Who are the most vulnerable Senate Republicans in 2026?

There are 35 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2026, with at least four battleground states expected to decide the balance of power – and whether Republicans maintain control of all three branches of government during the second half of President Donald Trump's term. 

In 2025, Republicans control the Senate 53-47, including two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats. Republican Sens. Thom Tillis, Susan Collins, Jon Husted, John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy could all face fierce fights to maintain their U.S. Senate seats next year. 

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) announced in January that Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., will chair the DSCC with Sens. Mark Kelly, Adam Schiff and Lisa Blunt Rochester as vice chairs during the 2026 election cycle. The DSCC has not yet announced their target races for next year. 

"Democrats have a Senate map that is ripe with offensive opportunities, particularly when coupled with the building midterm backlash against Republicans. Republicans have more seats to defend, and they’re doing it in a hostile political environment," DSCC Spokesman David Bergstein said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

GOP GEARS UP TO CHALLENGE GEORGIA'S DEM SENATOR IN STATE TRUMP WON BY 2%

As the party in power tends to struggle more during the midterm elections, Democrats are already identifying "offensive opportunities" to regain Republican Senate seats. 

"I am confident that we will protect our Democratic seats, mount strong challenges in our battleground races, and look to expand our efforts into some unexpected states. Over the course of my career, I’ve won in red and purple places, and I look forward to helping the next generation of Senate candidates do the same," Gillibrand said when she was named DSCC chair. 

'WE ARE BULLISH': HOUSE GOP TAKES AIM AT THESE 26 DEM SEATS IN MIDTERMS

Sen. Thom Tillis was censured by the North Carolina Republican Party in 2023 for reportedly veering from Republican ideology on gun control policies, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights. 

Tillis is considered a moderate Republican for his commitment to Ukraine funding, support for gun control legislation that expanded background checks and implemented red flag laws, voting to codify same-sex marriage and supporting legal pathways for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients. 

The bipartisan senator was first elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2020. He went against his more conservative colleagues by voting to certify former President Joe Biden's victory over Trump in 2020. 

Tillis has fallen in line with Republicans in 2025 by voting to confirm Trump's cabinet nominees, even as some expressed concern over his more controversial picks. However, that does not mean Tillis has been able to escape the ire of Trump's orbit. 

"Thom Tillis is running 20 points behind DJT in North Carolina. We’re going to need a new senate candidate in NC unless we want to hand the gavel back to Schumer," a political advisor to Donald Trump Jr., Arthur Schwartz, said on X earlier this month. 

The Cook Political Report, a top nonpartisan political handicapper, rated Tillis' 2026 re-election bid as "lean Republican." 

Maine has long been a political outlier as one of only two states to split its electoral votes for the presidential election. Former Vice President Kamala Harris won Maine in 2024, but Trump still secured one electoral vote for winning Congressional District 2. 

Republican Sen. Susan Collins is considered another moderate Republican – which could serve her once again in the politically split state. 

Collins voted against the Senate confirmations of Trump's nominees for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and FBI Director Kash Patel. She has not shied away from criticizing Trump either, slamming his Jan. 6 pardons and proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health grants. 

Collins has been a U.S. senator since 1996, surviving many primary and general election challenges from both sides of the political aisle. She became the first Republican woman to win a fifth term in the Senate in 2020. 

She is already facing two 2026 challengers – Democrat Natasha Alcala and Independent Phillip Rench. Maine's Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who sparred with Trump over transgender athletes playing in women's sports, has not ruled out a run for Collins' Senate seat. 

 The Cook Political Report also rated Collins' race "lean Republican."

Ohio's Republican Sen. Jon Husted finds himself in a unique position heading into the 2026 midterms. He was appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine on Jan. 17, 2025 to fill the vacancy left by Vice President JD Vance

Husted is Ohio's former lieutenant governor. He also served as Ohio's secretary of state and as a state legislator. 

Because Husted was not elected U.S. senator, he will need to campaign in 2026 for the special election. If he wins, Husted will retain his seat and complete the remainder of Vance's term – through 2029. 

Rumors swirled that DeWine could choose Trump-ally Vivek Ramaswamy to replace Vance this year, but the moderate Republican governor ultimately chose his politically similar ally. Meanwhile, Ramaswamy has launched his own bid for Ohio governor. 

The race is rated "likely Republican" by The Cook Political Report.

Sen. John Cornyn has been the senator for Texas since 2002. While Cornyn is solidly conservative and has supported Trump, he has expressed private disagreement with the president on issues such as budget deficits and border security.

Cornyn is already gearing up for tough potential primary challenges from Trump-ally Rep. Wesley Hunt and conservative Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. 

Both Hunt and Paxton have not formally announced campaigns to primary the long-time Texas senator, but both candidates would set up a competitive race for Cornyn to keep his seat. 

The race is ranked "solid Republican" by The Cook Political Report with some GOP infighting expected if Hunt or Paxton announce Senate campaigns. 

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy is also expected to face a tough primary challenge in 2026. John Fleming, the Louisiana state treasurer and former representative, has declared a Senate bid.

