Newsom touts California’s numerous legal fights with Trump administration in final State of the State address
California Gov. Gavin Newsom used his final State of the State address Thursday to spotlight the state’s court fights with the federal government, saying the state has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration. The Democrat framed the legal battles as a dispute over presidential authority, telling lawmakers and attendees that “no one, particularly the president of the United States, stands above the law.” “We’ve gone to court and, of course, protect our people, pushing back against this executive overreach,” Newsom said. The governor pointed to litigation filed during a special session and tied the legal efforts to what he described as federal actions that harmed Californians. NEWSOM INVOKES SCRIPTURE IN ATTACK ON GOP OVER SHUTDOWN AFFECTING FOOD ASSISTANCE: ‘CRUELTY IS THE POLICY’ “Fifty-two lawsuits have been filed, funded by you, by the way, in this special session that all of you led,” Newsom said, adding that the cases involved “about $168 billion in illegally frozen federal resources that belong to our schools, that belong to our hospitals, that belong to our seniors.” Newsom said the court strategy has already produced results. “We have won the request for emergency relief,” he said, adding that California has “affirmed the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land.” NEWSOM SAYS TRUMP IS ONE OF THE ‘MOST DESTRUCTIVE’ PRESIDENTS OF HIS LIFETIME: ‘THIS GUY IS RECKLESS’ Addressing President Donald Trump, Newsom said, “You can’t cut off critical food assistance for millions of people,” adding, “You can’t send the military into American cities without justification, and you cannot cruelly and illegally cut off funding for medical research, homeland security, or disaster response.” Newsom’s emphasis on legal challenges comes as the Trump administration has launched a federal probe into alleged fraud tied to California programs, including homelessness spending, with a top federal prosecutor publicly criticizing the state’s oversight. Newsom’s office has rejected those accusations, saying the governor has blocked fraud and protected taxpayers. Later in the address, Newsom turned to homelessness and urged counties to take a more aggressive approach. TRUMP ADMIN SUES OVER CALIFORNIA LAW BANNING ICE FROM WEARING FACE MASKS TO SHIELD IDENTITIES “So I say this with love and respect to the counties — no more excuses. It’s time to bring people off the streets and out of encampments,” he said. Newsom defended California’s high-speed rail project as well, calling it “the nation’s first high speed rail system.” “Full environmental clearance is done,” Newsom said, while claiming “more than 60 miles of guideway have been completed ready for immediate track lane in the Central Valley.” On housing, Newsom criticized large investors, warning about “institutional investors that are snatching up homes by the hundreds and thousands at a time.” “These investors are crushing the dream of homeownership,” he said, adding, “I think it’s shameful that we allow private equity firms… become some of the biggest landlords here in our cities.” Republican leaders responded critically to Newsom’s remarks. California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones called the address an “airbrushed spin job,” accusing the governor of “working hard to pull the wool over the eyes of the nation.” Assemblyman James Gallagher likewise dismissed the speech as “more of the same,” arguing it was time for what he described as a “third wave politics” of both parties working together to solve California’s problems. The statewide election to replace term-limited Gov. Newsom is scheduled for November 2026. Newsom’s office did not provide additional comment beyond clarifying the lawsuit figure to Fox News Digital regarding Thursday’s State of the State address. Fox News Digital’s Madison Colombo contributed to this story.
