Hawley touts provision in Big, Beautiful Bill that has even hard-left Democrats celebrating
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., stood shoulder-to-shoulder with staunch Democrats to celebrate the inclusion of key compensation for survivors of nuclear testing inside President Donald Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill on Tuesday. Hawley has fought for the passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) since the program was canceled in 2023. It has now been re-upped and greatly expanded thanks to persistent bipartisan advocacy. Among the cross-aisle attendees was former Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., who was among the most aggressive critics of Republicans while in Congress. Hawley embraced Bush at the event, however. “Cori, thank you. We would not be here without you and your work,” he said, recounting their multiple prior efforts to pass the legislation. POLITICAL FIGHT OVER ‘BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL’ SHIFTS TO CAMPAIGN TRAIL Also at the event was Rep. Wesley Bell, D-Mo., who voted against the OBBB, but said he supports the RECA legislation. Navajo Nation president Buu Nygren also attended the event and recounted the impact of nuclear testing on his community. The bill applies to sites across the country where Americans, civilian, military and members of the Navajo Nation, were exposed to radiation due to nuclear weapons testing and the storing of nuclear waste. The event took place at one such site: St. Cin Park in St. Louis. The surrounding area has been determined to be a cancer hotzone thanks to the storing of nuclear waste nearby. The legislation applies to similar sites across Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alaska, but advocates of the bill and Hawley himself say there remains more work to be done. “This is a great first step, but there is definitely more to do,” NAACP St. Louis president John Bowman told Fox at the event. “This is a good day, but there are better days to come.” WHAT’S ACTUALLY IN TRUMP’S ‘BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL’ Bowman and others highlighted some zip codes that aren’t eligible for the compensation, and they say work needs to be done to expand the documentation Americans can use to prove they qualify for compensation. Dawn Chapman, founder of Just Moms STL, an advocacy group devoted to the radiation exposure issue, told Fox that the process – while difficult – reinforced her belief in the legislative process. She recounted seeing staffers from opposite sides of the aisle celebrating and sharing high-fives after the bill was passed. The bill passed through the Senate three times in recent years before finally making it to the president’s desk. “The system still works. It does,” she said. “The media just often doesn’t share it.”
Supreme Court lets Trump’s ‘wrecking ball’ federal job cuts proceed while legal fight continues
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court’s injunction against the administration’s executive order. In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court. The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to “streamline government and eliminate waste.” Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal government. FEDERAL APPEALS COURT THROWS ROADBLOCK AT TRUMP’S EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself. “Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application,” the Court wrote. “We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.” The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court’s unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is “likely to succeed” in defending the legality of the order. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that “this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.” She warned that the executive action represents a “structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives” and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts. TRUMP ADMIN ASKS SCOTUS TO ALLOW IT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PLANS TO SLASH FEDERAL WORKFORCE “This unilateral decision to ‘transform’ the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court,” she wrote. “The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.” The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed “non-critical” or “not statutorily mandated.” The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain “thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service… is not in the government and public interest.” Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The court’s ruling is not a final judgment on the legality of the executive order. It only determines that implementation may proceed temporarily while appeals continue. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the injunction or the Supreme Court declines to take up the case later, the order could again be paused. The American Federal Government Employees Union had a forceful response: “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution. While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees. “Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration,” wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. “It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government.”
