Month: May 2023
Cruz opens a probe into Anheuser-Busch over Dylan Mulvaney partnership
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) opened and called for an investigation into Anheuser-Busch over its collaboration with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, saying that the company was potentially marketing its products to a younger audience through the partnership.
Cruz and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to Brendan Whitworth, the Anheuser-Busch CEO and chairman of the Beer Institute, urging him to open an investigation into whether the company violated guidelines that prohibit beer companies from promoting their products to a younger audience. The Beer Institute is the beer industry's self-regulatory body that establishes buying and advertising guidelines for beer companies to follow.
The senators allege that Mulvaney's TikTok series, "Days of Girlhood," skews her audience to those whose ages are younger than the Beer Institute's guidelines.
The letter specifically pointed to various TikTok videos Mulvaney posted leading up to her partnership with Bud Light, where she posted a sponsored video of her drinking a can of beer.
"The use of the phrase 'Girlhood' was not a slip of the tongue but rather emblematic of a series of Mulvaney’s online content that was specifically used to target, market to, and attract an audience of young people who are well below the legal drinking age in the United States," the senators wrote.
They called on Whitworth to cut the company's ties with Mulvaney and apologize for allegedly marketing its products to an underage audience. The duo also asked for more information about how the company vets its partnerships, specifically its collaboration with Mulvaney.
"We would urge you, in your capacity at Anheuser-Busch, to avoid a lengthy investigation by the Beer Institute by instead having Anheuser-Busch publicly sever its relationship with Dylan Mulvaney, publicly apologize to the American people for marketing alcoholic beverages to minors, and direct Dylan Mulvaney to remove any Anheuser-Busch content from" her social media platforms, the senators wrote.
Cruz also reiterated the letter he sent while on "Fox and Friends" Thursday, accusing Anheuser-Busch of marketing its content to teenagers.
"We're calling on the Beer Institute to investigate the degree to which Anheuser-Busch knowingly was marketing to children in going down this road," Cruz said.
Durham report contradicts ‘guarantee’ from Maxine Waters that Trump colluded with Russia
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., once said she guaranteed that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the White House in 2016 – a claim contradicted by this week's release of Special Counsel John Durham's report on the Trump investigation.
"Here you have a president who I can tell you, I guarantee you, is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy," Waters said in September 2017.
The Durham probe, released nearly six years after that comment, determined that the investigation into the Trump campaign's connection with Russia was premised on "raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence." The investigation, the report concluded, had no "actual evidence of collusion" to justify its launch, and the actions from the Department of Justice and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law."
Waters emerged as an early proponent of the Russia collusion theory. She introduced legislation to investigate Trump over collusion claims less than a month after his inauguration. She later called for his impeachment.
"I will fight every day until he is impeached," Waters said in April 2017. "Impeach 45."
The Durham probe concluded the core problem with the launch of the Russia collusion investigation, which was titled "Crossfire Hurricane," was that it relied on information from sources openly opposed to Trump's presidency.
"In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents," the report stated. "The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence."
JEAN PIERRE ENDS BRIEFING AFTER BEING PRESSED ON DURHAM REPORT
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Special Counsel Robert Mueller released his investigation into Trump-Russia collusion in April 2019, concluding there was no evidence of criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.
Waters' office did not respond to a request for comment.
McCarthy shifts, voices new confidence in debt ceiling deal
Bipartisan negotiators racing to secure a debt ceiling deal voiced new confidence on Thursday that they'll locate a compromise before a federal default.
But even as President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both hinted at significant progress in the talks, rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties are raising alarms about the concessions their leaders have made — pushback that's highlighted the hurdles certain to face leadership as they prepare to sell an emerging agreement to their respective troops.
“We're not there. We haven't agreed to anything yet. But I see the path that we could come through,” McCarthy told reporters on Thursday morning, while also saying “it'd be important to try to have the agreement, especially in principle, by sometime this weekend.”
It’s an ambitious timeline for negotiations that began in earnest only nine days ago. And to be successful, party leaders will have to navigate the various pressures from rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties.
For McCarthy, that means assuring leery conservatives that he’s not straying too far from the legislative package that passed through the House late last month, which combined a debt limit increase with steep cuts in federal spending.