Rep. Clay Higgins, who was also expected to challenge Cassidy, announced on Thursday that he will not pursue a Senate campaign in 2026. 

Cassidy voted to convict Trump during his 2021 impeachment trial, alienating him from the Trump-loyalists of the party. 

The former physician raised concerns over Trump's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., during his confirmation hearing. While he ultimately voted to confirm Kennedy, Cassidy questioned Kennedy's vaccine skepticism as it conflicted with his own medical background.  

Cassidy has served in the Senate since 2015, after starting his political career in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Louisiana State Senate. 

While Republicans work to maintain incumbent Senate seats, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has identified four battleground states in 2026 as opportunities to pick up seats and widen their slim majority in the U.S. Senate. 

"Every battleground state — Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire and Minnesota – is in play, and we play to win," NRSC regional press secretary Nick Puglia said in a statement to Fox News Digital last week. 

Trump announces plan to chop down magnolia tree purportedly planted by Andrew Jackson: ‘Must come to an end’

President Donald Trump announced plans to chop down a tree that was said to have been planted by former President Andrew Jackson.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said that he was working with "the wonderful people at the National Park Service" to make "tremendous enhancements to the White House, thereby preserving and protecting History!"

"One of the interesting dilemmas is a tree planted many years ago by the Legendary President and General, Andrew Jackson," Trump described. "It is a Southern Magnolia, that came from his home, The Hermitage, in Tennessee. That’s the good news!"

"The bad news is that everything must come to an end, and this tree is in terrible condition, a very dangerous safety hazard, at the White House Entrance, no less, and must now be removed," he continued. 

TRUMP NOMINATES SUSAN MONAREZ TO BECOME THE NEXT CDC DIRECTOR, SAYS AMERICANS 'LOST CONFIDENCE' IN AGENCY

The historic tree will be chopped down in coming days, and Trump wrote that it will be replaced "by another, very beautiful tree."

"The Historic wood from the tree will be preserved by the White House Staff, and may be used for other high and noble purposes!!!" the president added.

Jackson, who served as president from 1829 to 1837, reportedly planted two magnolia trees near the White House in honor of his wife Rachel, who died in 1828. But according to the National Park Service's (NPS) website, the trees' connection to Old Hickory is debatable.

"Historical photographic documentation shows that magnolias first appeared at this location near the South Portico in the 1860s, still the trees are attributed to President Jackson," the agency explained.

IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

"In 2006, the trees were designated as Witness Trees by the National Park Service, having borne witness to many ‘significant historic and cultural events,’" the NPS described. "The base of the trees also took the brunt of a Cessna airplane crash which targeted the White House in September 1994 and were subject to significant branch removal and pruning in December 2017."

Initial reactions to Trump's announcement were mixed on social media, though supporters of the president largely supported the decision.

"I am a tree expert by trade, I’ve worked with trees for three decades now… these [magnolia] trees have notoriously soft wood that can become dry and brittle with age," one X user wrote. "I wouldn’t be anywhere near that thing."

"Be prepared for the left to treat this like WW3," another joked.

"He is trying to lie his head off and rewrite or destroy history!" a Trump critic wrote. "The tree is much more important than Trump will EVER be!"

Clarence Thomas is big mad, and big law pays off the president

Injustice for All is a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the justice system—and the people who are fighting back.

Would you like some good news, even if it is only a temporary dopamine hit? Of course you would. Let yourself experience the sheer joy of seeing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals treat the Trump administration’s legal arguments with precisely what they deserve—scorn. 

On Wednesday, the appellate court issued a decision denying the administration’s request to overturn Judge James Boasberg’s order that blocked the Trump team from deporting migrants without due process. 

The ban is a mere two weeks long, briefly halting the practice of piling migrants into planes and sending them to a brutal mega-prison in El Salvador, where Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem did a cutesy media hit earlier this week. Donald Trump has justified this by invoking the Alien Enemies Act, previously used only in times of war. 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem films her social media content in a brutal Salvadoran prison.

The administration found the idea of a two-week delay so outrageous, it made an emergency appeal to the D.C. Circuit, saying Boasberg infringed on the executive branch’s power regarding national security. 

Things started going badly for the administration during oral argument when Judge Patricia Millett said that “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act.” 

Ouch. 

Judge Karen Henderson, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote an opinion concurring with the decision to uphold the stay, rejecting the administration’s ridiculous argument that courts aren’t even allowed to review the government’s conduct because national security blah blah blah. 

She also took the administration to task for using a random dictionary definition of “invasion” as its only support for the argument that we are somehow under attack by Venezuelan gangs, and therefore migrants can be deported. 

Millett’s concurring opinion pointed out the absurdity of the administration saying it doesn’t have to comply with the temporary restraining order while simultaneously challenging the order. 

“The one thing that is not tolerable,” Millett wrote, “is for the government to seek from this court a stay of an order that the government at the very same time is telling the district court is not an order with which compliance was ever required.”

