Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania announced that he will not pursue re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives next year, but noted that he will finish his current term.
According to a press release, the congressman indicated that he is "in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve," but has "decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking re-election in 2026."
The lawmaker disclosed last year that he had a minor stroke.
Evans, who began serving in the U.S. House in November 2016, had previously served in the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives since 1981.
"After careful consideration and deep reflection over this past weekend, I have decided that I will not seek re-election in 2026. It has been the honor and privilege of a lifetime to serve the people of PA-03. I will forever be grateful to the residents of Philadelphia for the trust they placed in me," he said in a statement.
He indicated that he will work to help Democrats reclaim the House majority.
"I intend to spend the months ahead focused on increasing voter turnout in Philadelphia. Our voices matter, and our votes are our power. I will also do everything I can to help Democrats take back the majority in the House of Representatives," he said in the statement.
"Finally, I want to say this to my fellow elected officials: We must do a better job of listening — truly listening — to the people we represent. The challenges our constituents face are real, and they deserve leaders who are present and willing to act boldly on their behalf," he noted.
President Donald Trump warned the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a "monster that might have to go back and eat Elon" after tech billionaire Elon Musk intensified his attacks on Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill."
"DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?" Trump told the media Tuesday morning as he departed for a trip to the Florida Everglades to visit a new migrant detention center. "He gets a lot of subsidies. But, Elon was very upset that the EV mandate is going to be terminated."
His response followed a question regarding whether he would deport Musk, who originally is from South Africa. Trump responded: "I don't know, we'll have to take a look."
Trump previously told the media in June that his relationship with Musk changed when the president began discussing plans to eliminate the electic vehicle mandate, which would affect Musk's signature electric company, Tesla. Trump signed a trio of congressional resolutions June 12 ending California's restrictive rules for diesel engines and mandates on elective vehicle sales, with Trump celebrating that his signature "will kill the California mandates forever."
"When you look at it … not everybody wants an electric car," Trump continued in his remarks regarding Musk Tuesday morning. "I don't want an electric car. I want to have maybe gasoline. Maybe electric, maybe a hybrid. Maybe some day a hydrogen. You have a hydrogen car, it has one problem: it blows up."
Musk intensified his feud with former close ally Trump this week in a political warning to lawmakers that he will work to unseat them if they vote in support of Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill."
"Anyone who campaigned on the PROMISE of REDUCING SPENDING , but continues to vote on the BIGGEST DEBT ceiling increase in HISTORY will see their face on this poster in the primary next year," Musk posted to X Monday evening.
The message was accompanied by an image of Pinocchio sitting on fire and captioned: "LIAR Voted to increase America's DEBT by 5,000,000,000.00"
Musk previously served as a special government employee with the Trump administration to help lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and frequently attended Cabinet meetings and joined Trump during public events. Musk's tenure with DOGE wrapped up at the end of May, as negotiations over the "One Big Beautiful Bill" intensified in Congress.
The budget reconciliation bill, if passed, will advance Trump's agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. The legislation is currently before the Senate.
Musk found himself aligned with a handful of Republican lawmakers, like Kentucky's Sen. Rand Paul, who have spoken out against the legislation, arguing it would increase the debt ceiling by $5 trillion.
Musk's post threatening to primary Republicans who vote in support of the legislation was followed by a late-night Truth Social message from Trump suggesting "DOGE take a good, hard, look" at how government subsidies assist Musk-owned businesses such as Tesla and SpaceX.
"Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!" Trump posted after midnight Tuesday.
The posted added: "Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one."
Musk first remarked in May that he was "disappointed" Trump's "one big beautiful bill" bill passed the House arguing it "undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," before publicly working to rally Republican lawmakers to "kill the bill" in messages posted to X.
"Call your Senator, Call your Congressman," Musk said amid a flurry of similar posts June 4. "Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL."
Musk had kept his criticisms of the legislation quiet in recent days, including posting messages in support of the Trump administration as anti-ICE riots raged in Los Angeles in June. Musk reignited his criticisms of the bill Monday as the July 4 deadline to pass the big beautiful bill looms over Washington this week.
"It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!! Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people," Musk posted to X Monday afternoon.
"What’s the point of a debt ceiling if we keep raising it?" Musk asked in another post early Tuesday morning. Adding in another: "All I’m asking is that we don’t bankrupt America."
President Donald Trump blasted New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani after the New York State assemblyman from Queens refused to condemn the term "globalize the intifada."
"Frankly, I've heard he's a total nut job," Trump told reporters Tuesday morning. "I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route. I think they're crazy. We will have a communist in the for the first time, really a pure, true communist. He wants to operate the grocery stores. The department stores. What about the people that are there? I think it's crazy."
Mamdani is a Ugandan-born Muslim who won the Democratic Party’s primary for New York City mayor in June and identifies as a Democratic socialist.
On Sunday, Mamdani said he didn’t want to condemn the term "globalize the intifada," a phrase used to back Palestinian resistance against Israel, because he didn’t want to "police language" in an interview with NBC News.
"I think he's terrible. He's a communist," Trump said Tuesday. "The last thing we need is a communist. I said, there will never be socialism in the United States. So even the communists, I think it's bad news. And I think you're going to have a lot of fun with him, watching him, because he has to break through this building to get his money. And don't worry, he's not going to run away with anything."
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough reportedly has advised that a provision prohibiting Medicaid funds from supporting Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide abortions can stay in President Donald Trump’s "big, beautiful bill."
Senate Republicans revised the provision on Friday from blocking Medicaid funding to abortion providers for a full 10 years to just one year. The parliamentarian’s assessment that the provision could remain without jeopardizing the budget package from passing the upper chamber of Congress along party lines was championed by pro-life advocates.
"The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that stops forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry has been retained in the Senate bill, as we were confident it would, though for one year. This is a huge win," Susan B. Anthony Pro-life America’s President, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Taxpayers should never be forced to funnel their hard-earned dollars to Big Abortion. This funding currently hits almost $800 million annually."
The provision's inclusion, meanwhile, was condemned by Democrats as essentially clearing the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
"Republicans will stop at nothing in their crusade to take control of women’s bodies and deny them the right to make their own health care decisions," Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement. "Republicans are trampling the law to force their extremist ideology onto the American people."
