Donald Trump, senior members of his administration, and his congressional Republican allies are struggling to contain the political fallout from the leaked war plan chat scandal.
In multiple media appearances on friendly right-wing media outlets, they offered multiple excuses to spin what happened and promoted an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory for how Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was able to get access to the chat.
Appearing on Newsmax Tuesday, Trump inaccurately referred to the text chain as a “call” and professed ignorance as to how the leak occurred.
“What it was, we believe, is somebody that was on the line with permission, somebody that worked with Mike Waltz at a lower level, had Goldberg's number or call through the app, and somehow this guy ended up on the call,” he told host Greg Kelly.
“I can only go by what I’ve been told—I wasn’t involved in it,” Trump added.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance tried to dismiss the scandal altogether, claiming on social media it was “very clear Goldberg oversold what he had.”
Fox News devoted the opening segment of all three of its prime-time shows on Tuesday night—“Hannity,” “The Ingraham Angle,” and “Jesse Watters Primetime”—to hosting Republican officials to spin the story.
Speaking to Laura Ingraham, national security adviser Mike Waltz, who invited The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief to the chat, saw a sinister motive behind Goldberg’s reporting.
“I’m not a conspiracy theorist,” he said, “but of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president, who has lied to Gold Star families, lied to their attorneys, and gone to Russia hoax, gone to just all kinds of lengths to lie and smear the president of the United States, and he’s the one that somehow gets on somebody’s contacts and then gets sucked into this group.”
Trump has attacked Goldberg over many years for reporting that Trump called deceased military veterans “suckers” and “losers,” but Trump’s own former chief of staff John Kelly from his first administration verified that story.
Waltz also claimed to Ingraham that he has enlisted multibillionaire Trump financier Elon Musk to investigate the leak.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, led on by host Jesse Watters, echoed Waltz’s conspiracy theory that Goldberg had done something "mischievous" to end up in the secret text chain to which he was invited by Waltz.
She also compared Democratic anger about the leak to the Russia “hoax”—which was not a hoax and led to Trump’s first impeachment.
“The Democrats, there’s nothing that they’re better at than spinning a sensationalist story out of a basic set of facts,” Leavitt said.
Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Trump ally, led off the opening segment of “Hannity” by praising chat participants for speaking “just like they do to the American people.” Mullin then argued that Democrats were raising the issue to distract from “disastrous decisions that the Democrat (sic) Party is having.”
The Trump administration’s argument—that Goldberg or some other outside actor had done something devious to access the chat—wasn’t far off from pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who argued on his Infowars site that the leak to Goldberg was a “CIA Vault 7 style operation.” Vault 7 was a leak of classified CIA documents to the WikiLeaks site in 2018.
The full-throated defense and attempt to spread disinformation surrounding the story across multiple outlets raises doubts about the administration’s claim that the leak was not a big deal. In fact, the high-level spin raises more questions about the chat and what the administration may be hiding as it refuses to be more forthcoming about what occurred.
Hunter Biden has hired a heavyweight South Carolina attorney – with a similar high-profile to his last lawyer – to go after a right-wing business executive for defamation.
Former state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, D-Columbia, a self-described "Joe Biden guy" who recently represented Low Country prosecutor-turned-convicted killer Alex Murdaugh, is the younger Biden’s new lawyer as he pursues ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in court.
Harpootlian confirmed to The State newspaper in Columbia that he is replacing Abbe David Lowell – who led Biden through his special counsel probe and gun charges in Wilmington.
Biden, who was pardoned by his father for those allegations, is primed to go to Los Angeles court in July against Byrne.
The suit claims Byrne wrongfully accused Biden of being in touch with Iranian officials in 2021, seeking a bribe in exchange for unfreezing $8 billion in funds at the behest of his father.
Meanwhile, Biden is reportedly facing "lagging" art sales and "several million dollars in debt" from fighting past cases when he was represented by Lowell, according to ABC News.
In the Byrne case, Biden is reportedly claiming defamatory statements from the Iran allegation that led him to lose "economic opportunities," including memoir and art sales and speaking engagements estimated to be collectively worth about $500,000.
Harpootlian was ousted from the state Senate in a narrow November upset by state Sen. Russell Ott, D-St. Matthews, as both men were seeking a redrawn, open seat.