Fox News Politics Newsletter: Jeffries slams Noem over Minneapolis shooting response
Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content. Here’s what’s happening… -National security experts sound alarm over CCP-linked land ownership near US military bases: ‘Unthinkable’ -Mamdani adviser, Warren in the hot seat as collapse of Roomba maker shifts data to China -Trump backs ICE agent, reviews video with NYT reporters after Minneapolis shooting Democratic leaders in Congress condemned the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Thursday, calling for immediate investigations and dismissing the narrative of the shooting provided by President Donald Trump’s administration. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made the statement joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during a Thursday morning press conference. Jeffries condemned Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as a “stone-cold liar,” while Schumer said he doesn’t trust the current administration to adequately investigate the shooting. “Let me first say that the killing of Renee Nicole Good was an abomination, a disgrace. And blood is clearly on the hands of those individuals within the administration who have been pushing an extreme policy that has nothing to do with immigration enforcement connected to removing violent felons from this country,” Jeffries said…READ MORE. HOLIDAY ROUNDUP: DHS nabs sexual abusers, drug dealers in worst-of-the-worst Christmastime operation POLITICAL PILE-ON: Vance rips Walz after Civil War remarks following ICE shooting, claims governor ‘enabled fraud’ NATIONAL CRACKDOWN: JD Vance announces multi-state fraud task force in wake of Minnesota scandal ‘SIMPLE QUESTION’: Vance demand Democrats answer whether ICE officer in Minneapolis shooting was ‘wrong in defending his life’ RED LINE: AG Pam Bondi warns Minnesota protesters after ICE shooting: ‘Do not test our resolve’ LEVY LIMITS: Trump’s tariff boom hits record highs as Supreme Court showdown looms BIG BUILDUP: Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’ GOP MUTINY: Dozens of House Republicans defy Trump, join Democrats in failed veto override effort SHUTDOWN CLOCK: House passes nearly $180B funding package after conservative rebellion over Minnesota fraud fears RULE OF LAW: House Dem introduces bill after Venezuela operation to block presidents from bypassing Congress GOP MUTINY: Trump blasts GOP war powers defectors, says they ‘should never be elected to office again’ $9 BILLION GONE: Senate Republicans eye reconciliation to address Minnesota fraud scandal DEM EXODUS: Hoyer won’t seek re-election, says House has strayed from founders’ vision ‘NO RETREAT’: Top Republican with ‘army’ of supporters makes major announcement as Shapiro launches re-elect campaign ‘UNCLEAN’ WALZ: Blagojevich tells Walz if he didn’t do it, ‘go down fighting’ in fraud case: ‘He’s quitting/Makes me think his hands are unclean’ BILLION DOLLAR BIAS: Legal experts warn of ‘biggest scandal in litigation’ if SCOTUS doesn’t end ‘hometowning’ of lawsuits against US oil NOT ‘LAWFUL’: Federal judge disqualifies US attorney, tosses subpoenas targeting NY AG Letitia James Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.
Supreme Court tariff ruling has Trump administration, US businesses bracing for impact
The Supreme Court could rule as early as Friday on President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, a closely watched case with major implications for businesses and the president himself. At issue is the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose two sweeping sets of tariffs, including the 10% global tariffs and the higher, so-called “reciprocal” tariffs in early April. Lower courts had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in using IEEPA as a means of quickly enacting those import fees, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the case on an expedited basis last year. A decision is expected by June at the latest. US COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SIDES WITH TRUMP IN TARIFF CASE But justices on the high court, including Trump’s own appointees, appeared skeptical of the administration’s claim during oral arguments that the IEEPA gives a sitting president the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, leaving open the question of what might happen if the high court rules against the president. Trump, for his part, has described the matter as “life and death,” and senior administration officials have warned for months of dire economic consequences if the high court were to undo the tariffs enacted by Trump, which have remained in place as the courts considered the case on its merits. But the short answer, experts told Fox News Digital, is that not much would change immediately, and it would almost certainly involve more litigation. In the months since the high court reviewed the consolidated case, Learning Resources, Inc, and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, hundreds of businesses have filed new cases against the Trump administration over IEEPA, aimed at clawing back the higher import duties they’ve shouldered since his tariffs took force. The U.S. collected more than $133 billion in IEEPA tariff duties as of mid-December, according to data published by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency last month. And, assuming the Supreme Court does not specifically outline a remedy portion of its ruling for the executive branch to follow, the cases will be punted back to the lower courts to chart a path forward, lawyers for the new plaintiffs said. “There’s a group of us working with the Department of Justice on getting a case management plan implemented,” Erik Smithweiss, a trade lawyer representing some of the companies that have filed the new tariff lawsuits, told Fox News Digital in an interview. SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH TRUMP TARIFF POWERS IN BLOCKBUSTER CASE “In the event the tariffs are found to be unlawful, the Court of International Trade (CIT) is going to manage these thousands of lawsuits and many more that may be coming.” Trump, for his