Fox News Latest Headlines
Oregon judge limits federal agents’ tear gas use at Portland ICE protests
A federal judge in Oregon on Monday placed new limits on federal agents’ use of tear gas and other crowd-control munitions during protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland.
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon on behalf of protesters and freelance journalists. The suit names the Department of Homeland Security and argues that officers’ use of chemical munitions amounts to retaliation that chills First Amendment rights.
The order followed a three-day hearing in which plaintiffs — including a demonstrator known for wearing a chicken costume, a married couple in their 80s and two freelance journalists — testified that federal officers used chemical spray and projectile munitions against them.
In his written opinion, Simon said video evidence submitted in court depicted officers spraying OC spray into the faces of protesters engaged in passive resistance and deploying tear gas and pepper-ball rounds into crowds.
JUDGE RULES FEDERAL AGENTS MUST LIMIT TEAR GAS AT PROTESTS NEAR PORTLAND ICE BUILDING
"Plaintiffs provided numerous videos, which were received in evidence and unambiguously show DHS officers spraying OC Spray directly into the faces of peaceful and nonviolent protesters engaged in, at most, passive resistance and discharging tear gas and firing pepper-ball munitions into crowds of peaceful and nonviolent protestors," Simon wrote.
"Defendants’ conduct — physically harming protestors and journalists without prior dispersal warnings — is objectively chilling."
The Department of Homeland Security has previously said that the agents have "followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property."
A federal judge also ruled to restrict agents' use of tear gas in a separate case brought by the residents of an affordable housing complex across the street from the ICE building.
This comes amid demonstrations across the country against President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda.
In his ruling, Simon barred agents from using chemical or projectile munitions such as pepper balls and tear gas unless someone poses an imminent threat of physical harm. He also instructed agents not to fire munitions at the head, neck or torso "unless the officer is legally justified in using deadly force against that person."
Agents are also prohibited from the use of pepper spray against a group in an indiscriminate way that would affect bystanders. Additionally, they must only target people who are engaging in violent unlawful conduct or actively resisting arrest, or use it "as reasonably necessary in a defensive capacity."
Simon said that trespassing, refusing to move and refusing to obey an order to disperse are acts of passive resistance, not active resistance.
The judge also granted provisional class certification, which means his order covers a broader group of all people who have peacefully protested or reported on demonstrations at the ICE building in recent months.
The preliminary injunction will remain in place while the lawsuit proceeds.
Last month, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson called on ICE to leave the city after federal officers deployed tear gas at a crowd of demonstrators outside the agency’s building. The mayor described the protests as peaceful and criticized federal officers’ use of pepper balls, flash-bang grenades and rubber bullets.
"Federal forces deployed heavy waves of chemical munitions, impacting a peaceful daytime protest where the vast majority of those present violated no laws, made no threat, and posed no danger to federal forces," he said in a statement at the time.
"To those who continue to work for ICE: Resign. To those who control this facility: Leave," he said, accusing federal officials of "trampling the Constitution."
The war hits home: Why financial pain and economic uncertainty threaten Trump’s drive to topple Iran’s regime
As the Pentagon keeps releasing video of bombs destroying parts of Iran, the smoke can't obscure an increasingly urgent question here at home:
How high a price are Americans willing to pay for this war?
I don't mean in terms of casualties, as the seven Americans killed so far is a relatively low figure, although each fallen soldier is a tragedy. Each should be honored for their sacrifice, as the first half dozen were in a Delaware ceremony attended by President Donald Trump and other dignitaries.
It's that the financial turmoil is really taking a toll on the homeland, not to mention around the world. Markets are tanking. Oil prices are soaring. Jobs are declining. And this has fueled doubts about Trump's decision to wage relentless attacks against Iran – and offering a series of shifting explanations as to why the war is necessary, and why it needed to be launched now.
WHY TRUMP INVOKED REGIME CHANGE IN ATTACKING IRAN, AND THE MEDIA MUST LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES
All major wars involve sacrifice. But since the president never made a prime-time speech to support his decision, many Americans have the sense that they woke up one morning and were at war with Iran.