Ott criticized Harpootlian’s representation of Murdaugh, according to the Daily Gazette, and while the longtime Biden ally performed well in urban Richland County, where he also practices law, Ott overperformed in rural Calhoun County, where he and his father long held office.
"We went through a process… I lost. The process worked. I’m not accusing anybody of stealing anything. I’m not having a temper tantrum. I’m not expressing some doubt in our system," Harpootlian said in conceding the race.
Harpootlian also told a 2023 crime-themed convention that he would rather represent Murdaugh pro-bono in a second trial than splurge on a vacation or a racehorse:
"What's so astounding about that? We do cases for free all the time," he said at CrimeCon.
Meanwhile, Lowell was a constant presence while Biden was fighting various allegations in the special counsel probe and House Republicans’ investigations.
After a 2024 deposition, Lowell slammed GOP lawmakers for ending the day "where they started."
"They have produced no evidence that would do anything to support the notion that there was any financial transactions that involved Hunter with his father. Period," Lowell said.
"It seems to me that the Republican members wanted to spend more time talking about my client's addiction than they could ask any question that had anything to do with what they call their impeachment inquiry."
Lowell is also facing a defamation suit, to the tune of $20 million, brought by IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley Jr. and Joseph Ziegler.
Fox News Digital reached out to Harpootlian’s Columbia office and a communications email for Lowell seeking additional comment.
A major national security scandal is still unfolding after top-level Trump administration officials accidentally invited a journalist to a private text chat being used to plan a military strike in Yemen.
As President Donald Trump and his ever-loyal Republican Party try to minimize the incident, it has fallen on congressional Democrats to probe what happened and to protect the public from the administration’s operational failures.
Republicans have long used congressional investigations to effectively attack their political opponents over foreign policy controversies. In 2015, after the attack on two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and subsequent rush to assign blame on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News exactly how the GOP playbook worked.
“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee,” McCarthy bragged. “What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”
Here are 10 things that Democratic lawmakers can do in the days and weeks and months ahead, including borrowing some tactics from the scandal playbook that Republicans have used against Democrats in the past.
1. Keep it simple and explain the scandal to a busy public
The technology and issues involved in the leak are somewhat complex and involve issues like the Signal messaging app and U.S. policy in the Middle East. But that doesn’t mean Democrats’ rhetoric about the incident can’t be simple.
For instance, when Republicans raked the Biden administration over the coals for withdrawing from Afghanistan or the Obama administration for the Benghazi attack, they did not get into the weeds about policy—and those attacks frequently resonated as a result.
Most Americans use messaging apps. They wouldn’t want their secrets exposed to the world. It’s even worse when thousands of lives are on the line. That’s what the Trump administration did, and that’s how Democrats can make a big issue understandable.
2. Oppose Trump’s nominees—all of them
Just two months into Trump’s new presidency, Senate Democrats have already been burned by their appetite for bipartisanship. Despite Trump’s open disdain for the rule of law, his embrace of misogyny and bigotry, and his disinterest in basic facts, the party has voted to confirm several of his Cabinet nominees—only to later express regret for doing so.
Even as the leak details were becoming public, members of the Senate Democratic caucus voted for Trump nominees Christopher Landau (to the State Department) and John Phelan. Phelan, who will become secretary of the Navy, is a major Trump donor with no military experience. Voting for him after the text leak is a particularly odd choice for Democrats.
After then-President Joe Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, Republicans blocked him from promoting military officers. Democrats can do the same to Trump now.
3. Be aggressive when talking about a national security crisis
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a “bipartisan investigation” of the text chat. While it would seem right to call for national unity on an issue of this magnitude, Schumer’s rhetoric is as out of step with reality as his recent vote in favor of Trump’s cruel budget priorities.
As the controversy over the Benghazi attacks raged, Republican voters viewed the scandal as important as Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair, according to opinion polls. Despite the tragedy of the attacks, Republican leaders constantly distorted the magnitude of the incident. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said it was “one of [the] worst incidents I can recall in my career.” Cheney, of course, was vice president on Sept. 11.
Democrats can discuss the possibility that foreign intelligence and other bad actors may have had access to the chat or possibly other, undisclosed chats. That isn’t hyperbole. The Trump administration already did it once.
A good example of this: Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia noted that this kind of thing occurs when a leader like Trump picks his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from the ranks of Fox News talking heads.
