Trump nominates Susan Monarez to become the next CDC director, says Americans ‘lost confidence’ in agency

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Donald Trump has named Susan Monarez as his nominee for the next director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), calling the candidate "a dedicated public servant."

Monarez, who is currently acting director of the CDC, replaces Trump's original nominee for the role, Dr. David Weldon. The Trump administration never gave an official reason why Weldon's nomination was withdrawn earlier this month, but a source familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that it would have been a "futile effort."

"It became clear that the votes weren't there in the Senate for him to get confirmed," the source explained. "This would have been a futile effort."

In a Truth Social post published on Monday, Trump wrote that Monarez "brings decades of experience championing Innovation, Transparency, and strong Public Health Systems."

DOJ INSISTS EL SALVADOR DEPORTATION FLIGHTS DID NOT VIOLATE COURT ORDER

"She has a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, and PostDoctoral training in Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine," the president wrote. "Dr. Monarez understands the importance of protecting our children, our communities, and our future."

Trump also claimed that Americans have "lost confidence" in the CDC, citing "political bias and disastrous mismanagement," as reasons why.

IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

"Dr. Monarez will work closely with our GREAT Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr," the president continued. "Together, they will prioritize Accountability, High Standards, and Disease Prevention to finally address the Chronic Disease Epidemic and, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN!"

According to Monarez's CDC biography, she previously worked at the White House in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and on the National Security Council.

"[She led] efforts to enhance the nation's biomedical innovation capabilities, including combating antimicrobial resistance, expanding the use of wearables to promote patient health, ensuring personal health data privacy, and improving pandemic preparedness," the biography states. "She has also held leadership positions at the Department of Homeland Security and has led numerous international cooperative initiatives to promote bilateral and multilateral health innovation research and development."

Fox News Digital's Rachel Wolf and Julia Johnson contributed to this report.

Fox News Politics: House takes on judges

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content.

Here's what's happening…

-US moves to extradite 3 alleged Tren de Aragua members to Chile

-Democrats on possible Biden political reemergence: 'his time has passed'

-New report sounds the alarm on 'staggering' amount of foreign money being poured into U.S. universities

FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing early next week looking into the issue of "activist judges," three people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.

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. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in one of those cases Monday after President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also confirmed on Fox News' "America's Newsroom" that he intended to hold hearings on "activist judges" opposing the administration. He said he expects a House-wide vote next week on a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to block district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions…Read more

'NONSENSICAL' SPENDING: From 'food justice' to 'useless surveys,' Trump's cabinet reveals 'nonsensical' contracts it has canceled

FREE SPEECH: Biden admin's 'vast censorship enterprise' with help of NGOs slated for key hearing, lawmaker says

CANDID CLOONEY: George Clooney says he dropped support for Biden after seeing him up close, condemns Democratic 'cowardice'

'A HARMLESS VISIT': Greenland PM slams upcoming visit from Usha Vance as 'very aggressive' provocation

IMPEACHMENT OVERTURNED: South Korean PM Han Duck-soo reinstated as acting president after impeachment overturned

'CONSTRUCTIVE' DISCUSSION: US peace talks with Ukraine, Russia get underway in Saudi Arabia

BUDGET BRAWL: Battle of the chambers: House and Senate tensions boil over as Trump budget hangs in limbo

RED AND BLUE: Trump-district Democrat warns party brand 'in trouble' ahead of 2026 midterms

'PROFOUND IMPACT': Clean air mandates exacerbating dearth in gas tax revenues used for roads, bridges, infrastructure

'DISRUPTIVE': Bush-era education secretary wary about FAFSA disruptions as department faces dismantling

DEI DIES: Youngkin efforts lead slew of VA colleges to nix DEI, as Hokie alums reportedly push back'

'CLEARLY A PATTERN': Maine Dems push for tampons in boys' bathrooms amid ongoing debate over trans sports participation

'ABSOLUTELY EGREGIOUS': Boston releasing serious criminal illegals on very low bail

'DEEPLY HONORED': Top GOP governor makes key endorsement in border state gubernatorial race: 'Deeply honored'

NOT FINISHED?: RFK Jr.'s former running mate rules out 2026 CA governor run, hints at activism

MAP QUEST: Supreme Court hears pivotal Louisiana election map case ahead of 2026 midterms

LEARNING NOTHING: Columbia faculty hold 'emergency vigil,' urge students to wear masks, skip class

THE SHOW MUST GO ON: Judge blocks enforcement of Texas A&M system's drag show ban, allowing 'Draggieland' event on campus this week

TESLA TERROR: FBI tells Tesla owners to be vigilant as authorities pinpoint their focus to stop violence: former agent

Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com.

