The Speaker’s Lobby: What Congress’ December script means for healthcare next year

This December on Capitol Hill appears to follow a familiar script.

There’s a deadline for Congress to act on (insert issue here). And if lawmakers don’t move by Jan. 1, then (insert consequence here). So, everyone on Capitol Hill clamors over pathways to finish (given issue). Lawmakers and staff are at the end of their wits. Everyone is worried about Congress successfully fixing the problem and getting everyone home for the holidays.

There’s always the concern that Congress will emerge as The Grinch, pilfering Whoville of Christmas toys.

But lawmakers often wind up toiling with the diligence and efficiency of Santa’s elves, plowing through late-night, overnight and weekend sessions, usually finishing (insert issue here) in the St. Nick of time.

THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THURSDAY'S BIG SENATE VOTES ON HEALTHCARE

This pattern is always the same. With few variations.

This parliamentary dance of the sugar plum fairies frequently centers on deadlines for government funding, the debt ceiling and tax policy. Such was the case when the Senate passed the first version of Obamacare on Christmas Eve morning in 2009. Republicans skated on thin ice to finish their tax reform package in December 2017.

Lawmakers moved expeditiously to approve a defense policy bill in late 2020, then made sure they had just enough time on the calendar to override President Trump’s veto of the legislation before the very end of the 116th Congress in early January 2021.

The deadlines sometimes veer into the political. There was a crush to finish articles of impeachment on the House floor for both presidents Clinton and Trump in December 1998 and December 2019, respectively.

And, so, after everyone got this fall’s government shutdown worked out of their systems, lawmakers were far from prepared to address its root cause. Democrats refused to fund the government unless Congress addressed spiking healthcare premiums. Those premiums shoot up on Jan. 1. And no one has built enough consensus to pass a bill before the end of the year.

Yet.

But it’s only mid-December. And everyone knows that the congressional Christmas legislative spirit can be slow to take hold. Some of that holiday magic may have officially arrived Thursday afternoon after the Senate incinerated competing Republican and Democratic healthcare plans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pushed a three-year extension of the current Obamacare subsidies with no built-in reforms.

"This is going to require that Democrats come off a position they know is an untenable one and sit down in a serious way and work with Republicans," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said of the Democratic proposal.

Thune characterized the Democrats’ gambit as "a political messaging exercise."

MODERATE REPUBLICANS STAGE OBAMACARE REBELLION AS HEALTH COST FRUSTRATIONS ERUPT IN HOUSE

Republicans even mulled not putting forth a healthcare plan at all. It was the group of Senate Democrats who ultimately helped break a filibuster to reopen the government last month that demanded a healthcare-related vote (not a fix, but a vote) in December. So, that’s all Thune would commit to.

"If Republicans just vote no on a Democrat proposal, we'll let the premiums go up and Republicans don't offer anything. What message is that going to send?" asked Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. "I know what people in Missouri will think. They'll look at that, and they'll say, ‘Well, you guys don't do anything. You've just let my premiums go up.’"

It may yet come to that.

So, there’s a holiday healthcare affordability crisis.

"People are looking now at exactly what's ahead for them, and they're very, very frightened," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

But most Senate Republicans coalesced around a plan drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Michael Crapo, R-Idaho, and Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La. The bill would not renew Obamacare subsidies. Instead, it would allow people to deposit money into a healthcare savings account and shop around for coverage.

"Our plan will reduce premiums by 1% and save taxpayers money," boasted Crapo. "In contrast, the Democrats' temporary COVID bonuses do not lower costs or premiums at all."

With skyrocketing prices, Republicans are desperate to do something, even if it’s a figgy pudding leaf, as they face competitive races next year.

COLLINS, MORENO UNVEIL OBAMACARE PLAN AS REPUBLICANS SEARCH FOR SOLUTION TO EXPIRING SUBSIDIES

"It has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with people in Ohio and across America who need to be able to afford access to healthcare," said Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio.

Gov. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, appointed Husted to succeed Vice President Vance after he left the Senate. So, 2026 will be Husted’s first time on the ballot for the Senate.

There was some chatter that Republicans might allow for a limited extension of the Obamacare aid so long as Democrats agreed to abortion restrictions in exchange.

"Off the table. They know it damn well," thundered Schumer.

So, the competing plans needed 60 yeas to clear a procedural hurdle. But that also meant that both plans were destined to fail without solving the problem before the end of the year.

"We have to have something viable to vote on before we get out of here," lamented Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.

That’s why some Christmas congressional calendar magic often compels lawmakers to find a last-minute solution.

"Every legislator up here would like to be home for Christmas," said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. "That pressure is what forces us to come together."

CONGRESS FACES HOLIDAY CRUNCH AS HEALTH CARE FIX COLLIDES WITH SHRINKING CALENDAR

We’ll know soon if everyone buckles down to harness soaring premiums after days of political posturing.