Ossoff: This is what happens when you have Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials. [image or embed]
4. Hold the media accountable for ignoring or downplaying the story
As the initial shock of the leak wears off, the mainstream media is likely to return to form by minimizing the severity of the incident. In fact, major media outlets like The New York Times, which amplified multiple stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server in 2016, are already downplaying it.
Democrats can highlight this problem while stressing the importance of the incident. By noting that a breach of this caliber may risk American lives, Democrats can ask the press to question key officials like Hegseth, Trump, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (who has ahistory of propagandizing for hostile foreign governments).
5. Demand answers about the scandal and fallout from government agencies
Members of Congress have the power to request information and documentation from government agencies. Republicans bombarded the Biden administration with such requests after the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Not only can the defense and intelligence agencies be the subject of such requests, but Democrats can ask other unaffiliated agencies and even projects like Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to disclose how they are communicating, if any secret backchannels are in use, and to ask what is being discussed and why it is outside of public review.
Congress has the constitutional mandate of oversight, and that comes into play here. Already, Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida has issued a demand for officials involved in the “Hegseth Disaster Signal Chat” to retain records in anticipation of possible litigation and a Congressional investigation.
6. Demand hearings, and follow up with more hearings
It is already unlikely that congressional Republicans will open hearings into the leak, as leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson are already trying to turn the page on the embarrassing debacle.
But Democrats shouldn’t accept just one investigation. House Republicans launched five committee investigations into the Benghazi attack and also set up a House Select Committee on the issue. There was a Senate investigation as well.
The playbook is wide open, with multiple aspects of this incident to be sorted out across a host of committees, and as new information and witnesses surface, the scope of which committees can best handle an investigation could expand.
7. Use the media to push concerns about the scandal
In addition to pushing journalists and news organizations to cover the story, Democrats can use multiple media appearances to forward their narrative surrounding the leak. Republicans have made considerable hay out of any number of Democratic actions, from the Afghanistan withdrawal, to Benghazi, to President Obama’s decision to wear a tan suit, and particularly former President Bill Clinton’s infidelity while in office.
Mainstream news networks book members of Congress and other political leaders for appearances constantly. Even if the main topic is completely unrelated, Democrats can note how one area of Trump administration incompetence or malfeasance echoes the chat leak controversy.
8. Amplify veterans’ concerns about the national security breach
To attack the Biden administration over the Afghanistan withdrawal, Republicans solicited testimony from veterans who witnessed some of the tactical mistakes made. Military security is directly in the crosshairs of the chat leak, and Democrats should take note.
Veteran advocacy groups like VoteVets are already pushing for answers about the incident, and Democrats would do well to take up their cause. Similarly, there are multiple Democratic officeholders who are veterans and have already spoken out about the problems involved in the leak. There can never be too many voices like this, which attract public and media attention.
“This isn’t about party—it’s about country.” - Rep. Pat Ryan
Democratic Veterans are demanding answers after Trump’s SecDef mishandled sensitive military info.
American lives are at risk. We need accountability. We need a hearing. [image or embed]
9. Send criminal referrals related to the leak and possible cover-up
In the course of investigating the leak, there is an extremely high possibility that someone involved will lie or mislead.
Stymied by their failure to turn Biden’s son Hunter into a liability, Republicans referred him and his uncle James Biden to the Department of Justice on the claim that they lied to Congress (a crime). While this did not result in charges, it generated coverage and renewed interest in the story.
If people lie about the leak—and figures like Hegseth have already lied to reporters about it—this is another avenue Democrats can travel down.
10. Never be satisfied with the administration’s spin, and keep pushing for more answers
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Questions about the chat leak will inevitably lead to more questions. Based on the track record of Trump and his underlings, this group chat from hell surely isn’t the only backchannel of communication that exists in the administration.
Democrats can ask about and investigate this phenomenon and all the other subsequent questions it raises. Were other agencies involved? Were key GOP figures like Elon Musk and Mike Johnson connected? Are there ongoing text chats about national security with conservative media figures like Sean Hannity who are known to have Trump’s ear? Did Trump or anyone under him use this information and sharing of information for personal financial gain?
Trump has shown absolutely zero interest in moral or ethical boundaries, even when the lives of Americans are on the line. These questions aren’t out of bounds, but well within his existing and well-known pattern of behavior.
