If you give them an inch, they may take a mile.

And if you give Congress a deadline, they’ll probably take 13 days. Or perhaps 45.

Congress recently struggled to reauthorize the nation’s most effective, and arguably most controversial, spying program. After much division, lawmakers only renewed Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for 45 days. That was after a 13-day Band-Aid was applied last month.

This infighting produced a buzzer beater on Capitol Hill.

HOUSE PASSES FISA RENEWAL IN BIPARTISAN VOTE, PUTTING PRESSURE ON SENATE BEFORE LOOMING DEADLINE

Congress knew for months that Section 702 of FISA would expire in mid-April. But after yanking renewal for the program from the House schedule earlier this year — then stumbling through two failed proposals to reauthorize the program in the House, Congress re-upped FISA for a scant 13 days. That deadline bore down on lawmakers last week, with FISA programs expected to lose their congressional blessing in the wee hours of Friday, May 1.

“These are some of the most complicated public policy matters that Congress deals with. And they are all sandwiched together because of the deadlines that are upon us,” observed House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. “There’s still some negotiation, deliberation and consternation.” 

With the 13-day program patch on the precipice of expiration, House Republicans planned to pass a three-year extension — but the bill included a provision to also bar the potential creation of a “digital currency” by the Federal Reserve. Such a crypto mechanism isn’t in the offing right now, and it has nothing to do with FISA directly. But libertarian lawmakers fear that the government could track the financial transactions of Americans if the Fed initiated a digital financial asset.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the upper chamber would reject any bill that included the digital currency provision.

Even so, Johnson forged ahead with the FISA reauthorization featuring the digital currency ban. 

“The Senate knows exactly what we’re doing,” said Johnson when asked if it was responsible to load up the FISA bill with the digital asset language, despite the admonition from Thune with FISA Section 702 on the verge of collapsing within hours.

“I speak with Leader Thune all the time. They’re watching this very closely. And hopefully they can process what we send them.”

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, was one of the biggest advocates of outlawing the establishment of a digital currency by the Fed. Yours truly pressed him on why that provision had to ride on the FISA bill.

“Government monitoring of the people,” responded Roy. “(People) don’t want to have surveillance in their cars. They don’t want their currency tracked or blocked. And they don’t want the government looking at their correspondence and their emails. They all think it’s the same stupid crap. But the government is looking at all of our stuff.”

Which brings us to the essence of FISA.

Libertarian lawmakers believe FISA Section 702 is too intrusive, sweeping up practically every electronic communication imaginable. It doesn’t tell the government what is said in those communiques, but it does document who is sending what to whom.

MIKE JOHNSON FACES REVOLT FROM GOP PRIVACY HAWKS THREATENING TO KILL FISA RENEWAL AS DEADLINE LOOMS

In fact, President Trump formerly opposed reauthorizing FISA.

Some object to reauthorizing FISA because of the Russia investigation involving Trump and the 2016 election. However, the surveillance authorized in that inquiry was related to Title 1 of FISA and entailed customary court orders, not special information gathering as authorized by Section 702.

FISA Section 702 does not require a warrant. And lawmakers from both sides of the aisle argue that allowing the government to vacuum up prodigious amounts of information about people without a warrant violates the Constitution’s 4th Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

“There were some people that were holding out for a warrant. And I think they realized that probably was not a tenable position,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark. “There were a whole lot of safeguards that have been woven into the text of the bill.”

House Republicans finally adopted a procedural measure allowing members to debate the farm bill – and simultaneously consider a measure to eventually pay Border Patrol and ICE plus the FISA measure. But this was only successful after a nine-hour negotiation.

The House then passed the three-year extension of FISA Section 702 the day before the program was set to lose its congressional authorization. But most knew that plan was dead on arrival with the Senate.

Some senators opposed a lengthy extension — and the language on the digital currency was a non-starter for many senators, both Democrat and Republican.

So there was fear that FISA Section 702 could lapse.

“If we go to bed tonight, and we don’t have that program in place, I fear there will be blood on our hands,” said Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., fretting about the possibility of a terrorist attack.

