Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Elon Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO and leader of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) should be demonized, in an apparent escalation of their feud.
Walz was speaking at a town hall in Youngstown, Ohio, when he laid into Musk, whom he has sharply criticized before. He was talking about social media and the Democratic Party's view on success when he brought up the billionaire tech mogul.
"We're creating a false narrative for them that everybody is super rich and has Lamborghinis and life is easy," Walz told the crowd. "But that's what we're going to have to figure out in our society about social media and all those things."
"But I don't think we should be the party that demonizes someone because they're able to afford something," he added. "What we should demonize is someone like Elon Musk and those people that do that. That's different."
Earlier, Walz said Democrats should be conveying a message that it's "OK to be successful" and that success should be celebrated.
"What my beef is, once you get successful, don't be a greedy bastard and not pay your taxes," he said.
The feud began last month when Walz joked that he regularly checks Tesla stock, which was down amid a string of vandalism incidents targeting the electric vehicle company.
"On the iPhone, they've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day," Walz said, referencing Tesla's stock slump as he held up his iPhone during a Wisconsin town hall titled, "The People vs Musk."
Musk responded by turning the tables on the Democratic governor with a diss about his 2024 election loss.
"Sometimes when I need a little boost, I look at the @JDVance portrait in the White House and thank the Lord," Musk wrote in response to Walz's remark.
The White House joined in on hitting back at Walz's comment regarding the billionaire's company.
"When we need a little boost during the day at the White House, we walk around the corner from our office and admire these beautiful portraits," Trump's Rapid Response team wrote in a social media post.
Fox News Digital's Aubrie Spady contributed to this report.
It was a split screen Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill.
One eye on the markets. The other eye on the Senate testimony of U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
"Do you think your remarks will alter the markets in any way?" yours truly asked Greer as he walked to the hearing room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
"I'm just going to respond to the senators. Be candid as I can be," replied Greer.
The public has heard a lot about tariffs from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
They’ve heard a lot about tariffs from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
They’ve heard even more about tariffs from White House advisor Peter Navarro.
But until Tuesday morning, there was little said about tariffs from the man in charge of the administration’s trade policy: Jamieson Greer.
"The president's strategy is already bearing fruit," testified Greer. "Nearly 50 countries have approached me personally to discuss the president's new policy and explore how to achieve reciprocity."
Democrats were dubious at Greer’s suggestion. Yes, nations may be willing to negotiate. But carving out sophisticated trade agreements with nations just sanctioned by the U.S. takes time.
"You’re telling us you have nearly 50 countries coming to you, approaching you to enter into negotiation, and you think that you can do that overnight?" asked Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev. "You're pretty superhuman here, if that's the case."
"Even if inflation hits Americans pocketbooks at 10% because of these tariffs, then the Trump administration is still going to go charging ahead?" asked Hassan.
"Senator, your hypotheticals are not consistent with the history we have seen with tariffs," replied Greer.
"My hypotheticals are based on the fact that a lot of Americans are looking at their 401(k)’s today and wondering, how much of a lifestyle change they are going to have to have or whether they're going to be able to retire when they plan to," shot back Hassan. "This has been a haphazard, incompetent effort. And it's showing."
After rough showings, the markets actually shot up at the opening bell Tuesday – before Greer spoke. It didn’t appear that anything Greer told senators resonated positively or negatively on Wall Street. But lawmakers were well attuned to the market fluctuations.
Especially as they started to hear from constituents.
"But this is a different type of uncertainty, though, Senator," I countered.
"Is it going to have to have an impact on your capital markets? Well, yes. Duh. And it's not fun. It's very, very painful. Whether this will have a happy ending or a sad ending depends in large part what President Trump does next," said Kennedy.
And that’s the key to the entire enterprise. It doesn’t matter what Lutnick does. Or Bessent. Or Navarro. And not Greer. For better or worse, this is President Trump’s baby. Only he can move markets. And potentially trade deals. And that’s certainly what unfolded in recent days.
Democrats – and some Republicans – excoriated the President for unilaterally imposing the tariffs. Lawmakers asked the reasoning for imposing the tariffs. And they argued that the tariffs should have been an issue which came to Capitol Hill.
"Where was the consultation with Congress about this? Where is the homework? You know, Greek and Roman letters thrown on a plaque doesn't mean a strategy that you've informed Congress on," asked Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee. "And part of the question is, where's the homework done by the administration to not misconstrue the authority that was given?"
Cantwell may not have received a sufficient answer from the Trump Administration on the rationale. But Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., answered the other part of the question about why the President cut Congress out of the loop.
"Let's not pretend that this is anything other than the President exercising the statutory authority Congress has given him for decades," said Hawley. "Because Congress didn't want to do tariffs, they didn't want to do trade, it was too hot. They wanted the President to hold the hot potato. So now you've got a President who's happy to do that."
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares that Congress has the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative says the U.S. is a signatory to more than 14 total trade pacts. Congress has ratified several of those in recent years. That includes the "USMCA." That’s a trade pact President Trump pushed – alongside former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in 2020 for the U.S., Mexico and Canada. That deal replaced "NAFTA" – the North American Free Trade Agreement – approved by Congress in 1993. Congress also greenlighted "CAFTA" – the Central American Free Trade Agreement – in 2005.
So Congress has engaged in trade somewhat in recent decades. But maybe not as much as it should have.
Greer appeared for a second time on Capitol Hill Wednesday, testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee.
"Any deal that you do, are you going to bring that to Congress for a vote?" asked Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash.,
"We'll do what the law requires. Some of it's consultation. Some requires a vote. So we'll follow the law," replied Greer.
But DelBene pressed Greer on the President using emergency powers on the tariffs. She quoted from the statute.
"It states, ‘the President, in every possible instance, shall consult with Congress before exercising any powers.’" said DelBene. "That didn't happen."
Greer said he called Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., and the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.
"I argue that we did not have that consultation," said DelBene, who sits on the trade subcommittee.
But less than two hours later – with Greer still testifying – President Trump announced he was now pausing most tariffs for three months. But still imposing steep tariffs on China.
Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., was apoplectic.