Was the goal here to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Or, having wiped out Ayatollah Ali Khameini and other top leaders, was it regime change? Pete Hegseth said the aim wasn’t to topple the regime, but that was contradicted by Trump saying he had to approve the new leader and rejecting the anointment of the ayatollah’s son. If that isn’t George W. Bush-style regime change, what is?
At the outset, the Dow was plunging, the 401ks were shrinking, and gas prices were surging.
In military terms, the U.S.-Israeli attacks on the world's leading sponsor of terrorism have been a remarkable success, at least so far. But how long will this 24/7 bombardment continue?
HEGSETH ONCE WARNED AGAINST ENDLESS WARS. NOW HE’S LEADING TRUMP’S STRIKE-FIRST DOCTRINE
Hegseth told "60 Minutes" that he and Trump are "willing to go as far as we need to go" overturn Iran’s dictatorial regime, including sending troops if necessary. The War secretary understandably said he wouldn't tell the enemy whether the military assault would last four to six weeks or longer.
"Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace," the president posted. "ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!"
The president told CBS yesterday, "the war is very complete, pretty much." That’s a significant shift.
Hegseth argues the media are playing up American casualties to make Trump look bad. Sorry, but there’s a reason many people find this offensive. Journalists cover American military casualties in every administration, and it’s not aimed at any particular president. It’s to honor our war dead. Most of the press is hardly pro-Trump, but these deaths would be major news no matter who was commander-in-chief.
Meanwhile, other Arab nations, under attack by Iran, have slashed oil productions because of that and risky conditions at the Strait of Hormuz, a major choke point for energy shipments.
At the same time, history shows that some political opponents try to exploit American combat deaths, as many Democrats are doing here by refusing to call Iran a terrorist state. When 13 Americans died in an attack at Kabul airport during a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Republicans blamed Joe Biden throughout his term. When four Americans died in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, was hammered for years.
Russia's role has also been polarizing. The Washington Post, citing a classified report, said the Kremlin is aiding Iran in targeting U. S. forces – in blunt terms, helping to kill Americans.
When reporters raised this with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, she said "whether or not this happened, frankly, it does not really matter."
The backlash was instantaneous.
WHITE HOUSE SAYS OIL PRICE SPIKE IS TEMPORARY AS TRUMP PUSHES ENERGY DOMINANCE AMID IRAN WAR
There is, at the moment, a growing sense of international uncertainty that has everyone off balance.
I watched for years as LBJ and Richard Nixon bombarded the Viet Cong in what was largely a jungle war, and the guerrillas refused to surrender, betting on outlasting the United States. Ultimately, South Vietnam collapsed and was overrun. The war was all the more pointless because it was fought against the "domino theory" that these small countries would fall in a Communist triumph.
Donald Trump ran as the America First candidate who would keep the country out of foreign wars. He said it was Kamala Harris who would lead the nation into World War III.
The former VP now accuses Trump of "dragging the United States into a war the American people don’t want."
And the Iran combat, of course, follows another regime change, with Trump ordering the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and declaring himself the leader of oil-rich Venezuela.
The furor over Iran has exacerbated a deep and nasty split in the conservative media, with some of its members abruptly changing their rhetoric about foreign wars and others saying the president has betrayed his MAGA base.
SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES
A month from now, six months from now, the decision to wage war against Iran may be seen as a brilliant tactical move or the start of an Iraq-style quagmire. Will Trump be able to say he shut down the mullahs’ nuclear program?
But if there's one thing that might persuade the president to declare victory and wind things down, it's the growing economic pain that this war has inflicted on average Americans.
21 Iranian women’s soccer players weigh return home after 5 granted asylum
The fate of 21 members of Iran’s women’s national soccer team remained uncertain Tuesday after five teammates were granted asylum in Australia, leaving the rest of the squad to decide whether to return to a country still reeling from war.
The Iranian team arrived in Australia for the tournament before the U.S.-Israeli attacks against Iran began on Feb. 28.
An official roster lists 26 players, along with coaches and staff. While Australian authorities confirmed that five players were transported by federal police to a secure location overnight to finalize humanitarian visas, the remaining members of the delegation have not publicly indicated whether they will seek similar protections or return to Iran.