The administration may take this to the Supreme Court, where Trump can see if the conservative majority will do him a solid, like they so often do, and let him keep deporting anyone he wants based on, well, nothing except the dictionary. 

The judiciary rouses itself from slumber

The judicial branch finally seems to have realized that it is suboptimal for judges to be threatened with impeachment and defunding just because the president doesn’t like their rulings. There’s also the tiny problem of death threats

It no doubt stings that the Trump administration has lost lower court battles over its unprecedented funding freeze, its mass firing of government workers, and its horrific deportations. No other administration, though, has reacted to losses in court by deciding to just rid the world of these meddlesome judges. 

The judiciary has set up a task force about security and the independence of the courts. Federal judges and court clerks will make up the task force, which will help the judiciary “respond to current risks, and to anticipate new ones.”

There should be no risk to judges for ruling against Trump, and it’s appalling that it’s reached the point where a task force is needed. But here we are, and it’s good the judiciary eventually noticed. 

Clarence Thomas is incandescent with rage that we can’t all have ghost guns like the founders intended

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court upheld an incredibly mild Biden-era rule about ghost guns. Ghost guns are sold as parts, not complete weapons, to be assembled by the buyer or another private party. They’re untraceable, have no serial numbers, and you don’t need a license to buy them. 

A ghost gun that police seized from an organized shoplifting crime ring.

Regrettably, the regulation doesn’t ban ghost guns. All it requires is that ghost guns are treated like other firearms, requiring sellers to add serial numbers, verify buyers are at least 21, and perform background checks. 

You will not be surprised to learn that Justice Clarence Thomas finds this an outrageous limitation on freedom. His dissent predictably whines about “government overreach” and contains what feels like eleventy-thousand words debating the meaning of words in the rule. 

What he’s really mad about, though, is a worry that the ghost gun rule could be applied somehow to block home modification of AR-15s. God forbid. 

Have you considered that the people who really need reparations in America are the Jan. 6 rioters?

When Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., isn’t protecting a GOP House member from domestic violence charges, investigating nonexistent voter fraud, or threatening law schools, he’s very busy calling for reparations for the Jan. 6 rioters who stormed the Capitol. 

Martin fixated on this well before Trump tapped him as the top prosecutor in D.C. Back in January 2024, he mused that he had “finally come around” to reparations and that J6 insurrectionists should get “a big pot of money, like the asbestos money we got for asbestos victims.” 

Yes, literal insurrectionists who received the benefit of full due process in the judicial system are precisely the same as people who got mesothelioma thanks to breathing cancer for decades. It’s also an odd comparison because asbestos victims are paid out from private compensation funds, not the government, though veterans who were exposed during their service can apply for disability compensation. 

U.S. Capitol Police security video showed Tyler Bradley Dykes, marked in red, breaking into the Capitol. He had been sentenced to nearly five years in prison for assaulting police officers.

Now Trump has picked up the torch, saying he’s thinking about establishing a government compensation fund for the very criminals he pardoned. Trump is not, of course, down with reparations for the descendants of enslaved persons. 

Guess we’ve finally found something the administration will spend money on. Too bad it’s this. 

Two more law firms get their turn in the barrel for … reasons

It was only a week ago that the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP rolled over and showed their tummies to Trump to get him to rescind an executive order targeting the firm. 

It was inevitable that capitulation would embolden Trump, who promptly issued new executive orders targeting additional firms he has beef with, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. These executive orders generally suspend the security clearances of firm employees, block their access to federal buildings, and drastically restrict their ability to talk to government employees. 

WilmerHale was targeted because Robert Mueller worked there before and after his role as special counsel investigating Russian interference in Trump’s first election. In the case of Jenner & Block, attorney Andrew Weissmann, former deputy to Mueller, previously worked there. 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller

Never mind that Mueller retired from WilmerHale four years ago, and Weissmann hasn’t been at Jenner & Block since 2021 and is now a Substacker.

Both WilmerHale and Jenner & Block sued the administration on Friday. WilmerHale’s lawsuit points out that the executive order violates the separation of powers, the right to due process, and the right to counsel. 

Jenner & Block’s complaint explains that the executive order threatens not only the firm, but the legal system itself and that the Constitution “forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers” based on their choice of clients, their legal positions, and the people they associate with.”  

Trump’s attack on law firms has had the desired effect, as firms are starting to refuse to represent his opponents. 

On Thursday, The New York Times reported that mega-firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom had entered into talks with the Trump administration to stave off a similar executive order. By Friday afternoon, Skadden was reportedly agreeing to give $100 million in pro bono work to administration-approved causes, which Trump called “essentially a settlement.”

Now that’s some complying in advance.   

Campaign Action

How Mike Johnson and Jim Jordan could hit back at judges blocking Trump’s agenda

Congressional Republicans are looking at a variety of options to stand up against what they see as "activist judges" blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Many of those options will likely be discussed at the House Judiciary's hearing on the matter next week, which sources expect to be scheduled for April 1.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., huddled privately with Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon to coalesce lawmakers around a bill up for a vote next week that would limit federal district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

One source familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital that Johnson suggested Republicans could look at other options as well, something conservatives are looking for. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital that the legislation was a "good start."

