Mamdani vows NYPD will ‘never’ go back to Adams-era cooperation with ICE enforcement
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani said that the New York City Police Department will not be helping with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) measures under his watch, shortly after border czar Tom Homan announced federal immigration officials would be ramping up its enforcement measures soon in the Big Apple. The commitment follows through on Mamdani’s campaign promise that the NYPD will not assist federal immigration officials, such as ICE, under his watch. “We can never go back to the days where Eric Adams would go on national television and open the door to the NYPD handling civil immigration enforcement. That can never even be entertained,” Mamdani said during an interview with local television station PIX11 News. “People are living in fear.” The mayor-elect continued, “And what we will ensure is that the NYPD will be delivering public safety, not assisting ICE in their attempts to fulfill the administration’s goal of creating the single largest deportation force in American history.” MAMDANI FORCED TO ADDRESS UNEARTHED VIDEO EXPOSING VILE NYPD COMPARISON Mamdani’s response on whether he would have the NYPD cooperate with ICE came in the context of NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch and the fact she was “tipped off” about an earlier raid. When asked how he would handle a similar situation, Mamdani said he would tell the commissioner “to ensure no officers are assisting with the actions of ICE.” Under the incumbent Adams administration, the NYPD was reportedly permitted to help with criminal immigration enforcement operations, but according to an Adams spokesperson, they were not directed to assist with civil immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, following months of speculation, Mamdani announced Tisch would be staying on as police commissioner despite questions about the pair’s ideological differences. MAMDANI’S TOP INCOMING AIDE WAS ‘CHIEF ARCHITECT’ OF RADICAL PROPOSAL OVERHAULING NYPD One example of their differences was whether to keep the city’s Strategic Response Group, a group within the NYPD focused on rapid-response for large-scale events, like protests and mass shootings. Mamdani said during his interview with PIX11 that the Strategic Response Group will not exist anymore under his mayorship. When asked if Mamdani “gave anything up” to coax Tisch to stay on as commissioner, he did not indicate one way or the other. “I spoke to the commissioner about the fact that I am looking to keep her in this position because of the work that she has done, not because of the idea that I have of overhauling all of it. It’s about building that together,” Mamdani said. “There’s also a real shared alignment – both the commissioner and I have a shared agreement on the fact that the police should not be asked to handle the fact that our social safety net is coming apart at the seams – that is a responsibility for city government.” During the talk about Tisch, Mamdani also doubled down on his promise that the NYPD headcount will not rise under his tenure, even if it is something Tisch wants. “I will be the one who has the final decision,” Mamdani said when asked about how he would approach shared governing responsibilities with Tisch.
Trump secures release of American trapped in Saudi Arabia for years over online posts
A U.S. citizen jailed in Saudi Arabia for criticizing the royal family online was freed Wednesday by Saudi authorities, ending a four-year ordeal in the country, according to media reports. Saad Almadi’s release came just a day after President Donald Trump met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Washington, D.C., per the New York Post. Almadi, 75, a retired engineer and U.S. resident since 1976, was detained in 2021 during a family visit to Riyadh and later sentenced to more than 19 years in prison on terrorism charges tied to a series of posts online. US AND QATAR SECURE RELEASE OF AMERICAN CITIZEN AMIR AMIRY FROM AFGHANISTAN DETENTION The charges were reduced to cyber crimes, and although he was released from prison in 2023, Almadi was held in the country under an exit ban which prevented him from going back home to the U.S. The Almadi family issued a statement Wednesday celebrating the good news and thanking Trump. “Our family is overjoyed that, after four long years, our father, Saad Almadi, is finally on his way home to the United States!” they said. “This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Sebastian Gorka and the team at the National Security Council, as well as everyone at the State Department.” TRUMP DESIGNATES SAUDI ARABIA AS MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY DURING CROWN PRINCE WHITE HOUSE VISIT A third portion of the statement expressed appreciation to others who had supported the case over the years. “We extend our thanks to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh for keeping our father safe, and to the nonprofit organizations and members of Congress who fought for his freedom,” the statement read. Almadi’s case also drew attention from human rights groups and U.S. lawmakers after he was accused of terrorism over 14 social media posts. SAUDI ARABIA’S 40-YEAR-OLD DISRUPTOR: HOW MBS REWIRED THE KINGDOM IN 10 SHORT YEARS One suggested that a street in Washington be renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018. U.S. pressure to lift Almadi’s exit ban had also intensified since Trump’s May visit to Saudi Arabia. The president’s national security advisor, Sebastian Gorka, also met with Almadi’s son at the White House. The Foley Foundation, which advocates for Americans detained overseas, praised the news Wednesday, saying it was “so excited” the family’s fight had finally succeeded. Per reports, Almadi was flying to the U.S. from Riyadh on Wednesday, according to his family, after Trump and the crown prince set foot on stage at a forum in Washington. Fox News Digital has reached out to Sebastian Gorka, the Department of State and The White House for comment.
