ReportWire

Tag: Congress

  • More Americans will die than be born in 2030, CBO predicts—leaving immigrants as the only source of population growth | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    For the first time in modern history, the United States is on the brink of losing its most basic engine of growth: more births than deaths.

    According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) Demographic Outlook, released Tuesday, the year 2030 marks a tipping point that will fundamentally reshape the  economy and social fabric. That’s the year the “natural” U.S. population—the balance of births over deaths—is projected to vanish. 

    “Net immigration (the number of people who migrate to the United States minus the number who leave) is projected to become an increasingly important source of population growth in the coming years, as declining fertility rates cause the annual number of deaths to exceed the annual number of births starting in 2030,” the CBO writes. “Without immigration, the population would begin to shrink in 2030.”

    From that point on, every additional person added to the U.S. population will come from immigration, a demographic milestone once associated with aging countries like Italy and Japan. 

    The shift is striking not only for what it says about America’s rapidly aging society, but also for how soon it is expected to arrive. Just a year ago, many demographic forecasts—including the CBO’s own forecast—placed this crossover well into the late 2030s or even the 2040s. The updated outlook from CBO moves the timeline forward by nearly a decade.

    This rapid acceleration, the CBO said, is driven by the “double squeeze” of declining fertility and an aging populace, combined with recent policy shifts on immigration. CBO analysts have drastically lowered their expectations for the total fertiility rate, now projecting it to settle at just 1.53 births per woman — well below the 2.1 “replacement rate” needed for a stable population. At the same time, the massive “Baby Boomer” generation is reaching ages with higher mortality rates, causing annual deaths to climb.

    The timeline further compressed following the passage of the 2025 Reconciliation Act, which increased funding for more ICE agents and immigration judges to process cases faster, resulting in approximately 50,000 immigrants in detention daily through 2029, CBO said. The office calculated that these provisions will result in roughly 320,000 fewer people in the U.S. population by 2035 than previously estimated.

    The new projections show that U.S. population growth will steadily decelerate over the next three decades until it finally hits zero in 2056. For most of the 20th century, the population grew at close to 1% a year: a flat population would represent a historic break from that norm. 

    The economic consequences of this shift are hard to overstate. While the number of retirees swells, the pool of workers funding the social safety net — and caring for the aging population —  is narrowing. Americans aged 65 and older are the fastest-growing segment of the population, pushing the “old-age dependency ratio” sharply higher. In 1960, there were about five workers for every retiree. Today, that ratio is closer to three-to-one. By the mid-2050s, the CBO projects it will fall to roughly two workers per retiree. The contraction will have “significant implications” on the federal budget, including outsized effects on Social Security and Medicare, placing pressure on those trust funds which rely on a robust base of payroll taxes that a stagnant population cannot easily provide.

    Further, because national GDP is essentially the product of the number of workers multiplied by their individual productivity, the loss of labor force growth means the American economy will have to rely almost entirely on technological breakthroughs and AI to drive future gains. This may be happening ahead of schedule, as continued weak employment growth in December showed a “jobless expansion,” in the words of KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk, as Fortune previously reported.

    [ad_2]

    Eva Roytburg

    Source link

  • Did Trump have to give Congress a heads-up on Venezuela?

    [ad_1]

    After the U.S. military captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and brought him to the U.S. to face drug-related charges, congressional Democrats criticized President Donald Trump’s unilateral actions. 

    “The president cannot run a military operation of this size, cannot invade a foreign country, without coming to Congress first,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Jan. 4 on CNN’s “State of the Union.” 

    Presidents and Congress have battled for decades over who has the institutional power to declare war, with presidents from both political parties trying to assert power and limit lawmakers’ interference. 

    At a Jan. 3 press conference after Maduro’s capture, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that members of Congress were not notified in advance. Trump said the administration was concerned about lawmakers potentially leaking news of the decision.

    It’s unusual for an administration not to offer advance notification — at a minimum, to a select group of eight senior lawmakers who have historically been trusted with classified information. In June 2025, the administration told Republicans, but not Democrats, about the forthcoming U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. 

    Legal experts say the most relevant law makes it clear that the president “shall consult with Congress” before initiating military action. But there is less certainty about whether other laws might provide some flexibility for the president. 

    Murphy’s office did not respond to inquiries.

    What do the Constitution and U.S. law say about notifying Congress?

    One law that supports Murphy’s critique is the War Powers Resolution. 

    While most of this law’s text addresses after-action notification and deadlines for congressional approval, it also says, “The president in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”

    The use of “shall” offers strong support for advance notification, even in the absence of a formal vote to authorize an action in advance, experts said.

    Another section of U.S. law that addresses covert operations offers more leniency for the president, but it may not apply to the Venezuela operation. 

    The provision allows the president to notify the so-called Gang of Eight — the chair and ranking members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the top-ranking members from both parties in the House and Senate — rather than Congress as a whole.

    But this provision includes a loophole: If the administration doesn’t provide advance notification, “the president … shall provide a statement of the reasons for not giving prior notice” once the operation is launched.

    Although the operation was planned and carried out in secret, it does not fit the definition of “covert action” under this law. The law refers to an effort where it is “intended that the role of the United States government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.” 

    “The Venezuela raid simply cannot fit within the law’s clear definition of a covert operation,” said Michael J. Glennon, a Tufts University professor of constitutional and international law. “Obviously, there are confidential aspects to virtually every military operation, but that does not render them covert operations.”

    War powers have been contested for decades

    Courts have not provided much guidance about who has the authority to initiate military action. The Constitution and laws giving powers to Congress have been followed inconsistently.

    The U.S. Constitution assigns Congress the right to declare war. The last time Congress did that was at the beginning of World War II.

    Since then, presidents have generally initiated military action using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without an official declaration of war.

    In August 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Congress to back his effort to widen the United States’ role in Vietnam. He received approval with enactment of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which passed both chambers of Congress, including the Senate, with only two dissenting votes.

    The U.S. Navy destroyer USS Maddox, one of the vessels involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in the South China Sea in 1964. (U.S. Navy)

    As public sentiment turned against the Vietnam War, lawmakers became increasingly frustrated about their secondary role in sending U.S. troops abroad. So in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto. 

    The resolution required the president to report to Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities and to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress approves. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, an additional 30 days are allowed to end operations.

    Presidents have often followed the act’s requirements, usually framing any entreaties to Congress as a voluntary bid to secure “support” for military action rather than “permission.”

    This has sometimes taken the form of an “authorization for the use of military force” — legislation that amounts to a modern version of a declaration of war.

    Presidents who have sought and received such authorizing legislation include:

    • Ronald Reagan, to oversee the handover of the Sinai Peninsula from Israel to Egypt, and separately to participate in a deployment to Lebanon. The deployment ended with a suicide attack that killed 241 American service members.

    • George H.W. Bush, to oust Iraq’s Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. 

    • Bill Clinton, for military action in Somalia.

    • George W. Bush, to enter Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, and separately to oust Hussein from power in what became the Iraq War.

    Presidents from both parties have used the broad wording of the post 9/11 authorization to support military action against a wide array of targets, using language that approves efforts “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

    The Venezuela operation did not have any advance authorization by congressional vote.

    If Congress wants a bigger role in the process, “they have to force the president’s hand,” said Sarah Burns, a Rochester Institute of Technology political scientist. That means passing legislation that would “make it more consequential that the president didn’t abide by the law,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SEN TIM KAINE: Trump’s Venezuela strike trampled Congress’ war powers. Congress must stop it

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    President Donald Trump’s unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Nicolás Maduro—however terrible he is—is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere. That history is replete with failures—in Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, the Dominican Republic and elsewhere—that destabilized the region and led to deep hostility toward the United States.

    The White House spin room is already working desperately to sell this disaster to the American people, including to the anti-interventionist MAGA base that elected President Trump. At the top of the to-do list was a presser that included Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    During the presser, Trump dug an even deeper hole. He acknowledged that the illegal operation could have come at a serious cost to U.S. servicemembers. He pledged to “run” Venezuela and was unable to answer follow-up questions about what that means. He offered vague overtures that American companies could steal Venezuela’s oil—a lousy attempt to show that this reckless operation was to America’s benefit. And he and Rubio even threatened that Cuba is next.

    KAINE TELLS CONGRESS TO ‘GET ITS A– OFF THE COUCH,’ RECLAIM WAR POWERS

    We assert that nations should respect each other’s sovereignty. How can we make that claim with a straight face when the United States doesn’t? We sign on to international human rights conventions forbidding the killing of disabled combatants. 

    How can we look the world—or ourselves—in the eyes when we murder shipwrecked people who were not even aware that the president had put them on a secret list of those who could be targeted by the U.S. military? 

    We pledge fidelity to a Constitution that specifies that war may not be initiated without a vote of Congress. How can we casually allow this president—or any president—to deploy our military against other nations without notice to, consultation with, debate within or a vote by Congress?

    And where will this go next? Will the president deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fraying ceasefire in Gaza? To battle terrorists in Nigeria? To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To attack Cuba? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies? Trump has threatened to do all this and more. But he clearly sees no need to seek legal authorization from the people’s elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk.

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

    The net effect of the president’s actions—unilateral illegal military strikes, chaotic tariffs, disrespectful rhetoric—is to weaken relations with allies and boost our adversaries. China, in particular, recently released a Latin America strategy promising deeper partnerships with nations in the region. We know from experience that such Chinese partnerships are often hollow and even predatory. But our neighbors in the Americas will embrace partnership, even if uncertain, rather than accept dominance.

    Not only is this action likely to drive our neighbors further into the arms of our most serious strategic adversary—putting Americans’ economic and national security at risk—it is yet another broken promise by an erratic, unfocused president. What happened to putting America first? Americans are begging for lower prices, but all Trump is interested in is chasing opportunities to lead us into wars we don’t want.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    It is long past time for Congress to reassert its critical constitutional role in matters of war, peace, diplomacy and trade. My bipartisan resolution stipulating that we should not be at war with Venezuela absent a clear congressional authorization is poised for a vote in coming days. And I expect there to be many more such resolutions in the year ahead. 

    We’ve entered the 250th year of American democracy and cannot allow it to devolve into the tyranny that our founders fought to escape.

    CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEN. TIM KAINE

    Democrat Tim Kaine represents Virginia in the U.S. Senate.  

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rubio and Hegseth brief congressional leaders as questions mount over next steps in Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other top officials briefed leaders in Congress late Monday on the striking military operation in Venezuela amid mounting concerns that President Donald Trump is embarking on a new era of U.S. expansionism without consultation of lawmakers or a clear vision for running the South American country.Republican leaders entered the closed-door session at the Capitol largely supportive of Trump’s decision to forcibly remove Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro from power, but many Democrats emerged with more questions as Trump maintains a fleet of naval vessels off the Venezuelan coast and urges U.S. companies to reinvest in the country’s underperforming oil industry.A war powers resolution that would prohibit U.S. military action in Venezuela without approval from Congress is heading for a vote this week in the Senate.“We don’t expect troops on the ground,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., afterward.He said Venezuela’s new leadership cannot be allowed to engage in narcoterrorism or the trafficking of drugs into the U.S., which sparked Trump’s initial campaign of deadly boat strikes that have killed more than 115 people.“This is not a regime change. This is demand for a change in behavior,” Johnson said. “We don’t expect direct involvement in any other way beyond just coercing the new, the interim government, to get that going.”Johnson added, “We have a way of persuasion — because their oil exports, as you know, have been seized, and I think that will bring the country to a new governance in very short order,” he said.But Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emerged saying, “There are still many more questions that need to be answered.”“What is the cost? How much is this going to cost the United States of America?” Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said afterward.Lawmakers were kept in the darkThe briefing, which stretched for two hours, came days after the surprise military action that few, if any, of the congressional leaders knew about until after it was underway — a remarkable delay in informing Congress, which has ultimate say over matters of war.Administration officials fielded a range of questions — from further involvement of U.S. troops on the ground to the role of the Venezuelan opposition leadership that appeared to have been sidelined by the Trump administration as the country’s vice president, Maduro ally Delcy Rodriguez, swiftly became the country’s interim president.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who brought drug trafficking charges against Maduro, all joined the classified session. It was intended for the called “gang of eight” leaders, which includes Intelligence committee leadership as well as the chairmen and ranking lawmakers on the national security committees.Asked afterward if he had any more clarity about who is actually running Venezuela, Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said, “I wish I could tell you yes, but I can’t.”Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee — Republican chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and ranking Democrat Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois — said they should have been included in the classified briefing, arguing they have oversight of the Justice Department under Bondi.Earlier in the day, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warned that Trump’s action in Venezuela is only the beginning of a dangerous approach to foreign policy as the president publicly signals his interests in Colombia, Cuba and Greenland.“The American people did not sign up for another round of endless wars,” Schumer said.Afterward, Schumer said the briefing, “while extensive and long, posed far more questions than it answered.”Republicans hold mixed views reflective of the deepening schism within Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement as the president, who vowed to put America first, ventures toward overseas entanglements many lawmakers in both parties want to avoid — particularly after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.No clarity on what comes nextNext steps in the country, and calls for elections in Venezuela, are uncertain.The Trump administration had been in talks with Rodríguez, who took the place of her ally Maduro and offered “to collaborate” with the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Trump has been dismissive of Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who last month won the Nobel Peace Prize for her struggle to achieve a democratic transition in her nation. Trump has said Machado lacks the “support” or “respect” to run the country.But Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., a staunch Trump ally, said he plans to speak soon with Machado, and called her “very popular if you look at what happened in the last election.”“She eventually, I think, will be the president of Venezuela,” Scott said. “You know, this is going to be a process to get to a democracy. It’s not easy. There’s a lot of bad people still there, so it’s going to take time. They are going to have an election, and I think she will get elected.”Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has been a leading critic of the Trump campaign of boat strikes against suspected drug smugglers, said there are probably a dozen leaders around the world who the U.S. could say are in violation of an international law or human rights law.“And we have never gone in and plucked them out the country. So it sets a very bad precedent for doing this, and it’s unconstitutional,” Paul told reporters. “There’s no way you can say bombing a capital and removing the president of a foreign country is not an initiation of war.”__Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this story.

