Pete McCloskey, GOP congressman who once challenged Nixon, dies at 96

Pete McCloskey — a pro-environment, anti-war California Republican who co-wrote the Endangered Species Act and co-founded Earth Day — has died. He was 96.

A fourth-generation Republican "in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt," he often said, McCloskey represented the 12th Congressional District for 15 years, running for president against the incumbent Richard Nixon in 1972. He battled party leaders while serving seven terms in Congress and went on to publicly disavow the GOP in his later years.

ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY, AUGUST 8, 1974, PRESIDENT NIXON ANNOUNCES HIS RESIGNATION

He died at home Wednesday, according to Lee Houskeeper, a family friend.

Years after leaving Washington, McCloskey made one last bid for elective office in 2006 when he challenged Richard Pombo of Northern California’s 11th District in a primary race that McCloskey described as "a battle for the soul of the Republican Party." After losing to Pombo, who had spent most of his tenure in Washington attempting to undo the Endangered Species Act, he threw his support behind Democrat Jerry McNerney, the eventual winner.

"It was foolish to run against him (Pombo), but we didn't have anybody else to do it, and I could not stand what a------ they'd become," the frank-talking former Marine colonel said of the modern GOP in a 2008 interview with The Associated Press.

McCloskey cited disillusionment from influence peddling and ethics scandals under the George W. Bush administration as reasons why he switched parties in 2007 at the age of 79. "A pox on them and their values," he wrote in an open letter explaining the switch to his supporters.

"McCloskey was a rarity in American politics — his actions were guided by his sense of justice, not by political ideology," Joe Cotchett, his law partner since 2004, said in a statement. "He hated inequity and did not hesitate to take on members of his own political party."

Born in Loma Linda, California, on Sept. 29, 1927, as Paul Norton McCloskey Jr., he graduated from South Pasadena High School, where the second baseman made the school's baseball hall of fame, although he self-deprecatingly called himself "perhaps the worst player on the baseball team."

McCloskey joined the Marine Corps as an officer and led a rifle platoon during some of the most intense fighting of the Korean War. He was awarded the Navy Cross for extraordinary heroism, the nation’s second-highest honor, a Silver Star for bravery in combat and two Purple Hearts.

He earned a law degree from Stanford University and founded an environmental law firm in Palo Alto before making the move to public office. In 1967, he defeated fellow Republican Shirley Temple Black and Democrat Roy Archibald in a special election for the San Mateo County congressional seat.

The left-leaning McCloskey had a thundering presence in Washington, attempting to get onto the floor of the 1972 Republican National Convention during his bid to unseat then-President Nixon on an anti-Vietnam War platform. He ultimately was blocked by a rule written by his friend and law school debate partner, John Ehrlichman, that said a candidate could not get to the floor with fewer than 25 delegates. McCloskey had one.

Still, McCloskey loved to say he finished second.

He would later visit Ehrlichman in prison, where Nixon's former counsel served 1.5 years for conspiracy, perjury and obstruction of justice in the Watergate break-in that led to the president's resignation.

While in office, McCloskey also was known for befriending Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and criticized Israeli influence on American politics. The congressman was the first to demand Nixon's impeachment, and the first to demand a repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that allowed the Vietnam War.

But his enduring legacy is the Endangered Species Act, which protects species designated as endangered or threatened and conserves the ecosystems on which they depend. McCloskey co-wrote the legislation in 1973, after a campaign by young people empowered by Earth Day activities successfully unseated seven of 12 Congress members known as "The Dirty Dozen" for their anti-environment votes.

"On that day, the world changed," McCloskey recalled in 2008. "Suddenly, everybody was an environmentalist. My Republican colleagues started asking me for copies of old speeches I had given on water and air quality."

"A powerful champion of endangered species, Pete, ironically, became one," said Denis Hayes, co-organizer of the Earth Day, about the rarity of a "green, anti-war Republican."

After 15 years in the House, he lost his run for a Senate seat to Republican Pete Wilson, who went on to be California's governor. He moved back to rural Yolo County, relishing the life of a farmer and part-time attorney.

"You know, if people call you 'congressman' all the time, you'll end up thinking you're smarter than you are," he said.

McCloskey, however, couldn't stay quiet forever.

In 2006, after his unsuccessful race against Pombo, he helped form the Revolt of the Elders Coalition, a group of retired Republican congressmen who pushed to get soldiers more money for college, undo measures that made it tougher to investigate ethics violations and rallied against those who had received funding from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, including Pombo.

"If you can do something at age 80 that positively affects our country, you should be proud of it. Otherwise there's no redeeming value in getting older," he said.

McCloskey is survived by his wife, Helen — his longtime press secretary whom he married in 1978 — and four children by his first wife: Nancy, Peter, John and Kathleen.

