Testimony from a policy analyst at a libertarian think tank was unexpectedly highlighted by immigration hawks after he delivered an opening statement at a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing featuring controversial Fairfax County prosecutor Stephen Descano.

The hearing, chaired by Rep. Thomas McClintock, R-Calif., examined several examples of allegedly lax prosecutions by Descano involving illegal immigrants with prior rap sheets — including a Sierra Leone national accused of murdering a young woman at a bus stop on U.S. 1.

In his opening remarks, Cato Institute immigration expert David Bier testified that the “way to fix Fairfax” is not to continue the “mass deportation” agenda of President Donald Trump.

“The first step would be to give up on the mass deportation fantasy,” Bier said.

SOROS-BACKED PROSECUTOR SET FOR CAPITOL HILL GRILLING AS SANCTUARY POLICIES FACE RECKONING

“About 1-in-5 Fairfax residents is someone who could be deported or who lives with them — It would destroy neighborhoods, rip Americans away from their spouses, parents, friends, families, customers, employees, employers, nurses, nannies, and teachers.”

While Bier later added that he believes noncitizens who harm Americans should be deported, his earlier statement drew the attention of several immigration hawks, including Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Lee borrowed Bier’s logic to prove immigration hardliners’ point that mass deportation is the right solution:

“On the contrary: 20% of a wealthy DC suburb being illegal immigrants means we should redouble our efforts to deport them all,” Lee said.

Bier responded to Lee’s comments in a lengthy statement to Fox News Digital, arguing the Utah Republican failed to explain why mass deportation would benefit Americans in Fairfax County.

“What was the senator’s explanation for [his] statement? The senator never says why it would benefit the country to harm Fairfax County and the Americans who live there, so there’s nothing to rebut,” Bier said.

FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS VIEW LEGAL IMMIGRATION AS HELPFUL, FAVOR DEPORTING THOSE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY

“The senator is wrong to characterize the 20% as all illegal immigrants since half of them are just people who live with illegal immigrants, which is precisely my point.”

“Mass deportation would harm those Americans and many others by ripping them away from their spouses, parents, children, friends, family, employees, employers, customers, nurses, nannies, and teachers,” the immigration expert added.

Bier said mass deportation becomes more expensive and impractical as the population of illegal immigrants grows, meaning continuing on the current course will harm Americans.

“I would ask the senator: how many Americans would have to be hurt by mass deportation before he would reconsider his views?”

Reached for additional comment, Lee spokesman Billy Gribbin told Fox News Digital that the Utahn “believes in enforcing US law and deporting illegal immigrants — not making excuses for criminals who hurt Americans.”

Fox News Digital also asked DHS about the apparent statistical admission, and an agency spokesperson blamed Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s “reckless sanctuary policies” for making Fairfax and the rest of the Old Dominion a “hotbed for illegal alien criminals.”

“The stories of the victims and facts speak for themselves. The sanctuary politicians of Fairfax County have blood on their hands,” the spokesperson said.

DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin added separately that half the murders recorded recently in Fairfax were allegedly perpetrated by “illegals who shouldn’t have been in our country to begin with.”

“We have politicians who want to protect the criminals, President Trump is still protecting all of our neighborhoods,” Mullin said.

Bier’s 1-in-5 statistic was also cited in a CATO document footnoted to the K Street firm Migration Policy Institute. MPI’s data showed an estimated 102,000-person “unauthorized” population in Fairfax — which has a census count of about 1.2 million as of 2020.

The top “countries-of-birth” on MPI’s list in that regard were El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Bolivia and Peru, while only 4% combined was recorded from Canada, Europe and Oceania.

An internal dispute could derail Republicans’ goal of funding immigration operations for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s presidency. 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told his colleagues that he would not support the GOP’s $72 billion reconciliation package if it included $1 billion in funding for Trump’s ballroom. 

His defection, along with a handful of other Republicans critical of the funding, could sink the bill. 

SENATE REPUBLICANS BALK AT $1B WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM REQUEST: ‘YOU MADE THAT NUMBER UP’

And given the GOP’s narrow margin in the upper chamber, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., can’t afford Republicans to break from the party line.

Tillis’ opposition, which was first reported by Axios and confirmed by a source familiar to Fox News Digital, alone isn’t enough to torpedo the package meant to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol for the next three and a half years. 

But others, including Sens. John Curtis, R-Utah, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rick Scott, R-Fla., aren’t thrilled with the funding. 

Republicans were briefed by Secret Service Director Sean Curran last week on the funding, which included $220 million for “White House complex hardening.”

REPUBLICANS SLIP $1 BILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY FOR TRUMP BALLROOM SECURITY IN ICE, BORDER PATROL PACKAGE

That would fund “above and below ground” security enhancements for Trump’s ballroom, which the administration argued would “afford needed protection for the president, his family, and visitors, along with the below-ground, highest-level security functions,” according to an itemized readout obtained by Fox News Digital. 

