Progressive-backed candidate convicted in man’s killing wins city council election
A Maine woman who previously served time as a convicted killer was elected to serve on a local city council on Tuesday night, causing a stir on social media in the process. Angela Walker was elected to the Bangor city council, New York Post reported, more than 20 years after pleading guilty to manslaughter in the death of a man named Derek Rogers in 2002. The manslaughter conviction stemmed from a fight where Walker was allegedly called a racial slur derogatory toward Native Americans and the man who said it, a Canadian tourist named Derek Rogers, was later found beaten to death and suffocated with sand, according to news reports. Walker ultimately pleaded guilty to manslaughter, along with her brother, and perjury, earning a sentence of 10 years in prison. WHAT JAY JONES’ VICTORY MEANS FOR DEMOCRATS AND THE ‘NEW ERA OF VIOLENT RHETORIC,’ ACCORDING TO EXPERTS Although Walker was sponsored by a progressive group, she is not affiliated with a political party and will serve a three-year term along with three others who were elected to the council. News of Walker’s election quickly spread on social media with popular conservative influencer account LibsofTikTok sharing it with her 4.5 million followers. “Meet Angela Walker,” LibsofTikTok posted on X. “She was just elected to Bangor, Maine City Council. She was previously convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years for kiIIing a tourist, allegedly because he called her a ‘racist’ name. He was found severely beaten and suffocated with sand stuffed down his throat.” HOUSE GOP PROBE TARGETS SOROS-LINKED GROUPS OVER ALLEGED ANTIFA FUNDING TIES “Um, wut?” GOP Sen. Ted Cruz posted on X. “Unfortunately, Jay Jones is not the floor,” Dhillon Law Group Associate Jesse Franklin-Murdock posted on X. “There is a genuine bloodlust on the left, and voters are all too happy to let it out [in] the ballot box.” “New progressive paradigm: The more mentally ill, the more popular,” Grabien founder Tom Elliott posted on X. “WTH is going on? Democrats simply don’t care what their politicians do,” conservative influencer Paul A. Syzpula posted on X. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Walker told the Bangor Daily News, “I want people to see that it’s possible that we can change.” “That’s my past. I don’t live there anymore and I’m a different person,” Walker added about her conviction. Fox News Digital reached out to Walker for comment. Democrats have been facing heavy criticism this week for electing Jay Jones as Virginia’s next attorney general even after it was revealed he fantasized in 2022 text messages about shooting former Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert in the head while also suggesting that harm should come to that Republican’s young “fascist” children.
Trump’s own SCOTUS picks could wind up hurting him on tariffs
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case centered on President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to enact his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, and even Trump-appointed justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s arguments. Several questions from conservative justices, particularly Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, suggested uncertainty about allowing Trump to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats, and Trump declared the trade deficit such an emergency to impose tariffs via executive order earlier this year. But the law does not mention the word “tariffs” or “taxes” — a major sticking point in both this week’s oral arguments and the lower court’s earlier review of the case. Most of the justices’ questions focused on a single phrase in the law — the power to “regulate importation” during a national emergency — and whether that phrase grants Trump the authority he claims. Several justices seemed wary of a reading that could hand Congress’ Article I power over revenue and taxation to the executive branch. SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH TRUMP TARIFF POWERS IN BLOCKBUSTER CASE This included Trump’s appointees, who appeared to struggle with separation-of-powers issues that could vastly expand presidential authority — not only for Trump but for his successors as well. Barrett, in particular, pressed U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer on this, asking: “Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase — together with ‘regulate importation’ — has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Gorsuch later asked Sauer about his “theory of the Constitution” and “major questions doctrine,” indicating concern about separation-of-powers issues and granting too much power to the executive. TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT FOR URGENT RULING ON TARIFF POWERS AS ‘STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER’ “What would prohibit Congress from abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or declare war to the president?” Gorsuch asked Sauer. Sauer repeatedly argued that a “regulatory tariff” is not a tax and that the power to raise revenue was “only incidental,” even as the White House has celebrated that Trump’s tariff revenues exceeded $100 billion this year. Challengers, including private entities and Democratic-led states, argue that Congress must clearly state when it wants presidents to have the authority to implement tariffs. In court filings, they pointed to laws such as Section 232 (national security trade measures) and Section 301 (retaliation for unfair trade) as times when Congress expressly gave tariff powers to the president. By contrast, IEEPA has been used for embargoes, asset freezes and licensing but never across-the-board tariffs. The last time the Court permitted a delegation of tariff powers to the president, in Algonquin SNG v. FEA (1976), it relied on Section 232 because Congress put that authority plainly in the statute. Challengers say there is no comparable language in IEEPA. The liberal justices on the Court signaled that without clear words from Congress, IEEPA cannot provide Trump with tariff authority. After a previous Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts no longer give federal agencies the benefit of the doubt when interpreting vague laws. And under the “major questions” doctrine referred to by Gorsuch and other justices, large, economy-wide actions like Trump’s tariffs need a plain, specific grant from Congress. JONATHAN TURLEY: SUPREME COURT RULING ON TRUMP TARIFFS COMES DOWN TO A NUMBERS GAME Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments — a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case. Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices “were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.” “However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,” Turley added. SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO CONFRONT MONUMENTAL CASE OVER TRUMP EXECUTIVE POWER AND TARIFF AUTHORITY Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, did not go quite as far. “I think that it is fair to say that the justices the government needs to win the case — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — asked the government very hard questions that did express skepticism about important elements of its case,” Goldsmith said in a New York Times interview. “But they also asked the other side very hard questions. I do not think any of these three tipped off their hands definitively. I did not find anything terribly surprising in the questions.” Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the Court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs. “Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,” Skorup said. “The justices were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers. However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration.” The case is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections). A ruling is expected by late June.
Socialist wave spreads coast to coast as progressive Democrats rally around Zohran Mamdani’s NYC win
New York Democrats embraced socialism when they elected Zohran Mamdani to lead the nation’s largest city, but the verdict is still out on whether New York City’s shift to the left is an outlier or the beginning of a broader political realignment. From California’s redistricting success to gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, Democrats dominated the most closely watched contests of 2025 – results that could be considered a referendum on President Donald Trump’s sweeping, second-term agenda. As Mamdani rises to political fame, a slate of fellow progressives are vying to ensure that his victory signals the beginning of a new era in progressive politics. SQUAD 2.0: MEET AMERICA’S NEXT WAVE OF RADICAL DEMOCRATS SHAPING THE PARTY’S FUTURE Aftyn Behn, a former healthcare community organizer and current Democrat state representative, recently secured the Democratic nomination to represent Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District. The Dickson County Democratic Party described Behn as “our very own AOC of TN,” referring to “Squad” member Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., according to The Tennessee Star. On her campaign website, Behn describes herself as a “pissed-off social worker” who was inspired to run for the House of Representatives after Congress passed Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act earlier this year. Behn is running in Tennessee’s special election on Dec. 2 to replace Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., who retired from Congress earlier this year. Kat Abughazaleh, 26, is the progressive Gen Z candidate running for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District next year. She was indicted on federal charges in October after protesters allegedly attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) vehicle outside a Chicago suburb facility in September. Viral videos of Abughazaleh obstructing the ICE vehicle and being shoved the ground by an agent outside the Broadview ICE facility on Sept. 19 became flash points in the divisive debate over Trump’s deportation rollout. Abughazaleh is a former journalist and activist who frequents protests outside the ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. She has accused Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of perpetrating “crimes against humanity.” Abughazaleh garnered national attention earlier this year for questioning why it’s controversial that illegal immigrants should have access to taxpayer-funded healthcare. “I don’t have health insurance, and I’m running for Congress,” the young progressive’s campaign website reads. Saikat Chakrabarti arrived on the political scene during the rise of the “Squad,” running Ocasio-Cortez’s successful 2018 congressional campaign and then serving as her chief of staff. The progressive met Ocasio-Cortez when he launched “Justice Democrats,” a political action committee committed to recruiting a new generation of leaders. Now, Chakrabarti has become the generational candidate himself. Earlier this year, he announced his campaign to challenge House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi for her congressional district in San Francisco. On Thursday, Pelosi announced her intention to retire from Congress at the end of next year, teeing up an already competitive Democratic primary expected with state Sen. Scott Wiener also in the race to replace Pelosi. Chakrabarti said it was time for “totally new leadership” in Washington, D.C. His policy platform includes a long list of progressive promises, including Medicare for All, a wealth tax on the ultra-rich, millions of units of housing, a ban on congressional stock trading and an end to military funding to Israel. During a phone interview, Chakrabarti told Fox News Digital that his main focus is fixing the “underlying economic anxieties that most Americans are facing” — the same “plan for bold, sweeping economic change” that landed Trump back in the White House last year and was successful for Mamdani this year. Chakrabarti’s said a new generation of candidates, like himself, have been inspired to run since witnessing “the complete failure of