House Dems seeking re-election seemingly reverse course, call on Biden to ‘bring order to the southern border’

Five vulnerable Democrats who voted against measures to strengthen border security in the past have seemingly changed their tune as they seek re-election to their posts in the lower chamber.

Following President Biden's signing of a $95 billion package with aid to both Ukraine and Israel last week, five Democrats – Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Mary Peltola of Alaska, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina – released a joint statement agreeing with calls for Congress and the president to "act and bring order to the southern border."

"Beyond defending our allies, we strongly agree with the National Border Patrol Council that Congress and the President must act and bring order to the Southern border," the lawmakers stated. "That is why we also voted for H.R. 3602 on Saturday, and why we all voted last month for $19.6 billion for Border Patrol so that it could ramp up its efforts to secure the border."

The comments from the five Democrats – three of whom (Golden, GluesenKamp, and Davis) are engaged in tough re-election battles that have been labeled "toss up" races by the Cook Political Report, and another two (Peltola and Gonzalez) competing in races labeled "lean Democrat" – came after each one of them voted against the Secure the Border Act of 2023.

VULNERABLE HOUSE DEMS DO A U-TURN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AFTER CALLING CRISIS 'NON-EXISTENT THREAT'

That bill, which passed in the House, would have expanded the type of crimes that make someone ineligible for asylum, limited the eligibility to those who arrive at ports of entry, mandated a system similar to the E-Verify employment eligibility verification system, and created additional penalties for visa overstay.

In addition to not supporting the Secure the Border Act, the same five Democrats voted on two different occasions against GOP-led efforts to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whom many Republicans have argued is largely responsible for the migrant crisis at the southern border.

Certain Democrats, like Gluesenkamp Perez, who was first elected to Congress in 2022 and co-chairs the Blue Dog Coalition with Golden and Peltola, have made dismissive comments about the border crisis in recent years.

The Washington lawmaker previously faced criticism from Republicans over border-related comments she made in March 2023 during an appearance on Pod Save America, which came prior to the ending of the Title 42 public health order.

"Listen, nobody stays awake at night worrying about the southern border," she said at the time. "That's just not… people stay awake at night worrying that their kid is gonna relapse or that, you know, someone's going to drop out of school or they're going to lose their house."

Gluesenkamp Perez was also one of many Democrats who defended Mayorkas amid calls for his impeachment earlier this year, saying it was "frustrating to see" Republicans push for his ouster because "he doesn't set policy, he implements it."

Despite her past remarks, Gluesenkamp Perez has been critical of Biden's handling of the border crisis in recent months, saying in April that she voted in support of H.R. 3602, which provides for criminal penalties for certain conduct that interferes with U.S. border control measures, because "President Biden has failed to end the crisis at our Southern Border."

"Every country has an obligation to protect its citizens and secure its sovereign borders, and H.R. 3602 focuses on the urgent need to restore operational control of the Southern Border. Unlike the unworkable and un-American immigration proposals pushed by far-right extremists, this bipartisan bill doesn’t create burdensome government mandates that would harm small businesses, agricultural employers, rural communities, and our economy," she said at the time.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a member of the congresswoman's press team insisted that she has "called on the [Biden] Administration her entire time in office to fix the crisis at our Southern Border, and for Congress to do its job to pass meaningful border security legislation."

BIDEN ADMIN CONDEMNED FOR CONSIDERING PLANS TO ACCEPT PALESTINIAN REFUGEES: ‘A NATION COMMITTING SUICIDE’

The spokesperson also touted the Washington lawmaker's introduction of the "Defending Borders, Defending Democracies Act to restore operational control at the Southern Border by restoring expulsion authority for Border Patrol and requiring the President to reinstate Remain in Mexico," as well as her support for the End Fentanyl Act.

"Marie continues to urge Congress to get back to work to address the real crisis at our border and end the petty gamesmanship," the spokesperson said.

Gonzalez is another Democrat who made dismissive remarks prior to the expiration of Title 42, which provided the ability for American officials to bar migrants from entering the country during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a July 2023 stop in Edinburgh, Texas, Gonzalez reportedly shot down questions and concern over whether Biden was doing enough to secure the southern border amid an overwhelming influx of illegal immigrants.

"We have seen major improvements along the border.… If you go to the border now, in our region, it’s pretty unremarkable what you see," Gonzalez said, according to the Rio Grande Guardian. "When they lifted Title 42 and implemented Title 7, which I advocated against… I’ll be the first to admit that I was wrong. What the president did, what Secretary Mayorkas has done, has positively impacted our border and that’s a fact."

"People could point fingers and say things, but the reality is, undocumented crossings are down by 70%," he added at the time.