“History may judge the lapse of Section 702 authorities as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time,” warned Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

But some FISA Section 702 advocates asserted proper reforms were in place, and they could now support an extension.

“If you abuse FISA now, you are going to prison,” declared Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.

The House-Senate tension didn’t deter Johnson from forging ahead with the three-year plan.

‘COMPLETE FAILURE’: GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN CRISIS THREATENS CAPITOL HILL AS TRUMP PLANS POLICY OVERHAUL

“We’re calling on them to do the job — pass the House’s bill and get this done. Check the last box,” said Johnson.

“They’re not going to take the House bill,” I told the Speaker about the Senate. 

“Well, they don’t seem to have another alternative,” Johnson replied.

But there was another alternative.

The Senate disregarded the House’s action and cleared a 45-day Band-Aid for FISA Section 702 with all 100 senators agreeing offstage. The Senate then approved it by unanimous consent.

Section 702 skeptics secured a promise that the intelligence community would fork over declassified information about how the feds misused FISA. 

“Every day that Section 702 is extended without meaningful reforms is a day that the program can continue to be abused,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

But some Democrats have reservations about granting FISA authority to the Trump Administration.

“Have you seen (FBI Director) Kash Patel?” asked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. “He has demonstrated that he is willing to violate American civil liberties.”

The House then aligned with the Senate, syncing up on the six-week extension. 

But this is what’s interesting: Let’s say Congress failed to act on FISA Section 702 before the deadline last week. The program would not go completely dark.

Sean Vitka of Demand Progress notes that the special court overseeing FISA reauthorizes the program “for a year-long basis. So it’s actually been reauthorized just a month ago into March of 2027.”

In theory, inquiries and investigations don’t stop cold turkey even if Congress hasn’t renewed the law.

But that grace period isn’t good enough for many lawmakers and those within the private sector. Intelligence agencies may have the right to still obtain information from telecommunications firms, but those companies might not comply and may fear legal exposure. Thus, it’s believed that companies would only provide data to the government if they have legal cover from Capitol Hill.

“The question is whether the carriers will feel that they have sufficient legal protection to continue to cooperate,” said George Croner, the former principal litigation counsel for the National Security Agency.

So even though Johnson warned about there being no “alternative,” the House voted to align with the Senate — and FISA Section 702 operates for another 45 days.

Of course, Congress was supposed to work this out a few weeks ago. And since then, as Johnson said, there has been nothing but “negotiation, deliberation and consternation” over the spy program.

At the rate things are going, that trifecta will return to Capitol Hill in mid-June as FISA Section 702 faces yet another deadline.

Justice Samuel Alito tore into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s lone dissent in a high-stakes Louisiana redistricting dispute on Monday, calling her arguments “baseless and insulting” after the Supreme Court decided to fast-track implementing its recent redistricting ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Alito used a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, to directly rebuke Jackson, saying her “dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered.”

“The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power,” Alito wrote, adding that that was a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

The clash highlighted Jackson’s increasingly isolated position on the court, as she broke not only from the conservative majority but also from her two liberal colleagues, who did not join her dissent. Jackson forcefully accused the Supreme Court of overreach, marking the latest in a pattern of solo dissents in which the Biden-appointed liberal justice has blasted high-profile majority decisions that have frequently favored President Donald Trump and Republicans.

MEDIA OUTRAGE OVER SUPREME COURT’S VOTING RIGHTS ACT DECISION COLLIDES WITH REALITY 

In Monday’s order, the high court decided in an unsigned ruling to allow Louisiana officials to quickly move forward with changing their congressional map, which is expected to reshape the state’s congressional representation in favor of Republicans ahead of the midterms.

Alito argued that delaying the judgment of the high court’s 6-3 ruling last month — which significantly narrowed section two of the Voting Rights Act by finding Louisiana’s map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — served no practical purpose. Jackson’s reasons for wanting to prolong implementation of the landmark ruling were “trivial at best” and “baseless and insulting,” Alito said.

“The dissent accuses the Court of ‘unshackl[ing]’ itself from ‘constraints,’” Alito wrote. “It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.”