"He announced it on a tweet?" asked an incredulous Horsford of Greer. "WTF? Who's in charge?"
"The President of United States is in charge," stated Greer.
"And what do you know about those details?" countered Horsford. "It looks like your boss just pulled the rug out from under you."
Horsford later asked if what the President executed was "market manipulation." Greer said it wasn’t.
So when the hearing adjourned, yours truly and Nikole Killion of CBS pursued Greer to get more clarity on the President’s new strategy.
"Can you explain why you were caught flat-footed about the change in the trade policy? Were you aware of any of this?" I asked Greer before he stepped into an anteroom.
We resumed the quest in the hall.
"Were you not told about this?" I asked.
"Did you know before your testimony?" added Killion.
"I'll just refer you to my testimony," said Greer.
"Your testimony did not reflect what it was implemented during the hearing," I followed up.
"I'll just refer you to my testimony," Greer repeated.
"But that's inconsistent with the decision of the president," I said.
An aide to Greer then intervened.
"I think the Ambassador was extremely clear in his testimony about what was going on, and the president could make the choice," the aide interjected.
"Explain why you don't think that this was market manipulation. You said it wasn't," I followed up.
"Were you aware that there would be a pause before you came here to Capitol Hill? Yes or no? Yes or No, sir?" continued Killion.
Greer then disappeared down a winding staircase in the Longworth House Office Building.
Let’s shift back to the Senate hearing on Tuesday with Greer.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., could face a competitive reelection bid next year. He asked a pointed question to Greer.
"Whose throat do I get to choke if this proves to be wrong?" asked Tillis.
"Well, Senator, you can certainly always talk to me," replied Greer.
"So if you own this decision, I'll look to you to figure out if we're going to be successful," said Tillis. "If you don't own the decision, I'm just trying to figure out who's throat I get to choke if it's wrong."
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent denied the president's move to implement a pause on his tariffs was the result of declines in the financial markets, which have been causing great concern for investors.
The comments came after the president issued a pause Wednesday for 75 different countries, which, according to the Trump administration, have shown a willingness to negotiate trade deals in good faith with the United States. Simultaneously, the Trump administration increased its tariff rates on Chinese goods to 125%, which came after China imposed tariffs of its own in response to Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff increase last week.
"This was driven by the president's strategy. He and I had a long talk on Saturday and this was his strategy all along," Bessent responded when asked if the tariff pause was the result of market declines. The Treasury Secretary also cited an "imbalance" in the responses from various countries, particularly China, in regard to their willingness to negotiate new trade deals.
"It is just a processing problem," Bessent said when asked if the market whiplash was a catalyst for the pause. "Each one of these solutions is going to be bespoke. It is going to take some time, and President Trump wants to be personally involved, so that's why we are hitting the 90-day pause."
Meanwhile, Bessent questioned claims from reporters that the bond market was "cratering" and said the information in front of him did not indicate as much. Trump, who also fielded questions Wednesday about the market volatility following his tariffs, similarly described the current bond market as "beautiful."
"I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy," Trump told reporters Wednesday about his view on the market declines in relation to his tariffs. "[Markets] went from, you know, pretty moderate today, but over the last few days, it looked pretty glum, to, I guess, they say it was the biggest day in financial history. That's a pretty big change."
"I think the word would be flexible," Trump added. "You have to be flexible."
Stocks did jump back up on Tuesday before sliding back down once again before the markets closed that evening. However, on Wednesday, as Trump made his announcement about the tariff pauses, stocks rallied again, with the S&P 500 seeing its best day since 2008, according to Market Watch.
Over the weekend, the president told Americans concerned about the ongoing market volatility to "hang tough," adding that his plan is already working with trillions of dollars already being poured into the U.S. economy.
"HANG TOUGH, it won’t be easy, but the end result will be historic," Trump wrote Saturday in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. "We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!"
The White House declined to comment for this story.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is delaying a key vote on legislation aimed at advancing President Donald Trump's agenda in the face of a likely rebellion on Wednesday evening.
It comes as fiscal hawks in the lower chamber have raised alarms at the Senate's version of the plan, which guarantees far fewer spending cuts than the House's initial offering.
Johnson told reporters the vote will now take place on Thursday, the last scheduled day in session for House lawmakers before a two-week recess. The speaker has not ruled out keeping lawmakers in Washington until Friday, Fox News Digital was told, or until the matter is sorted.
The gap between the two versions is significant; the House version that passed in late February calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, while the Senate's plan mandates at least $4 billion.
Some conservatives are also wary of congressional leaders looking to use the current policy baseline to factor the total amount of dollars the bill will add to the federal deficit. The current policy baseline allows lawmakers to essentially zero out the cost of extending Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) because they are already in effect.
"We've got to have something more substantive out of the Senate. If you were going to sell your house, and I offered you a third of the price, you would laugh," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., one of the earliest holdouts, told reporters on Wednesday.
Trump has directed Republicans to work on "one big, beautiful bill" to advance his agenda on border security, defense, energy and taxes.
Such a measure is largely only possible via the budget reconciliation process. Traditionally used when one party controls all three branches of government, reconciliation lowers the Senate's threshold for passage of certain fiscal measures from 60 votes to 51. As a result, it has been used to pass broad policy changes in one or two massive pieces of legislation.
The first step traditionally involves both chambers of Congress passing an identical "framework" with instructions for relevant committees to hash out policy priorities in line with the spending levels in the initial legislation.
The House passed its own version of the reconciliation framework earlier this year, while the Senate passed an amended version last week. House GOP leaders now believe that voting on the Senate's plan will allow Republicans to enter the next step of crafting policy.
"Why does President Trump call it one big, beautiful bill? Because it does a lot of critically important things, all in one bill, that help get this country back on a strong footing. And what else it does is it produces incredibly needed savings," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said during debate on the bill.
The legislation as laid out would add more money for border security including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as some new funding for defense.
Republicans are also looking to repeal significant portions of former President Joe Biden's green energy policies, and institute new Trump policies like eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages.
But House conservatives had demanded added assurances from the Senate to show they are serious about cutting spending.
The House and Senate must pass identical versions of the final bill before it can get to Trump's desk to be signed into law.