A little more than a week after Gonzalez gave those remarks, the Texas Tribune reported that Border Patrol agents "made more than 130,000 arrests along the Mexico border [in July 2023], preliminary figures show, up from 99,545 in June."

Gonzalez is one of 154 Democrats who voted this January against the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, which would have created hefty federal penalties for illegal migrants who evade U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers during motor vehicle pursuits. The measure was named after a Border Patrol officer who died in a vehicle crash in Texas last year during a pursuit.

Along with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez, Gonzalez was one of 201 Democrats who voted in July 2023 against the Schools Not Shelters Act, which would have prohibited "the use of the facilities of a public elementary school, a public secondary school, or an institution of higher education to provide shelter for aliens who have not been admitted into the United States, and for other purposes."

Peltola joined 218 Republicans in voting in favor of that measure at the time, while Davis did not vote.

"I remain dedicated to addressing the border crisis. However, we must not inflict harm on American agriculture in the process," Davis said in a statement to Fox. "Initially, I had concerns about the e-verify provision in HR-2, but it was removed, allowing me to fully lend my support, along with just four other Democrats, to H.R. 3602, the Bipartisan End the Border Catastrophe Act."

Asked whether he believes Biden is responsible for the border crisis, Davis said his "votes speak for themselves."

CBP records show the first six months of fiscal year 2024 had 1,340,801 total encounters, exceeding the first six months of fiscal year 2023, which set a record of 1,226,254 total encounters.

DHS docs reveal where paroled migrants under controversial Biden flight program are landing

EXCLUSIVE: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data is revealing the more than 45 cities in the U.S. that hundreds of thousands of migrants have flown into via a controversial parole program for four nationalities — with the vast majority entering the U.S. via airports in Florida.

During an eight-month period from January through August 2023, roughly 200,000 migrants flew into the U.S. via the program. Of those, 80% of them, (161,562) arrived in the state of Florida in four cities: Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando and Tampa Bay, according to DHS data obtained via a subpoena by the House Homeland Security Committee and provided to Fox News.

The policy was first announced for Venezuelans in October 2022, which allowed a limited number to fly or travel directly into the U.S. as long as they had not entered illegally, had a sponsor in the U.S. already, and passed certain biometric and biographical vetting. The program does not itself facilitate flights, and migrants are responsible for their own travel.

‘ILLEGAL PROGRAM': GOVERNOR VOWS TO FIGHT BIDEN FLYING MIGRANTS INTO US

In January 2023, the administration announced that the program was expanding to include Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans and that the program would allow up to 30,000 people per month into the U.S. It allows for migrants to receive work permits and a two-year authorization to live in the U.S. and was announced alongside an expansion of Title 42 expulsions to include those nationalities. By the end of February 2024, more than 400,000 nationals have arrived under the parole program, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas recently said the program is a "safe and orderly way to reach the United States" and has "led to a reduction in numbers of those nationalities."

"It is a key element of our efforts to address the unprecedented level of migration throughout our hemisphere, and other countries around the world see it as a model to tackle the challenge of increased irregular migration that they too are experiencing," Mayorkas said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

The top 15 cities migrants flew into during the eight-month window are:

1) Miami, Florida: 91,821

2) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida: 60,461

3) New York City, New York: 14,827

4) Houston, Texas: 7,923

5) Orlando, Florida: 6,043

6) Los Angeles, California: 3,271

7) Tampa, Florida: 3,237

8) Dallas, Texas: 2,256

9) San Francisco, California: 2,052

10) Atlanta, Georgia: 1,796

11) Newark, New Jersey: 1,498

12) Washington, D.C.: 1,472

13) Chicago, Illinois: 496

14) Las Vegas, Nevada: 483

15) Austin, Texas: 171

DHS also revealed in the subpoena response that as of October 2023, there were about 1.6 million applicants waiting for DHS approval to fly to the U.S. via the parole program.

DHS said in its subpoena response, "All individuals paroled into the United States are, by definition, inadmissible, including those paroled under the CHNV processes."

Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green, argues that the program exceeds parole powers put in place by Congress. The authority is to be used on a "case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit."

MAYORKAS CALLS POLICY TO LET 30K MIGRANTS FLY IN EACH MONTH A ‘KEY ELEMENT’ OF BORDER AFTER LEGAL WIN

"These documents expose the egregious lengths Secretary Mayorkas will go to ensure inadmissible aliens reach every corner of the country, from Orlando and Atlanta to Las Vegas and San Francisco," he said in a statement. "Secretary Mayorkas’ CHNV parole program is an unlawful sleight of hand used to hide the worsening border crisis from the American people. Implementing a program that allows otherwise inadmissible aliens to fly directly into the U.S. — not for significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons as the Immigration and Nationality Act mandates — has been proven an impeachable offense." 

He then made reference to the House's efforts to impeach Mayorkas. The chamber impeached him, but the Senate has not held a trial on the articles.

