Dems divided on Trump’s executive order aimed at slashing drug prices

President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at slashing U.S. drug prices has divided Democrats on Capitol Hill, with some cautiously optimistic while others dismissed the move as a bluster.

Most Democratic lawmakers who spoke with Fox News Digital about the order noted they had not read into the details, but the reactions were mostly split.

"It certainly seems more bark than it is bite," Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Ways & Means Committee, told Fox News Digital. 

Neal said it "strikes me as though it's another example of the executive order that garners a lot of attention" with little impact, though he noted he was still looking into the details.

ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION

Rep. George Latimer of New York, a first-term Democrat who unseated a former member of the progressive "Squad," ex-Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., signaled he was hopeful about the initiative.

"If we can keep drug costs low, that's a positive thing," Latimer said. "I don't, you know, oppose everything the president does, things that help people lower costs. If that's what this turns into, then yes, it's a worthwhile idea. But I have to be honest, I've got to read it more closely to understand it better."

Trump announced Monday that he was directing the Department of Health and Human Services to set price targets for pharmaceutical companies.

The president said the order would have pharmaceutical companies set drug prices on par with the lowest prices in other developed countries.

He said, "some prescription drug and pharmaceutical prices will be reduced almost immediately by 50 to 80 to 90%."

Democratic Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., told Fox News Digital when asked about the order, "It's always a good thing to reduce drug costs."

"I think it's a move in the right direction, let's just see the details," Correa added.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, like Neal, told Fox News Digital he was more skeptical.

"My feeling is that, like his…announcements during his first term, there's much talk and no meaningful reduction of drug prices," Doggett said. "It remains to be seen whether any patient in America will see a price reduced on a single drug as a result of this order. So, until I see action, I will not believe that he has truly committed to reducing prices."

House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., also said he did not believe Trump was "serious" when asked.

"All of this is just a disingenuous effort…on the part of House Republicans and Donald Trump, to pretend like they were looking out for people," Aguilar said. "If they were serious about it, the policy would be placed within their reconciliation bill. It's not. This is just a performance effort by the president."

BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT'S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY

Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a House bill to make Trump's order permanent.

"I rise today, to introduce as legislation, President Trump’s executive order for the most favored nation status on drug pricing," Khanna said on the House floor.

"My legislation will codify President Trump’s executive order, which basically says that Americans should not pay more for drugs than people in other countries and other parts of the world."

In an exclusive Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Trump argued that his executive order should offset Democrats' concerns with his "big, beautiful" budget reconciliation bill being pushed by Republicans.

Democrats have accused Republicans of using the bill to gut critical programs like Medicaid for millions of people who need it, while the GOP has contended it was just trying to eliminate waste and abuse within the system.

"It's the Democrats' fault that people are being ripped off for years and years. And now I hear Democrats saying, 'Oh, well, we're going to not go for the bill.' It's going to be very hard for them not to approve of the big, beautiful bill that we're doing," Trump said. "We're doing the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country because people are going to be getting a 50 to a 90% reduction on drug prices."

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for a response.

Espionage, constitutional concerns abound from Trump detractors, allies over Qatari jet offer

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized President Donald Trump after he announced the Department of Defense plans to accept a jumbo jet from the government of Qatar, arguing the gift is riddled with both espionage concerns and constitutional questions. But as one expert tells Fox, the latter concern is likely overblown.

Trump ally Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for example, said during an interview on Tuesday that the acquisition of the plane poses "significant espionage and surveillance problems," while Democrats such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., declared, "Trump cannot accept a $400 million flying palace from the royal family of Qatar. Not only is this farcically corrupt, it is blatantly unconstitutional."

Reports spread Sunday morning that the Trump administration was expected to accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar's royal family, setting off concerns that Trump would personally take ownership of the plane and violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. ABC News reported that Trump would use the jet until the end of his term, when it would be given to his presidential library. 

Trump confirmed and clarified in a Truth Social post later on Sunday that the Department of Defense was slated to receive the gift, while slamming Democrats for their criticism of the offer. 

HOUSE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR 'IMMEDIATE' ETHICS PROBE OF QATARI PLANE GIFT TO TRUMP

"So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane," Trump wrote. "Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!! MAGA."