Federal judge allows Texas AG to challenge Harris County bail reforms: ‘Unleashing criminals’
A federal judge has granted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton a key win, allowing him to intervene in a lawsuit that produced the 2019 Harris County misdemeanor bail reform consent decree. “The justice system must be dedicated to punishing the evildoer and protecting the innocent,” Paxton said in a press release on Wednesday. “But far too often, leftist judicial activists and other liberal anti-prison organizations have worked to make Texas less safe by throwing open the prison doors and unleashing criminals back onto the streets. I will do everything in my power to reverse this disastrous policy and uphold the law.” TEXAS INVESTIGATING USTA FOR POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF LAW BANNING BIOLOGICAL MALES IN WOMEN’S SPORTS The O’Donnell Consent Decree stemmed from a 2016 class-action lawsuit arguing that Harris County’s prior bail practices were unconstitutional because they detained people charged with misdemeanors simply for being unable to afford cash bail. A judge approved the decree in 2019, eliminating most cash bail for misdemeanor offenses and requiring release on unsecured bonds, while also creating an independent monitor to oversee compliance. FEDERAL JUDGE RULES LAW REQUIRING DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS IN TEXAS CLASSROOMS UNCONSTITUTIONAL The new ruling opens the door for Paxton’s office to seek termination of the decree, arguing that it violates Texas law and endangers public safety. Paxton’s office said the decree “enabled radical judges to more easily release criminals into Harris County communities” and that liberal activists have tried to expand its reach despite state laws imposing stricter bail standards. “General Paxton seeks to vacate the decree and ensure that the rights of Harris County citizens are represented in court,” the release said.
Appeals court blocks order limiting immigration agents’ use of force in Chicago
A federal appeals court has blocked a lower-court ruling that sought to limit how immigration agents can use force during Chicago-area enforcement operations, calling the judge’s order “overbroad” and “too prescriptive.” The Seventh Circuit panel cautioned against “overreading” its stay, noting that a fast-track appeal could result in a “more tailored and appropriate” order. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction after media organizations and demonstrators accused federal officers of using excessive force during an immigration operation that has resulted in more than 3,000 arrests since September across Chicago and nearby communities. Justice Department lawyers argued that the order restricted law enforcement’s ability to carry out its duties and could “subvert” the constitutional structure. BLUE CITY JUDGE CITES ‘FEAR OR OBSTRUCTION’ IN BLOCKING ICE COURTHOUSE ARRESTS DURING COURT PROCEEDINGS The panel said the order was “too prescriptive” because it specified riot control weapons and other devices in a way that “resembles a federal regulation.” Ellis’ order barred agents from using physical force and chemical agents such as tear gas and pepper balls unless necessary or to prevent “an immediate threat.” The judge said the use of those tools violated the constitutional rights of journalists and protesters. Witnesses told the court they were tear-gassed, shot with pepper balls while praying, and had guns pointed at them. FEDERAL JUDGE SAYS ICE DETAINEES ‘SHOULDN’T BE SLEEPING NEXT TO OVERFLOWING TOILETS’ AT CHICAGO-AREA FACILITY Ellis found that Trump administration witnesses were “simply not credible,” including Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol commander who led the Chicago area operation before moving on to North Carolina. Bovino has defended the agents’ use of force and oversaw about 230 officers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the region beginning in September. Federal border agents are expected to next be deployed to New Orleans. The immigration operation has drawn multiple lawsuits, including claims of inhumane conditions at a federal immigration facility — allegations that prompted a federal judge and attorneys to visit the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement center outside Chicago last week. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin called the stay “a win for the rule of law and for the safety of every law enforcement officer.” The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Dem congresswoman indicted for ‘particularly selfish’ alleged theft of FEMA relief funds for campaign use