the Democratic political establishment.” “I think the people are feeling that the Democratic Party, the establishment, is just sort of weak and slow moving and unable to face the moment,” he added. Chakrabarti’s first campaign commitment, according to his website, is to stop Trump’s “authoritarian coup.” The congressional candidate described Trump’s ICE-led deportation rollout as “a flagrant violation of our constitutional rights and the freedom of speech and everything we hold dear in this country.” When asked if the party is moving to the left in response to Trump’s second term, he said, “It’s not really a left versus right thing.” “I think people are looking for real solutions to the problems. People are looking for a change to the system, and I don’t think Donald Trump is doing it, but that’s what Donald Trump articulated in his campaign.” Overall, Chakrabarti said voters are “very sick and tired of corruption” and the “old guard” that he described as only looking out for themselves, rather than their constituents. Chakrabarti congratulated Mamdani’s win in a social media post on Tuesday, telling his followers that Mamdani won because he stood for “real, bold change.” “That’s what we’re doing here in San Francisco,” Chakrabarti said, comparing his own campaign to Mamdani’s. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is one of several progressive candidates vying for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat next year. “Abdul literally wrote the book on Medicare for All,” according to his campaign website. He wrote “Medicare for All: A Citizen’s Guide,” explaining how the U.S. healthcare system can provide affordable care to all Americans. El-Sayed led Detroit’s Health Department after its bankruptcy and restructured Wayne County’s Department of Health, Human & Veterans Services. In 2020, he helped President Joe Biden craft policies to help lower prescription drug prices. He believes in abolishing medical debt and that students deserve debt-free and tuition-free two-year apprenticeship programs or a four-year college education. Abdul El-Sayed celebrated Mamdani’s success on social media this week, when he wrote, “Yesterday, voters reminded us how big America can be.” Graham Platner is challenging Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in 2026. He is a Marine and a U.S. Army veteran and an oyster farmer. On Nov. 4, he said he would not be mourning the death of former Vice President Dick Cheney. “As a veteran of the Iraq war, I am going to say: No, not this time.”
Newsom set to rally Texas Dems with victory lap days after Prop 50 passes: ‘California stepped up’
A newly emboldened Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking his show on the road. Four days after spearheading a ballot box landslide victory in his home state of California in the high-stakes battle over congressional redistricting, the two-term governor and potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender will headline a rally Saturday in Republican-leaning Texas. Newsom was the driving force behind Tuesday’s passage of Proposition 50, a ballot initiative which will temporarily sidetrack Democratic-leaning California’s nonpartisan redistricting commission and return the power to draw the congressional maps to the Democrat-dominated legislature. That is expected to result in five more Democratic-leaning congressional districts in California, which would counter the passage earlier this year in the reliable red state of Texas of a new map that aims to create up to five right-leaning House seats. NEWSOM SCORES MAJOR BALLOT BOX VICTORY ON ELECTION NIGHT 2025 “California stepped up. Now, we are taking this fight across the country — helping Democrats in other states push back against Trump’s election rigging,” Newsom said in a statement to Fox News Digital, as he pointed to the push by President Donald Trump and Republicans for rare mid-decade redistricting. It’s part of a broad effort by Trump’s political team and the GOP to pad the party’s razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in the 2026 midterms when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats. Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio have drawn new maps as part of the president’s push. HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS REPORTING, ANALYSIS, AND OPINION ON GAVIN NEWSOM Trump is aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 midterm elections. Failure to approve what’s known as Proposition 50 would have been a stinging setback for Democrats. But Newsom was victorious and now has a message for fellow Democrats from coast to coast. “We need to see other states, their remarkable leaders that have been doing remarkable things, meet this moment head-on as well,” he said on Tuesday night as he celebrated passage of the ballot initiative. “We can de facto end Donald Trump’s presidency as we know it, the minute Speaker Jeffries gets sworn in as speaker of the House of Representatives. It is all on the line.” Newsom is expected to rally with Texas Democrats at an afternoon event in Houston. While two other Democratic blue state governors with likely national ambitions in 2028, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Wes Moore of Maryland, are mulling new maps in their states to create one or two more blue-leaning congressional districts, Newsom has been the most visible leader so far in the redistricting wars and the first Democrat to succeed. And the campaign for Prop 50 passage only burnished Newsom’s already solid credentials as an anti-Trump warrior, which could pay dividends for him down the road in what’s expected to be a crowded and competitive 2028 Democratic presidential nomination race. “He put a lot of effort into this, and it was not a sure thing when it first started,” veteran Democratic strategist Maria Cardona told Fox News Digital. “He galvanized and mobilized California voters.” And Cardona, a committee member on the Democratic National Committee, said, “I certainly think it burnished Gavin Newsom’s brand not just as the anti-Trump, but right now I think it puts him as one of the leaders in contention for 2028.”
