Category: USA Politics

A Supreme Court leak is giving liberals new ammunition in their long-running criticism of the emergency docket after recently published internal memos showed how the high court fast-tracks major cases, a process that critics say has served to advance key parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda in his second term.

“The liberals are salivating over this. They’re very happy because it reinforces their narrative,” South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman told Fox News Digital.

The memos, published Saturday by The New York Times, offered a rare look at how Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the court in 2016 to quickly block President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. 

THE FIVE LIBERAL COURTS THAT TIED TRUMP’S HANDS BEFORE SCOTUS CLIPPED THEIR POWER

But the immediate concern now is not about what the documents revealed about the Supreme Court’s emergency docket but rather the leak itself, according to experts, who said it was a deliberate attempt to damage the court’s credibility.

“The bigger issue is people are leaking stuff to try to hurt the court,” Blackman said. “That’s the bigger story. This was done to try to make the court look bad. Roberts, I think, doesn’t come out looking very good in this one. … I think it’s designed to hurt the chief in particular.”

The leaked internal memos appeared centered on the 5-4 decision along ideological lines in February 2016 to block Obama’s signature energy plan. The memos, written by and circulated among the justices, showed Roberts urging his colleagues to quickly intervene and halt the plan, a revelation that fueled attacks from the left on the so-called shadow docket.

“The new reporting highlights the role of this rashly issued stay in inaugurating the Supreme Court’s use of unexplained and hastily issued ‘shadow docket’ proceedings to alter major national policies,” Environmental Defense Fund general counsel Vickie Patton said in a statement Monday.

The leak has generated several theories in legal circles that a liberal justice or retired liberal justice or one of their former clerks passed the 16 pages of memos off to The New York Times to weaken confidence in high-profile emergency docket decisions, which have often favored Trump since he took office. A similar, smaller-scale leak to the same New York Times reporters occurred in 2024.

Blackman noted the person who gave the decade-old memos to The New York Times could share even more.

“This person probably kept a lot of things and decided to leak this, and there might be even more coming,” Blackman said. “I think this is absolutely partisan, and it’s done in a way to hurt and wound the court and to reaffirm this notion that the shadow docket is an evil, nefarious regime.”

SUPREME COURT’S 2026 RULINGS COULD DEFINE AMERICA FOR DECADES TO COME

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley echoed Blackman’s sentiments in an op-ed, saying “the controversy over the use of the shadow docket is immaterial to this story.”

Turley pointed to the Dobbs opinion leak to Politico from 2022, which was, at the time, a stunning violation of the high court’s confidentiality. Turley noted while that breach was an apparent “effort to influence the final opinion,” this latest one is about an old case and therefore “had a purely malicious purpose to embarrass or disrupt the court.”

“The leaks appear to reflect a deteriorating culture at the court,” Turley added.

The Supreme Court’s press office did not respond to an inquiry from Fox News Digital about the leaks.

GREGG JARRETT: TRUMP’S DEPORTATION WINS ARE A REBUKE TO SCHEMING LAWYERS AND ACTIVIST JUDGES

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News on Monday the memos were “100%” intended to discredit the court. Hawley and his wife, Erin, a lawyer at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, both previously worked as law clerks for Roberts.

“You can tell from the news article that it builds that way,” Hawley said. “They criticize the court for how they’re managing their docket. They say this is some big conspiracy. The only conspiracy is the multi-year effort funded by somebody to undermine the institution of the court from within, from without. … We need to find out who’s doing this.”

The emergency docket allows litigants to bypass lengthy court proceedings and seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court if lower courts block them through restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.

Democrats have criticized the Supreme Court for the higher frequency of emergency decisions, which often contain little explanation but have increased because of what legal experts say is a rise in executive actions in lieu of Congress passing laws. 

In Trump’s second term, the justices have ruled in favor of Trump on emergency decisions most of the time, clearing the way for Trump to fire masses of federal employees, cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts, move forward with aggressive immigration policies and more.