Those enhancements would include bulletproof glass, drone detection technology, chemical filtration and detection systems and “a host of other national security functions.” 

An additional $180 million would go toward a White House screening center for visitors. The remaining $600 million would go toward Secret Service training, enhancing protection for Trump and other officials, and other security measures including countering drones and other aerial incursions.

But a saving grace for Republicans could be the Senate referee’s ruling that funding for the ballroom should get yanked from the package. 

In order for budget reconciliation to pause the 60-vote threshold and pass under a simple majority of votes, the package has to comply with the Senate’s strict Byrd Rule. Senate Democrats pushed for the Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough to strip out the funding, and they were successful.

SEVERAL PROVISIONS FAIL TO PASS MUSTER WITH SENATE RULES IN ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’

McDonough ruled over the weekend that, given the complexity and scale of the ballroom project, it would involve the coordination of “many government agencies which span the jurisdiction of many Senate committees. As drafted, the provision inappropriately funds activities outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.”

Thune said that Republicans had learned a lot from the parliamentarian’s rulings last year when they were crafting the “big, beautiful bill,” and that the process is a “give-and-take.” 

But still, it’s full steam ahead for the GOP to try and advance the package by the end of the week. 

“I think that if we can get it done, we should get it done,” Thune said. “I’m always somebody who believes, especially around here, you want to strike while the iron’s hot, and I think if we, if we’re ready to go, the committees have acted, and we’re in a good place with parliamentarian, and we’ve got, you know, decent attendance here, then I think we want to try and wrap this up.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, lauded the ruling, but noted that Republicans would likely try to find a way to work the funding back in. 

“We cannot let Republicans waste our national treasure on a mission of chaos and corruption while turning a blind eye to the needs of the American people,” Merkley said.

President Donald Trump suggested Friday that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan could factor into broader negotiations with China, drawing a swift response from Taiwan’s president and reigniting debate in Washington about the future of longstanding U.S. policy toward the island.

Asked by Fox News whether he would move forward with a delayed $14 billion weapons package for Taiwan, Trump replied: “I’m holding that in abeyance, and it depends on China. It’s a very good negotiating chip for us, frankly. It’s a lot of weapons.” 

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te pushed back hours later, calling U.S. arms sales “the most vital deterrent” to regional conflict and insisting Taiwan “shall never be sacrificed or traded away.”

Trump’s comments came as the administration continues to hold up a $14 billion Taiwan weapons package first approved in principle in late 2025, fueling growing debate in Washington over whether Trump is steering U.S. policy back toward a more traditional form of “strategic ambiguity” — or recasting support for Taiwan through a more openly transactional lens tied to broader negotiations with Beijing.

CHINA PROMISES ‘COUNTERMEASURES’ TO US ARMS SALE TO TAIWAN

The White House could not immediately be reached for comment. 

Ahead of Trump’s recent summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, bipartisan lawmakers warned in a letter that “American support for Taiwan is not up for negotiation.”

The Taiwan issue already had emerged as one of the most sensitive flashpoints surrounding Trump’s mid-May summit with Xi in Beijing. 

Following the meeting, China’s foreign ministry said Xi warned Trump that Taiwan remained the “most important issue” in U.S.–China relations and cautioned that mishandling it could lead to “clashes and even conflicts” between the two powers.

The White House later downplayed the exchange, with a senior administration official telling Fox News Digital both sides had simply reiterated their longstanding positions on Taiwan.

For decades, U.S. policy toward Taiwan has rested on a posture of “strategic ambiguity” — supporting Taiwan’s self-defense while avoiding an explicit commitment to militarily defend the island in the event of a Chinese attack.

Trump’s comments prompted competing reactions among foreign policy analysts, with some China hawks warning that treating Taiwan arms sales as negotiable could weaken deterrence and unsettle U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific, while others argued the remarks reflected a return to a more traditional interpretation of strategic ambiguity after years of increasingly explicit U.S. signaling toward Taiwan.

TAIWAN RAMPS UP COAST GUARD AND MILITARY READINESS IN FACE OF BEIJING’S ‘GRAY ZONE’ WARFARE

“Trading Taiwan’s security for rhetoric from Beijing would be a strategic blunder of historic proportions,” said retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank. “If the president does not proceed with the arms sale to Taiwan, he will jeopardize U.S.–Taiwan relations and weaken U.S. credibility globally.”

Bonnie Glaser, managing director of the Indo-Pacific Program at the German Marshall Fund think tank, argued Trump’s comments blurred an important distinction at the center of longstanding U.S. Taiwan policy.

“Strategic ambiguity has nothing to do with providing arms to Taiwan,” Glaser told Fox News Digital. “The Taiwan Relations Act requires that the United States sell defensive arms to Taiwan. No president has ever said that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are a useful bargaining chip.”