Federal judge dismisses Boeing felony charges despite victims’ families opposition to $1.1B settlement deal
A federal judge ruled in favor of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday, dismissing felony charges against aircraft giant Boeing in relation to two commercial plane crashes that claimed the lives of 346 people in Indonesia and Ethiopia. Judge Reed O’Connor accepted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss in the Northern District of Texas. Boeing, which previously agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government, made a deal with the Trump administration in May in return for the charges — tied to the Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes in October 2018 and March 2019 — being dropped. O’Connor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said that despite some victims’ families’ opposition, the government did not act with bad faith, provided conclusory reasons for its dismissal, and satisfied its obligations under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, Politico reported. The non-prosecution agreement requires Boeing to pay more than $1.1 billion in fines, more than $455 million to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety and quality programs, and an additional $445 million for the crash victims’ families, a DOJ spokesperson told Fox News Digital. BOEING PAYING $1.1B AS DOJ DISMISSES CRIMINAL FRAUD CASE; FAMILIES OF VICTIMS IN CRASHES SET TO OBJECT TO DEAL “On top of the financial investments, Boeing must continue to improve the effectiveness of its anti-fraud compliance and ethics program and retain an independent compliance consultant,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital. O’Connor noted it disregards the need for the company to be monitored by an unbiased consultant, as Boeing can choose who it hires, and said he understood families may be disappointed the agreement “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public,” according to the report. Tracy Brammeier, partner of Clifford Law Offices who serves on the plaintiff’s team, said there would be a quick appeal of O’Connor’s Thursday ruling. “The judge recognizes there is a miscarriage of justice on the part of the government’s decision not to prosecute the case, and that this was not in the best interest of the public, which the government serves,” Brammeier wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Unfortunately, he feels the power to right this wrong is limited by legal precedent. The families are disappointed by the outcome but will act quickly to protect the interests of the families and the public on appeal.” NTSB ISSUES URGENT SAFETY BULLETIN ABOUT ENGINES FOUND IN SOME BOEING 737 MAX JETS Three cases involving families of victims in the 2019 crash were settled Wednesday after jury selection, including a case on behalf of a 28-year-old mother from Kenya who left behind a daughter and her parents, Clifford Law Offices wrote in a news release. The other two cases that settled were that of a 38-year-old father of seven from Yemen and Kenya, and a 30-year-old father of three from the UK and Kenya, who left behind a pregnant wife, according to Clifford Law Offices. Flight ET-302 crashed in March 2019 shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa Bole International Airport in Ethiopia, heading to Kenya and killing all 157 on board. According to the attorneys, nearly a dozen cases related to the two crashes remain unresolved. A DOJ spokesperson told Fox News Digital “victims are at the heart of the Department’s mission” and the Boeing case is no exception. “Rather than allow for protracted litigation, this agreement provides finality for the victims and requires Boeing to act now,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “As the Court recognized, the Department in good faith complied with its statutory obligations and met extensively with the crash victims’ families. While they are all experiencing grief, and nothing will diminish their losses, the victims have expressed a broad set of views regarding the resolution, ranging from support to disagreement. Ultimately, in applying the facts, the law, and Department policy, we are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome.” A Boeing spokesperson told Fox News Digital the company is “committed to honoring the obligations of our agreement with the Department of Justice … [and] to continuing the significant efforts we have made as a company to strengthen our safety, quality, and compliance programs.”