MORNING GLORY: IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, READ SARAH ISGUR’S NEW BOOK

Last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, tore into the high court’s majority during a Yale Law School speech for issuing what she said were rushed, “scratch-paper musings” that advance “harmful” policies.

Upon introducing a bill to “increase transparency” of the emergency docket in December, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the Supreme Court was losing credibility by not allowing cases to first play out in the lower courts.

“The Roberts Court’s reliance on the Shadow Docket to covertly fast-track one-paragraph decisions on major cases drives tremendous mistrust toward Justices already facing record-low levels of public confidence,” Raskin said at the time.

The Clean Power Plan would have involved the Obama Environmental Protection Agency imposing regulations on coal-powered plants under the Clean Air Act, a move that red states and industry groups implored the Supreme Court to quickly stop in 2016. 

According to the memos, Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote that without the high court stepping in, “both the states and private industry will suffer irreparable harm from a rule that is — in my view — highly unlikely to survive.”

The New York Times described Roberts as acting like a “bulldozer.” Blackman said “it’s very clear” that Roberts stepped in to stop the EPA administrator from ramming through a plan in Obama’s last year in office that could reshape the energy sector with only the “very liberal” D.C. appellate court weighing in.

In another memo, Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, disagreed with Roberts, saying “the unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause.”

In a matter of days, the high court issued its brief, unexplained decision along ideological lines to temporarily block Obama’s plan. The move would become a death blow to Obama’s efforts because Democrats would lose the White House later that year.

Blackman noted that accountability for leaking the private memos, which framed Roberts as spearheading a reckless decision, would be difficult, saying any possible crime would fall outside of statutes of limitations and that, outside of the possibility of attempting to disbar the culprit for an ethics violation, there was no real recourse, especially for conservatives seeking to punish a possible left-leaning leaker.

“If a liberal leaks, they’ll get a medal,” Blackman said. “They’ll become a hero. They’ll suffer zero professional consequences. In fact, they’ll probably be better off.”

Fox News has learned a high-ranking Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official is on administrative leave after an investigation was launched into the leader’s alleged “sugar daddy” relationship, lavish spending and drug use, according to a DHS official.

The probe unfolded after a formal complaint was filed against Julia Varvaro, 29, the DHS deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, the Daily Mail first reported.

The man at the center of the allegations, described as a divorced father named “Robert,” told the outlet he spent $40,000 on her during a three-month relationship that began on dating app Hinge before discovering she had a profile on a website called Seeking, which markets itself as “a space where love and luxury meet.”

He alleged that her Seeking profile was under the name “Alessia” and sought “mutually beneficial” relationships with “masculine men.” Varvaro firmly denied the claims when questioned by the Daily Mail.

LIBERAL JOURNALIST CLAIMS ICE ACCEPTED HER RECRUITMENT APPLICATION WITHOUT PROPER VETTING

The outlet reported that, prior to the pair’s falling out, Robert took Varvaro on numerous posh getaways to Aruba, Italy and Switzerland, purchasing her a $3,500 Bottega handbag and taking her to the high-end jewelry store, Cartier.

He added that, during their travels, Varvaro flexed her government position in TSA security lines and claimed she could get VIP access to the Winter Olympics, allegedly bragging, “ICE works for me.”

In his formal complaint to the DHS Office of the Inspector General, which was reviewed by the Daily Mail, Robert said he believes Varvaro is “under financial stress” and that her actions pose a severe national security risk.

CARDI B ISSUES WARNING TO ICE AT CALIFORNIA CONCERT KICKOFF: ‘WE GON’ JUMP THEY A—-‘

He also told the outlet he witnessed her use marijuana on nearly a dozen occasions and take recreational Xanax.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Varvaro described the situation as a “mad ex-boyfriend putting crap together. I didn’t know it was bad to go on vacation with your boyfriend.”