"This should have been done in July or August. So, we are up against a deadline," said Hawley.

And procrastination by lawmakers may yet do them in.

"Healthcare is unbelievably complicated," said Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D. "You're not going to reform it and bring down costs overnight."

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is now promising a separate, still unwritten healthcare bill for the floor in the coming days.

"You're going to see a package come together that will be on the floor next week that will actually reduce premiums for 100% of Americans," said Johnson.

But it’s unclear if Congress can pass anything.

"I think there's a fear of working with Democrats. There's a fear (of) taking action without the blessing of the President," said Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev.

GOP WRESTLES WITH OBAMACARE FIX AS TRUMP LOOMS OVER SUBSIDY FIGHT

That’s why it’s possible Congress could skip town for the holidays without solving the problem.

"It will be used like a sledgehammer on us a year from now," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb.

Not a great message for Republicans — especially on affordability — before the midterms.

"If there's no vote, that'll run contrary to what the majority of the House wants and what the vast majority of the American people want," said Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif.

That political concern may be just enough to force the sides to find some Christmas magic and address the issue before the holidays.

That’s one Yuletide script in Congress.

But there’s a script to not fixing things, too.

If Congress leaves town, every communications director on Capitol Hill will author a press release accusing the other side of channeling Ebenezer Scrooge, declaring "Bah humbug!" or dumping a lump of coal in the stockings of voters on Christmas.

That’s the script.

And every year, it sleighs me.

23 Dems join House Republicans to kill progressive’s Trump impeachment bid

A lone progressive's effort to impeach President Donald Trump failed Thursday, with nearly two dozen Democrats joining the House GOP to quash it.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, moved to get a vote on two articles of impeachment Wednesday night via a privileged resolution, a mechanism allowing lawmakers to force action on a bill within two legislative days.

Republicans called for a vote to table the measure on Thursday, a move that effectively kills consideration of the bill itself when a privileged resolution is called for.

Twenty-three Democrats joined Republicans in pushing the impeachment aside. A significant number of Democrats also voted "present," including all three senior leaders — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.

DEM LAWMAKER SETS LITMUS TEST FOR PARTY WITH 5TH TRUMP IMPEACHMENT EFFORT 

"Impeachment is a sacred constitutional vehicle designed to hold a corrupt executive accountable for abuse of power, breaking the law and violating the public trust. The effort traditionally requires a comprehensive investigative process, the collection and review of thousands of documents, an exacting scrutiny of the facts, the examination of dozens of key witnesses, Congressional hearings, sustained public organizing and the marshaling of the forces of democracy to build a broad national consensus," the trio said in a statement explaining their vote.

"None of that serious work has been done, with the Republican majority focused solely on rubber stamping Donald Trump’s extreme agenda. Accordingly, we will be voting ‘present’ on today’s motion to table the impeachment resolution as we continue our fight to make life more affordable for everyday Americans."

The final vote fell 237 to 140, with 47 "present" votes.

Among the Democrats who voted to table the measure are Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., Josh Riley, D-N.Y., Jared Golden, D-Maine, Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Sharice Davids, D-Kan., Don Davis, D-N.C., Shomari Figures, D-Ala., and others.

Green has filed articles of impeachment against Trump several times over the past year and notably was thrown out of the president's joint address to Congress in March for repeatedly interrupting his speech.

FOX NEWS POLITICS NEWSLETTER: AL GREEN'S PUSH TO IMPEACH TRUMP FLOPS

The latest impeachment push includes two articles charging abuse of power, according to legislative text viewed by Fox News Digital.

The first count accuses Trump of calling for the "execution" of six congressional Democrats. It was in response to Trump accusing those Democrats of "seditious behavior," which he said was "punishable by death" after they posted a video urging military service members to refuse illegal orders by the federal government.

The video caused a firestorm on the right, with the FBI opening an inquiry into those Democrats — who all defended their comments.

Green's second allegation of abuse of power charges Trump with having "fostered a political climate in which lawmakers and judges face threats of political violence and physical assault; and in this climate has made threats and vituperative comments against federal judges, putting at risk their safety and well-being, and undermining the independence of our judiciary."

But while the vast majority of Democrats have made no secret of their disdain and disagreements with Trump, it appears that few have the appetite to make a largely symbolic gesture toward impeachment.

Even Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has side-stepped questions on supporting impeachment multiple times this year, including most recently on Dec. 1 when asked about the military's double-tap strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in September.

"Republicans will never allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. And we know that's the case, because Donald Trump will order them not to do it. So what's on the table is a meaningful investigation, which we can hope would be bipartisan," Jeffries said at the time.

Even if the impeachment vote were to move forward, it's all but certain that the GOP majority in the Senate would quickly dispense of it.