    WASHINGTON —

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other top officials briefed leaders in Congress late Monday on the striking military operation in Venezuela amid mounting concerns that President Donald Trump is embarking on a new era of U.S. expansionism without consultation of lawmakers or a clear vision for running the South American country.

    Republican leaders entered the closed-door session at the Capitol largely supportive of Trump’s decision to forcibly remove Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro from power, but many Democrats emerged with more questions as Trump maintains a fleet of naval vessels off the Venezuelan coast and urges U.S. companies to reinvest in the country’s underperforming oil industry.

    A war powers resolution that would prohibit U.S. military action in Venezuela without approval from Congress is heading for a vote this week in the Senate.

    “We don’t expect troops on the ground,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., afterward.

    He said Venezuela’s new leadership cannot be allowed to engage in narcoterrorism or the trafficking of drugs into the U.S., which sparked Trump’s initial campaign of deadly boat strikes that have killed more than 115 people.

    “This is not a regime change. This is demand for a change in behavior,” Johnson said. “We don’t expect direct involvement in any other way beyond just coercing the new, the interim government, to get that going.”

    Johnson added, “We have a way of persuasion — because their oil exports, as you know, have been seized, and I think that will bring the country to a new governance in very short order,” he said.

    But Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emerged saying, “There are still many more questions that need to be answered.”

    “What is the cost? How much is this going to cost the United States of America?” Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said afterward.

    Lawmakers were kept in the dark

    The briefing, which stretched for two hours, came days after the surprise military action that few, if any, of the congressional leaders knew about until after it was underway — a remarkable delay in informing Congress, which has ultimate say over matters of war.

    Administration officials fielded a range of questions — from further involvement of U.S. troops on the ground to the role of the Venezuelan opposition leadership that appeared to have been sidelined by the Trump administration as the country’s vice president, Maduro ally Delcy Rodriguez, swiftly became the country’s interim president.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who brought drug trafficking charges against Maduro, all joined the classified session. It was intended for the called “gang of eight” leaders, which includes Intelligence committee leadership as well as the chairmen and ranking lawmakers on the national security committees.

    Asked afterward if he had any more clarity about who is actually running Venezuela, Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said, “I wish I could tell you yes, but I can’t.”

    Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee — Republican chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and ranking Democrat Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois — said they should have been included in the classified briefing, arguing they have oversight of the Justice Department under Bondi.

    Earlier in the day, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warned that Trump’s action in Venezuela is only the beginning of a dangerous approach to foreign policy as the president publicly signals his interests in Colombia, Cuba and Greenland.

    “The American people did not sign up for another round of endless wars,” Schumer said.

    Afterward, Schumer said the briefing, “while extensive and long, posed far more questions than it answered.”

    Republicans hold mixed views reflective of the deepening schism within Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement as the president, who vowed to put America first, ventures toward overseas entanglements many lawmakers in both parties want to avoid — particularly after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    No clarity on what comes next

    Next steps in the country, and calls for elections in Venezuela, are uncertain.

    The Trump administration had been in talks with Rodríguez, who took the place of her ally Maduro and offered “to collaborate” with the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Trump has been dismissive of Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who last month won the Nobel Peace Prize for her struggle to achieve a democratic transition in her nation. Trump has said Machado lacks the “support” or “respect” to run the country.

    But Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., a staunch Trump ally, said he plans to speak soon with Machado, and called her “very popular if you look at what happened in the last election.”

    “She eventually, I think, will be the president of Venezuela,” Scott said. “You know, this is going to be a process to get to a democracy. It’s not easy. There’s a lot of bad people still there, so it’s going to take time. They are going to have an election, and I think she will get elected.”

    Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has been a leading critic of the Trump campaign of boat strikes against suspected drug smugglers, said there are probably a dozen leaders around the world who the U.S. could say are in violation of an international law or human rights law.

    “And we have never gone in and plucked them out the country. So it sets a very bad precedent for doing this, and it’s unconstitutional,” Paul told reporters. “There’s no way you can say bombing a capital and removing the president of a foreign country is not an initiation of war.”

    __

    Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this story.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Capitol Police officer reflects on 5th anniversary of Jan. 6 riot – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Nearly five years after the Jan. 6 attack, former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn reflected on what happened during the riot and its aftermath.

    Tuesday will mark five years since hundreds of supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol and reiterated his false claims that the election was stolen.

    U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Harry Dunn testifies during a House select committee hearing on the Jan. 6 attack on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 27, 2021. (Jim Bourg/Pool via AP)(AP/Jim Bourg)

    The riot happened on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was certifying former President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

    More than 100 officers were injured in the Capitol riot; one died and several others took their own lives in the aftermath.

    About 1,500 people were convicted on charges associated with their actions during the attack, including some who were convicted of injuring police officers who were trying to protect the Capitol.

    On the day he was sworn into office for a second term, Trump pardoned the 1,500.

    WTOP’s Anne Kramer and Shawn Anderson reflected on the attack with former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who was at the Capitol on that day.

    Former Capitol Police Sgt. Harry Dunn reflects on the 5th anniversary of the Capitol Riot with WTOP’s Shawn Anderson and Anne Kramer.

    The following transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

    • Shawn Anderson:

      This has to be an incredibly difficult time for you. Walk us through what you were thinking about, and feeling, as the anniversary comes up tomorrow.

    • Harry Dunn:

      Well, it hasn’t just been this specific time being a difficult one. Every day since that day has been a difficult one. Not because of what happened on that day, but what happened in the aftermath and what continues to happen.

      The lying about what happened, the whitewashing about what happened, denying what happened, not acknowledging the heroic actions by the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police, the other departments that responded to save.

      It has been described as a peaceful protest, a tourist visit, by members of Congress, by the president of the United States, and they’re doing whatever they can to change the narrative of that day. It’s really unfortunate, because everybody saw with their own eyes what happened that day.

    • Anne Kramer:

      How difficult, Harry, is that to process — what’s being said? One of your colleagues told The Associated Press the same thing you’ve just mentioned, how difficult it is, even from family and friends, who don’t believe what happened was a big deal or doubt the police in the events of that day.

    • Harry Dunn:

      It’s extremely frustrating. But this isn’t anything new. Tomorrow will be five years and five years of dealing with it. So it’s kind of like you’ve almost gotten used to it.

      I hate that feeling, but I’ll never stop continuing to remind people what really did happen that day, to push back against the lies that are happening. A lot of people are saying, ‘Hey, we should move on from Jan. 6, we should get over it.’ I agree 100%. I would love nothing more than to get over it. But when you have people like the president, this administration doing everything they can, and they’re still talking about it. They’re still bringing it up.

      There’s an active lawsuit in the court to compel the architect of the Capitol to hang a federally mandated plaque up honoring the officers that day. Imagine officers having to go to court to sue to be recognized. It’s just really unfortunate the lengths that they’re going through to whitewash and change the history of that day.

    • Shawn Anderson :

      You became such an activist after Jan. 6, even trying to run for Congress in the state of Maryland. How do you talk to people as you continue to speak to the public these days? What do you tell them as you share your story?

    • Harry Dunn:

      It’s funny that you call me an activist, because I just think it’s standing up and doing what you believe in your heart is right. And I think that’s what it all comes down to, doing what you believe is right. Standing up for when you think something’s wrong, like John Lewis said, ‘Get into good trouble.’ And that’s kind of like been my mantra.

      I don’t know how this is all going to turn out. Everything that’s going on in the world, everything that’s going on with Jan. 6. I don’t know how it’s all going to turn out, none of us do. But I do know that if we don’t show up, if we don’t keep standing up and resisting and there’s some kind of opposition, that it won’t go well for us.

      So the message that I always say out there is keep showing up even when it’s bleak, even when it’s hard. And that’s in everything that you’re doing in life, not just Jan. 6 or political matters, just you have to continue getting up and showing up.

    • Anne Kramer:

      Harry tomorrow, the former leader of the proud boys, Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted and then pardoned by President Trump for his role in the Capitol riot is supposed to hold what’s being called a memorial march to honor those who died. What’s going through your head when you hear this is going to happen tomorrow?

    • Harry Dunn:

      When I first saw it that my honestly reaction was ‘whatever,’ like, I don’t give any credence to anything that those individuals do. They were convicted and pardoned by another criminal themselves, just to be blunt. Criminals pardoned by a criminal and that’s literally all that I see them as.

      Jan. 6 was bad for a lot of people, not just the officers who suffered violence that day; for America, for the rioters who participated, it was a bad day for everybody. And everybody should be seeking transparency. I mean the Proud Boys have lawsuit against the Department of Justice for convicting them, or whatever the specifics of their cases.

      But I just think it’s really unfortunate that they are seeing themselves as the good guys, so to speak, when there were hundreds of officers who protected the Capitol, protected members of Congress who they may or may not agree with just because it’s the right thing to do. They did their jobs. And it’s just really unfortunate. So when I saw that news, I was just like ‘whatever.’

    • Shawn Anderson:

      We mentioned that you did run for Congress a few years after Jan. 6. You didn’t make it through the primary first time around running for Congress? Do you still foresee a political career in your future? Will you try again in some way?

    • Harry Dunn:

      I see a career in just public service and just wherever I can be helpful, wherever I can be useful. I don’t want to give a politician answer. So no, I’ll never rule out an opportunity to run for Congress again. I haven’t ruled it out, but I haven’t made a decision to do so either at this moment.

      But I will always continue to show up, metaphorically speaking, when there’s a fight for it to show up. I will always be there, hopefully on the right side of it.

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Kronzer

    Source link

  • Lawmakers return to Washington facing Venezuela concerns, shutdown threat

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Lawmakers are returning to Washington this week confronting the fallout from the stunning capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — and familiar complaints about the Trump administration deciding to bypass Congress on military operations that have led to this moment.

    Democratic leaders are demanding the administration immediately brief Congress. Republican leaders indicated over the weekend those plans are being scheduled, but some lawmakers expressed frustration Sunday that the details have been slow to arrive.

    President Trump told the nation Saturday that the United States intends to “run” Venezuela and take control over the country’s oil operations now that Maduro has been captured and brought to New York to stand trial in a criminal case centered on narco-terrorism charges.

    The administration did not brief Congress ahead of the actions, leaving Democrats and some Republicans expressing public frustration with the decision to sideline Congress.

    “Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a social media post Saturday.

    Appearing on the Sunday news shows, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, ticked through a growing list of unknowns — and laid out plans for their party to try and reassert Congress’ authority over acts of war.

    “The problem here is that there are so many unanswered questions,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “How long do they intend to be there? How many troops do we need after one day? After one week? After one year? How much is it going to cost and what are the boundaries?”

    Jeffries told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he was worried about Trump running Venezuela, saying he has “done a terrible job running the United States of America” and should be focused on the job at home.

    In the coming days, Jeffries said Democrats will prioritize legislative action to try and put a check on the administration, “to ensure that no further military steps occur absent explicit congressional approval.”

    As discussions over Venezuela loom, lawmakers also face major decisions on how to address rising costs of healthcare, prevent another government shutdown and deal with the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.

    Much of the unfinished business reflects a Congress that opted to punt some of its toughest and most politically divisive decisions into the new year, a move that could slow negotiations as lawmakers may be reluctant to give the other side high-profile policy wins in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections.

    First and foremost, Congress faces the monumental task of averting yet another government shutdown — just two months after the longest shutdown in U.S. history ended. Lawmakers have until Jan. 30 to pass spending bills needed to keep the federal government open. Both chambers are scheduled to be in session for three weeks before the shutdown deadline — with the House slated to be out of session the week immediately before.