A Miami grand jury indicted Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., on charges of allegedly stealing millions of dollars in disaster relief funds to make illegal campaign contributions, the Department of Justice said Wednesday. According to the indictment, the Florida Democrat allegedly conspired to steal $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds alongside her brother Edwin Cherfilus and numerous co-defendants. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants routed the funds through multiple accounts to disguise their source and that a significant portion of the misappropriated funds were used as candidate contributions to Cherfilus-McCormick’s 2021 congressional campaign or for their personal benefit. The Democrat could face up to 53 years in prison if convicted. UNEARTHED RECORDS TORPEDO CORI BUSH’S NEW CLAIM ABOUT ‘BILLIONS’ IN FUNDING SHE DELIVERED TO DISTRICT “Using disaster relief funds for self-enrichment is a particularly selfish, cynical crime,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “No one is above the law, least of all powerful people who rob taxpayers for personal gain. We will follow the facts in this case and deliver justice.” Both Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother worked through their family healthcare company on a FEMA-funded COVID-19 vaccination staffing contract in 2021, according to the indictment. The company received an overpayment of $5 million in FEMA funds in July 2021, prosecutors alleged. FBI Director Kash Patel immediately posted on X that Cherfilus-McCormick and her family “allegedly stole money from FEMA and then laundered it through friends toward her own personal benefits – including her campaign accounts.” DHS JUGGLES ‘MASS DEPORTATION’ PUSH WITH HELENE RELIEF, ADDS $124M AFTER BIDEN BACKLASH The indictment also states that Cherfilus-McCormick and Nadege Leblanc allegedly fixed contributions using straw donors and channeled funds from a FEMA-funded COVID-19 contract to their associates, who used it to make campaign donations. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., shared on X that he will be filing a motion to censure Cherfilus-McCormick and remove her from all committees. “This is one of the most egregious abuses of public trust I have ever seen,” he asserted. The Republican Party of Florida in an X post immediately called on Cherfilus-McCormick to resign writing, “This is absolutely disgusting. She must step down NOW!” Cherfilus-McCormick’s office did not immediately respond to Fox New News Digital’s request for comment. The Howard University graduate was initially hit by a probe in 2023 by the House Ethics Committee, who investigated allegations of campaign finance violations tied to her 2022 elections. Cherfilus-McCormi was re-elected to a third term in Congress in 2024. She currently serves on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Trump says he will meet NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani this week
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will meet with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani at the White House later this week. “Communist Mayor of New York City, Zohran ‘Kwame’ Mamdani, has asked for a meeting. We have agreed that this meeting will take place at the Oval Office on Friday, November 21,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday evening. “Further details to follow,” he added. THE SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT COMES TO NYC: MAMDANI’S VISION FOR A MORE AFFORDABLE CITY The meeting would mark the first encounter between Trump and Mamdani since the Democratic socialist’s victory in New York’s mayoral race earlier this month. Mamdani, a state assemblyman from Queens known for his progressive platform, is set to take office in January amid heightened anticipation from both political and business leaders. Throughout his campaign, Mamdani proposed measures such as free bus service, city-owned grocery stores, and rent freezes. MAMDANI SAYS HE WILL MEET JAMIE DIMON, OTHER FINANCIAL TITANS IN NYC Some of his more ambitious ideas have rattled Wall Street, drawing some of his fiercest critics. The clash underscores a widening divide between progressive visions for the city and the financial sector that has long powered it. Earlier this month, Mamdani said he was prepared to meet with JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other finance titans as Wall Street braces for a new era of progressive leadership at City Hall. Dimon had previously said he would support Mamdani if he won the seat. Following the victory, billionaire Bill Ackman wrote on X that if he could help, Mamdani should “just let me know what I can do.” The Pershing Square chief had earlier pledged to finance an alternative candidate to Mamdani, should one emerge. He also warned that Mamdani’s financial plan would “destroy jobs and cause businesses and wealthy taxpayers” to leave New York. Whether Mamdani’s outreach to Trump and Wall Street will ease tensions or deepen divisions remains to be seen, but few doubt that his arrival at City Hall marks the beginning of a new political chapter for New York.
