FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a field hearing in Charlotte, North Carolina, this month following the fatal stabbing of a young woman on the city’s light rail that sparked heated debate about criminal justice reform.
The remote hearing is scheduled for the morning of Sept. 29, Fox News Digital has learned, and will highlight recent criminal activity in Charlotte.
News of the hearing comes after Iryna Zarutska’s murder on Aug. 22 captured national attention. Chilling surveillance footage showed a suspect who was sitting behind Zarutska stand up and strike her with a pocket knife several times. Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who was on her way home from work at the time of the incident, died on the train from her injuries, authorities said.
Iryna Zarutska curls up in fear as a man looms over her during a disturbing attack on a Charlotte, N.C., light rail train.(NewsNation via Charlotte Area Transit System)
The Department of Justice charged the suspect, Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr., in federal court. Brown had prior arrests dating back more than a decade and once served time for a robbery. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Brown will be prosecuted for murder and said “soft-on-crime policies” caused Zarutska’s death.
“Iryna Zarutska was a young woman living the American dream — her horrific murder is a direct result of failed soft-on-crime policies that put criminals before innocent people,” Bondi said. “I have directed my attorneys to federally prosecute Decarlos Brown Jr., a repeat violent offender with a history of violent crime, for murder.”
All House Judiciary Committee members are able to attend the hearing. The panel’s subcommittee on oversight will lead it.
The hearing was scheduled prior to another shocking crime event — the assassination of prolific conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which took place at Utah Valley University last week.
A side-by-side of Iryna Zarutska and a light rail platform in Charlotte, North Carolina.(Associated Press)
The field hearing marks the latest instance of the committee visiting Democrat-led cities to highlight grim crime rates and prosecutorial failures. The committee visited Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s jurisdiction in April 2023, a week after Bragg brought criminal charges against then-former President Donald Trump. The committee held a similar hearing in Chicago later that year.
Lawmakers at the hearings have examined prosecutorial policies, such as cashless bail, and highlighted recidivism and stories from victims and their families.
Charging and trying defendants in Charlotte comes under the purview of Mecklenburg County District Attorney Spencer B. Merriweather III, an appointee of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, listens during a hearing with the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Capitol Hill on July 20, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., confirmed the hearing in a statement to Fox News Digital, saying Zarutska’s death was a “culmination of years of failed liberal policies that put criminals ahead of victims.”
“This was entirely preventable, and we owe it to the people to fix it before another innocent life is lost,” Van Drew said.
Fox News Digital reached out to Merriweather’s office for comment.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.
new video loaded: Senate Votes In Trump Pick for Fed Board
transcript
transcript
Senate Votes In Trump Pick for Fed Board
Senate Republicans confirmed President Trump’s nomination of Stephen Miran, a top White House economic adviser, as a governor for the Federal Reserve on Monday.
“The yeas are 48. The nays are 47, and the nomination is approved.”
The Senate has approved one of President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers for a seat on the Federal Reserve’s governing board, giving the White House greater influence over the central bank just two days before it is expected to vote in favor of reducing its key interest rate.The vote to confirm Stephen Miran was largely along party lines, 48-47. He was approved by the Senate Banking Committee last week with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposed.Miran’s nomination has sparked concerns about the Fed’s longtime independence from day-to-day politics after he said during a committee hearing earlier this month that he would keep his job as chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, though would take unpaid leave. Senate Democrats have said such an approach is incompatible with an independent Fed.Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the vote that Miran “has no independence” and would be “nothing more than Donald Trump’s mouthpiece at the Fed.”The vote was along party lines, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican to vote against Miran.Miran is completing an unexpired term that ends in January, after Adriana Kugler unexpectedly stepped down from the board Aug. 1. He said if he is appointed to a longer term he would resign from his White House job. Previous presidents have appointed advisers to the Fed, including former chair Ben Bernanke, who served in president George W. Bush’s administration. But Bernanke and others left their White House jobs when joining the board.Miran said during his Sept. 4 hearing that, if confirmed, “I will act independently, as the Federal Reserve always does, based on my own personal analysis of economic data.”Last year, Miran criticized what he called the “revolving door” of officials between the White House and the Fed, in a paper he co-wrote with Daniel Katz for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Katz is now chief of staff at the Treasury Department.Miran’s approval arrives as Trump’s efforts to shape the Fed have been dealt a setback elsewhere. He has sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden to a term that ends in 2038. Cook sued to block the firing and won a first round in federal court, after a judge ruled the Trump administration did not have proper cause to remove her.The administration appealed the ruling, but an appeals court rejected that request late Monday. Members of the Fed’s board vote on all its interest rate decisions, and also oversee the nation’s financial system.The jockeying around the Fed is occurring as the economy is entering an uncertain and difficult period. Inflation remains stubbornly above the central bank’s 2% target, though it hasn’t risen as much as many economists feared when Trump first imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports. The Fed typically would raise borrowing costs, or at least keep them elevated, to combat worsening inflation.At the same time, hiring has weakened considerably and the unemployment rate rose last month to a still-low 4.3%. The central bank often takes the opposite approach when unemployment rises, cutting rates to spur more borrowing, spending and growth.Economists forecast the Fed will reduce its key rate after its two-day meeting ends Wednesday, to about 4.1% from 4.3%. Trump has demanded much deeper cuts.
WASHINGTON —
The Senate has approved one of President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers for a seat on the Federal Reserve’s governing board, giving the White House greater influence over the central bank just two days before it is expected to vote in favor of reducing its key interest rate.
The vote to confirm Stephen Miran was largely along party lines, 48-47. He was approved by the Senate Banking Committee last week with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposed.
Miran’s nomination has sparked concerns about the Fed’s longtime independence from day-to-day politics after he said during a committee hearing earlier this month that he would keep his job as chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, though would take unpaid leave. Senate Democrats have said such an approach is incompatible with an independent Fed.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the vote that Miran “has no independence” and would be “nothing more than Donald Trump’s mouthpiece at the Fed.”
The vote was along party lines, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican to vote against Miran.
Miran is completing an unexpired term that ends in January, after Adriana Kugler unexpectedly stepped down from the board Aug. 1. He said if he is appointed to a longer term he would resign from his White House job. Previous presidents have appointed advisers to the Fed, including former chair Ben Bernanke, who served in president George W. Bush’s administration. But Bernanke and others left their White House jobs when joining the board.
Miran said during his Sept. 4 hearing that, if confirmed, “I will act independently, as the Federal Reserve always does, based on my own personal analysis of economic data.”
Last year, Miran criticized what he called the “revolving door” of officials between the White House and the Fed, in a paper he co-wrote with Daniel Katz for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Katz is now chief of staff at the Treasury Department.
Miran’s approval arrives as Trump’s efforts to shape the Fed have been dealt a setback elsewhere. He has sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden to a term that ends in 2038. Cook sued to block the firing and won a first round in federal court, after a judge ruled the Trump administration did not have proper cause to remove her.
The administration appealed the ruling, but an appeals court rejected that request late Monday.
Members of the Fed’s board vote on all its interest rate decisions, and also oversee the nation’s financial system.
The jockeying around the Fed is occurring as the economy is entering an uncertain and difficult period. Inflation remains stubbornly above the central bank’s 2% target, though it hasn’t risen as much as many economists feared when Trump first imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports. The Fed typically would raise borrowing costs, or at least keep them elevated, to combat worsening inflation.
At the same time, hiring has weakened considerably and the unemployment rate rose last month to a still-low 4.3%. The central bank often takes the opposite approach when unemployment rises, cutting rates to spur more borrowing, spending and growth.
Economists forecast the Fed will reduce its key rate after its two-day meeting ends Wednesday, to about 4.1% from 4.3%. Trump has demanded much deeper cuts.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has announced there will be a vigil in Statuary Hall of the Capitol tonight at 6:15 pm et to honor Charlie Kirk.
While it is expected to be respectful, Capitol Hill is a tinderbox right now. Democrats and Republicans are still trading barbs at one another. Both sides are accusing the other of contributing to the hyper-toxic rhetoric. There are calls to “lower the temperature.” But remember, Congress is a thermometer — not a thermostat.
We could have verbal jousting in and around the solemn ceremony tonight. Members could again unload on another when they filter back into the Capitol tonight. The complex is rife with tension.
Members are concerned about personal security and how to safeguard themselves and their families — but there’s no concrete plan on what to do to protect lawmakers.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., speaks during a memorial and prayer vigil for Charlie Kirk at the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C.(AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)
This brings us to government funding – and why security of lawmakers is a key part of that fight.
Government funding expires at 11:59:59pm ET on Sept. 30. The House is scheduled to be out of session next week. Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown on September 23. So there is limited bandwidth for Congress before a shutdown.
There is chatter that the House may try to advance a clean interim spending bill this week (a “CR”), which would run through Nov. 21.
The bill would renew all funding from last year at current levels. But it would approve three “new” bills for the entire fiscal year covering agriculture, military construction/VA and the legislative branch.
Fox has learned that the White House wants an extra $58 million for security for the administration and the courts in light of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The latter is where there’s a problem.
Fox is told that the White House wants an additional $58 million extra for security for the administration and the courts in light of the Kirk murder. They would match that with similar money to secure Congress. But some lawmakers may balk, saying that the matching $58 million is too low – similarly, because there are so many members of Congress and threats are off the charts. Fox is told that Congress will approve whatever security funding is necessary, but lawmakers must first determine what they want.