But some foreign policy analysts argued Trump’s comments reflected a deliberate effort to re-center U.S. policy around American priorities.

TRUMP LEAVES CHINA WITH BREAKTHROUGHS — AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON XI’S BIGGEST FIGHTS

“Trump has shaken up the Taiwan debate in Washington to a large extent,” Lyle Goldstein, director of Asia engagement at Defense Priorities, told Fox News Digital.

Goldstein argued Trump’s comments reflected a return to a more restrained interpretation of “strategic ambiguity” after years of increasingly explicit U.S. signaling toward Taiwan under the Biden administration.

“Overall, his approach has been to return U.S. policy to ‘strategic ambiguity,’ especially in contrast to the Biden administration, which was lurching dangerously toward ‘strategic clarity,’ that threatened to spark a near-term U.S.–China war,” Goldstein said.

During his presidency, former President Joe Biden repeatedly suggested the United States would defend Taiwan militarily in the event of a Chinese attack — comments critics said pushed Washington closer toward “strategic clarity,” even as White House officials maintained there had been no formal policy change.

Critics argued Biden’s remarks heightened tensions with Beijing, while supporters said the comments strengthened deterrence against potential Chinese aggression.

Goldstein argued Trump’s willingness to openly discuss Taiwan arms sales in the context of broader U.S.–China negotiations reflects a more restrained approach aimed at preserving stability between Washington and Beijing.

“Indeed, with these fresh comments Trump recognizes that both sides are responsible for maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait,” Goldstein said. “He even went so far as to sternly admonish the leadership in Taipei for unnecessary risk-taking.”

Trump has long taken a more transactional approach toward Taiwan than many traditional U.S. foreign policy hawks, previously arguing the island should pay the United States for its defense and accusing Taiwan of “stealing” America’s semiconductor industry.

He has also repeatedly framed Taiwan through the lens of semiconductor competition and supply-chain dependence, arguing the United States should reclaim a larger share of advanced chip manufacturing.

“Trump’s new reflections on Taiwan illustrate an informed approach that recognizes the basic and fundamental truth that Taiwan is not a vital U.S. national security interest and that the U.S.-China relationship far outweighs the U.S.-Taiwan relationship in importance,” Goldstein added.

The central question now facing lawmakers and U.S. allies is whether Trump’s rhetoric will ultimately affect the timing or conditions surrounding the pending Taiwan weapons package — a test many analysts see as critical to understanding how the administration intends to approach Taiwan going forward.

Redistricting and race.

Democrats are beside themselves, watching what Republicans are doing on redistricting — especially in the South.

“What we’re seeing is an attack on legitimate opportunities for Black candidates to have representation here in Congress,” said Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Ala., who is on track to lose his district in Mobile.

Democrats say they know what Republicans are up to.

“They’ve also been trying to eliminate teaching America’s history, right? Whitewashing America’s history,” said former Vice President Kamala Harris.

BLOCKBUSTER SUPREME COURT VOTING RIGHTS RULING IGNITES REDISTRICTING WAR ACROSS SOUTHERN STATES

States like Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama – and now Georgia and South Carolina are redrawing district maps for House Members. That’s after Missouri revamped its maps. Many of these new districts are squeezing out members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

In essence, Democrats see this as a “Southern Strategy” by the GOP, stamping out Black lawmakers.

“It’s about race,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the  top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

“I feel like I’ve been assaulted,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.

“We’ve seen this before,” said Rep. Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

“We’re looking at losing possibly 19 members of the Congressional Black Caucus because of this frankly racist redistricting efforts targeted towards disenfranchising Black voters across the country,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. 

Republicans say turnabout is fair play. They note that you can’t find a Republican anywhere in the six states which comprise New England.

“It’s out of whack. It’s out of balance. And I think Republicans are finally waking up given the legal landscape changes and going, ‘Well, maybe we need to reconsider the way that we do things in our state,’” said Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C.

South Carolina initially balked at drawing new maps. But the Palmetto State reversed course after President Trump demanded the state “get it done.” He instructed South Carolina Republicans to be “bold and courageous.”

Don’t forget that GOP Indiana state senators faced the President’s ire after the Hoosier State rejected his entreaties for redistricting there. The Trump White House waged an internecine campaign. President Trump’s allies toppled five Republican state senators who crossed him.

So South Carolina snapped to attention.

“The people of South Carolina are very supportive of President Donald Trump,” said Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). “They understand perfectly that we’re in a conflict. A nationwide conflict.”

New maps in South Carolina could mean no Democrats in the state delegation. That could eliminate the district of former House Majority Whip and Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. Clyburn first came to Capitol Hill in 1993. He’s widely regarded for salvaging the 2020 campaign of former President Biden, helping him ride to victory in the South Carolina primary.

Still, Democrats believe they can seize the House, even as Republicans try to squeeze the map through redistricting.

