Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is launching a probe into the city of Dallas over the region's sanctuary city policies that protect illegal immigrants.
On Thursday, Paxton announced the investigation, as well as a formal request for city and Dallas Police Department records concerning the police department's refusal to comply with state and federal immigration laws.
"The law is not optional. Local governments do not have the authority to disregard state and federal immigration laws," Paxton said in a statement. "The people of Texas expect law enforcement agencies to uphold public safety, not to implement sanctuary policies that put our communities at risk."
"My office will take all necessary legal actions to ensure compliance with state law and hold accountable any local entity that defies its legal obligations," he added.
Paxton's office has requested all policies, training materials and communications related to Dallas’ enforcement or non-enforcement of immigration laws, including any records reflecting decisions to decline cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
He cited Dallas Interim Police Chief Michael Igo, who said that his agency "is not assisting any federal agency on detaining people that are either documented or undocumented in the City of Dallas."
Paxton said the chief's remarks "raise serious concerns" that the city and police department are possibly violating Texas law, which prohibits local entities from adopting sanctuary city policies that limit immigration enforcement.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, the city of Dallas said: "We are reviewing the letter received from the Texas Attorney General’s Office and will respond at the appropriate time."
Texas has taken a hard stance against illegal immigration, particularly during the Biden administration. The state deployed authorities to its border with Mexico and took on a campaign of bussing migrants to Democratic-run cities to bring attention to the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S.
Things are getting dicey as we hurtle toward a potential government shutdown tomorrow night as time slips off the clock.
But Democrats are REALLY torn – as badly as I’ve ever seen any party torn – about what approach to take.
On the one hand, they don’t want to shut down the government. They fear that will imperil already skittish federal workers. And it could lead to additional cuts from Elon Musk and DOGE if federal workers aren’t on the job.
On the other hand, they want to be seen as fighting for their base and rallying against President Donald Trump and Musk.
But it is often the darkest before the dawn.
And we’re getting close to the stage where lawmakers realize they must make a decision: Either go to the mat, or try to salvage something before the 11:59:59 p.m. ET deadline.
There are rattlings now that Democrats may ask for votes on a universe of amendments – none of which would pass. But at least Democrats could try to save face – and tell their loyalists that they had fought for their values and tried to stand up to the president and Musk. They could also make the case that a shutdown is worse than keeping the government open.
Fox is told senators would be interested in votes on the following subjects:
While Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., appears to be the only Democrat willing to vote for the GOP interim spending bill, it’s POSSIBLE that a vote on a set of amendments COULD unlock a few Democratic votes to break a filibuster on the bill.
A test vote would likely come tomorrow morning. That’s why they need to potentially broker a deal today.
Multiple Senate Democrats were utterly silent as they left a lengthy Senate Democratic Caucus. None of the senators approached by Fox were willing to talk – even though some are quite loquacious under other circumstances.
That includes Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Chris Coons, D-Del., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.
In fact, Fox even asked several of the Democrats whether they have been told not to say anything. Several of them replied, "No comment."
Quiet on Capitol Hill usually means something is up, and that lawmakers are trying to broker a deal, and it could be very fragile. It also means that lawmakers are completely beside themselves and fuming inside.
Don’t underestimate the latter as a potential avenue out of this political cul-de-sac.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, used to say that "nothing good ever happens when the House has been in session for more than three consecutive weeks."
Members grow angry. Antsy. Tempers are short.
As Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., noted this morning, the Senate has been in session for 10 consecutive weeks. That includes three all-night sessions and weekend sessions. This period is the longest stretch of consecutive weeks for Senate activity in 15 years.
The Senate is scheduled to be out of session next week for the first time this year. If the government shuts down, that recess could be trashed. Senators have barely seen their family members and loved ones all year long. It’s been a frenetic pace.
That’s why the decision about funding the government and getting people out of the Capitol could be made by the most powerful people in Washington: the Senate spouses.
This is far from settled. But they are already getting late in the game if they are to avoid a shutdown tomorrow night.
Federal judges in Maine said they were compelled by their code of ethics to recuse themselves from a case brought forth by Maine GOP state Rep. Laurel Libby.
Libby, R-Bangor, is challenging her censure in the state legislature, which was issued in response to her opposition to transgender athletes competing in women's high school sports.
Judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, the state's sole federal court district, announced Wednesday that they would all be recusing themselves from Libby's case, forcing it to be moved to a court in Rhode Island. While the judges did not initially state any reasons explaining their mass recusal, Chief Judge Lance Walker said in a statement Wednesday evening that it was the result of a potential conflict of interest.
"The Judges of the District of Maine independently concluded that they are compelled by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to recuse themselves because an employee of the District of Maine is involved in or directly impacted by the controversy underlying this litigation," Walker said. "The case will remain in the District of Maine but has been specially assigned to judges in the District of Rhode Island."
While Walker's explanation shed some light on the reasoning behind the mass recusal, it failed to specify the exact nature of the conflict of interest. A Fox News Digital analysis of public records found that the transgender high school athlete at the center of Libby's censure lawsuit – filed after she posted a photo of the athlete competing before transitioning – shares a last name with someone working in the U.S. District Court system for the District of Maine.
"It seems like there was a reasonable explanation for those judges to recuse, that they all did have a close relationship with someone related to the athlete," said Carrie Campbell Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. Severino said, when asked about the possible familial link: "My concern now is – how has this next judge been chosen? Because there are lots of questions about whether this judge is actually able to be impartial in the case."
Due to the judges' recusal, Biden-appointed Judge Melissa DuBose of the District of Rhode Island will now oversee the case.
During DuBose's confirmation hearing in March 2024, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned DuBose over comments she made to a journalist about going through a "Marxist phase" at a certain point in her life. "Senator, I have never been a Marxist and I am not [currently] a Marxist," DuBose said.
In 2021, DuBose signed a letter alongside a slew of other Rhode Island judges, ensuring the LGBTQ community, racial minorities "and all under-represented communities" that "Rhode Island's courts are their courts." The letter followed a rally of thousands on the state House steps protesting police brutality.
Severino said it was "hard to imagine" that DuBose would be able to provide a fair trial in Libby's case, which centers on highly contentious LGBTQ issues.