Mamdani camp silent when confronted with calls to ‘radicalize’ high schoolers, ‘dismantle’ US
Socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s campaign did not respond when confronted with a handful of radical platforms and messages that were promoted during an annual gathering of socialist activists and leaders in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend, Fox News Digital found. “Socialism 2025” was held in Chicago Thursday through Sunday, where activists promoted “radicalizing” high school students, overthrowing the U.S. government and how to perform a “DIY” abortion and required all attendees to wear N95 or K95 while indoors, in addition to common rhetoric slamming capitalism. Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani’s campaign Tuesday morning inquiring if the NYC Socialist Democrat agreed or disagreed with the platforms and ideas promoted at the conference, and if they were ones he would implement if elected the next mayor of the Big Apple, but did not immediately receive a response. Mamdani did not attend the conference in Chicago, but describes himself as a Democratic socialist and has previously embraced radical left-wing policies, such as ending private homeownership in favor of communal living, Fox Digital has previously reported. The socialism conference included panels dominated by college professors, as well as community organizers, activists and others. SOCIALIST MAYORAL CANDIDATE ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S SAT SCORE REVEALED: REPORT “Socialism 2025 is a four-day conference bringing together thousands of socialists and radical activists from around the country to take part in discussions about social movements, abolition, Marxism, decolonization, working-class history, and the debates and strategies for organizing today,” the conference touts on its website. Fox News Digital provided Mamdani’s office with a bullet-point list of six quotes and platforms promoted at the event, including one woman who identified herself as a Wisconsin high school teacher calling for youths to be “radicalized” before they enter college. “All of you who got radicalized in college, imagine if you got radicalized four years earlier,” the woman, who was a member of the audience, was heard saying during the conference. NYC’S SHOCKING SOCIALIST VICTORY IS A DIRE WARNING FOR THE RIGHT Another Chicago-based activist who spoke during a panel called for the U.S. government to be overthrown. “I think it’s important to say the state isn’t democratic. We don’t live in a democracy. We should start saying that more so. I mean, there are so many different ways — I’m not going to go into it — but people are clapping, so there’s general agreement. I’m glad we agree on that,” the activist said during a panel Saturday called, “Their End is Our Beginning: Cops, Capitalism, and Abolition,” which receive applause from the crowd. “So, do we capture the state or do we try to replace it with something different?” he continued. “And I think it’s the latter. We have to replace it with something different.” While during another panel on “Gender, Sexuality, Reproduction and the State: Fighting Back Against the So-Called Law,” a woman from the audience announced that the conference would hold a do-it-yourself abortion panel to discuss how to use and where to buy legal abortion pills. While a panel speaker for the same forum appeared to call for the abolition of the family. VIDEO SURFACES OF MAMDANI USING SLOGAN ROOTED IN COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARY LANGUAGE “But… the bigger part of abolition as everybody’s reminding us in that tradition is the building of infrastructures of real safety, real accountability, real justice,” the activist said during the panel. “You know it’s the same with the family. Capitalist care has to be abolished in the sense that we are all pretty clear that care is a real need. What does the family offer us? What is the promise? It’s like a promise that you will be deeply, profoundly, unconditionally, selflessly and uncalculatedly known and held.” “Is the family really doing that?” she added, before adding that the idea of family has shortcomings and can be replaced with “mutual aid.” While yet another activist declared during a video clip circulating social media that she seeks to “dismantle the United States” and said “everyone” should join her in her activism — “no questions asked.” “I seek to dismantle the United States,” the activist said, according to video footage circulating on X. “I hope you seek to dismantle the United States. And if that isn’t your politics, OK. I speak as if everybody has this commitment. And the thing is, you should. You should listen to indigenous people when they are telling you this is the goal. Not only is this the goal, but this is the starting point.” “Decolonization is the only thing that is going to save us as a species. It’s the only thing that’s going to save us as a planet. And everyone should be on board with it, no questions asked.” SANDERS ENDORSES SOCIALIST MAMDANI IN MOVE TO BLOCK CUOMO IN NYC MAYORAL RACE Mamdani trounced top NYC mayoral competitor and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at the polls in June. Mamdani’s victory is viewed as the Democrat Party moving farther to the left in New York City after national voters sounded off in the 2024 election that the party’s embrace of some left-wing policies alienated Americans. President Donald Trump has slammed Mamdani as a “Communist Lunatic” and vowed he would “save New York City.” “As President of the United States, I’m not going to let this Communist Lunatic destroy New York,” Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier in July. “Rest assured, I hold all the levers, and have all the cards. I’ll save New York City, and make it ‘Hot’ and ‘Great’ again, just like I did with the Good Ol’ USA!”