The outlet said Varvaro admitted to being expedited through Dulles Airport security but denied using marijuana, seeking VIP Olympic access or having sugar daddies pay for her college, insisting that her request to Robert for a credit card in her name was “kind of a normal thing.”

The scandal comes less than a month after photos were released of former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s husband, Bryon, which appeared to show him cross-dressing in private messages to three different women.

Fox News previously reported rumors of an alleged affair between Noem and her top advisor, Corey Lewandowski, contributed to her dismissal from her DHS post.

She now serves as special envoy to the Shield of the Americas.

The CIA, DHS Office of the Inspector General, Hinge and Seeking did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.

Varvaro could not immediately be reached for comment.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said he was being sarcastic when he called reports that Iranian ships had slipped by a U.S. blockade “Awesome” in a post to X on Monday, responding to the news that as many as 26 vessels had avoided U.S. detection.

Murphy brushed off criticisms that he had celebrated shortcomings in President Donald Trump’s military strategy.

“It’s so unbelievably disingenuous. Obviously, all these Republicans know that I was being sarcastic. They just don’t really want to actually have to answer for the fact that this war has gone off the rails,” Murphy said. “Republicans don’t want to talk about that, so they try to create fake outrage over sarcasm.“

Murphy’s defense of his phrasing highlights the tension Democrats have navigated since the U.S. first began hostilities with Tehran: pushing back on parts of the Trump administration’s Iran strategy without inadvertently sounding sympathetic of a geopolitical adversary.

GOP REP MASSIE JOINS DEMOCRATS IN OPPOSITION TO US IRAN STRIKES

Like many Democrats, Murphy panned Trump’s decision to bomb Iran and, more recently, voiced criticisms of plans to impose a naval blockade on Iran in an attempt to shake Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for global oil shipping.

“Let’s talk about Trump’s insane plan to fix Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz: helping them close the Strait,” Murphy said of the administration’s strategy earlier this month.

“He is compounding one mistake after another.”

LIZ PEEK: IRAN WAR COULD BECOME THE ACHIEVEMENT THAT ENSURES TRUMP’S LEGACY

GOP skeptics responding to his post believe Murphy is celebrating the defeat of a strategy he thought was ill-advised to begin with.

“A sitting U.S. Senator is actively rooting for Iran. Crazy as hell. TRAITOR,” the Libs of TikTok, a popular conservative account, wrote in a post of its own.

Murphy told Fox News Digital those criticisms were overblown, calling them a deflection of the war’s political toll.

CRUZ SAYS TRUMP’S MOVE TO STRIKE IRAN ‘MOST CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION’ OF HIS PRESIDENCY

“You’re talking about a war that’s cost American taxpayers billions of dollars that’s allowed for Iran to control the Strait,” Murphy said. “Over a dozen Americans have been killed. There doesn’t seem to be any endgame.”

Asked to comment on Murphy’s post, at least one other Senator declined to weigh in.

“I’m not familiar with that,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., told Fox News Digital.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis blasted Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ invitations to “F around and find out” on redistricting efforts in Florida, the next possible battleground in a nationwide struggle to gain partisan advantages from congressional district maps.

“Please. Be my guest. I will pay for you to come down to Florida to campaign,” DeSantis said. “I’ll put you up in the Florida governor’s mansion. We will take you fishing.

“There’s nothing that could be better for Republicans in Florida than to see Jeffries everywhere around this state.”

His comments follow remarks from Jeffries on Wednesday morning.

DAVID MARCUS: DEMOCRAT NEW ENGLAND IS THE MOST GERRYMANDERED REGION IN AMERICAN HISTORY

“Our message to Florida Republicans is F around and find out. If they go down the road of a DeSantis dummy-mander … the electoral tide is turning in Florida,” Jeffries said.

The standoff demonstrates both parties’ resolve to double down on gerrymandering as a strategy central to winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the upcoming 2026 midterms.

Since President Donald Trump urged state lawmakers to expand the GOP’s 217-213 majority by eliminating five Democratic seats in Texas, states including North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, New York and Georgia have followed suit.