“You can’t continue to spend and spend and spend without constraints. That’s completely irresponsible. And we’re just not going to do that,” Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) said.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) speaks during an enrollment ceremony for the Revised Criminal Code Act in the Capitol on Friday, March 10, 2023. (Annabelle Gordon)
If Biden won’t accept the level of cuts passed by the House, he added, then McCarthy should demand tougher border security measures as part of the package.
The Freedom Caucus complicated McCarthy’s task further on Thursday, urging the Speaker to step away from the negotiating table and demand that Democrats accept the House-passed bill.
"There should be no further discussion until the Senate passes the legislation,” the group said in a statement.
Biden is facing his own headaches from the left.
More on the debt ceiling from The Hill:
- Conservatives make last-minute push for border security in debt ceiling package
- Freedom Caucus says ‘no further discussion’ on debt ceiling until Senate passes House GOP bill
- With Biden in Japan, Harris pushes White House message on debt ceiling
- Senate to break for recess as debt ceiling talks heat up
- Democrats warn Biden against cutting debt ceiling deal with McCarthy
For the past few days, liberals in both chambers have come out in strong opposition to GOP-backed proposals for tougher work requirements for federal assistance programs — a position amplified this week by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who has sided squarely with his progressive members.
“We have continued to make clear, as House Democrats, that so-called extreme work requirements that these MAGA Republicans want to try to impose as a ransom note are a nonstarter,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. “Period. Full stop.”
While Biden has seemingly ruled out changes to Medicaid in negotiations with McCarthy, he sparked confusion and, in some cases, frustration in his party when he appeared to open the door for stricter work requirements for other programs, like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Republicans have sought to toughen the work requirements for all three of those programs — provisions featured in their debt limit legislation.
“What I've said in the past is, I understand he voted for work requirements in 1996 and some other things in ‘86 with the crime bill, but we didn't elect the Joe Biden of 1986 and 1996, we elected the Joe Biden of 2020,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters on Thursday.
“They hurt the very people that they're designed to serve. And to put them on something like SNAP at a time when hunger is now reaching pandemic levels in the country is something that is not a core Democratic value,” Jayapal said, describing the push as a “non-starter.”
The comments echo the sentiment of other Democrats in both chambers worried about the concessions the White House could wind up making as part of the bipartisan talks, underlining the potential uproar in store for the president if his party is unsatisfied with the final deal.
"The president tends to float a lot of things, sometimes spontaneously,” said Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.). “But I can tell you the work-requirements piece is a nonstarter with a vast majority of the Progressive Caucus, and that's the largest caucus” among House Democrats.
“So it's quite problematic."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) returns to the House Chamber on the second day of the 118th session of Congress on Wednesday, January 4, 2023. (Greg Nash)
While McCarthy has continued to insist on the work requirement changes, he and others in the party have refrained from publicly drawing further red lines, as tensions on both sides escalate ahead of the looming default deadline, which the Treasury Department has warned could arrive as soon as June 1.
But that doesn’t mean some Republicans aren’t sending warning signals.
“I’m gonna still vote against it because I’m against raising the debt ceiling,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), one of the four Republicans to oppose the Republicans’ bill last month. “And I guarantee you you’ll pick up more people [in opposition], because other people have gotten hammered on their vote.”
Another sticking point between the parties is the question of how long the government’s borrowing authority should be extended.
The Republicans’ bill would have hiked the debt ceiling through next March, at the latest, meaning Congress would have to revisit the issue again before the 2024 elections. Biden and Democrats have rejected that timeline, demanding a longer window to get beyond those elections.
“I don't see any way that we kick the can down the road for anything less than two years,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said this week.
Spending levels are another major point of contention.
The Republicans’ bill would have reduced deficit spending by roughly $4.8 trillion over the next decade, capping spending at fiscal year 2022 levels next year and limiting growth to 1 percent in the years following. And conservatives are warning that anything less must be met in kind from Democrats.
“We've got $1.5 trillion for a year versus 4.8 trillion in cuts,” Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), head of the Republican Study Committee, told reporters Thursday. “So, it's gonna get real difficult as [there’s] less and less spending cuts. I can't imagine that the body would be in unity for $1 for dollar.”

Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) speaks during a press conference to discuss The Lower Energy Costs Act on Tuesday, March 28, 2023. (Annabelle Gordon)
The challenge facing McCarthy and his leadership team is to find a compromise that can win the support of Biden and congressional Democrats without alienating conservatives in his own conference, who have distrusted his conservative bonafides in the past.