    Lawmakers were able to resolve key funding disputes late last year, including funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, also known as food stamps, and other government programs. But disagreements over healthcare spending remain a major sticking point in budget negotiations, intensified now that millions of Americans are facing higher healthcare costs after lawmakers allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire on Thursday.

    “We can still find a solution to this,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who has proposed legislation to extend the tax credits for two years. “We need to come up with ways to make people whole. That needs to be a top priority as soon as we get back.”

    Despite that urgency, Republican efforts to be the author of broad healthcare reforms have gotten little traction.

    Underscoring the political pressure over the issue, four moderate House Republicans late last year defied party leadership and joined House Democrats to force a floor vote on a three-year extension of the subsidies. That vote is expected to take place in the coming weeks. Even if the House effort succeeds, its prospects remain dim in the Senate, where Republicans last month blocked a three-year extension.

    Meanwhile, President Trump is proposing giving more money directly to people for their healthcare, rather than to insurance companies. A White House official said the administration is also pursuing reforms to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

    Trump said last month that he plans to summon a group of healthcare executives to Washington early in the year to pressure them to lower costs.

    “I’m going to call in the insurance companies that are making so much money, and they have to make less, a lot less,” Trump said during an Oval Office announcement. “I’m going to see if they get their price down, to put it very bluntly. And I think that is a very big statement.”

    There is an expectation that Trump’s increasing hostility to insurance companies will play a role in any Republican healthcare reform proposal. If Congress does not act, the president is expected to leverage the “bully pulpit” to pressure drug and insurance companies to lower healthcare prices for consumers through executive action, said Nick Iarossi, a Trump fundraiser.

    “The president is locked in on the affordability message and I believe anything he can accomplish unilaterally without Congress he will do to provide relief to consumers,” Iarossi said.

    While lawmakers negotiate government funding and healthcare policy, the continuing Epstein saga is expected to take up significant bandwidth.

    Democrats and a few Republicans have been unhappy with the Department of Justice’s decision to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    Some are weighing options for holding Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi accountable.

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), who co-sponsored the law that mandated the release with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), said he and Massie will bring contempt charges against Bondi in an attempt to force her to comply with the law.

    “The survivors and the public demand transparency and justice,” Khanna said in a statement.

    Under a law passed by Congress and signed by Trump, the Justice Department was required to release all Epstein files by Dec. 19, and released about 100,000 pages on that day. In the days that followed, the Justice Department said more than 5.2 million documents have been discovered and need to be reviewed.

    “We have lawyers working around the clock to review and make the legally required redactions to protect victims, and we will release the documents as soon as possible,” the Justice Department said in a social media post on Dec. 24. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”

    Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told MS NOW last week that pressure to address the matter will come to a head in the new year when lawmakers are back at work.

    “When we get back to Congress here in this next week, we’re going to find out really quick if Republicans are serious about actually putting away and taking on pedophiles and some of the worst people and traffickers in modern history, or if they’re going to bend the knee to Donald Trump,” said Garcia, of Long Beach.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Capture of Maduro and US claim that it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s president and claims that it will “run” the country are raising stark new questions about the legality of the U.S. actions and its future operations in the South American nation.Related video above: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures President Maduro in overnight operationThe middle-of-the-night seizure of Nicolás Maduro, who was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq and elsewhere, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion that rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions.”This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.The stunning development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.The bigger debate than legality is yet to come, said John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.”It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said, based on his experience in the Iraq War. But ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part.”Maduro’s arrest on anniversary of Noriega’s surrenderMaduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman, Manuel Noriega, a notable milestone in American involvement in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges.In Panama, however, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake in the form of the Panama Canal as well as the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations in the country.Video below: Former Alabama exchange student reacts to Maduro captureBy contrast, Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.”The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the Bush administration, said by email. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”While U.S. agents have a long history of snatching defendants abroad to execute arrest warrants without authorization, federal courts have long deferred to the White House in foreign policy and national security matters.For example, U.S. bounty hunters, working under the direction of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in 1990 abducted in Mexico a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.”Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”Congress has yet to authorize or ban US actionsTrump’s administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and has said the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the U.S. amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force. That is a new rationale for past and future actions.Congress, which has broad authority to approve or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy with the military actions in the region, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike.Congress’ Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders on Capitol Hill, which includes top members of the Intelligence committees, as well as for other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the actions until after the operation was underway.”The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro — clearly violates international law.”Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”War powers vote aheadHouse Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week.Republican lawmakers in Congress largely welcomed the capture of Maduro as ridding the region of a leader they say is responsible for drug trafficking, but Democratic lawmakers warned that in veering from the rule of law, the administration is potentially greenlighting other countries such as China or Russia to do the same.”Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said in an interview that the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War as the Trump administration promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.Waxman, the Columbia University law professor, said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens up additional legal issues: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information.”I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.Rubio said at a briefing Saturday with Trump that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand with the lawmakers.Goodman reported from Miami.

    WASHINGTON (AP) —

    The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s president and claims that it will “run” the country are raising stark new questions about the legality of the U.S. actions and its future operations in the South American nation.

    Related video above: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures President Maduro in overnight operation

    The middle-of-the-night seizure of Nicolás Maduro, who was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq and elsewhere, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion that rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions.

    “This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.

    The stunning development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.

    The bigger debate than legality is yet to come, said John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

    “It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said, based on his experience in the Iraq War. But ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part.”

    Maduro’s arrest on anniversary of Noriega’s surrender

    Maduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman, Manuel Noriega, a notable milestone in American involvement in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges.

    In Panama, however, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake in the form of the Panama Canal as well as the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations in the country.

    Video below: Former Alabama exchange student reacts to Maduro capture

    By contrast, Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.

    “The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the Bush administration, said by email. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”

    While U.S. agents have a long history of snatching defendants abroad to execute arrest warrants without authorization, federal courts have long deferred to the White House in foreign policy and national security matters.

    For example, U.S. bounty hunters, working under the direction of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in 1990 abducted in Mexico a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.

    “Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”

    Congress has yet to authorize or ban US actions

    Trump’s administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and has said the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.

    The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the U.S. amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force. That is a new rationale for past and future actions.

    Congress, which has broad authority to approve or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy with the military actions in the region, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike.

    Congress’ Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders on Capitol Hill, which includes top members of the Intelligence committees, as well as for other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the actions until after the operation was underway.

    “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

    Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro — clearly violates international law.

    “Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”

    War powers vote ahead

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week.

    Republican lawmakers in Congress largely welcomed the capture of Maduro as ridding the region of a leader they say is responsible for drug trafficking, but Democratic lawmakers warned that in veering from the rule of law, the administration is potentially greenlighting other countries such as China or Russia to do the same.

    “Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said in an interview that the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War as the Trump administration promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.

    Waxman, the Columbia University law professor, said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens up additional legal issues: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”

    The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information.

    “I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.

    Rubio said at a briefing Saturday with Trump that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand with the lawmakers.

    Goodman reported from Miami.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. capture of Maduro in Venezuela criticized as violation of international, U.S. law

    [ad_1]

    President Trump’s decision to send U.S. forces into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and return them to the U.S. to face drug charges elicited condemnation from legal experts and other critics who argued that the operation — conducted without congressional or United Nations approval — clearly violated U.S. and international law.

    Such criticism came from Democratic leaders, international allies and adversaries including Mexico, France, China and Russia, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and experts on international law and wartime powers.

    “Nicolás Maduro was a thug and an illegitimate leader of Venezuela, terrorizing and oppressing its people for far too long and forcing many to leave the country. But starting a war to remove Maduro doesn’t just continue Donald Trump’s trampling of the Constitution, it further erodes America’s standing on the world stage and risks our adversaries mirroring this brazen illegal escalation,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote on X.

    A U.N. spokesman said Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the U.S. operation and “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”

    China’s foreign ministry said “such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty,” while France’s foreign minister said the U.S. operation “contravenes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law.”

    Republicans largely backed the president, with both House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) defending the operation as “decisive” and legally justified. However, other Republicans questioned Trump’s authority to act unilaterally, and raised similar concerns as Schiff about other world leaders citing Trump’s actions to justify their own aggression into neighboring nations.

    Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) defended Trump’s actions as “great for the future of Venezuelans and the region,” but said he was concerned that “Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.”

    Trump defended the operation as a legitimate law enforcement action necessary to combat threats to the U.S. from Maduro, whom he accused of sending violent gang members and deadly drugs across the U.S. border on a regular basis.

    “The illegitimate dictator Maduro was the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States,” Trump said at a news conference. “As alleged in the indictment, he personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles, which flooded our nation with lethal poison responsible for the deaths of countless Americans.”

    However, Trump also made no secret of his interest in Venezuela’s oil. He said U.S. officials would be running Venezuela for the foreseeable future and ensuring that the nation’s oil infrastructure is rebuilt — to return wealth to the Venezuelan people, but also to repay U.S. businesses that lost money when Maduro took over the industry.

    Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced that Maduro, who had previously been indicted in the U.S. in 2020, is now the subject of a superseding indictment charging him, his wife and several others with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess such weapons and devices.

    “They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” Bondi wrote on X.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio also framed the operation as a law enforcement effort, and defended the lack of advance notice to Congress.

    “At its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job,” Rubio said. “It’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify, because it endangers the mission.”

    Trump said Congress could not be notified in advance because “Congress will leak, and we don’t want leakers.”

    Michael Schmitt, an international law professor at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom and a professor emeritus of international law at the U.S. Naval War College, said Trump’s actions were a “clear violation” of international law.

    He said the U.S. had no authority from the U.N. Security Council to conduct military operations in Venezuela, nor any legitimate justification to act in self-defense against an armed attack — which drug trafficking does not amount to.

    Schmitt said the operation in Venezuela went far beyond a normal law enforcement action. But even if it were just a law enforcement action, he said, the U.S. would still lack legal authority under international law to engage in such activity on Venezuelan soil without the express permission of Venezuelan authorities — which it did not have.

    “International law is clear. Without consent, you cannot engage in investigations or arrest or seizure of criminal property on another state’s territory,” he said. “That’s a violation of that state’s sovereignty.”

    Because the operation was illegitimate from the start, the resulting occupation and interference in Venezuela’s oil industry are also unlawful, Schmitt said — regardless of whether the country’s nationalizing of U.S.-tied oil infrastructure was also unlawful, as some experts believe it was.

    “That unlawfulness — of seizing U.S. business interests, nationalizing them, in a way that was not in accordance with the required procedures — is not a basis for using force,” Schmitt said.

    Matthew Waxman, chair of the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School, said that in the days ahead, he expects the Trump administration to try to justify its actions not just as a law enforcement operation, but “as part of a larger campaign to defend the United States against what it has characterized as an attack or invasion by Maduro-linked drug cartels.”

    “All modern presidents have claimed broad constitutional power to use military force without congressional authorization, but that is always hotly contested. We’ll see if there’s much pushback in Congress in this case, which will probably depend a lot on how things now play out in Venezuela,” Waxman said. “Look at what happened last year in Iran: The president claimed the power to bomb nuclear program infrastructure, and when the operation didn’t escalate, congressional opponents backed off.”

    Already on Saturday, some members of Congress were softening their initial skepticism.

    Within hours of posting on X that he was looking forward “to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) had posted again, saying Rubio told him that the military action was “to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant” for Maduro.

    Such action “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” Lee added.

    Others remained more skeptical.

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Trump’s remarks about taking over the country and controlling its oil reserves did not seem “the least bit consistent” with Bondi’s characterization of the operation as a law enforcement effort.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • These House mavericks defied their own parties more than anyone else in 2025

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Party-line votes still dominate the House of Representatives, but a small group of lawmakers regularly break ranks — defying leadership, reshaping close outcomes and exposing the fault lines inside both parties.

    Based on voting data from the 119th Congress, the following list includes the members who voted against the tide the most in 2025, from well-known mavericks to low-profile lawmakers whose dissent surprised even Capitol Hill insiders.

    HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS ON THE HILL: ‘FIGHTING’ IN THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN ‘FAMILY’

    Pictured from left to right: Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Chip Roy, R-Texas. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images; Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

    10. Eric Burlison, Republican

    Although Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., is tied for 10th place with Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., and Rep. Laura Gillen, D-N.Y., his entry on this list is arguably more surprising. Unlike the other two who have reputations for breaking ranks, the mild-mannered Republican largely focuses on policy and isn’t known for an eagerness to step out of line. 

    And yet his 46 votes against a majority of Republicans put his dissent rate last year at a top-ten 13.8%. 

    Rep. Eric Burlison

    Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., participates in a Republican Study Committee news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, March 21, 2024.  (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    In 2025, Burlison diverged from the bulk of his party whenever legislation came up that would increase regulation or add burdens to federal workloads. He also voted in favor of many amendments that ultimately went unadopted — many of which were proposed by similarly conservative colleagues. 