While only five players were granted asylum, Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said the offer was given to everyone on the team.
"I don't want to begin to imagine how difficult that decision is for each of the individual women, but certainly last night it was joy, it was relief," Burke told reporters after signing the documents. "People were very excited about embarking on a life in Australia."
"These women are tremendously popular in Australia, but we realize they are in a terribly difficult situation with the decisions that they’re making," he added. "The opportunity will continue to be there for them to talk to Australian officials if they wish to."
The move comes after the team refused to sing the Iranian anthem before their first Women’s Asian Cup match early last week against South Korea — a gesture some interpreted as protest and others as mourning amid turmoil at home. The team later sang and saluted the anthem in two subsequent matches, including ahead of their final match, when they were eliminated by the Philippines.
After the team was knocked out of the tournament over the weekend, they faced potentially returning to a country still under bombardment. The team's head coach, Marziyeh Jafari, said on Sunday the players "want to come back to Iran as soon as we can."
Outside the team’s hotel on Australia's Gold Coast on Tuesday, a brief commotion erupted as demonstrators gathered near a white bus believed to be transporting players. Some protesters knelt or lay in front of the vehicle, chanting "Save our girls" and waving pre-Revolution Iranian flags before the bus departed minutes later.
The five women granted asylum said they were happy for their names and pictures to be published, according to Burke, who emphasized that the players wanted to make clear that they were not political activists.
"Last night I was able to tell five women from the Iranian Women’s Soccer team that they are welcome to stay in Australia, to be safe and have a home here," Burke said on X.
It remains unclear when the remaining players and staff will depart Australia or whether additional asylum requests will be made.
For the majority of the squad, the next move carries significant personal stakes — balancing family, national loyalty and safety as conflict continues in their home country.
"Australians have been moved by the plight of these brave women," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters. "They're safe here and they should feel at home here."
"They then had to consider that and do it in a way that did not present any danger to them or to their families and friends back home in Iran," he continued.
The asylum offer came after U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday called on Australia to grant asylum to any team member who wanted it.
Trump had blasted Australia on social media, saying Australia was "making a terrible humanitarian mistake" by allowing the team to be "forced back to Iran, where they will most likely be killed."
"The U.S. will take them if you won’t," Trump said, despite his administration's efforts to limit the number of immigrants in the U.S. who can receive asylum for political purposes.
Just hours later, Trump praised Albanese in another post.
"He’s on it! Five have already been taken care of, and the rest are on their way," Trump wrote.
Albanese said Trump had called him for "a very positive conversation," about the issue. The prime minister said he explained "the action that we'd undertaken over the previous 48 hours" to support the women.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tourist death at volcano park sparks warnings over ignored safety barriers
→ A tourist's death at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park renewed concerns that visitors are ignoring safety barriers and entering dangerous, off-limits areas.
→ Disneyland may eliminate its 11 a.m. park-hopping restriction, allowing eligible guests to switch between parks at any time of day.
→ A popular vacation destination doubled its visitor tax to as much as $17 per person, per night, as officials address overtourism concerns.
→ A major airline said it is considering adding extra cleaning for premium seats only, leading to backlash from passengers.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTER
→ A former "Saturday Night Live" cast member said an airline downgraded him from first class despite paying thousands for the seat.
→ One airline said passengers who play audio or video without headphones could be removed from flights under a new policy update.
→ Archaeologists uncovered a 1,000-year-old tomb containing gold chest plates, ear ornaments and other elite burial treasures.
→ An independent researcher said he may have identified the lost grave of a legendary Viking ruler.
→ Dog walkers uncovered 2,000-year-old human and animal footprints on a beach, prompting archaeologists to race to the site before storms erased it.
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE TRAVEL NEWS
An American business traveler stranded in Dubai during Iranian airstrikes raced to secure the last seat on a flight home as her husband prepared for emergency heart surgery in California.
Aaron Judge, Paul Skenes power Team USA over Mexico to secure spot in World Baseball Classic quarterfinal
After three straight wins to begin the 2026 World Baseball Classic (WBC), Team USA earned a spot out of Pool B, advancing to the quarterfinal round after defeating Mexico, 5-3, in Houston on Monday night.