SCOOP: House to hold hearings next week on ‘activist judges’ blocking Trump agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: The House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing early next week looking into the issue of "activist judges," three people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.

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 Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, confirmed on Fox News' "America's Newsroom" that he intended to hold such hearings minutes after Fox News Digital reported on the news.

Jordan also said he expects a House-wide vote next week on a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to block district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. 

Two sources told Fox News Digital they expected that vote next week or the week after, but one source stressed that conversations were still ongoing.

That comes as some conservatives push for impeachment as a way to punish judges blocking Trump's agenda. 

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to how Congress may try to discipline judges who rule against Trump

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Congressional Republicans are searching for a way to discipline or rein in federal judges, whom they believe have exceeded their authority. 

House Republicans will have to wrestle with a push by some conservatives to impeach judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump. 

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, has drafted an article of impeachment for Judge James Boasberg over his suspension of some deportations.

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IMPEACHAPlOOZA IS HERE TO STAY 

Some conservatives are pushing impeachment for Boasberg and several other judges they believe exceeded their authority. 

The House Republican leadership does not want to deal with impeachment, and it’s unclear if the House would ever have the votes to impeach. Conservatives could try to go over the heads of the GOP brass and put impeachment on the floor by making the resolution privileged. However, Republican leaders could try to euthanize that effort by moving to send the impeachment articles to committee. Thus, the vote is on the motion to send the articles to committee, not on impeachment. 

BUSH DOJ LAWYER WARNS TRUMP ADMIN AGAINST ‘TERRIBLE MISTAKE’ IN JUDICIAL STANDOFF

That said, the administration appears to prefer a remedy offered by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Issa’s bill would limit the scope of rulings by these judges. 

Moreover, it’s unclear that the House would ever have the votes to impeach, and even if they did, a Senate trial would end without conviction. It takes 67 votes to convict in an impeachment trial. 

‘Corrupt, dangerous’: GOP Rep moves to impeach judge who blocked Trump federal funds freeze

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde is formally introducing his articles of impeachment against a Rhode Island judge who previously ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal funds. 

The articles, first shared with Fox News Digital, charge Chief U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. with abuse of power and conflicts of interest, stating he "knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs."  

If McConnell is found guilty of such charges, the articles read, he should be removed from office. 

SCOOP: IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP TREN DE ARAGUA DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

McConnell is currently overseeing a lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia that challenges the Trump administration's move to withhold federal grant funds. After McConnell ordered the administration to comply with a restraining order, the government appealed to the First Circuit – which refused to stay the orders. 

"The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in November, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient," Clyde told Fox News Digital. "Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people. Judge McConnell’s actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment."

COURT ORDER HALTING DEPORTATION FLIGHTS ‘UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPEDES’ EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TRUMP ALLIES ARGUE

Clyde announced plans to draft impeachment articles in early February, after McConnell ordered the Trump administration to reinstate paused federal grants and loans. The articles formalize the charges. 

McConnell has also come under fire from Trump supporters and conservatives in recent weeks after a 2021 video resurfaced in which he warned that courts must "stand and enforce the rule of law … against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant or could be whatnot." 

The articles cite that video, claiming McConnell "has allowed his personal, political opinions to influence his decisions and rulings," and that he has demonstrated a "bias that would warp his decision" in the federal freeze case. 

In a statement, Clyde said "judicial activism" is "the Left’s latest form of lawfare."

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IMPEACHAPALOOZA IS HERE TO STAY

"Congress bears the responsibility and the constitutional authority to hold activist judges accountable through impeachment," he continued. "I applaud the work of my colleagues to hold other rogue judges accountable, and I hope we see swift action on this critical matter in the House very soon."

When contacted, the court declined to comment. 

Clyde's impeachment resolution follows a similar move by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who earlier filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg. The Washington, D.C.-based federal judge is overseeing a separate case challenging President Donald Trump's use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador who were linked to the violent gang Tren de Aragua. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gill accuses Boasberg of abusing his power by pausing the deportation order under the 1789 law. 

The mounting criticism of lower court judges who have ruled against the Trump administration prompted U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an unusual statement in response this month.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. 