“There are 45 districts in play that we’ve identified as opportunities to flip in this upcoming midterm election,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Democrats believe they’ll run up the scoreboard in California. Pluck off a couple of Republicans in Arizona and Colorado. Maybe one in Utah. Take a few in Texas after redistricting there. Make a play for a seat in Montana. Win a seat or two in Pennsylvania. Claim two seats in Virginia – despite the Virginia Supreme Court ruling there. Pick up a couple of seats in New Jersey and New York.

Remember that Democrats just need a net gain of three seats to secure the House majority.

However, that “blue wall” might not hold in all of New England this time around.

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, is retiring. He’s one of the most moderate Democrats in Congress. Vice President JD Vance just traveled to Bangor, Maine, recently to talk about fraud – and boost the campaign prospects of former Republican Maine Gov. Paul LePage.

LePage is running to succeed Golden. Republicans are bullish about their chances in northern Maine.

REPUBLICAN ‘WAKE-UP CALL’: SPECIAL ELECTION SHOCKER HIGHLIGHTS GOP TURNOUT AND MIDTERM RISKS

LePage will be 78 if he wins – the oldest freshman in congressional history. However, this is ironic. Maine’s Democrat Gov. Janet Mills was running for Senate – but bowed out. Some Democrats believed she was too old. Mills would have been 79 as a freshman senator had she stayed in the race and prevailed.

But back to what faces the Democrats.

Democrats are trying to find their footing after the double whammy of the Supreme Court Voting Rights Act decision and the Virginia Supreme Court rejecting the statewide redistricting referendum. House Democrats huddled to discuss their battle plan.

“I’m more energized now than ever to make sure that we’re in the field, that we’re doing the work and whatever it has to take to win,” said Meeks.

“We’re going to win,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). That’s the House Democrats’ political arm.

“Democrats are prepared to use whatever levers we can to influence the outcome of the election,” said Thompson.

Some of this sounded a little like political pablum with no real direction.

Yours truly pressed Thompson.

“Respectfully, this all sounds kind of vague. You guys have a five-alarm fire now after those two court decisions, and I’m not hearing any specifics,” I countered Thompson.

“Well, you just stay tuned,” countered Thompson.

“How does that convince the voters, though?” your trusty reporter queried.

“Look,” said Thompson. “We are two weeks away from a crazy Supreme Court decision. You can’t expect anyone to come with a strategy right now.”

Two weeks after the decision which could hamstring Democrats’ chances to win the House? Never mind that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year and oral arguments were in the fall. Democrats understood the gravity of this case and how it could chew into any plan to flip the House in the midterms.

Democrats are banking on Republicans overplaying their redistricting hands. But how Democrats energize their base wasn’t immediately clear after their conclave on the subject.

“The American public gets to make this decision. That’s a great thing about American democracy. And we’re working,” said Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee.

REDISTRICTING BATTLES BREWING ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS PARTIES COMPETE FOR POWER AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS

But “working” doesn’t necessarily garner votes. It would be “news” if the Democrats weren’t working on the issue.

“That doesn’t sound like much of a concrete plan, though, Mr. Morelle?” yours truly interjected.

“I am not going to share my concrete plan with you,” replied Morelle.

A group of northern Democrats – ranging from Ocasio-Cortez to Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., headed to Montgomery, Ala., over the weekend to make the case against the GOP’s redistricting ploys.

“We shall overcome,” intoned Booker. 

Rep. Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., son of the late Rev. Jesse Jackson, is now imploring Black student-athletes who attend school in the South to enter the transfer portal and play instead in the North.

Yet another way to pit the Big Ten against the SEC.

Rallying in the South may rile up Black voters. But it won’t help Democrats take back the House if all they’re doing is driving up voter participation in districts Democrats can’t win – thanks to the redrawing of the boundaries.

However, if Democrats do succeed in getting people to the polls – yet the playing field is tilted against them – we could be in for an econometric anomaly this fall.

It was a presidential election year in 2012. Democrats failed to win control of the House after losing it in a 2010 midterm shellacking. With President Obama on the ballot, Democrats secured nearly 1.6 million more votes than Republicans in House races nationwide in 2012. Yet Democrats failed to win the House.

Republicans won control of the House from the Democrats in 1994 for the first time in four decades. But with President Clinton handily riding to a second term in 1996, Democrats still struggled to win back the House. Democrats outpaced Republicans in the popular vote for the House that year by nearly 300,000 votes nationally. 

Democrats have redrawn lines in their favor in California. But Republicans appear to have superseded that with their lines in the South. It’s a distinct possibility that Democrats could command more popular votes for House seats nationwide – and not get back the House. This statistical phenomenon is even more glaring that the party with the most popular votes fails to control the House in a midterm – not a presidential election year when a sitting executive is returned to the White House in the cases of Presidents Clinton and Obama.