At the heart of Democrats' concern over the matter is the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

"Trump is literally trying to fly around on a plane from a foreign government while serving as president. That’s a violation of the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause wasn’t a suggestion. It’s the LAW," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said Monday morning following the announcement. 

Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that it's questionable if the emoluments clause even applies to the president, as the Constitution typically stipulates when a clause specifically affects a president and cites the title, such as in the impeachment clause. 

"The clause was specifically inserted because of concerns by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention over corruption of our foreign diplomats, especially by the French government. It is questionable whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president since he is not named and the Constitution usually names the president when a provision applies to him. That is why the impeachment clause specifically provides that it applies to the ‘president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States.’ If ‘officers’ of the U.S. included the president, there would be no need for him to be separately listed," von Spakovsky explained. 

He added that the president is the individual "who appoints the ‘officers’ who are subject to the emoluments clause."

"Antonin Scalia, when he worked at the Justice Department, certainly agreed since he issued an opinion in 1974 pointing out that when the Constitution refers to an ‘officer,’ ‘it invariably refers to someone other than the President or Vice President,’" he continued. 

FLASHBACK: DEM CRITICAL OF TRUMP'S QATARI JET GIFT RODE CAMEL IN EXPENSES-PAID 2021 TRIP TO GULF EMIRATE

The jet offer comes after Trump railed against Boeing for pricey government deals to construct a new fleet of Air Force Ones. Even ahead of his first administration, Trump posted on social media in December 2016 that the Boeing "costs are out of control, more than $4 billion" to build the two aircraft.

Trump in 2018 awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price agreement to manufacture two new jets. The construction of the jets, however, is not expected to be completed until 2029. 

"We're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One," Trump said during a press conference on drug prices Monday morning. "You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that, compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame." 

TRUMP CLARIFIES OWNERSHIP OF AIRCRAFT IN DEFENSE OF QATAR'S GIFT

"When I first came in, I signed an order to get (the new Air Force One fleet) built," he continued. "I took it over from the Obama administration, they had originally agreed. I got the price down much lower. And then, when the election didn't exactly work out the way that it should have, a lot of work was not done on the plane because a lot of people didn't know they made change orders. That was so stupid, so ridiculous. And it ended up being a total mess, a real mess."

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also brushed off concern over the Qatari royal family donating a Boeing jumbo jet to the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing on Monday there will be no quid pro quo arrangement and that the donation is under legal review to ensure full compliance with the law. 

Von Spakovsky said that if the plane is in fact a government-to-government gift – and not a personal gift to the president – the Trump administration is likely in the legal clear to accept the gift. 

"If this gift is being considered as a gift to the government of the U.S., there is no legal issue to consider, since there is no constitutional or legal problem with such a gift. If this is a personal gift to the president, the Justice Department would be weighing the constitutional issue I have raised – whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president," he said. 

Von Spakovsky said such a government-to-government gift "is no different than the thousands of cherry trees gifted to the U.S. by the Japanese government" in 1912 that still draw more than a million tourists to Washington, D.C., each spring. 

Allies of the president, such as Cruz, said espionage concerns weigh heavily over the planned deal, citing Qatar's ties to terrorist groups. 

"I’m not a fan of Qatar. I think they have a really disturbing pattern of funding theocratic lunatics who want to murder us, funding Hamas and Hezbollah. And that’s a real problem," Cruz said during an interview Tuesday on CNBC.

"I also think the plane poses significant espionage and surveillance problems," he added. "We’ll see how this issue plays out, but I certainly have concerns." 

TRUMP DEFENDS QATAR JUMBO JET OFFER AS TROUBLED BOEING FAILS TO DELIVER NEW AIR FORCE ONE FLEET

Democrats, such as Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois also warned that the plane would come with security issues. Reed, for example, claimed in a statement that using the plane as Air Force One "would pose immense counterintelligence risks by granting a foreign nation potential access to sensitive systems and communications."

While Democrats and some Republicans have criticized Trump over the move, other Republican lawmakers have said they are zoned in on legislative matters and are not looped into the plane issue. 