Earlier this week, McCarthy tapped Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), a close ally, to spearhead the talks with Biden administration officials, and some Republicans see him as the key to finding that balance.
“That's why the Speaker has put him forward,” Hern told The Hill. “As these sort of suggestions, demands, requirements … — it’s their job to go out and sort of float a balloon to see how those are going to work.”
On the other side, the White House has tapped known dealmakers Shalanda Young, head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Steve Ricchetti, a top Biden adviser, as well as legislative affairs chief Louisa Terrell to work toward a compromise.
Discussing a potential timeline to clinch a deal on Thursday, McCarthy voiced optimism that negotiators “have a structure now” and have people “working two or three times a day, then going back, getting more numbers.”
McCarthy also lauded Biden's picks to lead the talks – a move by the White House seen as a significant step given the officials' extensive experience working with congressional members on both sides.
“I have the greatest respect for Shalanda and Ricchetti. I mean they are exceptionally smart,” McCarthy said. “They are strong in their beliefs on the Democratic side just as who we have in the room.”
Mychael Schnell contributed.
Freedom Caucus says ‘no further discussion’ on debt ceiling until Senate passes House GOP bill
The House Freedom Caucus is calling for “no further discussion” on legislation to raise the debt ceiling until the Senate passes the bill House Republicans approved last month that would pair an increase in the borrowing limit with steep spending cuts.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called the bill “dead on arrival.”
The hard-liner conservative caucus said it adopted its official position on Thursday as debt limit negotiations continued behind closed doors between representatives for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and the White House.
“The U.S. House of Representatives has done its job in passing the Limit, Save, Grow Act to provide a mechanism to raise the debt ceiling. This legislation is the official position of the House Freedom Caucus and, by its passage with 217 votes, the entire House Republican Conference,” the caucus wrote.
“The House Freedom Caucus calls on Speaker McCarthy and Senate Republicans to use every leverage and tool at their disposal to ensure the Limit, Save, Grow Act is signed into law. There should be no further discussion until the Senate passes the legislation,” the caucus added.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) addresses reporters during a press conference on March 10 with members of the House Freedom Caucus to discuss the debt limit. (Annabelle Gordon)
While Republicans were united behind their debt limit bill, which was intended to bring President Biden to the negotiating table, the Freedom Caucus position could indicate unity behind McCarthy’s strategy is starting to break — posing complications for the negotiations.
However, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry (R-Pa.) softened the position in an interview with CBS.
"We're not saying you can't continue to talk, but until they're willing to tell us what they're willing to do, it's hard to come to an agreement,” Perry said.
“We should probably compromise on something — but there's nothing to compromise with. They haven't asked anything,” he added.
Shortly before the House GOP bill passed, some conservative Republicans — including members of the Freedom Caucus — warned they would not support any legislation that was weaker than the one on the floor last month, which would put McCarthy in a difficult spot if he strikes a compromise and needs to rally support among the GOP conference for the compromise legislation.
Debt limit negotiations kicked into high gear this week after McCarthy and the White House cut out congressional Democrats and Senate Republicans from the talks and selected emissaries to hash out details behind the scenes. The development, which McCarthy hailed as a positive step, came about two weeks out from June 1, the day Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the U.S. could run out of cash to pay its bills.
On Thursday, McCarthy struck an optimistic tone, telling reporters, “I see the path that we can come to an agreement.” He noted, however, that the two sides “haven’t agreed to anything yet.”
More debt ceiling coverage from The Hill:
- Conservatives make last-minute push for border security in debt ceiling package
- McCarthy shifts, voices new confidence in debt ceiling deal
- With Biden in Japan, Harris pushes White House message on debt ceiling
- Senate to break for recess as debt ceiling talks heat up
- Democrats warn Biden against cutting debt ceiling deal with McCarthy
House Republicans passed their debt limit proposal — titled the Limit, Save, Grow Act — in a 217-215 vote last month. The legislation would lift the borrowing limit by $1.5 trillion or through March 2024, whichever comes first, and it would implement $4.8 trillion in spending cuts.
The legislation calls for capping federal funding at fiscal 2022 levels, limiting spending growth to 1 percent every year over the next decade, beefing up work requirements for some social programs and clawing back unused COVID-19 funds.