Judge torched for Planned Parenthood order: Her court looks ‘like a fast food drive-through’
A federal judge drew enormous backlash from Republicans after she blocked the Trump administration on Monday from following through on a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that strips federal funding from Planned Parenthood. Critics of Judge Indira Talwani said her fast-acting decision to grant Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion vendor, a temporary restraining order was an extraordinary overreach of judicial authority. Tom Jipping, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital the judge’s move was “obviously out of bounds.” “What you have here is Congress exercising its explicit constitutional authority to make spending decisions, and you have a district judge arguably trying to exercise power she doesn’t have to force Congress to change,” Jipping said. PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT CONFRONTS HIGH ABORTION RATES THREE YEARS AFTER DOBBS Talwani, a Boston-based judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued the temporary order, which lasts 14 days, after Planned Parenthood sued the government over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a massive tax and budget bill. The provision stripped Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, which the nonprofit said could force it to close roughly 200 of its 600 facilities and deprive about one million customers of non-abortion-related services. Congress narrowly passed the bill with no support from Democrats last week, and Trump signed it into law on July 4. Talwani’s brief two-page order came on the same day Planned Parenthood sued, and it contained only the explanation that the nonprofit showed “good cause” for the temporary relief. “I don’t know how fast that judge reads, but she issued her TRO within a couple of hours,” Jipping said. “That makes her court look like a fast food drive-through.” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a lawyer and Senate Judiciary Committee member, said he believed the judge’s order was not an innocent mistake and floated the idea that the House could initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge. “We have the best judicial system in the world, but it’s run by fallible, mortal humans. People make mistakes. But unless I’m missing something here, this wasn’t an honest mistake,” Lee said. “This was a pretty egregious judicial usurpation of legislative power.” SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN OKS BAN ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERAL FUNDING IN TRUMP MEGABILL Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor who once represented numerous Jan. 6 defendants, suggested on X that the First Circuit Court of Appeals reassign the case. “The only way District Judges are going to be disciplined to adhere to their role is if they are sanctioned for brazenly ignoring the limits of their authority for partisan ends,” Shipley wrote. Talwani set a hearing for July 21 to consider arguments from Planned Parenthood and the named agencies in the lawsuit, Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The Department of Justice (DOJ) could challenge the order in the interim. DOJ chief of staff Chad Mizelle said the judge’s restraining order amounted to “lawless overreach,” and he called for the Supreme Court to intervene. The order came in response to Planned Parenthood claiming in its lawsuit that Congress’s budget bill unconstitutionally targeted Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions. FEDERAL JUDGE PAUSES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S PLANNED PARENTHOOD DEFUNDING MEASURE Opponents of abortion have focused their energy on weakening Planned Parenthood in the years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the passage of the budget bill marked a milestone success for them. Some told Fox News Digital recently that it was one of several steps they needed to take to address the glaring fact that abortions remain prevalent and could even be on the rise. Attorneys for Planned Parenthood said Medicaid does not cover abortion and that depriving Planned Parenthood of its hundreds of thousands of dollars in Medicaid reimbursements would cause more than half of its customers to lose access to services that do not include abortion. Cancer and sexually transmitted infections would go undetected, especially for low-income people, and more unplanned pregnancies would occur because of a lack of contraception access, the Planned Parenthood attorneys said. “The adverse public health consequences of the Defund Provision will be grave,” the attorneys wrote. Some Democrats celebrated Talwani’s order but did not address the legality of it. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., said on Bluesky that the judge in her home state delivered “some good news” for people who have relied on Planned Parenthood for health care. “But make no mistake: our fight is far from over,” Clark wrote.