part, has railed against that outcome, which he described in a Truth Social post as a “National Security catastrophe.” Lawyers for the Trump administration argued in court that the IEEPA law in question allows a president to act in response to “unusual and extraordinary threats” and in cases where a national emergency has been declared. Trump has claimed that deep and “sustained” trade deficits amount to a national emergency, allowing him, in the lawyers’ view, to invoke IEEPA. Plaintiffs counter that, in the 50 years since its passage, the law has never been used by a president to impose tariffs. They argue that permitting Trump to use the law to enact tariffs would drastically expand his powers at the expense of other branches of government. Others were more cautious about the possible impact. TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA “It’s a fascinating situation because it’s super important. But, in the short run, economically, this doesn’t matter a huge deal,” Philip Luck, the director of the economics program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told Fox News Digital in an interview. “It matters in the sense that, yes, if this comes down, some goods will become cheaper,” Luck said when asked what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose his tariffs. “Some exporters will be able to export to the United States more cheaply.” On its own, though, the ruling is unlikely to stop the Trump administration from imposing the tariffs via other mechanisms at its disposal, including Section 232, by which the administration can enact industry-wide tariffs for a set period of time, or under Section 301, which allows the U.S. Trade Representative’s office to enact tariffs at a president’s direction in response to countries that are determined to have “discriminatory” trade practices towards U.S. businesses. “More broadly, so long as this administration is intent on raising barriers to a broad set of important goods, they will be able to do that again,” Luck said. “A few sectoral tariffs onto very broad sectors and a few country-level tariffs — if you levy tariffs on our large trading partners — cover some 90% of our trade.”
17 Republicans rebel against House GOP leaders, join Dems to pass Obamacare extension
The House of Representatives passed a bill to revive and extend COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies in a major victory for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Seventeen House Republicans broke ranks with GOP leaders to support the legislation after Democrats were successful in forcing a vote via a mechanism called a privileged resolution. The bill passed 230-196. A discharge petition is a mechanism for getting legislation considered on the House floor even if the majority’s leadership is opposed to it, provided the petition gets a majority of House lawmakers’ signatures. CONGRESS FAILS TO SAVE OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES AFTER SHUTDOWN FIGHT, PREMIUMS SET TO SURGE Jeffries filed a discharge petition late last year, which was then signed by four House Republicans — helping it clinch the critical majority threshold. Five more House Republicans joined Democrats in a vote Wednesday evening to advance the legislation for final consideration Thursday. The 17 Republicans who voted for the legislation were Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa.; Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa.; Mike Carey, R-Ohio; Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas; Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.; Jeff Hurd, R-Colo.; Dave Joyce, R-Ohio; Tom Kean Jr., R-N.J., Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., Max Miller, R-Ohio; Zach Nunn, R-Iowa; Maria Salazar, R-Fla.; Dave Valadao, R-Calif.; Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.; and Rob Wittman, R-Va. It underscores the perilously slim margins Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is governing with. House Republicans hold just a two-vote majority with full attendance on both sides, numbers that could easily shift when lawmakers are absent for personal or health reasons. As Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., put to reporters on Wednesday morning, “We are one flu season away from losing the majority.” The successful vote on Thursday is a blow for Johnson, who argued for weeks that the majority of House Republicans were opposed to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax subsidies. But a significant number of GOP moderates were frustrated that their party leaders in the House and Senate had done little to avert a price hike for millions of Americans’ insurance premiums. A Democrat-controlled Congress voted twice, in 2020 and in 2021, to enhance Obamacare subsidies to give more people access to federal healthcare during the pandemic. SEN JIM JUSTICE SAYS REPUBLICANS ARE ‘LOUSY’ AT KNOWING WHAT EVERYDAY AMERICANS THINK ABOUT HEALTHCARE Those subsidies were only extended through 2025, however. The vast majority of Republicans believe the subsidies are a COVID-era relic of a long-broken federal healthcare system. Conservatives argued that the relatively small percentage of Americans who rely on Obamacare meant that an extension would do little to ease rising health costs that people across the country are experiencing. But a core group of moderates has been arguing that a failure to extend a reformed version of them would force millions of Americans to grapple with skyrocketing healthcare costs this year. Those moderates were also frustrated with Jeffries for not working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to the subsidies but felt they were left with little choice but to support Democrats’ bid in the end. House Republicans passed a healthcare bill in mid-December aimed at lowering those costs for a broader swath of Americans, but that legislation has not been taken up in the Senate. There’s also little chance the three-year extension will pass the upper chamber, however. Similar legislation led by Senate Democrats failed to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold to advance in December.