The Hyde Amendment, introduced in the 1970s, has long prohibited federal dollars from paying for most abortions, with some exceptions. Planned Parenthood, which also provides other women’s health services, such as gynecological exams, contraception and STI testing, reported receiving approximately $792.2 million in taxpayer-funded grants, contracts and Medicaid reimbursements during the 2023-2024 fiscal year.
Republicans say the loophole essentially results in taxpayers subsidizing abortions. Planned Parenthood reported performing 402,000 abortions during that fiscal year.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., defended the provision during Monday’s vote-a-rama session as "establishing a commonsense protection of taxpayer dollars by prohibiting abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds for one year."
"There was a time when protecting Americans’ tax dollars from supporting the abortion industry was an uncontroversial, nonpartisan effort that we could all get behind," Hyde-Smith said on the Senate floor. "Even if we had opposing views on protecting the dignity of human life, this provision does not target any one entity. If a medical provider wishes to stay within the Medicaid program, it should simply cut elective abortion procedures from its services."
Hyde-Smith, chair of the Senate Pro-Life Caucus, spoke out against an amendment introduced earlier Monday by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to strike the provision from the GOP’s $3.3 trillion budget package.
Murray's amendment ultimately failed by a 49-52 vote, according to the Washington Examiner.
Murray claimed the one-year ban on Medicaid funds for abortion providers would "cut millions of women off from birth control, cancer screenings, essential preventive health care – care that they will not be able to afford anywhere else, and it will shutter some 200 healthcare clinics in our country."
"This is a long-sought goal of anti-choice extremists—no surprise, it is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people," Murray said. "But Republicans are bent on ripping away any access to abortion care, and happy to cut off this lifesaving care. No matter that women may not have another place to get the care that they can afford, or another place they can get any care at all!"
She pointed to a Congressional Budget Office assessment to argue that "defunding" Planned Parenthood would cost taxpayers $52 million over the next ten years. That was based on the 10-year Medicaid block in an earlier version of the bill passed by the House.
This budget provision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that states have the power to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in a major pro-life victory.
Many senators failed to get their amendments across the finish line during the chamber's vote-a-rama on Monday, leaving the future of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" uncertain.
Two key failures came from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, with the former proposing a plan that would have boosted funding for rural hospitals and the latter calling for further cuts to Medicaid.
Collins and Cornyn were far from the only lawmakers who had amendments fail, however. Here are some details on some of the unsuccessful efforts, plus one that succeeded with nearly unanimous support.
Collins' amendment would have doubled funding for rural hospitals from $25 billion to $50 billion over the next 10 years, and it would have allowed a larger number of medical providers to access the funds.
"Rural providers, especially our rural hospitals and nursing homes, are under great financial strain right now, with many having recently closed and others being at risk of closing," Collins said prior to the vote. "This amendment would help keep them open and caring for those who live in rural communities."
Collins said the bill was something of an olive branch to Democrats, who had criticized the cuts to Medicaid involved in the megabill. Her amendment would also have raised tax rates for individuals who make more than $25 million per year and couples who make more than $50 million.
"They’ve complained repeatedly about the distribution in this bill, of Medicaid cuts hurting individuals, rural hospitals, and tax cuts being extended for people who are wealthy, and yet when I tried to fix both those problems, they took a very hypocritical approach," Collins said.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., argued Collins' amendment was merely putting a "Band-Aid on an amputation."
Cornyn was joined by Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and John Barrasso, R-Wyo., in pushing an amendment cutting an additional $313 billion in Medicaid funding on Monday.
The trio said they were pushing to limit the growth of Medicaid, and they had been confident the adjustment would pass. All three were seen entering Senate Majority Leader John Thune's office on Monday as it became clear the amendment lacked support.
The base bill already cuts some $930 billion in funding for Medicaid, leading many of the trio's colleagues to balk at further cuts.
"It just seems like we’ve taken it as far as I’m comfortable taking it," said Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., regarding trims to Medicaid.
Kennedy had proposed an amendment that would have allowed teachers to deduct $600 in school supplies that they pay for out of pocket each year.
Bennet proposed an amendment that would have increased both the amount and availability of the child tax credit included in the megabill, but it failed to garner enough support.
The Senate rejected Bennet's proposal in a 22-78 vote.
One amendment that did succeed was a measure that killed a provision in the bill that would have placed a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulations.
The original version of the bill would have forced states to choose between enforcing AI regulations or accepting federal funding to expand broadband internet access. Sens. Edward Markey, D-Ma., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., joined Sen. Maria Cantwell in sponsoring the amendment.
"The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws," Cantwell said Monday. "States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on Artificial Intelligence that accelerates U.S. leadership in AI while still protecting consumers."
The Senate passed the amendment in an overwhelming 99-1 vote.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., was the sole vote opposing the measure.
Socialist Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, is facing criticism over a campaign policy document that explicitly calls for shifting the city’s tax burden onto "richer and whiter neighborhoods."
Mamdani caused a political earthquake in this week’s primary, trouncing former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a stunning upset, all but securing his place on the November ballot. Housing affordability has been a central pillar of his campaign.
A policy document titled "Stop the Squeeze on NYC Homeowners" from Mamdani’s mayoral campaign website argues that the city’s current property tax system disproportionately benefits wealthy, White homeowners, particularly in Manhattan and affluent areas of Brooklyn, by allowing them to pay far less in taxes due to outdated assessment caps.
In contrast, Black, Latino and immigrant homeowners in neighborhoods like Brownsville and Jamaica in the outer borough of Queens are overburdened and at higher risk of foreclosure.
His solution?
"Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods," the proposal reads. "The property tax system is unbalanced because assessment levels are artificially capped, so homeowners in expensive neighborhoods pay less than their fair share."
The proposal would reduce the taxable portion of assessed property values citywide, and offset that by raising actual tax rates in wealthier areas. The result: lower tax bills for lower-income neighborhoods and higher ones for affluent areas — which the campaign describes as "richer and whiter."
The racial component of the policy position has come in for criticism online, with broadcaster Mark Levin sharing a New York Post story about the proposal and writing "Oh, and Mamdani is racist, too."
Political commentator Eric Daugherty also brandished it as explicitly "racist" on X, while the New York Post editorial board also slammed the proposal as "pure racism."
Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani’s campaign for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
The campaign document also highlights racial disparities in deed theft and "tangled titles," which are situations where someone lives in a home they believe they own — often through inheritance — but their name is not on the deed, creating legal uncertainty about ownership.
The document states that predominantly Black neighborhoods face these challenges at much higher rates than White neighborhoods.
To address this, Mamdani is proposing a $10 million "Tangled Title Fund" to help city residents hire lawyers and clear legal titles so they can secure full homeownership rights and benefits.
Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose preamble discusses a way to "end white supremacy and racial oppression because its destruction is in the interest of all workers, including white workers."
Overall, the housing document frames the city’s housing inequities as structurally racist and economically unjust.
The document also claims that the city’s tax lien sale system is exploitative and racist. When a homeowner falls behind on property taxes under the system, the city sells that debt to a private trust of Wall Street-backed investors, usually at a discount. instead of collecting the debt directly.
"The tax lien sale has been particularly harmful to Black, brown, and working-class homeowners, leading many homeowners to lose their home to foreclosure, or forcing them to sell below market value in order to pay off their accumulating debts," the document reads. "The city is six times more likely to sell a tax lien in a Black neighborhood than a white neighborhood. This policy is extracting wealth from Black, brown, and working-class communities and stripping New Yorkers of their homes."
Mamdani said he will end the system on his first day in office and create a new tax collection system that provides "additional opportunities" for homeowners to enter into payment plans, pay down their debt and stay in their homes.
The Queens assemblyman wants to build 200,000 new publicly-subsidized affordable homes and immediately freeze rents for the city’s 2.4 million stabilized tenants. His proposals call for multi-year rent freezes and massive investment in public housing. Critics argue his proposals could worsen existing problems in the rental market,
Fox News' Madison Colombo contributed to this report.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tough Bronx persona is under fresh scrutiny with a resurfaced childhood nickname from her suburban upstate New York upbringing casting doubt on that publicly portrayed image.
The progressive champion’s latest spat with President Donald Trump over the Iran strikes again called into question her true upbringing when she declared on X that she was a "Bronx girl" to make a point against the president.
The 35-year-old "Squad" member wrote in part on X last week: "I’m a Bronx girl. You should know that we can eat Queens boys for breakfast. Respectfully," she said, referring to the president’s upbringing in Queens as she called for his impeachment over his decision to bypass Congress in authorizing U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx but moved to Yorktown – which is nearly an hour outside New York City -- when she was 5 years old and went on to attend Yorktown High School, from where she graduated in 2007.
She was considered an accomplished student there and well-thought of by teacher Michael Blueglass, according to a 2018 report by local media outlet Halston Media News.
"There, known by students and staff as ‘Sandy,’ she was a member of the Science Research Program taught by Michael Blueglass," the report states.
"She was amazing," Blueglass said, per the report. "Aside from her winning one of the top spots and going to the [Intel International Science and Engineering Fair], she was just one of the most amazing presenters in all of the years I've been at Yorktown. Her ability to take complex information and explain it to all different levels of people was fantastic."
After high school, Ocasio-Cortez attended Boston University, where she majored in economics and international relations, per the report.
Ocasio-Cortez’s "Sandy" nickname — which carries a more suburban and preppy tone — appears to undercut her politically crafted image as a tough, inner-city fighter, one she has portrayed since her famous 2018 congressional campaign, where she eventually ousted former 10-term Congressman Joe Crowley.
New York GOP Assemblyman Matt Slater, who now represents Yorktown, added to the scrutiny of Ocasio-Cortez’s persona in the wake of her brush with Trump and released images of Ocasio-Cortez from his high school yearbook. He claimed he and the rising Democratic star attended Yorktown High School at the same time when she was a freshman and he was a senior.
"I saw the attacks on the president and her [Ocasio-Cortez] claims that she's a big, tough Bronx girl," said Slater. "To sit there and say that she’s a Bronx girl is just patently ridiculous."
"Everybody in our community knows this is just a bold-face lie," said Slater on "Fox & Friends First" last week. "She grew up in Yorktown, she was on my track team."
"She's lying about her background, she's lying about her upbringing," Slater claimed.
Slater’s post sent social media ablaze and prompted Ocasio-Cortez to respond after an image of her family’s home in Yorktown was posted online.
"I’m proud of how I grew up and talk about it all the time," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X Friday, responding to the post. "My mom cleaned houses and I helped. We cleaned tutors’ homes in exchange for SAT prep."
"Growing up between the Bronx and Yorktown deeply shaped my views of inequality & it’s a big reason I believe the things I do today!"
Fox News' Madison Colombo contributed to this report.
Former Texas Rep. Colin Allred is making another run for the U.S. Senate after the Democrat lost to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz just eight months ago.
Allred is looking to challenge for the seat of Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who is facing his own challenge from within the Republican Party from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Allred announced his return to the political arena with a campaign video released Tuesday, in which he took shots at both Cornyn and Paxton, describing them as "too corrupt to care about us and too weak to fight for us."
A former NFL linebacker and attorney, Allred retold the story of how he went undrafted in the NFL but worked hard enough to eventually turn pro and buy his mom a house.
"The truth is you shouldn’t have to have a son in the NFL to own a home," Allred said.
"Everything is backwards," he continued. "Folks who play by the rules and keep the faith just can’t seem to get ahead. But the folks who cut corners and cut deals — well, they’re doing just fine."
Allred pledged to run on an "anti-corruption plan."
"I know Washington is broken," he said. "The system is rigged. But it doesn’t have to be this way. In six years in Congress, I never took a dime of corporate PAC money, never traded a single stock."
Allred's announcement comes just eight months after he lost by nearly 9 percentage points to Cruz. That race was one of the most expensive in the country last cycle, with Democrats spending more than $130 million trying to unseat Cruz.
Allred played four seasons in the NFL, all with the Tennessee Titans, after being undrafted out of Baylor University. He entered Congress by flipping a Republican district in Dallas in 2018.
Former astronaut Terry Virts also entered the U.S. Senate race as a Democratic candidate.
As sixth-generation fighter programs ramp up, military insiders are divided over whether future warplanes need pilots at all.
The Pentagon is pouring billions into next-generation aircraft, pushing the boundaries of stealth and speed. But as America eyes a future of air dominance, one question looms large: Should Americans still be risking their lives in the cockpit?
Autonomous drones backed by AI are progressing faster than many expected, and that has some defense leaders rethinking the role of the pilot.