House Republicans have since called on the Senate to take up the measure, but Schumer has called it “dead on arrival.” President Biden also issued a veto threat should it land on his desk. Democrats had initially pushed for a “clean” debt ceiling increase — meaning no conditions are associated with the hike — and said they would discuss federal spending as part of the annual appropriations process.
But the two sides have since come together at the negotiating table and are now racing to come to a consensus and walk the U.S. off the edge of the fiscal cliff.
One sticking point that rose to the forefront this week is work requirements. McCarthy told reporters work requirements for public assistance programs are a red line in negotiations, while Biden said he would not agree to “anything of any consequence” when it comes to the subject.
“I’m not going to accept any work requirements that’s going to impact on the medical health needs of people; I’m not going to accept any work requirements that go much beyond what is already — I voted years ago for the work requirements that exist. But it’s possible there could be a few others, but not anything of any consequence,” he said.
The bill House Republicans passed last month implements stricter work requirements for specific recipients of Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which was previously known as food stamps — and other federal benefit programs.
Updated at 5:34 p.m.
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s plan to impeach everyone reaches Merrick Garland
A House Republican is now introducing articles of impeachment against Attorney General Merrick Garland, but before anyone gets too worked up about that, just know that the House Republican is walking medical-grade conspiracy theory dispensary Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, that she's got a loooong history here, that it's just the warmup to her again vowing to write up similar articles against President Joe Biden, and that her "new" articles of impeachment are all plucked directly from of the Fox News Extended Universe of lore and characters and subplots.
You cannot understand any of Greene's documents unless you are nigh on addicted to Fox shows from the likes of Maria Bartiromo or The Artist Formerly Known As Tucker. Greene is that addicted, and she's going to make sure we're all going to hear about it.
Our story today comes to us from Fox News (link grumblingly provided).
"In a press release exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital, Greene accused Garland of"—all right, stop. Hold up right there.
How do you "exclusively obtain" a press release? Somebody want to explain that one? The "reporter" here is someone by the name of Houston Keene. Is Houston trying to breaking-news-story us about getting a press release?
Campaign ActionAll right, fine, let's put that out of our heads. Never mind. Greene's office tried to make some cheap political hay out of filing her second attempt at "articles of impeachment" against Garland because reasons, called up Fox News to get it done, and is now waving around a document that looks like a AI bot's attempt at drafting a House resolution based solely around transcripts of Fox News primetime shows.
Greene's would-be resolution is premised on Garland "facilitating the weaponization and politicization of the United States justice system against the American people," a phrase that Jim Jordan spent two bucks to win out of a Dave & Buster's Arcade claw machine.
From there, all we get is Fox News crankery.
Garland "issued an October 2021 memorandum directing the targeting of parents by the Federal Bureau of Investigation," screams the document. She's referring there, yet again, to FBI investigations into a string of death threats against school board members from anti-maskers, "critical race theory" opponents, and other conservative sources.
That immediately ballooned into Fox News and House Republican outrage that the FBI was daring to investigate death threats, turning it into an attack on conservative parents. Because, of course, Greene and every other Republican is quite sure that if the FBI targets such death threats, they're going to find Republican supporters behind most of them, and how dare they target Republicans who threaten political violence.
The rest is all the same language. Greene wants to impeach Garland for not prosecuting "leftist extremists" who peacefully protested outside Supreme Court justice's homes. She's very mad that Garland is not "prosecuting Antifa and Black Lives Matters rioters that have desecrated American cities and caused billions of dollars worth" of damage, a confusing line that can only be interpreted when you remember that according to Fox News, numerous American cities have been razed to the ground and the reason none of the rest of us know about that is, uh, because Democrats are keeping it a secret from you.
"Attorney General Garland has refused to prosecute the Biden family and its associates for the crimes they have committed at the expense of the American people," she scrawls, with nobody to this day being able to come up with a damn bit of evidence for these supposed "crimes" or even explain what the actual "crimes" are supposed to be. Sure, impeach Garland for not taking Rudy Giuliani seriously. God help us all if we strip the government of anyone who doesn't take Rudy Giuliani's bug-eyed rants seriously; there wouldn't be anyone left to empty the House cafeteria trash cans.
There's also a bunch of generic rants that don't accuse Garland of anything at all, just some word salad thrown in so we can get to the only part of it that matters: The Fox News Extended Universe belief that the government is "persecuting" Donald J. Seditionboy Trump in allowing the government to go find and return classified government documents Trump stole from the White House after the failure of his coup attempt.