That’s why some Democrats believe they should have been even more aggressive with redistricting.

Maryland is a case study. The Democratically-controlled state took a pass.

“I believe that we had an opportunity to do that. I supported it, and I still believe that would have been the right course for us to take,” said Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md. “These are extraordinary times And I think we should take extraordinary measures to protect the opportunity to have those votes counted.”

Maryland would have made the entire state blue, drawing out of his seat Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

Democrats see the GOP tactics as an existential political threat. President Trump commanded about one-fifth of Black male voters in 2024. And that’s why Democrats are framing this fight around civil rights.

It’s a race about redistricting. But Democrats also see this as a race – about race.

The Justice Department has created a $1.776 billion fund for people who allege they were victims of federal government “lawfare” as part of a settlement agreement in President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund creates a formal process for Americans alleging they were targeted through politically motivated actions by the Justice Department under previous administrations. The program is set to expire a month before the end of Trump’s second term.

The fund was created as part of an agreement for Trump and his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., to drop the $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS they filed in January.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

NEW YORK DEFENSE ATTORNEY ARGUES LEGAL SYSTEM WAS WEAPONIZED AGAINST TRUMP

Trump and his sons are ineligible to receive compensation from the fund but will receive a formal apology, according to the Justice Department.

Trump also agreed to withdraw two additional claims for damages, one stemming from the “unlawful” FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago and the other related to the “Russia-collusion hoax,” in which Obama officials are accused of manipulating intelligence reports on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

The Justice Department is investigating former CIA Director John Brennan based on allegations that he lied to Congress about the resources the CIA used to craft its intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The fund will have the authority to issue formal apologies and financial compensation to claimants. Funding will come from a permanent congressional appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases. Participation will be voluntary, and there will be no partisan or political requirement to file a claim.

Critics, however, argue the program could allow the administration to compensate Trump allies and supporters who claim they were unfairly investigated or prosecuted.

Former FBI Director James Comey — who was charged by the Justice Department after posting an Instagram photo of seashells arranged to spell “86-47,” which officials interpreted as a threat against President Donald Trump — slammed the creation of the fund.

“It just can’t be the way we operate,” Comey said in an interview with ABC News. “We can’t set up a multi-million-dollar ATM at Mar-a-Lago for people who’ve committed crimes. It just isn’t the way we are. It’s not consistent with our values. Eventually, the Department of Justice will right itself, but we’re gonna have to ride out a hard two years.”

A five-member commission appointed by the U.S. attorney general will oversee the fund. One commissioner will be selected in consultation with congressional leadership. The president will retain authority to remove commissioners, though replacements must be selected through the same process used for the departing member.

DOJ ACCELERATES SETTLEMENT OFFERS IN CAMP LEJEUNE WATER CONTAMINATION CASES

The fund is expected to end on Dec. 15, 2028, and any money remaining after the fund ceases operations will return to the federal government.

The Justice Department pointed to the Obama administration’s creation of “Keepseagle,” a $760 million fund created to compensate people alleging they were victims of racism by the federal government, as the legal precedent for this new fund.

However, the Justice Department stated that $300 million of what remained from the fund was distributed to nonprofits and organizations that never filed claims.

Safeguards will be implemented to protect private information and prevent fraud, including the fund issuing quarterly reports to the attorney general detailing who received relief and what type of relief was granted, according to the Justice Department.

The White House referred Fox News Digital to the Justice Department for comment.

A Democratic city council member who once welcomed the “change” from socialist Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson is now admitting he is “gravely concerned” about the business exodus affecting the major American city.

This comes as blue states like Washington and New York face a business exodus in favor of more market-friendly red states. Starbucks, a major player in Seattle’s business scene, recently announced a major expansion into Nashville while simultaneously cutting Seattle-based corporate jobs, a move that has intensified concerns about Seattle’s business climate and economic competitiveness.

Wilson, a self-proclaimed socialist, recently went viral for laughing off the exodus of billionaires and business leaders from her city, saying, “I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are super overblown,” and adding, “the ones that leave? Like, bye.”

Now, less than five months into Wilson’s term, Seattle Democratic Councilmember Rob Saka admitted to the New York Times, “I am gravely concerned,” telling the outlet, “This is real.”

BISHOP BARRON SLAMS ‘BORDERLINE COMMUNISTS’ SANDERS, MAMDANI AHEAD OF TRUMP PRAYER EVENT: ‘ECONOMY THAT KILLS’

Saka previously welcomed Wilson after she defeated incumbent Bruce Harrell, saying in a statement, “The voters have spoken, calling for change and a renewed focus on affordability, community, and fighting back against a resurgent Trump agenda.”

He praised the “energy she brings to leadership,” and said he was “look[ing] forward to partnering with her to build a thriving, inclusive Seattle that uplifts working families, expands universal preschool for all, ends food deserts, and creates safer, more connected neighborhoods across our city.”