Why Republicans plan to impeach judges who haven’t done anything wrong

Posted on by Emily Singer

Congressional Cowards is a weekly series highlighting the worst Donald Trump defenders on Capitol Hill, who refuse to criticize him—no matter how disgraceful or lawless his actions.

Republicans in the House and Senate were quick to follow Donald Trump's March 18 orders to impeach federal judges who ruled against his illegal actions.

But when pressed about which high crimes and misdemeanors the judges committed to warrant such an extreme measure, Republicans had no good answer.

Instead, the only "crime" they came up with was that the judges didn't let the lawless president trample over the Constitution to do whatever he wants, whether that be deporting immigrants without due process; letting co-President Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency bros access sensitive government systems, shut down federal agencies, and chaotically fire federal employees; or remove health data from government websites because it was tangentially related to “gender identity.”

For example, CNN host Kasie Hunt asked Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio what “high crimes or misdemeanors” these judges committed. 

Jordan replied with what can only be described as verbal diarrhea. 

“All I’m saying is, if you’re acting in a political fashion and not just following the law, the ruling on the law, and I would argue that frankly just his ruling in and of itself, remember the Constitution is pretty clear, Article II Section I, very first sentence, says the power in the executive branch shall be vested in a president of the United States. The president has the authority,” Jordan said.

YouTube Video

Of course Jordan left out that Article III of the Constitution says that judicial power extends to “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”—which is what the judges were doing when plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration was violating U.S. laws while carrying out its destructive agenda.

Rep. Brendan Gill of Texas, who filed articles of impeachment against the judge who tried to stop Trump’s illegal deportations of Venezuelan immigrants (an order the Trump administration ignored), was also asked which impeachable offenses the judge committed—and had a terrible response.

“This is for usurping the executive's authority, for demeaning the impartiality of the court by making a politicized ruling, and forcing a constitutional crisis,” Gill said on Newsmax. “That is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

YouTube Video

Other Republicans also backed Trump and Musk’s call to impeach judges who rule against the administration.

“America is a Republic, not a dictatorship of the judiciary. It's time to get rid of the political activists masquerading as judges and re-establish proper separation of powers,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida wrote in a post on X. “That's why I'm proud to announce that I will be joining my colleagues in impeaching ALL the activist judges who are unconstitutionally blocking President Trump's agenda.”

And Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he was going to introduce a law that would ban judges from being able to order nationwide injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration - a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” Hawley said, without acknowledging that maybe it’s because no other administration has ever initiated so many lawless actions that violate the Constitution.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley didn’t explicitly say he supported impeaching the judges, but he made it clear he believes what the judges did was wrong—and will use his powerful committee to go after those judges.

“Another day, another judge unilaterally deciding policy for the whole country. This time to benefit foreign gang members,” Grassley wrote in a post on X. “If the Supreme Court or Congress doesn’t fix, we’re headed towards a constitutional crisis. Senate Judiciary Cmte taking action.”

And it seems that Musk read Grassley’s comment as being supportive of impeachment, because after Trump’s demand to impeach the judges, Musk donated to Grassley and six other Republicans who have supported the effort to boot them, The New York Times reported.

From the Times’ report:

Mr. Musk contributed on Wednesday to Representatives Eli Crane of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin and Brandon Gill of Texas. He also donated to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.

“This is a judicial coup,” Musk wrote on X of a court ruling that blocked Trump from banning transgender people from the military. “We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people.”

Of course, it takes 67 senators to impeach—a fact you’d think Musk, who Trump and Republicans have framed as a genius, would know.

Ultimately, this impeachment effort is futile.

Even if House Republicans somehow succeed in impeaching these judges, there is no way that Democratic senators would vote to convict and remove them in an impeachment trial.

The end result of this ridiculous posturing: making judges fear for their own safety as they receive death threats for their legally sound rulings, thanks to Republicans’ vile rhetoric.

Thank you to the Daily Kos community who continues to fight so hard with Daily Kos. Your reader support means everything. We will continue to have you covered and keep you informed, so please donate just $3 to help support the work we do.

Here’s what happened during Trump’s ninth week in office

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Donald Trump signed more executive orders this week — including one to upend the Department of Education — battled the judicial branch, and spoke to both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

On Thursday, Trump announced plans to work with Congress to upend the Department of Education. Closing down an agency requires the approval of Congress, according to the U.S. Constitution. 