House votes to repeal controversial Arctic Frost provision from government shutdown bill
The House of Representatives unanimously voted against a provision that allows Republican senators whose phone records were seized by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to sue the federal government. The provision was included in the recently passed bill to end the 43-day government shutdown, which President Donald Trump signed into law last week. Despite supporters saying the provision is necessary to give senators recourse when the executive branch oversteps its constitutional bounds and reaches into congressional communications, the last-minute inclusion of the measure outraged both Republicans and Democrats, underscoring the ever-present tensions between the House and Senate. The repeal passed 426 to 0, with 210 Democrats and 216 Republicans in the tally. JACK SMITH INVESTIGATORS NEED TO ‘PAY BIG’ FOR JAN. 6 PHONE RECORDS PROBE, WARNS SEN. GRAHAM Dubbed “Requiring Senate Notification for Senate Data,” the provision would allow senators directly targeted in former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., who was involved in crafting part of the successful funding deal, told Fox News Digital he had even been afraid it could derail the final vote to end the shutdown. “It had been added in the Senate without our knowledge,” Cole said. “It was a real trust factor … I mean, all of a sudden, this pops up in the bill, and we’re confronted with either: leave this in here, or we pull it out, we have to go to conference, and the government doesn’t get reopened.” It was placed into the bill by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sources confirmed to Fox News Digital last week. REPUBLICANS FEUD OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT CRITICS OFFER NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE Thune put the provision into the bill at the request of members of the Senate GOP, a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News Digital, which included Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. It was a big point of contention when the House Rules Committee met to prepare the legislation for a final vote last Tuesday night. Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, Austin Scott, R-Ga., and Morgan Griffith, R-Va., all shared House Democrats’ frustration with the measure, but they made clear it would not stand in the way of ending what had become the longest shutdown in history. Even Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared blindsided by the move. “I had no prior notice of it at all,” Johnson told reporters last week. “I was frustrated, as my colleagues are over here, and I thought it was untimely and inappropriate. So we’ll be requesting, strongly urging, our Senate colleagues to repeal that.” Those Republicans agreed with the motivations behind their Senate counterparts wanting to sue but bristled over the notion that it would come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital the senators “have been wronged, no doubt in my mind” but added its scope was too narrow. GOP UNITY SHATTERED BY CONTROVERSIAL MEASURE IN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BILL “This provision does not allow other Americans to pursue a remedy. It does not even allow the President of the United States, who was equally wrongfully surveilled and pursued by the Justice Department — they didn’t even include President Trump in this,” Rose said. And while several senators who would be eligible for the taxpayer-funded lawsuits have distanced themselves from the issue amid uproar, others have stuck to their guns. “My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue,” Graham said on “Hannity” Tuesday night. He said he would be seeking “tens of millions of dollars.” Cruz also told Fox News Digital that he did not support repealing the provision. And Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., defended the provision in comments to Politico. “I’d like for us to be able to defend our branch when DOJ gets out of control,” he said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., similarly suggested to reporters on Wednesday that he was in favor of the measure. “I would just say, I mean, you have an independent, co-equal branch of government whose members were, through illegal means, having their phone records acquired — spied on, if you will, through a weaponized Biden Justice Department,” Thune said. “That, to me, demands some accountability.” He added, “I think that in the end, this is something that all members of Congress, both House and Senate, are probably going to want as a protection, and we were thinking about the institution of the Senate and individual senators going into the future.”