Mexico has been the victor in each of the last three matchups against the U.S., including the 2023 game that ended with El Tri taking down the Stars and Stripes, 11-5.
But thanks to some bat power from captain Aaron Judge and 21-year-old Boston Red Sox phenom Roman Anthony, Team USA was able to end that streak at Daikin Park.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
After the U.S. was unable to cash in on bases loaded in the first and runners on in the second, Judge wasted no time hitting his second home run of the tournament, taking Jesus Cruz to right field for a 2-0 lead.
Then, after Kyle Schwarber singled to right, and Cal Raleigh was hit by a pitch, Anthony didn’t miss a stitch of a pitch inside. The towering moonshot took forever to land, and Anthony, who was gunned down at the plate in the bottom of the second inning, got some redemption by breaking the game open.
TARIK SKUBAL LEAVES TEAM USA TO RETURN TO TIGERS CAMP DESPITE MIXED FEELINGS AFTER SUCCESSFUL START
The tone was certainly set by Paul Skenes, who got his first Team USA start in the WBC and was lights out. He allowed just one hit and struck out seven hitters over four innings (60 pitches).
Skenes’ repertoire was electric as per usual, with sharp breaking sinkers and changeups to go along with a high-90 mph fastball. The former Air Force Academy pitcher has looked forward to this moment for a while, and he didn’t squander the opportunity to help his team.
After the five-run inning, the U.S. bats went a bit silent, which allowed Mexico a chance to gain momentum.
It was Anthony’s Red Sox teammate, Jarren Duran, who got El Tri on the board with a solo home run off Matthew Boys, the Chicago Cubs’ ace.
And that wouldn’t be Duran’s only big fly, as he was clearly seeing the ball well in Houston. After Joey Meneses’ infield single scored Jonathan Aranda later in the top of the sixth inning to make it a 5-2 game, Duran led off the top of the eighth inning with a 374-foot shot to right field off Boyd again.
Griffin Jax was called upon by manager Mark DeRosa to clean up the frame, and Garrett Whitlock shut the door in the ninth inning to secure the victory.
With a 3-0 record, the U.S. doesn't have a do-or-die situation in their final pool play contest against Italy on Tuesday night. Of course, they would love to go undefeated and carry momentum into games that will resemble a Game 7 in the postseason each time moving forward.
Team USA and Italy will square off at Daikin Park on Tuesday night at 8 p.m. ET.
Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Tyler Linderbaum's $81M record-breaking deal headlines Raiders' free agent spending spree
The Las Vegas Raiders have flexed their financial muscle on the first day of the legal tampering period in the NFL.
The Raiders came in with a league-high $111.91 million when the legal tampering period opened on Monday, and they wasted no time revamping their roster in different ways, including shelling out a record-breaking deal.
Center Tyler Linderbaum was perhaps the best offensive lineman available on the market, and the former Baltimore Ravens first-round pick is heading out to Sin City after agreeing to terms on a three-year, $81 million deal with $60 million guaranteed. He is now the highest-paid interior offensive lineman in NFL history, per ESPN.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
Linderbaum, 25, cemented himself as one of the best centers in the league when he came out of Iowa, providing a consistent presence snapping the ball to two-time league MVP Lamar Jackson while in Baltimore.
But with John Harbaugh parting ways, making way for the hiring of head coach Jesse Minter, Linderbaum returning to the Ravens was never a done deal. He was expected to get a hefty long-term deal somewhere in the NFL, but Las Vegas, a team that struggled on the offensive line all through last season, made it worth his while to move to the AFC West.
It wasn’t just Linderbaum, though. Players from all over were enticed by the Raiders, who opened up the coffers to land key free agent additions, including linebackers Quay Walker and Nakobe Dean.
Dean agreed to terms before Walker, as the ex-Philadelphia Eagles linebacker is set to make $36 million with $20 million guaranteed. But Walker got more in the end: a $40.5 million deal over three years, including $28 million guaranteed, per his agents.