"We're not doing well with the world of education in this country, and we haven't for a long time," Trump said Thursday before signing the executive order. 

A White House fact sheet on the executive order said the directive aims to "turn over education to families instead of bureaucracies" and instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely."

Trump said Thursday programs for Pell Grants, student loans for undergraduate students, and others that provide resources for children with special needs would continue to exist, just under different agencies.

"They're going to be preserved in full and redistributed to various other agencies and departments that will take very good care of them," Trump said.

Those in favor of shuttering the agency have pointed to the "Nation’s Report Card," the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) released every two years, released on Jan. 27. The exam tests fourth and eighth grade students and found almost stagnant math scores for eighth graders compared to 2022. Reading scores dropped two points at both grade levels.

As a result, Trump said without evidence that new efforts to upend the Department of Education would allow states like Texas to provide education comparable to countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

"And then you'll have some laggards, and we'll work with them," Trump said. "And we can all tell you who the laggards will be, right now, probably, but let's not get into that."

Here’s also what Trump did this week: 

Trump called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a social media post Tuesday, prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement condemning Trump’s remarks.

Trump’s pushback stems from Boasberg issuing an order on Saturday halting the Trump administration from deporting migrants allegedly part of the Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The law permits deportation of natives and citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing.

The flights carrying the migrants continued to El Salvador, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday the order had "no lawful basis" since Boasberg issued it after the flights departed from U.S. airspace.

JUDGES BLOCKING TRUMP'S ORDERS ARE ACTING ‘ERRONEOUSLY,' WHITE HOUSE SAYS

In response to Boasberg’s order, Trump said the judge should be impeached. However, Roberts said that "it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." 

Boasberg’s order is one of multiple injunctions issued against the Trump administration, blocking various executive orders he’s signed since taking office in January. The White House has accused judges of behaving as partisan activists to stop Trump’s agenda. 

"I would like to point out that the judges in this country are acting erroneously," Leavitt said in a Wednesday news briefing. "We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench."

Trump also announced that Boeing had won out among defense companies for a contract to build the Air Force’s next-generation fighter jet, known as the F-47. 

"I’m thrilled to announce that at my direction the United States Air Force is moving forward with the world’s first sixth-generation fighter jet," Trump said Friday in the Oval Office at the White House. "Nothing in the world comes even close to it, and it’ll be called the ‘F-47,’ the generals picked that title." 

BOEING TO BUILD NEXT-GEN ‘F-47’ US FIGHTER JET, TRUMP ANNOUNCES

The Next Generation Air Defense initiative that the Biden administration put on the back burner will oversee the effort. The Trump administration revived the program, a move that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Friday "sends a very direct, clear message to our allies that we're not going anywhere, and to our enemies that we will be able to project power around the globe." 

An experimental version of the jet has been covertly flying for "years," according to Trump. 

"The F-47 will be the most advanced, most capable, most lethal aircraft ever built," Trump said. 

Trump also spoke with both Putin and Zelenskyy this week over the phone, amid ongoing efforts to end the war in Ukraine. 

Following the calls, both Russia and Ukraine agreed to a limited ceasefire against energy. The next step is for respective teams to conduct meetings to navigate how to reach a full ceasefire, according to the White House. 

"Technical teams will meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days to discuss broadening the ceasefire to the Black Sea on the way to a full ceasefire," the White House said in a statement Thursday. "They agreed this could be the first step toward the full end of the war and ensuring security. President Zelenskyy was grateful for the President’s leadership in this effort and reiterated his willingness to adopt a full ceasefire."

The Associated Press and Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report. 

Reporter’s Notebook: Impeachapalooza is here to stay

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

And you thought they just wanted to impeach former President Joe Biden.

Maybe former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas – whom the House did impeach last year.

How about former FBI Director Christopher Wray? Former Attorney General Merrick Garland? Former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin?

That is so 2023.

INJUNCTION LIFTED ON TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS SLASHING FEDERAL DEI SUPPORT

This is 2025. The Biden administration is long gone.

But the concept of impeachment hasn’t waned for some House Republicans. And even for President Donald Trump.

D.C. Circuit Court Judge James Boasberg ordered a two-week halt to the deportation of Venezuelan gang members after Trump leaned on the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798 to remove them from the U.S.

The president didn’t mention Boasberg by name, but he whipsawed the jurist on social media.

"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" wrote President Trump. He characterized Boasberg as a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."