GOP senators join Democrats to stop Trump from policing Venezuela
President Donald Trump suffered a rare defeat from his own party on Thursday when a handful of Senate Republicans rebelled to curb his usage of military force in Venezuela. The attempt to reassert Congress’ war powers authority, led by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., survived despite broad support among most Senate Republicans, who argued that Trump’s use of the military in Venezuela was justified. Among the defectors were Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who co-sponsored the resolution, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, Todd Young, R-Ind., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo. But Thursday’s successful vote, which also handed Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., a rare defeat on the floor, is just the first step before the resolution officially passes. The Senate will have to take another vote, this time with the 60-vote filibuster threshold, before it becomes official. TRUMP EMBRACES US INTERVENTION IN VENEZUELA, OPENS DOOR TO BROADER LATIN AMERICA PUSH Kaine’s resolution would effectively end any further military operations involving Venezuela without explicit congressional approval. It was one of many bids since Trump took office last year by the bipartisan group to claw back Congress’ authority in weighing in on military action. The outcome of the vote remained an open question, even just moments before the final gavel. The defectors were on the fence on whether to rein Trump in following a classified briefing with administration officials on Operation Absolute Resolve, the codename of the mission to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Their issues weren’t necessarily with the actual operation itself, but with what comes next. And more specifically, if there would be further military activity in the country. “We were told that there are currently no boots on the ground. Is it an option? What I heard was that everything is an option,” Hawley said. KENNEDY SAYS MILITARY ACTION ON GREENLAND WOULD BE ‘WEAPONS-GRADE STUPID’ AS GOP RESISTS FORCE But top administration officials, and several congressional Republicans briefed on the matter throughout the week, argued that the strikes in Venezuela were justified and that the military was used to assist in a law enforcement operation to capture Maduro. Still, Senate Republican leadership was confident they would have the votes needed to kill the bipartisan resolution. “Republicans support what the president has done,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said. “It was an incredible act and the military was absolutely superb.” Before the vote, Kaine and Paul were already looking ahead at other opportunities to curb the administration’s use of military force without congressional approval. WHITE HOUSE SAYS ‘RANGE OF OPTIONS,’ INCLUDING US MILITARY, ON TABLE AS TRUMP RENEWS PUSH TO ACQUIRE GREENLAND Greenland reemerged as a hot topic on the Hill this week, following comments from Trump officials that indicated that military action wasn’t off the table to capture the colossal, resource-rich Arctic territory, where the U.S. already has a military base. Several Republicans like the idea of purchasing the territory from Denmark but have not yet committed to claiming it by force. There are other countries that have entered or long been in Trump’s crosshairs for conquest, too, that the duo want to ensure Congress has a say on. “We’re going to be working with others to file resolutions about Cuba, Mexico, Colombia and Greenland,” Kaine said. “And Nigeria — people didn’t pay attention but there was a U.S. military strike in Nigeria.” Paul said he would likely support future war powers resolutions, given his strong feelings about Congress’ constitutional authority. “I’ve supported most of them, all of them,” Paul said. “I probably will continue to support them, because I — there’s some symbolism to this too, and symbolism is over, who should initiate and declare war, which I feel strongly about.”