    9. Andy Biggs, Republican

    Once chairman of the rebel-filled House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., is known for his strong stances on issues like immigration, the size of government and fiscal accountability. He has voted against the majority of Republicans on 48 votes last year, or 14.2% of the time. 

    Like many of the Republicans in the top 10, Biggs has voted against measures that have passed with broad bipartisan support, but that lost the backing of more conservative wings of the party.

    Rep. Andy Biggs

    Rep. Andy Biggs speaks during a news conference in Washington, Dec. 18, 2024. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

    Early in the year, he was one of five lawmakers to vote against the Federal Disaster Assistance Coordination Act, a bill that would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a working group and submit a report to Congress on how the agency can streamline its grant information.

    8. Chip Roy, Republican

    While Chip Roy, R-Texas, isn’t the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, he often acts as its messaging rudder. The group is known for a willingness to toe the party line on issues like the size of government and government spending. 

    Few members in the group are as influential in their messaging as Roy. He has voted against the majority of his party on 53 occasions, accounting for 15.7% of the votes he took last year.

    Chip Roy

    Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Oct. 20, 2025. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

    He has consistently voted against bills that would increase the size of government, such as the Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act. He was one of only five votes against a bill that provided additional funding to counties containing federal land.

    Roy will not pursue re-election to the House in 2026 and will instead run for Texas attorney general.

    7. Adam Gray, Democrat

    Rep. Adam Gray, D-Calif., holds a seat in one of the most competitive districts in the country. In 2024, he won election to Congress by just 187 votes — less than one percentage point more than Republican incumbent Rep. John Duarte, R-Calif.

    Congressman Adam Gray

    Rep. Adam Gray, D-Calif., speaks during a swearing-in ceremony at the Merced County Courthouse Museum in Merced, Calif., Jan. 30, 2025. (Andrew Kuhn/Merced Sun-Star/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

    He has voted against a majority of Democrats on 60 occasions, accounting for 18.4% of his votes cast in the 119th Congress. That led him to vote with Republicans on several largely party-line votes. 

    On one such recent occasion, he joined with Republicans to reopen the government after a record-breaking 43-day shutdown — one of just six Democrats to cross the aisle to do so.

    MODERATE DEMOCRATS PUSH BACK AS PROGRESSIVES MOVE TO OUST JEFFRIES, CLARK OVER TRUMP STRATEGY

    6. Vicente Gonzalez, Democrat

    Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, faced tight election odds in 2024. In that race, he narrowly won in a 51.3%-48.7% victory over Rep. Mayra Flores, R-Texas. 

    In the 119th Congress, Gonzalez has broken with Democrats on 65 occasions, accounting for 19.76% of his total. On the final day of the 2025 session alone, Gonzalez voted with Republicans and against the bulk of his party eight times — including in favor of three amendments offered by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas.

    Congressman Vincente Gonzales

    Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, leaves the U.S. Capitol after the last votes of the year in Washington, Dec. 14, 2023. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Notably, Gonzalez helped Republicans pass the Laken Riley Act in January, a bill that empowered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to more easily detain illegal immigrants arrested for burglary, theft, larceny or shoplifting.

    Just one day later, Gonzalez voted present on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a piece of legislation that would extend protections for children who survive an attempted abortion. 

    5. Don Davis, Democrat

    Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., voted against a majority of his party on 70 occasions in the 119th Congress, amounting to 20.3% of all his votes cast and putting him within the top five members in the House most likely to break with party leadership.

    don davis in grey suit speaking at campaign event

    Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., speaks at a campaign event for then-Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris at East Carolina University, Oct. 13, 2024, in Greenville, N.C.  (David Yeazell/Associated Press)

    Davis has joined Republicans on several notable votes, including a motion to dismiss an impeachment resolution against President Donald Trump in early December — an effort spearheaded by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas. He also voted alongside Republicans to reopen the government during its record-breaking shutdown and joined a group of 11 Democrats to pass the Stop Illegal Entry Act — a bill that increases criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who commit a felony or reenter the U.S. after being deported.

    Like many of the other Democrats on the top 10 list, Davis narrowly won election in 2024. He beat out Republican challenger Laurie Buckhout by just 1.7%. 

    4. Jared Golden, Democrat

    One of the most well-known dissenters in Congress, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, has crossed the aisle on a wide range of issues. 

    Golden’s 72 votes against a majority of Democrats make up 20.8% of his votes in the 119th Congress. He voted alongside 23 other Democrats to pass a congressional disapproval of Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., and he voted with Republicans to end the government shutdown.

    Rep Jared Golden with his arms crossed.

    Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, attends a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, July 17, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Most notably, Golden was the lone Democrat to help Republicans pass a year-long funding bill back in March.

    Golden announced he would not pursue re-election in 2026, citing a climate of increasing political polarization. He last won election in 2024 by just 0.6% of the vote. 

    3. Thomas Massie, Republican

    Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is perhaps the most visible Republican dissenter in the House. His willingness to break with the party on high-profile issues like government spending, transparency and accountability has garnered him national recognition.

    Rep. Thomas Massie

    Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jun. 4, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Most recently, the political maverick spearheaded efforts to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act — a bill that compelled the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release all its documentation on disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 while incarcerated.

    He has voted against a majority of Republicans on 73 occasions or 22.3% of the time in the 119th Congress and was just one of two Republicans to oppose the final passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    2. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Democrat

    A relatively quiet member who represents a highly competitive district, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., is the second most likely member to buck the party trend on any given vote in the 119th Congress. Last year, she voted 77 times against the majority of Democrats, accounting for 22.5% of her record in the first session.

    Gluesenkamp walking

    Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., walks up the House steps for the final votes in the Capitol before Congress’ October recess in Washington, Sept. 25, 2024.  (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Gluesenkamp Perez narrowly won re-election in 2024 in a 51.7%-47.9% victory over Republican Joe Kent. 

    Recently, she joined Republicans in a vote to condemn the horrors of socialism, voted to advance an annual defense bill that sets the priorities for the country’s military, was one of 10 Democrats to support the censure of Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, and helped pass the immigration-focused Laken Riley Act. 

    Most recently, Gluesenkamp Perez drew the ire of many of her fellow Democrats for leading an effort to rebuke fellow Democrat Chuy Garcia, D-Texas, after he effectively prevented a Democrat primary by announcing his retirement at a filing deadline.

    HOUSE GOP TENSIONS ERUPT AFTER MODERATE REPUBLICANS’ OBAMACARE ‘BETRAYAL’

    1. Henry Cuellar, Democrat

    In 2025, no member was more likely to break with his own party than Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

    His whopping 83 votes against a majority of Democrats put him solidly atop a list of the other rebels, political mavericks and party dissenters in the 119th Congress — accounting for nearly a quarter of every vote he’s cast this year at 24.1%.

    Henry Cuellar, Texas Democrat

    Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, talks with reporters in the Capitol in Washington, Jun. 27, 2019. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

    Cuellar faced questions earlier in 2025 about whether he would consider a party switch as his political future hung in the balance. Cuellar faced an indictment from the DOJ for allegedly accepting bribes and acting as a foreign agent.

    The Trump administration granted the embattled lawmaker a pardon in early December. Moments after receiving his pardon, Cuellar filed for re-election as a Democrat. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Despite his voting record, Cuellar faced the least competitive election of any Democrat on the top 10 list. He last won re-election in 2024 in a 52.8%-47.2% win over Republican challenger Jay Furman, accounting for a 5.5% margin of victory.

    Leo Briceno is a politics reporter for the congressional team at Fox News Digital. He was previously a reporter with World Magazine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 6 Changes to National Health Policy to Watch in 2026

    [ad_1]

    From the passage of a massive bill that reduced federal funds for Medicaid to a comprehensive overhaul of a federal vaccine advisory panel, Congress and the Trump administration delivered major changes to America’s public health system in 2025.

    Many of those changes are poised to reshape coverage, care delivery and public health policy in the new year as provisions take effect, healthcare premiums more than double, and new requirements begin to kick in.

    Here’s a look at the biggest policy shifts set in motion last year that should be felt in the new year:

    ACA Subsidies Will Sunset 

    Premium tax credits meant to further reduce the price of healthcare plans bought on the Affordable Care Act marketplace expired on Dec. 31 after Congress declined to address a looming “subsidy cliff.”

    The credits increased financial assistance and expanded it to those with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty lines. Since the credits were first introduced in 2021, enrollment in the ACA marketplace increased to more than 24 million.

    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projected that almost 22 million people would see their healthcare costs “dramatically rise” or would lose their coverage altogether without the extension. The Urban Institute estimated that 7.3 million fewer Americans would receive subsidized coverage in 2026 and that 4.8 million more would be uninsured in 2026.

    State Medicaid Expansion Incentives to End

    The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 offered a temporary financial incentive to encourage states to expand Medicaid coverage to more low-income Americans. The act used the 138% poverty level listed in the Affordable Care Act to offer states a two-year, 5% match to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, the amount the federal government shoulders, for Medicaid expansion expenditures.

    But the incentive will largely end as it currently exists due to the legislation known as the “big, beautiful bill.” States wishing to qualify for the enhanced funding must have completely expanded their Medicaid programs by Jan. 1. States that have already expanded their programs will retain their existing FMAP levels, and those receiving the two-year bonus will continue to receive it until the period ends.

    Removal of Tax Liability Caps 

    For ACA marketplace enrollees, their premium tax credits are determined based on what they estimate their income will be at the beginning of the year. If the prediction is incorrect and the income is higher than expected, they are expected to repay. The process of repayment to the IRS is known as reconciliation and was expected to be undertaken when enrollees filed their federal income tax returns.

    Now, under a provision of the “big, beautiful bill,” marketplace enrollees will be expected to repay the full amount they owe. Also, the continuous special enrollment period for people whose incomes are below 150% of the federal poverty line will end. In addition, those enrolling in coverage during a special enrollment period based on their income and not tied to a qualifying life event will not be eligible for the credits beginning this year.

    Change in Tax Credit Eligibility for Noncitizens 

    The “big, beautiful bill” also included changes to the eligibility requirements for people who are not citizens who wish to receive ACA marketplace premium credits.

    Credits will be limited to green-card holders, Cuban or Haitian entrants, or Compact of Free Association migrants or citizens of the Marshall Islands, Palau or Micronesia. Previously eligible categories, like refugees, asylum-seekers and those granted temporary protected status, will no longer qualify.

    The bill also ends a special rule known as the Medicaid waiting list loophole. The rule allowed people who are not citizens whose incomes are below 100% of the federal poverty line and who are ineligible for Medicaid coverage due to their status to receive the premium credits.

    The changes are expected to take effect Jan. 1.

    Caps on Federal Loans for Medical Students 

    The “big, beautiful bill” also caps the amount medical students can receive in Federal Direct Stafford Loans and Federal Direct PLUS Loans.

    The changes will take effect on July 1.

    Sign Up for U.S. News Healthcare of Tomorrow Bulletin

    Your trusted source for critical insights and solutions-focused analysis.

    Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.

    More Vaccine Reviews 

    The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to continue its overhaul of vaccine recommendations in the new year, starting with the schedule of recommended vaccines for children. The proposed new schedule will recommend fewer shots to mimic those from other developed countries, specifically Denmark. CNN reported that the plan has not been finalized but was expected in late December before it was pushed to 2026.In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory panel is set to meet three times in the new year: Feb. 25-26, June 24-25 and Oct. 21-22.

    [ad_2]

    Aneeta Mathur-Ashton

    Source link

  • ‘I’ll continue fighting’: Preventing another shutdown top of mind for this Virginia congressman – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Congress will soon be back in session, and one of the first orders of business will be passing a funding bill to prevent another government shutdown.

    Congress will soon be back in session, and one of the first orders of business will be passing a funding bill to keep the government open.

    Rep. James Walkinshaw, a Democrat from Virginia, said Congress must avoid another government shutdown. The most recent shutdown, which set a record for its length, hit his constituents in Fairfax County hard, he said.

    “During the shutdown I think folks were really concerned about meeting basic needs,” Walkinshaw said.

    Walkinshaw said it was not just federal workers who struggled to make ends meet.

    “Those who were furloughed, those who received SNAP benefits or food stamps and had uncertainty around whether those were going to be continued,” he said.

    When negotiations resume for a new budget deal, Walkinshaw said he’ll push for provisions that will give people in his district peace of mind.

    “I’ll continue fighting in that budget process to get protection for federal workers, keep the government open to prevent RIF’s,” he said, referring to sweeping reductions in the federal workforce that took place in 2025.

    Congress does not have much time to work as it faces a Jan. 30 deadline for a funding bill.

    “We’ll need to pass either nine of the 12 appropriations bills or some combination of appropriations bills,” Walkinshaw said. “We’re going to be in a couple weeks sprint in January to get that done.”