Elon Musk has pushed for the removal of judges whose rulings run afoul of the administration. But freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment for Boasberg, accusing him of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Gill argues that Boasberg "has done exactly what the Supreme Court commanded not be done." Gill’s resolution asserts that Boasberg "illegitimately tried to substitute his own judgment for the elected President of the United States."

There are a total of four federal judges who could face articles of impeachment in the House.

It’s unclear whether this effort could pick up steam. If conservatives wanted to go to the mat, they could try to make their impeachment resolutions "privileged" in the House. That would compel the House to consider such a proposal immediately. It also would go over the head of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., filed articles of impeachment for Biden two years ago. After inaction, Boebert attempted to fast-track her plan, circumventing the GOP leadership – to say nothing of hearings and preparation of the articles in committee. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., argued that impeachment was "too serious" to sidestep the rigorous steps usually undertaken. So, Republican leaders intervened.

Once Boebert’s resolution was up, they moved to euthanize the plan by sending it to the Homeland Security Committee. The full House actually voted on the motion to dispatch the resolution to committee – not on impeachment. Otherwise, the House would have voted on impeaching Mr. Biden on the spot – committee investigation or not.

The motion to send the resolution to committee actually inoculated a lot of Republicans from political angst. They wanted to talk about impeaching Biden. But few actually wanted to impeach Biden.

Impeachment works the same with federal judges as it does with presidents or cabinet secretaries. The House has only impeached four federal judges in the past 36 years. The most recent impeachments were for the late Judge Thomas Porteous and former Judge Samuel Kent – both in 2009.

After the House impeached Porteous, the Senate conducted a short trial and convicted him. That removed Porteous from the bench. The House also impeached Kent, but he resigned before the Senate could conduct a trial to remove him.

Porteous was accused of accepting cash and bribes from lawyers arguing cases before him. A court convicted and sentenced Kent to nearly three years in jail for sexually abusing female employees. The Senate removed neither based on their judicial rulings.

But here is what to watch:

How much pressure will Trump and Musk apply on Johnson to advance the articles of impeachment?

Johnson may have to finesse this. But Gill and other conservatives could attempt to go over the head of the Speaker, making their resolution "privileged." That is what Boebert did, and it would force the House to tangle with the impeachment articles in some fashion. Republican leaders could move to table the resolution or try to send it to committee. Thus, the actual vote would not be on impeachment but on an issue two steps removed from that.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts took the extraordinary step of publishing a statement about impeachment threats.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," said Roberts this week.

Fox is told House GOP leaders are anxious about what to expect from conservative lawmakers, stoked by the possibility of impeachment. GOP leaders simply don’t want to burn valuable time on this issue.

But they’d like to talk about it.

Trump supports a bill crafted by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., titled the "No Rogue Rulings Act." The bill limits the scope of rulings by U.S. district judges, preventing their decisions from carrying nationwide weight.

"The President wants this," two White House sources told Fox News' Liz Elkind.

Issa characterized impeachment as a rather "dull tool" that should be restricted to actual criminality or malfeasance in office – such as the cases with Kent and Porteous. House Republican leaders could also shop the Issa bill to conservatives itching for impeachment as an alternative. However, even if the House were to OK Issa’s legislation, it would likely die in the Senate. It would need 60 votes to clear a filibuster.

By the same token, if the House were to impeach Boasberg or any other judge, pressure mounts on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to hold an impeachment trial. That could chew up valuable floor time as the Senate tries to wrestle with the complex "budget reconciliation" process to avoid a filibuster on President Trump’s plan to cut taxes and reduce the size of government.

Moreover, a Senate impeachment trial certainly would not result in removal. It takes 67 votes to convict a federal judge and extract them from the bench. That is not going to happen.

But the controversy over rulings of federal judges and President Trump’s executive orders won’t dissipate any time soon. Depending on your metric, federal courts have issued around 50 injunctions to halt various administrative moves by the President. There are anywhere from 130 to 140 total legal challenges floating about the court system.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In 2023 and 2024, lots of conservatives chattered actively about the possibility of impeaching then-President Biden. Some saw it as retribution for the dual impeachments of President Trump. Others knew they could fundraise off impeachment. Maybe score some plaudits on social media. Still, others saw it as good politics in their district. They were happy to talk about impeachment for Biden but not necessarily vote for it. That’s why members looked at low-hanging fruit like Mayorkas. They considered targeting Lloyd Austin and the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Some of the loudest voices in the Republican Party will now clamor for the impeachment of "activist judges." That is what they say publicly, but public conversations are very different from private ones. And that is why "impeachapalooza" is here to stay in the 119th Congress.