“Figure out what you want and put it in the bill. It’s not something we are going to disagree on,” said one senior House source.
That brings us to the Democrats’ quest for a “victory” in this spending round, especially since it is believed that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) caved and received nothing in the spring funding round.
Democrats are requesting a renewal of the Obamacare subsidies, which are set to expire at the year-end. (Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The big request from Democrats is a renewal of Obamacare subsidies, which expire at the end of the year. If Congress fails to act, healthcare for tens of millions of Americans will rise sharply.
Some Republicans are pushing for an extension of those subsidies, too. But Congressional Republicans are reluctant to attach the Obamacare subsidy renewal to a seven-week interim spending bill.
In short, Republicans are waiting for Democrats to say what they want — and Democrats can’t figure that out. But rank-and-file Republicans are also waiting for their leadership to make a play call.
One play call could be getting the House to vote on that clean CR, coupled with the three other spending bills, later this week.
However, the House has the “three-day rule.” That requires legislation be posted for three days before the House votes. If the House is going to vote before its scheduled recess, then that would be Thursday. And that also means the House must vote to post the bill on Monday.
The House currently has 432 members — 219 Republicans and 213 Democrats.(Chip Somodevilla)
But exactly what the House may post is unclear.
Moreover, it’s unclear if the House could even approve a stopgap spending package.
It’s about the math.
The House currently has 432 members: 219 Republicans and 213 Democrats. That means Republicans can only lose two on their side and pass the bill. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) – and perhaps others – are likely to oppose a Band-Aid spending bill. And Democrats may not vote yes because of all the reasons above. Plus, they are in the minority. They will expect the majority to “figure it out.”
Such a scenario could only amplify tensions on Capitol Hill – which are already sky-high because of Kirk.
Expect a lot more verbal jeering and disagreements from Congress before this is resolved.
Chad Pergram currently serves as a senior congressional correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.
Isadore Hall, a former state legislator and Compton City Council member, launched a campaign Monday to challenge Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia.
Hall, who is backed by a slew of prominent endorsers, argues that Mejia has been more focused on “social media theatrics” than protecting tax dollars.
He said he would bring common sense leadership and accountability, citing his lengthy track record in elected office and master’s degrees in management and public administration, as well as experience weeding out government waste and fraud in Compton.
Hall, who moved to Los Angeles in 2016 and represented parts of the city in both the Assembly and the state Senate, said he launched his bid after being asked by “some elected officials,” along with several pastors and labor leaders, though he declined to provide specifics.
Hall’s endorsements include L.A. County Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, L.A. City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, California Treasurer Fiona Ma, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and five state legislators. If elected, Hall would be the city’s first Black controller; Mejia, who is Filipino American, previously made history as the first Asian American elected to citywide office in L.A.
“It’s one thing to be a great finance person or an auditor or a person who understands numbers … but you also have to have a temperament. You also have to understand the importance of governance,” Hall said, arguing that Mejia’s office is poorly managed and lacks good communication with city department heads and other local leaders.
It’s still unclear whether other candidates will enter the race for controller — a coveted role that is one of three citywide offices, along with mayor and city attorney.
L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez has been rumored to potentially be interested in a bid for either mayor or controller, though she declined to discuss her plans with The Times last week.
Hall and Mejia represent vastly different flanks of the Democratic Party, and the coming race will almost certainly pit L.A. establishment politics against the city’s ascendant left.
Three years ago, despite being heavily outspent, Mejia made political mincemeat of Paul Koretz, who had held elected office since before he was born. Young voters who were previously unaware that L.A. even had a controller were galvanized by Mejia’s unorthodox campaign, which directed an unprecedented spotlight toward L.A.’s chief accounting officer, auditor and paymaster.
Mejia’s successful campaign coincided with a moment where faith in L.A. City Hall was at a nadir amid numerous criminal scandals and an explosive leaked recording of some City Council members frankly discussing politics in sometimes racist terms. The question in 2026 will be whether the civic pendulum has shifted and if the phrase “veteran politician” still doubles as an effective slur. Mejia will also now be running as the incumbent rather than an outsider.
Hall, 52, has spent roughly 15 years in elected office, beginning with the Compton school board in his mid-20s.
Like Mejia, who is now 34, Hall found success in politics relatively young. But his career ascended the old-fashioned way — through incrementally higher offices and with the support of the pastors, labor and community groups who have long powered the Democratic political machine in South L.A. and surrounding cities.
After losing a hard-fought bid for Congress in 2016, Hall was appointed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown to the California Agricultural and Labor Relations Board. Hall was originally seen as a shoo-in victor during his congressional campaign, but underdog challenger Nanette Barragán succeeded, in part, by hammering him on his ties to special interests in the oil, alcohol and tobacco industries, according to prior Times reporting.
Mejia first made his name with unsuccessful runs for Congress as a Green Party candidate. He found his stride and exploded as a political pied piper of sorts during the 2022 election, where his energetic TikTok videos, sharp billboards and occasional dances in a Pikachu costume helped fuel the energy of the moment.
Attempts by critics to paint Mejia in 2022 as too “extreme” because of his anti-police positions and past bombastic tweets largely fell flat.
As the race heats up, Mejia will almost certainly attack Hall for a number of controversies involving campaign finance.
During his 2014 campaign for state Senate, rivals attacked Hall for his use of campaign funds to pay for expensive dinners, limousine rentals, luxury suites at concerts and trips — expenses he defended as legitimate campaign costs.
Hall said last week that he hadn’t been an expert in the complex rules of congressional campaign finance but held his accountant accountable for the error and learned from the experience.
The divisions in American politics are usually obvious, often nowhere more than in the House of Representatives. But there are also glimmers of bipartisanship, and, lately, many of those have been driven by women.
At the start of this year, Reps. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat, and Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, united forces to challenge House leadership with a push to make the House friendlier for new mothers. In the past few weeks, three of the most outspoken House Republican women broke ranks with their party — and bucked President Donald Trump — in an effort to release more files related to the case of the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
And this week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Republican Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida and Democratic Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California came together on a House resolution calling for expanded early screening for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS), a blood-clotting disorder that can cause miscarriages and stillbirths in pregnant people.
They credited their cooperation to singer Christina Perri, who learned she had APS after losing her daughter Rosie late in pregnancy in 2020. Perri is now channeling her grief into advocacy. She said in an interview that it was “a privilege” to see lawmakers like Kamlager-Dove and Cammack putting their party affiliations to the side and uniting on an issue so important to her.
“What matters is that we’re women, we’re moms, we just want other women and moms to be okay,” she said. “And I find that really inspiring at a time where everything is just so messy, and I feel grateful to be a part of something like this.”
Women make up half of the U.S. population but hold just 28 percent of seats in Congress. Research has not backed up the notion that women lawmakers are, overall, more bipartisan than men at the federal level. But select instances so far in this Congress show how unlikely coalitions of women lawmakers have united across party lines, challenged party leadership or both.
A major news conference at the Capitol with Epstein survivors last week yielded what four years ago would have been an all but unthinkable scene: Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a progressive Democrat, defending and embracing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a conservative firebrand and staunch Trump ally.
“She has shown so much courage on this issue, so much leadership,” Khanna said of Greene, who was met with an uneven reception by the crowd. “I saw some people, when I was coming here, calling her names. We’ve got to stop that. We’ve got to stop the partisanship on this issue.”
Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky are attempting to force a House floor vote on the Epstein files resolution with a procedural measure known as a discharge petition, which enables members to circumvent House leadership to get a measure to the floor. Every sitting House Democrat and just three Republicans other than Massie — Greene, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina — have signed the discharge petition, leaving it just one signature short of the 218 required to force a vote.
Never underestimate a woman. We all came here to do work. We all made promises, and some of us live up to them.
All three women have maintained their support for the measure despite fierce opposition from Trump and the White House. At the news conference, Massie called Greene “the bravest woman in Congress.” He also posed the question: “Where are the men?”
“Never underestimate a woman,” Boebert said at the Capitol on Tuesday. “We all came here to do work. We all made promises, and some of us live up to them.”
Shared experiences around pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood have united some House members to work across the aisle.
“I think I can say very candidly now, as a new mom, moms just know how to multitask and learn how to get things done,” said Cammack, who welcomed her daughter Auggie last month. “And that might be why you see more bipartisan efforts coming out of the women, even though we represent a minority in Congress.”
At Tuesday’s news conference, Kamlager-Dove, Cammack and Democratic Rep. Greg Landsman of Ohio all spoke about their experiences with pregnancy losses while building their families.
“What unites us is far deeper than what may appear on the surface,” Kamlager-Dove said. “Many of us share journeys to parenthood that are marked by hope, loss and eventually, resilience.”
Luna, the Florida Republican, and Pettersen, the Colorado Democrat, are also among the handful of House members to give birth while in office — and both missed votes after giving birth. They teamed up on a measure to allow new parents in the House to temporarily designate another member to vote for them, also known as proxy voting. House Speaker Mike Johnson vigorously opposed the effort, leading the duo to turn to a discharge petition. They succeeded in getting 218 votes on their discharge petition and overcame Johnson’s effort to quash the measure on the floor, temporarily grinding House business to a halt. Luna later struck a deal with Johnson, standing down on the proxy voting push in exchange for other concessions (Pettersen and other Democrats criticized the deal as insufficient).