Starbucks recently announced it will shift 2,000 corporate jobs, primarily in IT and supply chain management, to a new regional headquarters in Nashville. Last week, KOMO News reported Starbucks laid off an additional 61 employees as part of a reorganization of its technology department at its corporate headquarters.

State leaders in Washington have also faced criticism for recently passing the “millionaires tax,” which Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson signed on March 30. The measure has been described as the state’s first-ever income tax, backed by progressives and socialists and opposed by conservatives.

The new tax will impose a 9.9% income tax on households earning more than $1 million each year.

WHY STARBUCKS PICKED NASHVILLE OVER SEATTLE FOR EXPANSION, ACCORDING TO LOCAL BUSINESS REPORTER

Starbucks is not the only business impacted by the state’s economic policies. The Columbia Tower Club, an iconic business club atop Seattle’s tallest skyscraper, closed last month after more than four decades. Long considered a hub for executives, developers and civic leaders, the club cited declining office traffic and downtown business activity tied to remote work and high vacancy rates. Critics quickly pointed to the closure as another sign of weakening business confidence in Seattle.

On Monday, the Washington State Republican Party ripped into both Wilson and the city council, posting on X, “Marxist @MayorofSeattle Katie Wilson is more concerned about toilet ribbon-cutting photo opps than massive capital flight in downtown #Seattle all the while @SeattleCouncil stands idle as a once iconic city crumbles.”

The jab refers to a recent Wilson event promoting new downtown public restrooms, which critics mocked amid concerns about Seattle’s economy and business climate.

Though Wilson’s now-infamous “like, bye” line drew laughs and applause from her audience, it immediately sparked backlash on social media from conservatives criticizing her economic policy.

“Seattle’s Socialist Mayor responds to exodus of wealth from Washington State by saying ‘BYE’… then laughing. We’re doomed,” wrote Brandi Kruse.

SOCIALIST MAYOR’S BLUNT 1-WORD MESSAGE TO FLEEING MILLIONAIRES SPARKS OUTRAGE: ‘WE’RE DOOMED’

“This clip will live in infamy,” the Washington State Republican Party posted on X. “@MayorofSeattle Katie Wilson is not only unfit to be mayor, she lacks grace and gratitude. Perhaps, she’s the one who should leave #Seattle.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Saka and Wilson for additional comment.

Fox News Digital’s Rachel del Guidice, Joshua Q. Nelson and Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering installing a White House helipad for Marine One, the latest potential update to the executive mansion’s grounds. 

“President Trump has continued to make improvements at the White House and all around D.C. to benefit future presidents and Americans,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle told Fox News Digital when asked about the reported consideration on Monday morning. 

The White House did not reveal additional details on the matter. 

The helipad would protect the South Lawn’s grass from the powerful engines of the newer helicopters used by the president, the Wall Street Journal first reported Monday. It is unclear who would fund building the possible addition.

GOLDEN EAGLES, LIONS AND A WINGED LADY LIBERTY TOP TRUMP’S PROPOSED 250-FOOT DC ‘TRIUMPHAL ARCH’ DESIGNS

Trump’s White House renovations and broader D.C. beautification push have drawn both praise from supporters and criticism from preservationists and political opponents.

TRUMP REVEALS FIRST PHOTOS AFTER LINCOLN BEDROOM’S RENOVATION IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Recently, Trump replaced the West Wing Colonnade with polished black granite flooring along the “Presidential Walk of Fame.”

Trump’s ongoing construction of the White House Ballroom has also returned to the spotlight after security concerns surrounding large presidential events intensified following the April shooting tied to the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

A 250-foot triumphal arch is proposed to sit near the Lincoln Memorial at a roundabout between Memorial Bridge and Memorial Avenue near the Arlington Cemetery Metro Stop.

WHITE HOUSE MAKEOVERS HAVE LONG SPARKED CONTROVERSY, WELL BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S $200M BALLROOM

Last year, President Trump directed the addition of stone pavers to the Rose Garden lawn, a change designed to better accommodate press conferences and ceremonial events which is now dubbed the “Rose Garden Club.”

Throughout its 223-year history, the iconic residence has seen numerous updates — both large and small — under nearly every administration, including the creation of the first Oval Office in 1909 under the Taft administration, and the addition of the East Wing under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is facing backlash after suggesting taxpayers should fund dental care for meth users, arguing many cannot rebuild their lives without teeth. 

Bass, who is vying in a crowded June primary for a second mayoral term, made the remark during a candidate forum last week on the city’s homelessness crisis.

“How many people that you meet that are unhoused don’t have teeth at all?” Bass said during an exchange. “They don’t have teeth. Why? Because meth rots your teeth.”

“You can’t succeed without teeth. So there needs to be comprehensive healthcare provided to people,” she continued.