Court order halting deportation flights ‘unconstitutionally impedes’ on executive branch, Trump allies argue

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: America First Legal (AFL) and Texas GOP Rep. Brandon Gill are supporting President Donald Trump's invocation of a 1798 wartime law, arguing a previous order blocking Trump's deportation plans "unconstitutionally impedes" his presidential authority. 

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg came under fire this past week after blocking the Trump administration on Saturday from invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), for 14 days. 

In his order, Boasberg ordered any flights in the air to return to U.S. soil immediately.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"This law was passed by Congress in 1798," America First Legal Senior Counsel James Rogers said in a statement released. "Until now — for more than 226 years — courts have universally held that they do not have the power to interfere with the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to decide when to invoke the Act and expel aliens under its terms."

In its amicus filing, AFL states that Gill "believes that Tren de Aragua poses a clear and present danger to the United States," saying he supports the president's efforts to "neutralize this threat quickly and efficiently."

"He sees the President’s use of the Enemy Aliens Act as vital to ensuring the safety of his constituents," the filing reads. 

SCOOP: IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP TREN DE ARAGUA DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

AFL argues that the AEA "confers on the President the power to invoke the Act’s provisions in cases of invasion or predatory incursion," saying such authority is not reviewable by the courts. 

The filing notes the president's commander in chief post, as vested by the Constitution, saying that the AEA "statutorily grants the President wartime powers," and courts cannot appropriately "second-guess" the president's decisions and discretion over the AEA's implementation.

"At best, the Plaintiffs seek to use the federal courts to deliver a political victory," the filing reads. "There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are here illegally. Enjoining implementation of the TdA Proclamation unconstitutionally impedes the President’s ability to respond to national security threats."

On Thursday, Boasberg said the administration had missed a previously-set court deadline to disclose information on the deportation flights to El Salvador. Boasberg noted in an order issued that day that the government "again evaded its obligations" to submit the requested information even after he had allowed them to submit it under seal. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

The filing they submitted hours after the deadline failed to answer his questions.

Boasberg said the court had received a six-paragraph declaration from a regional ICE office director in Harlingen, Texas, that stated Cabinet secretaries are "actively considering whether to invoke the state secrets [act] privileges over the other facts requested by the Court’s order."

"This is woefully insufficient," Boasberg said. 

Following Boasberg's Saturday emergency order siding with the plaintiffs, Democracy Forward and the ACLU, Fox News Digital was first to learn that Gill had filed impeachment articles against Boasberg, saying at the time, "This is another example of a rogue judge overstepping his…authority."

"For the past several weeks, we've seen several rogue activist judges try to impede the president from exercising, not only the mandate voters gave him, but his democratic and constitutional authority to keep the American people safe," Gill told Fox News Digital. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gill's resolution accuses Boasberg of abusing his power in levying an emergency pause on the Trump administration's deportation plans. 

The resolution text says the order "jeopardizes the safety of the nation, represents an abuse of judicial power, and is detrimental to the orderly functioning of the judiciary. Using the powers of his office, Chief Judge Boasberg has attempted to seize power from the Executive Branch and interfere with the will of the American people."

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch and Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. 

It’s now an impeachable offense to rule against the president

Posted on by Lisa Needham

Republicans are dying to impeach lower court judges who have ruled against the Trump administration, an unprecedented attack on the judiciary. Meanwhile, over at the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts is utterly unable to meet the moment. 

There’s a tiny problem with the Republican impeachment plan. Much like the president, federal judges can only be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s right there in Article II of the Constitution. But Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas, cares nothing for your silly constitution and wants to impeach Judge James Boasberg for the high crimes and misdemeanors of issuing a ruling the administration doesn’t like. 

Gill is not a paragon of legislative accomplishment. Before coming to Congress this year, Gill was mostly known as an election denier and the son-in-law of fellow election denier Dinesh D’Souza. Gill has desperately tried to distinguish himself in the crowded field of GOP legislators willing to do unhinged things to get Trump’s attention. Hence, he introduced a bill that would remove Founding Father Benjamin Franklin from the $100 bill and replace it with President Donald Trump. 