"Following our subpoena and the House’s impeachment vote — especially in light of the Senate's complete failure to fulfill its duty to hold a trial — the Committee will not rest until this administration is finally held accountable for its open-borders agenda and its devastating impact on our homeland security," he said.

Green's arguments against the program have been echoed in a lawsuit by multiple states, who have sued to block the program. The 20 states argued that it "amounts to the creation of a new visa program that allows hundreds of thousands of aliens to enter the United States who otherwise have no basis for doing so."

The lawsuit was struck down by a district judge, but states have appealed. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration has repeatedly said it is confident the lawsuit will ultimately be successful.

"Biden's parole program is unlawful, and constitutes an abuse of constitutional authority. Florida is currently suing Biden to shut it down, and we believe that we will prevail," press secretary Jeremy Redfern told Fox News. 

DHS has said that those who enter the U.S. under the program undergo and clear a "robust security vetting" as well as other eligibility criteria. 

"These processes are publicly available online, and DHS has been providing regular updates on their use to the public. These processes are part of the administration’s strategy to combine expanded lawful pathways with stronger consequences to reduce irregular migration, and have kept hundreds of thousands of people from migrating irregularly," a spokesperson told Fox News Digital this month.

SCOTUS weighs monumental constitutional fight over Trump immunity claim

The Supreme Court waded cautiously Thursday in a landmark area of law it has never before encountered: whether former presidents have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution, stemming from the special counsel's federal election interference case.

In a special courtroom session lasting more than two and a half hours, the justices appeared to be looking for middle ground that might see at least some of Trump's sweeping claims dismissed, while still allowing future presidents to be criminally exempt from clearly official executive functions — like their role as commander in chief.

The official question the justices are confronting: "Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY AT ODDS OVER EMERGENCY ROOM ABORTION ACCESS IN STATES' RIGHTS CHALLENGE

In riveting arguments, a partisan divide developed early on the nine-member bench, as it weighed whether and when executive official duties versus private conduct in office could be subject to prosecution.

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents.

"If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?" asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential full penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country."        

Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh summed up the stakes, however the court rules: "This will have huge implications for the presidency."

Trump was not in attendance at the argument but talked about the stakes when greeting supporters at a New York construction site.

"A president has to have immunity," he said Thursday morning. "If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president, you won't have a president."

The underlying factor is time — whether the court's expedited ruling, expected in May or June, would allow any criminal trial to get underway before the November presidential election. Depending on the outcome, jury selection could begin by late summer or early fall, or the case could be delayed indefinitely or dismissed altogether. 

SUPREME COURT SHARPLY DIVIDED OVER ENFORCING MUNICIPAL HOMELESS CAMPING BAN

The stakes could not be higher, for both the immediate political prospects and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. 

As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his broad constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority — with three of its members having been appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election results, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Smith and several of his deputies attended the arguments. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW WHETHER TRUMP IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE

The lengthy courtroom arguments raised a series of hypotheticals to explore the "outer perimeter" of criminal executive liability.

Several justices wondered whether a president could someday be prosecuted for ordering the assassination by his military of a political rival; ordering a nuclear weapons strike; or demanding a bribe for a political appointment.

"If you expunge the official part from the indictment, that's like a one-legged stool, right?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, suggesting official executive acts could be separated from partisan, unofficial acts. "I mean, giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange. And if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador of a particular country, that is official: the appointment that's within the president's prerogatives. The unofficial part: I'm going to get $1,000,000 for it."

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the president could stage a coup to remain in office. When John Sauer, Trump's attorney, hedged on an answer, Kagan replied, "That answer sounds to me as though, under my test, it's an official act," subject to post-office prosecution. "But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?"

She added there was no immunity clause in the Constitution for a good reason. "Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?"

Michael Dreeben, attorney for the Special Counsel’s office, defended the government’s position.

"It's baked into the Constitution that any president knows that they are exposed to potential criminal prosecution," he said. "It's common ground that all former presidents have known that they could be indicted and convicted. And Watergate cemented that understanding."

Sauer suggested only an impeachment and conviction in the Senate could lead to future criminal prosecution of an ex-president.

"There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench," said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, pointing to her colleagues, "and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment. So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn't say so?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the specific allegations facing Trump and other potential criminal liability, which no jury has yet considered. "I'm having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe and a countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that."

TRUMP WARNS THAT IF HE LOSES PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, SO WILL 'CROOKED' JOE BIDEN

But Kavanaugh, who served as President George W. Bush's staff secretary, a key White House legal adviser on executive power, offered larger concerns.

"I'm not focused on the here and now of this case. I'm very concerned about the future," he said.