House Dem to force Trump impeachment vote on 2 articles

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday and will force the House of Representatives to vote on the measures this week.

Green made his resolution to impeach Trump privileged on Wednesday, meaning the House must vote on the issue within two legislative days. Green has introduced articles of impeachment against Trump at least five times this year, but he has not before tried to force a vote on the issue.

Green's impeachment filing accuses Trump of "calling for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers" and of making threats of violence against judges. The former refers to Trump's reaction after Democratic lawmakers urged members of the military to "refuse illegal orders."

"President Trump is an abuser of presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote violence, engender invidious hate, undermine our democracy, and dissolve our Republic," Green said in a statement.

SIX DEMOCRATS URGE MILITARY MEMBERS TO 'REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS' IN VIRAL VIDEO; HEGSETH RESPONDS

Green has failed several times to gather support among Democrats for impeaching Trump. House Democrats voted to kill a Green impeachment effort in June, that one based on Trump ordering airstrikes on Iran.

Trump is not the only member of his administration to face impeachment efforts, however. House Democrats also filed articles against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and War Secretary Pete Hegseth this week.

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., announced the move against Kennedy on Wednesday, arguing he has failed in his role. Stevens had previously vowed to file the articles in September.

ANTI-TRUMP NETWORK BEHIND MASS PROTESTS CRACKS OPEN WAR CHEST AGAINST DEMS WHO BACKED REOPENING GOVERNMENT

"Today, I formally introduced articles of impeachment against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. RFK Jr. has turned his back on science and the safety of the American people. Michiganders cannot take another day of his chaos," she wrote in a statement posted on social media.

Meanwhile, Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., targeted Hegseth, pointing to reports that he issued orders to "kill everybody" onboard a small vessel that was allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

"Pete Hegseth has been using the United States military to extrajudicially assassinate people without evidence of any crime," said Thanedar. "Former military attorneys have come out and asserted that his conduct constitutes war crimes. We cannot allow his reprehensible conduct to continue, which is why I have filed these articles to impeach him."

House Democrat introduces impeachment articles against RFK Jr

A House Democrat filed articles of impeachment against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday.

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., announced the move on Wednesday, arguing Kennedy has failed in his role. Stevens had previously vowed to file the articles in September.

"Today, I formally introduced articles of impeachment against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. RFK Jr. has turned his back on science and the safety of the American people. Michiganders cannot take another day of his chaos," she wrote in a statement posted on social media.

HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon reacted to the impeachment effort in a statement to NBC News.

NOEM TEASES 'NEXT BIG ANNOUNCEMENT' THAT MAY CHANGE AIRPORT SECURITY RULE

"Secretary Kennedy remains focused on the work of improving Americans’ health and lowering costs, not on partisan political stunts," Nixon said.

The move comes just days after Stevens' fellow Democrat, Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., filed articles of impeachment against War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

NEW TSA PROGRAM LAUNCHED TO ELIMINATE DOUBLE SCREENINGS FOR INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS

Thanedar pointed to reports that Hegseth issued orders to "kill everybody" onboard a small vessel that was allegedly involved in drug trafficking.

DUFFY URGES SENATE TO PASS BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL'S $12.5B AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM FIX

"Pete Hegseth has been using the United States military to extrajudicially assassinate people without evidence of any crime," said Thanedar. "Former military attorneys have come out and asserted that his conduct constitutes war crimes. We cannot allow his reprehensible conduct to continue, which is why I have filed these articles to impeach him."

Both Michigan Democrats are facing hotly contested Democratic primaries for the upcoming 2026 elections.

This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.

Trump dismisses calls for Alito, Thomas to step down from Supreme Court, calling them ‘fantastic’

President Donald Trump pushed back on calls for Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to step down, calling them both "fantastic."

Trump made the remark to Politico this week as the outlet reported that some members of the Republican Party are hoping the court's two oldest conservatives consider stepping down before the midterm elections. That would enable Trump to nominate conservatives to take their place while the Republican Party is still guaranteed control of the Senate.

"I hope they stay," Trump said, adding, "'Cause I think they’re fantastic."

Alito, 75, has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court anytime soon, a source close to the justice told The Wall Street Journal in November 2024 after Trump was elected.

SCOTUS POISED TO SIDE WITH TRUMP ON FTC FIRING – A SHOWDOWN THAT COULD TOPPLE 90-YEAR PRECEDENT

"Despite what some people may think, this is a man who has never thought about this job from a political perspective," a person close to Alito said to the newspaper.

"The idea that he’s going to retire for political considerations is not consistent with who he is," this person added. 

Alito was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2006 by President George W. Bush.

'THE VIEW' CO-HOST 'SCARED' OVER SOTOMAYOR RESPONSE ON TRUMP POTENTIALLY SEEKING A THIRD TERM

Thomas is 77 years old. He was appointed to the court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.

Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama in 2009, is 71. 

In 2022, a handful of House Democrats demanded that Thomas step down or be impeached because he would not recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Investigators on the Jan. 6 select committee revealed that the justice's wife, Ginni Thomas, sent text messages to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging him to challenge Donald Trump's 2020 election loss.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.

FBI to be under harsh new microscope as Stefanik scores victory in annual defense bill

A Republican-backed measure in this year's annual defense policy bill is aimed at significantly expanding FBI transparency in American elections.

A provision in the 3,000-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would force the bureau to disclose the initiation of a "counterintelligence assessment or investigation" against a candidate for federal office or a current elected official within 15 days of its launch.

Specifically, it would mandate that the FBI notify the top four congressional leaders in the House and Senate as well as the top Republican and top Democrat on both chambers' judiciary and intelligence committees.

An exception would be granted if one of those people was the target of such a probe, however.

PATEL SAYS COMEY CASE IS 'FAR FROM OVER,' VOWS TO RESTORE 'ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY' TO FBI

The provision was spearheaded by House GOP Leadership Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who told Fox News Digital on Monday that it was "a win that I am proud to deliver for transparency and accountability and against the illegal weaponization of the deep state."

"I am the only remaining House Republican who served on the House Intelligence Committee during the dark Schiff impeachment era," Stefanik said.

"Congress owes the American people long overdue accountability after the unprecedented illegal weaponization of our federal government, whether it was the illegal Crossfire Hurricane targeting of President Trump in 2016 or more recently the sweeping Operation Arctic Frost."

FBI FIRES AGENTS, DISMANTLES CORRUPTION SQUAD AFTER PROBE UNVEILS MONITORING OF GOP SENATORS, PATEL SAYS

The measure is also backed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. A Jordan spokesman told Fox News Digital that the conservative leader has "always been 100% supportive of this provision."

Its inclusion came after some fireworks between Stefanik and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., last week. 

Stefanik had publicly accused the speaker of kowtowing to Democrats and allowing that provision to be removed. Johnson said he was blindsided by Stefanik's anger and was unaware of her concerns when she had made them public.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE BIDEN'S FBI OF RETALIATING AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWER WHO EXPOSED MISCONDUCT

Johnson also said at the time that it had been removed from the final bill during normal procedural discussions between Democrats and Republicans, although he himself supported the measure.

Stefanik later claimed victory on X, however, announcing the provision had been reinstated after a conversation between herself, Johnson and President Donald Trump

"I had a very productive conversation with Speaker Johnson last night and I shared my views that House Republicans need to focus on delivering results to the American people," she said last week.

House Republican leadership aides said in answer to a question by Fox News Digital on Monday night that there was "some miscommunication and misunderstandings" related to the provision at first but "we've worked through those."

Aides said House GOP leaders "worked closely with Stefanik's office and with the committees of jurisdiction to find a way to accomplish her intent and what she was hoping to get out of the provision in a way that that fit with the priorities of the committees of jurisdiction and address some of the concerns that they'd had."

Jeremy Paul, a professor of law at Northeastern University, told Fox News Digital on Monday that he did not believe there were legitimate concerns over separation of powers with the provision.

HOUSE VOTES TO REPEAL CONTROVERSIAL ARCTIC FROST PROVISION FROM GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BILL

"If it is enacted into law, the executive branch could argue that this is an intrusion on executive power," he said. "But it's very tough, because there are no crimes unless the Congress makes something a crime. So Congress really ultimately has control over what is and is not investigated."

"As far as constitutional arguments, it's not easy for me to think of one that would derail this statute. That doesn't mean the statute is a good idea."

"If people are breaking the law, then they should be investigated. And if the investigation reveals that their campaign, for example, is being funded by foreign governments, then that ought to be stopped. And this is gonna make it harder for that to happen," he said.

But conservatives in Congress argue that the provision is critical.

"We support that 110%. I hope it stays in the NDAA in light of what we've seen in the last 10 years, particularly what the weaponized Justice Department did to President Trump," Jordan told FOX Business host Maria Bartiromo last week. "This is definitely needed. I totally support what Elise is trying to get done."

Congress melts down: Members unleash personal attacks after weeks of shutdown drama

Let’s face it: Politics is personal. And you cannot separate the two on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers may not have missed legislating during the government shutdown. But they sure missed attacking one another.

Yes, both chambers of Congress voted to reopen the government. That’s legislating. There were certainly a few bills of consequence on the House and Senate floors in September before the shutdown. 

There was a little bit in the Senate, which remained in session during the shutdown. There was the adoption of the measure to compel the release of the Epstein files.

EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS RAISE NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT TRUMP CONDUCT AS HE DENOUNCES DEMOCRATS

But prior to that, one must hustle all the way back to the Senate’s approval of the "big, beautiful bill" in June and the House in early July — plus the plan to defund foreign programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — to find Congress really engaging in legislation of consequence in 2025. 