Now, Luna is a member of another bipartisan coalition, this one backing a proposed ban on stock trading for members of Congress. Another member of the group, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a progressive Democrat, said at a September 3 news conference that, unlike in other legislative negotiations, lawmakers turned around a better product than the one they started with.
“It is one of those rare moments where I feel like Washington is working the way it’s supposed to work,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And it feels foreign. And it feels alien … but I also think it is proof that things can work here.”
Women lawmakers “are better communicators,” Luna told The 19th while leaving House votes on Tuesday. At the September 3 stock trading ban news conference, she indicated she’s prepared to challenge House leadership again if necessary.
“I often feel like an adjudicator in this job,” she said. “And so I guess I’ll be the one to say that we’ve asked nicely for leadership to put this on the floor. If they don’t, I say timeline is end of month: There’s a discharge petition that is ready to go.”
It is one of those rare moments where I feel like Washington is working the way it’s supposed to work.
The most consequential legislation passed by Congress this year has been muscled through without Democratic support, and there have been plenty of moments of acrimony on the floor.
Much of it has been clearly gendered: On Wednesday, as the House considered its annual defense spending bill, Mace erupted at Rep. Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat, during debate over Mace’s proposed anti-transgender amendments to the legislation. Rep. Sarah McBride, a Delaware Democrat who this year became the first openly transgender lawmaker to serve in Congress, has faced repeated attacks and misgendering from some of her Republican colleagues.
High-profile but not expressly political public figures have, in many cases, been the catalysts for bipartisan congressional action.
Years of tireless lobbying by Paris Hilton led to Congress passing a bipartisan bill aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect in youth residential facilities last December. Engineer, author and science TV host Emily Calandrelli’s personal story of being hassled by TSA as a new parent led to the Senate and a House committee passing bipartisan legislation making it easier for parents to travel with breast milk and breastfeeding equipment through airport security. The legislation has not received a vote on the House floor.
And Epstein’s survivors, Khanna said, are “helping us come together as a country.”
“I’ve never done a press conference with Marjorie Taylor Greene before,” he joked at the September 3 news conference.
Both Cammack and Kamlager-Dove credited Perri with using her platform to raise awareness about APS — and bringing them together on a mission to promote the adoption of what they said is a simple test that could spare so many the heartache of pregnancy loss.
“We bonded over a common story of having a miscarriage and wanting answers to questions that were not easy to come by,” Kamlager-Dove said.
“Without her advocacy, without her courage to come forward, this wouldn’t be happening, and so she has been the driver in really bringing us together to make this a reality,” Cammack said.
Cammack said she’s “very confident” about the resolution on APS testing moving forward and getting a vote on the House floor. Perri said the measure’s passing would be “a win for everybody,” and a victory “that feels kind of rare right now.”
“My hope and goal is to have this changed forever, for women to not need to even know about it,” she said. “But until then, I will always speak about it, and I will help move the needle forward.”
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle were in agreement that political discourse in the United States has reached a startling level following the assassination of Charlie Kirk and other recent acts of political violence.
Kirk’s assassination is the latest in a string of political violence that has left several high-profile figures dead or injured since July 2024, when President Donald Trump was shot while campaigning for his second term in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump was targeted again by a would-be assassin just months later. In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was the victim of an arson attack. And in June, two Minnesota lawmakers and their families were attacked, leaving two dead.
The political violence has had a chilling effect on the nation, with some lawmakers going so far as to cancel public appearances amid fears of physical violence.
“We have a climate right now where people who are frankly unhinged … like the two guys who tried to shoot President Trump, one who did shoot him, the person – whoever it is – who killed Charlie, the person who went after the Minnesota lawmakers – these people are nuts,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. “But they are egged on by a climate that says, ‘Hey, you know, it’s okay basically to go out and shoot your opponents because they’re really Hitler.’”
Charlie Kirk appears alongside an image of President Donald Trump after he was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania.(Getty Images)
The sentiment was echoed by Democratic lawmakers on the Hill as well.
“It’s really sad and just scary, you know, honestly, just how dire things have gotten in this country in terms of our political discourse,” said Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J. “I was actually just remarking the other day how, in a survey, over 50% of Americans surveyed said that they would call people in the other political party ‘the enemy.’ I just think that’s terrifying, that’s so dangerous of a place for our country to be.”
Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon added that in order for this Republic to work, people must be able to “passionately share [their] viewpoints and do so knowing that we resolve our differences through advocacy and voting, not through violence.”
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill.(J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“I don’t know what it says about political discourse, but it certainly says something about violence, and it has no business in political discourse. You can have a robust disagreement with people, but when it turns to violence, something’s gone badly wrong,” responded Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., when asked about what Kirk’s death said about the current state of political discourse.
Kirk was known for engaging passionately, but also respectfully, with students of all political stripes on college campuses as part of Turning Point USA, the grassroots organization he co-founded in 2012. He would regularly visit college campuses all around the country and debate with students from different perspectives on various issues of the day. Oftentimes, Kirk would hold “Prove Me Wrong” events, where he would give students a chance to do just that – prove him wrong.
“I mean, that’s the shame of this. Charlie Kirk was polite, he had a message, and he spread that message, and he engaged people to speak and debate, and then he lost his life for that,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. “That’s the thing about this country, we have freedom of speech. Nobody should ever take out violence based on something somebody said.”
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is seen outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2024(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“I would hope that all people would take a moment, reflect, and bring down this political rhetoric,” Rep. Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., told Fox News Digital. “These violent words precede violent actions.”
Hawley, meanwhile, suggested a tactic to help solve the issue.
“I’ll just say again, part of the way we stop it, is we realize that there’s stuff in life that’s more important than politics,” he told reporters.
Anna Commander is a Newsweek Editor and writer based in Florida. Her focus is reporting on crime, weather and breaking news. She has covered weather, and major breaking news events in South Florida. Anna joined Newsweek in 2022 from The National Desk in Washington, D.C. and had previously worked at CBS12 News in West Palm Beach. She is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University. You can get in touch with Anna by emailing a.commander@newsweek.com.
🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) reacted to the special-election win of James Walkinshaw to replace late U.S. Representative Gerald Connolly’s seat in Virginia.
The victory Tuesday night further shrinks the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
Why It Matters
The outcome whittles Speaker Mike Johnson‘s already narrow margin in the House, shrinking the GOP’s effective working majority and complicating the path for party-line votes ahead of a looming government funding deadline at the end of September.
Before the election, the House stood with 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats; Walkinshaw’s win moves the balance closer and limits Johnson’s margin for defections.
What To Know
In a statement sent to Newsweek via email, DNC Chair Ken Martin reacted to the party’s win, saying, “Virginians are seeing Republicans for who they are: self-serving liars who will throw their constituents under the bus to rubber stamp Donald Trump‘s disastrous agenda — and they’re ready for change.
“Rep-elect Walkinshaw’s victory continues the dominant trend we’re seeing so far this year – Democrats are massively overperforming in nearly every race. With elections in less than two months in the Commonwealth, Virginians are fired up and ready to hold Trump and Virginia Republicans accountable for their billionaire-first agenda.”
Walkinshaw, 42, member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and former chief of staff to Connolly, ran to succeed Connolly after his death in May, The New York Times reports.
The seat is in a heavily Democratic district in northern Virginia.
The Associated Press called the race for Walkinshaw at 7:36 p.m. ET.
This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.
Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, speaks at a news conference with Texas Democrats at the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades union hall on August 5 in Aurora, Illinois. (Photo by… Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, speaks at a news conference with Texas Democrats at the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades union hall on August 5 in Aurora, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Polls close at 7 p.m. in the City of Fairfax and Fairfax County, Virginia, in a special election to fill the U.S. House seat of the late Gerry Connolly.
Democrat James Walkinshaw will be the newest member of Congress, winning a special election in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District to replace Gerry Connolly, who had held the U.S. House seat representing the City of Fairfax and much of Fairfax County since 2009 and died in May.
Walkinshaw served as Connolly’s chief of staff and is serving his second term as the Braddock District supervisor on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Connolly endorsed Walkinshaw as his successor before his death.
Walkinshaw beat out Republican candidate Stewart Whitson, a former FBI special agent and Army veteran. The Associated Press called the race at 7:36 p.m., 36 minutes after polls closed.
As of that time, Walkinshaw had earned nearly 75% of the vote to Whitson’s 25%. Approximately 37% of the vote had been counted, according to the AP.
His campaign also raised far more than Whitson’s, totaling over $1 million, compared to Whitson’s $224,469, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
“What stands out the most for me about this election result is that it is in line with the wide margin that the late Rep. Gerry Connolly won by in 2024,” WTOP Capitol Hill Correspondent Mitchell Miller said.
Connolly was reelected in 2024 by close to a two-to-one margin.
“This result should be encouraging to Democrats, who needed a big win to indicate that they are energized heading into the 2026 mid-term elections,” Miller said.