"It's not clear to me how it was decided it was going to go to Rhode Island, as opposed to another jurisdiction nearby. There are other adjacent states the case could theoretically go to," Severino pointed out. "Now that it has been moved, there are further concerns about the ability of this judge to be impartial."
Libby declined to comment for this article, citing ongoing litigation. Maine House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, who is a defendant in Libby's case, also cited the same reason for not wanting to comment. Maine House Clerk Robert Hunt, another defendant, did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
The attorneys general of 20 Democratic states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, slapped the Trump administration with a lawsuit after the Department of Education (DoED) cut nearly half its workforce this week.
The lawsuit, filed on Thursday against Secretary Linda McMahon, the Department of Education, and President Donald Trump, claims that the president does not have authority to dismantle the department and that cuts will cause "immense damage" to their states' educational systems.
The DoEd, which Trump has said he would close "immediately," announced on Tuesday that it would be shrinking its workforce from around 4,133 to around 2,183 employees. Remaining workers impacted by the reductions will be placed on administrative leave beginning March 21.
Madi Biedermann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications, U.S. Department of Education, told Fox News Digital in response to the lawsuit that the reductions were "strategic, internal-facing cuts that will not directly impact students and families."
"President Trump was elected with a mandate from the American public to return education authority to the states," Biedermann told Fox News Digital. "The Department of Education’s reduction in force (RIF) was implemented carefully and in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws. They are strategic, internal-facing cuts that will not directly impact students and families."
Biedermann also said that no employees working on the FAFSA, student loan servicing, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title funds, the Office of Special Education Programs, or the Rehabilitation Services Administration who serve children with disabilities were impacted.
"The Office for Civil Rights will continue to investigate complaints and vigorously enforce federal civil rights laws," Biedermann said.
"This administration may claim to be stopping waste and fraud, but it is clear that their only mission is to take away the necessary services, resources, and funding that students and their families need," James, New York's attorney general and a vocal Trump critic, said in a statement on Thursday. "This outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal."
The lawsuit comes just days after the Trump administration formally stripped James of her security clearances.
The other blue states suing the administration include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
The suit points to former President Ronald Reagan's attempts to close the department, claiming that the efforts reflect "the uncontroversial understanding that only Congress may abolish an agency it created."
McMahon, during her confirmation hearing in February, acknowledged that the administration would need Congressional approval in order to eliminate the department.
"The federal government does not control education, the states do, local school boards do. This is about opportunity," McMahon told Fox News' Laura Ingraham amid the workforce cuts. "That is why so many people are so mad about it, because they’re just taking opportunity away from kids who don’t have it."
After the State Department determined nine Americans are being held hostage by Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, Jordan Goudreau, a former U.S. Army Green Beret and Venezuela expert, is sounding the alarm about a deeper national security problem at play.
Goudreau, who helped lead an unsuccessful paramilitary attempt to overthrow the Maduro regime in 2020, told Fox News Digital it is "very reasonable to believe" that foreign actors, including China, have a presence in Venezuela and could be using the South American dictator to conduct "asymmetric warfare" on the United States.
This comes after a spokesperson for the State Department revealed last week that Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that Maduro’s government is holding nine Americans hostage under "questionable circumstances and without respect for their rights," according to Reuters.
The State Department spokesperson said, "All Americans unjustly detained by the Maduro regime must be released immediately" and noted that the U.S. "continues our efforts to secure the release of any remaining Americans unjustly detained by the regime in Venezuela."
According to Goudreau, the Venezuelan government has a pattern of cooperating with U.S. enemies such as Russia and China, which represents a "clear and present danger" to U.S. national security.
Goudreau pointed to the Monroe Doctrine, an 1823 proclamation that said America would not allow foreign enemies in the Western Hemisphere as "one of the reasons Venezuela is significant."
He said there is evidence China is supplying Venezuela with some of the chemical materials needed to manufacture fentanyl, which is then distributed throughout the U.S. by Maduro agents, including the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua (TdA).
TdA is an international gang that has unleashed a wave of terror across U.S. cities that has included taking over entire apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. The group was recently designated a foreign terrorist organization by the Department of State.
Through these networks, Goudreau said, Maduro can "flood the United States with fentanyl."
"Because he has individuals who have access and placement [in the United States], whether it's Tren de Aragua or whoever, he obviously has agents in the United States who are moving product, moving fentanyl and things of that nature, killing Americans. So, this is the obvious threat we’ve seen this over the last four years," Goudreau explained.
He acknowledged recent efforts to shut the border and crack down on illegal immigration have helped, but he said the threat still exists.
Despite this, Goudreau cautioned against any sudden moves by the Trump administration to help the Venezuelan resistance movement against Maduro.
"Everybody wants to create a kind of clarity, but this is an incredibly complex situation. It's not going to get fixed overnight," he said.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., was heard screaming inside Democratic senators' private lunch on Thursday amid ongoing debate over the looming government shutdown.
Democrats remained tight-lipped as they left the meeting, which lasted over an hour, but Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters: "You'll hear from me soon."
Senate Democrats are in disagreement over how to proceed on the House-passed stopgap spending bill to avert a government shutdown, with some inclined to help advance it and others apparently willing to risk a lapse in funding.
"They’ve been debating what to do, and there’s been people who feel strongly on both sides," a Democratic source familiar told Fox News Digital, in reference to several lengthy Senate Democratic caucus meetings in the past couple days.
The senators have remained tight-lipped about the content of the meetings.
As of Thursday afternoon, multiple lawmakers, including Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., posted videos to inform social media that they were voting against the short-term spending bill, or continuing resolution (CR).
"I've seen the videos that they're going to shut it down," Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a staunch advocate of keeping the government open, told reporters.
"I'm like, that's spicy. Spicy, I don't know," he said sarcastically. "I don't know if they'll do it or not."
According to Fetterman, "Any party should never shut the government down."
He said it would be "a gift for the Republicans" for Democrats to block the House-passed CR. "In fact, if anything, I think, they're effectively daring us to do that."
The Pennsylvania Democrat further criticized his colleagues, recalling, "It wasn't that long ago before we were lecturing that you can never shut the government down. So that's kind of inconsistent."