Some are of the mindset that the F-35 should be the last manned aircraft. Many pilots, however, do not agree.
"It’s highly controversial," one former senior defense official told Fox News Digital. "There's a whole cohort of people who think we should not be thinking about building a manned fighter for the last half of this century."
"Inside the Air Force, there are hard-line air dominance people. They're on cloud nine this week, after what the B-2s did in Iran… but in my mind, I say, why would we put men in that loop? Why wouldn't we fly those things in 2050 unmanned, completely?"
Air Force pilots flew B-2 bombers on a 36-hour round trip to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend. Trump said the strikes left Iran's nuclear sites "obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before." He praised the "brave" pilots who crewed the planes as "the best shots in the world."
But the most rapid technological advancements in U.S. history have left defense officials stumped about how to plan for the future.
"To date, the services are just scratching the surface on what manned versus unmanned TACAIR (tactical air) of the future might look like," the former official went on.
"If AI technologies continue to evolve in five years, right when you're just in the infancy of beginning to make a decision about what F-47 would be, well, you're on exactly the wrong path."
Others insist unmanned systems still lack the decision-making reliability and network resilience needed for high-stakes combat.
"It's critically important that President Trump proceeded with the manned platform for the Air Force – obviously, F-47 being the solution," said former Rep. Mike Garcia, R-Calif., a former F/A 18 naval aviator. "This academic debate about unmanned-only platforms is aspirational – but the networks just aren’t there yet. You need low latency, high-bandwidth, distributed networks with critical nodes, and we don’t have that."
But, he urged Boeing to move quickly.
"Boeing needs to execute. They can’t afford to have this turn into a tanker program. This is absolutely critical to get done correctly."
With the famously lengthy acquisition timelines of the Pentagon, some worry sixth-generation aircraft won't make it to the battlefield before their autonomous counterparts match them in capability, with less risk to humans.
Garcia emphasized that aircrews play a unique role in orchestrating combat operations. "You still need a quarterback in the air to manage unmanned aircraft and the situational awareness feeding back into the entire advanced battle management system," he said.
At the core of this debate is America’s ability to project power while preparing for near-peer conflict. Yet financial limitations are shaping what’s possible.
"We've ended up in a situation where the Air Force today is the oldest and the smallest and the least ready it's ever been in its entire history," said retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.
Deptula told Fox News Digital the "only" debate about the F-47 was about money, because of "arbitrary budgets that aren't tied in any way, shape or form to our national defense strategy."
Those who think drones will be ready to take the job of pilots anytime soon believe in "science fiction," he said.
"It may be at some point in the future, but we're just not there yet."
Others warn that both the Air Force and Navy may be taking different bets on how unmanned technology will factor into the need for their prized fighter jets.
"To date, the services are just scratching the surface on what manned versus unmanned tactical air might look like," another former defense official said. "The Air Force wants to rush F-47 to IOC to beat unmanned advocates to the trough," referring to initial operational capacity (IOC).
"The Navy seems to be taking a more measured path to F/A-XX than they were a couple of years ago. Perhaps part of that is to see where the unmanned technology goes."
Senior Democratic Party officials vowed Monday to "fight tooth and nail" to keep in place federal campaign spending limits up for Supreme Court review this fall — describing the GOP-led effort to repeal the limits as unprecedented and dangerous ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review the case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, taking up a challenge filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and on behalf of two Senate Republican candidates, including now-Vice President JD Vance, following the 2022 elections.
In a statement Monday, the Democratic campaign groups vowed to fight back against what they characterized as the GOP’s attempt to "sow chaos and fundamentally upend our campaign finance system, which would return us to the pre-Watergate era of campaign finance."
At issue are federal spending limits that restrict the amount of money political parties can spend on behalf of certain candidates — and which Republicans argue run afoul of free speech protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
A decision from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority could have major implications on campaign spending in the U.S., further eroding the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, a law Congress passed more than 50 years ago with the aim of restricting the amount of money that can be spent on behalf of candidates.
That law, and subsequent amendments, restricts the amount of money that political parties can funnel into certain campaigns.
Senior Democratic Party officials described the GOP-led effort Monday as the latest effort by Republicans to claw back campaign spending limits and erode some 50 years of federal election law.
"Republicans know their grassroots support is drying up across the country, and they want to drown out the will of the voters," DCCC chair Suzan DelBene, DSCC chair Kirsten Gillibrand, and DNC chair Ken Martin said in a joint statement Monday.
The case is almost certain to be one of the most high-profile cases heard by the Supreme Court this fall.
Adding to the drama is the involvement of the Trump-led Justice Department, which said in May that it planned to side with the NRSCin the case — putting the Trump administration in the somewhat unusual position of arguing against a law passed by Congress.
Justice Departmentofficials cited free speech protections as its basis for siding with the NRSC, which they said represents "the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach" of backing federal laws."
Meanwhile, the Democratic groups sought to go on offense with their message, describing the GOP efforts as the latest iteration of a decades-long effort to "rewrite" election laws in ways that benefit the party. They cited another Republican-led challenge to campaign spending limits brought more than 20 years ago, in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC.
That challenge was ultimately rejected by the high court, DNC officials noted.
"To date, those efforts have failed at every turn, ensuring a stable, predictable campaign finance structure for party committees and political candidates across the country," DNC officials said.
Meanwhile, Republican officials praised the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, which they described as helping the GOP ensure they are in "the strongest possible position" ahead of the 2026 midterms and beyond."
"The government should not restrict a party committee’s support for its own candidates," Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C. who chair the NRSC and NRCC, respectively, said Monday.
"These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the court’s decision to hear our case," they added.
Business tycoon Elon Musk indicated that he will donate to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
Massie, a fiscal hawk who was one of the two House Republicans who voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that cleared the House of Representatives in May, also labeled President Donald Trump's strikes against Iran last month as "not Constitutional."
"Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame! And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth," Musk declared in a post on X.
Former Rep. Justin Amash replied by urging Musk to back Massie.
"Please support @RepThomasMassie. The establishment is working to primary him because he’s a genuine fiscal conservative and opposes the Big, Bloated Scam," Amash wrote.
Trump excoriated Massie in a June 22 Truth Social post, calling him a "pathetic LOSER" and declaring "we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I’ll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard."