"I actually haven't paid attention to it," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., previously told Fox News Digital. "I'm sorry to be so out of the loop on that. I've just been thinking about Medicaid and about what the House is sending over."

QATAR OFFERS TRUMP JUMBO JET TO SERVE AS AIR FORCE ONE

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, another Trump ally, said she didn't know enough about the deal to comment on it when pressed by Fox News Digital. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Eric Schmitt of Missouri also said they did not know details of the plane. 

Trump is currently in the midst of a four-day trip to the Middle East, including visiting Qatar on Wednesday, where his motorcade was met by dozens of camels, as well as Tesla Cybertrucks in an apparent nod to Department of Government Efficiency official and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

The plane is not expected to be presented to the president nor accepted by Trump during his trip abroad. 

"The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME!" Trump posted to his Truth Social account while in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. "It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years. It will be used by our Government as a temporary Air Force One, until such time as our new Boeings, which are very late on delivery, arrive."

House progressive backs down from Trump impeachment push after pressure from fellow Dems

A lone House Democrat pushing to impeach President Donald Trump has backed down from his effort to force a vote on the measure after pressure to do so from fellow liberals.

Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., aimed to force a vote on his seven articles of impeachment against Trump this week through a mechanism known as a privileged resolution that forces the House to reckon with a piece of legislation within two days of being in session.

Democratic leaders made their opposition to the effort known, however, and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., told reporters it was a "distraction."

Thanedar later announced on X he would back off trying to force the vote.

ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION

It comes after Democrats, including House Progressive Caucus Chairman Greg Casar, D-Texas, pushed back on the effort. He said he would vote against the measure and called it "unserious," according to Punchbowl News.

"This doomed impeachment vote is not about holding Trump accountable, but instead seems to be about the interest of the bill sponsor," Casar said.

House GOP leaders had planned a vote to table the measure, a procedural motion blocking a House-wide vote, but called it off after Thanedar apparently missed his window to force the vote.

Thanedar said in a statement on X afterward, "In the fifteen days since I filed seven articles of impeachment against President Trump, he has committed more impeachable offenses, most dangerously, accepting a $400 million private jet from Qatar, which even Republican Members of Congress have called wrong.

MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE

"So, after talking with many colleagues, I have decided not to force a vote on impeachment today. Instead, I will add to my articles of impeachment and continue to rally the support of both Democrats and Republicans to defend the Constitution with me."

Later, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said the situation "speaks for itself" when asked whether he pressured Thanedar to drop the motion.

Thanedar's resolution has caused a modest political headache for Democratic lawmakers at a time the party has struggled with messaging after the 2024 election.

"I have said before from this podium, this is not the right approach we should be taking," Aguilar said at his weekly press conference. "I'll join members of the leadership team in voting to table that motion."

Thanedar acknowledged his colleagues' concerns about his move during his own press conference Wednesday morning, though he insisted it would not deter him.

"Even some Democrats call me a lunatic, just like the president has called me lunatic," the Michigan Democrat said.

"But they have never said, nobody has said to me, ‘Mr. Thanedar, the seven articles of impeachment that you presented to the U.S. Congress, they’re a piece of s---. They're not good. You missed it, missed the point. They are not legally right.' They didn't do that. No one says that."

However, Aguilar said hours later it was not the right time to push an impeachment effort.

"This is such an impactful moment, and our colleagues are locking themselves in a room for 24 hours to protect and defend healthcare. We shouldn't be talking about this proposal that is not right, not timely," Aguilar said, referring to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's meeting on budget reconciliation, which has been ongoing since 2 p.m. Tuesday.

"This president is no stranger to impeachments. He's been impeached twice. Impeachment is a tool that can be used, but it takes weeks, months to do. Right now, the issue of the day is, will Hill Republicans stand up and support healthcare in this country?"

Hours before the expected vote, NBC News reported that House Democratic leaders pressed Thanedar not to show up for the chamber's 5 p.m. vote series, which would have meant he could not force the vote.

Republicans, meanwhile, seized on the disagreement.

"House Democrats have demonstrated once again they are willing to abuse the Constitution in their effort to impede the agenda of the American people," Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a statement before the vote.

"Their latest sham impeachment charade against President Trump is another embarrassing political stunt. Today, House Republicans will move promptly to discard it."