Walker, a first-round choice of the Green Bay Packers in the 2022 NFL Draft, is coming off a career year, having tallied 128 tackles to help a solid defensive group in Green Bay. He’s a trusty tackler, notching at least 100 in each of his first four seasons. Only one Packers player since 1975 has been able to do that.
As for Dean, the 25-year-old Georgia product has 226 total tackles across 47 games with the Eagles, including 7.5 sacks, three forced fumbles and 19 tackles for loss.
Staying on the defensive side, Kwity Paye shores up the interior line, as the 2021 first-round pick of the Indianapolis Colts reached an agreement on a deal worth $48 million over three years with $32 million in guaranteed money. Paye is known for his ability in run defense, doing a great job setting the edge for his defense to ensure short gains.
Cornerback Eric Stokes (three years, $30 million) and defensive end Malcom Koonce (one year, $11 million) also return to the Raiders, creating even more defensive reinforcement on the roster.
Finally, the offensive pass game got a sneaky upgrade, as former Minnesota Vikings receiver Jalen Nailor agreed to terms on a $35 million deal with $23 million guaranteed across three years as well.
The Raiders may not yet be done with their spending spree, as they have more cap room to work with. They also have the first overall pick in next month’s NFL Draft, where they’re expected to take Indiana quarterback Fernando Mendoza to start a new era under head coach Klint Kubiak, who is fresh off a Super Bowl title with the Seattle Seahawks.
In a tough AFC West division, it feels like the Raiders are ready to turn the tides, hoping to reach the playoffs for the first time since 2021. Las Vegas has gone 7-27 combined since 2024.
Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
At least 40 percent of California teachers plan to quit in the next decade: survey
Nearly half of California teachers plan to retire or quit in the next 10 years, according to a new survey.
In California, the share of teachers who say they plan to retire in the next 10 years is between 40% and 49% with an estimate of 45%, Holly Kurtz, director of the Education Week Research Center, told Fox News Digital. Kurtz added that state teachers are on average older than teachers in many other states, according to the most recent federal data that is available. The average age of a California teacher is 45.5, while the average teacher age in the U.S. is 42.9.
"This means that age likely is a major reason why CA teachers are more likely to say they plan to retire in the next decade than teachers in other states," Kurtz told Fox News Digital.
Nationwide, 36% of teachers say they plan to retire in the next ten years. "There’s a lot of evidence that indicates that teacher morale has been declining nationwide and is at, by some measures, the lowest point in recent memory," Kurtz explained to EdSource.
The report also found that nearly half of all U.S. teachers say they expect at some point to work in a field other than education. A total of 5,802 public school teachers working in K-12 education responded to the survey for EdWeek's 2026 installment of its State of Teaching Report, totaling 9,892 teachers after three years.
The California Department of Education did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
California teachers have slightly better morale on average than their peers in other states, but more are planning to leave the profession in the next decade, according to Education Week’s annual The State of Teaching report," EdSource reported.
Fox News Digital previously reported on school districts grappling with the teacher shortage, detailing that retaining and recruiting teachers is a nationwide issue. The largest teachers union in the country, the National Education Association, said that "the educator shortage crisis is real" on its website providing information about challenges the education industry faces in retaining and recruiting teachers.
The California Teachers Association released a report in January finding that even though a majority of teachers are satisfied with their job, 40% are considering leaving education and 45% cite financial issues in deciding what to do.
SCHOOLS THAT LET STUDENTS LEAVE CLASS TO PROTEST ICE HAVE FAILING ACADEMIC RECORDS
The union’s survey added that 54 percent of educators "know coworkers who left careers in education because of financial strain."
"Educators are actively organizing to increase and defend school funding across the state, ensuring school districts prioritize spending on student learning conditions, and working toward a permanent extension of Prop. 55 and the up to $15 billion dollars it generates for our schools annually," the CTA said in the report.
San Francisco teachers went on strike demanding higher pay in February—the first strike of San Francisco educators since 1979.
ARIZONA SCHOOL DISTRICT TAKES HUGE BLOW TO ENROLLMENT AS PARENTS CHOOSE OTHER OPTIONS
The United Educators of San Francisco eventually reached a tentative agreement with the city’s school district, ending a four-day strike.
