Johnson ratchets up pressure for stricter border policy — but stops short of calling for shutdown

Speaker Mike Johnson doubled down Wednesday on Republicans’ push for stricter border policies — but stopped short of embracing his right flank’s demand to shut down the government without action.

Those critical funding deadlines are rapidly approaching, with the first set to hit on Jan. 19 and the second in early February. Senators have worked to strike a separate, bipartisan deal on border security and foreign aid for more than a month, but have so far failed to reach an agreement, even after the White House took a more aggressive role in the talks.

Asked about shutting down the government during a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border with dozens of other House Republicans, Johnson cautioned that it was “too early to pre-judge any of that,” pointing to ongoing negotiations with the White House over government funding. But as Washington draws closer to the first deadline — and still lacks an agreement even on overall spending levels — he warned that Republicans are “resolved” on their “top two priorities.”

“We want to get the border closed and secured… and we want to make sure that we reduce non-defense discretionary spending,” Johnson said.

Johnson and his colleagues used the Texas trip to hammer the Biden administration over what they characterized as a lack of action on the border, a hot-button issue they plan to use as a top cudgel against Democrats heading into November. Several conservative Republicans are urging Johnson to shut down the government unless they secure significant migration policy changes — a strategy some in that group say got support from Texas officials and others they met with during the trip.

“Multiple Texas stakeholders — from property rights advocates to sheriffs — urged us to shut down the border or shut down the government. It is refreshing that Speaker Johnson curated such an important and clear message,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who led the ouster of Johnson’s predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Asked during a subsequent interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper how seriously he takes threats from his right flank to oppose government funding, Johnson reiterated that the border and cutting spending are Republicans’ top priorities but “I’m not going to address hypotheticals.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) preempted Johnson’s trip by urging House GOP leadership in a Tuesday letter to be ready to partially shut down the government without significant border concessions. Without the latter, he warned, he will vote against any government funding or aid package.

“We must make funding for federal government operations contingent on the President signing H.R.2, or its functional equivalent, into law,” Roy wrote in a letter to his colleagues, referring to a conservative-favored border bill that Democrats have widely rejected. He added that he skipped Wednesday’s trip because “our people … are tired of meetings, speeches, and press conferences.”

House Republicans passed the sweeping bill last year, which would raise the asylum standard and fund the continued building of the border wall, in addition to other GOP migration priorities. Senate Majority Chuck Schumer has said the legislation is a non-starter in his chamber, urging bipartisan border negotiators to come to another type of consensus.

Still, any deal reached by those senators would still need to get through the House, where Johnson and other Republicans have reiterated that H.R. 2 is their standard. Though some House Republicans have been briefed on the status of discussions, the conference has largely remained on the sidelines of those ongoing talks.

“Our position is very clear and we have made that clear for seven months: H.R. 2 is the necessary ingredient,” Johnson said on Wednesday.

Underscoring the gulf between the two chambers, Schumer warned reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday that “when the House clings to H.R. 2 as the only solution … we're not going to get a deal.”

“I think if the Senate gets something done in a bipartisan way, it will put enormous pressure on the House to get something done as well,” Schumer added.

The White House and the administration also also went on defense ahead of Johnson’s border presser, accusing Republicans of paying lip service.

“Actions speak louder than words,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement first obtained by POLITICO. “House Republicans’ anti-border security record is defined by attempting to cut Customs and Border Protection personnel, opposing President Biden’s record-breaking border security funding, and refusing to take up the President’s supplemental funding request.”

A senior administration official added that Johnson and House Republicans “should stop playing politics and work with the administration and the Senate to pass meaningful reforms.”

Meanwhile, Republicans are also ramping up a revived effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the border, which would make him the first Cabinet official to be impeached since 1876.

House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) will hold hearings this month related to that effort, and has pledged that his committee will vote on an impeachment resolution. The first hearing will be on Jan. 10.

“The cause of the problem is Alejandro Mayorkas. … Accountability is coming, I promise,” he said on Wednesday.

A DHS spokesperson said in a statement ahead of Republicans' border trip that there is “no valid basis to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, as senior members of the House majority have attested, and this extreme impeachment push is a harmful distraction from our critical national security priorities.”

Support within the conference for impeaching Mayorkas has quietly been gaining steam behind the scenes. But Republicans still have a rough path given their thinning majority, a handful of openly skeptical members and Democrats’ likely unanimous opposition. Rep. Bill Johnson’s (R-Ohio) departure on Jan. 21 will bring them down to a two-vote margin. Plus, Democrats are feeling optimistic about their chances to flip former GOP Rep. George Santos’ seat during a Feb. 13 special election.

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

Posted in Uncategorized

Johnson calls migrant crisis ‘truly unconscionable’ during visit to besieged southern border

House Speaker Mike Johnson, leading a GOP delegation to the southern border on Wednesday, slammed what he said is a "truly unconscionable" migrant crisis at the southern border and blamed it on President Biden's policies – as encounter numbers hit record levels and talks over supplemental funding have so far failed to produce an agreement.