In an ideal world the Republicans would come clean about what they’ve done, heads would roll, and the American public would be educated about what is being done in their name. But that world does not exist, so Democrats should mirror what Republicans have done in the past to fan the flames of scandal and further their agenda—and use those tactics to protect America from Team Trump’s incompetence.
President Donald Trump defended National Security Advisor Michael Waltz during an ambassador meeting on Monday, as his administration faces fierce backlash over the recent Signal text chain leak.
Waltz, whose staffers had unknowingly added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat where Secretary of State Pete Hegseth and others discussed sensitive war plans, has come under fire for the blunder. Speaking to a room full of reporters, Trump said he believes Waltz is "doing his best."
"I don't think he should apologize," the president said. "I think he's doing his best. It's equipment and technology that's not perfect."
"And, probably, he won't be using it again, at least not in the very near future," he added.
Goldberg was added to the national security discussion, called "Houthi PC Small Group", earlier in March. He was able to learn about attacks against Houthi fighters in Yemen long before the public.
"According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time," Goldberg wrote in his piece about the experience. "So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city."
Though Goldberg's inclusion in the chat did not foil the military's plans, the national security breach has still stunned both supporters and critics of the Trump administration. During the Tuesday meeting, Trump also said that he was in contact with Waltz over whether hackers can break into Signal conversations.
"Are people able to break into conversations? And if that's true, we're gonna have to find some other form of device," Trump said. "And I think that's something that we may have to do. Some people like Signal very much, other people probably don't, but we'll look into it."
"Michael, I've asked you to immediately study that and find out if people are able to break into a system," he added.
In response, Waltz assured Trump that he has White House technical experts "looking at" the situation, along with legal teams.
"And of course, we're going to keep everything as secure as possible," the national security official said. "No one in your national security team would ever put anyone in danger. And as you said, we've repeatedly said the attack was phenomenal, and it's ongoing."
There appears to be little appetite within the House GOP to pursue the impeachment of judges who have blocked President Donald Trump's agenda.
Republican lawmakers are instead coalescing around a bill led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit the ability of U.S. district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which is due for a House floor vote next week.
One House GOP lawmaker at Tuesday morning's closed-door Republican conference meeting said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled that Issa's bill would be a more effective message against who they view as "activist" judges.
"There was some innuendo there that, you know, impeachment has been reserved for judges with high crimes and misdemeanors, not because you disagree with his decisions," the lawmaker said of Johnson's message.
House GOP Policy Conference Chair Kevin Hern, R-Okla., said, "I don't think so," when asked if impeachment was a realistic effort. "I think it's probably a mixed bag out there right now," he said, adding that Issa's bill was the best option he could see.
Johnson himself did not directly comment on impeachment when asked during his weekly press conference on Tuesday, but he said the House Judiciary Committee was "looking at alternatives."
"One of the bills that I really like, that's already been through committee, was authored by Representative Darrell Issa. And that would limit the scope of federal injunctions," Johnson said. "It would be, in my view, a dramatic improvement on that."
Several conservatives have introduced resolutions to impeach various judges who have blocked Trump's agenda.
One such effort that has garnered significant attention is a resolution by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, to impeach U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg is currently locked in a legal showdown with the Department of Justice over the Trump administration's deportation of suspected Tren De Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.
Trump previously called for Boasberg's impeachment but has said little on the specific issue since then.
He has been adamant that Republicans should take on activist judges, however, and Fox News Digital was told last week that he was in favor of Issa's bill.
Conservatives could attempt to force House GOP leaders to act by classifying their impeachment legislation as a "privileged resolution," meaning the House must hold at least a chamber-wide procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.
Gill told Fox News Digital on Tuesday morning that he had no current plans to make his resolution privileged, and he was supportive of Johnson and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, in handling the matter.
"I don't think we should take anything off the table. But right now, we're working with leadership. Johnson's doing a great job, and so is [Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas] and Jim Jordan on the Judiciary Committee," Gill said.
Support for his resolution has continued to grow, however. Three Republicans signed on to formally support Gill's push on Monday.
Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., who has introduced his own impeachment resolution, told Fox News Digital, "I think we should hold impeachment regardless of what the Senate does or doesn't do…we should do the people's work, which is impeach those bastards."