State Dept says G20 boycott tied to South Africa’s ‘government-sponsored discrimination’ against Afrikaners
FIRST ON FOX: The Trump administration on Friday intensified its dispute with South Africa, saying no U.S. government official will attend the G20 Summit in Johannesburg in protest of what it describes as state-backed discrimination against White Afrikaners. “The lives and property of Afrikaners have been endangered by politicians who incite race-based violence against them, threaten to confiscate their farms without compensation, and prop up a corrupt race-based scoring system that discriminates against Afrikaners in employment,” State Department Deputy Principal spokesperson Tommy Piggott told Fox News Digital. “South Africa must immediately end all government-sponsored discrimination against Afrikaners and condemn those who seek to ignite racial violence against them.” TRUMP PICKS HIS MIAMI DORAL RESORT TO HOST 2026 G20 SUMMIT IN FLORIDA DURING NATION’S ANNIVERSARY YEAR Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday that it’s a “total disgrace” the G20, scheduled for Nov. 22 and Nov. 23, will be held in South Africa. “Afrikaners (People who are descended from Dutch settlers, and also French and German immigrants) are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated,” the president said. “No U.S. Government Official will attend as long as these Human Rights abuses continue. I look forward to hosting the 2026 G20 in Miami, Florida!” Afrikaners have faced increasing hostility from some politicians who have called for violence against them and the threat of land confiscation. South Africa’s Expropriation Act of 2024 allows the government to take land for public use, including in some cases without compensation — a policy the government says is aimed at addressing racial inequities in ownership, but one that critics warn could unfairly affect White Afrikaner farmers. RUBIO BOOTS SOUTH AFRICAN AMBASSADOR FROM US: ‘PERSONA NON GRATA’ Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House in May, pressing him on “White genocide” in the country. Ramaphosa vehemently denied the claims. “There is just no genocide in South Africa,” he said. “We cannot equate what is alleged to be genocide to what we went through in the struggle because people were killed because of the oppression that was taking place in our country. So you cannot equate that.” Trump played a video in the Oval Office of white crosses along a highway that he said depicted burial sites of White farmers. “Have they told you where that is, Mr. President?” Ramaphosa asked. “I’d like to know where that is, because this I’ve never seen.” A senior State Department official told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration has set a refugee cap for fiscal year 2026 of 7,500, with a majority of the spots reserved for Afrikaners fleeing what it describes as government-sponsored race-based discrimination in South Africa.
Federal judge rules Trump’s Portland National Guard deployment unconstitutional in permanent injunction
A federal judge on Friday ruled that the Trump administration’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, was unconstitutional. On Sunday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, temporarily extended an order blocking the administration from deploying troops to The Rose City, saying the government failed to justify the move. In the Sunday evening order, Immergut temporarily blocked “Defendant Secretary of Defense [Pete] Hegseth from implementing” memorandums that authorized the federalization and deployment of National Guard members from Oregon, Texas and California into Portland. The injunction remained in effect until Friday. WHITE HOUSE REBUKES ‘EGREGIOUS’ COURT ORDER BLOCKING TROOP DEPLOYMENTS AMID PORTLAND UNREST Friday’s 106-page ruling makes the order permanent. It followed a three-day trial over whether protests at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland warranted use of the military domestically under federal law. The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property. PORTLAND POLICE ACCUSE FEDERAL TROOPS OF INFLAMING ANTI-ICE PROTESTS, WHICH CITY CLAIMS HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLENT Immergut said in the ruling the “evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President’s authority” because he wasn’t able to demonstrate there was a rebellion or threat of rebellion that couldn’t be enforced without the military. The judge added that “even giving great deference to the President’s determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard.” Immergut called the order unconstitutional, saying that it violated the 10th Amendment, “which ‘reserves to the States’ any powers not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.” The city of Portland and state of Oregon had sued the administration over the deployment in September after Hegseth sent 200 troops to the city. The administration can appeal the decision. The administration also faces a temporary injunction in Chicago, where a judge has barred the administration from deploying troops.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to a potential procedrual vote on an interim spending bill