SUPREME COURT HEARS PIVOTAL LOUISIANA ELECTION MAP CASE AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS

Jackson had warned that the high court’s intervention risked improperly injecting itself into an active election and creating the “appearance of partiality,” pointing to ongoing voting and legal challenges already unfolding in the state.

Legal experts observed the unusually pointed tone of Alito’s response, suggesting it indicated a deeper internal friction. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the conservative justice appeared to reach a breaking point in responding to Jackson’s criticism.

“Justice Alito had had enough,” Turley wrote. “He noted that her reliance on the 32-day period was a ‘trivial’ objection that put form above substance since no party had asked for reconsideration. It would be waiting for 32 days for no purpose, while the other parties had stated a reasonable and pressing need to finalize the opinion.”

Turley added that Alito took particular issue with Jackson’s accusation that the Supreme Court was acting in an “unprincipled” manner.

The dispute centered on the Supreme Court’s procedural rule that typically allows about 32 days before a judgment is formally sent down to lower courts. Alito emphasized that the rule is flexible and intended primarily to allow time for rehearing petitions, which he signaled were not expected in this case.

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday sends Louisiana into a scramble to implement a new map as ballots have already been sent to voters and the state’s primary has been paused. The ruling is expected to have broader implications across the country as state election officials and courts attempt to finalize constitutionally compliant maps in time for the upcoming election.

FIRST ON FOX: A government watchdog group is pursuing a new possible paper trail to find out who is funding climate presentations for judges, filing public records requests for financial information that could reveal how outside advocacy groups influenced the presentations.

Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO), a nonprofit, made recent Freedom of Information Act requests, reviewed by Fox News Digital, for emails and financial records held by the Treasury Department that GAO says could show whether funds connected to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) moved through the Federal Judicial Center Foundation. 

The effort comes as Republican lawmakers and legal critics scrutinize whether the seminars exposed judges to one-sided climate presentations from figures they say are connected to the broader plaintiffs-side climate litigation network, raising concerns about whether the programs created an appearance of partiality for judges who could later hear related lawsuits.

CLIMATE JUSTICE GROUP HAS DEEP TIES TO JUDGES, EXPERTS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION AMID CLAIMS OF IMPARTIALITY

The FOIA requests were significant, GAO legal counsel Chris Horner told Fox News Digital, because they opened up a new path for his group and congressional investigators to pursue as they probe what role the Federal Judicial Center, which is a research arm of the taxpayer-funded judicial branch, had in hosting the seminars.

While it is not necessarily subject to FOIA requests, Horner said that records belonging to the Federal Judicial Center Foundation, created by Congress as a 501c1, are public. That means the foundation, which is authorized to take donor money to support events, should have a public paper trail, Horner said.

Fox News Digital reviewed ELI’s tax records, including 990 forms beginning in 2019, which showed multimillion-dollar lump sums designated, in part, for educating judges. Horner said his group was looking to understand the “mechanics” behind that funding.

“Judges are getting from the courtroom to the resort. How does that happen?” Horner asked, questioning if the Federal Judicial Center, a public, impartial entity, was improperly using ELI’s money to facilitate judges’ attendance at the controversial seminars.

The seminars at issue were climate-related judicial education programs involving the Federal Judicial Center and ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project, which ELI launched in 2018 to provide judges with instruction on climate science, climate impacts and climate-related litigation. 

The Federal Judicial Center previously told Fox News Digital it held a series of small, one-day seminars with ELI for fewer than 100 judges in 2019 and early 2020, before the programs became the subject of scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, conservative legal critics and energy industry advocates. The Federal Judicial Center said last year it stopped working with ELI in 2020. Fox News Digital reached out to ELI and the Federal Judicial Center for comment on the current status of the seminars.

Nick Collins, an ELI spokesperson, said in a statement that ELI’s climate project began because courts were seeking out education on the topic. He denied that the project had ties to current climate litigation that judges might be presiding over.

“[The Climate Judiciary Project] partners with leading educational institutions to provide those courses which are no different than other judicial education programs providing training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend,” Collins said. “CJP does not participate in litigation, coordinate with parties related to any litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule on any issue or in any case.”

