FUNDING IN WAKE OF ICE-INVOLVED SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA Harris explained that under current law, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the status of unaccompanied children who cross the border — contrasting with the vast majority of illegal aliens who are tracked by DHS. He wants the bill to enable DHS and HHS to share information on children. “We have to protect these children from human traffickers, sex traffickers, abuse — and I’m not sure with that provision in there that we can effectively protect them,” Harris said. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told reporters on Wednesday morning he plans to introduce four amendments that he believes will address some Republican concerns. He declined to describe them but said they would suggest both funding and policy changes. With the sudden death of Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., and the resignation of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., earlier this month, Republicans can afford to lose just two votes on any party-line consideration. While it’s unclear if the DHS bill will draw any Democratic support, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of more than 70 lawmakers, made it clear last week they would oppose legislation that didn’t come with meaningful guardrails and reforms on ICE. Democratic lawmakers like Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., said the current bill falls well short of what she wanted to see. “I think what we’re seeing right now is a clear lack of leadership and legal barriers or guardrails for the actions of ICE,” Dexter said. “I will not vote to fund ICE further.” When asked if she shared concerns voiced by other Democrats that tanking the DHS bill might punish other government operations beyond just ICE, Dexter said she believed lawmakers could consider those areas separately. REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: PROGRESSIVES EYE SHUTDOWN LEVERAGE TO REIN IN ICE, VENEZUELA OPERATIONS “Obviously, FEMA and TSA and other parts of DHS’ budget would need to be made whole in some regard,” Dexter said, referring to the government’s disaster relief and transportation security operations. “But we have to be realistic about the impact that ICE’s operations are having across this country.” Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., the No. 3 Democrat in the House and a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said individual members would have to make their own determinations on the bill. For his part, Aguilar questioned whether the administration would comply with the new requirements even if they were passed. “All the guardrails in the world don’t make sense if the administration isn’t going to follow the law and the language that we pass. Members have to take that into account,” Aguilar said. “Ultimately, members are going to vote [for] what’s in the best interest of their districts.” Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., the deputy chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, announced last week the group would reject spending that didn’t also include substantial guardrails for ICE. “This week, the House votes on DHS funding. I will not vote to give ICE a single cent. No more blank checks for a rogue agency that operates above the law, escalates violence and erodes our most basic freedoms,” she wrote on X. She declined to expand on her concerns when asked by Fox News Digital, stating, “I’ve already said what I have to say about this.” The House is scheduled to consider the DHS funding bill on Thursday.
Bessent mocks Newsom at Davos as ‘Patrick Bateman meets Sparkle Beach Ken’
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent lashed out at California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday, calling him “economically illiterate” and accusing him of prioritizing elite global gatherings over the state’s mounting fiscal, housing, and homelessness crises. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Bessent used the high-profile meeting to deliver a blistering critique of Newsom’s economic record and leadership. “I was told he was asked to give a speech on his signature policies, but he’s not speaking because what have his economic policies brought? Outward migration from California, a gigantic budget deficit, the largest homeless population in America, and the poor folks in the Palisades who had their homes burned down,” the Treasury secretary said. “He is here hobnobbing with the global elite while his California citizens are still homeless. Shame on him. He’s too smug, too self-absorbed, and too economically illiterate to know anything.” NEWSOM TOUTS CALIFORNIA’S NUMEROUS LEGAL FIGHTS WITH TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN FINAL STATE OF THE STATE Bessent also responded to Newsom’s characterization of him as a “smug man,” saying the governor “strikes me as Patrick Bateman meets Sparkle Beach Ken,” referring to the fictional serial killer from “American Psycho” and the flamboyant doll character from “Barbie.” “[He] may be the only Californian who knows less about economics than Kamala Harris. He’s here this week with his billionaire sugar daddy, Alex Soros, and Davos is the perfect place for a man who, when everyone else was on lockdown, when he was having people arrested for going to church, he was having $1,000 a night meals at the French Laundry,” he added. “And I’m sure the California people won’t forget that.” The Cabinet official said the administration would also move to address what he called “waste, fraud and abuse” in the state. Newsom, who is in Switzerland attending the Davos summit, struck back at the White House on Tuesday by directing his criticism at President Donald Trump and his remarks about acquiring Greenland. “America’s allies and business leaders need to understand this: There’s no diplomacy with Donald Trump. Get off your knees and grow a spine,” he wrote on X. NEWSOM TOUTS CALIFORNIA’S NUMEROUS LEGAL FIGHTS WITH TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN FINAL STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS He told reporters on the sidelines of the annual meeting later that Trump is a “T. rex.” “You mate with him or he devours you. One or the other,” Newsom said. “It’s time to stand tall and firm. Have a backbone. I can’t take this complicity — people rolling over,” he added. “From an American perspective, it’s embarrassing.”