When reached for comment on Thanedar's push Tuesday, White House spokesperson Liz Huston told Fox News Digital, "Every action taken by President Trump and his administration is fully lawful and firmly rooted in the will of the American people. President Trump is doing exactly what he promised: securing our border, bringing in trillions of dollars in investment to America and restoring common-sense leadership."

"Meanwhile, Democrats are once again showing where their true priorities lie — siding with illegal immigrants over the safety, security and well-being of hardworking American citizens. This desperate impeachment stunt is nothing more than a reckless political act that the American people see right through," the White House said.

Fox News' Tyler Olson contributed to this report

Top House Dems say they’ll join GOP to quash Trump impeachment effort

Top House Democrats said Wednesday they will join Republicans in blocking a House-wide vote on impeaching President Donald Trump.

"I have said before from this podium, this is not the right approach we should be taking," House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said at his weekly press conference. "I'll join members of the leadership team in voting to table that motion."

Aguilar called the push by one lawmaker within his caucus a "distraction" from Democrats' messaging that Republicans are trying to gut Medicaid via Trump's "big, beautiful bill" – a narrative the GOP has pushed back on.

ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION

Democrats are scrambling after Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., stood on the House floor Tuesday and invoked a maneuver that effectively forces House leaders to take up a piece of legislation within two House working days.

House Republican leadership has opted for a vote on Wednesday evening to table the measure, a procedural motion that, if successful, would block a House-wide vote on impeachment.

Thanedar acknowledged his colleagues' concerns about his move during his own press conference Wednesday morning, though he insisted it would not deter him.

"Even some Democrats call me a lunatic, just like the president has called me lunatic," the Michigan Democrat said.

"But they have never said, nobody has said to me, ‘Mr. Thanedar, the seven articles of impeachment that you presented to the U.S. Congress, they’re a piece of s---. They're not good. You missed it, missed the point. They are not legally right.' They didn't do that. No one says that."

However, Aguilar said hours later that it was not the right time to push an impeachment effort.

"This is such an impactful moment, and our colleagues are locking themselves in a room for 24 hours to protect and defend healthcare. We shouldn't be talking about this proposal that is not right, not timely," Aguilar said, referring to the House Energy & Commerce Committee's meeting on budget reconciliation, which has been ongoing since 2 p.m. Tuesday.

"This president is no stranger to impeachments, he's been impeached twice. Impeachment is a tool that can be used, but it takes weeks, months to do. Right now the issue of the day is, will hill Republicans stand up and support healthcare in this country?"

MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE

When reached for comment on Thanedar's push on Tuesday, White House spokesperson Liz Huston told Fox News Digital, "Every action taken by President Trump and his administration is fully lawful and firmly rooted in the will of the American people. President Trump is doing exactly what he promised: securing our border, bringing in trillions of dollars in investment to America, and restoring common-sense leadership."

"Meanwhile, Democrats are once again showing where their true priorities lie — siding with illegal immigrants over the safety, security, and well-being of hardworking American citizens. This desperate impeachment stunt is nothing more than a reckless political act that the American people see right through," the White House said.

No Republican is expected to vote to proceed with impeachment.

Supreme Court to debate Trump restrictions on birthright citizenship and enforcement of nationwide injunctions

The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship.

But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions.

That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts.

Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally.

SUPREME COURT POISED TO MAKE MAJOR DECISION THAT COULD SET LIMITS ON THE POWER OF DISTRICT JUDGES

Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — have sued.

Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings.

Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks.

The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide.

But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

A high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 — and counting — federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.

Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement.

While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over  power.

Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."

And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages.

They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications.

Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans.

Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation.

'ACTIVIST' JUDGES KEEP TRYING TO CURB TRUMP’S AGENDA – HERE’S HOW HE COULD PUSH BACK

Justice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "We’ve gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them."

The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks.

"We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate. 

"These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'"

Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses.

The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority.

That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling.

The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S.

TRUMP'S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLE

Dissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law." 

"Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight."

Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented.

He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."

And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive."

The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood."

The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery."

"If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks.

Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.

An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher.