However, even people who said they would back impeachment are skeptical it will pass.
"It's kind of a futile exercise, because we don't have the votes in the Senate [to remove a judge]," a conservative House GOP lawmaker said Monday night. "It's more of a ‘Hey, stay in your lane, you’re not the president.' And I think if anything, let's put some pressure on the Supreme Court to take up one of these injunctions."
That conservative added that they would "absolutely" vote for impeachment if it came to the floor.
Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., who co-signed Gill's resolution, told Fox News Digital on Monday night that he would support both impeachment and Issa's bill moving to the House floor, but he was skeptical of the former succeeding.
"I think impeachment obviously is unlikely because of the Senate…but it signals that, you know, these judges are out of control and not following the law," Hamadeh explained. "I think it's the smart approach to do both right now, but it seems like the solution, [the No Rogue Rulings Act], that's likely to get broad support."
Additionally, with House Republicans' razor-thin majority, it is not clear that an impeachment resolution would even succeed.
"We shouldn't lower the standard for impeachment, but we should – ‘we’ meaning Congress – should provide a remedy for district court judges who totally overreach," Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said.
Another House Republican who declined to be named said they were "totally opposed" to impeachment.
"That's what the appeals process is for," they said.
The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing early next week on activist judges, and that's expected to be followed by a House-wide vote on Issa's bill.
As Republicans look for ways to rein in federal judges issuing countless orders to halt the Trump administration's action on immigration in particular, a number of potential avenues for doing so are being considered.
However, the use of a key budget process that lowers the Senate's threshold to 51 votes to defund certain courts could face significant obstacles.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, House Freedom Caucus policy chair and chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital he isn't "for or against" any specific approach to addressing the countrywide injunctions that are throwing a wrench into President Donald Trump's priorities.
"We ought to look at [impeachment], we ought to look at jurisdiction-stripping, we ought to look at every option that needs to be addressed about judges that are actively taking steps to try to undermine the presidency," he said.
The Republican added, "I think there are pros and cons of those approaches. I think we need to look at … funding scenarios. Now that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate."
The budget reconciliation process lowers the threshold for Senate passage from 60 votes to 51 out of 100, allowing the party in power to more easily advance its agenda with no opposition party support. However, the provisions must relate to budgetary and other fiscal matters. The House of Representatives already has a simple majority threshold.
The process is being relied on heavily by Republicans, who have a trifecta in Washington, in order to push through Trump agenda items.
In the months since Trump took office, his aggressive pace has been somewhat hampered by federal judges across the country issuing numerous orders to halt immigration, waste-cutting and anti-diversity, equity and inclusion actions.
This has prompted Republicans to call for action against what they consider abusive actions by lower-tier federal judges.
"I don’t think defunding is a viable option," said Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a Fox News contributor.
"The chief justice would be angry that the district courts were understaffed, and Trump wouldn’t get away with later trying to add the positions back so that he could fill them," he continued.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo called potentially defunding the courts that have been causing problems for the administration "a terrible idea."
"It would make no difference anyway; the cases challenging Trump’s executive orders would still be challenged in the courts that exist," he explained.
This was echoed by former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, who said, "I don’t think defunding an already overworked judicial system would be right or effective."
Because of the specific guidelines for what can be included in reconciliation bills, legal experts seem to be in agreement that defunding courts wouldn't meet the requirements.
One such expert told Fox News Digital that not only does the provision need to have a federal fiscal impact, the policy effect cannot outweigh that impact.
They further noted that the Senate's parliamentarian would be the one to make a judgment on this.
Trusty said "the solution to judicial activism" is either the appellate courts finding ways to stop the injunctions on appeal or by direct orders, or "Congress develops a nimble response and passes legislation to clarify their intent to let the executive branch act without judicial tethers on various issues."
"The better option would be to explore ways to limit the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to fast-track appeals when they try to issue nationwide injunctions," McCarthy said.
As for potentially impeaching federal judges, which has been floated by Trump himself, Trusty said it "should still be viewed as a prosecution substitute for office holders who have committed treason or high crimes and misdemeanors; in other words, serious crimes."
"Bad judgment and wrong-headed decisions are not crimes," he noted.
Neither Trump's White House nor Republican leadership in Congress have indicated plans to pursue the issue through the reconciliation process.