They must do so before the end of this year, when Trump's TCJA tax cuts expire – potentially raising taxes on millions of Americans.
Trump himself worked to persuade holdouts both in a smaller-scale White House meeting on Tuesday and in public remarks at the National Republican Congressional Committee.
He also fired off multiple Truth Social posts pushing House Republicans to support the measure, even as conservatives argued it would not go far enough in fulfilling his own agenda.
"Republicans, it is more important now, than ever, that we pass THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL. The USA will Soar like never before!!!" one of the posts read.
The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday to limit federal district judges' ability to affect Trump administration policies on a national scale.
The No Rogue Rulings Act, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., passed the House and limits district courts' power to issue U.S.-wide injunctions, instead forcing them to focus their scope on the parties directly affected in most cases.
All but one Republican lawmaker voted for the bill, which passed 219 to 213. No Democrats voted in favor.
The Trump administration has faced more than 15 nationwide injunctions since the Republican commander-in-chief took office, targeting a wide range of President Donald Trump's policies, from birthright citizenship reform to anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
Issa himself was confident the bill would pass, telling Fox News Digital on Tuesday morning, "We've got the votes."
He was less certain of the bill getting Democratic support, though he noted former Biden administration solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar made her own complaints about district judges' powers during the previous White House term.
"We're hoping some people look at it on its merits rather than its politics," Issa said.
Rep. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., who has an amendment on the bill aimed at limiting plaintiffs' ability to "judge shop" cases to favorable districts, told Fox News Digital before the vote, "A lot of things get called commonsense around here, but this one genuinely is."
"The basic policy of trying to rein in the overuse of nationwide injunctions was supported by Democrats before. It's supported by Republicans now, and I'm hoping [this vote will] be supported by both," he said.
Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, who, like Schmidt and Issa, is a House Judiciary Committee member, told Fox News Digital after the bill's passage, "Many Democrat-appointed lower court judges have conducted themselves like activist liberal lawyers in robes while attempting to stop President Trump's nationwide reforms. The No Rogue Rulings Act limits this unchecked power."
Another GOP lawmaker, Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital, "More than 77 million Americans voted for [Trump's] pro-American policies and want to see them implemented quickly. There is no reason that activist judges whose authority does not extend nationally should be allowed to completely stop [his] agenda."
Republicans' unity on the issue comes despite some early divisions over how to hit back at what they have called "rogue" and "activist" judges.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., who supported impeachment and Issa's bill, told Fox News Digital, "The judicial vendetta against President Trump’s agenda needs to be checked. Nationwide injunctions by activists judges have stood in the way of the American people’s will and in come cases their safety, since the President was sworn into office."
Stutzman said Issa's bill "will stop individual judge’s political beliefs from preventing the wants and needs of our citizens from being implemented."
A group of conservatives had pushed to impeach specific judges who have blocked Trump's agenda, but House GOP leaders quickly quashed the effort in favor of what they see as a more effective route to take on the issue.
Despite its success in the House, however, the legislation does face uncertain odds in the Senate, where it needs at least several Democrats to hit the chamber's 60-vote threshold.
President Donald Trump told reporters that if Iran does not give up its nuclear weapons program, military action led by Israel is a real possibility, adding he has a deadline in mind for when the two countries must come to an agreement.
The U.S. and Iran are expected to hold negotiations Saturday in Oman as the Trump administration continues to try to rein in the country's nuclear program, threatening "great danger" if the two sides fail to come to an agreement.
Trump told reporters from the Oval Office Wednesday he did have a deadline in mind for when the talks must culminate in an agreed-upon solution, but the president did not go into details about the nature of the timeline.
"We have a little time, but we don't have much time, because we're not going to let them have a nuclear weapon. We can't let them have a nuclear weapon." Trump said when pressed on details about his potential timeline. "I'm not asking for much. I just — I don't — they can't have a nuclear weapon."
When asked about the potential for military action if Iran does not make a deal on their nuclear weapons, Trump said "Absolutely."
"If it requires military, we're going to have military," the president told reporters. "Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They'll be the leader of that. But nobody leads us. We do what we want to do."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed support for Iran's complete denuclearization. During a visit to the White House, he expressed support for a deal similar to the one Libya sealed with the international community in 2003. The country gave up its entire nuclear arsenal.
"Whatever happens, we have to make sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said during the meeting.
The talks with Iran scheduled for Saturday in Oman have been characterized as "direct" talks by Trump, but Iran's foreign leaders have disputed that assertion, describing the talks as "indirect." Iran's leaders have said if the talks go well Saturday, they would be open to further direct negotiations with the U.S.
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he was open to providing exemptions for certain U.S. companies hit especially hard by tariffs through no fault of their own.
The president and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spoke to reporters Wednesday afternoon and were asked repeatedly about the effect their tariff moves have had on financial markets and whether they will let their recent declines affect future trade decisions.
Trump was asked specifically if he would consider "exempting" some larger U.S. companies that have been hit especially hard by the new tariffs, and the president said he would consider it.
"I'll take a look at it as time goes by. We're going to take a look at it," Trump responded. "There are some that have been hard — there are some that, by the nature of the company, get hit a little bit harder, and we'll take a look at that."
When asked how he would determine which companies might receive such an exemption, Trump responded, "Instinctively."
"You almost can't take a pencil to paper. It's really more of an instinct than anything else," Trump added. "Some companies, through no fault of their own, they happen to be in an industry that is more affected by these things than others. You have to be able to show a little flexibility, and I'm able to do that.
"You have to have flexibility," Trump said Wednesday. "I could say, ‘Here’s a wall, and I'm going to go through that wall. I'm going to go through it, no matter what. Keep going, and you can't go through the wall. Sometimes you have to be able to go under the wall, around the wall or over the wall."
After the president's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements, which included a 10% universal tariff on all imported goods and higher "reciprocal" tariffs targeting other countries like China and the European Union, the Trump administration did release a list of carve-outs related to roughly $644 billion in imports, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.
The exemptions include $185 billion in goods from Canada and Mexico, but the countries remain subject to other tariffs, according to the report.