But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ADDRESSES DIVISIONS BETWEEN JUSTICES AFTER SEVERAL RECENT SCOTUS SKIRMISHES

"These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."

The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions.

"Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications."

The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884); Trump v. State of Washington (24a885); Trump v. New Jersey (24a886). 

House Democrat moves to force Trump impeachment vote

A lone House Democrat is moving to force a chamber-wide vote on his impeachment resolution against President Donald Trump.

Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., introduced his impeachment resolution as privileged on Tuesday afternoon, meaning leaders have two days of the House in session to take up the legislation.

House GOP leaders could move to table the motion, a procedural vote aimed to scuttle a piece of legislation without having lawmakers vote on the legislation itself.

ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION

But an impeachment vote would likely put vulnerable House Democrats in a tough spot. 

Democrats have struggled to unite behind a potent message since the 2024 election, and such a vote could be politically perilous for their most vulnerable members as they work to win back the House majority in 2026.

No Republicans are likely to support impeaching Trump, however, meaning Thanedar's measure will likely fail.

"Donald Trump has unlawfully conducted himself, bringing shame to the presidency and the people of the United States," Thanedar said when deeming his resolution privileged.

BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT'S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY

Thanedar also took a swing at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), calling it a "flagrantly unconstitutional creation."

The India-born Michigan Democrat first introduced seven articles of impeachment against Trump in late April.

They include charges of obstruction of justice, tyranny, bribery and corruption, and abuse of trade powers, among others. 

But Politico reported that his resolution got off to a bumpy start. 

Four Democratic co-sponsors who were originally listed on the legislation implied they were mistakenly added and then removed themselves, the outlet reported. Thanedar told Politico at the time he respected their decisions.

Thanedar's filing comes after Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, similarly threatened to file impeachment articles against Trump. 

Green was later thrown out of Trump's address to a joint session of Congress for repeatedly protesting the speech.

Fox News Digital reached out to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and the White House for comment on Thanedar's move but did not immediately hear back.

Dem in Trump district race scrubs social media of posts praising progressives: ‘Scam artist’

FIRST ON FOX: A Democrat running for Congress in New Jersey who has been positioning herself as a moderate to unseat the sitting Republican in a pro-Trump district, has deleted several social media posts promoting progressive candidates and causes.

Democrat Rebecca Bennett, who is running in the Democratic primary to unseat GOP Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, is a Navy veteran and current member of the Air Force National Guard who has been labeled by local media as a "moderate" in a race the Cook Political Report ranks as "Lean Republican."

A Fox News Digital review of Bennett’s X account, which was created in July 2011 and recently converted from @BigRedBecks to @RebeccaForNJ07, shows several deleted posts that seemingly drift away from the "moderate" label, including praise of progressive Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

"Love her," Bennett said in a now-deleted post about Warren in 2019. 

BIDEN DENIES HE LEFT 2024 RACE TOO LATE TO STOP TRUMP, SAYS IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE

"I love everything about this," Bennett said in a now-deleted post praising a video mashup of Warren to the tune of a Taylor Swift song. "(Except the misogyny that makes it real…) #TeamWarren."

Bennett has also removed posts praising former Vice President Kamala Harris, who was defeated by President Donald Trump, not only nationally, but also narrowly with voters in Kean’s district by just over one percentage point. 

"Let’s Goooooo," Bennett wrote in a now-deleted post after Harris was announced as then-former Vice President Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020. 

If elected, Bennett would serve alongside Democratic New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who she praised in 2020, calling him the "best senator." That post has since been deleted. 

VANCE, CONSERVATIVES BLAST OMAR OVER RESURFACED 'FEARFUL OF WHITE MEN' CLIP: 'GENOCIDAL LANGUAGE'

During the civil unrest and rioting that erupted after the death of George Floyd in 2020, Bennett posted on X that she agreed in a now-deleted post with a comment from former Obama campaign strategist David Plouffe, where he said House Democrats should "hold hearings" and investigate law enforcement officials responding to the riots.

Bennett also deleted a post that appears to support the first impeachment of President Trump.