The victory for Democrats means they now hold 213 seats in the House of Representatives, while Republicans hold 219. Miller cautioned that Democrats should not read too much into Tuesday’s victory, as Walkinshaw was heavily favored to win the race in the deep-blue district that Kamala Harris also won in the 2024 presidential election, with 65.4% of the vote.
Walkinshaw patterns his politics after his predecessor as a “pragmatic progressive.”
As a Fairfax County supervisor, he’s led efforts to ban guns from libraries and rec centers, improve pay and benefits for working families, extend tax relief to seniors and military families, and fight climate change, according to his campaign.
As he prepares to be sworn in as a member of Congress, Walkinshaw said he’s ready to challenge the Department of Government Efficiency and President Donald Trump’s mission to shrink the federal workforce.
“I want to take on the Trump agenda. I want to end DOGE and I want to deliver results for our community, as I did when I was Gerry Connolly’s chief of staff, as I have on the board of supervisors,” Walkinshaw told WTOP.
He said going through this special election process has had its challenges.
“It’s been a whirlwind,” Walkinshaw said. “It obviously started with a very hard loss of a close friend in Gerry Connolly. We had a sprint to the primary, a 10-way primary. So we sprinted to that, and now we’ve sprinted to this special election. But I’ve enjoyed most every minute of it, had the opportunity to meet thousands and thousands of folks here in the 11th District, and talk about their experiences and their challenges and their hopes and their dreams.”
As of 3 p.m., approximately 20% of the district’s voters had turned out to vote, with nearly 11% of them voting early and just under 9% voting Tuesday. During the last election for the 11th District seat that didn’t coincide with a presidential election, more than 55% of registered voters in the district cast a ballot.
Special elections traditionally have lower turnout.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
Federal immigration arrests in Colorado surged this summer as the Trump administration charged ahead with its plans to mass-deport undocumented immigrants.
But as arrests have spiked, law enforcement agencies increasingly have detained people without any prior criminal convictions or charges, internal data show.
Between June 11 and July 28, ICE arrested 828 people in Colorado, according to a Denver Post analysis of data obtained by the Deportation Data Project at the University of California, Berkeley. That amounted to more than 17 arrests per day, a more than 50% increase from the first five months of the Trump administration, through June 10, a period covered in a previous Post story. The rate from this summer was also more than five times higher than the daily arrest average from the same time period in 2024.
Of those detained over the summer, only a third had prior criminal convictions noted in the records. Another 18% had pending charges, indicating that nearly half had been neither convicted nor charged with a crime and that their only violation was immigration-related.
That, too, is a shift: In the earlier months of President Donald Trump’s second term, two-thirds of the 1,639 people arrested in Colorado had either been convicted of a crime (38%) or charged with one (29%).
“That tracks with what we would have expected (and) what we’ve been hearing from community sources,” said Henry Sandman, the co-executive director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. “The data and the reality disproves ICE’s talking points that they’re going after criminals. We’re seeing tactics increase. They’re trying to increase arrest numbers as high as possible, whatever the reason may be for detaining folks.”
Steve Kotecki, a spokesman for Denver’s ICE field office, did not respond to a request for comment late last week.
The data, obtained directly from ICE by the UC Berkeley researchers through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, offers the clearest look at immigration enforcement activities available, as ICE doesn’t post recent information online. For this analysis, The Post examined arrests that occurred in Colorado; arrests that were listed in the dataset as occurring in Wyoming but which took place in a Colorado city; and arrests lacking a listed state but which occurred in a Colorado town or county.
The Post removed several apparent duplicate arrests and a similarly small number of arrests in the region that did not have a specific location listed. The analysis also included a handful of people who appeared to have been arrested twice in the span of several months.
When listing a detainee’s criminal background, the data provides no details about the criminal charges or prior crimes. Illegally entering the country is typically treated as a civil matter upon first offense, but a subsequent entry is a felony criminal offense.
More info about July operation
The newly released data includes the same nine-day period in July during which ICE has said it arrested 243 immigrants without proper legal status “who are currently charged with or have been convicted of criminal offenses after illegally entering the United States.” The arrests, the agency said, all occurred in metro Denver.
But the data published by the UC-Berkeley researchers does not fully match ICE’s public representations.
During the same time frame, the agency arrested 232 people, according to the data. Most of those arrested during that time had never been convicted or charged with a crime, at least according to what’s in the records. Sixty-six people had a previous criminal conviction, and 34 more had pending charges.
Kotecki did not respond to questions about the July operation.
The Post previously reported that ICE falsely claimed that it had arrested a convicted murderer in Denver as part of the July operation. The man had actually been arrested at a state prison facility shortly after his scheduled release, state prison officials said last month.
While ICE claimed the man had found “sanctuary” in the capital city — a shot taken at Denver’s immigration ordinances — The Post found that state prison officials had coordinated his transfer directly to ICE. He was then deported to Mexico, and information matching his description is reflected in the UC Berkeley data.
It’s unclear if all of ICE’s arrests are fully reflected in the data, making it difficult to verify ICE’s claims. The researchers’ data is imperfect, experts have told The Post. The records likely represent the merging of separate datasets before they were provided by the government, increasing the likelihood of mistakes or missing data.
Some arrests in Colorado were listed as occurring in other states or had no state listed at all. Other arrests were duplicated entirely, and researchers have cautioned that ICE’s data at times has had inaccurate or missing information.
The anonymized nature of the data, which lacks arrestees’ names but lists some biographical information, also can make it difficult to verify. When ICE announced the results of the July operation, it named eight of the people it had arrested. Court records and the UC Berkeley data appear to match up with as many as seven of them.
The eighth, Blanca Ochoa Tello, was arrested on July 14 by ICE’s investigative branch in a drug-trafficking investigation, court filings show. But it’s unclear if she appears in the ICE data, as she was arrested in La Plata County and no woman arrested in that county was listed in the data.
To verify ICE’s July operation claims, The Post examined arrest data in Colorado and Wyoming, which jointly form the Denver area of operations for the agency. The Post also searched for arrests in every other state to identify any arrests that may have occurred in a Colorado area but were errantly listed under other states.
Federal agents detain a man as he exits a court hearing in immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 30, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Nationally, immigration authorities had their most arrest-heavy months this summer, according to data published by researchers at Syracuse University. Immigration officials arrested more than 36,700 people in June, its highest single-month total since June 2019, during Trump’s first term. More than 31,200 were arrested across the country in July.
The Trump administration has also set out to increase its detention capacity to accommodate the mass-deportation plans.
As of late July, ICE planned to triple its detention capacity in Colorado, according to documents obtained last month by the Washington Post. That plan includes opening as many as three new facilities and the expansion of Colorado’s sole existing facility in Aurora.
DHS officers watch from the parking lot as protesters gather at the entrance to the ICE Colorado Field Office on Aug. 30, 2025, in Centennial. (Photo By Kathryn Scott/Special to The Denver Post)
Over the course of this year, ICE arrested people in Colorado who were originally from more than 60 countries, according to the data. That included 10 Iranians arrested in late June or early July. Six of those people were arrested on June 22, the day after the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear facilities. Three more were arrested over the next 48 hours.
The vast majority of the undocumented immigrants who were arrested and deported were returned to their home countries, though roughly 50 were sent somewhere else, the data show. Nine Venezuelans were sent to El Salvador in the first two weeks of the Trump administration, when alleged gang members were dispatched to a notorious prison there.
ProPublica identified roughly a dozen Coloradans who were sent to that prison. It reported that several were arrested in late January, which matches information listed in the ICE data published by UC Berkeley.
Advocates’ fears of continued arrests have escalated as ICE’s funding has surged. On Aug. 30, several immigration advocates picketed outside an ICE field office in Centennial after a number of immigrants received abrupt notices to check in at the facility.
Four people were detained, said Jordan Garcia, the program director for the American Friends Service Committee’s immigrant-rights program in Colorado.
Among them, he said, was an older Cuban man with dementia. Garcia and other advocates spoke with the man and his son before they entered the facility. The son later came out, Garcia said, and said that his father had been detained.
FIRST ON FOX: Texas Rep. Nathaniel Moran is turning tariffs into a debt-cutting tool, unveiling legislation that would funnel billions in new trade revenues into a trust fund aimed solely at shrinking America’s staggering $37 trillion national debt.
The Tariff Revenue Used to Secure Tomorrow (TRUST) Act would establish a special account at the Treasury Department called the Tariff Trust Fund. Starting in fiscal year 2026, any tariff money collected above the 2025 baseline level would automatically go into this fund. By law, that money could only be spent in one way: to shrink the federal deficit whenever the government is running in the red.
“President Trump’s bold use of tariffs has already proven effective in bringing foreign nations back to the negotiating table and securing better trade deals for America. That short-term success has produced record-high revenues, and now we need to make sure Washington doesn’t squander them,” Moran told Fox News Digital.
“The TRUST Act ensures those dollars go where they are needed most—toward reducing our national debt and protecting the financial future of our nation.”
Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, walks down the House steps after the final votes in the Capitol before Congress’ October recess on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2024.(Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
Moran’s legislation comes after the U.S. collected more than $31 billion in tariff revenues in August, the highest monthly total so far for 2025. Total tariff revenue for 2025 has reached more than $183.6 billion, according to the “Customs and Certain Excise Taxes” data released on Aug. 29 by the Treasury Department.