Additionally, the Trump administration has exempted certain industries, such as the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries, from new tariffs, but the president has signaled that could change. These sectors and others are facing an ongoing probe, called a Section 232 investigation, according to Market Watch, to assess the need for imposing tariffs.
No matter the outcome of the investigation, it appears Trump has his sights set on placing higher tariffs on the pharmaceutical industry. He told an audience at a dinner hosted by the National Republican Congressional Committee Tuesday night that "a major tariff on pharmaceuticals" would be announced very soon.
The White House declined to comment for this article.
A bill proposed by two state Democratic lawmakers would impose a tax on dating apps.
Under the terms of House Bill 2071, dating app companies would be required to pay $1 per Washington-based user each month, regardless of whether the user pays for the service. The money would be used to fund domestic violence programs.
The money would be put into the newly created state Domestic Violence Services Account, which funds intervention programs and support services for victims.
The only users excluded are those with inactive accounts for at least 24 months.
Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of state representatives Lauren Davis and Shaun Scott, both Democrats, who are behind the legislation. Fox News Digital also reached out to several dating app companies for reaction.
"Online dating companies can determine how to absorb the cost," Davis told Fox News Digital. "They could simply cut it out of their profits, or increase the fees for paid users by $1/month or possibly begin charging for free users (though the latter is probably less likely)."
The bill targets dating apps like Hinge, Match.com, Bumble and Tinder. The legislation had its first reading Tuesday and has been referred to the state House Finance Committee.
Funding for domestic violence programs is necessary after lawmakers in 2023 passed HB 1169, which removed the Crime Victim Penalty, which was paid for by those convicted of crimes. The CVP provided the primary funding for victim advocates who work in prosecutors' offices, Davis said.
"When HB 1169 was passed, the state made a commitment to backfill the funding loss from the CVP with general fund state (GFS) dollars," she said. "Unfortunately, the state has not kept this commitment. Prosecutors' offices across the state have been forced to lay off victim advocates, and scores of victims are no longer receiving victim advocacy services."
Davis explained that her bill is intended to replace the missing funds.
She further criticized Washington's legal system, calling it "a nightmare for victims."
"The system is designed for the protection of defendants, not victims," she said. "I cannot fathom how I would've ever navigated the system successfully without a victim advocate, and I am rightly horrified that similarly situated victims will no longer receive help.
"The purpose of this tax proposal is to keep the state's promise to crime victims and not defund victims services," she added. "Though a nexus is not required for a tax as it is for a fee, there is a reasonable nexus between online dating apps and domestic violence."
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday agreed to temporarily halt the reinstatement of two fired federal board members, delivering another near-term win to President Donald Trump as his administration continues to spar in federal courts over the extent of his executive branch powers.
The brief stay handed down by Roberts is not a final ruling on the reinstatement of the two board members, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris – two Democratic appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration earlier this year.
Both had challenged their terminations as "unlawful" in separate suits filed in D.C. federal court.
But the order from Roberts does temporarily halt their reinstatements from taking force two days after a federal appeals court voted en banc to reinstate them.
Judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 7-4 Monday to restore Wilcox and Harris to their respective boards, citing Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener v. United States as the backing for their decision.
They noted that the Supreme Court had never overturned or reversed the decades-old precedent regarding removal restrictions for government officials of "multimember adjudicatory boards" – including the NLRB and MSPB. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it," judges noted in their opinion.
Monday's ruling from the full panel was expected to spark intense backlash from the Trump administration, which has lobbed accusations of so-called "activist judges" that have slowed or halted some of Trump's executive orders and actions.
The Trump administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court almost immediately.
The en banc decision was the latest in a dizzying flurry of court developments that had upheld, then blocked, and upheld again the firings of the two employees, and came after D.C.-based federal judges had issued orders blocking their terminations.
"A President who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution," U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who oversaw Wilcox's case, wrote in her opinion.
Likewise, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, who was presiding over Harris's case, wrote that if the President were to "displace independent agency heads from their positions for the length of litigation such as this, those officials’ independence would shatter."
Both opinions cited the 1935 Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, that notably narrowed the president's constitutional power to remove agents of the executive branch, in support of Wilcox's and Harris's reinstatements.
Back in February, Trump's Justice Department penned a letter to Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin stating that it was seeking to overturn the landmark case.
"To the extent that Humphrey's Executor requires otherwise, the Department intends to urge the Supreme Court to overrule that decision, which prevents the President from adequately supervising principal officers in the Executive Branch who execute the laws on the President's behalf, and which has already been severely eroded by recent Supreme Court decisions," Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the letter.
The Trump administration appealed the orders to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the Trump administration, allowing the firings to proceed.
Wilcox and Harris - now as a consolidated case - filed a motion for an en banc hearing, requesting the appeals court hear the case again with the entire bench present.
In an en banc ruling issued on April 7, the D.C. Circuit voted to block the terminations, reversing the previous appellate holding.
The judges voted 7-4 to restore Wilcox and Harris to their posts.
Harris's and Wilcox's cases are just several legal challenges in a grander scheme of cases attempting to clearly define the executive's power.
Hampton Dellinger, a Biden-appointee previously tapped to head the Office of Special Counsel, also sued the Trump administration over his own termination. Dellinger filed suit in D.C. district court after his Feb. 7 firing.
He had maintained the argument that, by law, he could only be dismissed from his position for job performance problems, which were not cited in an email dismissing him from his post.
Dellinger ultimately dropped his suit against the administration after the D.C. appellate court issued an unsigned order siding with the Trump administration.
Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.
EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., is clapping back against accusations from Democrats that Republicans are trying to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors.
"The message to seniors is really pretty simple. We are going to strengthen Social Security. That is our goal. And one of the ways we're doing that is by rooting out waste, fraud, abuse," she told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview, saying the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been an effective tool for doing so.
The senator is touting the RETIREES FIRST Act, which would raise the income bar for somebody to be required to pay federal taxes on their Social Security payouts.
"Now, there's also legislation I have — and the president's talked about this a lot — and it's removing a federal income tax from Social Security benefits. And as we work on the tax package, you're going to see this in one of those reconciliation packages," she said.