    The other big issue Congress will face is high health care costs for millions of Americans who have insurance thorough the Affordable Care Act. Subsidies that lowered premiums expired on New Year’s Day.

    Walkinshaw said there is a clear solution.

    “I signed on to a discharge petition that will force a vote on a three-year extension of those tax credits,” Walkinshaw said.

    It is unclear when the vote will be held, but it is expected this month. Walkinshaw said he is frustrated the tax credits expired, but hopeful something can be passed to help people afford their health care premiums.

    [ad_2]

    Kyle Cooper

    Source link

  • US Sen. Angela Alsobrooks reflects on her first year on Capitol Hill – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    In a year-end interview, the Democrat and former Prince George’s County Executive told WTOP that Marylanders wanted her to concentrate on economic opportunity.

    Sen. Angela Alsobrooks made history in 2025 as the first Black woman elected to the U.S. Senate from Maryland.

    In a year-end interview, the Democrat and former Prince George’s County Executive told WTOP that Marylanders wanted her to concentrate on economic opportunity.

    “They wanted me to focus on the cost of living. They wanted to be able to afford groceries and utilities and to buy homes and to really chase the American dream,” Alsobrooks said. “So that’s what my focus has been throughout the year.”

    This year was a challenging one for Alsobrooks’ constituents, who were disproportionately affected by the longest government shutdown in history. She said she worked to protect federal workers.

    “It was sad and it felt really heavy,” she said.

    Alsobrooks hosted job fairs and sponsored legislation “to ensure that essential employees could file for unemployment, that they would have relief from paying student loan debt during that time.”‘

    Alsobrooks said she fought back against President Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts to overhaul the Department of Health and Human Services. When she grilled Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a committee hearing in January, her questioning got millions of views online.

    “I was the first senator to call for his firing or resignation. I didn’t care which came first,” she said. “But I have been just horrified by what I have seen in terms of targeting our public health system in our country.”

    But Alsobrooks is proud of forming relationships with other lawmakers across the aisle, including Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. They worked on a small business investor bill to allow tax benefits for hair stylists, barbers and other small business owners. And her GENIUS Act became law, creating a regulatory framework for stablecoins cryptocurrency.

    “It is my desire to create wealth and opportunity and to create generational wealth for so many who have not experienced it,” she said. “I want to open up markets so that everyone has the chance to participate safely.”

    Looking ahead to next year, Alsobrooks said she is excited for the midterm elections.

    “I’m going to be working hard to get Democrats elected all across the country. I’m looking forward to taking back the house and hopefully picking up a seat or two in the Senate.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Linh Bui

    Source link

  • Donald Trump’s Golden Age of Awful

    [ad_1]

    No matter how low one’s expectations were for 2025, the most striking thing about the year when Donald Trump became President again is how much worse it turned out to be.

    Did we anticipate that Trump would come back to office wanting to rule as a king, consumed by revenge and retribution, and encouraged by sycophants and yes-men who would insure that he faced few of the constraints that hampered him in his first term? Yes, but now we know that bracing for the worst did not make the inevitable any less painful. In the future, historians will struggle to describe that feeling, particular to this Trump era, of being prepared for the bad, crazy, and disruptive things that he would do, and yet also totally, utterly shocked by them.

    2025 in Review

    New Yorker writers reflect on the year’s highs and lows.

    A partial catalogue of the horrors of 2025 that not even the most prescient Trump-watcher could claim to have fully predicted: gutting cancer research in the name of expurgating diversity programs from the nation’s universities. Shutting the door to refugees—except for white Afrikaners, from South Africa. Empowering the world’s richest man to cut off funding for the world’s poorest children. Welcoming Vladimir Putin on a red carpet at an American Air Force base. Razing the East Wing of the White House, without warning, on an October morning. Alienating pretty much the entirety of Canada.

    Your list might be different from mine. There is so much from which to choose. And that is the point.

    Yet the biggest disappointment of 2025 may well have been not what Trump did but how so many let it happen. Trump has always been a mirror for other people’s souls, an X-ray revealing America’s dysfunction. If this was a test, there were more failing grades than we could have imagined.

    On the first day of his second term, the President pardoned more than fifteen hundred violent rioters who sacked their own U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a vain effort to overturn Trump’s 2020 election defeat. Even his Vice-President, J. D. Vance, had said that this was something that “obviously” shouldn’t happen; Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, later admitted that she had lobbied him not to go that far. But Trump didn’t listen. He was putting America on notice. The first outrage was a sneak preview of those to come: if there was a choice to be made, he would invariably opt for the most shocking, destructive, or corrupt option. And who was going to stop him?

    This is why any obituary for 2025 requires a special shout-out to those whose craven folding to Trump might well have proved to be among the biggest bad surprises of the year—the law-firm managing partners and corporate executives and technology tycoons who decided to pay protection money to the President rather than stand up for the rule of law that enabled their great success in the first place. Eight long years ago, the story of the first year of Trump’s first term was the rearguard struggle over control of the Republican Party; this time, with Trump having long ago won the battle for the G.O.P., he has extended his hostile takeover far beyond the realm of partisan politics, advancing a vision of breathtaking personal power in which the President claims the right to determine everything from what appears on the nightly news to the place names on our maps to which laws passed by Congress should be followed and which can be ignored.

    Just a year ago, it was still possible to envision a different course for Trump’s second term—to imagine that, while the President himself might really mean to carry through with his most radical plans, there remained strong forces in society to resist him. Republican leaders in Congress and the Trump-appointed conservative majority on the Supreme Court may yet prove to be something other than the willing handmaidens of democracy’s demise, but they have so far failed to do so. This past year’s disruptions are as much their work as Trump’s; without their acquiescence, as passive or unwilling as it has been at times, many of Trump’s most extreme acts would not have been possible. Just think about Senator Bill Cassidy, of Louisiana, a medical doctor who made much of the “assurances” he extracted from Trump’s vaccine-denying nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy won his confirmation vote, then broke the pledges he had made to get it. Cassidy has, in the tradition of the Senate, been deeply concerned ever since.

    [ad_2]

    Susan B. Glasser

    Source link

  • Swalwell attacks GOP legislative record as Republicans accuse Democrats of engineering shutdown

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    A California lawmaker leaving office to pursue a gubernatorial bid blasted the Congressional Republicans for one of the least productive sessions of Congress — a record Republicans believe Democrats have an equal hand in creating.

    Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who hopes to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom as California’s top executive, said 2025’s low legislative output came about from a lack of focus and a shortage of bipartisan effort.

    “There wasn’t much else being done in this Congress. And so, as we go into the new year, if Republicans want to work with us to bring down costs, reduce what we spend at the grocery store, they’re going to find partners in us,” Swalwell said on The Weekend.  

    CONGRESS FLEES TOWN AS HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS SET TO EXPLODE FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS IN JANUARY

    Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., was mocked on X this week after posting a video of himself lifting weights while trashing Republicans. (John Lamparski/Getty Images)

    “Now, I will say I’m responsible for one of those 40 bills that was passed. It was a bipartisan piece of legislation to make it easier for mothers who are breastfeeding to travel through airports and not have their breast milk screened,” Swalwell said, touting a bill he authored.

    According to congressional records, the House of Representatives has taken 362 votes in the first session of the 119th Congress. By comparison, under another Republican trifecta in 2015, the House considered 710 measures in the same window.

    This year, 61 bills cleared both chambers of Congress to become law. Of those, only thirty-eight were something other than a congressional resolution.

    Despite criticisms from Swalwell, Republicans looking at the productivity picture believe the complaints about productivity go both ways. 

    Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., accused Democrats on Sunday of creating gridlock on issues like government spending to purposefully prevent Republican productivity. 

    SENATE QUIETLY WORKS ON BIPARTISAN OBAMACARE FIX AS HEALTHCARE CLIFF NEARS

    Sen. Ron Johnson in 2023

    Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is seen on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    “The American public is pawns in the dysfunction. But again, understand Democrats, they want the shutdown,” Johnson said on Sunday Morning Features, referring to the record-breaking 43-day shutdown standoff earlier this year. “They were responsible for it because they don’t want President Trump and Republicans to have success.” 

    “So, if the American economy is collateral damage, they don’t care because they just want power. They want to return to power in November,” Johnson added.

    Although lawmakers have already left Washington, D.C., and won’t return until 2026, Congress has a slew of priorities that remain pressingly on the docket. Among them, the government will need to find a way to pass spending legislation before the end of January or risk another government shutdown. 

    More urgently still, Congress must also decide whether it will extend enhanced subsidies for Obamacare, which was passed as an emergency response to COVID-19. 

    2026 DEADLINES LOOM AS CONGRESS LEAVES DC WITH SEVERAL UNFINISHED BATTLES

    Eric Swalwell of California

    Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., is accusing a top housing official of pulling Democrats’ private mortgage records and weaponizing them to trigger federal criminal probes, according to a lawsuit filed on Nov. 25. (Getty Images)

    Without some sort of extension, Democrats fear that the vast majority of Obamacare’s 24 million enrollees will experience an overnight jump in premium costs when the subsidies expire at the end of the year. 

    Last month, a handful of Republicans broke with the majority of their party and voted with Democrats to tee up consideration of a subsidy extension in January. Swalwell believes that vote offers the opportunity for bipartisan cooperation in 2026 absent in 2025.

    “The mandate now, the majority of the House of Representatives wants to put these subsidies in place so that Americans can pay less for healthcare. So, it’s now on the speaker, when we reconvene in just a couple of days, whether he will put this up for a vote,” Swalwell said. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “But if not, the midterm message will be this, it costs too much. It costs too in what we pay at the groceries store and figuratively, it costs too much in the fights that we’re losing under this administration.”

    Leo Briceno is a politics reporter for the congressional team at Fox News Digital. He was previously a reporter with World Magazine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Five things to know about the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies

    [ad_1]

    The cost of health insurance is set to surge for millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act at the start of the new year without the extension of expanded tax credits.The expanded subsidies were at the center of the 42-day government shutdown that ended in November. Now just days away from the new year, premiums are set to increase without an extension or resolution from Congress.The Get the Facts Data Team analyzed and aggregated statistics to know ahead of the rise in premiums in the new year.Premiums could rise on average 114%Premiums would more than double if the tax subsidies were to expire, according to an analysis from KFF. In addition to the potential ending of the subsidies, insurance rates are projected to rise across marketplace plans and employer-provided insurance.A one-person household with an annual income of $25,000 – a little more than 1.5 times the federal poverty level – is estimated to go from paying a maximum $100 out of pocket annually to $1,168.They would pay a maximum of less than $98 a month — 10 times more than the previous payment of less than $9 a month.The interactive below shows how the maximum out-of-pocket rates for benchmark plans may change if expanded subsidies expire for one, two and four-person households at various incomes. Estimates were calculated using maximum out-of-pocket rates from KFF published by the IRS, along with 2025 federal poverty level data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the 48 contiguous states plus D.C.The tool is not intended to calculate an individual’s actual payments. Healthcare.gov and other state marketplaces are the best source for specific premium costs.People closer to retirement age or with higher incomes could see the largest impactOnce the expanded tax credits expire at the end of this year, the out-of-pocket maximums will increase across the board, and people making above four times the poverty level will become ineligible for any tax credits.More than 6.7% of those who were enrolled in ACA plans earned more than 400% of the federal poverty level, accounting for 1.6 million people. Once the subsidies expire, these enrollees would no longer qualify for the subsidies under the ACA.Also heavily impacted are people approaching retirement age. The age group with the highest enrollment in marketplace plans is ages 55 to 64, data shows.KFF estimated in March that about half the enrollees who would lose the tax credit upon expiration are between 50 and 64.Premiums for individuals closer to retirement age and making more than 400% of the federal poverty level would also increase more compared to younger enrollees. Take a 30-year-old, a 45-year-old, and a 60-year-old earning $62,756 in a single household – 401% of the poverty level.Without the tax credits, the 30-year-old would see a $110 jump in the monthly premium for a silver plan, according to KFF’s ACA Enhanced Premium Tax Credit calculator. The 60-year-old would see an $881-per-month increase without the enhanced subsidies.24 million people are enrolled in plans under the Affordable Care ActThe subsidies are utilized by about 92% of the 24 million people enrolled in marketplace plans under the ACA, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.These expanded credits allow households of different sizes and income levels to be capped with maximum out-of-pocket costs.From 2020 to 2025, enrollment more than doubled as a result of expanded tax credits in the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, which increased the subsidies and lifted a cap that disqualified people making four times the poverty level or more from being eligible for the subsidies.Under 2025 guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the federal poverty level is $15,650 for a one-person household. At 400%, it’s $62,600.Six states have more than tripled in ACA enrollees since 2020There was a widespread increase in enrollment across states in the past five years.The six states that have more than tripled in enrollees since 2020 are Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. There were 14 states that more than doubled in enrollment. Just three places — including Washington, D.C. — declined in enrollment, according to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.Expired subsidies take effect Jan. 1Even though new insurance premiums would take effect in the new year, a retroactive extension could be passed in 2026.However, it would be complicated and would continue to grow more complicated over time, according to KFF. More enrollees may drop insurance in the meantime. In a KFF survey, a quarter of enrollees indicated they would go without health insurance if the cost of current coverage doubled. About a third said they’d look for a lower premium plan.PHNjcmlwdCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHQiPiFmdW5jdGlvbigpeyJ1c2Ugc3RyaWN0Ijt3aW5kb3cuYWRkRXZlbnRMaXN0ZW5lcigibWVzc2FnZSIsKGZ1bmN0aW9uKGUpe2lmKHZvaWQgMCE9PWUuZGF0YVsiZGF0YXdyYXBwZXItaGVpZ2h0Il0pe3ZhciB0PWRvY3VtZW50LnF1ZXJ5U2VsZWN0b3JBbGwoImlmcmFtZSIpO2Zvcih2YXIgYSBpbiBlLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdKWZvcih2YXIgcj0wO3I8dC5sZW5ndGg7cisrKXtpZih0W3JdLmNvbnRlbnRXaW5kb3c9PT1lLnNvdXJjZSl0W3JdLnN0eWxlLmhlaWdodD1lLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdW2FdKyJweCJ9fX0pKX0oKTs8L3NjcmlwdD4=

    WASHINGTON —

    The cost of health insurance is set to surge for millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act at the start of the new year without the extension of expanded tax credits.