Gubernatorial candidate in key 2028 White House election cycle state announces record fundraising haul
FIRST ON FOX: An Iowa House Republican is announcing a record-setting fundraising haul in his quest for higher office. Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, raised $4.3 million in seven months of campaigning for governor through 2025, with roughly 2,000 individual contributions. It’s the most a Republican candidate in Iowa has raised in an off-year without any major elections, his campaign told Fox News Digital. REPUBLICAN SEN. JONI ERNST OF IOWA MAKES IT OFFICIAL: SHE’S NOT SEEKING RE-ELECTION NEXT YEAR Whoever wins the governorship in Iowa this November will be a key player in the next presidential election cycle, when national attention will surge to Des Moines ahead of the Iowa caucuses in the race to replace President Donald Trump. “Our campaign set this record of $4.3 million raised because Iowans believe in our vision to take our state to new heights and advance President Trump’s America First agenda in Iowa,” Feenstra said in a statement. Feenstra, a member of the influential House Agriculture and Ways and Means committees, was first elected to Congress in 2020. He currently represents Iowa’s heavily rural 4th Congressional District. TOP GOP SENATOR STEPS UP EFFORTS TO PROTECT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN 2026 MIDTERMS The Midwest lawmaker is considered the polling and fundraising frontrunner for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in this year’s race to succeed retiring longtime GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds. The conservative governor, who has served in office since 2017, announced last April that she wouldn’t seek re-election in 2026. Also running for the Republican nomination are Adam Steen, former director of the Iowa Department of Administrative Services, state Rep. Eddie Andrews, and former state Rep. Brad Sherman. Iowa Auditor Rob Sand is seen as the frontrunner to become the gubernatorial Democratic nominee. The Cook Report, a leading nonpartisan political handicapper, rates the Iowa gubernatorial race as Lean Republicans. Another top handicapper, Inside Elections, ranks the race as Likely Republican.
Senate Dem John Fetterman supports prospect of US Greenland purchase, citing ‘massive strategic benefits’
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., expressed support for the idea of the U.S. buying Greenland, which is linked to the nation of Denmark. “I believe Greenland has massive strategic benefits for the United States. I do not support taking it by force. America is not a bully. Ideally, we purchase it — similar to our purchases of Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase. Acquiring Greenland is a many decades-old conversation,” the senator noted in a Wednesday post on X. In a Fox News appearance last year, Fetterman had similarly noted that he would not support forcibly seizing Greenland but expressed an openness to the prospect of purchasing the land. He pointed to the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase. FETTERMAN OPEN TO POTENTIAL GREENLAND ACQUISITION, DECLARES SUPPORT FOR LAKEN RILEY ACT President Donald Trump has been eyeing the island, categorizing the U.S. acquiring the territory as a national security matter. In a 2024 Truth Social post, he asserted, “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” DEM SENATOR INTRODUCES BILL TO STOP TRUMP FROM INVADING ‘ANOTHER COUNTRY ON A WHIM’ OVER GREENLAND During a Sunday news gaggle aboard Air Force One, he said, “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And the European Union needs us to have it.” Trump had previously floated the idea of acquiring Greenland, as well as Canada, earlier in his second term, but the commander-in-chief resurfaced the idea of U.S. control of the Artic territory more recently after the U.S. operation in Venezuela that captured Nicolás Maduro. Since then, the president said the U.S. is in charge of Venezuela and will be for the foreseeable future until a secure transition of power can take place. In a Fox News appearance on Monday, Fetterman described the U.S. capture of Maduro as a “good thing,” calling the operation “surgical.” FETTERMAN DEFENDS TRUMP’S VENEZUELA MILITARY OPERATION AGAINST CRITICISM FROM FELLOW DEMOCRATS CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “Removing Maduro was positive for Venezuela. As a Democrat, I don’t understand why we can’t acknowledge a good development for Venezuelans — and how deft our military’s execution of that plan was,” he noted in a Tuesday post on X.