GAO argued in its FOIA requests that the Federal Judicial Center Foundation is a government agency and that the statute that established the foundation authorized it to maintain a fund with the Treasury, where all the foundation’s donations could be held. GAO said the public should have access to those account statements showing deposits and disbursements.

The FOIA requests targeted records spanning multiple years, including the potential Treasury-held data dating back to 2015, as well as records from 2019 to 2021 tied to the climate seminars specifically.

The requests did not establish that any funds were improperly used, but GAO said the records could clarify how outside money was handled by a public institution.

Horner called it a “big gap in the stone wall,” referencing what he viewed as an opening to learn more about what has long been a murky understanding of financial ties between the Federal Judicial Center and private entities helping to bring the climate lawsuits.

Horner noted ELI’s well-documented connections to plaintiffs who have brought numerous lawsuits against major oil companies like Shell, BP and ExxonMobil in the name of addressing climate change.

“The judiciary has been caught in bed with the plaintiffs, and the judiciary apparently wants to hide the evidence rather than be transparent about it, which certainly does not inspire confidence,” Horner said.

MAJOR ‘CLIMATE DECEPTION’ LAWSUIT AGAINST BIG OIL VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED

ELI is connected to litigators involved in the uptick in recent years in the lawsuits against oil companies, including through its former board member Ann Carlson. ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project maintains that it is a “neutral, objective” resource for judges, but its curriculum has been fossil fuel-averse. The Climate Judiciary Project educates the very judges who could end up presiding over cases against the oil companies.

ELI “intends to accomplish via the courts what it cannot get enacted into law: a radical environmental agenda,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, alleged in a 2024 letter.

GAO lawyers argued in their FOIA requests that the foundation’s financial information was of great public interest because judges were effectively being lobbied on how to handle climate cases through these seminars, and the foundation could have had a role in funding them.

“These seminars were arranged by parties affiliated with the plaintiffs’ legal team yet presented as the objective background which judges should know about climate science,” the GAO lawyers wrote in the FOIA requests. “The Federal Judicial Center Foundation is authorized to accept gifts to underwrite such seminars.”

Critics like Cruz and GAO have long contended that the seminars were not neutral and instead part of a broader climate litigation ecosystem. Judges attending seminars on any given topic would normally be a nonissue, but the concerns have zeroed in on who may be influencing the judges and whether they are part of the same network advancing the climate lawsuits.

Like GAO, Congress has been probing the financials as part of its oversight of the judicial branch. In January, the House Judiciary Committee said ELI, and its Climate Judiciary Project, appeared to target judges in jurisdictions where climate cases would be heard. The letter noted that ELI has said its Climate Judiciary Project began in 2018 “in coordination with” the Federal Judicial Center.

GAO’s FOIA letters signal that the Federal Judicial Center Foundation could be a missing link in understanding who paid for the seminars and how the Federal Judicial Center was involved with the privately funded programs, which lawmakers say could be at odds with policies that the U.S. courts are required to follow.

Fox News Digital reached out to Carlson, as well as the Federal Judicial Center, the Federal Judicial Center Foundation and the Treasury Department for comment on the FOIA requests.

Senate Republicans tucked an eye-popping figure into funding for security measures tied to President Donald Trump’s ballroom, a project the administration once touted as being completely privately funded.

The GOP released legislation for its immigration enforcement-focused reconciliation package late Monday night, setting the total spending at $72 billion. But it also included $1 billion in taxpayer funding for the ballroom addition to the White House.

Republicans had largely kept an arm’s length distance from the project, which Trump first announced last year. The construction drew criticism over the demolition of the East Wing and the flow of outside funding, which the administration has touted as a win for taxpayers.

JOHNSON SCRAMBLES AS TRUMP, SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESSURE HOUSE TO FUND DHS

But since the third apparent assassination attempt against Trump during the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner at the Washington Hilton last month, Republicans have jumped on the ballroom bandwagon.

The funding is tucked into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s portion of the reconciliation package, which tees up nearly $31 billion for ICE, $3.5 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), $2.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and just shy of $1.5 billion for the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pitched his portion of the bill by bucking Democrats’ desire for “open borders” and their push to defund the police.