    The expanded subsidies were at the center of the 42-day government shutdown that ended in November. Now just days away from the new year, premiums are set to increase without an extension or resolution from Congress.

    The Get the Facts Data Team analyzed and aggregated statistics to know ahead of the rise in premiums in the new year.

    Premiums could rise on average 114%

    Premiums would more than double if the tax subsidies were to expire, according to an analysis from KFF.

    In addition to the potential ending of the subsidies, insurance rates are projected to rise across marketplace plans and employer-provided insurance.

    A one-person household with an annual income of $25,000 – a little more than 1.5 times the federal poverty level – is estimated to go from paying a maximum $100 out of pocket annually to $1,168.

    They would pay a maximum of less than $98 a month — 10 times more than the previous payment of less than $9 a month.

    The interactive below shows how the maximum out-of-pocket rates for benchmark plans may change if expanded subsidies expire for one, two and four-person households at various incomes. Estimates were calculated using maximum out-of-pocket rates from KFF published by the IRS, along with 2025 federal poverty level data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the 48 contiguous states plus D.C.

    The tool is not intended to calculate an individual’s actual payments. Healthcare.gov and other state marketplaces are the best source for specific premium costs.

    People closer to retirement age or with higher incomes could see the largest impact

    Once the expanded tax credits expire at the end of this year, the out-of-pocket maximums will increase across the board, and people making above four times the poverty level will become ineligible for any tax credits.

    More than 6.7% of those who were enrolled in ACA plans earned more than 400% of the federal poverty level, accounting for 1.6 million people. Once the subsidies expire, these enrollees would no longer qualify for the subsidies under the ACA.

    Also heavily impacted are people approaching retirement age. The age group with the highest enrollment in marketplace plans is ages 55 to 64, data shows.

    KFF estimated in March that about half the enrollees who would lose the tax credit upon expiration are between 50 and 64.

    Premiums for individuals closer to retirement age and making more than 400% of the federal poverty level would also increase more compared to younger enrollees. Take a 30-year-old, a 45-year-old, and a 60-year-old earning $62,756 in a single household – 401% of the poverty level.

    Without the tax credits, the 30-year-old would see a $110 jump in the monthly premium for a silver plan, according to KFF’s ACA Enhanced Premium Tax Credit calculator.

    The 60-year-old would see an $881-per-month increase without the enhanced subsidies.

    24 million people are enrolled in plans under the Affordable Care Act

    The subsidies are utilized by about 92% of the 24 million people enrolled in marketplace plans under the ACA, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    These expanded credits allow households of different sizes and income levels to be capped with maximum out-of-pocket costs.

    From 2020 to 2025, enrollment more than doubled as a result of expanded tax credits in the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, which increased the subsidies and lifted a cap that disqualified people making four times the poverty level or more from being eligible for the subsidies.

    Under 2025 guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the federal poverty level is $15,650 for a one-person household. At 400%, it’s $62,600.

    Six states have more than tripled in ACA enrollees since 2020

    There was a widespread increase in enrollment across states in the past five years.

    The six states that have more than tripled in enrollees since 2020 are Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. There were 14 states that more than doubled in enrollment.

    Just three places — including Washington, D.C. — declined in enrollment, according to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    Expired subsidies take effect Jan. 1

    Even though new insurance premiums would take effect in the new year, a retroactive extension could be passed in 2026.

    However, it would be complicated and would continue to grow more complicated over time, according to KFF.

    More enrollees may drop insurance in the meantime. In a KFF survey, a quarter of enrollees indicated they would go without health insurance if the cost of current coverage doubled. About a third said they’d look for a lower premium plan.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 5 pivotal 2026 Senate races will determine whether Republicans maintain governing trifecta under Trump

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    The balance of power in Washington, D.C., is up for grabs in 2026 as a handful of key Senate races will determine whether President Donald Trump and Republicans will maintain their governing trifecta. 

    In addition to their own competitiveness, many of these key Senate races may say more about the state of politics in 2026 — and the respective parties — beyond their individual results.

    FIVE SLEEPER RACES THAT COULD UPEND 2026 – FROM PENNSYLVANIA’S ALLEGHENIES TO NEW MEXICO

    Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on “Worldwide Threats,” on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on March 25, 2025. (Maansi Srivastava for the Washington Post)

    5 — Georgia

    Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., faces a competitive Senate race in Georgia where Democrats will look to retain a seat in a state that went to President Donald Trump by 2.2% in 2024. Ossoff will have to defend his party’s role in the extended government shutdown that especially hurt Georgia’s airline-heavy economy. 

    During the 43-day stretch, Ossoff voted with Republicans to make partial provisions for federal workers but voted against the spending package that eventually ended the shutdown.

    Ossoff won his last election in a 2021 runoff against Republican candidate David Perdue. He secured victory by just a 1.2% margin.

    Nine Republicans have joined the bid to unseat Ossoff. Most notably, the challengers include Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., and Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga. 

    Republicans will hold their primary on May 19, 2026.

    CORNYN TORCHES DEMOCRATIC FIELD, SAYS PARTY NOW ‘RULED BY SOCIALISTS’

    U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

    The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., is seen on Nov. 5, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    4 — Michigan

    Before Michigan’s Senate race becomes a question of congressional power, it may first become a litmus test for what the Democratic label is becoming.

    Five Democrats have joined the Senate race to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters, D-Minn. Peters last won election in 2020 by just 1.7% — just over 92,000 votes. The primary race has become a three-way contest between Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate pushing for healthcare for all and greater federal restrictions on what he sees as monopolistic forces in capitalism, and two more middle-of-the-road candidates: state Sen. Mallory McMorow and Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich.

    Republicans have made efforts to use El-Seyed’s stances as proof that Democrats are going the way of Zohran Mamdani, the socialist mayor-elect of New York City. 

    On the Republican side of the field, the race has attracted a handful of candidates, most of whom have not previously held office. One notable exception is former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who represented the state in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2001 to 2015. 

    Michigan will hold its state primaries on Aug. 4, 2026.

    AFTER ROUGH 2025 ELECTIONS, TOP GOP HOPEFUL SAYS CONSERVATISM’S FUTURE RUNS THROUGH SOUND ECONOMIC MESSAGE

    gov tim walz confused shrug

    Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., is at the center of a widening scandal as federal prosecutors continue to unravel one of the nation’s largest COVID-era fraud cases. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

    3 — Minnesota

    The race to fill the seat of outgoing Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., presents Republicans with a tantalizing opportunity in a state that’s home to former vice presidential candidate Tim Walz — and where national outrage over devastating fraud schemes may create an opening for Republican messaging.

    Smith last won election in 2020 with a 48.8% — 43.6% victory over Republican candidate Jason Lewis. In that election, Kevin O’Connor, an independent candidate advocating for the legalization of marijuana, took away 5.8% of the vote. It’s unclear how that 5.8% vote may go in 2026; O’Connor hasn’t filed to join the race. Additionally, an executive order from President Donald Trump sets up marijuana to become available for medical research and use.

    With the playing field looking different this time around, the race has attracted eight Republican candidates — including Royce White, a former NBA player for the Houston Rockets and Sacramento Kings. 

    On the Democratic side of the aisle, notable candidates include Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan. That primary sets up a telling choice for Democrats between Craig, who has attracted endorsements from more of the party’s establishment, and Flanagan, a progressive. 

    Minnesota will hold its primaries on Aug. 10, 2026. 

    TIM SCOTT TELLS MAGA VOTERS TRUMP ‘IS ON THE BALLOT’ AS GOP FIGHTS TO GROW SENATE MAJORITY IN 2026

    Sen. Joni Ernst during hearing

    Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced the McSCUSE ME Act to address SNAP benefits on Nov. 20, 2025. (Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    2 — Iowa

    U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, shocked Washington, D.C., in September when she announced she would not pursue re-election. The two-term senator had run into hot water when she remarked that “we are all going to die,” in response to questions about healthcare insecurity that Democrats feared would arise from cuts to Medicaid. She last won an election in 2020 in a 51.7% to 45.2% victory over Theresa Greenfield. 

    That 6.5% margin of victory — without the advantage of an incumbent to defend the seat — gives Democrats a unique opportunity to try to flip a seat in a state that went to Trump in 2024 by 13.3%.

    So far, a handful of candidates have declared their candidacy for the race, including Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa. The group also includes a handful of Republican state-level representatives. Similarly, notable Democrats in the race include state Sen. Zach Wahls and state Rep. Josh Turek.

    Iowa has its primaries scheduled for Jun. 2, 2026.

    GOP SEIZES ON DEM CIVIL WAR AS PROGRESSIVES JUMP INTO KEY 2026 SENATE RACES: ‘THEY’RE IN SHAMBLES’

    Michael Whatley at Republican National Convention

    RNC Chair Michael Whatley gavels to begin the Republican National Convention on Monday, Jul. 15, 2024, in Milwaukee. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

    1 — North Carolina

    The Tar Heel State’s 2026 Senate race to replace retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has all the makings of a blockbuster showdown. As a state with a Democratic governor that went for Trump in 2024, North Carolina’s matchup could come down to the wire between former RNC Chair Michael Whatley, a Republican with expansive fundraising and campaign experience, and former N.C. Gov. Roy Cooper, a soft-spoken Democrat with a track record for winning over middle-of-the-road voters. 

    While Whatley has never held elected office, he helped Republicans overperform expectations in 2024 when the GOP narrowly hung on to power in the House of Representatives and flipped control of the U.S. Senate. Cooper last won election as governor in 2020 in a 51.5% – 47.0% victory over Republican challenger Dan Forest. Before his time as governor, Cooper had been elected multiple times to serve as the state’s attorney general going back to 2000. He has never lost an election. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    The state will hold its primaries on March 3, 2026.

    Leo Briceno is a politics reporter for the congressional team at Fox News Digital. He was previously a reporter with World Magazine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kentucky congressman announces death of longtime aide and campaign manager

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., announced the death of his longtime aide and campaign manager on Christmas Day, a passing which “shocked” those who knew her during the holiday. 

    The congressman and Senate candidate posted about the passing of his deputy chief of staff and campaign manager Tatum Dale on Thursday, noting the contributions she made not only to his current office, but to his mission to serve in statewide office. 

    “For over 15 years, Tatum was the heart and soul of my team,” Barr posted to X. “With Tatum’s leadership, my office favorably closed thousands of cases for Kentuckians—helping veterans, seniors, and families throughout our district. She fought to deliver funds to support dozens of community projects across our Commonwealth.”

    Barr praised Dale’s 15 years of service and dedication to Kentuckians, as political allies and rivals alike honored her legacy and expressed condolences. (Andy Barr via X)

    “She loved helping people and was a servant of others, just as Christ envisioned us all to be. Maybe that’s why her birth in heaven is a shared birthday with our Lord and Savior,” Barr continued. “While our hearts are broken, our team finds peace and hope knowing that Tatum is now home with Christ, resting comfortably in the arms of her Savior.”

    2021 AFGHAN REMARKS HAUNT GOP LAWMAKER’S SENATE BID AFTER DC GUARD SHOOTING

    Barr’s run to succeed Sen. Mitch McConnell, who announced his retirement in February, has been a battle between GOP candidates in the early stages of the race. 

    Despite the competition, former Kentucky attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Daniel Cameron set aside their differences to weigh in on the passing of Dale. 