Tariff revenues rose steadily from $17.4 billion in April to $23.9 billion in May, before climbing to $28 billion in June and reaching $29 billion in July. At the current pace, the U.S. could collect as much tariff revenue in just four months to five months as it did during the entire previous year. At this point in fiscal year 2024, tariff revenues were at $86.5 billion.
A year-over-year comparison of tariff collections.(U.S. Treasury)
The surge in revenue coincides with a federal appeals court ruling that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping global tariffs.
In its Aug. 29 decision, the court said the power to set such tariffs rests squarely with Congress or within existing trade policy frameworks. The ruling does not affect tariffs imposed by other legal authorities, such as Trump’s levies on steel and aluminum imports.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the Justice Department will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the court allowed the tariffs to remain in place through Oct. 14.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent previously said that the Trump administration could apply part of the tariff revenue toward lowering the national debt.
Scott Bessent, U.S. treasury secretary, during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on June 11, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
The nation’s debt, which is the amount of money the U.S. owes its creditors, is nearing $37.4 trillion as of Sept. 3, according to the Treasury Department.
The staggering figure has intensified the long-standing debate in Washington over government spending, taxation and efforts to rein in the ballooning deficit.
“Complacency is no longer an option. We must act with urgency and begin to bring down our national debt immediately,” Moran added in a statement.
Bessent has also previously said that tariffs could generate more than $500 billion in revenue for the federal government. U.S. businesses pay these import taxes to the federal government, but the cost often falls on consumers, as companies raise prices to offset the economic burden.
Amanda covers the intersection of business and geopolitics for Fox News Digital.
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) this month quietly awarded a $30,000 no-bid contract for sniper and combat training to a Virginia firm run by Dan LaLota, the brother of US representative Nick LaLota, a second-term Republican from New York.
Finalized on September 2, the award went to Target Down Group of Mechanicsville, Virginia, which will provide a five-day precision fires and observation course for the Homeland Security Investigations’ Special Response Team (SRT) sniper program. The course, intended to help inform new DHS procedures, is “aimed at equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively conduct law enforcement sniper operations in high-risk environments,” per records reviewed by WIRED.
The SRT functions as the agency’s version of a SWAT team, composed of special agents with advanced tactical training for situations deemed too dangerous for standard personnel. SRT members wear military-style camouflage and helmets, carry a range of weapons, and train in breaching, sniper tactics, and close-quarters combat.
According to federal procurement records, the SRT contract was issued on a sole-source basis, with officials citing Target Down Group’s prior work with Homeland Security Investigations as well as its pre-clearance to conduct live-fire exercises at a law enforcement facility in Arizona.
Congressman LaLota, who served on the House Homeland Security Committee in the previous session, could not be reached for comment. Calls to his New York and Washington, DC, offices went unanswered Thursday.
DHS did not respond to a request for comment.
Reached by phone, Dan LaLota said his firm’s deal with ICE has nothing to do with his brother’s position in Congress. “I’m not a new guy on the block,” he tells WIRED, adding there’s only a few people qualified to provide the training DHS requested. “To say my company would be the only one eligible would not be unsound.”
LaLota added he could not speak on ICE’s behalf and declined to discuss details of his company’s work, calling the questions an invasion of privacy while directing reporters to his firm’s website for information about its staff and expertise.
Target Down Group’s website lists Dan LaLota, a retired Marine sniper, as the company’s president. According to his brother’s congressional biography, Dan LaLota served two decades in the Marine Corps, including tours with Force Reconnaissance and Marine Special Operations Command, earning a Bronze Star with Valor for actions in Fallujah, Iraq. LaLota told WIRED he also has seven years as a scout sniper instructor.
Federal procurement records list Target Down Group as a Virginia company; however, state records show the firm is not legally authorized to operate as a Virginia corporation at this time, having been terminated in November 2024 automatically after failing to meet its yearly filing and fee requirements with the state’s corporate registry. Nevertheless, the company was registered separately in Florida as of July. (Asked about the discrepancy, Target Down Group CEO Christopher Allison acknowledged the inquiry but did not provide comment.)
Federal acquisition rules allow sole-source contracts under certain conditions, effectively bypassing the competitive bidding process often required for federal awards. In a redacted justification memo, DHS said Target Down Group was the only vendor able to deliver the training, citing a tight operational schedule as well as the firm’s prior work with its sniper program and established ties to Arizona police, some of whom are participating in the exercise.
Dan LaLota declined to discuss any previous work for the government. “I’m not at liberty to discuss what business I have with a stranger like yourself. I hope you can understand that,” he said.
In June, NBC News reported that SRT units were preparing to deploy to several Democratic-led cities, including Philadelphia, Chicago, Seattle, Northern Virginia, and New York. The planned deployments followed immigration raids in Los Angeles that sparked days of protests and clashes with law enforcement. Philadelphia officials told NBC they had received no notice of incoming ICE forces.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly defended sending federal law enforcement and National Guard troops into Democratic-led cities by claiming they are plagued by “runaway crime,” a description critics call exaggerated and politically driven. In cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, and New Orleans, local and state officials have resisted the deployments, arguing they are motivated by politics, not public safety.
WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-track ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.
Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.
In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by next Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.
They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”
They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.
“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he wrote.
Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.
First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and a tariff is an import tax.
Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.
And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold, new, costly regulations.
So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.
Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Act of the 1970s.
Two years ago, the court in the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.
The impact of Trump’s tariffs figures to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.
In a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.
“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.
But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.
Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by three others.
He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.
Taranto called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.
Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”
Survivors, lawmakers demand release of all Jeffrey Epstein files
Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and a bipartisan group of lawmakers are pushing for a discharge petition, forcing a House floor vote to release nearly everything related to the case.
Demanding transparency, truth and their own healing, survivors of sexual abuse, along with bipartisan lawmakers, called for the release of all documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Survivors accuse Epstein of abusing and trafficking countless underage girls for decades before his death in a New York jail cell in 2019. Survivors, including some speaking out for the first time, joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers, pushing for a discharge petition that would force a House floor vote on releasing nearly everything related to the Epstein case. “I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless and I am no longer alone,” Anouska De Georgiou, a survivor, said before reporters on Wednesday. “With your vote, neither will the next generation be.”On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released more than 30,000 pages on the case, which some say were heavily redacted and revealed too little new information. The petition’s supporters want all investigation files released, emphasizing that the issue should be non-partisan.”The American people deserve to see everything,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said. “When you sign this discharge petition, it should mean nothing should be off limits.””The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we are demanding come out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said.But the petition is already facing some roadblocks. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says he believes the House Oversight Committee should be responsible for carefully handling the documents, while President Trump dismissed the effort Wednesday, calling it “a Democrat hoax.”Related video below: Speaker Johnson on meeting with Epstein victimsSurvivors responded directly to President Trump’s dismissal, with one registered Republican calling on him to meet her at the Capitol to share her story and explain why the issue is not a hoax. Others pleaded that he recognize the abuse as real and humanize them.Lawmakers leading the petition are close to a House floor vote, needing only two more signatures to reach the required 218. So far, the petition includes all Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans, including Greene and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.Lawmakers emphasized the rare coalition of bipartisanship, signifying the growing issue. If the petition passes the House, it still needs to pass the Senate before heading to Trump’s desk.Regardless of the petition’s outcome, survivors are planning their own action for justice by compiling a list of those involved in Epstein’s network of abuse, though they did not specify if or when they would release it. In Wednesday’s press conference, the victims said they aim to hold the powerful accountable and help their healing, despite concerns about retaliation from Epstein’s circle.
WASHINGTON —
Demanding transparency, truth and their own healing, survivors of sexual abuse, along with bipartisan lawmakers, called for the release of all documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Survivors accuse Epstein of abusing and trafficking countless underage girls for decades before his death in a New York jail cell in 2019.
Survivors, including some speaking out for the first time, joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers, pushing for a discharge petition that would force a House floor vote on releasing nearly everything related to the Epstein case.
“I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless and I am no longer alone,” Anouska De Georgiou, a survivor, said before reporters on Wednesday. “With your vote, neither will the next generation be.”
On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released more than 30,000 pages on the case, which some say were heavily redacted and revealed too little new information. The petition’s supporters want all investigation files released, emphasizing that the issue should be non-partisan.
“The American people deserve to see everything,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said. “When you sign this discharge petition, it should mean nothing should be off limits.”
“The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we are demanding come out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said.
But the petition is already facing some roadblocks. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says he believes the House Oversight Committee should be responsible for carefully handling the documents, while President Trump dismissed the effort Wednesday, calling it “a Democrat hoax.”
Related video below: Speaker Johnson on meeting with Epstein victims
Survivors responded directly to President Trump’s dismissal, with one registered Republican calling on him to meet her at the Capitol to share her story and explain why the issue is not a hoax. Others pleaded that he recognize the abuse as real and humanize them.
Lawmakers leading the petition are close to a House floor vote, needing only two more signatures to reach the required 218. So far, the petition includes all Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans, including Greene and Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C.
Lawmakers emphasized the rare coalition of bipartisanship, signifying the growing issue.
If the petition passes the House, it still needs to pass the Senate before heading to Trump’s desk.