Or, as Greene would have it, "documents he legally declassified," which is yet another Fox News and Trump lawyer wackadoodle claim, based on Trump’s assertion that can and did automatically pre-declassify whatever classified documents the FBI might have discovered in his Mar-a-Lago resort. Oh, and that he did it without telling anyone, using only the powers of his mind.
It is May of 2023 and Trump's allies are still pushing this secret-mind-powers explanation, and the federal government is still having to explain to these puddingheads that no, actually, there's a very specific procedure for declassifying government documents, one Donald Trump himself knew about this whole time, and "I did it secretly when you weren't looking" is not an actual defense.
I do not know how many decades it will take to explain this to Greene and the other Republicans who believe a reality television host obtained fully autocratic powers upon sliding into the White House on his own slick film of lies, but it will still not be a thing even if Greene spends the next 40 years of her life not understanding it.
Again, this is all part of the same pattern from House Republicans, and the important part is that none of us living normal lives are supposed to understand it; if Greene's rantings look like a string of unconnected buzzwords plucked out of right-wing conspiracy circles it's because that is exactly what they are. She doesn't care if everyone in Washington, D.C., who is not Jim Jordan, James Comer, or an OAN host looks at her like she's grown two heads when she presents this stuff.
Everything Greene and her associated Republicans do is meant to appeal to the small set of Americans who live and breathe Fox News conspiracy claims. It's not the Biden administration, in her scribbled-up document, it's the Biden "regime." It's not an American writing a pro-choice message in chalk on a sidewalk near a Supreme Court justice's house, it's a "leftist extremist" who "harassed" the justice with her chalk-based opinions.
Garland "has declared war on American parents"! Garland has "weaponized" the justice system! How dare he prosecute those who violently attacked police officers in the U.S. Capitol, while not similarly prosecuting Black Lives Matter protesters who "desecrated" our cities!
And, above all, it is not that Donald Trump took boxes of classified and other government-owned documents from the White House and put them in a Mar-a-Lago storage room, or that he lied about it to investigators, or that he took steps to hide them from investigators, it is that Merrick Garland wants to "persecute" His Royal Highness as a means of "silencing" the Fox News base!
All of it is premised on the notion that the government should be focused on prosecuting conservatism's enemies more, and should be focused on prosecuting conservatives themselves not at all, not for death threats, or making off with classified documents, or an attempted coup, or anything else. Greene may simply not be bright enough to realize her beliefs align one-to-one with fascism's own, but it doesn't matter. She and Republicanism's other loudest voices have cribbed its major themes and techniques with precision.
RELATED STORIES:
An expert on domestic terrorism leaves MTG in the dirt
Rep. Greene's 'bipartisan' visit to Jan. 6 insurrections in D.C. jail gets the response it deserves
Marjorie Taylor Greene again argues 'red states' should separate themselves from federal government
Jennifer Fernandez Ancona from Way to Win joins Markos and Kerry to talk about the new messaging the Democratic Party’s national candidates are employing going into 2024. Ancona was right about the messaging needed to win the midterms, and we think she’s right about 2024.
House Republicans advance bill increasing veteran spending but reducing key medical fund
House Republicans advanced an appropriations bill Wednesday that would increase spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) by $18 billion from last fiscal year but significantly reduce a key fund providing care for veterans exposed to toxic chemicals.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs introduced the bill, which would fully fund the VA budget request and provide about $152 billion in discretionary spending for the agency, up from the Biden administration's request of $142.8 billion.
But the legislation was passed by the subcommittee despite concerns from Democrats over a $14.7 billion cut to the Toxic Exposures Fund from the Biden administration's request of about $20 billion for the medical benefits allocation.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said the "message Republicans are sending to the American people is they are not interested in protecting veterans."
"In spite of the imaginary topline of this bill, it still underfunds our commitment to our veterans," she said at the legislation's markup session.
Republicans argue they met a promise to not cut veterans spending after a huge fight with Democrats and veterans organizations over potential reductions to the VA.
Those concerns were raised after the House passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act last month, which caps all new non-defense spending at fiscal 2022 levels, amounting to a $130 billion topline cut across all federal agencies except the Defense Department.
Republicans pledged not to cut the VA and said reduced spending could be made at other agencies instead.