How the Supreme Court’s injunction ruling advances Trump’s birthright citizenship fight
President Donald Trump is aiming to terminate birthright citizenship in the United States – and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to curb universal injunctions has brought him one step closer to accomplishing that mission. While changing the way the government gives citizenship to babies born in the United States is still an uphill climb, the high court’s ruling raised the possibility that Trump’s new policy to end automatic citizenship could, at least temporarily, take effect in some parts of the country. Lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the conservative legal advocacy group JCN, said it was unclear at this stage of litigation how Trump’s policy would work logistically or to whom it would apply. The Supreme Court’s decision, issued June 27, barred Trump’s executive order from becoming active for 30 days. “Normally, if you give birth at the hospital, they just automatically issue everyone a Social Security number,” Severino told Fox News Digital. “Now the question isn’t open and shut like that.” SCOTUS RULES ON TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS The Supreme Court’s decision arose from various Democratic-led states and immigration rights groups bringing several lawsuits across the country challenging Trump’s executive order, which the president signed shortly after he took office. The order dramatically changed the scope of birthright citizenship, which is outlined under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and allows babies born to noncitizens in the United States to automatically receive U.S. citizenship in most cases. Courts uniformly rejected Trump’s policy and blocked it by issuing universal injunctions that applied to the whole country and not just certain pregnant noncitizens being represented in court. Seattle-based federal Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, chastised government attorneys during a February hearing over the matter. “It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” the judge said. “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.” Coughenour later said that if Trump wanted to change the “exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship,” then the president would need to work with Congress to amend the Constitution, rather than attempt to redefine the amendment through an executive order. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s order, courts and plaintiffs are moving quickly to adapt and, in some cases, find workarounds before the 30-day deadline arrives. Within hours of the high court’s decision, plaintiffs who brought a birthright citizenship lawsuit in Maryland asked a judge to change the lawsuit to a class action proceeding that covers all babies who will be born after Trump’s executive order takes effect. The request was one of what is quickly becoming a manifold of court requests that are testing the Supreme Court’s injunction decision and potentially undercutting it. The Supreme Court’s decision left intact the ability for judges, if they see fit, to use class action lawsuits or statewide lawsuits to hand down sweeping orders blocking Trump’s policies from applying to wide swaths of people. SUPREME COURT TAKES ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: LIBERALS BALK AT TRUMP ARGUMENT TO END NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS “The bottom line is that the Trump administration has the right to carry this order out nationwide, except where a court has stayed it as to parties actually involved in a lawsuit challenging it,” Severino said. American Immigration Council’s Michelle Lapointe wrote online there was a “real possibility” that if the judges overseeing the current lawsuits do not find a way in the next few weeks to issue broad injunctions blocking birthright citizenship, then some states might see the policy take effect. “That raises the risk of babies born in certain parts of the United States… being fully stripped of their rights as U.S. citizens, perhaps even rendering them stateless,” Lapointe wrote. “The human cost of such an action is unconscionable.” Regardless of what happens in the coming weeks and months, the underlying merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy are on track to end up at the Supreme Court. The justices were able to avoid touching the substance of Trump’s argument by merely considering the constitutionality of universal injunctions during this last go-round, but the next time a birthright citizenship lawsuit comes before them, they are likely to have to weigh in on whether Trump’s policy is constitutional. 100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT Severino said she believed the six Republican-appointed justices would rely heavily on “history and tradition” and “what the words were understood to mean in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed.” “It’s a challenging issue, in part because our immigration system looks so dramatically different now than it did at the time of the 14th Amendment, because the sort of immigration we’re looking at was not really on their radar, nor was the type of entitlement state that we are living in,” Severino said. Michael Moreland, Villanova University law school professor, told Fox News Digital there has long been an academic debate about the language in the amendment. It states that babies born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. The dispute, Moreland said, has centered on “how broadly or narrowly” to interpret that clause. The Trump administration has said that as part of its immigration crackdown, it wants to curtail abuse of the 14th Amendment, which can include foreigners traveling to the United States strictly to give birth with no intention of legally settling in the country. The amendment also incentivizes migrants to enter the country illegally to give birth and rewards pregnant women already living illegally in the country by imparting citizenship to their children, the administration has said. Judges, thus far, have found that Trump’s policy is at odds with more than 150 years of precedent. The government has long given citizenship to any child born in the United States with few exceptions, such as babies born to foreign diplomats or foreign military members.