CALIFORNIA’S BATTLE OVER CRIME AND HOMELESSNESS IS A WARNING TO THE NATION

Bass’s comments sparked an uproar among conservatives, who torched the incumbent’s response for appearing to omit any mention of tackling the root causes of the city’s homelessness and drug problems.

“A homeless drug addict just tried to stab me,” conservative journalist Dustin Grage wrote on the social media platform X, impersonating a Los Angeles resident affected by the city’s homeless crisis and drug epidemic. “Karen Bass: ‘It’s okay, we’re going to provide them free teeth so they can be successful now.’”

Despite Bass’s claims of progress, Los Angeles continues to rank among the cities with the nation’s largest homeless population, with critics arguing the crisis has continued to fester under her watch.

More than 43,000 individuals in Los Angeles experienced homelessness in early February 2025, according to a count released by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

Former Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Zacharia also criticized Bass for not addressing the underlying drug epidemic in her remarks.

“Symptoms, never the disease,” Zacharia wrote.

“Clueless Karen Bass said that the worst part about meth addiction is that it ruins your teeth,” former Trump assistant attorney general Theo Wold wrote on X. “To paraphrase Norm MacDonald: Last time I checked, I thought the worst part about meth addiction was meth!”

LA TIMES OWNER SAYS ENDORSING KAREN BASS WAS A ‘MISTAKE’ DUE TO INCOMPETENCE

A spokesperson for Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bass, 72, an establishment Democrat who represented a Los Angeles-based seat in Congress from 2011 to 2022, is facing a competitive re-election challenge from her left and right flank.

Los Angeles City Council member Nithya Raman, 44, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is touting her progressive bona fides. Meanwhile, former reality television star Spencer Pratt, 42, is emerging as a dark horse candidate after gaining momentum by hammering Bass’s response to the devastating 2025 Los Angeles fires that obliterated his home and many others.

The upstart candidate has also ripped Bass’s failure to turn the corner on the city’s homelessness and public safety problems.

Pratt is a registered Republican, though the city’s mayoral contest is officially nonpartisan.

The June 2 primary is widely expected to go into a runoff election in which the top two vote-getters would appear on the ballot in November.

A corporate exodus is reshaping America’s business landscape — and deep-blue states are paying the price.

The stakes go far beyond bragging rights. Corporate headquarters bring high-paying jobs, investment and tax revenue; they also boost local economies and political influence.

According to a report by CBRE, one of the nation’s largest commercial real estate brokerage firms, 725 companies relocated their headquarters between 2018 and 2025. And the trend was clear — businesses increasingly left high-tax, heavily regulated Democrat-led states like California and New York for Republican states offering lower costs, lighter regulation and faster growth, like Texas and Florida.

AMERICANS KEEP MOVING TO TEXAS AND FLORIDA — BUT ONE OTHER RED STATE IS GROWING EVEN FASTER

And as companies increasingly relocate to Republican-led states, politicians in blue states are facing growing scrutiny over whether progressive tax-and-regulation policies are driving employers away, weakening growth and eroding the tax bases of some of America’s longtime economic powerhouses.

The frequency of relocations accelerated in 2025, outpacing 2024 levels as companies looked beyond traditional coastal hubs for expansion opportunities. CBRE found the number of firms citing “growth opportunity” as the primary reason for relocating jumped nearly 47% from a year earlier.

Texas emerged as the biggest winner in the battle for corporate America.

Executives continue to reassess operating costs, tax burdens and workforce growth prospects while deciding where to invest for the future — and many landed on cities throughout the Lone Star State.

Dallas-Fort Worth captured more than any metro area in the country with 111 headquarters relocations between 2018 and 2025. Austin secured another 88 and Houston added 31 in that same seven-year span.

GOV. ABBOTT EXTENDS OFF-RAMP FOR NY BILLIONAIRES FLEEING MAMDANI’S POLICIES

Taken together, those three Texas markets accounted for more headquarters gains than many states in their entirety.

Florida, especially Miami, has also emerged as a major beneficiary of the corporate relocation wave. Over the past year, six companies moved operations to Miami from high-cost hubs including Los Angeles, the Bay Area and Boston, drawn by Florida’s lower taxes, growing tech scene and access to East Coast markets.

Companies told CBRE that Miami’s fast-growing startup culture and expanding pool of finance and tech talent make it an increasingly attractive destination, while international firms are also flocking to South Florida for its strong travel, tourism and beauty industries.

Meanwhile, deep blue California experienced the steepest losses.

CALIFORNIA’S LOOMING CAPITAL FLIGHT PROBLEM COULD RESHAPE STATE IN 3 KEY AREAS

The San Francisco Bay Area posted a net loss of 163 headquarters over the same period Texas saw its gains, according to the report.

CBRE said companies leaving California metros frequently cited high taxes, labor regulations and rising cost-of-living pressures as key reasons for relocating elsewhere.