DHS targets ‘worst-of-the-worst’: Christmastime sweep nets sexual predators, drug kingpins
EXCLUSIVE: Department of Homeland Security officials said agents were out tracking down and arresting hundreds of criminal illegal immigrants, including domestic abusers, drug proliferators and robbers over the holidays. ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol have routinely conducted geographically targeted raids, beginning earlier this year in Los Angeles and Chicago; as the latest roundup focused on Ohio and California, officials told Fox News Digital. Emanuel Guijosa-Nonato, a Mexican national with a criminal record who illegally entered the U.S. multiple times, was nabbed following convictions for aggravated assault against a police officer, disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, and illegal re-entry. DHS ARRESTS ‘WORST OF THE WORST’ ILLEGAL MIGRANTS, INCLUDING MURDERERS AND PEDOPHILES, IN WEEKEND OPERATION Guijosa-Nonato was one of at least 280 criminal illegals who were captured during the Ohio piece of the law enforcement surge, dubbed “Operation Buckeye.” Another illegal immigrant arrested in Buckeye was Andres Blanco-Hernandez, who was wanted on assault and domestic violence charges. “Operation Buckeye resulted in the arrest of more than 280 criminal illegal aliens convicted of assaulting a police officer, criminal firearm possession, and drug trafficking,” Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. TRUMP IMMIGRATION AGENCY FLAGS 182 NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS, ISSUES RECORD 196K NOTICES TO APPEAR IN 2025 During the operation, agents also captured Wilmar Edgardo Lozano-Alcantara, a criminal illegal immigrant from El Salvador convicted of drug possession, robbery, and trespassing. Venezuelan national Melvin Alejandro Rodriguez-Rodriguez was himself nabbed by authorities on assault allegations. Fernandez Flores from nearby Honduras was captured by ICE as well. Flores was previously convicted of making a false police report and arrested for larceny and obstructing police. HOUSTON ICE OPERATION NETS OVER 3,500 CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS IN SIX WEEKS DURING SHUTDOWN In California, where some DHS arrests in that mission were previously reported, federal authorities said nearly 120 additional illegal immigrants convicted of crimes were captured in less than a week, during what would otherwise be part of the Twelve Days of Christmas. From December 26 through New Year’s Eve, pedophiles, registered sex offenders, abusers and serial drunk drivers – all of whom are in the U.S. illegally – were brought to justice, DHS said. McLaughlin blamed Gov. Gavin Newsom for the need for such an operation, saying in a statement that “criminal illegal aliens flock to California because they know Governor Newsom and his fellow sanctuary politicians will allow them to terrorize innocent American families.” CONVICTED MURDERER, CHILD PREDATORS ROUNDED UP IN CHRISTMAS WEEKEND ICE CRACKDOWN: ‘GREATEST GIFT’ Newsom and other California officials have criticized DHS’ presence in the state, stemming back to when the agency stormed into Los Angeles and was met with violent riots. Two of the worst offenders in that sting came from Mexico. DHS ARRESTS DOZENS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF LAUNCHING NEW ORLEANS OPERATION Registered sex offenders Juan Perez and Rogelio Sanchez-Hidalgo were both previously convicted of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14. In response to Newsom being blamed by McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the governor fired back in comments to Fox News Digital. “We know all too well the chaos and terror federal immigration officials bring to our communities and American citizens,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo said, while providing a new nickname for Noem. “Kosplay Kristi should stick to the facts,” Crofts-Pelayo said. “Her indiscriminate and racially motivated mass detention agenda has ripped away legal status and arrested Americans and widely targeted hardworking people with no criminal history, all while trampling on the very rights that protect us from wrongful detention and deportations.” “And let’s not forget – California law allows coordination with ICE for people charged with or convicted of serious or violent crimes – with our state prison system coordinating their transfer to federal agents once released.”