Trump reveals top issues GOP should focus on to secure midterms victory: 'I've never been more confident'
President Donald Trump outlined five key items he believes will tip the upcoming midterm elections in the GOP’s favor — if Republicans can muscle them through Congress.
"No transgender mutilation surgery for our children," Trump told an audience at the Republican Members' Issues Conference. "Voter ID, citizenship [verification], mail-in ballots, we don't want men playing in women's sports."
"It's the best of Trump. Those are the best of Trump. This is the number one priority, it should be, for the House," Trump said.
Trump’s exhortations to Republican lawmakers come as the GOP wages an uphill campaign to hang on to a controlling majority in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He framed his legislative priorities as a way for Republicans to capitalize on popular demands within the GOP base that would increase their chances of preserving a Republican governing trifecta.
HOUSE REPUBLICANS PUSH ELECTION OVERHAUL WITH VOTER ID, MAIL-IN BALLOT CHANGES AHEAD OF MIDTERMS
Currently, Republicans hold just four more seats than Democrats in the House of Representatives.
The GOP holds six more than Democrats in the Senate.
To keep the numbers in their favor, Republicans will need to beat historical trends. In the vast majority of past cases, parties that capture the White House in presidential elections face blowback in the midterms. Notably, the last time a majority party gained seats in both chambers of Congress in the midterms came under the Bush administration in 2002, following devastating attacks on the World Trade Center.
REPUBLICANS, TRUMP RUN INTO SENATE ROADBLOCK ON VOTER ID BILL
Trump said he believes Republicans have a shot at bucking the trend come November if they focus on his list.
"It'll guarantee the midterms," Trump said of his legislative priorities.
Republicans have already taken strikes towards two of them through the SAVE America Act, a piece of legislation that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and cast a ballot. That bill cleared the House last month for a second time in the 119th Congress.
Its future is uncertain in the Senate, where Republicans would need the assistance of seven Democrats to overcome the 60-vote threshold to defeat a filibuster. Democrats, for their part, believe the legislation would disenfranchise voters who cannot readily provide documented proof of citizenship through a passport, REAL ID, or birth certificate.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. has promised a vote on the package despite its long odds.
Several members have introduced bills on transgender issues, although none of them have cleared either chamber.
"I've never been more confident that if we keep these promises and deliver on this popular agenda, the American people will stand with us in overwhelming numbers, just as they did in 2024," Trump said.
Trump says it’s an ‘honor’ to keep Strait of Hormuz open for China and other countries
President Donald Trump said he wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, saying it would be an "honor" to do so in an effort to help other nations that rely on the vital Middle East waterway.
Trump was speaking with reporters in Florida on Monday, when he was asked about the global energy choke point, which has been disrupted amid back-and-forth attacks between Iran and Israel and the United States.
IRAN SEIZES OIL TANKERS, THREATENS 'MASSACRE' IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ HOURS BEFORE US TALKS
At about 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is between Iran and Oman and carries roughly 20 million barrels a day and about one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas, making it a top-value target when conflict in the region erupts.
"We're really helping China here and other countries because they get a lot of their energy from the Straits," Trump said. "We have a good relationship with China. It's my honor to do it."
US POSITIONS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, STRIKE PLATFORMS ACROSS MIDDLE EAST AS IRAN TALKS SHIFT TO OMAN
Trump is slated to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping later this month. While touting the United States' new energy partnership with Venezuela, Trump noted that China gets its oil through the strait.
"I mean, we're doing this for the other parts of the world, including countries like China," he said. "They get a lot of their oil through the straits."
"We have a very good relationship with President XI (Jinping) and China," he added. "I'm going there in a short period of time, and we're protecting the world from what these lunatics are trying to do, and very successfully I might add."
The U.S. will also waive all oil-related sanctions on some countries in an effort to reduce energy prices amid the conflict in the Middle East, Trump said.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps took to Iranian State TV vowing it would "not allow [the] export of a single liter of oil."
Later, Trump reaffirmed his position on the strait in a fiery Truth Social post.
"If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far. Additionally, we will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them — But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!," he wrote.