Most recently, voters in Virginia approved a redistricting effort spearheaded by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, to turn her party’s 6-5 advantage in the Commonwealth into a 10-1 majority by extending Republican-leaning districts into Democratic strongholds.

Florida is developing plans to be next.

With a Republican trifecta and eight Democratic-held districts to carve up, DeSantis has called a special session this week to explore the Sunshine State’s options.

“Today, I announced that I will be convening a special session of the Legislature focused on redistricting to ensure that Florida’s congressional maps accurately reflect the population of our state,” DeSantis said in his January announcement, citing changing demographics in the state.

TRUMP HAILS TEXAS REDISTRICTING APPROVAL THAT COULD ADD FIVE GOP CONGRESSIONAL SEATS NATIONWIDE

Florida’s state constitution forbids individual districts from being drawn “with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”

Democrats, who have framed their redistricting efforts as retaliatory, have warned that Republicans are stretching their support too thin in some areas, diluting their advantage and inviting challenges in districts that haven’t been competitive in the past.

Jeffries believes that might be the case in Texas, and it could be the case for Florida too.

“The Florida Republicans are going to find themselves in the same situation as Texas Republicans who are on the run right now,” Jeffries said.

“Under no circumstances are Texas Republicans picking up five seats. They’ll be fortunate if they get two or three, while in California, we are going to get all five. The Republicans are dumbly meandering their way into the minority before a single vote is cast.”

BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE

Florida legislators have yet to unveil what their potential redistricting effort could look like.

Republicans hold 20 of the state’s 28 seats.

The CEO of a California hospice advocacy group told congressional lawmakers Tuesday that fraud in the industry is flourishing across the state, questioning how numerous fraudulent providers can continue to operate under the nose of regulators.

Sheila Clark, the president and CEO of the California Hospice and Palliative Care Association (CHAPCA) — a nonprofit that pushes to improve access to quality end-of-life care — told the House Ways and Means Committee that some hospices operate in name only, meaning they have no patients or staff.

Clark said the surge in hospice and home healthcare providers is a symptom of failures across multiple regulatory bodies that degrade patient protections and hurt taxpayers.

NEW EXPOSÉ CLAIMS CALIFORNIA LOST AT LEAST $180B TO FRAUD UNDER GAVIN NEWSOM

“You’d be amazed at how many hospices… the door you can walk up to in California and there is nobody there. Five months’ worth of mail that you can see stacked… nobody’s there,” Clark said. “And that passed a survey. How did that happen?”

“How do you put a hospice in a burrito stand in California?” she quipped. “How do you put a hospice in an entire store in California? That all had to be vetted through licensure and through certification and accreditation.”

Dr. Lynn Ianni, a licensed psychotherapist with nearly 40 years of clinical experience who also testified, said she was locked out of her own Medicare benefits for months after she was falsely enrolled in hospice care.

“Imagine being told, in effect, that you are at the end of your life — when you are not — and then being denied access to care because of that error. It was not just frustrating,” she said. “It was terrifying.”

MAN CHARGED IN $90M MEDICARE FRAUD SCHEME; DOJ SAYS SUSPECT MAY HAVE ENTERED US ILLEGALLY

“A Medicare representative gave me the name of the hospice where I was supposedly enrolled,” Ianni added. “I looked it up. It appeared legitimate on the surface—listed on Medicare’s own website, with an NPI number, a named CEO, and an address. But the address led to what looked like a strip mall. The phone number went unanswered.”

Republican lawmakers have called for investigations into Medicare fraud, particularly in blue states where reports have surfaced detailing hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent activity.

The hearing came as the Trump administration has ramped-up efforts nationwide to combat healthcare fraud.

The Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, led by Vice President JD Vance, recently suspended 447 hospices in the Los Angeles area over more than $600 million in suspected fraud. Another crackdown led to charges against more than a dozen people in a brazen multimillion-dollar scheme where people who weren’t even dying were used to bilk taxpayers out of more than $50 million.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has pushed back on claims that his office has failed to act to combat the issue.