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday that the bill "responsibly funds veterans health care."
"It will ensure our veterans get the treatment they deserve," she said. "It's a strong bill."
While the bill passed out of the subcommittee, it is still in the markup phase and will need to pass the full Appropriations Committee before heading to the House floor.
All appropriations bills setting up funding for the next fiscal year are usually passed by the end of September after approval by both the House and the Senate.
Some veterans organizations have blasted the veterans spending legislation for reducing the Toxic Exposures Fund, which is crucial to helping veterans get care for exposure to toxic chemicals.
That's especially important after Congress approved the PACT Act last year, which expanded veteran access to toxins exposure benefits. More than 500,000 claims have already been filed through the PACT Act.
"House Republicans are shortchanging the Fund by $14.7 BILLION dollars," tweeted progressive group VoteVets. "Breaking a promise to Veterans—and lying to us on top of it."
Republicans included around $5.5 billion for the fund. GOP lawmakers said they rejected the additional allocations for the Toxic Exposure Fund over concerns about it being included in mandatory spending.
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), chairman of the Military and Veterans Affairs subcommittee, said Republicans "did not accept the proposed shift of more than $14 billion to the mandatory side of the budget" for the Toxic Exposure Fund.
"Instead, we utilized the Cost of War Toxic Exposure Fund as intended: to cover the incremental costs above the [fiscal 2021] baseline to implement the PACT Act," Carter said in a Wednesday statement during the markup hearing.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, delivered a lengthy statement in opposition to the legislation.
She said the bill is "completely detached from reality" and breaks a promise from the PACT Act.
"Do not tell me that Republicans are fully funding programs," DeLauro said at the markup. "The larger Republican agenda does nothing to protect veterans from their proposed cuts."
Separately, the subcommittee legislation also includes more than $17 billion for the Defense Department's military construction projects and for military housing, an increase of more than $900 million from the Biden administration's request.
Biden expected to withdraw controversial judicial nominee
President Biden is expected to withdraw his nomination of Michael Delaney to serve on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two sources familiar with the decision told The Hill on Thursday.
Delaney’s nomination has been in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Democrats unsure of his controversial handling of a sexual assault case at a boarding school in New Hampshire.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, had urged the Biden administration earlier Thursday to withdraw the nomination.
“His answers to questions from committee members, regarding a lawsuit where he represented a private school accused of allowing sexual harassment and assault of a minor student, were ‘beyond the pale’ bad,” the senator said in a statement.
The New Hampshire attorney has come under fire for representing St. Paul’s School, an elite private high school in New Hampshire, against a lawsuit brought by female student who was sexually assaulted on campus when she was 15.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Hill last week he was undecided about Delaney’s nomination. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) returned last week to her post on the committee and greenlit three judicial nominees who were stalled with her absence, but the panel has not brought up Delaney for a vote.
Louisiana congressman manhandles activist during press conference: ‘You’re out’
Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins (R) physically pushed back an activist approaching a press conference in front of the Capitol on Wednesday. The man was attempting to ask Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) questions as he walked toward the podium.
In a video posted online and shared with The Hill, Higgins can be seen grabbing the man’s arms and pushing him back several yards, nearly lifting him off the ground.
The man, Jake Burdett, was at the Capitol on Wednesday with the Maryland Progressive Healthcare Coalition to show support for the reintroduction of the Medicare for All Act alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
Kristy Fogle, founder of the Maryland Progressive Healthcare Coalition, told The Hill that her group saw the press conference being held in front of the Capitol, and Burdett said he was interested in asking Boebert a “tough question” when she was at the podium.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) asks questions during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing to discuss fraud and waste in federal pandemic spending on Wednesday, February 1, 2023. (Greg Nash)
Fogle said that, from her perspective, several men who were at the press conference blocked Burdett from approaching. In a video provided to The Hill, Burdett can be heard questioning Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who was speaking at the podium, on his affiliation with far-right white supremacist Nick Fuentes, as well as political ads that featured Gosar's family denouncing the congressman.
In the video taken by Burdett, Higgins can be heard telling him, “I’m a congressman. I’ll make you a deal. Listen, let this man talk, and then I’ll come talk to you privately.”
“All I’m asking you to do is just peacefully stand by with your camera, and I promise you — look at me — I’ll come talk to you straight-up and answer all your questions,” Higgins continued.