Lawmakers have acknowledged the problem, though, and the House is set to take up legislation to address the judges' actions this week.
The Trump administration has begun an interagency effort to end what it describes as the "exploitation of housing programs" by illegal aliens.
In a statement published on Monday, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that it had established the "American Housing Programs for American Citizens" Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The agreement was also signed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The MOU is geared towards ending "the wasteful misappropriation of taxpayer dollars to benefit illegal aliens instead of American citizens," the press release stated.
"As part of this new agreement, HUD will provide a full-time staff member to assist in operations at the Incident Command Center (ICC), establishing an interagency partnership to facilitate data sharing and ensure taxpayer-funded housing programs are not used to harbor or benefit illegal aliens," the release read.
The effort comes a month after President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) to "ensure taxpayer resources are not used to incentivize or support illegal immigration." The EO, signed on Feb. 19, ordered government departments to identify which federally-funded programs are "providing financial benefits to illegal aliens," and mandated them to "take corrective action."
In a statement about the recent MOU, HUD Secretary Scott Turner referenced the ongoing housing crisis in the U.S. and characterized the issue as "pressing."
"This agreement will leverage resources including technology and personnel to ensure American people are the only priority when it comes to public housing," Turner said. "We will continue to work closely with DHS to maximize our resources and put American citizens first."
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem blasted the Biden administration in her statement, accusing the former president of prioritizing illegal aliens "over our own citizens, including by giving illegal aliens taxpayer-funding housing at the expense of Americans."
"The entire government will work together to identify abuse and exploitation of public benefits and make sure those in this country illegally are not receiving federal benefits or other financial incentives to stay illegally," Noem said. "If you are an illegal immigrant, you should leave now. The gravy train is over."
FIRST ON FOX: Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is expected to privately meet with Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, two people familiar with the plans told Fox News Digital.
The timing or reason for the meeting is not immediately clear, but it comes as Republicans in Congress map out how to respond to what they see as "activist" judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda.
The committee is currently scheduled to mark up several pieces of legislation, unrelated to the judicial standoff, on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. ET. Johnson is scheduled to hold his weekly press conference at that time.
It comes as the Trump administration has faced more than a dozen injunctions from various district court judges across the country on a range of policy decisions.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., announced on X Monday that lawmakers would be voting on a bill next week led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit U.S. district court judges' ability to hand down nationwide injunctions.
Fox News Digital was told last week that Trump himself expressed interest in the bill.
Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is expected to hold a hearing on the issue of activist judges early next week.
Several conservative lawmakers have also introduced or threatened resolutions to impeach specific judges blocking Trump's agenda.
Johnson has been known to meet with various factions of the House GOP when trying to push key pieces of legislation, particularly when there are differing opinions on what to do, to ensure all lawmakers who want to express a viewpoint are heard.
But House GOP leaders have also been privately wary of getting behind any of the calls for impeachment, worried it would not be the most effective approach.
Trump, however, has previously signaled interest in impeaching U.S. district court Judge James Boasberg after he issued an emergency order blocking the administration's deportation of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach Boasberg for "abuse of power" last week. The legislation gained three new supporters on Monday and now has 19 total co-sponsors.
Some House Republicans expressed hesitation at the idea when asked by Fox News Digital on Monday night, however.
"We shouldn't lower the standard for impeachment, but we should – we meaning Congress – should provide a remedy for district court judges who totally overreach," Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said.
Another House Republican who declined to be named said they were "totally opposed" to impeachment.
"That's what the appeals process is for," they said.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., contended that the impeachment resolutions sent a necessary message.
"The reason I sponsored Gill's efforts is just – if we don't say anything, the judges are going to be like, ‘Oh, we can do whatever we want.’ So they need to know that we are watching and that there's a group of us that, if that's what it takes, we would support that," Stutzman said.
Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said Issa's bill was a "start" but said the House Freedom Caucus would have discussions about whether the group wanted to push for impeachment.
Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson's office and the House Judiciary Committee for comment but did not immediately hear back.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a stern warning to those engaged in government fraud at the most recent Cabinet meeting on Monday.
Speaking with President Donald Trump present at the meeting, Bondi thanked Tesla CEO Elon Musk for uncovering "fraud, waste and abuse" through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative.