    “Tatum Dale was a friend,” Cameron posted on social media. “She will be truly missed.”

    Kentucky congressman and senate candidate Andy Barr.

    Congressman Andy Barr announced the death of his longtime aide and campaign manager, Tatum Dale, prompting tributes from colleagues across the GOP. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    ‘AMERICA FIRST’ ATTORNEY GENERAL DISTANCES HIMSELF FROM MCCONNELL — HIS FORMER BOSS — AS KENTUCKY RACE DEFINES GOP FUTURE

    “Makenze and I will be praying for her family and all of Team Barr,” Cameron added.

    Cameron’s post was joined by several others who posted to social media in remembrance of the staffer.

    GOP strategist and communications director for Montana governor Greg Gianforte said he was shocked by the news and that “Tatum was one of those hardworking people who seemed to be at every GOP event.”

    GOP REP GEARS UP FOR POTENTIAL REMATCH AGAINST PROGRESSIVE ‘DARLING’ IN BID TO SUCCEED MCCONNELL

    Kentucky Rep. Andy Barr and Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron are vying to replace Mitch McConnell.

    Daniel Cameron, former Kentucky Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate, set aside their differences to weigh in on the death of Barr’s longtime staffer. (Reuters)

    Dale originally joined Barr’s Washington DC office in 2013 as a scheduler. She then returned to Kentucky, where she served as a district representative, field operations director, district deputy director, district director and deputy chief of staff.

    She was born in Murray. Kentucky, and attended the University of Kentucky, according to Barr.

    The cause of death is not currently clear.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    “She made me a better Congressman, our staff better public servants, and we will all miss her forever,” Barr posted. “From Murray to Lexington and everywhere in the Commonwealth that she touched, we hope you will all join us in praying for Tatum’s family and friends—and be forever inspired by her memory to serve others.”

    Fox News Digital reached out to Barr’s office for comment.

    Preston Mizell is a writer with Fox News. Story tips can be sent to Preston.Mizell@fox.com and on X @MizellPreston

    Preston Mizell is a writer with Fox News Digital covering breaking news.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ says it may need a ‘few more weeks’ to finish release of Epstein files

    [ad_1]

    The Justice Department said Wednesday that it may need a “few more weeks” to release all of its records on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after suddenly discovering more than a million potentially relevant documents, further delaying compliance with last Friday’s congressionally mandated deadline.Related video above: Justice Department releases extensive Epstein files mentioning President TrumpThe Christmas Eve announcement came hours after a dozen U.S. senators called on the Justice Department’s watchdog to examine its failure to meet the deadline. The group, 11 Democrats and a Republican, told Acting Inspector General Don Berthiaume in a letter that victims “deserve full disclosure” and the “peace of mind” of an independent audit.The Justice Department said in a social media post that federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the FBI “have uncovered over a million more documents” that could be related to the Epstein case — a stunning 11th-hour development after department officials suggested months ago that they had undertaken a comprehensive review that accounted for the vast universe of Epstein-related materials.In March, Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that a “truckload of evidence” had been delivered to her after she ordered the Justice Department to “deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office” — a directive she said she made after learning from an unidentified source that the FBI in New York was “in possession of thousands of pages of documents.”In July, the FBI and Justice Department indicated in an unsigned memo that they had undertaken an “exhaustive review” and had determined that no additional evidence should be released — an extraordinary about-face from the Trump administration, which for months had pledged maximum transparency. The memo did not raise the possibility that additional evidence existed that officials were unaware of or had not reviewed.Wednesday’s post did not say when the Justice Department was informed of the newly uncovered files.In a letter last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors already had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many were copies of material already turned over by the FBI.The Justice Department said its lawyers are “working around the clock” to review the documents and remove victims’ names and other identifying information as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell.“We will release the documents as soon as possible,” the department said. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”The announcement came amid increasing scrutiny on the Justice Department’s staggered release of Epstein-related records, including from Epstein victims and members of Congress.Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, one of the chief authors of the law mandating the document release, posted Wednesday on X, “DOJ did break the law by making illegal redactions and by missing the deadline.” Another architect of the law, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said he and Massie will “continue to keep the pressure on” and noted that the Justice Department was releasing more documents after lawmakers threatened contempt.“A Christmas Eve news dump of ‘a million more files’ only proves what we already know: Trump is engaged in a massive coverup,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said after the DOJ’s announcement. “The question Americans deserve answered is simple: WHAT are they hiding — and WHY?”The White House on Wednesday defended the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein records.“President Trump has assembled the greatest cabinet in American history, which includes Attorney General Bondi and her team — like Deputy Attorney General Blanche — who are doing a great job implementing the President’s agenda,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.After releasing an initial wave of records Friday, more batches were posted over the weekend and on Tuesday. The Justice Department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.Records that have been released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context. Records that had not been seen before include transcripts of grand jury testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein.Other records made public in recent days include a note from a federal prosecutor from January 2020 that said Trump had flown on the financier’s private plane more often than had been previously known and emails between Maxwell and someone who signs off with the initial “A.” They contain other references that suggest the writer was Britain’s former Prince Andrew. In one, “A” writes, “How’s LA? Have you found me some new inappropriate friends?”The senators’ call Wednesday for an inspector general audit comes days after Schumer introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the disclosure and deadline requirements. In a statement, he called the staggered, heavily redacted release “a blatant cover-up.”Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in leading the call for an inspector general audit. Others signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, Chris van Hollen of Maryland, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.“Given the (Trump) Administration’s historic hostility to releasing the files, politicization of the Epstein case more broadly, and failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a neutral assessment of its compliance with the statutory disclosure requirements is essential,” the senators wrote. Full transparency, they said, “is essential in identifying members of our society who enabled and participated in Epstein’s crimes.”__Sisak reported from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

    WASHINGTON —

    The Justice Department said Wednesday that it may need a “few more weeks” to release all of its records on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after suddenly discovering more than a million potentially relevant documents, further delaying compliance with last Friday’s congressionally mandated deadline.

    Related video above: Justice Department releases extensive Epstein files mentioning President Trump

    The Christmas Eve announcement came hours after a dozen U.S. senators called on the Justice Department’s watchdog to examine its failure to meet the deadline. The group, 11 Democrats and a Republican, told Acting Inspector General Don Berthiaume in a letter that victims “deserve full disclosure” and the “peace of mind” of an independent audit.

    The Justice Department said in a social media post that federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the FBI “have uncovered over a million more documents” that could be related to the Epstein case — a stunning 11th-hour development after department officials suggested months ago that they had undertaken a comprehensive review that accounted for the vast universe of Epstein-related materials.

    In March, Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that a “truckload of evidence” had been delivered to her after she ordered the Justice Department to “deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office” — a directive she said she made after learning from an unidentified source that the FBI in New York was “in possession of thousands of pages of documents.”

    In July, the FBI and Justice Department indicated in an unsigned memo that they had undertaken an “exhaustive review” and had determined that no additional evidence should be released — an extraordinary about-face from the Trump administration, which for months had pledged maximum transparency. The memo did not raise the possibility that additional evidence existed that officials were unaware of or had not reviewed.

    Wednesday’s post did not say when the Justice Department was informed of the newly uncovered files.

    In a letter last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors already had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many were copies of material already turned over by the FBI.

    The Justice Department said its lawyers are “working around the clock” to review the documents and remove victims’ names and other identifying information as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell.

    “We will release the documents as soon as possible,” the department said. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”

    The announcement came amid increasing scrutiny on the Justice Department’s staggered release of Epstein-related records, including from Epstein victims and members of Congress.

    Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, one of the chief authors of the law mandating the document release, posted Wednesday on X, “DOJ did break the law by making illegal redactions and by missing the deadline.”

    Another architect of the law, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said he and Massie will “continue to keep the pressure on” and noted that the Justice Department was releasing more documents after lawmakers threatened contempt.

    “A Christmas Eve news dump of ‘a million more files’ only proves what we already know: Trump is engaged in a massive coverup,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said after the DOJ’s announcement. “The question Americans deserve answered is simple: WHAT are they hiding — and WHY?”

    The White House on Wednesday defended the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein records.

    “President Trump has assembled the greatest cabinet in American history, which includes Attorney General Bondi and her team — like Deputy Attorney General Blanche — who are doing a great job implementing the President’s agenda,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

    After releasing an initial wave of records Friday, more batches were posted over the weekend and on Tuesday. The Justice Department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

    Records that have been released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context. Records that had not been seen before include transcripts of grand jury testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein.

    Other records made public in recent days include a note from a federal prosecutor from January 2020 that said Trump had flown on the financier’s private plane more often than had been previously known and emails between Maxwell and someone who signs off with the initial “A.” They contain other references that suggest the writer was Britain’s former Prince Andrew. In one, “A” writes, “How’s LA? Have you found me some new inappropriate friends?”

    The senators’ call Wednesday for an inspector general audit comes days after Schumer introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the disclosure and deadline requirements. In a statement, he called the staggered, heavily redacted release “a blatant cover-up.”

    Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in leading the call for an inspector general audit. Others signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, Chris van Hollen of Maryland, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

    “Given the (Trump) Administration’s historic hostility to releasing the files, politicization of the Epstein case more broadly, and failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a neutral assessment of its compliance with the statutory disclosure requirements is essential,” the senators wrote. Full transparency, they said, “is essential in identifying members of our society who enabled and participated in Epstein’s crimes.”

    __

    Sisak reported from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ says it may need a ‘few more weeks’ to finish release of Epstein files

    [ad_1]

    The Justice Department said Wednesday that it may need a “few more weeks” to release all of its records on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after suddenly discovering more than a million potentially relevant documents, further delaying compliance with last Friday’s congressionally mandated deadline.Related video above: Justice Department releases extensive Epstein files mentioning President TrumpThe Christmas Eve announcement came hours after a dozen U.S. senators called on the Justice Department’s watchdog to examine its failure to meet the deadline. The group, 11 Democrats and a Republican, told Acting Inspector General Don Berthiaume in a letter that victims “deserve full disclosure” and the “peace of mind” of an independent audit.The Justice Department said in a social media post that federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the FBI “have uncovered over a million more documents” that could be related to the Epstein case — a stunning 11th-hour development after department officials suggested months ago that they had undertaken a comprehensive review that accounted for the vast universe of Epstein-related materials.In March, Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that a “truckload of evidence” had been delivered to her after she ordered the Justice Department to “deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office” — a directive she said she made after learning from an unidentified source that the FBI in New York was “in possession of thousands of pages of documents.”In July, the FBI and Justice Department indicated in an unsigned memo that they had undertaken an “exhaustive review” and had determined that no additional evidence should be released — an extraordinary about-face from the Trump administration, which for months had pledged maximum transparency. The memo did not raise the possibility that additional evidence existed that officials were unaware of or had not reviewed.Wednesday’s post did not say when the Justice Department was informed of the newly uncovered files.In a letter last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors already had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many were copies of material already turned over by the FBI.The Justice Department said its lawyers are “working around the clock” to review the documents and remove victims’ names and other identifying information as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell.“We will release the documents as soon as possible,” the department said. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”The announcement came amid increasing scrutiny on the Justice Department’s staggered release of Epstein-related records, including from Epstein victims and members of Congress.Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, one of the chief authors of the law mandating the document release, posted Wednesday on X, “DOJ did break the law by making illegal redactions and by missing the deadline.” Another architect of the law, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said he and Massie will “continue to keep the pressure on” and noted that the Justice Department was releasing more documents after lawmakers threatened contempt.The White House on Wednesday defended the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein records.“President Trump has assembled the greatest cabinet in American history, which includes Attorney General Bondi and her team — like Deputy Attorney General Blanche — who are doing a great job implementing the President’s agenda,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.After releasing an initial wave of records Friday, more batches were posted over the weekend and on Tuesday. The Justice Department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.Records that have been released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context. Records that had not been seen before include transcripts of grand jury testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein.Other records made public in recent days include a note from a federal prosecutor from January 2020 that said Trump had flown on the financier’s private plane more often than had been previously known and emails between Maxwell and someone who signs off with the initial “A.” They contain other references that suggest the writer was Britain’s former Prince Andrew. In one, “A” writes, “How’s LA? Have you found me some new inappropriate friends?”The senators’ call Wednesday for an inspector general audit comes days after Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the disclosure and deadline requirements. In a statement, he called the staggered, heavily redacted release “a blatant cover-up.”Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in leading the call for an inspector general audit. Others signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, Chris van Hollen of Maryland, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.“Given the (Trump) Administration’s historic hostility to releasing the files, politicization of the Epstein case more broadly, and failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a neutral assessment of its compliance with the statutory disclosure requirements is essential,” the senators wrote. Full transparency, they said, “is essential in identifying members of our society who enabled and participated in Epstein’s crimes.”__Sisak reported from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

    WASHINGTON —

    The Justice Department said Wednesday that it may need a “few more weeks” to release all of its records on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after suddenly discovering more than a million potentially relevant documents, further delaying compliance with last Friday’s congressionally mandated deadline.