"We can all agree that it's not a great CR, but that's where we are and that's the choice."
Warner defended himself to reporters Thursday, explaining there are "no good choices."
Asked if he thought a shutdown would be better for his constituents in Virginia, he said, "I'm saying both are awful."
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., who serves a state won by President Donald Trump, said he hasn't "made a decision" on the House's short-term spending bill.
He claimed the bill has "significant problems," also noting he is concerned "things could actually get worse" due to the CR, in reference to the administration's collaboration with Elon Musk.
"I also recognize that government shutdowns are not good," Kelly added.
Shortly afterward, Kelly shared a post on X, revealing he won't support the spending bill. "I cannot vote for the Republican plan to give unchecked power to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. I told Arizonans I’d stand up when it was right for our state and our country, and this is one of those moments," the post read.
"Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass. We should vote on that," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in floor remarks on Wednesday.
The leader's office did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital on whether the caucus is in fact unified.
Asked about the claim of unity, Kelly referred reporters to Schumer's office.
Fetterman, who openly disagrees with many of his colleagues on the House-passed stopgap bill, remarked that Schumer is "entitled to his own views," but said, "I've been consistent with mine."
New legislation aims to penalize college campuses that enable protest encampments, which were a widespread phenomenon last year as a means of protesting the war between Israel and Hamas.
The "No Tax Dollars for Colleges Encampments Act," sponsored by Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., would stop federal taxpayer dollars from going to schools that do not properly share policies about how they handle cases of "civil disturbance" by changing the Higher Education Act of 1965.
"Many of our ‘elite’ academic institutions have become hotbeds for antisemitism and pro-terror ideologies," Banks said in a statement.
"My bill holds these universities accountable and prevents American tax dollars from being wasted on institutions that act as safe havens for anti-American harassment and violence," the senator added.
Banks’ bill is just one aspect of a broader crackdown on campuses, public or private, for how it handled protests that in many instances targeted Jewish students or made them feel unsafe on campuses.
The Trump White House scrapped $400 million in federal funding that went toward Columbia University, which gained nationwide attention for its encampment that proponents said was in support of Gaza. A key figure in those protests, Mahmoud Khalil, is currently being held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as he was in the country under a student visa. President Donald Trump said in a post to Truth Social earlier this week it is "the first arrest of many to come."
"Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University," President Donald Trump stated in the post about the student, which has since led to protests.
"We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it. Many are not students, they are paid agitators. We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again," he added.
Meanwhile, the Department of Education is now investigating 60 universities around the country for possible Title VI as it relates to antisemitism.
"The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better," Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.
"U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege, and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws," she continued.
Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., the first openly transgender member of Congress, slammed the Republicans on Thursday, accusing them of focusing more on "culture war issues" than the American people.
"I appear to live rent-free in the minds of some of my Republican colleagues," McBride said. The Delaware lawmaker later added that "the Republican Party is obsessed with culture war issues. It is weird and it is bizarre."
On Tuesday, Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, abruptly adjourned a congressional hearing after clashing with Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., over introducing the Delaware lawmaker as "Mr. McBride." Keating demanded Self re-introduce McBride "the right way" and threatened to leave if Self did not do so. Rather than say "Ms. McBride," the Texas Republican ended the hearing.
Self later said he refused to use female terms to refer to McBride because "I don't have to participate in his fantasy."
McBride was also introduced as "the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. McBride" in the House chamber in early February. That time it was Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., who made a point of using the male title to refer to McBride. While the Delaware Democrat did not respond, a subsequent speaker, Rep. Nanette Barragán, D- Calif., called Miller "Mr. Speaker" before giving her speech.
In November 2024, before McBride was even sworn-in, Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., faced backlash for trying to ban men who identify as women from women’s restrooms on Capitol Hill.
"This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing," McBride said in a statement at the time.
Upon his return to the Oval Office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it the official policy of the U.S. that two sexes, male and female, are recognized and "are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality."
The president also mentioned the order in his address to a joint session of Congress earlier this month.
Fox News Digital's Alex Nitzberg and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to intervene and allow a narrow version of his executive order banning birthright citizenship to move forward, challenging three nationwide injunctions brought in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state.
Judges in those states immediately moved to block Trump’s order banning birthright citizenship, which he signed on his first day in office. All three courts blocked the ruling nationwide – something the Trump administration argues is overly broad.
In the court filing Thursday, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris said that the courts had gone too far, and asked the Supreme Court justices to limit the scope of the rulings to cover only individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts.
"These cases – which involve challenges to the President's January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border," Harris wrote.
"But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a 'modest' request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purpor[t] to cover every person in the country,' limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts' power."
To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it from taking effect.
The Department of Justice, for its part, has sought to characterize the order as an "integral part of President Trump’s broader effort to repair the United States’ immigration system, and to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border."
This is a breaking news story. Check back shortly for updates.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week decided to take up a case challenging a Colorado law banning so-called "conversion therapy" after a licensed Christian therapist, Kaley Chiles, claimed the law violated her First Amendment rights.
The case in question, Chiles v. Salazar, comes less than two years after the Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case challenging a law in Washington state that bars licensed therapists from practicing "conversion therapy" on minors. In that case, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the opinion to not take it up, saying they would have granted it review.
"A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex," the Supreme Court noted in its writ of certiorari accepting the case. "Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express."
According to the writ, the question to be considered at oral arguments before the court is, "Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause."
Heritage Foundation legal scholar Sarah Parshall Perry said the law is a "very clear First Amendment violation" and that the state legislature has essentially set up a "constitutional challenge based on viewpoint discrimination."
"The state of Colorado has averred that the legislature has determined that the standard of care for these individuals should not be anything other than affirmation of their desires for homosexual orientation or a divergent gender identity, and this herein really lies the rub," Perry told Fox News Digital in an interview. "and that's exactly how the petitioner, Kaley Chiles, has presented it here. She said, essentially, in layman's terms, on the one side, you're allowing conversations to do nothing but affirm."
The Colorado Attorney General’s Office filed an amicus brief in support of the state's Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which was enacted in 2019. The legislation specifically prevents mental health professionals from engaging in "conversion therapy" with minors.