"We're writing a rule for the ages," added Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: another federal case over his handling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York case over alleged fraud involving hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York state case began April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Again, depending on how the court rules, proceedings may not get underway until later this summer, early fall, or perhaps much later.

The wildest of wildcards: Trump wins re-election and then, upon taking office, orders his attorney general to dismiss the special counsel and his cases. Some justices wondered if Trump — if re-elected — could execute a self-pardon for all past and future crimes.

But the practical fact is that Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited, so a ruling could come sooner. 

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" — meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume. 

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial. 

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean his election interference prosecution collapses and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases.

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court — an indefinite delay in any trial, that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.  

The case is Trump v. U.S. (23-939).

Shelter dogs would provide therapy for distressed border agents under new bipartisan push

Stray dogs living in shelters could be given a shot at a new life providing comfort to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers under a new bipartisan proposal.

Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, introduced a bill this week to establish a pilot program allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to adopt the animals from local shelters and train them to be therapy dogs for Border Patrol personnel. 

It would build on the existing Canine Support Program established by CBP early last year in the face of mounting concerns about agents' mental health as they deal with the ongoing border crisis.

"These men and women work long hours year-round and face enormous challenges head-on," Gonzales said in a press release. "By improving access to canine therapy support, this legislation will give our law enforcement one more tool to improve mental health outcomes at CBP."

‘SIGNIFICANT THREAT’ ICE TRACKS DOWN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CHARGED WITH CHILD SEX CRIME 

Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., one of the bill's original co-sponsors, said the existing program "has shown promise to increase staff morale and allow them to better deliver on their promise to keep our homeland safe."

"This is a strong step in the right direction – not just for those serving, but the communities they serve, too," he said.

In addition to aiding border agents, the proposal could also potentially have a positive effect on the country's animal shelters, which have struggled with overcrowding in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and as a growing number of Americans struggle to make ends meet for themselves, let alone their pets.

"By facilitating the adoption of therapy dogs from local shelters, we're not only providing essential emotional support for our CBP workforce but also offering a loving home to shelter dogs," said Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., another of the bill's co-sponsors.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS

Concerns about the mental health of Border Patrol officers reached the national stage amid an alarming spike in the number of suicides the department has seen in recent years.

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, another of the bill's co-sponsors, spoke with Fox News Digital about the issue during a congressional delegation trip to the McAllen, Texas, sector of the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year.

"Every time I come down here, it gets worse; the lack of detention space, the human tragedy you see here; what the Border Patrol has to deal with every day, day in and day out, looking at these migrants that are pouring in; this sense of hopelessness, that it won't stop," the Texas Republican said in January.

"Profoundly, I worry about the mental health of our Border Patrol. The suicide rate is going up. They don't have the proper resources."

BORDER PATROL CHIEF SUGGESTS ‘JAIL TIME,’ TOUGHER ‘CONSEQUENCES’ TO STOP ILLEGAL US-MEXICO BORDER CROSSINGS

Seventeen CBP agents died by suicide in 2022 alone, Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, told Congress in March 2023. That’s the highest number since CBP began tracking it in 2007. There were 19,357 CPB agents on the job in 2022.

Since then, the number of illegal border crossings has continued to climb to new highs, while CBP agents are struggling with replenishing a dwindling workforce. 

Trump attorney, Supreme Court justice clash on whether a president who ‘ordered’ a ‘coup’ could be prosecuted

An attorney for former President Donald Trump in the presidential immunity hearing clashed with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan over a hypothetical question on whether a president who "ordered" a "coup" could be prosecuted. 

"If it's an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand," Trump's attorney John Sauer argued Thursday before the Supreme Court, which is being broadcast publicly via audio only. 

Sauer's statement was in response to Justice Elena Kagan's hypothetical question, asking if a president who is no longer in office directing the military to stage a coup would constitute an "official act."

"He's no longer president. He wasn't impeached. He couldn't be impeached. But he ordered the military to stage a coup. And you're saying that's an official act?," Kagan asked.

LIVE UPDATES: TRUMP NY TRIAL TESTIMONY RESUMES AS SUPREME COURT HEARS IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

"I think it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act. If it were an official act, again, he would have to be impeached," Sauer responded. 

"What does that mean? Depend on the circumstances? He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals, 'I don't feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.' Is that immune [from prosecution]?" Kagan pressed.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY CASE

Sauer responded it would "depend on the circumstances of whether there was an official act" if the hypothetical president would be immune from prosecution. 

"That answer sounds to me as though it's like, 'Yeah, under my test it's an official act.' But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?" Kagan said.

TRUMP SAYS NY JUDGE MERCHAN 'THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT' AFTER BARRING HIM FROM IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

"That's why the framers have a whole series of structural checks that have successfully, for the last 234 years, prevented that very kind of extreme hypothetical. And that is the wisdom of the framers. What they viewed as the risk that needed to be guarded against was not the notion that the president might escape, you know, a criminal prosecution for something, you know, sort of very, very unlikely in these unlikely scenarios," Sauer responded.