Epstein files to go public as Trump says he signed law authorizing release of records
President Donald Trump said on Wednesday evening that he signed legislation greenlighting the Justice Department to release files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” Trump wrote in a lengthy message on the Truth Social platform. “As everyone knows, I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to pass this Bill in the House and Senate, respectively. Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor of passage. “At my direction, the Department of Justice has already turned over close to fifty thousand pages of documents to Congress. Do not forget — The Biden Administration did not turn over a SINGLE file or page related to Democrat Epstein, nor did they ever even speak about him.” WHITE HOUSE SLAMS DEMS’ ‘BAD-FAITH’ EPSTEIN DOC RELEASE AS DEMAND FOR FILES INTENSIFIES Trump’s ties to Epstein had faced increased attention after Trump’s Justice Department and FBI announced in July it would not unseal investigation materials related to Epstein, and that the agencies’ investigation into the case had closed. But Sunday Trump announced that he backed releasing the documents, asserting that he had “nothing to hide.” “As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown,’” Trump wrote. The House voted Tuesday to release the files by a 421–1 margin, following pressure for months from the measure’s ringleaders, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and other Democrats. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., was the only House member to vote against the release, and said he didn’t back the measure because “this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.” Although Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., ultimately voted in favor of the measure, he also voiced similar concerns during a Tuesday press conference. EPSTEIN REFERENCED TRUMP IN PRIVATE EMAILS TO GHISLAINE MAXWELL AND OTHERS, NEW RECORDS SHOW “Who’s going to want to come forward if they think Congress can take a political exercise and reveal their identities? Who’s going to come talk to prosecutors? It’s very dangerous. It would deter future whistleblowers and informants,” he said. “The release of that could also publicly reveal the identity, by the way, of undercover law enforcement officers who are working in future operations.” After the House’s approval of the measure, the bill headed to the Senate and passed hours later Tuesday by unanimous consent. The Epstein Files Transparency Act specifically directs the Justice Department to release all unclassified records and investigative materials related to Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell, as well as files related to individuals who were referenced in Epstein previous legal cases, details surrounding trafficking allegations, internal DOJ communications as they relate to Epstein and any details surrounding the investigation into his death. Files that include victims’ names, child sex abuse materials, classified materials or other materials that could threaten an active investigation may be withheld or redacted by the DOJ. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters Wednesday that she would comply with the law after it was signed, which directs the Justice Department to release the files online in a searchable format within 30 days. The Epstein files received fanfare among supporters of the president in the early days of the administration as they rallied around the Trump DOJ to release details on Epstein’s alleged “client list” and death. The DOJ and FBI said in a joint memo obtained by Fox News in July that the two agencies had no further information to share with the public about Epstein’s case and suicide in 2019, sparking outrage among some MAGA supporters as they demanded the DOJ release more documents. Trump has since railed against the Epstein case as a “Democrat hoax,” before calling for their release Sunday. The push to release the files gained increased momentum after Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released three emails Wednesday that Epstein’s estate provided to them that mentioned Trump. In turn, Republicans released their own stash of 20,000 pages of Epstein documents that same day. EPSTEIN ESTATE TO BEGIN HANDING FILES TO HOUSE INVESTIGATORS AFTER ‘BIRTHDAY BOOK’ SUBPOENA Included in the tranche of documents are emails between Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and correspondence with author Michael Wolff, former President Barack Obama‘s White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler, among others, where Epstein mentions Trump. “i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.. (VICTIM) spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75 % there,” Epstein said in an email to Maxwell in April 2011, which was provided with other correspondence to the committee by Epstein’s estate in response to a subpoena request. “I have been thinking about that…” Maxwell said in response. Epstein told Wolff in a separate email in 2019 that “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop” — a reference to Trump. Trump has said that he barred Epstein from his Florida Mar-a-Lago golf club because Epstein kept “taking people who worked for me.” While the documents themselves are authentic, Epstein’s statements in the emails remain unverified and uncorroborated. The documents do not claim that Trump committed any wrongdoing, and only portray Epstein mentioning the president. Likewise, Trump has not faced formal accusations of misconduct tied to Epstein, and no law enforcement records connect Trump to Epstein’s crimes. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 as he was awaiting trial on federal charges. Maxwell was convicted on charges including sex trafficking of a minor and is currently serving a 20-year sentence. Fox News’