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

The No Rogue Rulings Act has support from both the White House and House GOP leadership. It’s expected to get a House-wide vote Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

Led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the legislation would force most district court judges to narrow most orders to the most relevant scope, therefore blocking them from pausing Trump’s policies across the U.S.

No Republican lawmaker has publicly expressed doubts about the bill, but conservatives have warned they want to see more from Congress on activist judges.

Both Johnson and top members of the House Judiciary Committee have floated using Congress’ power of the purse to rein in activist courts.

"We do have authority over the federal courts," Johnson said at his weekly press conference. "We do have power over funding, over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."

But Congress controls government spending through several different mechanisms. Lawmakers have the power to set annual appropriations levels, to rescind that funding via a rescission package, and even leverage funding outside of Congress' yearly appropriations via the budget reconciliation process.

"I think we need to look at… funding scenarios. Now, that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital last week – while stressing he was not "for or against" any specific scenario.

Several Republicans have introduced resolutions to impeach various federal judges for blocking Trump's agenda, but there appears to be little appetite within the House GOP to pursue that lane.

Johnson signaled he was against the move during a closed-door meeting with Republicans on Tuesday morning, noting just 15 federal judges have been impeached in U.S. history.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"There was some innuendo there that, you know, impeachment has been reserved for judges with high crimes and misdemeanors, not because you disagree with his decisions," one House Republican said of Johnson's message. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Conservatives could attempt to force House GOP leaders to act by classifying their impeachment legislation as a "privileged resolution," meaning the House must hold at least a chamber-wide procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

But it's not clear that will be pursued, either. Two Republicans who filed such resolutions – Reps. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis. – said they did not have current plans to make their resolutions privileged.

It's not a totally dismissed option, however, as leaders, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, continue to insist nothing is off the table.

Team Trump runs to friendly media to spin damaging war plan leak scandal

Donald Trump, senior members of his administration, and his congressional Republican allies are struggling to contain the political fallout from the leaked war plan chat scandal

In multiple media appearances on friendly right-wing media outlets, they offered multiple excuses to spin what happened and promoted an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory for how Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was able to get access to the chat.

Appearing on Newsmax Tuesday, Trump inaccurately referred to the text chain as a “call” and professed ignorance as to how the leak occurred.

“What it was, we believe, is somebody that was on the line with permission, somebody that worked with Mike Waltz at a lower level, had Goldberg's number or call through the app, and somehow this guy ended up on the call,” he told host Greg Kelly.

“I can only go by what I’ve been told—I wasn’t involved in it,” Trump added.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance tried to dismiss the scandal altogether, claiming on social media it was “very clear Goldberg oversold what he had.”

Fox News devoted the opening segment of all three of its prime-time shows on Tuesday night—“Hannity,” “The Ingraham Angle,” and “Jesse Watters Primetime”—to hosting Republican officials to spin the story.

Speaking to Laura Ingraham, national security adviser Mike Waltz, who invited The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief to the chat, saw a sinister motive behind Goldberg’s reporting.

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist,” he said, “but of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president, who has lied to Gold Star families, lied to their attorneys, and gone to Russia hoax, gone to just all kinds of lengths to lie and smear the president of the United States, and he’s the one that somehow gets on somebody’s contacts and then gets sucked into this group.”

Trump has attacked Goldberg over many years for reporting that Trump called deceased military veterans “suckers” and “losers,” but Trump’s own former chief of staff John Kelly from his first administration verified that story.

Waltz also claimed to Ingraham that he has enlisted multibillionaire Trump financier Elon Musk to investigate the leak.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, led on by host Jesse Watters, echoed Waltz’s conspiracy theory that Goldberg had done something "mischievous" to end up in the secret text chain to which he was invited by Waltz. 

She also compared Democratic anger about the leak to the Russia “hoax”—which was not a hoax and led to Trump’s first impeachment.

“The Democrats, there’s nothing that they’re better at than spinning a sensationalist story out of a basic set of facts,” Leavitt said.

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Trump ally, led off the opening segment of “Hannity” by praising chat participants for speaking “just like they do to the American people.” Mullin then argued that Democrats were raising the issue to distract from “disastrous decisions that the Democrat (sic) Party is having.”

The Trump administration’s argument—that Goldberg or some other outside actor had done something devious to access the chat—wasn’t far off from pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who argued on his Infowars site that the leak to Goldberg was a “CIA Vault 7 style operation.” Vault 7 was a leak of classified CIA documents to the WikiLeaks site in 2018.

The full-throated defense and attempt to spread disinformation surrounding the story across multiple outlets raises doubts about the administration’s claim that the leak was not a big deal. In fact, the high-level spin raises more questions about the chat and what the administration may be hiding as it refuses to be more forthcoming about what occurred. 

Campaign Action

Hunter Biden hires Alex Murdaugh’s lawyer in latest court case; Abbe Lowell out

Hunter Biden has hired a heavyweight South Carolina attorney – with a similar high-profile to his last lawyer – to go after a right-wing business executive for defamation.