"The framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how there were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president. And, you know, not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law," Kagan said. 

The back and forth came as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case. Smith’s case is currently on pause until the Supreme Court issues a ruling. The case charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. The case stems from Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of Trump breached the U.S. Capitol. 

TRUMP SLAMS 'BIDENOMICS' AHEAD OF COURT, CLAIMS TO HAVE A 'GOOD CHANCE' OF WINNING LIBERAL STATE

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August, and called on the Supreme Court to weigh whether a former president can be prosecuted for "official acts," as the Trump legal team argues. 

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a resolution on whether Trump is immune from prosecution by mid-June. 

Trump is also part of an ongoing trial in New York City where he is accused of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to each charge. The trial prevented Trump from attending the Supreme Court hearing Thursday. 

BIDEN INSISTS RED STATE WON TWICE BY TRUMP IS SUDDENLY 'IN PLAY'

The NY v. Trump case focuses on Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen paying former pornographic actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to allegedly quiet her claims of an alleged extramarital affair she had with the then-real estate tycoon in 2006. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Prosecutors allege that the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen, and fraudulently logged the payments as legal expenses. Prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which is a felony.  Prosecutors this week said the second crime was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

The anti-Trump movement’s secret Zoom calls give their target ammo

At first glance, it might seem like inside baseball.

A bunch of former prosecutors and cable pundits talking to each other about how much they don’t like Donald Trump and how he’s in deep legal trouble? Doesn’t that happen every day in green rooms and the corner bar?

But this, as disclosed by Politico, is different. These are some of the most prominent commentators in the media universe, and they appear to be consulting/coordinating/conspiring about their main target.

DAVID PECKER CALMLY LINKS TRUMP, MICHAEL COHEN TO SUPPRESSING STORIES, PUSHING FAKE NEWS

Even if that’s not the case, it looks awful.

It plays into the hands of conservatives who back Trump that the media are part of the resistance, determined to bring him down at all costs.

They can now say that it is a cabal, confirming all their darkest suspicions about the press determined to bring him down.

Every Friday, these media hotshots join in a secret, off-the-record Zoom call.

In a high-road description, the piece says the goal is to "intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system." But a beat later it says, "most are united by their dislike of Trump."

The origins of the group are telling, beginning during the Jan. 6 hearings, when committee staffers began briefing legal commentators on their work. I can think of classified military matters that haven’t remained secret as long.

TRUMP BLASTS JUDGE AFTER BARRING HIM FROM ATTENDING IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS

Who’s doing the zooming? Norman Eisen, an Obama administration official who worked with House Democrats on Trump’s first impeachment and is a CNN legal analyst, is the founder. 

He’s joined by Bill Kristol, a leader of the anti-Trump conservatives; longtime Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe; Watergate figure John Dean; and George Conway, ex-husband of Kellyanne, co-founder of the Lincoln Project and a fixture on MSNBC. 

AT A TURNING POINT? COLUMBIA ARRESTS AND ANTI-JEWISH HARASSMENT SHUT DOWN CAMPUS

That’s just the beginning. There is MSNBC analyst Andrew Weissman, who investigated the fruitless Russian collusion accusations against Trump as a prosecutor for Bob Mueller; why would anyone doubt his objectivity?

There are CNN legal analysts Jeffrey Toobin, Elliott Williams and Karen Agnifilo, along with L.A. Times columnist Harry Litman. And there’s Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who co-hosts an MSNBC podcast. 

Sometimes there are guests, which is also revealing. After Trump was held liable in E. Jean Carroll’s first defamation and sexual assault suit, her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, addressed the group. And, says Politico, former conservative judge J. Michael Luttig, who spearheaded a campaign to kick Trump off state ballots under the 14th Amendment, was another guest. The Supreme Court rejected the anti-democratic move.

Despite efforts to rationalize this as a meeting-of-great-minds exercise, I’m not buying it. Even Politico concedes the calls could "breed groupthink" – what a shocking thought.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

And cable news drives plenty of other coverage, particularly when certain themes are constantly pounded.

All these folks are smart enough to think for themselves. Which makes it surprising that they lack the common sense to see how troubling the Zooming looks.

Johnson faces uphill climb to win back GOP rebels before November; here’s what they want

Conservative critics of Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership are warning that he has an uphill climb to winning back their support in time for House Republicans’ leadership elections at the end of this year.

"He's gonna have a tough time based on past history, because I would submit he's failed on just about everything other than initiating [the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas] impeachment effort," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good, R-Va., told Fox News Digital.