"The left and the mainstream media continues to talk a lot about cutting Social Security, and we are not doing that," she said. Blackburn's office is circulating a memo highlighting a quote from President Donald Trump on "Sunday Morning Futures" last month saying he's "not going to touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Now, we’re going to get fraud out of there."
"What we're doing is strengthening. We are not cutting. What we are doing is making certain that people that are defrauding the system, people who are abusing the system, are no longer going to be able to do that. People that have paid into Social Security deserve to get every penny that they are in line to receive as a benefit, and we want to make certain that that happens," the Republican said.
Blackburn also took aim at the state of California, which made it a state law in 2024 to provide Medicaid, known in the state as Medi-Cal, to illegal immigrants. The program is now being partially blamed for the state going nearly $3.5 billion over budget for Medi-Cal, and the governor’s office has had to ask for billions in loans to cover the costs.
"So it's all taxpayer money, and when you hear of a state like California who decided — they made a conscious decision, a very intentional decision — that they wanted to provide healthcare for those that were illegally entering the country, and they wanted the taxpayers to pay for it. And Tennesseans will say, 'Well, we don't want to shoulder that burden because that's a policy we don't agree with,'" Blackburn said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats in Congress have raised alarms about cuts made to the Social Security Administration, including 7,000 staff layoffs.
"Make no mistake: What Elon Musk is doing at Social Security is cutting benefits. And Senate Republicans are standing with him. They blocked our amendments last week to protect Social Security from DOGE and reverse the Social Security layoffs and office closures," Schumer tweeted Monday.
However, Elon Musk said cutting benefits for people actually taking them is not the case.
"The intern running Schumer’s social media account is lying," Musk said in response to Schumer's post Tuesday.
Legislation setting the stage for Republicans to pass a broad swath of President Donald Trump's agenda survived an important hurdle on Wednesday afternoon.
House GOP lawmakers voted to allow for debate on the legislation, known as a "rule vote," a framework that serves as one of the first steps in the budget reconciliation process.
It's still unclear whether House Republicans have enough support to pass the legislation itself, though GOP leaders have indicated they're moving full steam ahead in a matter of hours.
"I think we can get this job done. I understand the holdouts. I mean, their concerns are real. They really want to have true budget cuts and to change the debt trajectory that the country is on," Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters ahead of the first vote..
Trump has directed Republicans to work on "one big, beautiful bill" to advance his agenda on border security, defense, energy and taxes.
Such a measure is largely only possible via the budget reconciliation process. Traditionally used when one party controls all three branches of government, reconciliation lowers the Senate's threshold for passage of certain fiscal measures from 60 votes to 51. As a result, it has been used to pass broad policy changes in one or two massive pieces of legislation.
Rule votes are traditionally not indicators of a bill's final passage, and they generally fall along party lines.
Several Republicans who voted to allow debate on the measure have said they will still oppose its final passage.
Passing frameworks in the House and Senate, which largely only include numbers indicating increases or decreases in funding, allows each chamber's committees to then craft policy in line with those numbers under their specific jurisdictions.
The House passed its own version of the reconciliation framework earlier this year, while the Senate passed an amended version last week. House GOP leaders now believe that voting on the Senate's plan will allow Republicans to enter the next step of crafting policy.
But fiscal hawks have raised concerns about the differences in minimum mandatory spending cuts, which they hope will offset the cost of new federal investments and start a path to reducing the deficit.
The Senate's version calls for at least $4 billion in spending cuts, while the House baseline begins at $1.5 trillion – a significant gap.
Conservatives have demanded extra guarantees from the Senate GOP that it is committed to pursuing deeper spending cuts in line with the House package.
"They don't have a plan that I've seen. So until I see that, I'm a no," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital.
Trump himself worked to persuade holdouts both in a smaller-scale White House meeting on Tuesday and in public remarks at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).
He also fired off multiple Truth Social posts pushing House Republicans to support the measure, even as conservatives argue it would not go far enough in fulfilling Trump's agenda.
"Republicans, it is more important now, than ever, that we pass THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL. The USA will Soar like never before!!!" one of the posts read.
Two federal judges in Texas and New York on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals — the latest in a high-profile legal saga centered on the administration’s use of a wartime immigration law to immediately deport certain migrants.
Plaintiffs filed two separate lawsuits asking federal judges in Brownville, Texas, and Orange County, New York, to grant a temporary restraining order blocking their removals under the 1798 wartime immigration law that was reviewed by the Supreme Court just days earlier.
U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., in Brownsville, Texas, granted a temporary restraining order filed on behalf of three Venezuelan nationals. The order temporarily blocks their removal under the AEA, as well as the removal of "any other person that Respondents claim are subject to removal under the Proclamation" from the district's El Valle Detention Center, according to the text of his ruling.
Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, sided with plaintiffs' contention that allowing the law to be used for their deportations would likely cause "immediate and irreparable injury to the removed individuals," whom he said would likely be "unable to seek habeas relief."
In addition, he said, the "substantial likelihood exists that the individual could not be returned to the United States" if deported.
Rodriguez said he will hear from both parties in court again Friday to continue extending the 14-day emergency order.
In the New York case filed in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein — a Clinton appointee — sided with two Venezuelan nationals whose attorneys argued they likely wouldn’t have time to seek the habeas relief granted by the Supreme Court in its emergency ruling.
Both clients, "and others similarly situated to them," are now "all at imminent risk of removal" by the Trump administration without proper notice, lawyers said in the filing.
Hellerstein’s ruling, unlike that of the federal judge in Texas, stopped short of directly addressing whether the Alien Enemies Act is an appropriate legal basis for deporting the two individuals, though it temporarily blocks the law from being used to remove them.
The updates follow a 5–4 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that lifted a lower court’s restraining order, allowing the Trump administration to temporarily resume use of the Alien Enemies Act — albeit with new due process protections for migrants.
The high court said individuals slated for deportation must have the opportunity to challenge their removal, with sufficient time to do so in a U.S. court.
But the proceedings must take place in the federal jurisdictions where detainees are held — raising concerns among immigration advocates, who note that these cases are often difficult to bring individually and typically occur in court districts where most migrants are detained.