Trump challenges Carney at Davos, asserts Canada should be ‘grateful’ for Golden Dome missile defense
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the United States should control Greenland to build a large-scale “Golden Dome” missile defense system he claimed would also protect Canada, arguing that the country depends on U.S. security. “We’re building a Golden Dome that’s going to, just by its very nature, going to be defending Canada. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also,” Trump told attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “But they’re not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful. They should be grateful to us, Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that Mark, the next time you make your statements,” he said, referring to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s address on Tuesday. TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN ON GREENLAND PUSH AS POLLS SHOW LITTLE PUBLIC SUPPORT It remains unclear whether Canada will take part in the construction of the Golden Dome, an ambitious missile defense system unveiled by the White House in May, though Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday that the Trump administration has invited Ottawa to participate. “Greenland is strategically important for [Trump’s] Golden Dome project to protect the U.S. and he’s invited Canada into that if they want to pay their share,” Bessent said during an interview with CNBC in Davos. The Trump administration has estimated the system will cost roughly $175 billion and will use space-based sensors, interceptors and other advanced missile defense technologies. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in a May report that the space-based interceptors could cost between $161 billion and $542 billion over 20 years. HEGSETH ORDERS SWEEPING ARMY OVERHAUL AND CONSOLIDATION AIMED AT COUNTERING CHINA AND GOLDEN DOME CAPABILITIES Carney, in his speech at the World Economic Forum, did not mention Trump by name in his address, but warned that the rules-based international order is breaking down as “great powers” increasingly use economic and security leverage to coerce allies. He argued that “middle powers” like Canada must heed the “wake-up call” that compliance does not guarantee safety, and instead, build strength through diversification, collective action and respect for sovereignty. Carney also reaffirmed Canada’s support for Greenland and Denmark’s right to determine Greenland’s future, signaling opposition to territorial or economic pressure tied to security demands.
Kaine wants to rein in Trump’s war powers, but never did the same for Biden, Obama
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., has time and again pushed to rein in President Donald Trump’s war authorities, but he has rarely gone to the same lengths for his own party’s presidents. Kaine’s argument has stayed fairly consistent over the years that Congress should reassert its constitutional authority and decision-making in the run-up to a military conflict. And he has either led or joined several pushes over Trump’s non-consecutive terms in office to corral his war powers. But he never pulled the same kind of move under former Presidents Barack Obama or Joe Biden, causing Republicans to question whether his desires are politically motivated or genuine. SECRETARY RUBIO SCHEDULED TO FACE FORMER COLLEAGUES ON VENEZUELA POLICY There was not a single war powers resolution filed in the Senate during Obama’s time in office, but Kaine did push back on his expansive use of drones in the Middle East. “I have been as consistent as I can be, because I really got in the way of President Obama when he wanted to use military action in Syria without congressional authorization,” Kaine said. “And I told him, you know, ‘You’re like my friend. But this is, you know, a basic principle for me.’” His latest push to curb future military action in Venezuela without congressional approval nearly succeeded in the Senate but ultimately was killed through a rare procedural move coupled with an intense pressure campaign from Trump, his administration and Senate Republican leaders. Before the first vote, which saw five Republicans peel from their colleagues to advance the resolution, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., contended that Kaine’s latest push “does not reassert Congress’ powers.” “There are Democrats in this chamber who are using the arrest of Nicolás Maduro not to advance American interests, but to attack President Trump,” Barrasso said. KAINE VOWS NEW WAR POWERS FIGHTS AFTER SENATE BLOCKS TRUMP VENEZUELA CHECK And building off Barrasso’s sentiment was a broader argument from several Republicans, and top officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who charged that Kaine’s push was moot given that there were no boots on the ground in Venezuela and that the administration has no future plans for military action. Republicans who may have been on the verge of supporting Kaine’s push argued that without a plan to beat an almost guaranteed veto from Trump, it was nothing more than a messaging tactic. “It’s a messaging exercise, and I think that you’d have more credibility if, at least, you had some elements, like boots on the ground to justify it,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told Fox News Digital. “I mean, if somebody’s serious about getting something done, if you sit down with me and say, ‘I can get the 67 votes, so I have a veto-proof majority, and this is how I’m going to do it,’ that impresses me,” he continued. Dating back to Trump’s first term in office, Kaine has either introduced or supported seven war powers resolutions. Each of those pushes — four of which he led — were all directed toward reining in Trump’s military authority and reasserting Congress’ oversight role. However, he rejected two of three Republican-led war powers pushes during Biden’s presidency, and notably, voted for the same procedural move used to kill his own Venezuela resolution to nix another from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in 2024. Cruz’s war powers resolution sought to curb Biden’s war authority as he pushed for the creation of a temporary pier on the coast of Gaza to deliver aid to the country. KEY REPUBLICANS FLIP, KILL EFFORT TO RESTRAIN TRUMP’S POLICING POWER OVER VENEZUELA Kaine argued there was a stark difference between humanitarian missions and military action in explaining his vote against Cruz’s resolution. “That was because building a humanitarian pier is not hostilities, right? If that’s hostilities, the U.S. going to do tsunami relief is hostilities,” Kaine said. “But you know what we’re doing in Venezuela is hostilities,” he continued. “It’s not building a pier for humanitarian aid. So, that was why I said the definition of hostility should not apply to humanitarian acts, OK? And I firmly believe that, and I’d vote for that under presidents of either party.” Still, Republicans countered that Kaine’s own war powers resolution was similarly void because there were no active or planned hostilities in the region. “It’s pretty clear, war powers only applies if you’ve got boots on the ground,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital. “We don’t have boots on the ground in those locations that he’s talking about. And so I’m not sure what the reasoning is, but it appears to me to be unnecessary, and it certainly does not deserve to be privileged.” Kaine has no intention of relenting on his war powers pursuit while Trump is in office and noted last week that he would file resolution after resolution to take a hammer to the cracks forming in the GOP’s mostly unified resistance against questioning the president’s war authorities. That decision has not surprised many Republicans. “I mean, he’s a Democrat, so he’s going to try and do messaging,” Tillis said. “I understand that — we do the same stuff.”