“Republicans won’t allow our country to be dragged backwards by Democrats’ radical, anti-law enforcement agenda,” Grassley said in a statement.

REPUBLICANS RUSH TO GREEN LIGHT WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM FOLLOWING THIRD TRUMP ASSASSINATION SCARE

The ballroom funding would be doled out to the Secret Service and is explicitly meant for “security adjustments and upgrades,” including “above-ground and below-ground security features,” according to the legislation.

Notably, the measure sets guardrails on the funding so that none of the taxpayer money would be used for “non-security elements of the East Wing Modernization Project.”

Adding funding for the ballroom could be a slight to some Republicans who wanted to use the latest reconciliation opportunity to go big on affordability issues, aid for farmers or spending cuts, among several other wish list items.

REPUBLICANS EYE PICKING UP $400M TAB FOR TRUMP’S BALLROOM AS SOME DEMS OPEN TO ‘DISCUSS’ IDEA

Senate Democrats are already going after the GOP for including the project.

“Republicans are on a different planet than American families,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on X. “Republicans looked at families drowning in bills and decided what they really needed was more raids and a Trump ballroom.”

Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, led by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also released its portion of the reconciliation package, which tees up nearly $33 billion in funding.

Paul’s measure included over $19 billion for CBP, $7.5 billion for ICE, nearly $3.5 billion for border security and $2.5 billion for DHS.

“Senate Democrats refuse to vote for a single dollar to secure our borders or enforce our immigration laws, even against the most violent illegal aliens,” Paul said in a statement. “To make sure those vital functions are funded, my committee will vote later this month to provide the funding needed.”

A proposal by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to open a city-run grocery store is facing pushback from East Harlem grocers who say the area is already saturated with supermarkets and bodegas.

The plan, part of a broader effort to address rising grocery costs in the city, would establish publicly run stores across New York’s five boroughs — but the push to improve affordability could come at a cost for small businesses already on thin margins.

The first store is expected to open next year in La Marqueta, an existing public market space at Park Avenue and 115th Street in East Harlem. The city will spend roughly $30 million to build the store.

MAMDANI’S PUBLIC GROCERY STORES MAY HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECTS ON CITY’S FOOD SUPPLY

Roughly 45 grocery stores sit within a 35-minute walk of the proposed grocery site, according to a Fox News Digital analysis.

The existing stores include a mix of major chains like Whole Foods and Lidl, as well as smaller neighborhood markets and bodegas.

The area is also well served by public transit. There are multiple subway and bus lines giving residents several ways to reach nearby stores if they are not in reasonable walking distance.

Some local grocers say the added competition of the city-owned store could hurt their businesses.

“Of course it will affect this store,” said Sarah Kang, manager at a CTown Supermarkets location about a 35-minute walk south, or one subway stop, from La Marqueta.

“A lot of people walk 20 to 30 minutes to get here,” she explained to Fox News Digital. “If they find a cheaper supermarket, I don’t think they’ll be willing to make that trip. It’s going to affect small grocery stores. Definitely.”

“I hope we don’t lose customers,” Kang added.

About a 30-minute walk north of La Marqueta, Joel Martinez, a manager of a supermarket at 128th Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard, said the impact may depend on proximity to the proposed site.

“I hope it doesn’t impact us,” Martinez said in a call with Fox News Digital. “The store will be a little far from us, so that’s good. But it will affect smaller businesses that are closer.”

Bodegas and small grocery stores are a staple of New York City neighborhoods, often serving as primary food sources for nearby residents.

KELLY LOEFFLER: MAMDANI’S SOCIALIST PLANS THREATEN NYC’S BUSINESS CORE

Mamdani’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. The mayor plans to open five city-run stores, one in each borough, by 2029.

Similar proposals for local government-owned and operated grocery stores and markets have surfaced in other cities, including Boston.

Officials in Atlanta appear to have trailblazed the effort and have already opened a city-backed grocery store to improve food access in underserved areas.

Progressives are blasting party leaders after House Democrats’ campaign arm backed a centrist over a far-left challenger in a key battleground race that could shape control of the House. 