Regardless of the petition’s outcome, survivors are planning their own action for justice by compiling a list of those involved in Epstein’s network of abuse, though they did not specify if or when they would release it. In Wednesday’s press conference, the victims said they aim to hold the powerful accountable and help their healing, despite concerns about retaliation from Epstein’s circle.
On his first full day back in Washington, House Speaker Mike Johnson sat for hours in a closed-door interview with six women who say they were abused by the late Jeffrey Epstein.Johnson’s presence in the room on the first day of a frenetically busy September on Capitol Hill underscores how significant the issue of Epstein’s past crimes has become within the GOP.Within days, House Republicans are expected to take their first major floor votes on forcing President Donald Trump’s administration to release more records related to the case. And Johnson — like his members — is under intense pressure to meet the base’s demands for transparency without going against the wishes of the president, whose inner circle has attempted to quiet this summer’s political firestorm over Epstein.“The fact that Mike Johnson sat there for two and a half hours — we’re serious about this,” House Oversight Chairman James Comer told reporters after leaving the meeting Tuesday. “We’re going to do everything we can to make this right.”Johnson himself told reporters the testimonials he heard were “heartbreaking and infuriating” and said “there were tears in the room. There was outrage.”Five weeks ago, Johnson and his leadership team had hoped that sending lawmakers home early to their districts for their August recess would defuse tension around the issue. But the return of Congress to Washington showed that the pressure on GOP leaders has only continued to build.That pressure on Republicans will dramatically increase on Wednesday, when Rep. Thomas Massie and his Democratic counterpart in the effort, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, will hold a press conference in which some of Epstein’s survivors are expected to speak publicly for the first time.Massie and Khanna are leading a push to force the full House to vote on a resolution that would require Trump’s Justice Department to turn over all documents related to Epstein or his crimes. Under their maneuver, known as a discharge petition, Massie would need just five more Republicans to force the bill to the floor since every Democrat is expected to sign on.So far, two other Republicans have signaled they’ll support it: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado. Other Republicans who have supported the bill itself — including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Eli Crane of Arizona and Tim Burchett of Tennessee — were either noncommittal or suggested they would not support the discharge petition when asked by CNN on Tuesday.The House Oversight Committee has been leading an investigation into Epstein after some Republicans joined with Democrats to compel a subpoena to the Justice Department for records. The panel on Tuesday night released more than 33,000 pages related to the case – all of the subpoenaed documents the panel had obtained earlier this summer.But the public release of information has not stopped the push for more transparency that has ratcheted up the pressure on Johnson. Massie and Democrats said nearly all of those documents had already been made public as part of various court cases and that it did not alter their push for their own Epstein measure.As part of its investigation, the Oversight Committee hosted a meeting on Tuesday with several survivors who are planning to speak at Wednesday’s press conference. In that closed-door meeting, several of them shared chilling stories of abuse. GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, one of the lawmakers in the room who has spoken out about being raped at age 16, left the meeting in tears.Inside the room, one survivor said the women had been told by Epstein that they were disposable and threatened against coming forward, according to a person in the room who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private meeting. The women were told if they went to police that Epstein had powerful friends, that person said.If the bipartisan Epstein resolution does pass the House, its fate is unclear in the Senate. But it would be an extraordinary move by a GOP-controlled Congress to take against a president of its own party.To prevent such an escalation, Johnson and the White House are attempting to sell their GOP members on an alternative path. They have backed a non-binding resolution that encourages the Oversight Committee’s investigation. And Johnson stressed the importance of the work of that panel, in part by sitting in on one of the sessions himself.“I sat by him in our meeting and listened to his compassion for these survivors. I listened to his questions,” Greene said of Johnson as she left the meeting. “I’ve listened to some of his plans that he has going forward. I do think he’s doing a great job there.”Even so, Greene is one of the three Republicans so far willing to buck her leadership on the discharge petition. She said it was nothing against Johnson personally, but that she decided: “I just think we need to do everything we can to bring it out.”Inside the House GOP conference, some Republicans are privately dreading weeks of questions about the Epstein matter and would rather move onto issues like appropriations, tariffs or Russian sanctions, according to multiple lawmakers and senior aides. But many of those GOP lawmakers also realize that there is a small but vocal faction of their party that is deeply invested in getting more answers on Epstein and that they can’t be seen as dropping the issue.Democrats, meanwhile, are accusing Johnson of attempting to stonewall further investigations in Congress.Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico told reporters after the meeting that Johnson was advocating that the investigation should remain within the Oversight panel — rather than expanding the probe to include more committees.“In the room with six victims of sexual violence by Jeffrey Epstein, it was suggested by Democrats that this be investigated using the full force of every committee here in Congress. And the speaker ended by saying he didn’t think that was necessary. He’d like to just keep it in the Oversight Committee,” Stansbury said. “That is where the speaker actually chose to end this conversation.”Johnson, speaking after the Tuesday meeting, vowed “transparency” in releasing information to the public, and said that Trump shares the same perspective.“That’s his mindset. And he wants the American people to have information so they can draw their own conclusions. I’ve talked with him about this very subject myself.. He also, just as we do, is insistent that we protect the innocent victims, and that’s what this has been about,” he said.
WASHINGTON —
On his first full day back in Washington, House Speaker Mike Johnson sat for hours in a closed-door interview with six women who say they were abused by the late Jeffrey Epstein.
Johnson’s presence in the room on the first day of a frenetically busy September on Capitol Hill underscores how significant the issue of Epstein’s past crimes has become within the GOP.
Within days, House Republicans are expected to take their first major floor votes on forcing President Donald Trump’s administration to release more records related to the case. And Johnson — like his members — is under intense pressure to meet the base’s demands for transparency without going against the wishes of the president, whose inner circle has attempted to quiet this summer’s political firestorm over Epstein.
“The fact that Mike Johnson sat there for two and a half hours — we’re serious about this,” House Oversight Chairman James Comer told reporters after leaving the meeting Tuesday. “We’re going to do everything we can to make this right.”
Johnson himself told reporters the testimonials he heard were “heartbreaking and infuriating” and said “there were tears in the room. There was outrage.”
Five weeks ago, Johnson and his leadership team had hoped that sending lawmakers home early to their districts for their August recess would defuse tension around the issue. But the return of Congress to Washington showed that the pressure on GOP leaders has only continued to build.
That pressure on Republicans will dramatically increase on Wednesday, when Rep. Thomas Massie and his Democratic counterpart in the effort, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, will hold a press conference in which some of Epstein’s survivors are expected to speak publicly for the first time.
Massie and Khanna are leading a push to force the full House to vote on a resolution that would require Trump’s Justice Department to turn over all documents related to Epstein or his crimes. Under their maneuver, known as a discharge petition, Massie would need just five more Republicans to force the bill to the floor since every Democrat is expected to sign on.
So far, two other Republicans have signaled they’ll support it: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado. Other Republicans who have supported the bill itself — including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Eli Crane of Arizona and Tim Burchett of Tennessee — were either noncommittal or suggested they would not support the discharge petition when asked by CNN on Tuesday.
The House Oversight Committee has been leading an investigation into Epstein after some Republicans joined with Democrats to compel a subpoena to the Justice Department for records. The panel on Tuesday night released more than 33,000 pages related to the case – all of the subpoenaed documents the panel had obtained earlier this summer.
But the public release of information has not stopped the push for more transparency that has ratcheted up the pressure on Johnson. Massie and Democrats said nearly all of those documents had already been made public as part of various court cases and that it did not alter their push for their own Epstein measure.
As part of its investigation, the Oversight Committee hosted a meeting on Tuesday with several survivors who are planning to speak at Wednesday’s press conference. In that closed-door meeting, several of them shared chilling stories of abuse. GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, one of the lawmakers in the room who has spoken out about being raped at age 16, left the meeting in tears.
Inside the room, one survivor said the women had been told by Epstein that they were disposable and threatened against coming forward, according to a person in the room who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private meeting. The women were told if they went to police that Epstein had powerful friends, that person said.
If the bipartisan Epstein resolution does pass the House, its fate is unclear in the Senate. But it would be an extraordinary move by a GOP-controlled Congress to take against a president of its own party.
To prevent such an escalation, Johnson and the White House are attempting to sell their GOP members on an alternative path. They have backed a non-binding resolution that encourages the Oversight Committee’s investigation. And Johnson stressed the importance of the work of that panel, in part by sitting in on one of the sessions himself.
“I sat by him in our meeting and listened to his compassion for these survivors. I listened to his questions,” Greene said of Johnson as she left the meeting. “I’ve listened to some of his plans that he has going forward. I do think he’s doing a great job there.”
Even so, Greene is one of the three Republicans so far willing to buck her leadership on the discharge petition. She said it was nothing against Johnson personally, but that she decided: “I just think we need to do everything we can to bring it out.”
Inside the House GOP conference, some Republicans are privately dreading weeks of questions about the Epstein matter and would rather move onto issues like appropriations, tariffs or Russian sanctions, according to multiple lawmakers and senior aides. But many of those GOP lawmakers also realize that there is a small but vocal faction of their party that is deeply invested in getting more answers on Epstein and that they can’t be seen as dropping the issue.
Democrats, meanwhile, are accusing Johnson of attempting to stonewall further investigations in Congress.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico told reporters after the meeting that Johnson was advocating that the investigation should remain within the Oversight panel — rather than expanding the probe to include more committees.