Resurfaced Mamdani photo sparks social media firestorm, outrage from key voting bloc: ‘Shameful’
A resurfaced photo of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani flipping off a statue of Christopher Columbus is sparking backlash online and with some members of the Italian-American community. “Take it down,” Mamdani posted in June 2020, along with a photo showing what is presumably his gloved hand raising the middle finger toward a statue of the famed Italian explorer in Astoria, New York. Some in the Italian community took offense to the post, according to a New York Post report, including Columbus Heritage Coalition President Angelo Vivolo. “We will defend Columbus Day and Columbus statues,” Vivolo said. NY TIMES GRAPPLES WITH LIBERAL OUTRAGE OVER ITS MAMDANI COLLEGE APPLICATION REPORT “He is being disrespectful to the Italian American community.” Vivolo added. “If you offend one community, you offend all communities.” Joseph Scelsa, the founder and president of the Italian American Museum, suggested it is unwise for Mamdani to alienate Italians, who the New York Post reported make up 8% of the population of New York City. “To eliminate such a large population of people would be a travesty,” Scelsa said. “It’s not inclusive. It’s exclusionary. Who’s to say who is a hero and who is not a hero? Columbus is our hero.” SOME WEALTHY NEW YORK ELITES SURPRISINGLY BACK NYC SOCIALIST CANDIDATE WHO WANTS TO TAX THEM MORE The backlash to the post could also be found coming from conservatives on social media. “Not gonna happen,” actor Joe Piscopo posted on X. “This guy needs to be stopped,” YouTuber Joey Salads posted on X. “The most defining characteristic of the left is ingratitude,” journalist Megan Basham posted on X. “He disrespects the critical role Italians and Catholics played in the founding of our nation,” former Trump official Ezra A. Cohen posted on X. “Shameful.” “What a disgusting socialist,” Florida GOP Chair Evan Power posted on X. “so u can be a nepo baby anchor baby who’s never had a job in your life and potentially become mayor of America’s largest city simply on the force of hating white people hard enough,” Foundation for Freedom Online executive director Mike Benz posted on X. “This communist clown needs to be sent back,” Federalist CEO Sean Davis posted on X. Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani’s campaign but did not receive a response about the post, which is still visible on his X account as of Tuesday morning. Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, rocked the political landscape last month when he was victorious in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary despite running on a platform filled with left-wing priorities and a track record that includes previous calls to defund the police. Mamdani, who was born in Uganda to parents from India, has become a target for moderate Democrats and Republicans over his socialist views and recently faced controversy after it was reported he identified as Asian and African American while applying to college. Mamdani is set to face off against several candidates in the general election this November, including current Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, Republican Curtis Sliwa, and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
‘Bait and switch’: Schumer warns of bitter funding fight over GOP cuts plan
Senate Republicans are set to consider a multibillion-dollar package of cuts from the White House, but the top Senate Democrat warned that doing so could have consequences for a later government funding showdown. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned on Tuesday that the Senate GOP’s plan to move forward with a $9.4 billion rescissions package would have “grave implications” on Congress, particularly the forthcoming government funding fight in September. “Republicans’ passage of this purely partisan proposal would be an affront to the bipartisan appropriations process,” Schumer wrote in a letter to fellow Senate Democrats. 2 LONE REPUBLICANS VOTE AGAINST TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ AS IT HEADS TO PRESIDENT’S DESK “That’s why a number of Senate Republicans know it is absurd for them to expect Democrats to act as business as usual and engage in a bipartisan appropriations process to fund the government, while they concurrently plot to pass a purely partisan rescissions bill to defund those same programs negotiated on a bipartisan basis behind the scenes,” he continued. The rescissions package, proposed by the Impoundment Control Act, allows the White House to request that Congress roll back congressionally appropriated funding. Such proposed cuts must be approved by both chambers within 45 days. TAX CUTS, WORK REQUIREMENTS AND ASYLUM FEES: HERE’S WHAT’S INSIDE THE SENATE’S VERSION OF TRUMP’S BILL This package in particular, which narrowly squeaked through the House by a two-vote margin last month, would claw back $8.3 billion in funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS. The package, informed heavily by the cuts proposed by