Trump also targeted Massie in Truth Social posts on June 23 and 24.
"My campaign is fueled by the grassroots donors on this map; 3,417 of you donated $308,665 last week. Thank you!" Massie declared in a Monday post on his campaign account on X.
He’s even demanding that Israel cancel the criminal trial of Bibi Netanyahu.
By any objective analysis, whether you like the president or not, he has been on an incredible winning streak for the last two weeks. Everything seems to be breaking his way.
And as he racks up these victories, from the powder keg of the Middle East to the staunchly conservative Supreme Court, he seems to grow bigger and stronger, like some comic book superhero, and then zap his next adversary.
By hitting Iran’s nuclear sites with 30,000-pound bombs – even as we debate the impact – Trump took a risk that stunned the world.
With media liberals and Democrats still in full resistance mode, the coverage has been largely negative, but that doesn’t matter. Since his days as a New York developer, he has been boosted by critical coverage because that drives the news agenda and gets everyone chattering about his preferred topic.
But telling another country to drop criminal charges against its leader is a whole new level of what his native city calls chutzpah.
Trump posted the following: "It is terrible what they are doing in Israel to Bibi Netanyahu. He is a War Hero, and a Prime Minister who did a fabulous job working with the United States to bring Great Success in getting rid of the dangerous Nuclear threat in Iran."
Netanyahu is in "the process of negotiating a Deal with Hamas, which will include getting the Hostages back," and Trump wonders how the Israelis could force him "to sit in a Courtroom all day long, over NOTHING."
As Axios points out, Netanyahu is charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust:
"He’s accused of accepting more than $200,000 in gifts from wealthy businessmen, and of granting regulatory benefits worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a telecom tycoon in exchange for favorable news coverage."
The trial has dragged on for four years, thanks to Netanyahu’s delaying tactics, and there was this war thing that intervened.
So now Trump has called for the trial to be cancelled or Netanyahu granted a pardon – and done it quite openly.
Imagine if a foreign head of state urged this country to drop charges against a major political figure. But Trump doesn’t play by everyone else’s rules.
Another Trumpian tactic is to make a big move immediately after a major uproar, when the public and press barely has time to digest the previous controversy.
So the president cut off trade talks with Canada to protest its taxation of major American tech companies such as Amazon and Google. This involves revenue they earn from online marketplaces, data and social media involving Canadian users.
Before the weekend was out, Canada caved and rescinded the taxes. It’s another case of Trump’s tough-guy negotiating tactics getting instant results.
The not-so-beautiful budget bill in the Senate is another classic case. Elon Musk – did you really think he’d stay quiet for long? – calls it "utterly insane" and "political suicide for the Republican Party." The CBO says it would add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over a decade. The Senate measure would also make deep cuts in Medicaid, which Trump has vowed to protect.
Here’s the point: One of the loudest Republican critics is Sen. Thom Tillis, who has been voting against a bill he says would betray the president’s promise to protect those on Medicaid. Trump has trashed him, saying he will recruit a challenger to oust him from the Senate in next year’s primary.
The next day, literally, Tillis announced that he would not run for reelection.
So Trump can save his money. He knocked out the North Carolina lawmaker with a couple of postings.
And then there’s the Supreme Court.
By ruling that local judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions, the court has immensely increased the power of Trump and the executive branch. The 6-3 decision came in the birthright citizenship case, though not on the merits, and tore down one of the last guardrails against unchecked presidential power.
It applies to Democratic presidents too, though far more of these injunctions – 40 – have been brought against Trump just in the opening months of his second term. Joe Biden faced 14 in the first three years of his term.
These injunctions – which have always seemed unfair to me, on both sides – also extend Trump’s winning streak in the high court. He has, after all, appointed three of the six justices that make up the conservative majority.
And that’s not all. SCOTUS ruled that parents with religious objections can pull their children out of public school classrooms when books with LGBTQ themes are being taught.
In yet another decision, the court upheld a Tennessee law banning some forms of transition surgery for transgender youths. Trump has ordered transgender members of the military to leave the service.
Sonia Sotomayor read two blistering dissents from the bench, especially in the birthright citizenship case: "Today’s decision is not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law…No right is safe."
Trump has made clear that he will use expanded powers to be even more aggressive than in the past. Throw in his pressure tactics and funding freezes against elite law firms and Ivy League universities and you have an emboldened president even more determined to stick it to his opponents and detractors.
Of course, even Trump has his limits. The effort to derail Netanyahu’s corruption trial was destined to fail.
Oh wait.
An Israeli court yesterday canceled this week’s hearings on diplomatic and national security grounds, based on classified information provided by the prime minister and the Mossad spy agency.
A deal that had been reached between Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, over how states can regulate artificial intelligence has been pulled from President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" bill.
The collapsed agreement would have required states seeking to access hundreds of millions of dollars in AI infrastructure funding in the "big, beautiful" bill to refrain from adopting new regulations on the technology for five years, a compromise down from the original 10 years.
It also included carveouts to regulate child sexual abuse material, unauthorized use of a person’s likeness and other deceptive practices.
Blackburn announced Monday night that she is withdrawing her support for the agreement.
"For as long as I’ve been in Congress, I’ve worked alongside federal and state legislators, parents seeking to protect their kids online, and the creative community in Tennessee to fight back against Big Tech’s exploitation by passing legislation to govern the virtual space," Blackburn said in a statement to Fox News.
"While I appreciate Chairman Cruz’s efforts to find acceptable language that allows states to protect their citizens from the abuses of AI, the current language is not acceptable to those who need these protections the most," she continued. "This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives."
Blackburn added: "Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens."
When asked about Blackburn pulling her support for the compromise, Cruz told Punchbowl News the "night is young."
But Blackburn appears to now be co-sponsoring an amendment with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would completely pull the AI moratorium from the bill.
Cantwell had earlier said that the since-scrapped deal between Blackburn and Cruz would do "nothing to protect kids or consumers."
"It's just another giveaway to tech companies," Cantwell said in a statement Monday. "This provision gives AI and social media a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation. This is Section 230 on steroids."
Blackburn is one of several Republicans who have expressed concerns about the 10-year ban on state AI regulation.
Last week, 17 Republican governors wrote a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., calling for the pause to be scrapped completely.