In a second video, Burdett approaches the press conference as Boebert is at the podium, questioning her about her recently filed divorce and her restaurant. At this point, several men, including Higgins, begin ushering Burdett away before he walks behind the podium.
After getting close to Boebert, Higgins is heard saying to Burdett, “Nope. You’re out, you’re out,” and begins to push him further and further away from the conference.
“Aren’t you a congressperson touching me?” Burdett asked Higgins, to which Higgins replied, “Yes sir. Yes sir, I am.”
Higgins can then be heard repeatedly saying, “stand by” and “calm down.”
“Rep. Higgins, who I didn't realize this was him at the time, he grabbed him, pushed him and continued to push him backwards,” Fogle said. “ I honestly didn't realize that was a representative. I thought that was a bodyguard, the way that he was acting.”
A tweet from Higgins on Thursday accused an unnamed activist of being "a 103M," referring to the police code for "disturbance by mental person."
"One agitator activist protestor became very disruptive and threatening in violation of the law," Higgins said. "Congressman Higgins successfully de-escalated the situation."
Boebert tweeted on Thursday that Higgins had "defended me as a radical socialist attempted to disrupt me during a press conference."
After the incident, U.S. Capitol Police came and interviewed Burdett, according to Fogle, while Higgins returned to the press conference.
In a statement to The Hill, U.S. Capitol Police said, “We are aware of this situation, interviewing the people who were involved, and reviewing the available video.”
Updated: 3:58 p.m.
Jordan takes on Dems in contentious exchange over whistleblower testimony
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, clashed with Democrats in a minutes-long argument during a hearing featuring FBI whistleblowers on Thursday.
Rep. Stacey Plaskett, D-USVI, initially butted heads with Jordan over past testimony one of the witnesses had given to Republicans. The witness, FBI staff operations specialist Marcus Allen, had consented only to speak with Republicans in a previous hearing, and Plaskett requested that Democrats on the committee be provided with a transcript of that interview.
Jordan denied the request, leading to a lengthy argument that dragged in multiple lawmakers over the committee's rules.
"I'm not aware that you're able to withhold information from the minority that we would need to use," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz before being cut off by Jordan.
2011 EMAILS REVEAL HUNTER BIDEN HELPED BUSINESS ASSOCIATES GET ACCESS TO VP BIDEN, TOP AID
"When it comes to whistleblowers you are not [entitled]," Jordan said, repeating the phrase as Wasserman Shultz protested.
"That's not right," interjected Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y.
"It's shocking that the gentleman from New York would say that when you were part of an investigation with an anonymous whistleblower," Jordan said as Goldman continued to talk. Goldman had served as counsel during former President Trump's first impeachment.
FEDERAL PROSECUTORS NEAR DECISION ON HUNTER BIDEN PROBE: REPORT
"I'm inquiring--" Wasserman Schultz said before once again being cut off.
"And I told you that when it comes to whistleblowers you are not entitled. It is at the discretion of Mr. Allen," Jordan said.
"Mr. Chairman, these individuals have been determined not to be whistleblowers," Wasserman Shultz said. "These are not whistleblowers. They have been determined by the agency not to be whistleblowers. Are you deciding that they're whistleblowers?"
"Yes, the law decides. Did you not listen to [the testimony]?" Jordan countered.
Jordan continued to bull through the complaints and ultimately allowed Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to proceed with questioning.
Jordan and other Republicans on the committee released a report detailing the claims of various FBI whistleblowers, arguing that the organization had been infected with "politicized rot." Jordan said during a press conference prior to the hearing that his committee spoke with over two dozen FBI whistleblowers in compiling its report.
"If you're a parent attending a school board meeting; if you're a pro-lifer praying at a clinic, or you're a Catholic simply going to mass, you are a target of the government, a target of the FBI," Jordan said, adding that officials attempted to "inflate" their investigations to treat them as domestic and violent extremism cases.
Gaetz also spoke at the news conference, and detailed whistleblower claims that the Washington, D.C., field office is the source of much of the "rot" within the organization.
"A lot of the rot, the committee has learned, emerges out of headquarters, out of the Washington field office," Gaetz said. "[A whistleblower] described the conflict that existed as the Washington field office put pressure on other field offices around the country to engage in law enforcement work without predication."
Fox News Digital reached out to the FBI for comment, but they did not immediately respond.