President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, formerly helmed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, would only need to pass a simple majority in the upper chamber to pass. Musk and DOGE made USAID a primary target of their hunt for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government, dismantling much of the long-standing organization ahead of the rescission request. The impending deadline to fund the government in September will either require the passage of a dozen appropriations bills – something Congress has not done in years – or the need to work with Democrats to crest the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. GOP LAWMAKERS REBUKE ELON MUSK’S PRIMARY THREATS, SAY TRUMP’S LEGISLATION ‘SOMETHING WE’VE GOT TO DO’ And the rescissions package is not wildly popular among Republicans. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said during a hearing on the package late last month that she was concerned about proposed cuts to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the CPB, and warned that cuts to the AIDS and HIV prevention program would be “extraordinarily ill-advised and shortsighted.” Schumer is no stranger to trying to leverage government funding fights to his advantage. Earlier this year, he withheld support for the House GOP-authored government funding extension before ultimately agreeing to the deal. That same scenario could play out once more come September. “This is beyond a bait-and-switch – it is a bait-and-poison-to-kill,” Schumer said. “Senate Republicans must reject this partisan path and instead work with Democrats on a bipartisan appropriations process.”
New book exposes Jill Biden’s power grab amid husband’s political demise
First lady Jill Biden’s political rise coincided with the end of her husband’s political career, according to a new book about how President Joe Biden lost the White House. One year after Biden’s consequential debate performance, the first octogenarian president’s age has inspired congressional investigations and books detailing his alleged cognitive decline. “2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,” is the latest to tackle the inner workings of the Biden administration. The book, released Tuesday by journalists Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of The New York Times and Isaac Arnsdor of The Washington Post, details the influential role Jill Biden played in her husband’s administration. ‘MASSIVE CONSPIRACY’: EX-DNC INSIDER SAYS PARTY WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO HIDE BIDEN’S MENTAL DECLINE As Jill Biden gained political influence, so did Anthony Bernal, the first lady’s chief of staff and senior advisor and an assistant to the president. INSIDE JILL BIDEN’S POLITICAL RISE AMID HER HUSBAND’S COGNITIVE DECLINE: BOOK He was subpoenaed to testify on July 16 after refusing to appear before the committee investigating the alleged cover-up of Biden’s mental decline, which argued that executive privilege did not apply to him. According to the book, Bernal accused Anita Dunn, a veteran Democratic political strategist who served in the Biden and Obama administrations, of being disloyal for pushing for more transparency about the Biden family. There was a “near-total ban” on discussing Hunter Biden, the journalists wrote in their new book, as Hunter’s federal trial fell in the middle of his father’s re-election campaign in June 2024. Jill Biden, with Bernal by her side, went to great lengths to attend Hunter Biden’s federal trial, often traveling long distances from overseas trips or campaign events. She attended the first three days of the trial, flew to France to join the president at the D-Day commemoration and then returned to Wilmington less than 24 hours later for the fifth day of the trial. As described in “2024,” West Wing staffers were surprised when Jill Biden arrived at the trial. Most senior aides had no idea the first lady planned to attend, revealing her willingness to act independently. But while Jill Biden demonstrated her independence from the White House, Bernal was right there with her leading the East Wing. “He quickly bonded with Jill Biden and never left her side, becoming unflinchingly loyal to her and using his proximity to her to exert power wherever he decided. It was often unclear if the opinion he was expressing was his own or the first lady’s. Sometimes, when donors or voters asked her questions, Bernal would jump in to answer,” the authors said. Just as Jill jumped to Hunter’s defense during his high-profile trial, she became the president’s staunchest supporter following his disastrous debate performance against President Donald Trump. “Joe isn’t just the right person for the job,” the first lady said at a fundraiser soon after the debate. “He’s the only person for the job.” The book alleges that Jill Biden had always played the “role of the protective spouse, encouraging the president to eat vegetables, keeping him on time, and questioning staffers when she felt they erred.” In one such case in January 2022, a Biden aide apologized to the