Johnson led more than 60 Republicans to the southern border to assess the ongoing crisis, where migrant encounters hit a record 302,000 last month.

"One thing is absolutely clear: America is at breaking point with record levels of illegal immigration," he said in a press conference.

BIDEN ADMIN EYES MORE DEPORTATION FLIGHTS TO VENEZUELA AS MIGRANT NUMBERS SHATTER RECORDS

"The situation here and across the country is truly unconscionable. We would describe it as both heartbreaking and infuriating," he said.

Republicans were clear that they blamed the crisis on the policies of the administration, pointing to the rollback of Trump-era policies like the Remain-in-Mexico policy and a greater number of releases of migrants into the interior, both under Notices to Appear and through the "expanded lawful pathways" set up by the administration.

"Rather than incentivizing people to come, the president needs to deter people from coming. Rather than discussing amnesty with Mexico…this administration should reinstate the Remain-in-Mexico policy," he said.

"This is an unmitigated disaster, a catastrophe and what's more tragic is it's a disaster of the president's own design," he said, accusing the president of putting out a "welcome mat" for illegal immigrants.

The border trip comes not only amid high numbers but amid ongoing negotiations in Washington over the White House’s border supplemental request. The administration has requested $14 billion for border funding as part of the $100 billion+ package which includes money for Ukraine and Israel.

HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE SETS FIRST MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT HEARING

Republicans in both chambers have said the package does not include enough limits on asylum and the use of humanitarian parole, and negotiators in the Senate have been trying to find a way to come to an agreement with the administration.

But Republicans in the House have gone a step further and want the entirety of the House Republican border bill, passed last year, to be included. That includes money for more Border Patrol agents, the restarting of wall construction and significant limits on the release of migrants into the interior. Johnson said the bill, H.R. 2, is the "necessary ingredient."

"Because it has provisions that fix each of these problems and these things work together," he said.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POPULATION SOARS UNDER BIDEN: GOVERNMENT DATA

However, Democrats in the Senate have ruled out H.R. 2 and similar proposals as a non-starter. Even some reported concessions by the Biden administration, including the establishment of a Title 42-style removal authority, have been met with anger from some liberal Democrats.

The Biden administration, meanwhile, sought to pin some of the blame on Republicans for failing to agree to the funding request as it is. 

"We have House Republicans that are literally blocking the president's effort to do something. That's what they're doing. They're playing political games. They're doing political stunts," White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Wednesday.

LIBERAL MAYORS PUSH BIDEN FOR EMERGENCY DECLARATION, ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO DEAL WITH MIGRANT CRISIS

"Speaker Johnson is continuing to block President Biden’s proposed funding to hire thousands of new Border Patrol agents, hire more asylum officers and immigration judges, provide local communities hosting migrants additional grant funding, and invest in cutting edge technology that is critical to stopping deadly fentanyl from entering our country," spokesperson Andrew Bates said earlier Wednesday.

The Biden administration has said it is pursuing a policy of expanding lawful pathways for migration while increasing "consequences" for illegal entry -- pointing to what it says are over 460,000 returns of illegal immigrants since Title 42 ended in May, more removals than in all of FY 19. 

But it says it needs comprehensive immigration reform to fix what it says is a broken system. The administration unveiled a bill in January 2021, but it has been rejected by Republicans due to its inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

While the two approaches appear to clash, the administration said Tuesday evening that there has been progress in talks.

"Our negotiations with the Senate continued over the holidays, and we continue to be encouraged by the progress being made. And while we are not there yet, we believe we are moving in the right direction," a senior administration official told reporters.

On Wednesday, however, Johnson said that after the trip Republicans were more resolved to "stand for sanity."

"If President Biden wants a supplemental spending bill focused on national security, it’d better begin by focusing on America’s national security," he said.

Fox News Politics: Court gives Trump relief in one Jan. 6 case

Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail

Subscribe now to get Fox News Politics newsletter in your inbox.

What's Happening? 

- Federal court expected to begin releasing names of Epstein associates as early as today

- Biden gets torched by allies over Israel funding

- NYC Mayor admits migrants bring crime

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed most of the civil counts against former President Donald Trump and two others in connection with the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick during the U.S. Capitol riots on Jan. 6.

In a 12-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed three of the five civil counts in a lawsuit filed last January by Sandra Garza, Sicknick's girlfriend.

The lawsuit sought damages from all three men for claims of wrongful death, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and negligence per se based on D.C.'s anti-riot law.