"Conversion therapy," according to the legislation, is defined as "any practice or treatment by a licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."
The law says that "conversion therapy" does not include counseling that helps individuals explore their gender identity, receive social support, or cope with personal challenges, as long as the counseling does not attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The law also permits assistance for individuals undergoing gender transition, as long as the counseling is not focused on altering their sexual orientation or gender identity.
"In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado’s judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we’re committed to defending it," Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement about the case.
While this is one of several recent cases SCOTUS has accepted to hear that deals with gender ideology issues – a culture war issue President Donald Trump has weighed in on through several executive actions since taking office – it also bucked several high-profile petitions last week, including Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and Rhode Island’s ban of high-capacity magazines.
"It's not in any way emblematic of the fact that there is a conservative in the White House, simply because these justices, three of them, have been appointed by this particular POTUS, I don't think has any bearing one way or the other, and they have been very strong on the First Amendment," Perry said. "This, to my mind, should be a very easy case."
FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., has sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) calling for an investigation into ActBlue, the main fundraising platform for the Democratic Party, over concerns the platform had "been used to skirt the integrity of federal campaign finance laws."
"In 2024, President Biden’s Treasury Department found hundreds of suspicious transactions with ActBlue reported by banks," Biggs said in his letter to FBI Director Kash Patel on Thursday.
"The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration have been investigating these allegations of misconduct. But the previous Administration has stalled access to the necessary documents. This week, Oversight Chairman Comer and Administration Chairman Stiles have renewed their request with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent."
The letter cited Republican concerns that ActBlue’s verification policies could potentially allow foreign actors in countries like China, Venezuela and Russia to influence elections with straw donations.
Biggs also pointed out in his letter that nineteen state attorneys general across the country have made inquiries into ActBlue over a variety of allegations, including fraud, money laundering, fraudulent and counterfeit use of credit and debit cards, and patterns of contributions that are suspicious.
"It must be emphasized that these allegations, were they to prove true, would indicate a serious threat to the integrity of our elections, besides the victimization of American citizens," Biggs wrote to Patel. "The gravity of the allegations and their implications demand a thorough and vigorous investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We strongly urge an inquiry into ActBlue."
Fox News Digital reached out to ActBlue for comment but did not receive a response.
"The allegations against ActBlue are alarming and, if true, threaten the integrity of our Republic," Biggs told Fox News Digital. "I’m thankful for the work Director Patel is doing to restore our justice system, and I look forward to working with him to uncover the truth about ActBlue."
Republicans on the Committee on House Administration and other GOP officials have for months accused ActBlue of lax donor verification standards.
"Following widespread allegations of fraudulent donations being reported to the FEC by ActBlue, one of the largest fundraising platforms in the country, this emergency rulemaking is necessary to reassure the American people that ActBlue is taking the necessary steps to protect its donors," Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said last year.
House Republicans subpoenaed ActBlue last October in what they said at the time was a bid to "safeguard our nation’s elections" and "close loopholes in our campaign finance system," including contributions from donors whose identities were not as stringently vetted.
ActBlue told Newsweek in response to the Republican probes, "This investigation is nothing more than a partisan political attack and scare tactic to undermine the power of Democratic and progressive small-dollar donors. We welcome the opportunity to respond to these frivolous claims."
In a press release earlier this week when a letter to the Treasury Department was sent, the House Oversight Committee said the Biden administration "intentionally stonewalled" its work looking into ActBlue.
"The Committees remain concerned with recent reports suggesting fraud and evasion of campaign finance law by individuals exploiting online contribution platforms, especially ActBlue," Steil and fellow GOP Reps. James Comer of Kentucky and Nick Langworthy of New York wrote.
"Until recently, ActBlue had not implemented standard procedures to guard against identity theft and fraud, such as by requiring a Card Verification Value (CVV) to process online transactions. The organization is also the subject of several state-level investigations stemming from allegedly fraudulent contributions made via the platform without the reported contributors’ awareness — serious allegations that, if proven true, would violate federal law."
In a letter sent by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa of California to the Treasury Department this week, first reported by the Free Press, Issa asked the Trump administration to investigate "credible allegations" that ActBlue has violated federal law by allowing terror-linked groups to use its platform.
"Despite the detailed reporting and the reasonable suspicion that our nation’s laws had been violated, the Biden-Harris Treasury Department refused to substantively address these explosive revelations," Issa wrote.
"The undeniable and continued collaboration between ActBlue Charities and terror-tied entities amounts to the enabling of terrorism and may also constitute money-laundering crimes," Issa added.
"In addition, the flagrant inability of progressive groups to address the appearance of skirting a full range of our laws – or call out the evils of Hamas and the BDS movement – raises critical questions if the activities and coalition building of ActBlue and ActBlue Charities are in reality part of a wider commitment to financing and facilitating attacks on Israel and Jewish people in America and around the globe."
ActBlue also drew the ire of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk in a Sunday morning post on X, where he blamed ActBlue-funded groups for the recent protests at Tesla dealerships from activists opposed to his work with the Trump administration.
"An investigation has found 5 ActBlue-funded groups responsible for Tesla ‘protests’: Troublemakers, Disruption Project, Rise & Resist, Indivisible Project and Democratic Socialists of America," Musk wrote.
Musk then named five ActBlue funders he believed were responsible for funding the protests, including liberal mega-donor George Soros.
Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., erupted over Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) while delivering remarks to colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee.
During a markup of bills related to providing the House with information on DOGE access to Treasury Department payment systems and the Social Security Administration, Larson turned red and shouted at Republican colleagues, "You will do whatever Elon Musk and Donald Trump tell you to do.
"Where's the independence of the committee? Where's the legislature? We're an equal branch of government," an enraged Larson yelled, "Look at the empty seats here. Where's Elon Musk?
"I'm sure he's a genius and a very credible person because of the wealth he's accumulated, but that does not put him above the law or the responsibility to come before this committee and this Congress," Larson said. "If he’s great, and all the plans and all the fraud and abuse that he found are so eminent, why isn't he here explaining it? You know why!
"Because he's out to privatize Social Security. He’s been on television the last couple of days talking exactly about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and what he intends to do — privatize it. The American people, some of them may have been born at night, but not last night."