first lady when she questioned why they allowed a press conference to go on for too long, according to the book. As Biden struggled to successfully defend his debate performance, with donors and Democratic politicians growing weary, and “her husband in the fight of his political life, Jill was making clear: The Democratic Party had to stick with Joe,” the authors said. After the debate, the Bidens took a pre-planned family trip to Camp David. “The president was not entertaining the idea of dropping out of the race; he was taking stock of how bad things really were,” the authors said of Biden’s trip to Camp David. The authors described how dropping out “was not even a consideration” at Camp David, and how the first lady was part of those in the inner family circle who persuaded Biden to stay in the race, despite mounting pressure from party leaders and donors to step down. Biden huddled with his family in Camp David during the last few days of June, then appeared for debate damage-control interviews on network TV in the weeks following, referring to the debate as a bad night and blaming a cold for his off-night. “Biden also acknowledged he needed more sleep and said he told his staff that he should not participate in events that start after 8 p.m. But his message was clear: He was staying in the race,” the authors said. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Less than a month after the debate, and one week after an assassination attempt on Trump, Biden announced he was suspending his re-election campaign, and later endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee. Fox News Digital has written extensively dating back to the 2020 presidential campaign about Biden’s cognitive decline and his inner circle’s alleged role in covering it up. A Biden spokesperson did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
GOP congressman calls for Newsom to count illegal migrants getting state health benefits
Texas Rep. Wesley Hunt blasted California Gov. Gavin Newsom for providing health benefits to millions of illegal migrants through the state’s Medi-Cal program, and called on Newsom to conduct a full audit of the state’s Medicaid expansion. In a scathing letter obtained by Fox News Digital, Hunt called on Newsom to fully audit California’s Medi-Cal enrollment, publicly release the findings of ineligible individuals receiving benefits, and revoke waivers that allow the state to provide Medi-Cal to illegal migrants. “Given the posture of Democrats in Congress and California Governor Gavin Newsom’s public opposition to ICE operations, it’s only logical to demand transparency on how many illegal immigrants in California are receiving benefits meant solely for American citizens,” Hunt wrote. GAVIN NEWSOM IS MAKING A STRATEGIC VISIT TO A KEY PRIMARY STATE, RAISING EYEBROWS According to the Wall Street Journal, the Census Bureau estimates that one in five immigrants in California are illegal aliens. Sources at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) say that the state of California is obligated to report Medi-Cal data to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Newsom cut back on funding for illegal migrant healthcare in the state’s budget he signed late last month, freezing California taxpayer-funded Medi-Cal for new illegal immigrant applicants starting January 2026. The governor also plans to charge illegal migrants on the program a premium beginning in 2027. But Hunt honed in specifically on Newsom’s use of waivers previously granted by the Biden administration that allow the state to make Medi-Cal easier for illegal migrants to obtain. FROM NEW YORK TO ARIZONA, MIGRANT FACILITIES SHUTTERING IN WAKE OF TRUMP’S BORDER CRACKDOWN “I’m especially alarmed by Newsom’s use of Section 1115 waivers under the Social Security Act, which have opened the door for undocumented immigrants to access Medicaid at the expense of American taxpayers,” Hunt added. Section 1115 of the Social Security Act grants the federal government power to waive specific Medicaid requirements. States can request waivers from Section 1115, allowing them to bend and potentially reduce these requirements. “Does California’s Medicaid system fully comply with federal law?” Hunt questioned. “How many other Democrat-run states are exploiting similar loopholes? It’s time to shine a light on this abuse and shut it down.” SEC. MCMAHON RESPONDS TO NEWSOM’S OFFICE USING WWE CLIP MOCK TITLE IX ENFORCEMENT AMID TRANS ATHLETE FEUD Hunt also sent a copy of the letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and Centers for CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz. “Californians deserve transparency, accountability, and adherence to the law in the administration of public health programs,” the letter reads. “Policies that divert limited resources away from lawful recipients not only violate federal standards—they destroy public trust and threaten the sustainability of programs designed to serve our most vulnerable citizens.” Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom’s office, but did not receive a response.