BORDER BATTLE: Biden admin wants more deportation flights as crisis breaks records …Read more

ACT QUICKLY: Massachusetts federal lawmakers call on Biden to remove Cuba from list of countries protecting terrorists …Read more

BLUE FLAME: Biden torched by Dem allies, far-left 'Squad' over Israel funding decision …Read more

TOWN HALL TIME: Fox News announces town halls with Haley, DeSantis ahead of Iowa vote …Read more

FIELD TRIP: South Carolina sent students to summer camp in communist China on Nikki Haley's watch …Read more

'VOTER SUPPRESSION': Maine Democrat who barred Trump from ballot said voter ID laws were 'rooted in White supremacy' …Read more

MAJOR FUNDRAISING HAUL: Haley more than doubles her fundraising with a $24 million haul …Read more

'WRONGFULLY VILLAINIZED': Ramaswamy welcomes endorsement from controversial former GOP rep …Read more

'GONE TO HELL': Sen Cotton endorses Trump for president to get country 'back on track' …Read more

'BE THE HERO': GOP governor says Chris Christie has the chance to help Haley beat Trump in early primary …Read more

'TERRIFYING' TACTIC: Marjorie Taylor Greene describes swatting of her home, says daughters also targeted …Read more

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: Blackburn cheers Harvard president's resignation, says it should have happened sooner …Read more

‘IMMORAL WAR’: Sen. Sanders calls for US to end funding of Israeli PM Netanyahu's 'immoral' war …Read more

CLOSING RANKS: House Republican leaders close ranks around Trump as Iowa caucus looms …Read more

IT'S A DATE: First Mayorkas impeachment hearing set by House committee …Read more

'ROBBERY PATTERN': NYC Mayor admits migrants are committing crimes … Read more

MEDIA MELTDOWN: Associated Press mocked after calling plagiarism a 'conservative weapon' against academics …Read more

REJECTED: Liberal city's gas ban dealt fatal blow by federal court …Read more

EMPOWERING 'LEFTIST ACTIVISTS': Free-market advocates warn about Biden admin's 'digital discrimination' rules …Read more

'DEEPLY CONCERNING': Two CCP-linked groups hold NYC New Year's events, Dem lawmakers attend …Read more

OVERSTEPPING: Texas emergency rooms not bound by Biden admins guidance on emergency abortion, federal court rules …Read more

2A FIGHT: Colorado gun group sues state over 'ghost gun' ban …Read more

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

House GOP kicks off a new year of dysfunction with another impeachment

Trust the Republican House to make a difficult situation exponentially worse. Not content with establishing a new record of dysfunction and ineffectiveness in the first session of the 118th Congress, they’re kicking off the second year with another waste of precious time: a second baseless impeachment, this time against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. It’s basically the first thing on their agenda when they return to work next week, with the first hearing scheduled for Jan. 10.

Never mind that the first deadline for a partial government shutdown is Jan. 19, and the House has made zero progress in meeting it. Instead, Republican leadership has chosen to start impeachment proceedings against Mayorkas for his “decision-making and refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and that his failure to fulfill his oath of office demands accountability,” according to Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green of Tennessee.

Mayorkas’ team at DHS slapped back. “The House majority is wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars pursuing a baseless political exercise that has been rejected by members of both parties and already failed on a bipartisan vote,” spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said in a statement.

The White House was equally scathing. “Actions speak louder than words,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said in a statement. “House Republicans’ anti-border security record is defined by attempting to cut Customs and Border Protection personnel, opposing President Biden’s record-breaking border security funding, and refusing to take up the President’s supplemental funding request.”

“After voting in 2023 to eliminate over 2,000 Border Patrol agents and erode our capacity to seize fentanyl earlier in 2023, House Republicans left Washington in mid-December even as President Biden and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate remained to forge ahead on a bipartisan agreement,” Bates said.

That Senate effort—which aims to find a compromise on immigration that will get enough Republican votes to allow aid to Ukraine to continue—is ongoing, though its success is far from certain since the House GOP is working to poison it. Senate Republicans will point to the House GOP’s opposition to justify their refusal to support any agreement. To that end, House Speaker Mike Johnson is spearheading another stunt, leading a delegation of about 60 Republican House members to visit a border facility near Eagle Pass, Texas, on Wednesday.

Johnson’s trip is fueling the hard-line stance on immigration, but he’s also painting himself into a corner with the House extremists. Catering to the hard right on immigration is extremely unlikely to help him avert a government shutdown—since a government shutdown is what the Freedom Caucus wants.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a prominent member of the caucus, made that clear enough in a letter Tuesday, writing that he was skipping this trip to the border because it is not enough. "Our people—law enforcement, ranchers, local leaders—are tired of meetings, speeches, and press conferences,” he said, adding that the House should be “withholding funding for the vast majority of the federal government until it performs its basic duty to defend the borders of a supposedly sovereign nation."

The more Johnson bends to extremists on immigration, the more emboldened they will be to force a shutdown over the issue. He’s setting himself up for failure, for the very same trap that every Republican speaker since John Boehner has fallen into. Either Johnson bucks the Freedom Caucus and risks being ousted like former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, or he allows a disastrous shutdown.