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) added California state Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains and seven other Democrats to its “Red to Blue” program this week — a de facto endorsement that could give the candidates aiming to defeat GOP incumbents a leg up in critical primaries across the country. 

The DCCC’s decision to support Bains over progressive challenger Randy Villegas, a university professor backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the hotly contested race has sparked backlash from progressive lawmakers, who argue the campaign arm should stay neutral in contested primaries. 

“We disagree with the DCCC’s decision to attempt to tip the scales in this race,” Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC leaders, who have endorsed Villegas, said in a joint statement. “Voters, not the DCCC, should pick Democratic nominees.”

DEMOCRATS NAME CANDIDATES TO ‘RED TO BLUE’ INITIATIVE, AIMING TO FLIP GOP MAJORITY DURING MIDTERMS

The group of progressives included Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Greg Casar, D-Texas, Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md. 

“Deeply disappointed to see this last-minute intervention in a competitive Democratic primary,” Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., wrote on social media Monday. “It’s especially tone-deaf in a district that is overwhelmingly Latino, coming on the heels of last week’s decision gutting the VRA [Voting Rights Act].”

Villegas also slammed the DCCC intervention as “undemocratic” in a post on X.

The political newcomer is supported by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ campaign arm and the left-wing Working Families Party, among other outside groups. Meanwhile, several major labor groups, including the moderate Blue Dogs PAC and the center-left NewDem Action Fund, are backing Bains.

Both are vying to unseat Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., who has repeatedly fended off Democratic challengers in the majority-Hispanic district.

SQUAD STYLE PROGRESSIVES HIT WITH ‘COLD SHOWER’ AS CANDIDATES FALL TO MODERATES IN BLUE STATE CIVIL WAR

The DCCC’s decision to elevate candidates in other crowded primaries has also drawn pushback.

Its strategy to promote state legislator Joe Baldacci in Maine’s second congressional district resulted in sharp criticism from a rival candidate in the race.

“Once again, Washington, D.C., insiders are trying to tell Mainers who can represent them,” Jordan Woods, a former Capitol Hill staffer running for the Republican-leaning seat, said in a statement.

Asked for comment, House Democrats’ campaign arm said the individuals included in its candidate program are “best positioned to win in November” and hail from all corners of the party.

“It’s imperative that Democrats must take back the House to hold Trump accountable and deliver on what truly matters to voters — lower costs and affordable healthcare,” DCCC spokesman Viet Shelton told Fox News Digital.

National Republicans have warned that messy Democratic primaries could hamper the party’s bid to retake House control in November.

“Their disastrous primaries have turned into a far-left free-for-all, and national Democrats stepping in will only deepen the chaos and alienate their far-left base,” NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said in a statement.

Progressives in the upper chamber have also sharply criticized Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats’ campaign arm for tacitly supporting more centrist candidates in key races.

Schumer’s strategy to recruit Gov. Janet Mills, D-Maine, in the state’s 2026 Senate contest appeared to blow up last week, when the two-term governor exited the race after her campaign failed to gain traction with Democratic primary voters. The lead Democrat issued a tepid endorsement of presumptive Democratic nominee Graham Platner, who is backed by leading progressives.

The U.S. Department of Education announced that its Office for Civil Rights has launched a probe into Smith College for admitting men into the women’s educational institution, allowing them into women-only areas such as restrooms.

“Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation into Smith College, one of the nation’s largest all-women’s colleges, for admitting biological men and granting them access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams,” the department said in a statement Monday. “OCR will determine whether the college violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) by allowing biological males into women’s intimate spaces.”

“Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance,” the department explained. “Title IX contains a single-sex exception that allows colleges to enroll all-male or all-female student bodies — but the exception applies on the basis of biological sex difference, not subjective gender identity. An all-girls college that enrolls male students professing a female identity would cease to qualify as single sex under Title IX.”

COLLEGE OFFERING ‘WHITE SUPREMACY IN THE AGE OF TRUMP’ COURSE AS PRESIDENT-ELECT RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

While the institution describes itself as a “women’s college,” the school “considers for admission any applicants who self-identify as women,” explaining that, “cis, trans, and nonbinary women are eligible to apply to Smith.”