"Whether or not you're a gang member, the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used under these circumstances," lawyers for the ACLU said in an earlier court filing, noting that the Alien Enemies Act "is a military authority."
"It is not supposed to be used in peacetime against a gang," they said.
In granting the temporary restraining order, Rodriguez, the Trump appointee, agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that "maintaining the status quo is required to afford the parties the ability to develop a fuller record for the Court to consider the request for a preliminary injunction and other forms of relief," and to "prevent the immediate and irreparable injury that may occur with the immediate removal of any Venezuelan alien subject to the Proclamation."
"Furthermore, if the United States erroneously removed an individual to another country based on the Proclamation, a substantial likelihood exists that the individual could not be returned to the United States," he said.
Lawyers for the Trump administration had urged the court to vacate the lower court ruling, arguing in a Supreme Court filing that the lower court orders "rebuffed" their immigration agenda, including their ability "to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations."
Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content.
Here's what's happening…
-Homeland Security to scan migrants' social media posts for antisemitism: 'No room for terrorist sympathizers'
-Elon Musk, conservatives drag Trump-appointed justice following Venezuelan deportations ruling
-Biden aides 'scripted' everything, allowed his faculties to 'atrophy,' new book claims
Americans' concerns over the economy, and specifically inflation and tariffs, appear to be partially fueling the downward trend of President Donald Trump's approval ratings in a new national poll.
Trump stands at 41% approval and 53% disapproval in a Quinnipiac University survey conducted April 3-7 and released on Wednesday.
The president stood at 46%-43% approval/disapproval in a Quinnipiac poll conducted during his first week back in the White House, in late January. And Trump was slightly underwater at 45%-49% in mid-February. But the president's approval ratings are basically unchanged from Quinnipiac's previous survey, which was in the field early last month…Read more
'DARK-ARTS OPERATION': Harris launched 'dark-arts operation' against opponents for VP spot in 2020, new book claims
BLOCKING BIDEN: Federal judge blocks Biden nursing home staffing mandate
SURVEILLANCE BALLOON: Biden officials coordinated with Beijing on Chinese spy balloon days before informing US public, officials say
TRADE POWER STRUGGLE: Trump pushes back on 'rebel' Republicans over tariffs: 'You don't negotiate like I negotiate'
CRIME AND COMPENSATION:U.S.-recognized Venezuelan opposition leader Edmundo Gonzales promises to give financial reparations to Americans hurt by crimes of Tren de Aragua
SHOOTING FOR THE MOON: Astronauts stand alongside NASA Administrator nominee Jared Isaacman at Senate confirmation hearing
'FIRST AND FREE': Hegseth says Panama agreed to allow US warships to travel 'first and free' through canal
SINGLED OUT: Bessent singles out Beijing amid tariff pause: ‘They are the problem for the rest of the world’
HUCKABEE ADVANCES: Mike Huckabee confirmed as US ambassador to Israel in bipartisan vote
SCHIFF TIFF: Schiff fires back after Trump rips 'watermelon-head' Democrat at GOP dinner
'PIECE OF THE ACTION': Elon Musk scraps with Chuck Schumer, suggesting the senator profits from government fraud
U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll was tapped to serve as the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), replacing FBI Director Kash Patel, who was appointed to the role in February, according to a U.S. defense official.
Driscoll was notified of the appointment on Wednesday while traveling in Europe, the defense official told Fox News.
He will fulfill both roles, continuing to serve as the Army secretary while overseeing the ATF.
A source close to Patel told Fox News Digital that the ATF was taken off his plate because he wanted to focus on the bureau.
"It was never supposed to be a long-term thing. He was happy to serve, of course, but his job is the director of the FBI," the source said.
Hailing from North Carolina, Driscoll, an Army veteran and venture capitalist, was chosen by Trump to serve as secretary of the Army. Driscoll, who is a senior advisor to Vice President JD Vance, fought with the 10th Mountain Division as a cavalry scout platoon leader in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Patel was sworn in to lead the ATF days after taking an oath to head the FBI following a contentious confirmation process in which Democrats raised alarms about his lack of management experience, among other claims.
President Donald Trump hasn't made clear what his plans are for the ATF, which has long been a target for congressional Republicans. The agency is charged with enforcing the nation’s laws with respect to firearms, explosives and arson.
It's also charged with licensing federal firearms dealers, tracing guns used in crimes and analyzing intelligence in shooting investigations.
Fox News Digital’s Morgan Phillips and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.
FIRST ON FOX: Thousands of illegal immigrants facing potential involuntary removal from the United States have instead opted to self-deport through an app provided by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The number of immigrants who have opted to self-deport over the last month using the CBP Home app is over 5,000, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data shared with Fox News Digital.
The self-deportations come as the Trump administration has ramped up a messaging campaign aimed at encouraging illegal immigrants to leave the country voluntarily, most recently releasing a flyer addressed to "illegal aliens" that threatens new fines for those who choose to remain in the U.S. despite a deportation order.
"Self-deportation is safe," the flyer reads. "Leave on your own terms by picking your departure flight."
The flyer warns that the administration plans to start fining illegal migrants who have received a final order of removal $998 per day if they continue to stay in the country, while fines of $1,000-$5,000 could be given to those who failed to self-deport after claiming they would.
America First Legal Senior Counsel James Rogers argued that the self-deportation push is working because of the "credible threat of enforcement."
"Our nation’s immigration laws impose severe penalties on aliens who are illegally in the country. The only reason there is a large population of illegal immigrants residing in the United States is because prior administrations have failed to enforce these laws passed by Congress," Rogers said. "Everyone knows this, including the aliens who have been illegally living here. The current trend of illegal aliens self-deporting proves that even just the credible threat of enforcement can be enough to get many illegal immigrants to comply with our laws and leave the country."
Meanwhile, the flyer boasts of several benefits for those who opt to self-deport, including the ability to keep the money they earned while in the U.S., future opportunities for legal immigration, and potential financial assistance or flights out of the country for those who cannot afford it.
"Illegal aliens should use the CBP Home app to self-deport and leave the country now. If they don’t, they will face the consequences," Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Tuesday. "This includes a fine of $998 per day for every day that the illegal alien overstayed their final deportation order."