MAMDANI’S RISE IN NYC MIRRORS ECONOMIC FLIGHT TO THE SOUTH, STUDY SHOWS

While traditional business powerhouses like New York and Chicago remain deeply entrenched in corporate America, there’s a broader debate over whether legacy cities can continue holding onto top employers and investment.

The New York City metro-area, which includes Newark and Jersey City, saw the second-highest number of departures with nine headquarters leaving for other states from 2024 to 2025. And the debate over increasingly progressive policies in the city has led to threats of more departures.

Citadel founder Ken Griffin, who relocated his hedge fund from Chicago to Miami in 2022, has repeatedly warned that rising taxes, crime and anti-business policies could drive more companies away from cities like Chicago and New York.

New York remains the nation’s largest corporate hub, home to 114 Fortune 1000 headquarters. The recent moves represent only a small slice of the region’s business base and resulted in a loss of about 5,200 jobs.

CHICAGO KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN KEN GRIFFIN TURNS ON A CITY — NOW MAMDANI MAY FIND OUT

The migration patterns are becoming increasingly politically significant.

Economic performance frequently shapes midterm messaging, and corporate relocations are poised to feature prominently in debates over tax competitiveness, regulation and the broader business climate.

The issue is drawing even more attention as Democrats in several blue states push billionaire taxes and other progressive policies that critics warn could drive more companies and wealthy residents out.

Whether the trend endures remains uncertain.

But for now, the corporate migration is reinforcing a broader reality: Taxes, regulation and cost of living are no longer secondary political issues. They are increasingly determining where businesses invest, where jobs move and which states gain — or lose — economic power.

Long Island Rail Road workers walked off the job on Monday after rejecting the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s latest wage offer, snarling travel for hundreds of thousands of weekday commuters even as payroll data shows the striking employees already earn six-figure pay.

LIRR employees had an average income of $121,646 plus an average of $25,957 in overtime pay as of 2024, according to data provided by the railroad operator. While the typical LIRR employee makes about $150,000 a year, the median household on Long Island, which often contains multiple workers, earned just $131,000 in 2023, per the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The rail employees are striking because they feel the raise offered to them by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is not enough to compensate for the rising cost of living in the New York metropolitan area.

In addition to negatively impacting the travel plans of the estimated more than a quarter million people who ride the LIRR every day, the New York State Comptroller estimates that the strike will cost the region an average of $61 million per day.

SCATHING REPORT CLAIMS NATION’S OLDEST LABOR UNION ‘BETRAYED’ MAGA MEMBERS THROUGH ‘SHOCKING’ SPENDING

“To every LIRR passenger whose trip is disrupted, know that the MTA left us no choice but to strike,” Gil Lang, General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen’s LIRR General Committee, said of the strike. “We don’t want to be on the picket line. But after three years without raises, we cannot make any more compromises to cover for the MTA’s mismanagement.”

The MTA, which manages the LIRR, offered the five unions representing the striking workers a raise of 9.5% over three years, an agreement that has already been approved by other transit unions, Newsday reported. To sweeten the deal, the MTA offered an additional 4.5% after the fourth year, provided the rail operators agree to productivity increases.

UNION RACKED UP MASSIVE TAB ON SWANK DC HOTEL STAY TO BATTLE TRUMP — AND STILL LOST

LIRR union leaders have called the terms offered to them unreasonable and demanded a 14.5% raise over four years with no strings attached. 

In addition to the generous pay, LIRR workers benefit from workplace rules that allow them to earn even more. If an LIRR worker operates electric and diesel vehicles on the same shift, or if they work in a rail yard and on an active train in one day, their contract entitles them to double pay. Three hundred twenty-five LIRR employees pull in $100,000 or more in overtime alone annually, according to data reviewed by the New York Post.

SAN FRANCISCO TEACHERS UNION STRIKE LEAVES 50,000 CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL

“I’m just trying to get home to my kids, and I have to still remember that they are still striking for their reasons so it’s not all about me,” one Long Island commuter impacted by the strike told Gothamist. “But at the same time, whatever it is that they’re striking about, whoever is responsible for their inconvenience — I hope that they fix it because it is trickling down to everyone.”

One teacher told CBS News that he had to wake up at 2 a.m. to catch a 4:30 a.m. shuttle bus into the city, as remote work is not possible for him. Multiple other commuters had similar stories.

“It’s just crazy,” the teacher said. “It’s an inconvenience.”

The strike is ongoing as of writing with no clear end in sight.

“We’re far apart at this point,” BLET national vice president Kevin Sexton said Saturday. “We are truly sorry that we are in this situation.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has so far avoided publicly taking a side in the dispute, instead focusing on warning commuters about travel delays and providing information on what his administration is doing to help. 

The five unions representing the striking workers and the mayor’s office did not respond when reached for comment by Fox News Digital on Monday.