“Smith College has received notice that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened a Title IX investigation into the College,” the school said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. “The College is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws. The College does not comment on pending government investigations.”

CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE ATHLETES SPEAK OUT ON TRANS CONTROVERSY THAT’S NOW IN THE TRUMP ADMIN’S CROSSHAIRS

Smith College is located in the state of Massachusetts.

“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said in a statement.

FEDS OPEN PROBE INTO NEW YORK CITY’S ANTI-ISRAEL TEACHERS

“Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump Administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense,” Richey noted. 

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth revealed Tuesday that six ships attempted to bypass the U.S. military’s blockade of Iranian ports during the operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but they were all turned around.

“In fact, six ships tried to run the blockade out of Iranian ports as Project Freedom commenced, and they were all turned around,” Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

President Donald Trump declared in a Truth Social post on Sunday that the U.S. would launch “Project Freedom” to help ships from other nations escape the Strait of Hormuz.

“To be clear, this operation is separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury. Project Freedom is defensive in nature, focused in scope and temporary in duration, with one mission: protecting innocent commercial shipping from Iranian aggression,” Hegseth said.

HEGSETH SAYS US HAS ESTABLISHED ‘RED, WHITE AND BLUE’ DOME OVER SHIPPING IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ

“Iran is the clear aggressor, harassing civilian vessels, threatening mariners from every nation indiscriminately, and weaponizing a critical chokepoint for its own financial benefit, or at least trying to,” he continued. “For too long, Iran has been harassing ships, shooting at civilian tankers from all nations and trying to impose a tolling system. Iran’s plan, a form of international extortion, is unacceptable. That ends with Project Freedom.”

Hegseth said Tuesday that “All of these ships from all around the world want to get out of the Iranian trap that they have been stuck inside.” 

“As a direct gift from the United States to the world, we have established a powerful red, white and blue dome over the strait. American destroyers are on station, supported by hundreds of fighter jets, helicopters, drones and surveillance aircraft, providing 24/7 overwatch for peaceful commercial vessels. Except Iran’s, of course. Which is why our ironclad blockade remains in full effect as well,” Hegseth added.

TRUMP OPENS HORMUZ UNDER FIRE WITH ‘PROJECT FREEDOM’ AS IRAN WARNS OF ATTACKS

He also said, “We prefer this to be a peaceful operation, but are locked and loaded to defend our people, our ships, our aircraft, and this mission, without hesitation.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine said Tuesday that as a result of Iran’s “indiscriminate” attacks across the region, there are 22,500 mariners embarked on more than 1,550 commercial vessels trapped in the Arabian Gulf, unable to transit.

Caine said U.S. Central Command has “established an enhanced security area on the southern side of the strait that is now protected by U.S. land, naval and air assets to help defeat further Iranian aggression against commercial shipping.”

“On the surface, guided missile destroyers and other warships are detecting and defeating Iranian threats. This includes fast boats in one-way attack drones,” he added. “In the air, more than 100 fighters, attack aircraft and other manned and unmanned aircraft synchronized by the 82nd Airborne Division are in the air 24 hours a day, providing defensive overwatch for the enhanced security area.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Former President Barack Obama said that pressure on him to continue being politically active throughout the Trump administration has created tension in his marriage with former first lady Michelle Obama.

“She wants to see her husband easing up and spending more time with her, enjoying what remains of our lives,” Obama told The New Yorker in an interview published May 4. “It does create a genuine tension in our household, and it frustrates her.”

Early in President Donald Trump’s first term, Obama had largely followed the previous political norm of a former president remaining tight-lipped on his successor’s moves. But as time wound on, the 44th president began weighing in considerably more.

During Trump’s second administration, Obama has further broken those norms, arguably becoming the current president’s most high-profile critic, a fact Obama acknowledged in his interview with The New Yorker.

MICHELLE OBAMA SAYS AMERICA GOING THROUGH ITS ‘JANKY’ ERA

“People aren’t looking at me in historical comparison to other presidents,” he told the magazine. “They don’t care about the fact that no other ex-president was the main surrogate for the party for four election cycles after they left office.”