“FACT: The state has no role in the Medicare billing or payment process,” his press office wrote on X earlier this month in response to a CBS report on hospice fraud in California. “We are glad the Trump Admin is taking action to combat fraud. Now, if Trump could stop pardoning fraudsters—and hold them accountable—that would be great!”

An appeals court on Wednesday blocked California from requiring federal immigration agents to display identification during operations, handing the Trump administration a legal victory over Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found California overstepped its authority by trying to regulate Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, marking the latest flashpoint in a broader fight between blue states and the federal government over immigration enforcement operations.

The panel of judges, comprising two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee, found California’s No Vigilantes Act violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says that when a state and federal law are in conflict, the latter wins out.

“We conclude that [section 10] of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” the panel wrote in an order. “The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation.”

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS ORDER LIMITING IMMIGRATION AGENTS’ USE OF FORCE IN CHICAGO

The decision came after Newsom signed into law a pair of bills last fall designed to address reports of unidentified federal agents, sometimes wearing masks and other gear, carrying out arrests and detaining illegal immigrants in California. The No Vigilantes Act and No Secret Police Act required ICE agents to display identification and banned them from wearing masks, respectively.

“Trump’s ICE agents need to be reined in and held to the same standards as any other law enforcement agency,” Newsom said in a statement in March. “Federal accountability and clear identification shouldn’t be optional.”

The Trump administration sued over the two bills and sought injunctions, arguing in court papers that “a state law that directly regulates the federal government’s operations is straightforwardly invalid, no matter the size of the burden it imposes.”

ICE has defended the practice of agents concealing their identities during operations, saying last summer as Trump’s intensifying immigration crackdown prompted anti-ICE protests and riots that rhetoric on the left had caused a spike in “threats and assaults against [agents’] families.”

TRUMP ADMIN URGES NEWSOM TO HONOR ICE DETAINERS FOR MORE THAN 33K CRIMINAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

A federal judge also blocked California’s mask ban in February, and state Democratic lawmakers responded by attempting to rewrite the bill, a process that remains ongoing.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche commended the DOJ Civil Division, which has been handling the ICE litigation, calling the 9th Circuit’s decision “another decisive victory in this administration’s effort to remove illegal aliens from this country.”

Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney in California, celebrated the win, calling it a “huge legal victory … where the court permanently enjoined California’s unconstitutional mask law targeting federal agents.”

DOJ Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon said on X, “Told ya!”

Former DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf also weighed in, saying: “Finally – a good decision for common sense and strong immigration enforcement.”

TRUMP TELLS JUDGE HE DOES NOT NEED NEWSOM’S PERMISSION TO CRACK DOWN ON RIOTERS, DEPLOY NATIONAL GUARD

California could appeal the decision. Asked for comment, a Newsom spokesperson told Fox News Digital undercover ICE agents were “terrorizing” people at the direction of Trump and his aide Stephen Miller, the architect of many of the White House‘s immigration policies.

“These laws shouldn’t even be necessary,” the Newsom spokesperson said. “We shouldn’t have unidentified, masked men terrorizing our communities. We will continue demanding federal accountability and fighting against Trump and Miller’s reign of terror against our communities.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

The Democrat-majority Houston City Council backed off a sanctuary-style policy limiting cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to remove more than $110 million in state funding, forcing the city to reverse course under financial pressure. 

This is the latest clash in a broader battle between state leaders and local officials over immigration enforcement.

The Houston City Council voted earlier this month to pass a policy eliminating the requirement that police wait at least 30 minutes for ICE to arrive when a suspect has an immigration warrant. 

The move was condemned by Abbott, who accused the council of “trying to renege on their obligations” after signing onto a public safety agreement to receive state funding that required cooperation with immigration enforcement through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Abbott set a Wednesday deadline for the city to repeal its new policy or refund the state more than $110 million.