Senators rail against ‘cash grab’ spending bill provision as House preps repeal vote
The Senate is once again finding a moment of bipartisan unity in its fury over a recently passed law that would allow lawmakers to sue the federal government and reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money as a reward. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to grapple with the inclusion of a provision in a package designed to reopen the government that would allow only senators directly targeted by the Biden-led Department of Justice (DOJ) and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000. Both Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ ire at the provision is multipronged. Some are angry it was tucked away into the legislative branch spending bill without a heads-up. Others see it as nothing more than a quick payday for the relatively small group of senators targeted in Smith’s probe. REPUBLICANS FEUD OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT CRITICS OFFER NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE “I think it was outrageous that that was put in and airdropped in there,” Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital. “It’s outrageous. It’s basically just a cash grab for senators to take money away from taxpayers. It’s absolutely outrageous and needs to be taken out.” The provision was included in the spending package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on request from lawmakers in the GOP. And it was given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The provision is narrowly tailored to include only senators and would require they be notified if their information is requested by the DOJ, be it through the subpoena of phone records like in the Arctic Frost investigation or through other means. The idea is to prevent the abuse of the DOJ to go after sitting senators now and in the future. Thune pushed back on the notion that lawmakers weren’t aware the provision was in the bill, given that the entire package was released roughly 24 hours before it was voted on. But he acknowledged their frustration over how it was added was warranted. “I think I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process, but I think, on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,” Thune said. Schumer, when asked about the anger brewing on both sides of the aisle, heaped blame on Thune but noted it was an opportunity to get protection for Democrats, too. GOP UNITY SHATTERED BY CONTROVERSIAL MEASURE IN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BILL “Look, the bottom line is Thune wanted the provision, and we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bondi and others who might go after them,” Schumer said. “So, we made it go prospective, not just retroactive, but I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it. And I hope that happens.” The House is expected to vote on legislation that would repeal the language, and many in the upper chamber want to get the chance to erase the provision should it pass through the House. Whether Thune will put it on the floor remains unclear. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was one of the eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe. He told Fox News Digital he was neither asked about the provision nor told about it and, like many other lawmakers, found out about it when he read the bill. “I just think that, you know, giving them money — I mean making a taxpayer pay for it, I don’t understand why that’s accountability,” he said. “I mean, the people who need to be held accountable are the people who made the decisions to do this, and, frankly, also the telecom companies. So I just, I don’t agree with that approach.” LINDSEY GRAHAM VOWS TO SUE OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ INVESTIGATION TARGETING GOP LAWMAKERS’ PHONE RECORDS He also took issue with the fact the provision was narrowly tailored to only apply to the Senate and argued it could be reworked to only provide for declaratory judgment in court rather than a monetary one. “I could see the value of having a court say this was illegal and ruling against the government,” Hawley said. “I think it’s the monetary provisions that most people, including me, really balk at. Like, why are the taxpayers on the hook for this, and why does it apply only to the Senate?” The provision set a retroactive date of 2022 to allow for the group of senators targeted in Smith’s Arctic Frost probe to be able to sue. That element has also raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital he supported repealing the provision but wanted to fix it. “The best way to be able to handle it, I think, is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,” he said. “The initial target of this whole thing was to make sure this never happened again.” Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., told Fox News Digital the provision was a “total mess” and raised concerns on a bipartisan basis. Not every senator was on board with ditching the provision, however. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made clear that he intends to sue the DOJ and Verizon, his phone carrier, and argued that he didn’t believe that the provision was self-dealing but rather to deter future, similar actions. He also wants to take the provision, or the core idea of it, a step further. Graham said he wanted to open up the process to others, including dozens of groups, former lawmakers and others affected by the investigation. “Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me? Is it wrong if a Post Office truck hits you, what do you do with the money? You do whatever you want to do with the money,” Graham said. “If
Dem veterans break silence after viral video causes backlash on social media: ‘Frustrated’
Democrats and Republicans heard two very different takeaways when a group of Democratic lawmakers called on U.S. service members not to carry out certain orders in a video that went viral on social media Tuesday. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., one of the lawmakers featured in the video, expressed exasperation with how critics had framed the message. “I’m not telling people to ignore orders,” Houlahan said Wednesday. “I’m enormously frustrated with the way that this very sensible video is being interpreted in a really insidious way.” AS ‘SQUAD’ TURNS ASSIMILATION INTO ‘DIRTY WORD,’ EXPERT URGES US LEADERS TO RENOUNCE FOREIGN LOYALTIES Houlahan and five other Democrats with military or intelligence experience had encouraged service members not to carry out unlawful orders. “The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” the lawmakers said. “Don’t give up the ship,” the video added, a reference to a phrase used by the Navy. Houlahan was joined by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., and Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H. PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER CALLS ON NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS TO DEFY DEPLOYMENT ORDERS The video did not give an example of what specific kinds of orders service members might have to refuse. In a separate post to X, Slotkin hinted that service members asked to carry out airstrikes off the coast of Venezuela might be engaging in illegal strikes and said that some pilots had expressed concern about their involvement. Republicans responding to the exhortation mocked it as an example of Democratic paranoia toward Trump. “[It’s] Stage 4 TDS,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a post to X, referring to Trump Derangement Syndrome, a moniker for the Democrats’ fixation on the president. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said the call sounded politically charged. “At the end of the day, they’re mad the American people chose Trump, and now they’re calling on the military and intelligence community to intervene. Sounds a little ‘subversive to democracy’-ish,” Schmitt said. When asked about the video, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supports the exhortation in principle but noted that it’s sometimes difficult to parse what’s permissible and what isn’t. “You can’t disobey the Constitution,” Reed said. “The issue though, on a practical sense to me, is that determination is often very difficult to make.” The Democrats who made the video believe the video said they had a very specific standard in mind. When asked what kinds of orders service members should ignore, Crow, one of the lawmakers in the video, pointed to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). “The purpose is to remind people of their oath and their obligation to the Constitution and their obligations under the UCMJ, which are very clear,” Crow said. SEN. BLACKBURN FIRES BACK AT DEMOCRATS OVER ‘DISTURBING’ VIDEO URGING TROOPS TO DEFY ‘ILLEGAL’ ORDERS The UCMJ, passed by Congress in 1951, governs a gamut of issues service members may be penalized for, ranging from desertion to committing war crimes. The video posted by the lawmakers Tuesday does not mention the UCMJ by name. Houlahan said that code should clearly delineate what’s permissible and what isn’t. “Well, as an example, we are not supposed to use our military against our own citizens. Full stop. This is why the Uniform Code of Miliary Justice exists,” Houlahan said. She noted that there are ways for service members to appeal orders they are concerned about. “You have an obligation to know and respect your chain of command. You do have, however, a chain of command that you can go through where you can elevate those requests if you believe them not to be either lawful or appropriate, and that’s what I’m encouraging, and my colleagues are encouraging people to do,” Houlahan said. The Department of War did not immediately respond to a request for comment. — Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report