The White House responded Thursday in a statement to Fox News Digital.
"The Democrats have no plan on how to recover from their embarrassing loss, and it shows," White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said. "Instead of working to become a party that focuses on the will of the people, they are hell-bent on keeping their heads in the sand and gaslighting on the widely supported mission of DOGE.
"Slashing waste, fraud and abuse and becoming better stewards of the American taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars might be a crime to Democrats, but it’s not a crime in a court of law."
The White House said earlier this week that President Donald Trump "will always protect Social Security, Medicare" after Musk sat down for an interview with FOX Business Monday to give a behind-the-scenes look at DOGE's work.
Democrats took issue with Musk's remarks on eliminating waste and fraud in entitlement programs, which he said account for most of federal spending.
"There’s a massive amount of fraud of, basically, people submitting Social Security numbers for Social Security benefits, unemployment, Small Business Administration loans and medical care," Musk said. "We’re trying to put a stop to all of that."
Musk also told Fox Business federal entitlement programs serve as "a mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants by essentially paying them to come here and then turning them into voters."
The White House said the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates taxpayers lose as much as $521 billion annually to fraud, "and most of that is within entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid."
Musk also said in a podcast interview with Joe Rogan last month that "Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time," another remark that drew the ire of Larson.
Larson claims the Trump administration wants to "slash and privatize" Americans’ benefits. He said during the committee markup that Musk and the White House are perpetuating a "big lie" that there is a Democratic plan "to bring illegal immigrants into the country by offering to pay them Social Security." Larson claimed, "There's not a thread of truth to any of that.
"And, yet, this unaccountable person — not a federal employee, not a volunteer — but a special person who's not had to go through Senate approval and who this committee is now saying, ‘Yes, we agree with the president. He should not be accountable. He should be able to have free rein and do whatever he wants. We will willingly follow him and do whatever he says because he's the wealthiest man in the world, and, surely, he must know how to save us from ourselves'," Larson said.
Larson said Social Security "just happens to be the No. 1 anti-poverty program for the elderly and for the children of this country," adding that Musk and Trump "aren't going to lose a moment's sleep thinking about the privatization."
The congressman and all committee Democrats introduced a resolution to compel the Trump administration to provide answers on DOGE's intentions with Social Security, but Larson claimed Republicans are trying to stop it from coming to a vote.
Senate Democrats are in disagreement over how to proceed on the House-passed stopgap spending bill to avert a government shutdown, with some inclined to help advance it and others apparently willing to risk a lapse in funding.
"They’ve been debating what to do, and there’s been people who feel strongly on both sides," a Democratic source familiar told Fox News Digital, in reference to several lengthy Senate Democratic caucus meetings in the past couple days.
The senators have remained tight-lipped about the content of the meetings.
As of Thursday afternoon, multiple lawmakers, including Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., posted videos to inform social media that they were voting against the short-term spending bill, or continuing resolution (CR).
"I've seen the videos that they're going to shut it down," Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a staunch advocate of keeping the government open, told reporters.
"I'm like, that's spicy. Spicy, I don't know," he said sarcastically. "I don't know if they'll do it or not."
According to Fetterman, "Any party should never shut the government down."
He said it would be "a gift for the Republicans" for Democrats to block the House-passed CR. "In fact, if anything, I think, they're effectively daring us to do that."
The Pennsylvania Democrat further criticized his colleagues, recalling, "It wasn't that long ago before we were lecturing that you can never shut the government down. So that's kind of inconsistent."
"We can all agree that it's not a great CR, but that's where we are and that's the choice."
Warner defended himself to reporters Thursday, explaining there are "no good choices."
Asked if he thought a shutdown would be better for his constituents in Virginia, he said, "I'm saying both are awful."
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., who serves a state won by President Donald Trump, said he hasn't "made a decision" on the House's short-term spending bill.
He claimed the bill has "significant problems," also noting he is concerned "things could actually get worse" due to the CR, in reference to the administration's collaboration with Elon Musk.
"I also recognize that government shutdowns are not good," Kelly added.
Shortly afterward, Kelly shared a post on X, revealing he won't support the spending bill. "I cannot vote for the Republican plan to give unchecked power to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. I told Arizonans I’d stand up when it was right for our state and our country, and this is one of those moments," the post read.
"Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass. We should vote on that," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in floor remarks on Wednesday.
The leader's office did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital on whether the caucus is in fact unified.
Asked about the claim of unity, Kelly referred reporters to Schumer's office.
Fetterman, who openly disagrees with many of his colleagues on the House-passed stopgap bill, remarked that Schumer is "entitled to his own views," but said, "I've been consistent with mine."
President Donald Trump remains optimistic that the U.S. will acquire Greenland, despite the fact Greenland has said it’s not interested in becoming part of the U.S.
Trump’s remarks coincide with a visit from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who said that he didn’t want to "drag NATO" into negotiations about the U.S. acquiring the Danish territory.
"I think it'll happen," Trump told reporters Thursday. "And I'm just thinking, I didn't give it much thought before, but I'm sitting with a man that could be very instrumental. You know, Mark, we need that for international security, not just security, international."
Rutte said he didn’t want to weigh in on the matter. However, he agreed with Trump that the Chinese and Russians were active in shipping routes near Greenland and stressed that Arctic countries must work with the U.S. to preserve security in the region.
"But when it comes to the High North and the Arctic, you are totally right," Rutte said. "The Chinese are now using these routes."
Trump has discussed acquiring Greenland, Canada and Panama for months — and regularly has referred to Canada as the U.S.' 51st state. Additionally, Trump asserted in a joint address to Congress March 4 that the U.S. would acquire Greenland for national and international security.
"And I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland," Trump said. "We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America."
"One way or the other, we’re going to get it," Trump said. "We will keep you safe, we will make you rich, and together, we will take Greenland to new heights."
Greenland is rich in natural resources, including oil and natural gas, and both Russia and China have bolstered their presence in the region in recent years. For example, the U.S. Navy released a "Blue Arctic" strategy in 2021 cautioning that Russia was reopening old bases in the region, and urged the sea service to operate more aggressively there as a result.