President Donald Trump himself has joined the messaging campaign, releasing a video last month that encouraged illegal migrants to use the CBP Home app to self-deport.
"Leave now and self-deport voluntarily. If they do, they could potentially have the opportunity to return legally at some point in the future," Trump said in the video, adding that those who do not self-deport "will be found, they will be deported, and they will never be admitted again to the United States."
"Using the CBP home app to leave the United States voluntarily is the safest option for illegal aliens," Trump added, noting that self-deportation will also free up critical law enforcement resources that are better spent focusing on criminal aliens.
Rogers argued illegal immigrants would be wise to follow Trump’s advice.
"They would be wise to do so, because leaving on their own will be far better for them than the many penalties they will face if they continue to remain here in violation of our nation’s laws, now that we have an administration willing to enforce the law," Rogers said.
Minutes after President Donald Trump announced a pause on some reciprocal tariffs, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called it evidence the administration is "feeling the heat" from Democrats, but claimed "irretrievable damage" had already been done to the U.S. economy.
Schumer said he and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., were going to talk to reporters about the effects of Trump's tariffs on personal IRAs and brokerage accounts – but pivoted just as the news broke.
"It's still an issue, but not today," he said.
"We're going to talk about what just happened… Let's be clear. Donald Trump is feeling the heat from Democrats and across America about how bad these tariffs are. He is reeling. He is retreating, and that is a good thing," Schumer claimed.
Joined by Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Andy Kim, D-N.J., the New York lawmakers jointly condemned what they called "chaos" in the White House.
"Volatility in our economy is so destructive. President Trump may have paused these reciprocal tariffs, but he's maintained a 10% tariff on all of them. Businesses will now not invest in new projects or expand their workforce because they have no idea of what is coming next," Gillibrand warned.
"A 90-day pause means they don't know what's gonna happen at the end of the 90 days. A 10% is still going to hurt our families. These tariffs and this trade war are absurd. They're going to increase costs for everyday goods, from food to housing to anything you buy for your family or your children. It's going to fuel inflation."
Schumer said Trump's White House is "governing by chaos" and that the president lacks the understanding of world affairs and "the facts."
He said unpredictability in the markets will and has stymied investment and job creation, and that American businesses cannot map out their future.
Hirono echoed her fellow Democrats, describing Trump's second term as "one damn thing after another."
"Governing by executive order: most of them are illegal. There are over 100 lawsuits now to prevent them from doing all these things that he shouldn't even be doing. But the result of all this is chaos," she said.
"We can throw out all the numbers, how much of these tariffs will cost a typical family. Do you think he cares? Because if he did, he wouldn't do it. He doesn't even look. That is the thing that has to sink in with the American people," Hirono added, comparing the current executive economic policy to a game of craps.
Kim said he is hearing from people all across New Jersey that Gillibrand's claim "the damage has been done" is correct.
"When it comes to these small businesses, because the uncertainty remains, we don't know what's gonna happen after the 90 days," he said.
Kim said the U.S. is no longer a global leader due to Trump, and that the White House should be joining Democrats in building an economy that can rival China.
He later claimed that "America First" had translated to "America alone."
"I've never seen this level of isolation of the United States as I do right now, and that is so damaging on so many different fronts," Kim claimed.
A FOX Business reporter later asked Schumer about appearing "at a loss for words" upon the news.
"We know that Donald Trump doesn't think things through…" Schumer replied. "But on something so vital, like the whole economy of America, the amount of money people have in their pockets, in their livelihoods, on something as vital as this. Yes, it leaves you agape…"
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back.
When asked by reporters about Schumer's criticisms, Trump said Democratic leaders "knew you had to do it."
Trump went on to say long-term benefits of the tariff regime will "take a little conditioning" as part of a "transition to greatness."
Fox Business' Chase Williams contributed to this report.
Americans' concerns over the economy, and specifically inflation and tariffs, appear to be partially fueling the downward trend of President Donald Trump's approval ratings in a new national poll.
Trump stands at 41% approval and 53% disapproval in a Quinnipiac University survey conducted April 3-7 and released on Wednesday.
The president stood at 46%-43% approval/disapproval in a Quinnipiac poll conducted during his first week back in the White House, in late January. And Trump was slightly underwater at 45%-49% in mid-February. But the president's approval ratings are basically unchanged from Quinnipiac's previous survey, which was in the field early last month.
Most, but not all, of the most recent national public opinion surveys indicate Trump's approval ratings in negative territory, which is a slide from the president's poll position when he started his second tour of duty in the White House.
According to the new Quinnipiac poll, Trump stands at 40% approval and 55% disapproval on his handling of the economy. And asked how the president is dealing with the issue of trade, only 39% of respondents said they approved, while 55% gave Trump a thumbs down.
In the wake of Trump's blockbuster announcement last week to impose tariffs on dozens of countries across the globe, nearly three-quarters thought the tariffs would hurt the U.S. economy in the short term, while just over half said the move by the president would also hurt the nation's economy in the long term as well.
"A large majority of voters acknowledge the tariffs are delivering a bruising body blow to the economy in the near term. Will time reduce the pain? Some think it will, but a majority don't envision that happening," Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy emphasized.
Given a list of four economic issues and asked which one worries voters the most right now, 47% of those questioned in the poll said the price of food and consumer goods, with one-in-five saying the cost of housing or rent, 17% saying the stock market, and 6% pointing to their job situation.
"In a rare moment of political unanimity, Democrats, Republicans and independents in equal numbers worry most about the prices of what they eat and what they buy," Malloy noted.
According to the poll, voters were divided over which party they think cares more about the needs and problems of people like them.
A third of respondents said the Democratic Party, with an equal amount (33%) saying the Republican Party. Thirty-one percent answered that neither party cared more.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues to slash programs deemed to be useless, announcing Wednesday the elimination of 108 "wasteful contracts."
In a post on X, the Elon Musk-led group said it got rid of the contracts, which have a ceiling value of $250 million and a savings of $70 million.
The problem contracts included a $14,000 commitment by the Department of Health and Human Services for an "executive transformational leadership training program."