"Officially a @JasonCrowCO6 fan," Bennett posted on January 21, 2020 as the impeachment trial was unfolding where Crow ultimately voted to impeach. "I’m a vet who also didn’t have the equipment I needed to do my job, so this is personal for me too. #ImpeachmentTrial."

Fox News Digital reached out to Bennett’s team to inquire about the motivation behind deleting the X posts. 

Bennett's announcement video, which is almost two minutes long, does not mention that she is a Democrat.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokeswoman Maureen O'Toole said, "It’s clear Rebecca Bennett is desperately trying to run away from her past and cover up her radical, out of touch agenda."

"But New Jersey voters see right through her act and know exactly who she is: a radical scam artist who can’t be trusted."

Bennett's team, in a statement to Fox News Digital, did not address why the posts were removed but dismissed the criticism from the NRCC. 

"It’s no surprise to see the NRCC and conservative news outlets start attacking Rebecca, because they know she is a serious threat to beat Congressman Tom Kean next November and flip NJ7," Dan Bryan, senior advisor to the Bennett campaign, said. 

"Rebecca and her campaign will continue to ignore recycled bad faith attacks from right-wing outlets and focus on her record serving this country and Congressman Kean’s failure to deliver for working families in our district."

Bennett is not the first New Jersey Democrat running for Congress to face scrutiny over deleted social media posts.

Sue Altman, who was defeated by Kean in 2024, faced heated criticism for deleting social media posts that were critical of law enforcement. 

The race in NJ-07 will be closely watched in next year's midterm elections given the thin majority Republicans currently hold in the House of Representatives, where the GOP currently holds 220 seats compared to 215 for the Democrats.

Chief Justice Roberts doubles down on defense of courts as SCOTUS gears up to hear key Trump cases

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used a public appearance Wednesday to stress the importance of an independent judiciary, doubling down on defense of the courts under fire by President Donald Trump and his allies, who have accused so-called "activist judges" of overstepping their bounds.

Asked during a fireside chat event in Buffalo, New York, about judicial independence, Roberts responded in no uncertain terms that the role of the federal courts is to "decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive."

That role, he added, "does require a degree of independence."

BOASBERG GRILLS DOJ OVER REMARKS FROM TRUMP AND NOEM, FLOATS MOVING MIGRANTS TO GITMO IN ACTION-PACKED HEARING

Roberts' remarks are not new. But they come as Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges who have paused or halted key parts of the president's agenda. (Some of the rulings they've taken issue with came from judges appointed by Trump in his first term.)

The Supreme Court is slated to hear a number of high-profile cases and emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration in the next few months, cases that are all but certain to keep the high court in the spotlight for the foreseeable future.

Among them are Trump's executive orders banning transgender service members from serving in the U.S. military, restoring fired federal employees to their jobs and a case about whether children whose parents illegally entered the U.S. and were born here should be granted citizenship. Oral arguments for that last case kick off next week.

TRUMP-ALIGNED GROUP SUES CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IN EFFORT TO RESTRICT POWER OF THE COURTS

Just hours before Roberts spoke to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo, a high-stakes hearing played out in federal court in Washington, D.C.

There, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg spent more than an hour grilling Justice Department lawyers about their use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport hundreds of migrants to El Salvador earlier this year. 

Boasberg’s March 15 order that temporarily blocked Trump’s use of the law to send migrants to a Salvadoran prison sparked ire from the White House and in Congress, where some Trump allies had previously floated calls for impeachment.

Roberts, who put out a rare public statement at the time rebuking calls to impeach Boasberg or any federal judges, doubled down on that in Wednesday's remarks.

"Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with a decision," Roberts said, adding that he had already spoken about that in his earlier statement.

In the statement, sent by Roberts shortly after Trump floated the idea of impeaching Boasberg, said that "for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," he said.

"The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," he said in the statement. 

Speaker Johnson gives verdict on House plan to impeach judges blocking Trump

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled there is little appetite for judicial impeachments among House Republican leaders. 

He said a bill passed by the House earlier this year, aimed at limiting federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in most cases, was a "silver bullet" against activist judges.

Johnson refused to pull impeachment off the table indefinitely when pressed by Fox News Digital, but he cautioned that there was a high bar for such maneuvers, while noting that getting enough votes to impeach in the House and remove in the Senate is an uphill battle in itself.