Trump has discussed the possibility of expanding American territory for months and said in a post in December 2024 on Truth Social that "the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity."
Meanwhile, leaders from Greenland, which is a territory of Denmark, pushed back on Trump’s remarks to members of Congress.
"We do not want to be Americans, nor Danes, we are Kalaallit (Greenlanders)," Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede said in a March 5 post translated by Reuters. "The Americans and their leader must understand that."
The early moves in the next White House race, at least among the Democrats, are getting underway.
Pete Buttigieg on Thursday ruled out a run for an open Democrat-held Senate seat in his adopted home state of Michigan.
And the announcement by the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, who served four years as transportation secretary in former President Biden's administration, appears to clear the path for a potential 2028 White House bid by Buttigieg.
Buttigieg highlighted that "while my own plans don’t include running for office in 2026, I remain intensely focused on consolidating, communicating, and supporting a vision" that is an alternative to what he called the "cruel chaos" of President Donald Trump's administration.
A source familiar with Buttigieg's thinking told Fox News that the former transportation secretary is in a strong possible position to run for president in 2028 and that running for either senator or Michigan governor "in 2026 would have taken that off the table."
Across the country, term-limited California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has long been suspected of harboring national ambitions, is grabbing tons of attention and millions of YouTube hits, thanks to a new and very high-profile podcast series.
The first two guests were MAGA world superstars Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.
Democrat JB Pritzker, the billionaire two-term governor of blue state Illinois and one of his party's leaders in opposing President Donald Trump's second-term agenda, will head to New Hampshire next month to headline the state party's annual fundraising gala, sparking plenty of 2028 speculation.
Trips to New Hampshire – which for over a century has held the first primary in the race for the White House – are seen as an early indicator of a politician's interest in running for the presidency in the next election.
But there's more.
There is plenty of focus on former Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced then-President Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's 2024 presidential nominee last summer after he dropped out of the race amid mounting questions over his physical and mental stamina.
Harris, who lost last November's White House election to Trump, is seriously considering a 2026 bid to succeed Newsom in her home state of California. But a run for governor in 2026 would likely derail her from making a 2028 White House bid.
A source in the former vice president's political orbit confirmed to Fox News Digital that Harris has told allies she will decide by the end of the summer about whether to launch a gubernatorial campaign.
And Harris recently made a stop in Nevada, an early-voting state on the Democrats' primary calendar.
Harris' 2024 running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, is not ruling out a White House run of his own in 2028. Walz on Friday kicks off a high-profile town hall tour in Iowa, the state that, through the 2020 cycle, kicked off the Democrats' presidential nominating calendar.
Meanwhile, three other prominent Democrats considered potential 2028 contenders, Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, on Thursday are addressing the House Democrats annual policy retreat.
Even Rahm Emanuel, the former congressman from Illinois, White House chief of staff in President Obama's administration, and Chicago mayor who most recently served as U.S. ambassador to Japan, is potentially mulling a 2028 run. Emanuel this week was the topic of a feature report by Politico.
While 2028 seems like a very long way away, the early moves in the next White House race begin, well, early for the party out of power.
That was the case for the Republicans in the 2024 cycle.
The first stop in Iowa, which continues to kick off the GOP's presidential nominating schedule, in the 2024 cycle by a potential White House contender came in March 2021 - just weeks after Biden assumed the presidency.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who eventually ended up not running for president, grabbed plenty of attention as he spoke to the Westside Conservative Club in suburban Des Moines.
"There's no sense in waiting," New Hampshire-based political strategist Lucas Meyer told Fox News. "If anyone is serious about running for president, they would probably be well served in getting after it now."
Meyer, a former president of the New Hampshire Young Democrats who chairs the advocacy group 603 Forward, called it a "wide open field" for Democrats.
"The crowd of leadership at the top of the Democratic Party isn't very deep at the moment," he observed. "There's oxygen there for someone."
FIRST ON FOX: The White House has already started mapping out how to make good on its promise to slash federal spending in preparation for a six-month government funding bill to pass through Congress.
Two people familiar with the conversations told Fox News Digital that President Donald Trump and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought are working on a strategy for impounding federal funds that Congress is expected to allocate this week, before the partial government shutdown deadline on March 14.
Trump and his allies have made no secret of their belief that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is unconstitutionally constraining the powers of the president. But the new development is a significant step toward a likely legal showdown as Democrats warn they will respond if Trump tries to bypass Congress on federal spending.
The fight could go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
It comes as Senate Republicans and Democrats are at an impasse over a Trump-backed government funding bill known as a continuing resolution (CR). The Senate GOP needs as many as eight Democrats to cross the aisle and vote for the bill, which the left has widely panned as an avenue to let Trump and Elon Musk dismantle the federal bureaucracy.
The measure is a rough extension of fiscal year (FY) 2024 funding levels, meant to carry the government through the beginning of FY 2026 on Oct. 1.
It's the third such extension since the beginning of FY 2024, but the first to take place under a fully GOP-controlled Washington.
Republicans have said it would give them more time to cobble together conservative spending bills for FY 2026, and have celebrated the CR essentially freezing government spending for a year.
Trump and House GOP leaders worked overtime convincing holdouts to vote for the CR this week, as some conservatives balked at the idea of extending Biden administration-era funding.
But the promise of Trump using Congress' funding allocations as a ceiling and not a floor ultimately played a big part in convincing conservatives.
"We appropriate, that’s an important principle. But then the chief executive can make decisions below that spending level. The chief executive can say, ‘Hey this isn't the best use of money,'" Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital in an interview this week.
Roy has been a key figure in government spending talks, acting as a liaison between conservative fiscal hawks and leaders in the House and White House.
He and Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., both agreed with Vought and Trump that the Impoundment Control Act – which was passed in response to Congress at the time believing President Richard Nixon was holding back lawful funding because he disagreed with it personally – was unconstitutional.
"The chief executive can say, ‘I don't have to buy a $500 hammer, I can buy a $100 hammer. I don't have to buy a $100 million carrier, I could buy $50 million carrier,' or whatever. He's the executive. So if that money is then spent properly to carry out the functions of government, why should you have to spend every dollar of it, right? It’s literally unconstitutional," Roy said.
Roy said he believed the same authority would apply to a Democratic president.