Johnson was elected speaker in October in a strongly unanimous House GOP vote, with Republicans hungry for unity after three weeks of turmoil following ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s ouster.

The Louisiana Republican now finds himself in a similar situation to his predecessor, with a small but vocal group of lawmakers on his right flank calling for his immediate removal, through a process known as motion to vacate, for working along bipartisan lines on critical legislation. The push is being made by Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.; Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.

TENSIONS ERUPT ON HOUSE FLOOR AS CONSERVATIVES CONFRONT JOHNSON ON $95B FOREIGN AID PLAN

The vast majority of House Republicans have refused to take up that fight again, but Republicans angry over what they see as Johnson’s failure to deliver on conservative priorities like border security and cutting federal spending signal he has miles of ground to recover before they back him a second time.

"Whoever wants to be in any leadership position for the Republican House of Representatives should we be blessed to be given the majority again, which is going to take a c--- ton of hard work between now and November, is going to have to demonstrate not only the policy direction they want to, but the track record and willingness to stand up and fight for it. And, so far, we have not delivered what we need to deliver," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas.

'DEFINITION OF INSANITY': FRUSTRATED HOUSE REPUBLICANS BLAST GOP REBELS' THREAT TO OUST JOHNSON

Good was one of eight House Republicans who voted with Democrats to oust McCarthy last year. He distanced himself from calls to immediately remove Johnson last week, citing the much slimmer House majority Johnson is operating with. But Good suggested he wanted to see new leadership races in November after the election.

He told Fox News Digital Monday his support for Johnson would hinge on his handling of fiscal year 2025 appropriations, the deadline for which is Sept. 30.

"He could truly fight for Republican policy initiatives. He could truly fight to cut our spending. He could fight to ensure that we do not fund the government unless it reflects Republican priorities," Good said. "He has sort of one more big crack at the bat. I hope he'll take that opportunity."

Johnson and Congressional appropriators are headed into that fight with their hands relatively tied by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the deal to raise the debt limit struck by McCarthy and President Biden last year, which also set certain terms on shaping fiscal year 2025 funding priorities.

A spokesperson for Johnson told Fox News Digital, "Speaker Johnson is committed to governing – not his political ambitions. He will continue to advance conservative priorities and demonstrate how we’ll grow our majority in November."

Party leadership races are normally held behind closed doors in the weeks after an election. If Republicans keep the House, Johnson would traditionally only need a majority vote there to then prevail as speaker on the House floor, with fellow Republicans expected to get in line even if they didn’t support him initially.

But the 15 rounds McCarthy went through last year, repeatedly blocked by GOP dissent, show that Johnson may need to guarantee unanimous support behind closed doors even if he manages to keep Republicans in power.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS BLAST 'CRY WOLF' CONSERVATIVES WHO TANKED FISA RENEWAL BILL

"Moving forward, I would ask Mike Johnson if being speaker is something he wants to continue. If he is, I would have an all inclusive list of issues where he would agree/not agree to actually make happen as speaker BEFORE I would commit," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said via text message.

Norman and Good were two of the original McCarthy holdouts

"Based on his past performance, I doubt he would agree to take the hard negotiation stance that I would need to see. However, due to my respect that I have for Mike as a person, I would start with the questions as listed," Norman said.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who voted to oust McCarthy in October, said he was "open to discussion" about supporting Johnson, but he needed to see "a clear plan for fiscal responsibility" and border security.

Roy, however, was less optimistic House Republicans would see wins in the end-of-year spending fight. 

"There will not be, in my opinion, under this leadership, and in this environment, at this time, the ability to move or ration bills before Election Day that are going to drive the policy that needs to be driven," the Texas Republican said.

Johnson's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Congress won’t pass border security legislation this year, Johnson’s office suggests

The House GOP’s push to pass border security reform in the 118th Congress could end up an unrealized dream.

A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., pointed out to Fox News Digital that House Republicans have passed multiple border security and immigration enforcement bills – none of which have been taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The Johnson spokesperson indicated that with Republicans and Democrats still far apart on the issue, House GOP leaders are relying on former President Trump to take back the White House next year for any meaningful border policy changes to take place.

GOP PREPS ATTACKS ON VULNERABLE DEM SENATORS OVER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DISMISSAL

"House Republicans have passed multiple border security bills – including our signature Secure the Border Act, Laken Riley Act, and Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act – which have been ignored by the Democrat Senate and proves their unseriousness when it comes to dealing with the border catastrophe," Johnson’s office said. "Democrats have only proposed measures for political cover that won’t fix the problem, and Republicans are not going to let the White House accept anything less than transformative change."

"House Republicans understand that the only way to truly solve the problem is to elect President Trump in November."