WATCH: HOUSTON FACES $110M HIT AS TEXAS GOV LAYS DOWN LAW ON ‘SANCTUARY’ POLICIES

On Wednesday, the city council, at the urging of Democrat Mayor John Whitmire, overwhelmingly voted to soften the policy. The city removed strict limits that barred officers from prolonging stops for ICE-related purposes. It also allows officers to extend detentions if they cited another legitimate law enforcement reason. The amended policy passed in a 13-4 vote after hours of tense debate between council members.

In response, a spokesperson for Abbott called the vote a “step in the right direction” in the face of the city’s “reckless policies,” saying they undermined law enforcement.

This comes after Abbott said last week that city officials would face “extraordinarily difficult financial choices” if they did not back down.

“Let’s be clear about a couple things,” he said last week, “If the city council were serious about public safety, they would not allow illegal immigrants to roam their streets and kill people like Jocelyn Nungaray.”

He added that “there are other people like that in Houston who have been raped, assaulted and victimized by people who are here illegally and allowed to roam the streets.”

After the vote, the governor’s spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Abbott “has been clear” that “cities in Texas must fully comply with state law and cooperate with federal immigration authorities to keep dangerous criminals off our streets.”

“This vote is a step in the right direction after Houston leaders put public safety at risk with reckless policies that undermined law enforcement,” the spokesperson said, adding that Abbott “expects any policy HPD [the Houston Police Department] ultimately adopts to comply with the City’s certification that it would fully cooperate with DHS.”

“Governor Abbott will continue to use every necessary tool to protect Texans,” the spokesperson said.

COCAINE WORTH OVER $1.1M SEIZED FROM ‘EMPTY’ TRUCK AT TEXAS BORDER

Before the vote, Whitmire framed the situation as a “crisis” for the city that would affect the police and fire departments, impacting public safety services and preparations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

During the contentious Wednesday session, he stressed that funding streams often “come with conditions” with which “I don’t always agree.” He urged council members to vote in favor of amending the policy, saying it was a question of whether Houston would “remain strong.”

On the other hand, Council Member Abbie Kamin, also a Democrat, railed against amending the policy, saying this was “not the first time that Abbott and [Texas Attorney General Ken] Paxton have tried to bully the city.”

Paxton, who is opposing incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn in a U.S. Senate bid, launched a lawsuit against the city over the policy earlier this month.

The same day as the vote, ICE Houston announced it had arrested 277 illegal immigrants in just two weeks, April 6–17, highlighting ongoing enforcement activity in the region. The group included 17 child predators, six murderers, 16 drug traffickers and 15 gang members or associates. Other criminal offenses committed by illegal immigrants arrested in ICE’s Houston roundup included 16 convictions for fraud- or forgery-related offenses, 11 for hit-and-run and 74 convictions for assault-related offenses.

Combined, the 277 illegal immigrants had been convicted of 751 criminal offenses and had illegally entered the U.S. 654 times.

SLEDGEHAMMER MURDER SPURS ICE MANHUNT FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT SUSPECT

ICE Houston criticized the city council, saying these “monsters” had been arrested with assistance from federal, state and local law enforcement partners as city officials “continue to flirt with sanctuary policies to limit cooperation with ICE.”

Paul McBride, acting field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Houston, stressed that it is thanks to cooperation with local and state law enforcement partners that “we’ve removed hundreds of dangerous criminal illegal alien child predators, murderers, drug traffickers, gang members, and thieves from the local community in just two weeks and prevented an untold number of U.S. citizens from becoming victims.”

“If these measures are implemented to limit that cooperation, there will be immediate impacts to public safety, national security, and border security,” McBride warned. 

“Tragically, the worst impact will be felt in the migrant community that these same officials claim they’re protecting, because that’s where criminal illegal aliens commit the majority of their offenses.”

Senate Republicans are still backing President Donald Trump’s war in Iran as the deadline for Congress to get involved is rapidly approaching. 