Meanwhile, there’s reality: In the past week, illegal border crossings have decreased. But reality isn’t likely to make any difference to Republicans; it rarely does.

RELATED STORIES:

Speaker Mike Johnson faces same old GOP dysfunction in the new year

It's official: GOP House did a whole lot of nothing this year

White House engages on Ukraine/immigration stalemate

Campaign Action

DHS chief Mayorkas calls out Texas for ‘failure of governance’ amid illegal immigrant crisis and impeachment

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called out Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday, labeling his migrant busing policy "a remarkable failure of governance." 

Mayorkas, who faces impeachment proceedings in the House for his handling of the illegal immigration crisis, blamed Abbott, a Republican, for failing to cooperate with officials in Democrat-led cities that have been overwhelmed by migrant arrivals. 

"Let me identify one fundamental problem here, and that is the fact that we have one governor in the state of Texas who is refusing to cooperate with other governors and other local officials," Mayorkas said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Emphasizing the need for the country to "stand united" on immigration, Mayorkas said, "it's a remarkable failure of governance to refuse to cooperate with one's fellow local and state officials." 

HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE SETS FIRST MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT HEARING

Abbot began bussing migrants to New York City and other sanctuary jurisdictions last year in protest of the Biden administration's border policies. Abbott’s office has said it has sent around 27,000 migrants to New York City since then and has done so to relieve pressure on besieged border communities.

The illegal immigration crisis — which broke a record in December with over 300,000 encounters at the border in a single month — has put a strain on Democrat-led cities that lack the resources to house them. New York and Chicago have attempted to unload migrants in surrounding suburban neighborhoods, which in turn have complained that they cannot house them and threatened to send migrant buses back to the Texas-Mexico border. 

BIDEN ADMIN EYES MORE DEPORTATION FLIGHTS TO VENEZUELA AS MIGRANT NUMBERS SHATTER RECORDS

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said last week his city is at a "breaking point" after 161.000 migrants have arrived since spring 2022, including those who have arrived on their own. The mayor issued an executive order restricting when and where buses may drop off migrants, but a "loophole" in the city's order was reportedly found after migrants were delivered to train stations in New Jersey, from which they departed for the Big Apple. 

"We're dealing with a bully right now, and everything is on the table that conforms with the law," Adams said of Abbott on Tuesday. 

NEW YORK CITY, CHICAGO SUBURBS TURN THEIR BACKS ON MIGRANT BUSES, SAY THEY CANNOT HANDLE INFLUX

Mayorkas told MSNBC that federal teams have been dispatched to Chicago, Denver and New York to assist in managing migrant arrivals and ensure that migrants eligible to work receive their work authorization as quickly as possible. 

"We've also successfully sought some funding from Congress to assist cities, and in our supplemental budget request we've requested additional funding for that purpose," Mayorkas said. 

House Republicans have blamed Mayorkas as the border crisis has worsened under his leadership. The Homeland Security Committee will hold its first impeachment hearing into the secretary on Jan. 10 as Republicans accuse Mayorkas of refusing to enforce immigration laws.

Mayorkas said he will "certainly" cooperate with the committee's investigation and "continue to do my work as well." 

Fox News Digital's Timothy H.J. Nerozzi, Anders Hagstrom, Houston Keene and Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

House Homeland Security Committee sets first Mayorkas impeachment hearing

A House committee has set the date for its first impeachment hearing into Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, escalating its push against the Cabinet official.

The Homeland Security Committee, led by Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., will hold its first impeachment hearing into Mayorkas on Jan. 10, the committee told Fox News Digital.

Green told Fox News Digital that for "almost three years, the American people have demanded an end to the unprecedented crisis at the Southwest border, and they have also rightly called for Congress to hold accountable those responsible."

BIDEN ADMIN EYES MORE DEPORTATION FLIGHTS TO VENEZUELA AS MIGRANT NUMBERS SHATTER RECORDS

"That’s why the House Committee on Homeland Security led a comprehensive investigation into the causes, costs, and consequences of this crisis," Green said. "Our investigation made clear that this crisis finds its foundation in Secretary Mayorkas’ decision-making and refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and that his failure to fulfill his oath of office demands accountability."

"The bipartisan House vote in November to refer articles of impeachment to my Committee only served to highlight the importance of our taking up the impeachment process – which is what we will begin doing next Wednesday," he added.

Punchbowl first reported the date of the Mayorkas impeachment hearing.

DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg told Fox News Digital the "House majority is wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars pursuing a baseless political exercise that has been rejected by members of both parties and already failed on a bipartisan vote."

"There is no valid basis to impeach Secretary Mayorkas, as senior members of the House majority have attested, and this extreme impeachment push is a harmful distraction from our critical national security priorities," Ehrenberg said.

"Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security will continue working every day to keep Americans safe," she added.

The hearing – titled "Havoc in the Heartland: How Secretary Mayorkas’ Failed Leadership Has Impacted the States" – will delve into how Midwestern states have been affected by the growing influx of illegal immigrants at the southern border.

If impeached, Mayorkas would be the first Cabinet secretary to receive the black mark since 1876.

Fox News Digital has reached out to House Homeland Security Committee Democrats for comment.

Mayorkas has been in the sights of congressional Republicans as the crisis at the southern border spiraled out of control.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants crossed into the U.S., with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) sources last month telling Fox News Digital that there were over 276,000 migrant encounters near the end of December.

That number set a new record for crossings in a month.

The previous record was set in September when officials saw 269,735 encounters. The number includes illegal immigrants encountered between ports of entry and migrants entering at ports of entry via the CBP One app.

House Republicans have been seeking impeachment against Mayorkas but have faced an uphill climb in their quest.

In early November, the House GOP moved to impeach Mayorkas, only to have the effort tabled by eight Republicans who joined with Democrats.

The defeat came after Republicans upset conservatives and border hawks earlier in 2023 when they tried and failed to attach H.R. 2 – the House Republicans’ signature border security and asylum overhaul legislation – to a continuing resolution to keep the federal government open. 

Instead, the House ended up passing a "clean" continuing resolution, which in turn led to the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. In mid-November, the House passed another continuing resolution to avoid a pre-holiday season shutdown. That too did not contain policy riders, including those related to border security.

Fox News Digital's Adam Shaw contributed reporting.

Texas AG Ken Paxton, wife targeted by home ‘swatting’ on New Year’s Day

FIRST ON FOX: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his wife are the latest elected Republicans to fall victim to "swatting" after a false report using their home's address was made to authorities.

Addressing the swatting incident in a statement to Fox News Digital, Paxton and his wife, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, said they were not at their McKinney home on New Year's Day when first responders arrived on the scene. The couple described the false report to police as being a "life-threatening" situation.

"On New Year’s Day, a currently unidentified caller made a false report to 911 describing a life-threatening situation at our home in McKinney," the couple said. "As a result, the City of McKinney Police and Fire Departments quickly and bravely responded to what they believed could be a dangerous environment. We were not home at the time and were made aware of the false report when a state trooper, who was contacted by McKinney police, informed us of the incident."

"Making false reports to 911 is a crime which should be vigorously prosecuted when this criminal is identified. These fake calls divert resources from actual emergencies and crimes and could endanger our first responders," the couple continued. "We are grateful for the bravery and professionalism of the men and women serving in the McKinney police and fire departments."

WHAT IS 'SWATTING,' THE 'CRIMINAL HARASSMENT' HOAX THAT'S HIT 3 GOP LAWMAKERS SINCE CHRISTMAS?

"It is also important to acknowledge that this 'swatting' incident happened weeks after the disgraced Speaker of the House Dade Phelan, his lieutenants, and the Dallas Morning News doxed our family by publicly posting our address," they added. "We understand some people may not agree with our strong conservative efforts to secure the border, prevent election fraud, and protect our constitutional liberties, but compromising the effectiveness and safety of law enforcement is completely unacceptable."

The McKinney Police Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on the matter.

"Swatting" is a crime that has become prominent in recent years, gaining more steam in the social media age when people's addresses are easily accessible.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital recently that swatting is a crime that could be "charged as a form of criminal threats."

"Swatting constitutes a false police report that can be criminally charged," Turley said. "Virginia recently passed a new law making swatting specifically a criminal misdemeanor. It can also be charged as a form of criminal threats."

The incident involving Paxton comes after three Republican lawmakers – Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene of Georgia, and Rep. Brandon Williams of New York – reported "swatting" incidents at their homes after the Christmas holiday.

"This is a crime that flourishes because there is insufficient deterrent," Turley added. "The anonymity and rare prosecutions combine to fuel this form of criminal harassment. … There is no mystery to how to address these crimes. There must be greater detection and penalties to achieve deterrence."

The crime targets an individual by calling in a false police report for a violent crime — such as a murder, a hostage situation or other crimes that would require a greater law enforcement response — to the home of the target.

The goal of the false police report is to elicit a SWAT team response by the police to the target's home. Consequently, swatting draws police resources away from real crimes while the state becomes the unwitting arm to terrorize a person at their own home.

MTG TO INTRODUCE BILL AIMED AT 'SWATTERS' AS RICK SCOTT BECOMES LATEST TARGET

Greene, who has been a victim of the move multiple times herself, announced last week on X that she would be "introducing legislation to make it much easier for law enforcement to arrest and prosecutors to prosecute these criminals" who engage in the false reports.

Over the course of the last year, Paxton has faced an onslaught of accusations from officials in the state, primarily Texas Democrats, who have accused the attorney general of being unfit for office.