GOP lawmakers call on Trump to arrest Walz after governor warns of National Guard move
Republican lawmakers are urging President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz after the Democrat warned he could deploy the National Guard in response to federal immigration enforcement actions in his state. “Invoke the Insurrection Act. Arrest Tim Walz,” Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., said in a post to X on Wednesday evening. Miller’s calls to apply the law, which gives the president powers to arrest suspects obstructing federal law enforcement, follow Walz’s suggestion that he might deploy the National Guard to push back on President Donald Trump’s use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). NOEM ALLEGES WOMAN KILLED IN ICE SHOOTING ‘STALKING AND IMPEDING’ AGENTS ALL DAY “We do not need any further help from the federal government. To Donald Trump and Kristi Noem, you’ve done enough. I’ve issued a warning order to prepare the Minnesota National Guard,” Walz said in a press event. Walz’s warning on Wednesday came on the heels of a deadly encounter between ICE and a woman. A law enforcement officer shot Renee Nicole Good, 37, when she confronted agents from inside her car in Minneapolis, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). “We have soldiers in training and prepared to be deployed if necessary. I remind you, a warning order is a heads-up for folks,” Walz said. “Minnesota will not allow our community to be used as a prop in a national political fight.” FAMILIAR PROTEST GROUPS MOBILIZE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ICE SHOOTING OF MINNESOTA PROTESTER Under Minnesota law, Walz has the power to deploy the National Guard for the “defense or relief of the state, the enforcement of the law, [or] the protection of persons” in the state. Other Republicans reacting to Walz’s warning also believe such an action could trigger the use of the act. “Someone remind him: Donald Trump is the Commander in Chief. And federal authority supersedes state authority. That’s not an opinion, that’s the Constitution,” Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., said in her own post. FORMER DHS CHIEF DECRIES MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR’S ‘UNHINGED’ ICE RHETORIC AFTER DEADLY SHOOTING “What Walz is threatening has a name: insurrection. Mr. President, the law is on your side. Use it,” she added. Walz’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reporter’s Notebook: House attempts to override Trump vetoes on Colorado water project, Florida Everglades
The House will try Thursday to override President Donald Trump on two bills he vetoed recently. One is the “Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act,” which provides water to southeastern Colorado. The other is the Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act. It hands over a portion of the Florida Everglades to the tribe. Both bills passed the House and Senate unanimously. The president criticized Colorado Democrat Gov. Jared Polis as a “bad” governor when explaining his reasons for vetoing that bill. The president caught criticism from Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., whose district would benefit from the water project. Trump and Boebert have been at loggerheads since she was one of the most outspoken voices pushing for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The House will debate and vote on overriding the Colorado water project Thursday. We only expect debate on the Florida issue on Thursday. CAPITOL HILL REVOLT THREATENS TRUMP’S VENEZUELA PLAYBOOK AMID CARIBBEAN STRIKE OVERSIGHT It takes a two-thirds vote of those casting ballots to override a veto. The House currently has 431 members. So if every member votes, it takes 288 yeas to override. So you don’t know the magic number until the vote is closed, because it’s contingent on the total number of members casting ballots. There is a good chance that the House could override the president’s veto – considering the fact that the House approved the bill unanimously. TRUMP RALLIES HOUSE GOP AT KENNEDY CENTER DAYS AFTER MADURO CAPTURE These two vetoes are the first ones of Trump’s second term. The president vetoed 10 bills during his first term. Eight veto overrides failed. Lawmakers never attempted the override on one of them. But Congress overrode the veto of the annual defense policy bill in late 2020 and early 2021. HOUSE GOP SPENDING BILLS PACK BILLIONS IN EARMARKS, SPARKING BACKLASH FROM FISCAL HAWKS Successful veto overrides are rare. There have only been 112 veto overrides in the history of the republic. That’s out of 1,531 “regular” presidential vetoes. So that’s about 4%. Here’s another footnote: The Senate also votes Thursday to rebuke the president over war powers and U.S. action in Venezuela. A similar measure came close to passing in the fall, before the recent operation in Venezuela. It’s unclear whether the war powers resolution will pass. However, if the House overrides the president’s veto on the Colorado water bill, and the Senate votes in favor of the war powers resolution, that would mark two rare rebukes by the Republican president in one day.