Former state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, D-Columbia, a self-described "Joe Biden guy" who recently represented Low Country prosecutor-turned-convicted killer Alex Murdaugh, is the younger Biden’s new lawyer as he pursues ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in court.

Harpootlian confirmed to The State newspaper in Columbia that he is replacing Abbe David Lowell – who led Biden through his special counsel probe and gun charges in Wilmington.

Biden, who was pardoned by his father for those allegations, is primed to go to Los Angeles court in July against Byrne.

HUNTER BIDEN INDICTMENT MUDDIES WEISS' CREDIBILITY, WHISTLEBLOWERS FEEL ‘VINDICATED’: ATTORNEY

The suit claims Byrne wrongfully accused Biden of being in touch with Iranian officials in 2021, seeking a bribe in exchange for unfreezing $8 billion in funds at the behest of his father.

Meanwhile, Biden is reportedly facing "lagging" art sales and "several million dollars in debt" from fighting past cases when he was represented by Lowell, according to ABC News. 

In the Byrne case, Biden is reportedly claiming defamatory statements from the Iran allegation that led him to lose "economic opportunities," including memoir and art sales and speaking engagements estimated to be collectively worth about $500,000.

Harpootlian was ousted from the state Senate in a narrow November upset by state Sen. Russell Ott, D-St. Matthews, as both men were seeking a redrawn, open seat.

FMR HUNTER BIDEN BIZ PARTNER BOBULINSKI OFFERED ‘CRITICAL TESTIMONY’: COMER

Ott criticized Harpootlian’s representation of Murdaugh, according to the Daily Gazette, and while the longtime Biden ally performed well in urban Richland County, where he also practices law, Ott overperformed in rural Calhoun County, where he and his father long held office.

"We went through a process… I lost. The process worked. I’m not accusing anybody of stealing anything. I’m not having a temper tantrum. I’m not expressing some doubt in our system," Harpootlian said in conceding the race.

Harpootlian also told a 2023 crime-themed convention that he would rather represent Murdaugh pro-bono in a second trial than splurge on a vacation or a racehorse:

"What's so astounding about that? We do cases for free all the time," he said at CrimeCon. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Meanwhile, Lowell was a constant presence while Biden was fighting various allegations in the special counsel probe and House Republicans’ investigations.

After a 2024 deposition, Lowell slammed GOP lawmakers for ending the day "where they started."

"They have produced no evidence that would do anything to support the notion that there was any financial transactions that involved Hunter with his father. Period," Lowell said.

"It seems to me that the Republican members wanted to spend more time talking about my client's addiction than they could ask any question that had anything to do with what they call their impeachment inquiry."

Lowell is also facing a defamation suit, to the tune of $20 million, brought by IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley Jr. and Joseph Ziegler.

Fox News Digital reached out to Harpootlian’s Columbia office and a communications email for Lowell seeking additional comment.

10 things Democrats would do about leaked war plans if they were the GOP

A major national security scandal is still unfolding after top-level Trump administration officials accidentally invited a journalist to a private text chat being used to plan a military strike in Yemen.

As President Donald Trump and his ever-loyal Republican Party try to minimize the incident, it has fallen on congressional Democrats to probe what happened and to protect the public from the administration’s operational failures.

Republicans have long used congressional investigations to effectively attack their political opponents over foreign policy controversies. In 2015, after the attack on two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and subsequent rush to assign blame on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News exactly how the GOP playbook worked. 

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee,” McCarthy bragged. “What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

Here are 10 things that Democratic lawmakers can do in the days and weeks and months ahead, including borrowing some tactics from the scandal playbook that Republicans have used against Democrats in the past.

1. Keep it simple and explain the scandal to a busy public

The technology and issues involved in the leak are somewhat complex and involve issues like the Signal messaging app and U.S. policy in the Middle East. But that doesn’t mean Democrats’ rhetoric about the incident can’t be simple. 

For instance, when Republicans raked the Biden administration over the coals for withdrawing from Afghanistan or the Obama administration for the Benghazi attack, they did not get into the weeds about policy—and those attacks frequently resonated as a result.

Most Americans use messaging apps. They wouldn’t want their secrets exposed to the world. It’s even worse when thousands of lives are on the line. That’s what the Trump administration did, and that’s how Democrats can make a big issue understandable.

2. Oppose Trump’s nominees—all of them

Just two months into Trump’s new presidency, Senate Democrats have already been burned by their appetite for bipartisanship. Despite Trump’s open disdain for the rule of law, his embrace of misogyny and bigotry, and his disinterest in basic facts, the party has voted to confirm several of his Cabinet nominees—only to later express regret for doing so.

Even as the leak details were becoming public, members of the Senate Democratic caucus voted for Trump nominees Christopher Landau (to the State Department) and John Phelan. Phelan, who will become secretary of the Navy, is a major Trump donor with no military experience. Voting for him after the text leak is a particularly odd choice for Democrats.