REPUBLICANS PREDICT DEMS TO PAY 'HEAVY PRICE' IN ELECTION AFTER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT BID FAILS

Fox News Digital had reached out to Johnson’s office two days after the speaker convened a rare Saturday session to pass his $95 billion foreign aid proposal. 

While the wide bipartisan margin demonstrated a victory for Johnson in his still relatively new leadership role, GOP rebels who have been increasingly critical of Johnson for crossing the aisle on key legislation were furious that he passed roughly $61 billion in Ukraine aid without trying to force through border security measures.

"The only path forward for substantive border legislation was to leverage the Biden regime's push for more Ukraine aid," Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote on X last week.

Johnson has also maintained for months that President Biden himself has the unilateral ability to stop the border crisis through executive action – something the White House has pushed back on, arguing a permanent fix has to come from Congress.

The statement from Johnson's office Tuesday came after Fox News Digital asked if he had spoken with Biden recently about the possibility of executive action on the border, or whether House Republicans could be looking at using the next big legislative fight – fiscal year 2025 government funding – as an area to jam the Senate on border security.

An earlier attempt to pass foreign aid alongside a bipartisan border security deal failed when Republicans in both the Senate and House argued the border measures included would have only codified the Biden administration’s existing bad policies.

‘CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY’ OF SENATE DEMS QUASHING MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL QUESTIONED BY EXPERTS

Democrats, however, refused Republicans’ urging to take up their Secure the Border Act, calling its Trump administration-era immigration provisions a non-starter.

Meanwhile, a House GOP aide familiar with the House Homeland Security Committee’s work said the panel was conducting multiple investigations into the Biden administration’s handling of the border, but would not discuss any pending legislation that House GOP leaders could have potentially held up as a new push for reform.

The House GOP aide said Republicans were committed "to respond[ing] to this crisis and [making] sure people know [they] take this issue very seriously."

Senate won’t pass border security legislation this year, Johnson’s office suggests

The House GOP’s push to pass border security reform through the divided 118th Congress could end up an unrealized dream.

A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., pointed out to Fox News Digital that House Republicans have passed multiple border security and immigration enforcement bills – none of which have been taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The Johnson spokesperson indicated that with Republicans and Democrats still far apart on the issue, House GOP leaders are relying on former President Trump to take back the White House next year for any meaningful border policy changes to take place.

GOP PREPS ATTACKS ON VULNERABLE DEM SENATORS OVER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DISMISSAL

"House Republicans have passed multiple border security bills – including our signature Secure the Border Act, Laken Riley Act, and Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act – which have been ignored by the Democrat Senate and proves their unseriousness when it comes to dealing with the border catastrophe," Johnson’s office said. "Democrats have only proposed measures for political cover that won’t fix the problem, and Republicans are not going to let the White House accept anything less than transformative change."

"House Republicans understand that the only way to truly solve the problem is to elect President Trump in November."

REPUBLICANS PREDICT DEMS TO PAY 'HEAVY PRICE' IN ELECTION AFTER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT BID FAILS

Fox News Digital had reached out to Johnson’s office two days after the speaker convened a rare Saturday session to pass his $95 billion foreign aid proposal. 

While the wide bipartisan margin demonstrated a victory for Johnson in his still relatively new leadership role, GOP rebels who have been increasingly critical of Johnson for crossing the aisle on key legislation were furious that he passed roughly $61 billion in Ukraine aid without trying to force through border security measures.

"The only path forward for substantive border legislation was to leverage the Biden regime's push for more Ukraine aid," Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote on X last week.

Johnson has also maintained for months that President Biden himself has the unilateral ability to stop the border crisis through executive action – something the White House has pushed back on, arguing a permanent fix has to come from Congress.

The statement from Johnson's office Tuesday came after Fox News Digital asked if he had spoken with Biden recently about the possibility of executive action on the border, or whether House Republicans could be looking at using the next big legislative fight – fiscal year 2025 government funding – as an area to jam the Senate on border security.

An earlier attempt to pass foreign aid alongside a bipartisan border security deal failed when Republicans in both the Senate and House argued the border measures included would have only codified the Biden administration’s existing bad policies.

‘CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY’ OF SENATE DEMS QUASHING MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL QUESTIONED BY EXPERTS

Democrats, however, refused Republicans’ urging to take up their Secure the Border Act, calling its Trump administration-era immigration provisions a non-starter.

Meanwhile, a House GOP aide familiar with the House Homeland Security Committee’s work said the panel was conducting multiple investigations into the Biden administration’s handling of the border, but would not discuss any pending legislation that House GOP leaders could have potentially held up as a new push for reform.

The House GOP aide said Republicans were committed "to respond[ing] to this crisis and [making] sure people know [they] take this issue very seriously."

Fox News Digital reached out to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's office for comment.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article’s headline has been updated to more clearly reflect that Johnson’s office was referring to the Senate.