“In the room with six victims of sexual violence by Jeffrey Epstein, it was suggested by Democrats that this be investigated using the full force of every committee here in Congress. And the speaker ended by saying he didn’t think that was necessary. He’d like to just keep it in the Oversight Committee,” Stansbury said. “That is where the speaker actually chose to end this conversation.”
Johnson, speaking after the Tuesday meeting, vowed “transparency” in releasing information to the public, and said that Trump shares the same perspective.
“That’s his mindset. And he wants the American people to have information so they can draw their own conclusions. I’ve talked with him about this very subject myself.. He also, just as we do, is insistent that we protect the innocent victims, and that’s what this has been about,” he said.
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., will not seek re-election next year, according to media reports.
The move will mark the end of Nadler’s 34 years in Congress where he has been a leading liberal voice on a range of issues.
“Watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that,” Nadler told the New York Times.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
That was evident when Nadler, 78, was forced to give up his House Judiciary Committee leadership at the beginning of the term when it became clear a younger, more energetic colleague would beat him.
Nadler has been a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, warning fellow Democrats about Trump’s leadership style. The two have sparred dating back to the 1980s over Manhattan development projects.
“I’m not saying we should change over the entire party,” he said. “But I think a certain amount of change is very helpful, especially when we face the challenge of Trump and his incipient fascism.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., speaks to members of the media outside Greater New York Federal Building on May 28, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File)
He ultimately succeeded in steering articles of impeachment through his committee in 2019.
Nadler didn’t discuss who could potentially succeed him, saying multiple candidates could run to replace him.
But a person familiar with his thinking told the Times that Nadler planned to support Micah Lasher, who represents parts of the Upper West Side in the New York State Assembly, should he run.
In speaking with the Times, Nadler said he was confident of the Democrats‘ chances of taking back control of the House next year.
“Then you can cut the reign of terror in half,” he said.
Fox News Digital has reached out to Nadler’s office.
In a post on X, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani praised Nadler as a champion of progressivism.
“For more than 30 years, when New Yorkers needed a champion, we have turned to Jerry Nadler – and he has delivered for us time and again,” the post states. “Few leaders can claim to have made such an impact on the fabric of our city.”
“Congress will be worse off without his leadership, but our democracy will be better for the selflessness that has defined a legendary career,” he added.
In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called Nadler a “relentless fighter for justice, civil rights and liberties and the fundamental promise of equality for all.”
“After the attacks of September 11, 2001, he spent years fighting for the care and support that New York City and his constituents needed to begin to rebuild and heal,” said Jeffries. “As Dean of the New York delegation, Congressman Nadler has been a dear friend and valued mentor to myself and so many others throughout the People’s House.”
“Jerry’s years of leadership have earned him a spot among our nation’s greatest public servants,” he added. “He will be deeply missed by the House Democratic Caucus next term and we wish him and his family the very best in this new chapter.”
In ruling against the sweeping tariffs that President Donald Trump purported to impose under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not settle the question of whether that law authorizes import taxes. Nor did it uphold the injunction that the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued against the tariffs on May 28. But the Federal Circuit agreed with the CIT that the tariffs are unlawful, and its reasoning highlights the audacity of Trump’s claim that IEEPA empowers him to completely rewrite tariff schedules approved by Congress.
The decision addresses two challenges to Trump’s tariffs, one brought by several businesses and one filed by a dozen states. Both sets of plaintiffs argued that Trump had illegally seized powers that belong to Congress.
The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” And although Congress has delegated that authority to the president in “numerous statutes,” the Federal Circuit notes in an unsigned opinion joined by seven members of an 11-judge panel, it has always “used clear and precise terms” to do so, “reciting the term ‘duties’ or one of its synonyms.” Furthermore, Congress always has imposed “well-defined procedural and substantive limitations” on the president’s tariff powers.
IEEPA, by contrast, “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs.” Yet under Trump’s reading of the statute, it empowers him to impose any tariffs he wants against any country he chooses for as long as he deems appropriate, provided he perceives an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that constitutes a “national emergency” and avers that the import taxes will “deal with” that threat.
To justify his tariffs, Trump declared two supposed emergencies, one involving international drug smuggling and the other involving the U.S. trade deficit. The former “emergency,” he said, justified punitive tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China, with the aim of encouraging greater cooperation in the war on drugs. The latter “emergency,” he claimed, justified hefty, ever-shifting taxes on imports from dozens of countries, which he implausibly described as “reciprocal.”
Leaving aside the question of whether it makes sense to characterize drug trafficking and trade imbalances, both of which are longstanding phenomena, as “unusual and extraordinary” threats, Trump’s attempted power grab is striking even for him. “Since IEEPA was promulgated almost fifty years ago, past presidents have invoked IEEPA frequently,” the Federal Circuit notes. “But not once before has a President asserted his authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs on imports or adjust the rates thereof. Rather, presidents have typically invoked IEEPA to restrict financial transactions with specific countries or entities that the President has determined pose an acute threat to the country’s interests.”
Trump claims to have discovered a heretofore unnoticed tariff power in an IEEPA provision that authorizes the president to “regulate…importation.” And that power, he avers, is not subject to any “procedural and substantive limitations” except for the pro forma requirement that he declare a national emergency based on a foreign threat. As the Federal Circuit dryly observes, “it seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”
Trump’s assertion of that authority “runs afoul of the major questions doctrine,” the Federal Circuit says. According to the Supreme Court, that doctrine applies when the executive branch asserts powers of vast “economic and political significance.” In such cases, “the Government must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for that asserted power,” the appeals court notes. “The tariffs at issue in this case implicate the concerns animating the major questions doctrine as they are both ‘unheralded’ and ‘transformative.’” The Supreme Court “has explained that where the Government has ‘never previously claimed powers of this magnitude,’ the major questions doctrine may be implicated.”
The Federal Circuit was unimpressed by the government’s citation of United States v. Yoshida International, a 1975 case in which the now-defunct Court of Customs and Patent Appeals approved a 10 percent import surcharge that President Richard Nixon had briefly imposed in 1971 under the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). Although Nixon relied on a different statute, the government’s lawyers noted, the court concluded that the phrase “regulate importation” in TWEA encompassed tariffs.
Even assuming that conclusion was correct, the Federal Circuit says, Yoshida “does not hold that TWEA created unlimited authority in the President to revise the tariff schedule, but only the limited temporary authority to impose tariffs that would not exceed the Congressionally approved tariff rates.” Trump, by contrast, claims IEEPA gives him carte blanche to set tariffs, regardless of what Congress has said.
“The Government’s expansive interpretation of ‘regulate’ is not supported by the plain text of IEEPA,” the Federal Circuit says. “The Government’s reliance on the ratification of our predecessor court’s opinion in [Yoshida] does not overcome this plain meaning.” The appeals court adds that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”
Four judges agreed with the majority that IEEPA “does not grant the President authority to impose the type of tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders.” But they went further in a separate opinion, arguing that the statute does not authorize the president to impose any tariffs at all.
As Reason‘s Eric Boehm notes, the appeals court nevertheless vacated the CIT’s injunction and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision in Trump v. CASA. In that June 27 ruling, the Court questioned universal injunctions that judges had issued in two birthright citizenship cases “to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Although the Supreme Court “held that the universal injunctions at issue ‘likely exceed the equitable authority Congress has granted to federal courts,’” the Federal Circuit notes, “it ‘decline[d] to take up…in the first instance’ arguments as to the permissible scope of injunctive relief. Instead, it instructed ‘[t]he lower courts [to] move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity’ as outlined in the opinion. We will follow this same practice.”
On remand, the Federal Circuit says, “the CIT should consider in the first instance whether its grant of a universal injunction comports with the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in CASA.” The CIT, in other words, is tasked with deciding what sort of order is appropriate to grant the plaintiffs “complete relief.” Alternatively, as Boehm suggests, Congress could intervene by asserting the tariff authority that Trump is trying to usurp.
Virginia voters in Fairfax City and Fairfax County will head to the polls on Sept. 9 to elect a candidate to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the late Rep. Gerry Connolly.
Check back with WTOP for special election results on Sept. 9. WTOP will haveelection analysis and team coverage on air, online and on our social media platforms.
From left, James Walkinshaw and Stewart Whitson meet in a forum in Virginia.(WTOP/Scott Gelman)
From left, James Walkinshaw and Stewart Whitson meet in a forum in Virginia.(WTOP/Scott Gelman)
Early voting is underway in a Virginia special election; voters in Fairfax City and Fairfax County will elect a candidate to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the late Rep. Gerry Connolly.
The special election on Sept. 9 to will select Connolly’s successor in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District, which is home to more than 700,000 people. The district has become reliably Democratic; it includes all of Fairfax City and much of Fairfax County.
The special election will select Connolly’s successor in Virginia’s 11th Congressional District, which is home to more than 700,000 people. The district has become reliably Democratic; it includes all of Fairfax City and much of Fairfax County.
James Walkinshaw, Connolly’s former chief of staff and the Braddock District supervisor, won the Democratic primary back in June. Before his death, Connolly endorsed Walkinshaw as his successor.
Stewart Whitson, a former FBI agent and Army combat veteran, is the Republican nominee.
Most early voting locations opened Aug. 29.