After then-President Joe Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, Republicans blocked him from promoting military officers. Democrats can do the same to Trump now.

3. Be aggressive when talking about a national security crisis

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a “bipartisan investigation” of the text chat. While it would seem right to call for national unity on an issue of this magnitude, Schumer’s rhetoric is as out of step with reality as his recent vote in favor of Trump’s cruel budget priorities.

As the controversy over the Benghazi attacks raged, Republican voters viewed the scandal as important as Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair, according to opinion polls. Despite the tragedy of the attacks, Republican leaders constantly distorted the magnitude of the incident. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said it was “one of [the] worst incidents I can recall in my career.” Cheney, of course, was vice president on Sept. 11.

Democrats can discuss the possibility that foreign intelligence and other bad actors may have had access to the chat or possibly other, undisclosed chats. That isn’t hyperbole. The Trump administration already did it once.

A good example of this: Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia noted that this kind of thing occurs when a leader like Trump picks his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from the ranks of Fox News talking heads.

Ossoff: This is what happens when you have Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials. [image or embed]

— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) March 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM

4. Hold the media accountable for ignoring or downplaying the story

As the initial shock of the leak wears off, the mainstream media is likely to return to form by minimizing the severity of the incident. In fact, major media outlets like The New York Times, which amplified multiple stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server in 2016, are already downplaying it.

Democrats can highlight this problem while stressing the importance of the incident. By noting that a breach of this caliber may risk American lives, Democrats can ask the press to question key officials like Hegseth, Trump, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (who has a history of propagandizing for hostile foreign governments).

5. Demand answers about the scandal and fallout from government agencies

Members of Congress have the power to request information and documentation from government agencies. Republicans bombarded the Biden administration with such requests after the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Not only can the defense and intelligence agencies be the subject of such requests, but Democrats can ask other unaffiliated agencies and even projects like Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to disclose how they are communicating, if any secret backchannels are in use, and to ask what is being discussed and why it is outside of public review.

Congress has the constitutional mandate of oversight, and that comes into play here. Already, Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida has issued a demand for officials involved in the “Hegseth Disaster Signal Chat” to retain records in anticipation of possible litigation and a Congressional investigation.

6. Demand hearings, and follow up with more hearings

It is already unlikely that congressional Republicans will open hearings into the leak, as leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson are already trying to turn the page on the embarrassing debacle.

But Democrats shouldn’t accept just one investigation. House Republicans launched five committee investigations into the Benghazi attack and also set up a House Select Committee on the issue. There was a Senate investigation as well.

The playbook is wide open, with multiple aspects of this incident to be sorted out across a host of committees, and as new information and witnesses surface, the scope of which committees can best handle an investigation could expand.

7. Use the media to push concerns about the scandal

In addition to pushing journalists and news organizations to cover the story, Democrats can use multiple media appearances to forward their narrative surrounding the leak. Republicans have made considerable hay out of any number of Democratic actions, from the Afghanistan withdrawal, to Benghazi, to President Obama’s decision to wear a tan suit, and particularly former President Bill Clinton’s infidelity while in office.

Mainstream news networks book members of Congress and other political leaders for appearances constantly. Even if the main topic is completely unrelated, Democrats can note how one area of Trump administration incompetence or malfeasance echoes the chat leak controversy.

8. Amplify veterans’ concerns about the national security breach

To attack the Biden administration over the Afghanistan withdrawal, Republicans solicited testimony from veterans who witnessed some of the tactical mistakes made. Military security is directly in the crosshairs of the chat leak, and Democrats should take note.

Veteran advocacy groups like VoteVets are already pushing for answers about the incident, and Democrats would do well to take up their cause. Similarly, there are multiple Democratic officeholders who are veterans and have already spoken out about the problems involved in the leak. There can never be too many voices like this, which attract public and media attention.

“This isn’t about party—it’s about country.” - Rep. Pat Ryan

Democratic Veterans are demanding answers after Trump’s SecDef mishandled sensitive military info.

American lives are at risk. We need accountability. We need a hearing. [image or embed]

— VoteVets (@votevets.org) March 25, 2025 at 1:32 PM

9. Send criminal referrals related to the leak and possible cover-up

In the course of investigating the leak, there is an extremely high possibility that someone involved will lie or mislead.

Stymied by their failure to turn Biden’s son Hunter into a liability, Republicans referred him and his uncle James Biden to the Department of Justice on the claim that they lied to Congress (a crime). While this did not result in charges, it generated coverage and renewed interest in the story.

If people lie about the leak—and figures like Hegseth have already lied to reporters about it—this is another avenue Democrats can travel down.

10. Never be satisfied with the administration’s spin, and keep pushing for more answers

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Questions about the chat leak will inevitably lead to more questions. Based on the track record of Trump and his underlings, this group chat from hell surely isn’t the only backchannel of communication that exists in the administration.