"AI is already deeply entrenched in American industry and society; people will be at risk until basic rules ensuring safety and fairness can go into effect," the letter reads. "Over the next decade, this novel technology will be used throughout our society, for harm and good. It will significantly alter our industries, jobs, and ways of life, and rebuild how we as a people function in profound and fundamental ways."
"That Congress is burying a provision that will strip the right of any state to regulate this technology in any way – without a thoughtful public debate – is the antithesis of what our Founders envisioned," it continued.
Some House Republicans also said they do not support the AI provision, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who admitted she found out about it a few days after voting for Trump's spending bill.
"Full transparency, I did not know about this," Greene wrote on X. "I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there."
As the Senate continued to inch closer to finalizing President Donald Trump’s "One Big Beautiful Bill," the president took to social media early Tuesday to warn that a failure to come to an agreement would end in the largest tax increase in history.
The message came after lawmakers had been in a marathon "vote-a-rama," for several hours, submitting amendments to the megabill from either side of the aisle.
"Republicans, the One Big Beautiful Bill, perhaps the greatest and most important of its kind in history, gives the largest Tax Cuts and Border Security ever, Jobs by the Millions, Military/Vets increases, and so much more. The failure to pass means a whopping 68% Tax increase, the largest in history!!!," he posted.
There is currently no end in sight as Republican leaders are searching for ways to garner support for the bill while simultaneously fighting proposed amendments from Democrats who are opposing it.
GOP leaders have a narrow margin and cannot afford to lose more than three Republican senators as two, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has already indicated that they oppose it.
Tillis announced that he would not be seeking reelection after President Trump made threats of a campaign against him.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said Republicans are "figuring out how to get to the end game," but an end to the vote-a-rama has been predicted to come well into the middle of the night.
The bill, if passed, will enact Trump’s domestic tax and spending agenda that includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, according to the latest CBO analysis.
The package would also roll back billions in green energy tax credits threatening wind and solar investments, according to Democrats.
Billionaire Elon Musk, who until a few weeks ago led the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), took to social media late Monday, lashing out at Republicans as "the PORKY PIG PARTY!!" for including a provision, he argued, would raise the nation’s debt limit by $5 trillion.
Trump fired back at Musk on Truth Social, threatening to turn DOGE on its former leader.
"Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one. Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!" the president wrote.
The bill will also impose $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps and make sign-up eligibility more rigorous and change federal reimbursements to states. It will also provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security to include deportations.
Elon Musk has not given up his criticism over what he sees as a lack of spending cuts in the GOP's "big, beautiful bill," insisting on his platform X on Monday "that we live in a one-party country" and threatening that if the bill passes a new "America Party" would be formed.
Musk's criticism of the Republican spending package began before he even left the Trump administration as a special government employee heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). It continued following his departure, with Musk describing the bill as "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination" earlier this month. The billionaire entrepreneur has lamented that the bill could work to undo much of the work he accomplished with DOGE.
"It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!" Musk wrote on X Monday afternoon as the Senate continued to consider the House-passed spending bill. "Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people," Musk added.
In a separate post on X Monday evening, Musk doubled down on his claim that the U.S. is governed by a one-party system.
"They just pretend to be two parties," he wrote, sharing a post alongside a graphic showing how much the national debt has steadily increased every year. "It’s just one uniparty in reality."
Meanwhile, the billionaire entrepreneur threatened that "if this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day."
"Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE," Musk wrote Monday evening on X.
Musk previously said he was "disappointed" in the spending bill because "it undermines" all the work his DOGE team was accomplishing to cut back on waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R–S.D., refuted Musk's claim that the bill would upend all the work he did with DOGE, noting in an interview that "a lot of what Elon was working on was on the discretionary side of the budget, which [the "big, beautiful bill"] doesn't touch."
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought clarified in an interview with The Blaze’s Glenn Beck that the GOP’s "big, beautiful bill" cannot legally include cuts to discretionary spending — the very category targeted by Musk’s DOGE initiative, he noted. The bill includes discretionary spending instructions for defense and border security, but final approval still requires passage through the congressional appropriations process.
Earlier this month, after formally leaving his post in the Trump administration, Musk shared a social media post President Donald Trump posted in 2013, noting he was "embarrassed" at the time to be a Republican after the party extended the debt ceiling. Musk shared the former post and wrote: "wise words."
Several days prior, Musk referred to the Trump-endorsed "big, beautiful bill" as a "disgusting abomination." He has also previously suggested the bill would kill jobs and raise taxes on renewable energy projects not yet even underway. The feud between Musk and Trump and his supporters of the bill escalated even further after Musk sought to link Trump to the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal in a now-deleted post.
When reached for comment about Musk's complaints about the Trump-endorsed spending package, the White House pointed to the president's comments over the weekend to Fox News Business. When asked on Sunday during an interview with Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo about his relationship with Musk since he left the White House, the president described Musk as a "wonderful guy." Later, Trump described some of Musk’s post–White House behavior as inappropriate.
"I think he's a wonderful guy. I haven't spoken to him much, but I think Elon is a wonderful guy, and I know he's going to do well always," Trump said. "He's a smart guy. And he actually went and campaigned with me and this and that. But he got a little bit upset, and that wasn't appropriate."
"Why did he get upset? He just wasn't getting what he wanted?" Bartiromo questioned.
"Look, the electric vehicle mandate, the EV mandate, is a tough thing for him," Trump explained. "I would, you know, I don't want everybody to have an electric car. You know, I campaigned on choice — you have — choice… not everybody should have that and not everybody wants that."
U.S. Capitol Police arrested dozens of demonstrators inside the Capitol rotunda and outside Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., as members of the Senate continued to debate President Donald Trump’s "big, beautiful bill."
The Associated Press said demonstrators were protesting the Republican tax and spending cut bill at two different sites.
One of the sites was the Capitol Rotunda, and the other was at an intersection near the U.S. Capitol Building.
U.S. Capitol Police told the AP those arrested face charges such as crowding, obstructing and incommoding.
Fox News Digital has reached out to U.S. Capitol Police for additional information about the arrests.
Images of the protests inside the rotunda showed demonstrators holding signs that read, "cuts to SNAP are policy murder." One man participating in the demonstration had a shirt which read, "Poor People’s Campaign."
Outside the Capitol, some of the demonstrators carried black wooden coffins with red signs that read, "178,000 People In Florida Will Lose Medicaid," "This Coffin Represents Policy Murder," and "574,000 People in Florida Will Lose SNAP."