So, what has the House of Representatives resorted to since it’s been back in session? Members taking on members. Even fellow lawmakers of their own party.

It’s gotten personal. And you don’t even have to be a voting member of the House to face the wrath of your colleagues.

There was an effort by Republicans to censure the non-voting Democratic member from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Congress, Del. Stacey Plaskett, for exchanging messages with Epstein in preparation for President Donald Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.

Trump loyalists in the House would find revenge on Paskett sweeter than Caribbean sugar cane. Plaskett served as one of the House’s impeachment "managers," prosecuting the House’s second impeachment case of Trump before the Senate in early 2021.

The measure to rebuke Plaskett failed. And, as a result, Democrats refrained from a similar censure effort for Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla.

That said, Democrats and some Republicans want to discipline Mills for two alleged transgressions. Democrats prepped a resolution in September to censure Mills for allegedly harassing and assaulting an ex-girlfriend in Washington, D.C. 

Mills contends he did nothing wrong.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., wants to censure Mills now. Mills provided a key vote earlier in 2025 to block the censure of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., over her remarks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Some lawmakers also want House discipline for Mace after authorities claim she cursed and berated TSA workers and other employees at the Charleston, South Carolina, airport recently.  

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., is one of the most centrist members in the House. She prepped a rebuke of Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., in November. 

Garcia is retiring at the end of his term in early 2027. He filed for re-election but then decided at the last moment to step aside. 

The Illinois Democrat cited family-related health reasons and his family’s recent adoption of an 8-year-old boy. However, the only person who apparently knew about the Congressman’s plans was Patty Garcia, his chief of staff. 

Chuy Garcia is not related to Patty Garcia. However, she filed paperwork to run for the House seat with just moments to spare before the deadline. It turns out that Patty Garcia is the only one to file for the seat. That means Patty Garcia is practically a shoo-in for victory in the heavily Democratic seat. 

JOHNSON SAYS HE'S 'OPEN' TO CHANGING HOUSE CENSURE RULES AFTER WEEK OF POLITICAL DRAMA

The audacious move by Patty Garcia and Chuy Garcia gave critics fodder to chew on. They believed that the outgoing congressman pre-baked the ballot, delivering a political Walter Payton stiff-arm that blocked anyone else from running except his chief of staff.

Old-style Chicago machine politics haven’t been this brutal in the Windy City since they originally brewed Old Style beer.

Gluesenkamp Perez and others excoriated the sitting congressman, voting 236-183 to sanction him. Including Gluesenkamp Perez, 23 Democrats voted with all Republicans to dock Chuy Garcia.

So, it’s likely that voters will elect Patty Garcia as congresswoman-elect in the fall of 2026. But after the vote to sanction her old boss, winds blowing off of Lake Michigan would provide a warmer welcome for Patty Garcia to Capitol Hill when she prospectively takes office in January 2027.

Now there’s a move to sanction Rep. Shelia Cherfilus-McCormick D-Fla., after she was indicted for allegedly stealing $5 million in COVID-related health aid. 

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., prepped a resolution to expel Cherfilus-McCormick even though there’s been no trial. Cherfilus-McCormick says the indictment is a sham.

And we haven’t even discussed efforts earlier in 2025 to expel Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., after she was charged with allegedly assaulting ICE agents at a detention center in Newark, New Jersey, in the spring. McIver continues to serve and pleaded not guilty. 

This may only get worse.

Sens. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; and Reps. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa;, Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; and Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., faced criticism over a video in which they instructed service members to defy illegal orders. 

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has now launched an investigation into Kelly and threatened to recall the former astronaut to active duty to face military discipline.

And it’s not just member on member. The president also excoriated his arch-nemesis on the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., for getting married 16 months after the congressman’s first wife, Rhonda, died.

"Did Thomas Massie, sometimes referred to as Rand Paul Jr., because of the fact that he always votes against the Republican Party, get married already??? Boy, that was quick!" Trump posted to Truth Social in November. "Anyway, have a great life Thomas and (?). His wife will soon find out that she’s stuck with a LOSER!"

It’s now officially the holiday season. And few on Capitol Hill are truly extending tidings of good cheer to their congressional colleagues. It surely can’t get any worse, can it?

Well, we’re not even halfway through the 119th Congress. And after lengthy recesses in July, all of August, a portion of September — and for the House, all of October and some of November — lawmakers are just making up for lost time. The recriminations will keep coming.

Politicians have decided to make it personal. It’s easier to attack one another and score political points than legislate.

It’s not practical politics. Lawmakers just prefer personal politics.