"By the way, I realize this means that would be true for Joe Biden or that would be true for some future Democrat, and I'm OK with that. There's always going to be some debate," Roy said. "There's going to be some contours the courts would give us. Congress might step in and clarify the law, and that might be deemed constitutional… but to blanket to say the president can’t impound, I think is facially unconstitutional."
Norman told Fox News Digital, "The 1974 impoundment act was against Richard Nixon. It’s a different day now."
He also said Trump and Vought were "going to move forward" on impoundment.
"He’s got the constitutional right to do it, so he’s going to push on with it, and thinks the courts will ultimately side with him," Norman said. "I can't get in Trump’s mind, but I know he’s hell-bent on interpreting the Constitution as his right to use impoundment."
Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who served as House Democrats' lead counsel during Trump's first impeachment, told Fox News Digital the move would be patently unconstitutional.
"It is illegal for the president to act unilaterally and either rescind or change congressionally designated funds," Goldman said.
In the event of likely court challenges – which Goldman pointed out were already going on with Trump moving to cut various programs – House Democrats would likely move to help, he said.
"We can file an amicus brief, and we likely would do that on such a critical issue of congressional power," he said.
At the same time, both Roy and Norman signaled Trump's congressional allies were discussing rescission as another avenue to spend less than the CR allocates.
The Impoundment Control Act provided a mechanism for the legislative and executive branches to enact spending cuts via specific rescissions. Such a bill would only require 51 votes in the Senate rather than the standard 60-vote threshold for passage, meaning Democrats in theory would not be needed.
"I think that they are concurrent plans, and we will use all of those tools at the appropriate time, but I say that as an observer from Congress," Roy said, noting he had no insight into White House discussions on impoundment.
Norman said Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will play a role in identifying where the funds could be found.
"There’s going to be a lot of things in it. What DOGE has done is identify, but now if he’s just going to identify and we don’t move forward on rescission – it’s gotta have some effect," he said.
It's not immediately clear if such conversations have reached House GOP leadership, however. Norman said they were "just beginning."
But lawmakers have been toying with the idea of Trump pursuing spending cuts after the CR is passed for days.
Vice President JD Vance huddled with House Republicans behind closed doors earlier this week, making an 11th hour plea for unity on the looming CR vote.
Among his pitches, people told Fox News Digital at the time, was the need to keep the government open to allow DOGE to do its work.
"We will have much more flexibility for DOGE cuts once we've had more time to identify and quantify them," one House Republican said of Vance's message.
There's also the matter of whether to repeal the Impoundment Control Act – Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., introduced a bill to do so earlier this year, and it's gathered a significant number of Republican co-sponsors.
But a senior House Republican told Fox News Digital that while it was "on the table," it's not likely that the Senate's 53 Republicans will get enough help from Democrats to reach 60 votes.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and OMB for comment, but did not receive a response by press time.
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to reinstate thousands of probationary workers who were let go in recent mass firings from six different agencies, including the Department of Defense.
The administration is expected to file an appeal against the ruling by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco.
The judge’s order came during a federal court hearing over a lawsuit from labor unions and other groups challenging the mass termination being directed by the Office of Personnel Management.
Those plaintiffs said it violates Administrative Procedure Act requirements and congressional laws that deal with agency hiring and firing practices.
The judge earlier ruled OPM lacked the power to fire workers, including probationary employees who normally have less than a year of civil service on the job.
The agencies affected included Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs.
Alsup appeared incredibly frustrated with the government during the hearing Thursday, saying "this is a sham" at least four times.
He added that by not having anyone from OPM there to testify today, it was preventing them from getting to the truth.
Alfonso Little, the executive vice president of a local chapter of the American Federation Of Government Employees, told Fox News following the hearing Thursday that he thought the judge's ruling was "outstanding."
"The judge made a very, very good determination in what was going on with the issues with the probationary employees who were working at different agencies," he said. "I just hope those people who were laid off... I hope they get their jobs back."
Before issuing his ruling Thursday, Alsup cited a report of an employee for the U.S. Forest Service who was told at the time of her firing that she was let go based on performance, when she actually had a good performance record.
Alsup called it a "sad, sad day" when the U.S. government would fire an employee for performance when that is a lie, adding that "it should have not been done in our country" and "it’s a sham."
In late February, Alsup said "OPM does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe," to hire or fire workers except its own, the Associated Press reported.
"AFGE is pleased with Judge Alsup’s order to immediately reinstate tens of thousands of probationary federal employees who were illegally fired from their jobs by an administration hellbent on crippling federal agencies and their work on behalf of the American public," Everett Kelley, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, said following Thursday's decision. "We are grateful for these employees and the critical work they do, and AFGE will keep fighting until all federal employees who were unjustly and illegally fired are given their jobs back."
Fox News' Michael Lundin contributed to this report.
The California Department of Finance cleared a $3.44 billion loan to make up for a gap in Medi-Cal spending, which critics say is due to illegal immigrant healthcare costs, whereas the governor’s office argues it’s not out of the ordinary.
It was revealed a few weeks ago that the state had $6 billion in expected costs for Medi-Cal, but it is now roughly $9.5 billion. This comes after it became state law to allow people to qualify for the program regardless of their immigration status. Medi-Cal is the state's Medicaid system for certain Golden State residents, which takes both federal and state taxpayer dollars, according to a state government website.
Critics of allowing the program’s availability to those who are in the country illegally strongly believe it is cause for concern.
"Gov. Gavin Newsom lied and cooked the books to gift all illegal immigrants free healthcare and now has stuck California taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar bill," Rep. Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"This is so egregious that he needs to resign," he continued.
DeMaio was the lawmaker who, in a hearing last month, questioned a state budget official who ended up revealing the higher spending figure for MediCal. DeMaio was later removed from the California State Assembly budget committee.
However, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said that California is not the only state facing spending issues with their state-based healthcare programs, such as Pennsylvania, Colorado and Indiana.
"This isn’t new — as the administration already outlined in the Governor’s January budget proposal, additional funding is needed to support Medi-Cal," Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the governor told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"Rising Medicaid costs are a national challenge, affecting both red and blue states alike. This is not unique to California."