Other coffins had signs representing similar numbers, but in states like West Virginia, Illinois and Kentucky.
Several people who were demonstrating wore religious attire as well.
One of the groups at the protests was called Repairers of the Breach. In a statement obtained by the AP, the organization claimed to have led the effort, adding that the demonstration continues a tradition of nonviolent actions at the Capitol, confronting unjust policies and calling the nation to higher ground.
The protests come as Republican lawmakers sprint to meet a July 4 deadline to pass a massive piece of legislation to advance Trump’s agenda.
The budget reconciliation bill, if passed, will advance the president’s agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. The legislation is currently in the hands of the Senate.
Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.
Democratic New York City mayoral candidate and self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani is facing criticism over remarks made at a Young Democratic Socialists of America conference, where he urged attendees not to compromise on goals like "seizing the means of production."
During the appearance — which was part of a 2021 YDSA winter conference — Mamdani, then newly elected to the New York State Assembly, lamented that many socialist principles remain outside the political mainstream.
"Right now, if we're talking about the cancellation of student debt, if we're talking about Medicare for all, you know, these are issues which have the groundswell of popular support across this country," Mamdani says in a video to conference goers. "But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it's BDS or whether it is the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment."
Mamdani went on to say that it was "critical" for people not to compromise on these less popular ideas, despite publicly asserting this week he is "not a communist."
"It's critical, the way that we organize, the way that we set up our — you know, set up our work and our priorities, that we do not leave any one issue for the other, that we do not meet a moment and only look at what people are ready for, but that we are doing both of these things in tandem," Mamdani continues in his conference address. "Because it is critical for us to both meet people where they're at and to also organize for what is correct and for what is right, and to ensure that, over time, we can bring people to that issue."
On Monday, the video of Mamdani speaking at the 2021 YDSA conference began making the rounds on social media.
"Mamdani’s socialism nomenclature is no joke or aspiration," billionaire Bill Ackman said in response to the video as it began appearing on social media. "It is the business plan of a movement that he is leading and, for now, winning. Don’t rely on my summary. Listen to him speak his own words."
"Mamdani smiles like a crocodile as he says his end goal is to elect more socialists and seize the means of production," President Donald Trump's crypto and artificial intelligence czar added in response to the video. "Democrats have become the party of the Luigi Left, Tesla Terrorism, and Crocodile Communists."
Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani's campaign for a response to these criticisms but did not receive a response in time for publication.
Last week, Trump personally criticized Mamdani, who upset former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the NYC mayoral primary earlier this month, as a "100% communist lunatic."
"It’s finally happened, the Democrats have crossed the line," Trump wrote. "We’ve had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous." Trump doubled down on the communist claim this week in an interview with Fox Business, adding that, if elected, Mamdani better "behave" or risk his city losing federal funding.
"No, I am not," Mamdani responded when asked point-blank by NBC's Kristen Welker. "I have already had to start to get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I'm from, who I am, ultimately, because he wants to distract from what I'm fighting for. And I'm fighting for the very working people that he ran a campaign to empower that he has since then betrayed.
"When we talk about my politics, you know, I call myself a Democratic socialist in many ways inspired by the words of Dr. [Martin Luther] King from decades ago, who said, ‘Call it democracy, call it Democratic-Socialism, there has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country."
The worst thing in broadcasting is dead air. And that may be the goal of Lake – a former Arizona TV news anchor.
"It's really like a rotten piece of fish," said Lake before a recent House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "And it's best to just scrap the whole thing and start over."
She plans to edit the influence of VOA and other government media such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcast Networks.
"We need to modernize. I don't think doing 1990s television is effective anymore," said Lake.
The hearing marked the first time Lake testified before lawmakers since President Trump tapped her for the position. She told lawmakers that Chinese spies infiltrated the VOA’s Mandarin service. And Russian spooks nearly made the payroll at Radio Free Europe.
"This is not the voice of America. This is the voice of America's enemies," said Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky.
Democrats say curbing VOA silences the U.S. from transmitting news and truthful information into enemy territory.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., was apoplectic at the Trump Administration’s plans to cancel many of the government’s radio and TV broadcasts abroad.
"My God. It's the worst and most stupid thing that we could do in foreign affairs," fumed Sherman. "That's our soft power. That's our effort to bring freedom of information and hopefully democracy to the entire world. That's how we explain ourselves in dozens of different languages. And for them to gut it? In terms of our influence in the world, Voice of America and its sister broadcasters is more important than an aircraft carrier."
Sherman reiterated his concerns about diminishing soft power at the hearing, adding that changes to the VOA lineup may appeal to a special audience abroad.
"I think Putin would be very happy," said Sherman about the Russian leader. "Bombs are powerful. Truth is more powerful."
But it’s not just Democrats who fret about the static on the government airwaves.
Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., says unwinding Radio Free Asia cedes power to China and North Korea.
"We have let go of journalists that have spent decades building their credibility and trust with our audiences," said Kim. "Without reporting from the outside world through VOA and (Radio Free Asia), most North Korean civilians only see the United States as the bad guy."
Kim feared the U.S. couldn’t "win in the information domain."
Lake recently canned 639 Global Media employees. She says her orders come from the top.
Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, asked what sort of "review" she did to pare back VOA and other services.
"What we've reviewed was an executive order March 14th by the man who's in charge of the executive branch. Hs name is Donald Trump," said Lake.
She then held up a photo of the president and showed it to lawmakers facing her on the dais.
Democrats contend that’s exactly the problem as the president and Lake try to redesign American government broadcasters.
"I see why Mr. Trump put you in this position. He doesn't want a free press," scolded Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Penn. "You are a propaganda machine for the Trump Administration."
Democrats piled on.
"I’m also concerned about your ability to promote American democracy given your background backing dictators," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.
Other Democrats highlighted Lake’s controversial political history and how she questioned the results of both races.
"You have been sanctioned twice for providing false information to courts. Isn't that true? Yes or no?," asked Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., the former mayor of Phoenix.
"I was brave enough to fight our shoddy elections. And the courts have not caught up," fired back Lake.
"The American people cannot believe a word you say," said Stanton. "You lost, fair and square. Instead of conceding, you embarrassed yourself and our state by lying again and again for years, blaming everything under the sun for your loss except for your own toxic politics. You lie about that election to this very day."