Last May, the Texas House of Representatives voted to impeach Paxton over charges of bribery, disregard of official duties and abuse of public trust after hours of debate in an afternoon session – sending the case to the state Senate. The Texas Senate, however, acquitted Paxton of all impeachment articles filed against him for corruption and unfitness for office in September 2023.

Though there was support for impeachment on both sides of the aisle, votes to convict on each charge did not clear the required 21-vote threshold in the Senate. Republican Sens. Robert Nichols and Kelly Hancock joined all 12 Democrats to vote in favor of conviction on several charges.

"Today, the truth prevailed. The truth could not be buried by mudslinging politicians or their powerful benefactors," Paxton said in a statement at the time, thanking his supporters after the verdict was delivered. "The sham impeachment coordinated by the Biden Administration with liberal House Speaker Dade Phelan and his kangaroo court has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, disrupted the work of the Office of Attorney General and left a dark and permanent stain on the Texas House."

"Now that this shameful process is over, my work to defend our constitutional rights will resume. Thank you to everyone who has stood with us during this time," he added.

Prior to his acquittal, Paxton faced accusations that he misused his political power to help real estate developer Nate Paul. Paxton's opponents have argued that the attorney general accepted a bribe by hiring Paul.

Paxton was also previously indicted in June for allegedly making false statements to banks.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Paxton, who was suspended from office pending the trial's outcome, was not required to attend the proceedings. Paxton's wife, who has represented the state's eight district in the Senate since 2019, was required to be present for the whole trial but was prohibited from participating in debate or voting on the outcome of her husband's trial.

Paxton, who previously served as a member of both the Texas House and Senate, was first elected to serve as the Lone Star State's attorney general in 2014. He was re-elected to the position in 2018 and 2022.

Fox News' Chris Pandolfo, Houston Keene, and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Abortion debate creates ‘new era’ for state supreme court races in 2024

The 2024 elections will be dominated by the presidential contest and the battle for control of Congress, but another series of races is shaping up to be just as consequential.

Crucial battles over abortion, gerrymandering, voting rights and other issues will take center stage in next year’s elections for state supreme court seats — 80 of them in 33 states.

The races have emerged as some of the most hotly contested and costliest contests on the ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion. The decision shifted the abortion debate to states, creating a “new era” in state supreme court elections, said Douglas Keith, senior counsel in the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks spending in judicial races.

“We have seen attention on state supreme court elections like never before and money in these races like never before,” Keith said.

Heated court races in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2023 handed victories to Democrats and saw tens of millions of dollars in TV ads, offering a preview of 2024. They're also prompting groups to consider investing in states they would not previously have considered.

ABORTION AND GERRYMANDERING TOP ISSUES

At least 38 lawsuits have been filed challenging abortion bans in 23 states, according to the Brennan Center. Many of those are expected to end up before state supreme courts.

The ACLU is watching cases challenging abortion restrictions in Wyoming, Kentucky, Ohio, Utah, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska, Georgia and Montana.

“After Roe v. Wade was overturned, we had to turn to state courts and state constitutions as the critical backstop to protecting access to abortion,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “And the stakes are unbelievably high in each of these cases in each of these states.”

The ACLU was among major spenders on behalf of Democrats in this year's state supreme court contests in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Another big player in recent court races has been the Republican State Leadership Committee, which has said its focus is mainly on redistricting, or the drawing of political district boundaries. The group called state supreme courts the “last line of defense against far-left national groups,” but didn't say how much it intends to spend on next year's races or which states it's focusing on.

In Ohio, Democrats are expected to cast state supreme court races as an extension of the November election in which voters enshrined the right to abortion in the state constitution. The state has more than 30 abortion restrictions in place that could be challenged now that the amendment has passed.

“The state supreme court is going to be the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the new constitutional amendment that the people voted for and organized around,” said Jessie Hill, law professor at Case Western Reserve University and a consultant for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights. “That is a huge amount of power.”

With three seats up for a vote and a current Republican majority of 4-3, Democrats have an opportunity to flip the majority of the court while Republicans will try to expand their control. Hill said the “very high-stakes election” will serve as another test of the salience of the abortion issue in turning out voters.

“We saw an incredible number of voters come out to vote on that amendment and an incredible amount of investment in those campaigns,” Hill added. “I think we’ll see a similar attention and investment in Ohio come next year.”

Redistricting also is likely to be a main focus in the state's supreme court races, given the court will have realigned politically since it issued a series of rulings finding Ohio’s congressional and legislative maps unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans, said David Niven, political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. He expects millions of dollars to be spent on those campaigns.

“There’s often little conversation about these races, but they are just so utterly consequential in very tangible, practical ways that touch voters’ everyday lives,” he said.

MAP BROADENS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL RACES

Pending legislative and congressional redistricting cases also could play a role in North Carolina.