    Related video above: Justice Department releases extensive Epstein files mentioning President Trump

    The Christmas Eve announcement came hours after a dozen U.S. senators called on the Justice Department’s watchdog to examine its failure to meet the deadline. The group, 11 Democrats and a Republican, told Acting Inspector General Don Berthiaume in a letter that victims “deserve full disclosure” and the “peace of mind” of an independent audit.

    The Justice Department said in a social media post that federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the FBI “have uncovered over a million more documents” that could be related to the Epstein case — a stunning 11th-hour development after department officials suggested months ago that they had undertaken a comprehensive review that accounted for the vast universe of Epstein-related materials.

    In March, Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News that a “truckload of evidence” had been delivered to her after she ordered the Justice Department to “deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office” — a directive she said she made after learning from an unidentified source that the FBI in New York was “in possession of thousands of pages of documents.”

    In July, the FBI and Justice Department indicated in an unsigned memo that they had undertaken an “exhaustive review” and had determined that no additional evidence should be released — an extraordinary about-face from the Trump administration, which for months had pledged maximum transparency. The memo did not raise the possibility that additional evidence existed that officials were unaware of or had not reviewed.

    Wednesday’s post did not say when the Justice Department was informed of the newly uncovered files.

    In a letter last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors already had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many were copies of material already turned over by the FBI.

    The Justice Department said its lawyers are “working around the clock” to review the documents and remove victims’ names and other identifying information as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell.

    “We will release the documents as soon as possible,” the department said. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”

    The announcement came amid increasing scrutiny on the Justice Department’s staggered release of Epstein-related records, including from Epstein victims and members of Congress.

    Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, one of the chief authors of the law mandating the document release, posted Wednesday on X, “DOJ did break the law by making illegal redactions and by missing the deadline.”

    Another architect of the law, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said he and Massie will “continue to keep the pressure on” and noted that the Justice Department was releasing more documents after lawmakers threatened contempt.

    The White House on Wednesday defended the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein records.

    “President Trump has assembled the greatest cabinet in American history, which includes Attorney General Bondi and her team — like Deputy Attorney General Blanche — who are doing a great job implementing the President’s agenda,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

    After releasing an initial wave of records Friday, more batches were posted over the weekend and on Tuesday. The Justice Department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

    Records that have been released, including photographs, interview transcripts, call logs, court records and other documents, were either already public or heavily blacked out, and many lacked necessary context. Records that had not been seen before include transcripts of grand jury testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein.

    Other records made public in recent days include a note from a federal prosecutor from January 2020 that said Trump had flown on the financier’s private plane more often than had been previously known and emails between Maxwell and someone who signs off with the initial “A.” They contain other references that suggest the writer was Britain’s former Prince Andrew. In one, “A” writes, “How’s LA? Have you found me some new inappropriate friends?”

    The senators’ call Wednesday for an inspector general audit comes days after Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced a resolution that, if passed, would direct the Senate to file or join lawsuits aimed at forcing the Justice Department to comply with the disclosure and deadline requirements. In a statement, he called the staggered, heavily redacted release “a blatant cover-up.”

    Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in leading the call for an inspector general audit. Others signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, Chris van Hollen of Maryland, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

    “Given the (Trump) Administration’s historic hostility to releasing the files, politicization of the Epstein case more broadly, and failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a neutral assessment of its compliance with the statutory disclosure requirements is essential,” the senators wrote. Full transparency, they said, “is essential in identifying members of our society who enabled and participated in Epstein’s crimes.”

    __

    Sisak reported from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Five sleeper races that could upend 2026 – from Pennsylvania’s Alleghenies to New Mexico

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    As Clement Moore’s “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas” tells it, families sleep soundly as Santa approaches.

    As the new year nears, several election contests may prove just as quiet – until close results suddenly come into focus. Here are five potential sleeper races to watch in 2026: 

    1. MISSISSIPPI’S 2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, has not often had to worry about a general election challenge since he won a special election on April 13, 1993.

    Predecessor Mike Espy, who recently unsuccessfully ran for Senate in a narrow runoff with Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., had resigned to accept President Bill Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of Agriculture.

    Thompson’s closest race was that one – against Republican Hayes Dent – at 55% to 45%.

    Since then, Thompson has never looked back, and instead made himself a nationally-recognized figure later in his tenure.

    He chaired the House Select Committee on January 6, and recently went viral for calling the shooting of West Virginia National Guardsmen allegedly by an Afghan refugee an “unfortunate accident.”

    Thompson’s district, spanning from Jackson west to Yazoo City and Vicksburg on the Mississippi River, is one of the poorest in the country – landing at 3rd out of 435 with a median income of $37,372, according to data published by the office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio.

    CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS WIDEN 2026 BATTLEFIELD, ZERO IN ON NEW HOUSE REPUBLICAN TARGETS

    Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD) speaks to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) at the Butler Farm Show in Butler, Pennsylvania on Monday, July 22, 2024. (Derek Shook for Fox News Digital )

    Only Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y. preside over a poorer population.

    Last week, an attorney and former counsel to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., mounted a surprise primary bid against Thompson.

    Evan Turnage, 33, who has been alive just about the same time Thompson has been in Congress, made the idea of fighting the region’s persistent poverty paramount to his new campaign, according to Black Press USA.

    “I’ve dedicated my life to leveling the playing field so people can not only get by, but get ahead, and raise a family right here,” Turnage said, according to the outlet.

    On the Republican side, retired Army captain and Vicksburg cardiothoracic surgeon Ron Eller will fight an uphill battle to unseat the winner of the Thompson-Turnage bout.

    2. CONNECTICUT’S 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Connecticut is another state that is typically not in political conversation as hosting nail-biter partisan elections.

    During the Bush-Clinton years, however, the state was competitive if not outright Republican-favored.

    Former Gov. John Rowland was the first in decades to be elected to more than two terms. He ended up resigning in 2004 amid the threat of impeachment over accusations contractors with the state were doing work on his vacation home.

    CALL TO DUTY: IN BATTLE FOR HOUSE, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS LOOKING TO VETERANS

    After he resigned, his wife famously wrote a poem critical of the media’s coverage of Rowland’s case, based on Moore’s holiday favorite and called “A Lump of Coal for All the Reporters.” Rowland’s lieutenant, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, took over and was reelected once before retiring in 2010.

    Since then, the state has been reliably Democratic – save for former Sen. Joe Lieberman changing his affiliation to independent.

    In 2022, then-State Sen. George Logan – the first Black man elected to Hartford’s upper chamber — mounted a bid against Rep. Jahana Hayes and lost by less than one percentage point.

    DOUBLING DOWN: TOP HOUSE DEMOCRAT SAYS FOCUS ON HIGH PRICES ‘ABSOLUTELY GOING TO CONTINUE’

    Jahana Hayes D-CT (left) and her 2024 GOP challenger George Logan (right)

    Jahana Hayes D-CT (left) and her 2024 GOP challenger George Logan (right) (Getty & AP )

    Logan tried again in 2024, but lost by a slightly wider margin.

    While Logan is not on the ballot at least yet for 2026, recent history shows Republicans could have an outside chance of ending Democrats’ full control of New England’s congressional delegation.

    3. MARYLAND’S 6TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Republicans have wanted to win back Maryland’s sixth congressional district ever since partisan gerrymandering was blamed for booting 20-year incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., from office in 2012.

    Bartlett, an eccentric conservative who later relocated to the West Virginia wilderness to live off-the-grid, is now 99, and was known for addressing various topics that were sometimes ignored but have received newfound attention at present, including warnings about the strength, reliability and hardening of the U.S. power grid.

    Bartlett won his last campaign by 28 points but then lost by about 20 after the rural district encompassing the entire Maryland Panhandle was adjusted to incorporate the edges of densely-populated Washington, D.C. suburbs.

    SHOWDOWN FOR THE HOUSE: DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS BRACE FOR HIGH-STAKES MIDTERM CLASH

    He was defeated in 2013 by then-Rep. John Delaney, a finance executive – before Delaney was replaced by Total Wine mogul David Trone, who has largely self-funded his campaigns to the tune of millions of dollars.

    Trone won reelection before opting in 2024 to pursue retiring Sen. Benjamin Cardin’s, D-Md., seat – which was ultimately won by Democrat Angela Alsobrooks.

    He announced this year that he would challenge Rep. April McClain-Delaney, D-Md., the wife of former Rep. John Delaney.

    Meanwhile, former longtime state Del. Neil Parrott, R-Antietam, is mounting his fourth consecutive bid for the seat. McClain-Delaney beat Parrott 53-47 in 2024.

    The closest that Republicans have gotten to taking back the seat since Bartlett was defeated came in 2014, when now-FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino narrowly lost to Trone by about a point.

    Bongino notably sought to nationalize the race, pulling in endorsements like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and rebuking Delaney as someone who could “write himself a check for a million dollars” if he needed to in order to win.

    HOUSE GOP CAMPAIGN CHAIR WANTS TRUMP ‘OUT THERE ON THE TRAIL’ IN MIDTERM BATTLE FOR MAJORITY

    Neil Parrott shakes hands with Roscoe Bartlett

    Del. Neil Parrott, left., former Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., right. (Tom Williams/Getty Images)

    The future G-man suggested at the time he would rather knock on doors in far-flung communities like Oakland and Grantsville, where he said, “nobody seems to know who [John Delaney] is,” according to the Maryland Reporter.

    Given newly-drawn, friendlier maps following litigation over O’Malley-era gerrymandering, Republicans may have a chance to surprise in a district in one of the most Democratic-majority states in the country.

    4. NEBRASKA’S 2ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    While not typically considered a swing state, or one that gets much attention in federal elections, Nebraska’s only urban-leaning district may decide the future of the House of Representatives if the overall contest is as close as it has been in recent years.

    Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., one of few in his party who have publicly lambasted President Donald Trump, is retiring. The district – centered in Douglas and Saunders counties; including Omaha and Ashland – already has a slew of candidates on both sides hoping to take the moderate’s seat.

    Omaha City Councilman Brinker Harding leads state Sen. Brett Lindstrom, R-Omaha, in fundraising, while on the Democratic side, at least five people, including congressional staffer James Leuschen and state Sen. John Cavanaugh, D-Omaha, have tossed their hats in the ring, according to the Nebraska Examiner.

    HEADED FOR THE EXITS: WHY 3-DOZEN HOUSE MEMBERS AREN’T RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION

    Bacon, who hails from suburban Sarpy County, won his last race against former state Sen. Anthony Vargas, D-Omaha, by less than one percentage point.

    After a recent wave of GOP losses in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Jersey, the district shapes up as a tough hold for Republicans in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat statewide since Ben Nelson retired in 2012.

    5. NEW MEXICO GUBERNATORIAL RACE

    While Nebraska is a red state that doesn’t often garner national attention, on the blue ledger lies New Mexico.

    Topographically and culturally similar to red neighbor Texas and formerly red neighbor Arizona on the other side, the Land of Enchantment is often one that enchants the observer that looks closer at its politics.

    Notably, its mountainous border with Mexico has largely kept it out of politically-contentious Trump-wall debates focused on the flatter, desert and river boundaries of its neighbors.

    REPUBLICANS HAVE CHANCE TO SECURE GOVERNORSHIPS IN KEY BATTLEGROUND STATES NEXT YEAR

    The US Capitol Building

    US Capitol Building at sunset on January 30th, 2025  (Emma Woodhead/Fox News Digital)

    While it lacks the urban population that is typical of most blue states like New York, California, New Jersey and Maryland, Republicans have been increasingly out of power there for years.

    Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., was the last such lawmaker to represent the state in the upper chamber.

    He retired in 2008 and was replaced by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., whose surname is the Mountain West’s equivalent of Cuomo or Casey. The Interior Department headquarters is named after Udall’s father.

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is term limited. While she was preceded by a Republican, Susana Martinez, her state has been trending more toward Democratic reliability otherwise.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Deb Haaland, a former New Mexico congresswoman who was also former President Joe Biden’s Interior Secretary, is the biggest name in the Democratic field, while Greggory Hull, the longtime mayor of Rio Rancho, is such for the GOP.

    Rep. Gabe Vasquez held off a challenge from predecessor Yvette Herrell in the 2nd congressional district, which spans the southwestern part of the state including Alamogordo and Las Cruces, in what was seen as the GOP’s best chance to make inroads again in the border state.

    Charles Creitz is a reporter for Fox News Digital. 

    He joined Fox News in 2013 as a writer and production assistant. 

    Charles covers media, politics and culture for Fox News Digital.

    Charles is a Pennsylvania native and graduated from Temple University with a B.A. in Broadcast Journalism. Story tips can be sent to charles.creitz@fox.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link