After Lake’s dual political losses, Stanton had a request of Lake.
"Will you do us all a favor and run it back and run again?" he asked.
Lake encountered more friendly questioning from Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich. He asked about potential messages U.S. Global Media could broadcast around the world.
"What do you think some of the most important stories and tenants about America that need to be told that haven't been getting told?" asked Huizenga.
"I think that just the history of this country and what this country is about. Our freedoms. Our liberties. Our Bill of Rights," stated Lake.
"Maybe the founding of our country?" suggested Huizenga.
"The founding of our country and especially this year with 250 years," responded Lake, noting that July 4, 2025, is the semi-quincentennial of the U.S.
"That would seem to me a pretty big story to tell," added Huizenga.
Congress commissioned VOA during the Cold War to beam news behind the Iron Curtain. But today, Republicans question its necessity. Especially when people now get news from their phone.
"Goddangit, it's not very efficient," said Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn.
"It’s a relic," declared Lake.
"Yes ma’am. It’s a Cold War relic," agreed Burchett.
VOA fired dozens of staff in its Persian division. But restored some programming as tensions rose between Iran and Israel – culminating in the recent U.S. airstrikes. But the VOA’s Persian service used to broadcast 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Even though VOA bolstered some reporting amid the crisis, it was a fraction of the work the organization used to do.
"From my understanding the VOA operation is pretty much gone," observed Kim at the hearing.
"No. It’s not gone. We’re doing what is statutorily required," replied Lake. "The statutory minimum."
That means VOA and other services are but a husk. Congress will prepare spending bills for the entire federal government over the next three months. What lawmakers decide to do with funding for VOA and Global Media will foretell the future of the organizations. And if the microphones fall silent for good.
The largest number of voters since 2011 say they are proud of the country, according to a new Fox News national survey.
Fifty-eight percent say they are proud of the country. That’s up 13 percentage points since June 2024 and the highest since 2011 when a record 69% were proud. By contrast, 41% are not proud. The survey was completed before recent events in the Middle East, including U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and President Donald Trump brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
The increase comes from an overwhelming majority of Republicans (85%) now being proud compared to last summer (36%). That makes Republicans 30 points prouder of the country today than Democrats were a year ago (55% of Democrats in 2024). In 2011, majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents were proud.
The new survey shows 36% of Democrats are proud (61% not proud) while Independents held relatively steady with roughly 4 in 10 expressing pride.
"Although pride in the U.S.A. seems like it should be above partisan wrangling, that’s only partially borne out by the data," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News survey with Democrat Chris Anderson. "The reality is the out-party has become saltier in recent years when asked about the ‘land of the free.’ Democrats today (and Republicans last year) aren’t willing to express pride so long as the other side controls the White House."
Majorities across most groups are proud, especially MAGA supporters (92%), Republican men (88%), and White evangelical Christians (80%). A lack of pride is highest among women with a college degree (51% not proud), voters under age 30 (57%), and Democrats (61%).
A 68% majority of voters also agrees the U.S. is the best country in the world to live in (30% disagree). While that’s roughly where sentiment has been for the last four years, it doesn’t match the 8 in 10 who felt the same in 2015 (83%) and 2011 (84%) when the question was first asked.
In 2011, 89% of Republicans, 84% of Democrats, and 73% of Independents thought living in America was the best. For Republicans, that number held steady at 90% today, but has decreased by 34 points among Democrats (50%), and by 13 points among Independents (60%).
Overall, one-third trust the federal government compared to nearly two-thirds who distrust it. The only time more voters trusted than distrusted the government was in 2002 (54% vs. 36%), and that was also the first time the question was asked on a Fox News survey.
Most Democrats (73%) and Independents (80%) distrust the government, while Republicans are split (47% trust, 48% don’t trust).
Even as more are proud of the country, more than 8 in 10 (85% extremely or very) are concerned about the future of the country, the highest in a list of eight concerns, albeit by one point. Almost as many say inflation is a huge concern (84%), followed by government spending (80%), Iran getting a nuclear bomb (78%), antisemitism (69%), illegal immigration (67%), domestic use of U.S. military troops (66%), and protests in U.S. cities (63%).
The future of the country is the top issue for Democrats and Independents (90% each concerned). For Republicans, it comes in fourth at 79% behind illegal immigration, Iran getting a nuclear bomb, and government spending.
Conducted June 13-16, 2025, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,003 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (149) and cellphones (566) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (288). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education, and area variables to ensure the demographics of respondents are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis and voter file data.
South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, the state’s sole member of the House, has announced a run for governor.
Johnson is chair of the House GOP's Main Street Caucus and a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. He has served in Congress since 2019, following a job as vice president at a South Dakota-based engineering and consulting firm. Prior to his role as an executive, Johnson also worked as South Dakota Public Utilities commissioner from 2005 to 2011, during which he was appointed chief of staff to former Gov. Dennis Daugaard.
The announcement, deemed by local media as a "formality" after Johnson was already rumored to run, came Monday at a campaign event and was paired with a video the representative shared on social media.
"I's been such an honor to work for you in Congress. We rolled up our sleeves and got things moving in the right direction, cutting trillions in wasteful spending, standing with President Trump to secure our border and finally getting tough on China," Johnson said.
"Those were important fights to build a better country for our kids, but their future doesn't begin in some far away place. It begins here, at home, in South Dakota. That's why we need to hit the gas and give them a clear path to a bright future."
Following the announcement, criticism began popping up online that Johnson has not adequately supported President Donald Trump, and claims he is a "never-Trumper" are "lies of the desperate."
"Here are the facts," Johnson told Fox News Digital. "Donald Trump has had me down to Mar-a-Lago. I've gone to the Super Bowl with President Trump. I donated $10,000 to his re-election campaign years ago. He endorsed me in my 2020 race. I was his state campaign chairman for his re-elect."
Johnson added that he is someone who has "a long-standing, multi-year history of being a partner" with Trump.
Johnson also said he has proven to be a "key ally" of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R–La., noting he was one of the members of Congress who "helped deliver the votes to get him elected speaker."
On the fight in the Senate over the Trump-endorsed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Johnson said he supports the version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives and expressed optimism it will get passed by the Senate by the GOP's self-imposed July 4 deadline.