Fox has learned that Senate Republicans are hopeful that just enough Senate Democrats may be willing to join with them to help break a filibuster on a test vote to fund the government through sometime in January. This proposal would also fund the Department of Agriculture and Department of Veterans Affairs, plus, Congress until Sept. 30, 2026. ‘TWISTED IRONY’: DEMOCRATS RISK BETRAYING THEIR OWN PET ISSUES WITH GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN GAMBLE If Republicans are able to coax enough Democrats to vote yes, the Senate could vote as early as tomorrow to break a filibuster on this combination bill. That would require 60 yeas. However, what is unclear is the status of Obamacare subsidies. Democrats have balked at the lack of a concrete remedy to spiking health care premiums. “They’re looking for an off-ramp,” said one Senate source familiar with the Democrats’ thinking. THUNE SAYS ‘WHEELS CAME OFF’ AS REPUBLICANS MULL NEXT SHUTDOWN MOVE Fox is told that air traffic control and flight delays are a major consideration in the thinking of the Democrats. It is believed that the Senate GOP leadership is reluctant to force a vote related to the combination spending bill on the floor without a guarantee it could break a filibuster. One Senate source told Fox it would be “bad form at this stage” to endure a failed procedural vote on a plan which Republicans believe is the only way out of the government shutdown cul-de-sac. OPTIMISM FADES AS SENATE DEMOCRATS DIG IN, HOLD OUT OVER OBAMACARE DEMANDS Moreover, a break by these Democrats without an agreement on health care would be a blow to progressives and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). It would also mark the first true progress toward re-opening the government. If enough Democrats are yeas, Fox is told the Senate could take a test vote on Saturday night. By the book, if the Senate breaks the filibuster, the Senate may not be able to take a final vote on the package until sometime Monday or Tuesday. But Fox is told there is a distinct possibility that Democrats could yield back time to expedite the process. If the Senate were to approve the deal, it’s on to the House. But the House’s disposition is unclear on this legislation. And the House would not even consider this plan until the middle of next week at the earliest. However, if the House aligns with the Senate, the government would re-open — at least for a couple of months.
FIRST ON FOX: California’s top public university under fire for ‘LatinX’ and ‘Pilipinx’ race-based scholarship
Cornell Law professor William A. Jacobson, founder of the Equal Protection Project, has filed a federal civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education‘s civil rights office accusing the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) of running more than a dozen scholarships that exclude students based on race, sex or national origin. The 13 programs named in the complaint include awards limited to “LatinX” freshmen, “Pilipinx” students, “undocumented undergraduates,” and female-only applicants. The filing claims those criteria violate Title VI and Title IX of federal civil-rights law, which bar discrimination by federally funded schools. “That race- and sex-based discriminatory scholarships exist at a major and highly visible public university is shocking,” Jacobson told Fox News Digital. “UCLA should know better than to run scholarships or programs that treat students differently based on race, color, national origin, or sex.” UC BERKELEY CLASS FOCUSES ON HOW ‘RACIAL SUPERIORITY’ SHAPES IMMIGRATION LAW, ANTI-ICE RHETORIC The UCLA Latino Alumni Association scholarship states it was created for “incoming LatinX freshmen and transfer students,” while a Pilipino Alumni Association award is for students “who indicate their membership in the Pilipinx community.” The Undocumented Alumni Association Scholarship restricts eligibility to undocumented students, and the Raza Women’s Alumni Scholarship gives preference to “incoming Latina freshmen and transfer students.” That language stands in contrast to remarks by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said earlier this year that “no one says Latinx.” Despite the governor’s disavowal of the term, UCLA, part of the UC system he oversees, still uses “LatinX” as an official eligibility label in a taxpayer-funded scholarship. Other programs cited include two scholarships for students of Armenian descent and a Deloitte Foundation award that supports “meritorious female students.” The complaint argues that UCLA’s use of racial or sex-based criteria “violates federal law and the university’s own nondiscrimination policies.” The filing asks federal officials to investigate and, if necessary, suspend UCLA’s federal funding until the programs are changed. UCLA’s scholarship portal contains a statement defending its process for “identity-conscious” awards. ELITE CALIFORNIA