Democrats can ask about and investigate this phenomenon and all the other subsequent questions it raises. Were other agencies involved? Were key GOP figures like Elon Musk and Mike Johnson connected? Are there ongoing text chats about national security with conservative media figures like Sean Hannity who are known to have Trump’s ear? Did Trump or anyone under him use this information and sharing of information for personal financial gain?

Trump has shown absolutely zero interest in moral or ethical boundaries, even when the lives of Americans are on the line. These questions aren’t out of bounds, but well within his existing and well-known pattern of behavior.

In an ideal world the Republicans would come clean about what they’ve done, heads would roll, and the American public would be educated about what is being done in their name. But that world does not exist, so Democrats should mirror what Republicans have done in the past to fan the flames of scandal and further their agenda—and use those tactics to protect America from Team Trump’s incompetence.

Campaign Action

Trump says Waltz doesn’t need to apologize over Signal text chain leak: ‘Doing his best’

President Donald Trump defended National Security Advisor Michael Waltz during an ambassador meeting on Monday, as his administration faces fierce backlash over the recent Signal text chain leak.

Waltz, whose staffers had unknowingly added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat where Secretary of State Pete Hegseth and others discussed sensitive war plans, has come under fire for the blunder. Speaking to a room full of reporters, Trump said he believes Waltz is "doing his best."

"I don't think he should apologize," the president said. "I think he's doing his best. It's equipment and technology that's not perfect."

"And, probably, he won't be using it again, at least not in the very near future," he added.

TRUMP NOMINATES SUSAN MONAREZ TO BECOME THE NEXT CDC DIRECTOR, SAYS AMERICANS 'LOST CONFIDENCE' IN AGENCY

Goldberg was added to the national security discussion, called "Houthi PC Small Group", earlier in March. He was able to learn about attacks against Houthi fighters in Yemen long before the public.

"According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time," Goldberg wrote in his piece about the experience. "So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city."

Though Goldberg's inclusion in the chat did not foil the military's plans, the national security breach has still stunned both supporters and critics of the Trump administration. During the Tuesday meeting, Trump also said that he was in contact with Waltz over whether hackers can break into Signal conversations.

IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

"Are people able to break into conversations? And if that's true, we're gonna have to find some other form of device," Trump said. "And I think that's something that we may have to do. Some people like Signal very much, other people probably don't, but we'll look into it."

"Michael, I've asked you to immediately study that and find out if people are able to break into a system," he added.

In response, Waltz assured Trump that he has White House technical experts "looking at" the situation, along with legal teams.

"And of course, we're going to keep everything as secure as possible," the national security official said. "No one in your national security team would ever put anyone in danger. And as you said, we've repeatedly said the attack was phenomenal, and it's ongoing."

‘Futile exercise’: House GOP push to impeach judges blocking Trump fizzles out

There appears to be little appetite within the House GOP to pursue the impeachment of judges who have blocked President Donald Trump's agenda.

Republican lawmakers are instead coalescing around a bill led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit the ability of U.S. district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which is due for a House floor vote next week.

One House GOP lawmaker at Tuesday morning's closed-door Republican conference meeting said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled that Issa's bill would be a more effective message against who they view as "activist" judges.

"There was some innuendo there that, you know, impeachment has been reserved for judges with high crimes and misdemeanors, not because you disagree with his decisions," the lawmaker said of Johnson's message. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

House GOP Policy Conference Chair Kevin Hern, R-Okla., said, "I don't think so," when asked if impeachment was a realistic effort. "I think it's probably a mixed bag out there right now," he said, adding that Issa's bill was the best option he could see.

Johnson himself did not directly comment on impeachment when asked during his weekly press conference on Tuesday, but he said the House Judiciary Committee was "looking at alternatives."

"One of the bills that I really like, that's already been through committee, was authored by Representative Darrell Issa. And that would limit the scope of federal injunctions," Johnson said. "It would be, in my view, a dramatic improvement on that."

Several conservatives have introduced resolutions to impeach various judges who have blocked Trump's agenda. 

One such effort that has garnered significant attention is a resolution by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, to impeach U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg is currently locked in a legal showdown with the Department of Justice over the Trump administration's deportation of suspected Tren De Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump previously called for Boasberg's impeachment but has said little on the specific issue since then. 

He has been adamant that Republicans should take on activist judges, however, and Fox News Digital was told last week that he was in favor of Issa's bill.

Conservatives could attempt to force House GOP leaders to act by classifying their impeachment legislation as a "privileged resolution," meaning the House must hold at least a chamber-wide procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

Gill told Fox News Digital on Tuesday morning that he had no current plans to make his resolution privileged, and he was supportive of Johnson and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, in handling the matter.

"I don't think we should take anything off the table. But right now, we're working with leadership. Johnson's doing a great job, and so is [Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas] and Jim Jordan on the Judiciary Committee," Gill said.

Support for his resolution has continued to grow, however. Three Republicans signed on to formally support Gill's push on Monday.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., who has introduced his own impeachment resolution, told Fox News Digital, "I think we should hold impeachment regardless of what the Senate does or doesn't do…we should do the people's work, which is impeach those bastards."

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

However, even people who said they would back impeachment are skeptical it will pass.