Court says Boasberg didn’t know Arctic Frost subpoenas hit lawmakers, Grassley calls that ‘deeply troubling’

FIRST ON FOX: A top federal court official defended Judge James Boasberg’s gag orders that hid subpoenas related to the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation, saying this week that the chief judge in Washington would likely have been unaware that the subpoenas' intended targets were members of Congress.

The administrative office for the federal courts indicated that the chief judge in D.C. routinely blindly signed gag orders when the Department of Justice requested them, including during Arctic Frost, the investigation that led to former special counsel Jack Smith bringing election charges against President Donald Trump.

The administrative office's director, Robert Conrad Jr., provided the explanation on behalf of Boasberg to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital.

REPUBLICANS FEUD OVER 'ARCTIC FROST' ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT CRITICS OFFER NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE

The letter came in response to Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, demanding an explanation from Boasberg about why he authorized the one-year gag orders, which barred phone companies from telling Republican Congress members that their records were subpoenaed by Smith in 2023.

Conrad said he could not address those specific subpoenas and gag orders, in part because some of the material was sealed, but that he could help the lawmakers "understand relevant practices" in place during Arctic Frost.

The DOJ’s requests for gag orders, also known as non-disclosure orders, "typically do not attach the related subpoena; rather they identify the subject accounts only by a signifier — e.g., a phone number," Conrad wrote. "As a result, [non-disclosure order] applications would not reveal whether a particular phone number belonged to a member of Congress."

Grassley reacted to the latest correspondence from the court by faulting the Biden DOJ for seeking the gag orders from Boasberg without notifying the judge that they pertained to Congress members.

Grassley noted that the DOJ's Public Integrity Section gave Smith's team the green light to subpoena lawmakers' phone records but had also told the prosecutors to be wary of concerns lawmakers could raise about the Constitution's speech or debate clause, which gives Congress members added protections in prosecutorial matters.

"Smith went ahead with the congressional subpoenas anyway, and it appears he and his team didn’t apprise the court of member involvement," Grassley told Fox News Digital. "Smith’s apparent lack of candor is deeply troubling, and he needs to answer for his conduct."

The DOJ revised its policy in response to an inspector general report in 2024 so that prosecutors were required to notify the court if they were seeking a gag order against a Congress member so that judges could take that into consideration when deciding whether to authorize the orders. Smith's subpoenas pre-dated that policy shift.

The subpoenas, and the gag orders that kept them concealed, have drawn enormous criticism from the targeted lawmakers, who alleged that the Biden DOJ improperly spied on them over their alleged involvement in attempting to overturn the 2020 election and that Boasberg was complicit in allowing it. Among the top critics is Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who was set to lead a since-postponed hearing Wednesday examining the case for impeaching Boasberg. Impeachment of judges is exceedingly rare and typically has only occurred in response to crimes like corruption and bribery.

TRUMP FOE BOASBERG HIT WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

Johnson said he remained unsatisfied with Boasberg after the letter from the administrative office.

"Judge Boasberg’s refusal to answer questions from Congress about his approval of unlawful gag orders is an affront to transparency and an obvious attempt to deflect any responsibility for his awareness of or involvement in Jack Smith’s partisan dragnet," Johnson told Fox News Digital. "Judge Boasberg must immediately lift the seal that is apparently preventing him from addressing Congress’ questions and provide the public a full explanation for his actions."

Public documents reveal that as chief judge of the D.C. federal court, Boasberg authorized numerous gag orders that blocked phone companies from telling about a dozen House and Senate lawmakers that Smith had subpoenaed their phone data.

Smith had sought a narrow set of their records, which included details about when calls and messages were placed and with whom the Congress members were communicating. The records did not include the contents of calls and messages. Smith has defended the subpoenas, saying they were in line with department policy and "entirely proper."

A look back at the biggest presidential Thanksgiving scandals, surprises

Thanksgiving typically slows the news as Americans gather with family and friends. But the holiday also has a habit of amplifying Washington, D.C.'s political drama and surprises.

Americans are no strangers to controversy and scandals, including a handful that have played out across the decades as citizens gathered around the dinner table for Thanksgiving or headed out for Black Friday shopping. 

Fox News Digital took a look back at the biggest scandals and political events that rocked Washington, D.C., around the fall holiday. 

5 FACTS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THANKSGIVING YOU CAN SHARE BETWEEN BITES OF TURKEY THIS HOLIDAY

The Saturday before Thanksgiving in 1973, President Richard Nixon held a press conference in Orlando, Florida, where he famously said he was not a "crook" as the Watergate break-in and subsequent scandal came to light. 

At the heart of the scandal were Nixon’s efforts to obstruct justice by directing a cover-up of the Watergate office complex break-in, including suppressing the FBI’s investigation, paying hush money and misusing federal agencies to shield his administration from scrutiny.

As the scandal surrounding the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters heated up, Nixon defended himself in a televised Q&A with newspaper editors gathered at Walt Disney World for a convention. 