Too bad that Rep. Joe Wilson, famous for yelling “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during the State of the Union, already introduced a measure to create a new $250 bill and slap Trump’s face on that. 

Just as he was not the first legislator who suggested debasing U.S. currency, Gill also wasn’t the first House member to call for impeachment of a lower court judge. That honor goes to Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona, who introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Paul Engelmayer nearly a month ago because Engelmayer blocked the Department of Government Efficiency teens from burrowing into Treasury Department records. 

But Gill did win the race to demand Judge James Boasberg be removed from the bench because Boasberg blocked—or tried to block—the administration from summarily deporting over 200 Venezuelans who Trump alleged are members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Boasberg’s order to stop those deportations was met with outright defiance by the administration, which did it anyway. 

While Gill’s articles of impeachment say that Boasberg committed high crimes and misdemeanors, Gill’s appearance on Newsmax on Wednesday gave away the game. When asked what crime the judge committed that would fit under “high crimes and misdemeanors,” Gill came up with, “This is for usurping the executive’s authority.”

NEWSMAX: For impeachment you have to have "high crimes and misdemeanors." What crime did the judge commit? REP. BRANDON GILL: This is for usurping the executive's authority

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-03-19T15:46:46.502Z

Even if it were true, which is definitely not the case, it’s unclear how that would count as a high crime or misdemeanor for which impeachment is appropriate. First, intruding upon the executive's authority, however that might irritate Trump, is not actually a crime. The remedy for Boasberg exceeding the bounds of his authority is that the administration gets to appeal to a higher court and argue about it there. 

By the time Gill drafted his impeachment articles, he had reworked his theory into a claim that Boasberg had “willfully use[d] his judicial position to advance political gain” and “attempted to seize power from the Executive Branch and interfere with the will of the American people.” Gill then said Boasberg had created a “created a constitutional crisis.”

The House has rarely impeached judges, but usually, it does so when a judge is convicted of an actual crime, made false statements, shown improper favoritism, was drunk on the bench, or abused the power to hold someone in contempt. None of that happened here. 

All that happened is that Boasberg made a ruling in which he interpreted the Constitution and United States law to determine whether the administration should be temporarily blocked from deporting people. This was based on what can charitably be called a novel legal theory about the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives the president wide latitude to deport non-citizens during times of war.  

Prison guards transfer deportees from the U.S., alleged to be Venezuelan gang members, to the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 16, 2025.

Trump says he has the sole authority to designate non-state actors, like Venezuelan gangs, as enemy aliens who have invaded, and we are therefore at war. Then, he can deport any migrant who he believes falls in that category without any due process. 

Judge Boasberg’s ruling, despite being spun by the right as massive overreach, was appropriately cautious. All Boasberg did was issue a 14-day temporary restraining order, freezing deportations for just two weeks while the parties continued to litigate. The notion such a minimal restriction on the administration’s actions constitutes a judicial overreach so outrageous is absurd. 

While Gill is doing the president’s dirty work over in the House, Trump is whipping the MAGA faithful into howling for Boasberg’s removal. Meanwhile, Elon Musk is bribing, er, donating to GOP legislators who back impeachment, just to remind them who really runs the show. 

All of this adds up to a pretty comprehensive assault on the integrity and authority of the judiciary. However, the man who has been head of the judiciary for nearly 20 years, Chief Justice John Roberts, could not muster even a few strong words about it. Here is the entirety of Roberts’ weak sauce statement:

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

This is a nothingburger. It doesn’t specify who is yelling for impeachment. It says nothing about how attacks on individual judges are beyond the pale. It doesn’t address the administration’s belief it is not bound by lower court orders.

But the news media always grades Roberts on a curve, eager to pretend he is evenhanded rather than a staunch partisan who invented complete immunity for Trump. So they are calling this statement so short that it could fit in a tweet, a “rebuke” of Trump and an “extraordinary display of conflict” between the two branches. 

Trump certainly didn’t see it as a rebuke, gloating on Fox that, “Well, he didn’t mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn’t mention my name.” 

This is not the behavior of someone who is chastened, who intends to respect the federal courts, or who will stop calling for the impeachment of judges. 

Roberts has a front-row seat to the administration’s destruction of the constitutional order. He has the unique power to call this out in a meaningful way. Whether he’s unable to do so because he’s feckless or because he has no problem with the administration’s approach doesn’t matter. Either way, he’s helping deepen the real constitutional crisis we’re facing. 

Campaign Action