"It's kind of a futile exercise, because we don't have the votes in the Senate [to remove a judge]," a conservative House GOP lawmaker said Monday night. "It's more of a ‘Hey, stay in your lane, you’re not the president.' And I think if anything, let's put some pressure on the Supreme Court to take up one of these injunctions."

That conservative added that they would "absolutely" vote for impeachment if it came to the floor.

Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., who co-signed Gill's resolution, told Fox News Digital on Monday night that he would support both impeachment and Issa's bill moving to the House floor, but he was skeptical of the former succeeding.

"I think impeachment obviously is unlikely because of the Senate…but it signals that, you know, these judges are out of control and not following the law," Hamadeh explained. "I think it's the smart approach to do both right now, but it seems like the solution, [the No Rogue Rulings Act], that's likely to get broad support."

Additionally, with House Republicans' razor-thin majority, it is not clear that an impeachment resolution would even succeed.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We shouldn't lower the standard for impeachment, but we should – ‘we’ meaning Congress – should provide a remedy for district court judges who totally overreach," Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said.

Another House Republican who declined to be named said they were "totally opposed" to impeachment.

"That's what the appeals process is for," they said.

The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing early next week on activist judges, and that's expected to be followed by a House-wide vote on Issa's bill.

Can Congress defund federal courts with key Trump budget process?

As Republicans look for ways to rein in federal judges issuing countless orders to halt the Trump administration's action on immigration in particular, a number of potential avenues for doing so are being considered. 

However, the use of a key budget process that lowers the Senate's threshold to 51 votes to defund certain courts could face significant obstacles.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, House Freedom Caucus policy chair and chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital he isn't "for or against" any specific approach to addressing the countrywide injunctions that are throwing a wrench into President Donald Trump's priorities.

CHUCK SCHUMER FACING 'UPHILL FIGHT' AMID LEADERSHIP DOUBTS: 'MATTER OF WHEN, NOT IF'

"We ought to look at [impeachment], we ought to look at jurisdiction-stripping, we ought to look at every option that needs to be addressed about judges that are actively taking steps to try to undermine the presidency," he said.

The Republican added, "I think there are pros and cons of those approaches. I think we need to look at … funding scenarios. Now that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate."

The budget reconciliation process lowers the threshold for Senate passage from 60 votes to 51 out of 100, allowing the party in power to more easily advance its agenda with no opposition party support. However, the provisions must relate to budgetary and other fiscal matters. The House of Representatives already has a simple majority threshold.

The process is being relied on heavily by Republicans, who have a trifecta in Washington, in order to push through Trump agenda items.

BATTLE OF THE CHAMBERS: HOUSE AND SENATE TENSIONS BOIL OVER AS TRUMP BUDGET HANGS IN LIMBO

In the months since Trump took office, his aggressive pace has been somewhat hampered by federal judges across the country issuing numerous orders to halt immigration, waste-cutting and anti-diversity, equity and inclusion actions. 

This has prompted Republicans to call for action against what they consider abusive actions by lower-tier federal judges.  

"I don’t think defunding is a viable option," said Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a Fox News contributor. 

"The chief justice would be angry that the district courts were understaffed, and Trump wouldn’t get away with later trying to add the positions back so that he could fill them," he continued.

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo called potentially defunding the courts that have been causing problems for the administration "a terrible idea."

"It would make no difference anyway; the cases challenging Trump’s executive orders would still be challenged in the courts that exist," he explained. 

This was echoed by former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, who said, "I don’t think defunding an already overworked judicial system would be right or effective."

BIDEN ADMIN'S 'VAST CENSORSHIP ENTERPRISE' WITH HELP OF NGOS SLATED FOR KEY HEARING, LAWMAKER SAYS

Because of the specific guidelines for what can be included in reconciliation bills, legal experts seem to be in agreement that defunding courts wouldn't meet the requirements. 

One such expert told Fox News Digital that not only does the provision need to have a federal fiscal impact, the policy effect cannot outweigh that impact. 

They further noted that the Senate's parliamentarian would be the one to make a judgment on this. 

Trusty said "the solution to judicial activism" is either the appellate courts finding ways to stop the injunctions on appeal or by direct orders, or "Congress develops a nimble response and passes legislation to clarify their intent to let the executive branch act without judicial tethers on various issues."

"The better option would be to explore ways to limit the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to fast-track appeals when they try to issue nationwide injunctions," McCarthy said.

CONGRESS EXPANDED THE EXECUTIVE – ONLY FOR TRUMP TO QUASH MUCH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

As for potentially impeaching federal judges, which has been floated by Trump himself, Trusty said it "should still be viewed as a prosecution substitute for office holders who have committed treason or high crimes and misdemeanors; in other words, serious crimes."

"Bad judgment and wrong-headed decisions are not crimes," he noted. 

Neither Trump's White House nor Republican leadership in Congress have indicated plans to pursue the issue through the reconciliation process.

Lawmakers have acknowledged the problem, though, and the House is set to take up legislation to address the judges' actions this week.