Republicans in North Carolina are looking to expand their majority two years after the court flipped from Democratic control in the 2022 election. That flip to a 5-2 GOP majority led to dramatic reversals in 2023 on rulings made by the previous court, which had struck down a 2018 photo voter identification law as well as district maps for the General Assembly and the state’s congressional delegation.

Groups on both sides also are expected to focus on Michigan, where Democrats hold a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court. Candidates run without political affiliations listed on the ballot, though they’re nominated by political parties.

Two incumbents — one Democrat, one Republican — will be up for election in 2024. The court recently kept former President Donald Trump on the state's ballot, denying a liberal group's request to kick him off. It is currently weighing a high-profile case over a Republican legislative maneuver that gutted a minimum wage hike backed by voters.

2023 RACES A PREVIEW

In Wisconsin, abortion played a dominant role in the 2023 court race, with Democrats flipping the court to a 4-3 majority in a campaign that shattered previous national records for spending in state supreme court elections.

Liberal-leaning Justice Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Justice Dan Kelly, who previously worked for Republicans and had support from the state’s leading anti-abortion groups.

Protasiewicz was targeted with impeachment threats this year over comments she made on the campaign trail about redistricting as Republicans argued she had prejudged what then was an expected case on the state's heavily gerrymandered state legislative districts. Experts say the controversy is an example of how more money and attention have changed the dynamics of many state supreme court races to be increasingly partisan.

Democrats in Pennsylvania added to their majority on the court after a race with tens of millions of dollars in spending. Democrat Dan McCaffery won after positioning himself as a strong defender of abortion rights.

CONTESTED SEATS EVEN IN DEEP RED STATES

It remains to be seen whether abortion rights will play a factor in states where party control isn't at stake. That includes Arkansas, where the court is expected to maintain its 4-3 conservative majority. The seats up next year include the chief justice position, which has drawn three sitting justices.

A fight over abortion could wind up before the court, with a group trying to put a measure on the ballot next year that would scale back a state ban on the procedure that took effect once Roe was overturned.

Abortion rights supporters also aren't writing off longshot states such as Texas and its all-Republican high court, which rejected the request from a pregnant woman whose fetus had a fatal condition to be exempted from the state's strict abortion ban.

In Montana, Republicans have spent huge sums to try to push the court in a more conservative direction. The liberal-leaning court is expected to hear cases related to restrictions on transgender youth and abortion. A landmark climate change case also is pending before the court, which will have two of its seven seats up for election.

Jeremiah Lynch, a former federal magistrate running for the open chief justice position, has cast himself as a defender of the court's independence and has warned voters to expect a barrage of negative advertising. Cory Swanson, a county attorney also running for the post, announced his bid on a conservative talk show and recently vowed to weed out any “radicalized” applicants for law clerks in response to antisemitism on college campuses.

In West Virginia, where conservatives have a current 5-4 majority on the court and two seats will be up for grabs, GOP chair Elgine McArdle said Republicans aim to focus more on judicial races than in years past.

“One area the state party has never really engaged much in is nonpartisan races, including the judicial races," McArdle said. “That won’t be the case this time around.”

Supreme Court chief justice report urges caution on use of AI ahead of contentious election year

With a wary eye over the future of the federal courts, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned Sunday of the perils of artificial intelligence (AI) when deciding cases and other important legal matters.

His remarks came in the annual year-end report issued by the head of the federal judiciary, which made no mention of current controversies surrounding his court, including calls for greater transparency and ethics reform binding the justices.

Noting the legal profession in general is "notoriously averse to change," Roberts urged a go-slow approach when embracing new technologies by the courts.

"AI obviously has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike," he said. "But just as obviously it risks invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law."

TOP REPUBLICAN TALKS AI ARMS RACE: 'YOU'LL HAVE MACHINES COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER'

"But any use of AI requires caution and humility," he added. "As 2023 draws to a close with breathless predictions about the future of Artificial Intelligence, some may wonder whether judges are about to become obsolete. I am sure we are not— but equally confident that technological changes will continue to transform our work."

Roberts also summarized the work of the nation's 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts and his own Supreme Court. Previous year-end reports have focused on courthouse security, judges’ pay, rising caseloads and budgets. 

The chief justice's predictions of the future did not include his own court's caseload, as he and his colleagues are poised to tackle several politically-charged disputes in the new year, many focused on former president Donald Trump's legal troubles and re-election efforts.

WATCHDOG WARNS SEVERAL FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE BEHIND ON AI REQUIREMENTS

The Supreme Court has tackled its share of election fights over the decades — remember Bush v. Gore nearly a quarter century ago? — but 2024 promises to make that judicial drama look quaint by comparison. 

First up could be whether states can keep Trump's name off primary and general election ballots. Colorado's highest court said yes, and now the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide the extent of a 14th Amendment provision that bans from office those who "engaged in insurrection."