Republicans beat back a fifth attempt by Democrats to call for an end to the war in the Middle East, a day after Trump extended the fragile ceasefire for next several days on the grounds that Iran’s government was “seriously fractured.” The failed vote to rein in Trump’s war authorities came on the 54th day of the conflict.

Whether the administration can strike a long-lasting peace deal remains unclear. Lawmakers are also growing more concerned about the cost, length and end game of the war.

“This war has simply been a disaster, and there is absolutely no reason we should go full steam ahead back into it,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., who forced the vote.

SENATE REPUBLICANS UNVEIL IMMIGRATION FUNDING PLAN WITH $140 BILLION PRICE TAG AS DIVISIONS SIMMER

And next week, the conflict will officially hit the 60-day mark. Congress is required to weigh in on continuing the conflict under the War Powers Resolution.

Still, the fast-approaching inflection did little to sway Republicans, who have stayed largely unified against Democrats’ deluge of war powers resolutions since the conflict began. Democrats aren’t done forcing votes, either, and have another six resolutions teed up.

“Our caucus is united and focused on ending the war in Iran,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “And we’re going to keep voting on those resolutions again and again and again.”

DOZENS OF DEMS FLIP ON ISRAEL, VOTE TO BAN ARMS SALES IN PROTEST OF IRAN WAR

And Republicans aren’t totally united on whether to put an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on the floor. 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been working on an AUMF in the background that would allow lawmakers to have a say on what comes next in Iran. 

“We’ll see what our kind of conference’s will is on that and where our members are,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.

At least three Senate Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and John Curtis, R-Utah, have said that they wouldn’t support extending the war beyond 60 days, and questioned the administration’s further objectives in the region. 

Collins said last week during the Semafor World Economy Summit that it was “very likely” she would not vote to extend hostilities.

“I have said from the very beginning that if the military hostilities in Iran continue to that 60th day, then I believe the War Powers Act is implemented, and the president would need congressional authorization to continue the war in Iran,” Collins said.

GOP HOLDS WITH TRUMP ON IRAN WAR, BUT CRACKS EMERGE AS DEADLINE NEARS

There’s also the price tag associated with the war, including the current daily costs and a forthcoming spending request from the administration that is expected to focus on munitions supplies.

The administration has yet to send the spending request to Congress, with a ballpark cost that has fluctuated between $50 billion and $200 billion. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought told lawmakers last week during a Senate Budget Committee hearing that the request was “not yet” ready.

He also declined to give an estimate when pressed on the cost of the war.

“If you were to be on the inside of the Department of War, these costs would fluctuate given the day. So I think it’s hard to give you an average cost,” Vought said.

A top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee suggested Iran would be a more reliable source than the White House on peace talks, saying President Donald Trump “does not tell the truth.”

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., made those remarks on MSNOW on Monday, just a couple of days before Trump’s two-week ceasefire agreement was set to expire. On Tuesday, Trump extended the ceasefire, basing his decision on the Iranian government being “seriously fractured.”

Smith, who has been outspoken about the Trump administration’s handling of the Iran war, told MSNOW’s Ana Cabrera that Trump “just lies” and that he hasn’t been honest about where negotiations are with Iran. Smith pointed to Trump saying over the weekend that Iran had “agreed on everything,” referring to Trump’s four-point objectives.

But hours later, a spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry released a statement that it will not be giving up its enriched uranium, one of Trump’s requirements for the war to end.

KHANNA AND MASSIE THREATEN TO FORCE A VOTE ON IRAN AS PROSPECT OF US ATTACK LOOMS

“It’s very clear the negotiations are not where he has said they are,” Smith told MSNOW. “So we need a reboot on this. How do we get to a diplomatic conversation with Iran? Based on available evidence, I would think it quite likely that Iran will not show up and negotiate, because what they’ve said about where negotiations are at has turned out to be a lot closer to the truth than anything coming out of the White House.”

Cabrera then asked Smith if he believed Iran over the White House.