"Let me just say this, and I want to say this to the television audience: I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent," Nixon said, initially answering questions about his personal finances. "And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice.

"And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got." 

Nixon resigned in August 1974 with an impeachment process underway and a grand jury prepared to indict him on charges of bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal investigation related to the Watergate cover-up. 

Nixon was later pardoned and did not face any federal prosecution in the matter. 

Details unraveled about the Iran–Contra affair in the early days of November 1986 before crescendoing the week of Thanksgiving, including then-President Ronald Reagan dismissing Lt. Col. Oliver North and announcing the resignation of National Security Advisor John Poindexter two days before the holiday. 

News began to percolate overseas in early November 1986 that the U.S. made a secret arms sale to Iran to secure the release of American hostages held in Lebanon. U.S. officials later divulged the funds from the deal were used to fund an anti-communist rebel group in Nicaragua called the Contras. 

Two days before Thanksgiving, Reagan announced he had dismissed North from the National Security Council, with Poindexter resigning that same day. On Thanksgiving eve, Reagan announced the creation of a Special Review Board to review the National Security Council’s role in the deal, later known as the Tower Commission. 

MEET THE AMERICAN WHO GAVE THE NATION OUR FIRST THANKSGIVING ORIGIN STORY: PILGRIM EDWARD WINSLOW

The fallout from the report continued over the holiday and even into the George H.W. Bush administration, when the president granted pardons to a handful of individuals involved on Christmas Eve 1992. 

While many Americans were out shopping on Black Friday in 1998, the Clinton White House delivered President Bill Clinton's written responses to 81 questions from House Judiciary related to his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky as part of an impeachment inquiry. 

Clinton already had declared to the nation that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" in January 1998, and the House authorized an impeachment inquiry in October that intensified around the Thanksgiving holiday. The Judiciary had sent Clinton 81 questions that focused on his relationship with Lewinsky based on independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report that included evidence related to the affair allegations. 

Clinton returned the 81 questions on Black Friday, which included questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and his conduct in the Paula Jones case, which accused him of sexual harassment in 1994. Judiciary Republicans accused Clinton of playing "word games" in his responses, which included Clinton denying he committed perjury or obstructing justice, and the impeachment inquiry continued. 

TRUMP, DEMOCRATS LOCKED IN ENDLESS CYCLES OF PAYBACK AFTER COMEY INDICTMENT AND TARGETING PRESIDENT'S ENEMIES

The House ultimately impeached Clinton on charges of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice related to his efforts to conceal the affair with an intern, while the Senate voted to acquit Clinton on both articles of impeachment. 

In a more light-hearted Thanksgiving political event, President George W. Bush quietly traveled to Iraq in 2003 to meet with the troops stationed in Baghdad. The visit, cloaked in secrecy until he was there, marked the first time a sitting president visited Iraq. 

AMERICA'S 'UNIQUE' THANKSGIVING STUFFING PREFERENCES STATE-BY-STATE

"Our planners worked to answer every question," Bush said at the time about the intense planning for the trip. "I had a lot of questions."

Bush was on the ground for over two hours before he made the trip back to the U.S. The trip set off some claims that the president was working for a political gain ahead of the 2004 election, while the administration brushed off such claims while stressing the commander in chief's visit was focused on supporting the troops amid a war. 

Just after 4 p.m. on the eve of Thanksgiving in 2020, Trump announced he delivered a full pardon to his former national security advisor, retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn.

The White House later in the day released a statement saying Flynn "should never have been prosecuted" and that the pardon ends "the relentless, partisan pursuit of an innocent man."

TRUMP ISSUES SWEEPING PARDONS FOR 2020 ELECTION ALLIES — WHAT THE MOVE REALLY MEANS

"While today’s action sets right an injustice against an innocent man and an American hero, it should also serve as a reminder to all of us that we must remain vigilant over those in whom we place our trust and confidence," the statement continued.

The pardon ended a yearslong legal battle stemming from then-special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Flynn’s pardon was preceded by his 2017 guilty plea for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia. He also had admitted to filing paperwork under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. His sentencing, however, was stalled due to his cooperation with authorities. 

In 2019, Flynn claimed he was innocent in the case and sought to withdraw his guilty plea, citing alleged government misconduct. 

The Department of Justice was in the midst of moving to dismiss the case when Trump pardoned Flynn. 

Vindman’s call to release Trump–MBS transcript reopens old questions in US–Saudi relationship

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., is demanding that President Donald Trump release a 2019 call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, saying the American people "deserve to know what was said" in the aftermath of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

Vindman, a retired Army colonel who once served on Trump’s National Security Council, said the call was one of two that deeply concerned him — the other being the 2019 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that triggered Trump’s first impeachment. 