The border state continues to face scrutiny for its policies pertaining to people in the country illegally, whether it is for healthcare eligibility or "sanctuary" policies.
Federal agencies are required to submit layoff plans to the White House and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Thursday as the Trump administration works to slim down and streamline the federal government.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 11 that ordered federal agency leaders to "undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force." The order focused on removing employees in offices suspended or closed by the Trump administration, roles that were considered nonessential during government shutdowns and temporary employees.
The executive order stipulated that the layoff plans would not affect roles related to "public safety, immigration enforcement, or law enforcement."
On Feb. 26, the Office of Management and Budget and OPM — which works as the federal government’s human resources office — issued guidance to agency heads that they had until March 13 to submit "Agency Reorganization Plans" to comply with the large-scale reductions in force order.
"The federal government is costly, inefficient, and deeply in debt," the OPM and OMB guidance read. "At the same time, it is not producing results for the American public. Instead, tax dollars are being siphoned off to fund unproductive and unnecessary programs that benefit radical interest groups while hurting hardworking American citizens. The American people registered their verdict on the bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy on November 5, 2024, by voting for President Trump and his promises to sweepingly reform the federal government."
Some agency heads have already submitted plans or announced how they plan to gut their respective departments. The Department of Education, for example, announced on Tuesday that it was rolling out its reduction in force plan that impacted nearly 50% of its staff, translating to roughly 1,300 terminations.
"Today’s reduction in force reflects the Department of Education’s commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents and teachers," Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said. "I appreciate the work of the dedicated public servants and their contributions to the Department. This is a significant step toward restoring the greatness of the United States education system."
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced Wednesday he will shutter the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, the Office of Inclusive Excellence and the Environmental Justice Division within EPA regional offices to come into compliance with the Trump order.
NASA announced Monday it will shutter three offices — the Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy, the Office of the Chief Scientist and the Diversity Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility office — as part of a "phased reduction in force."
The Department of Veterans Affairs began firing employees earlier in March after announcing in February that it would lay off about 76,000 employees as part of its mission to return staffing levels to those under the first Trump administration in 2019.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced in March that it was laying off more than 1,000 of its employees, accounting for roughly 20% of its total staff.
The IRS is in the midst of firing roughly 12,000 employees — most of whom were hired under the Biden administration — while the CIA is firing an undisclosed number of probationary employees. The Pentagon fired roughly 5,400 probationary employees in February.
Probationary employees are individuals who have not yet secured permanent employment, including new hires and those who had recently been moved to a new role within the government.
Cabinet secretaries and agency leaders are working alongside the Department of Government Efficiency, which is led by Elon Musk, to cut spending and reduce the overall federal workforce, though the agency leaders have final say over terminations.
The Thursday deadline comes after the administration already offered the roughly two million employees who were on the federal payroll a buyout offer, known as the "Fork in the Road" offer. Roughly 75,000 employees took the offer by the Feb. 12 deadline, which provided them with eight months of pay and benefits.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House on Thursday for additional comment on the layoff plans but did not immediately receive a reply.
The OPM and OMB directive noted that Social Security, Medicare and veterans health care will not be affected by the Thursday deadline, directing appropriate agency heads to not carry out layoffs until the two offices can review plans for such terminations.
Trump was asked about the mass layoffs from the Oval Office on Wednesday, including bucking the notion that the terminations will weaken the labor market.
"I think the labor market's going to be fantastic," Trump told the media when asked about a potentially weakened labor market. "But it's going to have high-paying manufacturing jobs as opposed to government jobs. We had too many people in government. You can't just do that. We had many, many, too many. This is for 40 years, you know, this isn't just now. This built up and got worse and worse, and they just hire more and more people."
Trump campaigned on, and has championed, states having broader authority over policies and issues stretching from abortion access, to disaster relief preparation and response to education.
The president on Wednesday said the Department of Education, specifically, needs to shift from the federal level to allow states individual control over their respective systems, arguing that the U.S. has academically dragged behind nations such as Norway and China.
"We want the education to be given by the states," he said. "It'll be much better. It'll move us to the top of the list from the bottom of the list and actually save us money."
Leading House Democrats, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and "Squad" member Rashida Tlaib, railed against the Department of Government Efficiency’s "cruel" cuts at a healthcare rally outside the Capitol, demanding the Trump administration not make "even a minor cut to Medicaid."
For weeks now, Democrats have been pushing a narrative that the Trump administration is planning massive cuts to government health programs, including ObamaCare, Medicare and Medicaid.
Several hundred protesters joined the rally organized by left-leaning groups, including the Women’s March, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and National Nurses United.
Speaking during the rally, Pelosi said: "They said they were going to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. In fact, that guy who’s in the White House said, ‘ObamaCare sucks,’ crude as he is. But nonetheless, we said it doesn’t suck, it cures."
"They say they want to cut waste, fraud and abuse. We’ve always done that. We have oversight. We know what we’re doing," she said. "Firing half the people at the Department of Education, that’s not waste, fraud and abuse, that’s brutal."
She also slammed the continuing resolution budget bill passed by House Republicans this week.
"What they did in that bill that passed the House last night was disgraceful, it was harmful, it was deadly for some people," she said.
Pelosi said Democratic leadership is planning a national messaging push to "save our Medicaid."
"Our leadership under Hakeem Jeffries and Catherine Clarke, our leadership next week we will be having a day all over the country, one word, ‘Medicaid,’ ‘Save our Medicaid," she said.
Tlaib, who represents Detroit, accused the Trump administration and Republicans of wanting to make cuts to healthcare to provide tax cuts to billionaires.
"Here they are choosing the billionaires and the corporations over the people they’re supposed to represent," she said. "Republicans want to ram through not millions but $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for billionaires and profit corporations. You know, corporate greed kills and it’s a disease in our country."
"You know I have colleagues who will go up and say, ‘This budget proposal doesn’t have the word Medicaid in it.’ Yeah, OK, we ain’t stupid. We understand what nearly a trillion dollars out of energy and commerce committee really means. Stop lying to the American people," she shouted. "It’s obvious to me that they prefer to put profits before people and, in order to pay for these tax breaks, giving away our money, they want to rip healthcare away from millions of our families. It is shameful."