South Carolina GOP urges Trump supporters to give Gavin Newsom a ‘HUGE Southern welcome’
South Carolina Republicans say they’re ready to give California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom “a HUGE Southern welcome” when he arrives in the key presidential primary state on Tuesday. Newsom is teaming up with the South Carolina Democratic Party for two days of meetings with voters in the state that officially held the first primary in the Democrats’ 2024 calendar. The trip by the term-limited governor with a large national profile is sure to spark plenty of 2028 speculation, since Newsom is considered a potential contender for the next Democratic presidential nomination. Republicans in the GOP-dominated state are taking notice. TWENTY-ONE DEMOCRATS WHO MAY WANT TO RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2028 “Gavin Newsom is bringing his Crazy California agenda to Trump Country. It’s up to us to show him what real leadership looks like,” the South Carolina GOP said in an email to supporters. The email included Newsom’s itinerary during his Tuesday-Wednesday swing, which is full of stops at cafes, coffee shops, community centers and churches. SUCCEEDING TRUMP IN 2028: SIX REPUBLICANS TO KEEP YOUR EYES ON “The dates, times, and locations are listed below,” the South Carolina GOP said. “Show up loud, proud, and decked out in your Trump gear and flags.” State GOP chair Drew McKissick, in a separate statement, argued that “Gavin Newsom should go sell Crazy California somewhere else. He won’t find many takers here.” It was a similar message from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who earlier this year launched a Republican campaign for governor in 2026. “We don’t need Gavin Newsom’s twisted version of America in the Palmetto State,” Wilson argued in a statement. “If Gavin Newsom wants to test his national message here, he’ll be met by a united conservative front that knows exactly what’s at stake.” And Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, who is considering a run for governor next year, challenged Newsom to a debate. “If Governor Newsom wants to bring California politics to South Carolina, he should be ready to defend his record, face to face,” Mace said in a statement. The South Carolina Democratic Party, which announced Newsom’s trip last week, said it’s part of their effort to bring national Democrats to parts of the Palmetto State that they say have long been overlooked and “left behind” by Republican officials. SUCCEEDING TRUMP IN 2028: SIX REPUBLICANS TO KEEP YOUR EYES ON “Governor Newsom leads the largest economy in America and the fourth largest in the world, and he’s coming to meet folks in towns that have been hollowed out by decades of Republican control,” state party chair Christale Spain said in a statement. Newsom stopped in South Carolina in January of last year to campaign on behalf of then-President Joe Biden during the state’s 2024 presidential primary. Newsom also visited Nevada, another early-voting state in the party’s primary calendar. And Newsom traveled last summer on behalf of Biden to New Hampshire, the state that for a century has held the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. The former president was the Democrats’ 2024 standardbearer before dropping out of the race last July following a disastrous debate performance against now-President Donald Trump. Vice President Kamala Harris replaced Biden at the top of the Democratic national ticket. South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada are vying for the lead-off position in the next presidential election cycle, and the Democratic National Committee is expected to decide on their 2028 calendar by early 2027. Newsom has long been thought to harbor national ambitions and is considered one of many Democrats who may make a run for the party’s 2028 presidential nomination. The two-day swing through South Carolina will give Newsom an opportunity to make connections not only with voters, but also with local party and elected officials. The relationships forged this week could possibly pay dividends down the road for Newsom if he eventually decides to launch a 2028 presidential campaign.