"A lot of waste and abuse, but there is a tremendous amount of fraud," Bondi began. "And, Elon, thank you for your partnership. Thank you for your team. You have uncovered so much fraud in our government."
Bondi then revealed that an internal task force is involved with bringing those accused of fraud to justice.
"We will prosecute you," the attorney general warned. "We have an internal task force now working with every agency sitting here at this table. And if you've committed fraud, we're coming after you. Thank you, Elon."
Bondi also mentioned that, under Trump's directive, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will begin seeking the death penalty for those convicted of violent crimes.
"All of these horrible violent criminals that you're hearing about around the country, they will face the death penalty federally within our country," Bondi said. "And the drug dealers need to get out of here, because we are coming after you. We're going to have 94 great U.S. attorneys around this country, and everyone will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
The topic of government fraud was mentioned throughout the meeting, with Musk claiming that he found $330 million worth of waste within the Small Business Administration (SBA).
"[We found] a case of fraud and waste with the Small Business Administration, where they were handing out $330 million worth of loans to people under the age of 11," Musk said. "I think the youngest was a nine month year [sic] old who got a $100,000 loan."
"That's a very precocious baby we're talking about here," he joked.
Trump expressed appreciation to both Musk and the rest of the Cabinet for uncovering waste and fraud.
"We've had many fraudulent contracts that were caught by the work that Elon and his people are doing," the president said. "And working with our people, it's been brought to light. The fraud, not just waste and abuse, the fraud has been incredible."
But always eager to find a new bottom, Trump has decided to send Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem south of the border to continue her cosplay parade alongside the prisoners.
Noem is visiting Mexico, Colombia, and El Salvador this week to "underscore the importance of our partner countries to help remove violent criminal illegal aliens from the United States,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement obtained by Bloomberg. She will tour CECOT, the mega-prison in El Salvador now housing the alleged gang members for a cool $6 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem earned the moniker “ICE Barbie” after her widely ridiculed video.
The former South Dakota governor has been working overtime to get the best photo ops possible as she gallivants around the country doing anything other than her actual job. In January, Noem went viral in all the wrong ways for the perfect blowout and impeccable makeup she sported while dressed up as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.
Even the usually Trump-friendly tabloid Daily Mail piled on to Noem’s PR stunts and said she was cosplaying as a “Border Patrol cowgirl” while visiting the southern border in February.
But while the unrepentant puppy-killer makes sure the cameras get her best angles, human beings are being held in CECOT, a so-called terrorism confinement center with a history of abuse. These immigrants are being shaved, shackled, dehumanized, and detained far away from their homes.
While Donald Trump and his team are calling this a win and claiming the inmates are all members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang, one woman is crying out for help and insisting her imprisoned brother is innocent.
“He was asking for help. And that help didn’t come from the lips. It came from the soul,” Jare Yamarte Fernandez told the Miami Herald after she recognized her brother Mervin in a video shared on social media.
Adding that her brother has no previous criminal record, she told the outlet, “You know when someone has their soul broken.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem participates in a firefighting drill at U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak on March 17 in Kodiak, Alaska.
Over 200 Venezuelans were sent to the maximum security prison without a trial after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which was last used to send Japanese Americans to internment camps after Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941. He later denied invoking the 1798 law to send the immigrants to El Salvador—but paper doesn’t lie, and his signature was seen on official documents available to the public.
After U.S. District Judge James Boasberg blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, all hell seemed to break loose between the judicial system and Republicans.
The president and his allies in Congress have been calling for Boasberg’s impeachment and disbarment, while the judge refuses to let up on his block. As of Monday afternoon, a federal appeals court was considering the Trump administration’s argument to overturn the initial ruling as they push to ship more undocumented immigrants to other prisons.
"There were plane loads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people," Judge Patricia Millett said during the hearing. "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act."
As for Noem, the disconnect in perspective is stark. During a Cabinet meeting Monday, she claimed that the intention of the Trump administration’s ongoing sweeping deportation effort is to “get people out of this country that don’t belong here and take them home.”
But when it came to those who have allegedly committed crimes, Noem turned cold.
“We’re not only getting the worst of the worst out, we’re making sure there are consequences for being here and committing crimes in our communities,” she said.
“If you are thinking about coming to America illegally, don’t do it,” Noem warned. “You are not welcome. America has changed, because we are putting Americans first.”