Friday is also the deadline to apply for a mail-in ballot. Requests must be received by 5 p.m.
Here’s what you need to know.
Dates at a glance:
Deadline to apply for mail-in ballot: Friday, Aug. 29 at 5 p.m.
In-person early voting: Now through Saturday, Sept. 6
11th Congressional District Special Election Day: Tuesday, Sept. 9. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.
If you miss the deadline, there’s still the option to cast a provisional ballot anytime through election day. A local electoral board reviews those provisional ballots before they are counted.
As we say goodbye to the summer season by celebrating Labor Day, most Americans are eager to recognize the ingenuity and determination of rank-and-file workers.
But not union bosses, who hijack the holiday every year to argue for more government-granted coercive powers. Instead of focusing on the workers they claim to represent, union officials wield political clout to protect and expand their privileged positions.
This is because today’s unions are built on the government-authorized ability to compel workers into their ranks. In the 24 states without right-to-work laws, union chiefs can legally extort private sector workers to “pay up or be fired.” Even when union membership is voluntary, workers must accept the union bargaining collectively for their wages and working conditions.
It doesn’t matter that you, as an individual employee, may not want the union’s so-called representation or a one-size-fits-all contract; union bureaucrats can forcibly take your dues money, then use it to buy political influence or advocate causes you oppose.
Workers do still have some limited rights guaranteed under federal law, such as the right to have union dues not pay for political activities (CWA v. Beck, 1988) or the right of public employees not to be forced to pay any money to a government union (Janus v. AFSCME, 2018). But, union political operatives are using their influence — bought with workers’ dues money collected under duress — to try to push through a legislative agenda that upends these rights.
For example, the Protecting the Right to Work Act (PRO Act), Big Labor’s top legislative priority in Congress, would repeal all current 26 state Right to Work laws by federal fiat. Even though Right to Work laws don’t stop a single worker from joining a union or paying dues voluntarily, they’ve made it their signature move to end this protection for good.
Why? Because union bosses want to strip rank-and-file workers of their choice. This becomes all the more obvious as you examine the PRO Act’s other provisions, which codify several suspect or downright illegal tactics union enforcers already use to get around workers’ rights.
One such tactic is the controversial “card check” method of organizing a union, which avoids the traditional secret ballot that lets workers have the final say. Instead, this process lets organizers submit union cards collected in person from workers, often using pressure or intimidation tactics. The AFL-CIO even admitted in its own organizing handbook that such cards don’t reflect workers’ actual wishes.
To protect existing unions from decertification (secret-ballot votes to remove an incumbent union), the PRO Act codifies another common Big Labor tactic. Through union-filed blocking charges — unproven allegations against the company of unfair practices — union officials can unilaterally block decertification votes for months or more.
In multiple cases, such tactics were used to block decertification votes from occurring even though 100% of workers signed the decertification petition. Workers can literally be unanimously opposed to the union, yet union officials can manipulate their special legal powers to trap workers against their will.
It’s the latest sign that today’s union officials have fully rejected the warnings of some early union officials who wanted to build their organizations without coercing workers into their ranks.
Take Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor (now the AFL-CIO). In a 1924 speech to union delegates he forcefully rejected the coercion today’s union bosses rely on: “I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty — the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion.”
Gompers understood, as do the 8 in 10 Americans who oppose forced union dues and affiliation, that when union affiliation and financial support are voluntary, union officials must prove their worth to individual workers. But today, union bosses increasingly reject this ideal, and undermine the liberty of those they claim to “represent.”
So this Labor Day, remember that truly being “pro-worker” means rejecting the propaganda from union bosses and respecting a worker’s right to choose whether they want to join a union.
After all, it’s Labor Day, not Union Day.
Mark Mix is the president of the National Right to Work Committee and National Right to Work Foundation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, will be facing a political test when Congress reconvenes this fall as lawmakers will be considering a new funding bill to avoid a government shutdown.
Newsweek reached out to Schumer’s office for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Democratic voters across the country have become increasingly frustrated with what they view as a feeble response from congressional leaders to President Donald Trump‘s agenda amid his second term in office. Democrats in Congress lack a majority in the House and Senate, limiting their ability to block his agenda from passing, but voters have pushed for stronger action from elected officials.
Schumer faced a tsunami of Democratic backlash in March after he declined to block a Republican-led stopgap bill to avoid a government shutdown. Schumer and eight other Democrats voted in favor of a procedural motion to allow debate on the bill but ultimately voted against its passage. That vote, however, allowed it to pass the filibuster and become law, Democratic critics say.
What To Know
Congress has until October 1 to pass a series of bills to fund the government through fiscal year (FY) 2026. Republicans have slim majorities in both chambers—a 219-212 advantage in the House and a 53-47 advantage in the Senate—meaning any vote on the package may again prove to be a tight vote.
This presents challenges for both parties—Republican leaders will have to appease both swing-district moderates and Make America Great Again (MAGA)-aligned conservatives
However, Democrats like Schumer will also be facing a test as he seeks to appease the Democratic voter base, while also working with Republicans to get some concessions in the bills.
In March, Democrats from across the spectrum expressed frustration with Schumer and other Democrats advancing the spending bill despite a lack of concessions made by Republicans to earn his support on the bill, which critics argued cut critical programs. Democrats called for Schumer to face a future primary or step down as party leader, which he has declined to do.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press/Canva/Getty
Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, also a New York Democrat, sent a leader to GOP leadership urging a meeting to “discuss the need to avert a painful, unnecessary lapse in government funding and to address the healthcare crisis Republicans have triggered in America.”
“The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way,” they wrote. “That is the only viable path forward.”
In the past, Democrats largely compromised “out of a calculation that the blame for a government shutdown could land more on them than on the Republicans,” Grant Davis Reeher, professor of political science at Syracuse University, told Newsweek.
“They run the same risk if they try to turn this new set of negotiations into a bigger fight over the Constitution and basic principles. That will appeal to the core base of their party, which wants to see more backbone, but it’s not clear how it play with the entire country,” he added.
Reeher said that the Senate, where legislation generally needs to pass the 60-vote filibuster to end debate on a bill, presents Democrats a stronger chance of mitigating some of Republicans’ desires to cut spending.
Democrats’ strategy on the legislation will largely depend on whether their goal is to mitigate future spending cuts or to walk back cuts already made to programs like Medicaid or public broadcasting, Reeher added, noting they would need to be more aggressive in the second strategy.
Anne Danehy, senior associate dean and associate professor of the practice at Boston University’s College of Communications, told Newsweek that Schumer may be “stuck in a tough position,” and that how he communicates about his decision-making process and vote is critical.
Democrats have two opposing philosophies on how to approach this sort of legislation, she said.
One side of the party believes Democrats should not “give Republicans anything” to show they disapprove of the “dismantling of the federal government, Danehy said.
“You have others like Schumer who are saying, ‘We don’t have a lot of choice here. We need to gain something or we lose everything, so we need to compromise or the American people could really suffer,’” she added.
Danehy warned that more Democratic outrage on the matter would further break down the party’s influence, which should be a concern for leadership as negotiations on the spending bills begin.
Reeher and Danehy questioned whether a more progressive Democrat could successfully primary Schumer in 2028 if he chooses to run again, even if he again faces outrage from parts of the base.
“There’s been a lot of talk about a credible primary challenge, but I don’t see that happening or at least being successful. Senator Schumer is not Joseph Crowley; he remains very attentive to New York State issues and to local communities,” Reeher said. “He won’t look past a potential threat. And a credible challenger would be risking a lot in taking him on.”
Others, however, have floated potential candidates like Representative Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez of New York who represents parts of the Queens and the Bronx in Congress, as a potential alternative candidate to Schumer in 2028—if she doesn’t run for president, that is.
Some polls have suggested Ocasio-Cortez could have an early advantage over Schumer. A Data for Progress poll, which surveyed 767 likely New York voters from March 26 to March 31, showed Ocasio-Cortez leading Schumer 54 to 36 percent.
But the primary is still years away, and the political landscape may change after the 2026 midterms when Democrats are hoping to reclaim control of the House and Senate. So, it’s quite unclear what issues may be at the forefront of Democrats’ minds come 2028.
What People Are Saying
Grant Davis Reeher, professor of political science at Syracuse University, also told Newsweek: “We’ve seen from polling that a lot of the Republican and Trump initiatives so far are not terribly popular, and that the public has some real concerns about some of the spending cuts, and the war on the federal workforce. Democrats should keep the focus on those things going into the midterms and not let the question of who is to blame for stalled negotiations on keeping the government running interfere with that focus. In that sense, I tend to agree with Senator Schumer.”
Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told NBC News host Kristen Welker on a Meet the Press interview in March: “I knew when I cast my vote against the government shutdown that there would be a lot of controversy. And there was. But let me tell you and your audience why I did it, why I felt it was so important. The CR [continuing resolution] was certainly bad…But a shutdown would be 15 or 20 times worse. Under a shutdown, the Executive Branch has sole power to determine what is, quote, ‘essential.’ And they can determine without any court supervision.”
What Happens Next?
Negotiations may begin over the coming weeks, and Congress has until October 1 to pass some sort of spending bill to keep the government open. Whether they will have to continue relying on temporary stopgap measures or can successfully pass the appropriations bills is yet to be seen.