Standing beside Hanan Alter Khashoggi, the slain journalist’s widow, Vindman said Trump "sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader" and that transparency is owed to both the Khashoggi family and the country.

"The Khashoggi family and the American people deserve to know what was said on that call," Vindman said Friday. "Our intelligence agencies concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder of Mr. Khashoggi’s husband. When the president sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader, America’s credibility was at stake."

TRUMP SECURES RELEASE OF AMERICAN TRAPPED IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR YEARS OVER ONLINE POSTS

Vindman’s name is already polarizing in Trump-era politics. 

He and his twin brother, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, became central figures in the first impeachment, when their internal reporting of Trump’s Ukraine call led to accusations from conservatives that they had undermined an elected president. To Trump’s allies, Eugene Vindman’s demand to release the 2019 Saudi call feels like a replay of that fight — another attempt by a former National Security Council insider to damage the president under the banner of transparency.

Still, his comments land at a revealing moment. Washington’s embrace of Mohammed bin Salman underscores a familiar trade-off in U.S. foreign policy: strategic security and economic interests over accountability and human rights.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: "The U.S.-Saudi friendship is now a partnership for the future. President Trump's historic agreements with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from defense to investment, will create quality jobs for Americans and will grow our economy. No virtue-signaling. No lecturing. Only results for the American people."  

Trump’s latest visit with bin Salman brought sweeping defense and investment deals, even as questions over 9/11 and Khashoggi’s murder continue to test that balance. The United States granted Saudi Arabia major non-NATO ally status, formally elevating the kingdom’s defense and intelligence partnership with Washington and clearing the way for expedited arms sales and joint military programs.

Bin Salman also pledged nearly $1 trillion in new Saudi investments across U.S. industries, including infrastructure, artificial intelligence and clean energy. The commitments were announced alongside a Strategic Defense Agreement that includes purchases of F-35 fighter jets, roughly 300 Abrams tanks and new missile defense systems, as well as joint ventures to expand manufacturing inside Saudi Arabia.

Administration officials said the initiatives would create tens of thousands of American jobs and strengthen the U.S. industrial base.

During his appearance with Trump at the White House, reporters shouted questions about Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2018 killing of  Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul — marking a rare moment of public pressure on the crown prince, who typically avoids unscripted exchanges with the press.

Trump accused the press of trying to "embarrass" his guest, but the crown prince offered what sounded like regret for the killing of Khashoggi, even as he denied involvement.

"A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about," Trump said. "Whether you like him or don’t like him, things happen, but he knew nothing about it … We can leave it at that. You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that."

ABC reporter Mary Bruce had told bin Salman that U.S. intelligence determined he’d signed off on the killing and that 9/11 families were "furious" about his presence in the White House. "Why should Americans trust you?"

"It’s been painful for us in Saudi Arabia," bin Salman said of the killing, calling it "a huge mistake." "We’ve improved our system to be sure that nothing happens like that again," he added.

TRUMP DESIGNATES SAUDI ARABIA AS MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY DURING CROWN PRINCE WHITE HOUSE VISIT

A 2021 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated: "We assess that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey, to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi." Bin Salman has repeatedly denied approving the killing, though he said in 2019, "It happened under my watch, I take full responsibility as a leader."

The question of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks remains one of the most sensitive and unresolved issues in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. While 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, the U.S. government has never concluded that the Saudi state or senior Saudi officials had prior knowledge of or directed the attacks.

Families of 9/11 victims condemned bin Salman after he invoked Osama bin Laden during his White House remarks, saying the al-Qaeda leader used Saudi nationals to drive a wedge between Washington and Riyadh.

"We have to focus on reality," the crown prince said. "Reality is that Osama bin Laden used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose: to destroy the American–Saudi relationship. That’s the purpose of 9/11."

"The Saudi crown prince invoking Osama bin Laden this afternoon in the White House does not change the fact that a federal judge in New York ruled a few short months ago that Saudi Arabia must stand trial for its role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks that murdered 3,000 of our loved ones," said Brett Eagleson, president of 9/11 Justice, a group representing victims’ families.

In August 2025, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels issued a landmark ruling bringing Saudi Arabia under U.S. federal jurisdiction for a 9/11 trial. The court found evidence of a network of Saudi officials inside the U.S. who allegedly provided logistical support to the hijackers, citing "prior planning" and "constant coordination." Among the materials described in the ruling was a drawing seized from a Saudi government operative showing an airplane with flight-path equations — evidence prosecutors said suggested advance knowledge of the attacks.

Saudi Arabia has denied any role, calling the allegations "categorically false." 

But for bin Salman, who came to Washington seeking to highlight new security and economic ties, the families’ sharp rebuke was a reminder that the 9/11 case still looms large in the public eye, even as the Trump administration deepens its partnership with Riyadh.