State courts across the country are considering whether Trump's role in 2020 election interference and the Jan. 6 Capitol riots would disqualify him from seeking re-election.

The justices are being asked to decide the matter quickly, either by mid-February or early March, when the "Super Tuesday" primaries in 16 states are held.

In his leadership role as "first among equals," the 68-year-old Roberts will likely be the key player in framing what voting disputes his court will hear and ultimately decide, perhaps as the deciding vote. 

Despite a 6-3 conservative majority, the chief justice has often tried to play the middle, seeking a less-is-best approach that has frustrated his more right-leaning colleagues.

But despite any reluctance to stay away from the fray, the court, it seems, will be involved in election-related controversies. 

"Given the number of election disputes it might be coming, a lot of them could be moving very quickly and will be very important to see what the court does," said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. "Sometimes the Supreme Court has no choice but to be involved in the election cases, because there are some voting rights and election cases that the justices are required to resolve on the merits."

Already the high court is considering redistricting challenges to voting boundaries in GOP-leaning states, brought by civil rights groups.

That includes South Carolina's first congressional district and claims the Republican-led legislature created a racial gerrymander. A ruling is expected in spring 2024.

The high court could also be asked to weigh in on emergency appeals over vote-by-mail restrictions, provisional ballots deadlines, polling hours, the Electoral College and more. 

Just weeks before President Trump's first House impeachment in 2019, Roberts tried to downplay his court's consideration of partisan political disputes.

"When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms," Roberts said at the time. "That’s not how we at the court function and the results in our cases do not suggest otherwise."

But the court's reputation as a fair arbiter of the law and Constitution has continued to erode to all-time lows.

A Fox News poll in June found just 48% of those surveyed having confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 83% just six years ago.

COMMERCE SECRETARY WILL BAN NVIDIA AI CHIPS DESIGNED TO GET AROUND RESTRICTIONS

Donald Trump faces separate criminal prosecution in four jurisdictions in 2024 — two federal cases over document mishandling and 2020 election interference; and two state cases in Georgia over 2020 election interference and New York over hush money payments to a porn star.

The prospect of a former president and leading GOP candidate facing multiple criminal convictions — with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court — has the potential to dominate an already riven election campaign.

The former president has filed various motions in each case, seeking to drop charges, delay the proceedings, and be allowed to speak publicly at what he sees as politically-motivated prosecutions.

The Supreme Court recently refused to fast-track a separate appeal, over Trump's scheduled criminal trial scheduled to start the day before "Super Tuesday."

Special counsel Jack Smith is challenging Trump's claim of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case. The former president says the prosecutions amount to a "partisan witch hunt."

While the justices are staying out of the dispute for now, they could quickly jump back in later this winter, after a federal appeals court decides the merits in coming weeks.

But the justices will decide this term whether some January 6 Capitol riot defendants can challenge their convictions for "corruptly" obstructing "official proceedings." Oral arguments could be held in February or March.

More than 300 people are facing that same obstruction law over their alleged efforts to disrupt Congress' certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

The former president faces the same obstruction count in his case, and what the high court decides could affect Trump's legal defense in the special counsel prosecution, and the timing of his trial.

EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES OF BIDEN'S AI EXECUTIVE ORDER

In the short term, the Supreme Court, with its solid conservative majority, will hear arguments and issue rulings in coming months on hot-button topics like:

Abortion, and access to mifepristone, a commonly-used drug to end pregnancies

– Executive power, and an effort to sharply curb the power of federal agencies to interpret and enforce "ambiguous" policies enacted by Congress

– Social media, and whether tech firms — either on their own or with the cooperation of the government — can moderate or prevent users from posting disinformation

Gun rights and a federal ban on firearm possession by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders

Off the bench, the court last month instituted a new "code of conduct" — ethics rules to clarify ways the justices can address conflicts of interest, case recusals, activities they can participate in outside the court and their finances.

It followed months of revelations that some justices, particularly Clarence Thomas, did not accurately report gifts and other financial benefits on their required financial disclosure reports.

The court in a statement admitted the absence of binding ethics rules led some to believe that the justices "regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules."

"To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct."

All this reflects the delicate balancing act the chief justice will navigate in a presidential election year.

The unprecedented criticism of the high court's work — on and off the bench — is not lost on its nine members.

"There's a storm around us in the political world and the world at large in America," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said this fall. "We, as judges and the legal system, need to try to be a little more, I think, of the calm in the storm."

Some court watchers agree the court as an institution may struggle in the near term to preserve its legitimacy and public confidence, but time might be on its side.

"By its nature, the court kind of takes a long-term view of things," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department official, who has litigated cases before the Supreme Court. "Even when we disagree with the outcome in a particular case, I have never had any doubt that these are men and women who are doing their absolute best to faithfully apply the laws and the Constitution of the United States to reach the right result."