COLLEGES FACE TITLE VI COMPLAINT OVER DEI-LINKED SCHOLARSHIPS “UCLA administers all identity-conscious financial aid and scholarships in compliance with federal, state, and university regulations,” the statement says. “Identity-conscious awards may include a preference for a student’s race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, color, ethnicity, or national origin… The pooled application process allows students to be considered for multiple scholarships and is used in determining the source of a recipient’s aid, but not their eligibility, receipt, or amount of financial aid.” Jacobson said UCLA’s policies still cross a legal line. “Creating educational opportunities based on race, color, national origin, or sex violates Titles VI and IX of the Civil Rights Act,” he said. “It’s time for higher education to focus on the inherent worth of every student rather than categorizing them by identity groups.” The complaint, filed Nov. 7, 2025, asks the Education Department to open a formal investigation and enforce compliance with federal law. UCLA and Newsom’s office have not yet responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
House Dem reveals why she hijacked Speaker Johnson’s presser with viral outburst
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., defended her interruption of Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s press conference that went viral this week, arguing her rage was justifiable because Johnson has been unwilling to negotiate with Democratic Party leaders to reopen the government. GOP lawmakers have argued the two warring parties could agree to a budget resolution and negotiate public healthcare subsidies Democrats are holding out for down the road. But Houlahan said she disagreed despite Democratic Party Senate leader Chuck Schumer unveiling a plan Friday afternoon to extend the Obamacare subsidies in question for just a year and develop a committee to negotiate further how to handle the subsidies once the government is open. “Because I believe that he’s our speaker, the speaker of the House, and it’s important that he do his job,” Houlahan responded when asked why she decided to interrupt Johnson’s press conference. “And as near as I can tell, in the more than 40 days [of the government shutdown], he hasn’t picked up a phone call and tried to speak to more than half of the country.” “Democrats could end this in the Senate if they would just pass the CR and then handle healthcare separate. Why do you see these as connected?” the congresswoman was asked. SCHUMER, DEMS UNVEIL ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN PLAN, ASK FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES “I believe them to be inextricably connected,” Houlahan responded. “This is literally the healthcare — the livelihood and ability of people to thrive in our country — and I think this is the time to have this conversation.” Houlahan added that the Trump administration “has been slowly strangling the American people” and said that by shutting down the government it is “trying to complete the job.” “Over the last nine months, this administration has been slowly strangling the American people,” she said. “Shutting back down the government by itself and now it’s trying to complete the job.” When pressed further, Houlahan’s staff stepped in and said she needed to go and could not answer any more questions. THUNE SAYS ‘WHEELS CAME OFF’ AS REPUBLICANS MULL NEXT SHUTDOWN MOVE The Democrat went viral earlier this week when House Speaker Johnson’s press conference outside the Capitol building briefly descended into chaos when she got into a heated exchange with the speaker demanding he meet with her caucus to end the shutdown. Houlahan was jeered at, and, at a certain point, Johnson told her to respect his free speech rights. “You should respect free speech,” Houlahan clapped back. “I’m asking you a question if you’re ready to have a conversation with the other side. You represent all of us. You are the speaker for all of us, sir.” Johnson attempted to take a question from a reporter, but he said, “I can’t hear you because we have someone who doesn’t respect the rights of their colleagues.” Meanwhile, Houlahan kept shouting over the speaker even as he tried to call order. “You have an obligation not just to speak lies to the American people. You have an obligation to call the leadership of both parties and bring us together and solve this problem together,” she yelled. The following day, Houlahan participated in a Democratic Party press conference of her own on the steps of the Capitol, during which no interruptions appeared to take place, according to recordings posted online. Houlahan referred to the viral moment between her and the speaker as a “dialogue” during her comments. “I like to think of it as a dialogue more than a confrontation,” she said. “He reminded me and the American people that he has literally not sat down and talked to Democratic leaders since before the shutdown. They refuse to sit down with us, and they refuse to tell the American public the truth.”