REPUBLICANS ADVANCE TRUMP ALLY'S GULF OF AMERICA BILL TO FULL HOUSE VOTE DESPITE DEM OPPOSITION

"Look, impeachments are never off the table if it's merited. But in our system, we've had 15 federal judges impeached in the entire history of the country. I mean, there may be some that I feel merit that, but you’ve got to get the votes for it, right? And it's a very high burden," Johnson said.

"And by the way, even if we could get an impeachment article through the House on a federal judge, it's unlikely that they would be tried and convicted in the Senate on that, with the divided number we have. So, short of that, what can we do?"

The speaker said House Republicans had "done everything within our power to solve that problem."

GOP LEADERS FIND NEW MAJOR HOLIDAY DEADLINE FOR TRUMP'S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ AMID MEDICAID TAX DIVISIONS

"Darrell Issa's bill is a great response: The No Rogue Rulings Act would prohibit a single individual judgment issuing a nationwide injunction like that to stop the entire policy of an administration," Johnson said. 

"We passed it to the House, we sent it to the Senate with every expectation that they should be able to take that up. And I certainly hope they can, because, again, shouldn't be a partisan issue."

Some conservatives, however, are still hungry to pursue the impeachment route. They could force the House to do so by introducing a "privileged" resolution, meaning Johnson would need to take it up within two legislative days. 

However, it is a politically risky undertaking that is ultimately guaranteed to fail in the Senate, where at least several Democrats would be needed to meet the two-thirds threshold for removal. 

It comes amid the Trump administration’s continued standoff with the courts over a litany of the new White House’s policies — from deportation flights to the Department of Government Efficiency.

Republicans have dismissed the rulings as political decisions by activist judges, while Democrats accuse the White House of waging war on a co-equal branch of government. 

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has consistently said it is complying with all lawful court orders while denouncing activist judges in court and in the media sphere. 

Lawyer of whistleblower in Trump impeachment case sues administration over revoked security clearance

A lawyer who represented a government whistleblower in a case that led to President Donald Trump's first impeachment sued the Trump administration on Monday for "unconstitutional retaliation" after his security clearance was revoked.

Lawyer Mark Zaid argued that the administration's decision to pull his clearance in March was in retaliation for representing former Department of Homeland Security intelligence chief Brian Murphy, who was key to Trump's 2019 impeachment.

Murphy filed a whistleblower complaint in 2019 alleging Trump, amid his re-election campaign, pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine. 

The U.S. House of Representatives voted later that year to impeach Trump for abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress, but he was later acquitted by the Senate.

HAKEEM JEFFRIES BLAMES TRUMP FOR NEWARK AIRPORT CHAOS, ACCUSES WHITE HOUSE OF 'BREAKING THE FAA'

Zaid's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., claims the decision to rescind his security clearance represents a "dangerous, unconstitutional retaliation by the President of the United States against his perceived political enemies" that "eschews any semblance of due process."

The complaint accuses the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedures Act, the First Amendment and parts of the Fifth Amendment.

"No American should lose their livelihood, or be blocked as a lawyer from representing clients, because a president carries a grudge toward them or who they represent,"  Zaid said in a statement. "This isn’t just about me. It’s about using security clearances as political weapons."

FORMER VP PENCE VOWS TO SPEAK OUT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP VEERS FROM 'CONSERVATIVE AGENDA' 

The lawsuit cites a 2019 incident in which Trump called Zaid a "sleazeball" at a Louisiana rally and told reporters that the lawyer was a "disgrace" who "should be sued."

The move to pull Zaid's clearance was "a bald-faced attack on a sacred constitutional guarantee: the right to petition the court or federal agencies on behalf of clients," the lawsuit says, noting that an "attack on this right is especially insidious because it jeopardizes Mr. Zaid’s ability to pursue and represent the rights of others without fear of retribution."

Trump has also revoked clearances of several other political foes, including former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his own former national security advisor John Bolton, as well as attorneys at other law firms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Zaid urged the court to rule that Trump's revocation decision was unconstitutional and reinstate his clearance. He has had access to classified information since 1995 and a security clearance since 2002.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

Reuters contributed to this report.