“Well, I wouldn’t put it that way,” Smith said. “I would put it exactly the way I just put it, which is, given the history, given what Trump has said about where the negotiations are at, and given what’s actually played out, if Iran says they’re not showing up, it’s not a matter of believing them on some fundamental policy issue, Iran says they’re not going to show up. It seems likely they’re not going to show up.”

IRAN REPORTEDLY FIRES ON THREE SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ

He said that right now Iranian officials and U.S. officials are operating on opposite sides of the spectrum. The U.S. is calling on Iran to end its nuclear program, state-sponsored terrorism and its ballistic missile program, and to open the Strait of Hormuz; meanwhile, Iran wants $270 billion in compensation for damage caused by the war.

“So the negotiations, regardless of who you think you believe or don’t believe, they are very, very far apart, and step one is trying to at least get it closer to where an actual, substantive conversation could take place,” Smith said.

But the Republican National Committee, which flagged Smith’s remarks on its X account RNC Research, said Smith doesn’t know what’s being said between the Iranians and the White House.

“Smith admits he doesn’t know what’s going on with negotiations but is still running his mouth to appease the pro-terrorism wing of the Democrat party,” RNC Spokesman Nick Poche said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Thankfully, President Trump has never cared what low-IQ loser Democrats like Smith have to say as he advances American interests domestically and abroad.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Smith and the White House for further comment.

President Donald Trump appeared to target Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Wednesday, calling her a “low IQ person” as he criticized the Supreme Court over recent rulings he opposes.

Trump’s comments come as he has grown increasingly frustrated with the Supreme Court, particularly after it blocked his sweeping tariff plan and weighs his effort to end birthright citizenship. 

Though Trump did not name Jackson directly, his reference to the “new” female justice appointed by former President Joe Biden was clear. Biden in 2022 nominated Jackson, a Harvard Law School graduate and former clerk to former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, to the high court.

“The Republican Justices don’t stick together,” Trump said, adding that the court “ALWAYS vote as a group, or BLOCK, even that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench (Sleepy Joe!).”

JUSTICE THOMAS WARNS PROGRESSIVISM IS A THREAT TO AMERICA IN RARE PUBLIC REMARKS

Trump’s remarks came as part of a broader tirade against the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which he said showed him “very little loyalty” earlier this year in blocking his global tariffs from taking force. He also suggested the court might rule against him on his executive order seeking to end so-called “birthright citizenship” in the U.S.

Trump had attended a portion of those oral arguments in person, making history and signaling just how closely he has been monitoring the issue.

“Certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for,” Trump said. He contrasted this with Democrat justices, whom he said “stick together like glue, totally loyal to the people and ideology that got them there.”

TRUMP WARNS SUPREME COURT TARIFF SHOWDOWN IS ‘LIFE OR DEATH’ FOR AMERICA

“They are an immovable force, and there is nothing that can be done to change that,” Trump said, adding: “Frankly, I respect that a lot!” 

Trump’s remarks come after the high court blocked his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs from taking force earlier this year. Justices in February blocked Trump, 6-3, from using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA to unilaterally enact steep reciprocal tariffs. 

Trump on Wednesday also suggested the high court might rule against him on birthright citizenship. Trump used the social media post to take aim at what he described as the “nasty, one-sided questions on the country destroying the subject of Birthright Citizenship” during oral arguments earlier this month.

Trump attended roughly half of the oral arguments, and left shortly after U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer finished making the administration’s case.

“If they rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will be even worse, if that’s possible,” Trump said of the Supreme Court. “It will cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!”

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

The remarks come weeks after a majority of justices earlier this month appeared skeptical of Trump’s effort to end so-called birthright citizenship, using oral arguments to cite concerns over the legality and enforcement of an executive order that could reshape protections for millions of Americans.

A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship, which Trump and his allies argue are misguided. 

Trump said in a separate Truth Social post Tuesday night that, “based on the questioning by Republican Nominated Justices that I watched firsthand in the Court, we lose” the case.