Another was a $5.2 million contract with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the human resources agency for the federal government, to "provide strategic advisory and assistance to improve and transform current processes and organizational systems".
DOGE recently announced $51 million in cuts from the U.S. African Development Foundation, which included hundreds of thousands of dollars for marketing shea butter and pineapple juice, as well as mango drying facilities.
The group was created in an effort to slash government waste and provide additional transparency in government spending.
It recently helped the U.S. Coast Guard save $32.7 million by eliminating an "ineffective IT program" known as the Logistics Information Management System.
Americans recently shared mixed reviews of the transparency group. Fox News Digital conducted interviews in Knoxville, Tennessee; Washington, D.C.; Detroit, Michigan; and Houston, Texas, where citizens provided reactions and graded its ongoing efforts.
Some criticized DOGE for "trying to do their job with a sledgehammer," while others praised the group for looking into government waste.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that U.S. and Panama officials would sign a "framework" agreement allowing U.S. warships to travel "first and free" through the Panama Canal.
Hegseth said the two countries had already signed a memorandum of understanding on security cooperation and that they would finalize a document guaranteeing U.S. warships and auxiliary vessels priority, toll-free passage through the canal.
When Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama earlier this year, the State Department claimed it had secured a deal for the free passage of U.S. warships. But Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino denied any such agreement had been reached.
"I completely reject that statement," Mulino said at the time. The Panama Canal Authority also said it had "not made any adjustments" to its fee structure.
Earlier Wednesday, Hegseth warned that China’s military presence in the Western Hemisphere is "too large" as he visited Panama to meet with the nation's officials, visit U.S. troops and tour the canal ports.
"Make no mistake, Beijing is investing and operating in this region for military advantage and unfair economic gain," Hegseth said in brief remarks to the press. "China's military has too large of a presence in the Western Hemisphere. They operate military facilities and ground stations that extend their reach into space. They exploit natural resources and land to fuel China's global military ambitions. China's factory fishing fleets are stealing food from our nations and from our people."
He added that war with China is "not inevitable," and the U.S. does not seek war in any form. "Together, we must prevent war by robustly and vigorously deterring China’s threats in this hemisphere."
To strengthen military ties with Panama and reassert influence over the canal, the U.S. will deploy the USNS Comfort, a Navy hospital ship, to the region.
Hegseth vowed Tuesday that the U.S. will "take back" the Panama Canal from Chinese influence, pointing to port operations controlled by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison.
The secretary later said Wednesday that he and Panamanian officials would be signing an agreement that U.S. warships would travel "first and free" through the Panama Canal.
Last month the conglomerate agreed to a $19 billion deal to sell a group of 43 ports, including two in Panama, to U.S.-based BlackRock,
Trump hailed the agreement, seen as a solution to his complaints that the canal was owned by China, but now that deal may fall apart.
China has criticized the deal, opening up antitrust probes, and a Panamanian official has accused CK Hutchison of failing to properly renew its contract in 2021 and owing the country $300 million.
After meeting with Mulino, Hegseth said Tuesday the U.S. will not allow China to threaten the canal's operation.
"To this end, the United States and Panama have done more in recent weeks to strengthen our defense and security cooperation than we have in decades," he said.
Hegseth alluded to the ports owned by CK Hutchison. "China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area," he said. "That gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous and less sovereign. And as President Donald Trump has pointed out, that situation is not acceptable."
The Chinese embassy in Panama hit back: "The U.S. has carried out a sensationalistic campaign about the ‘theoretical Chinese threat’ in an attempt to sabotage Chinese-Panamanian cooperation, which is all just rooted in the United States' own geopolitical interests."
The war of words in Panama comes as China and the U.S. are now locked in a trade war, where Trump slapped Chinese goods with a total 104% tariff. China retaliated with 84% tariffs on U.S. goods.
Republican senators introduced the "Returning Education to Our States Act" on Wednesday morning after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to close the U.S. Department of Education in late March.
The bill, led by Senator Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota and cosponsored by Senators Jim Banks, R-Indiana, and Tim Sheehy, R-Montana, would redirect portions of the Department to other federal agencies such as the Departments of Interior, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Labor, Defense, Justice, and State.
"The Department of Education was created to collect education data and advise state and local organizations on best practices," Sen. Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, told Fox News Digital. "Since then, it has grown into an oversized bureaucracy that dictates one-size-fits-all policies, standards and practices for students across the nation."
"This has been a priority of mine for years, and it’s one that President Trump shares."
The introduction comes amid widespread support among Republicans to eliminate the agency, including the current sitting Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, who detailed her "vision for eliminating the Department of Education" in a Fox News op-ed.
McMahon and Rounds recently held a meeting where the "Returning Education to Our States Act" was discussed.
In addition to eliminating the agency, the legislation would also make key changes to education compliance requirements, making it so that schools would no longer be required to administer standardized tests to identify struggling schools (CSI and TSI). The bill would also allow schools more autonomy to set teacher certification standards and professional development plans.
The executive order issued by President Donald Trump in late March directs the department to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities," but it takes an act of Congress to formally abolish the department.
Co-sponsors of the bill say that this piece of legislation will be the bill that ultimately serves that purpose.
"While the average Dept of Ed bureaucrat makes twice as much as a teacher in Indiana, our national test scores are near historic lows. That money should be sent back to the states to empower parents, teachers, and local leaders," Sen. Jim Banks. R-Indiana told Fox News Digital. "Congress has a golden opportunity to codify President Trump’s executive actions. This bill does that. It’s a win for American education."
Fox News Digital also spoke with Montana Senator Tim Sheehy, R-Montana, who weighed in, saying, "We spend more on education than at any point in history, but test scores are declining because those dollars are being squandered by a bloated federal bureaucracy. Closing the DOE will not cut off funds from students who depend on them, but it will eliminate layers of red tape in Washington, D.C. and ensure taxpayer money for education is better spent at the local level, where the dollars support kids, families, and hardworking teachers."
The Republican-led bill could potentially accompany President Donald Trump’s executive order and campaign promise to reshape the American education system as it heads to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for debate.