But Obama claimed that Trump’s “recklessness” forced his hand, The New Yorker wrote, prompting him to weigh in on a wide swath of Trump’s actions from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accords to dismantling Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement, the Affordable Care Act.

His opposition to Trump has spurred Obama to delve back into politics “more than I would have preferred,” he told the magazine.

OBAMA’S ‘ICONIC VOICE’ ECLIPSED IN 2025 ELECTION BY TRUMP-ERA ECONOMIC, AFFORDABILITY COMPLAINTS

Obama has become a flag-bearer for the Democratic Party’s key issues of the day, most recently pushing the party’s redistricting effort in Virginia to his nearly 120 million followers on X.

Five posts Obama sent urging Virginians to vote yes on a ballot measure that redrew Virginia’s congressional districts heavily in favor of Democrats garnered over 220 million views, according to X’s publicly visible statistics.

The language Obama used in the posts was considerably partisan.

MICHELLE OBAMA’S PODCAST PUTS HER IN LIMELIGHT IN NEW TRUMP ERA, BUT SHE’S NOT COMING TO DEMOCRATS’ RESCUE

“Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. But right now, they’re under attack. Several Republican-controlled states have redrawn their congressional maps to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterm elections,” Obama wrote in a March 5 post on X.

MICHELLE OBAMA MOCKS RUMORS THAT HER MARRIAGE IS IN TROUBLE

Micelle Obama, not unlike her husband, has taken to new media to air many of her grievances with the Trump administration, often criticizing the president on other podcasts, as well as her own.

Obama’s revelation is not the first time he’s publicly addressed strife in his marriage. In 2025, he admitted he had been “digging myself out of the hole I found myself in with Michelle,” after she did not join him during the January funeral for former President Jimmy Carter or for Trump’s second inauguration.

FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump will sign a presidential memorandum Tuesday restoring the Presidential Fitness Test Award, according to the White House, reviving a competitive school-based fitness program phased out during the Obama administration.

The signing will be attended by members of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, as well as National Fitness Foundation board members including high-profile athletes including golfer Bryson DeChambeau, retired professional golfer Gary Player, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Amani Oruwariye and MLB pitcher Noah Syndergaard.

The move reintroduces a performance-based benchmark for student fitness, echoing the Trump administration’s broader “Make America Healthy Again” push. 

Trump first signed an executive order to reestablish the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition and the Presidential Fitness Test last year, with the memorandum on Tuesday paving the way for the administration to restore the test and awards at all American schools, Fox News Digital learned. 

TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER TO REESTABLISH PRESIDENTIAL FITNESS TEST

The revitalized award emphasizes measurable athletic performance standards similar to earlier versions of the test, which ranked students based on physical achievement, according to a copy of the National Physical Fitness Award obtained by Fox News Digital.

The original Presidential Physical Fitness Test was phased out during former President Barack Obama’s second term and replaced with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, part of the “Let’s Move” initiative. Critics at the time argued that the test focused too much on performance and competition, discouraging less athletic students.

The President’s Council on Youth Fitness was first established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower after studies showed American children were less physically fit than European peers. Schools began administering a fitness test under President John F. Kennedy, launching the President’s Council on Physical Fitness. 

WHOLE MILK HEADED BACK TO SCHOOL CAFETERIAS AFTER TRUMP SIGNS LAW AS EXPERTS TOUT BENEFITS

The Obama-era Presidential Youth Fitness Program focused “primarily on assessing health versus athleticism for America’s youth,” according to the Let’s Move website.

Fox News Digital reached out to the office of President Obama for comment.

More than 21% of Americans ages 2 to 19 were classified as obese between 2021 and 2023, while 7% of American youths had severe obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

SCHOOL MEALS RAISE EYEBROWS AS MAHA ADVOCATES URGE ‘DIFFERENT CHOICES IN THE LUNCH LINE’

Trump is expected to sign the memorandum in the Oval Office, followed by an event on the South Lawn with families and children to mark National Youth Sports and Fitness Month, Fox News Digital learned. 

Cabinet secretaries including Dept. of War Secretary Pete Hegseth, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, and Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon will also be in attendance.