"This is a gift from the United States of America to China, and all of those Nations that heavily use the Hormuz Strait. Hopefully, it is a gesture that will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the 'talking filibuster' and the SAVE Act
Passage of the SAVE Act is of paramount importance to President Trump and many congressional Republicans.
In his State of the Union speech, the president implored lawmakers "to approve the SAVE America Act to stop illegal aliens and other unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections."
The House approved the plan to require proof of citizenship to vote last month, 218-213. But, as is often the case, the hurdle is the Senate. Specifically the Senate filibuster.
So some Republicans are trying to save the SAVE Act.
TRUMP PUSHES CONGRESS TO PASS SAVE ACT DURING STATE OF THE UNION; NO MEDDLING WITH TARIFFS
It’s important to note that President Trump never called for the Senate to alter the filibuster in his State of the Union address. But in a post last week on Truth Social, President Trump declared that "The Republicans MUST DO, with PASSION, and at the expense of everything else, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT."
Again, the president didn’t wade into questions about overcoming a filibuster. But "MUST DO" and "at the expense of everything else" is a pretty clear directive from the Commander in Chief.
That’s why there’s a big push by House Republicans and some GOP senators to alter the filibuster – or handle the filibuster differently in the Senate.
TRUMP VOWS BLOCK ON SIGNING NEW LAWS UNTIL SAVE AMERICA ACT PASSES SENATE
It’s rare for members of one body of Congress to tell the other how to execute their rules and procedures. But the strongest conservative advocates of the SAVE Act are now condemning Senate Republicans if they don’t do something drastic to change the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
Some Senate Republicans are ready to push for changes. Or, at the very least, advocate that Senate Republicans insist that Democrats conduct what they’re referring to as a "talking filibuster" and not hold up the legislation from the sidelines. It takes 60 votes to terminate a filibuster. The Senate does that by "invoking cloture." The Senate first used the cloture provision to halt a filibuster on March 8, 1917. Prior to that vote, the only method to end a filibuster was exhaustion – meaning that senators finally just run out of gas and quit debating.
So let’s explore what a filibuster is and isn’t – and dive into what Republicans are talking about when they’re talking about a talking filibuster.
The Senate’s leading feature is unlimited debate. But ironically the "debate" which holds up most bills is not debate. It’s simply a group of 60 lawmakers signaling to their leaders offstage that they’ll stymie things. No one has to go to the floor to do anything. Opponents of a bill will require the majority tee up a cloture vote even if legislation has 60 yeas. Each cloture vote takes parts of three to four days to process. So that inherently slows down the process – and is a de facto filibuster.
But what about talking filibusters? Yes, senators sometimes take the floor and talk for a really long time. Hence, the "unlimited debate" provision in the Senate. Senators can generally speak as long as they want, unless there’s a time agreement, greenlit by all 100 members.
That’s why a "filibuster" is hard to define. You won’t find the word "filibuster" anywhere in the Senate’s rules. And since senators can just talk as long as they want, they might argue that suggesting they are "filibustering" is pejorative. They’re just exercising their Senate rights to speak on the floor.
However, a true filibuster is a delay. For instance, the record-breaking 25 hour and 8 minute speech last year by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., against the Trump administration was technically not a filibuster. Booker began his oratory on the evening of March 31, ending on the night of April 1. Once Booker concluded, the Senate voted to confirm Matt Whittaker as NATO Ambassador. The Senate was supposed to vote on the Whitaker nomination on April 1 anyway. So all Booker’s speech did was delay that confirmation vote by a few hours. But not much.
FETTERMAN EXPECTS DHS SHUTDOWN AMID PARTISAN FUNDING FEUD, BREAKS WITH DEMOCRATS ON VOTER ID
In 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours, in his quest to defund Obamacare. But despite Cruz’s verbosity (and a recitation of "Green Eggs and Ham" by Dr. Suess), the Senate was already locked in to take a procedural vote around 1 pm the next day. That automatically ended Cruz’s speech. Thus, that truly wasn’t a filibuster either.
So, this brings us to the "talking" filibuster which actually gums up the Senate gearboxes. A talking filibuster is what most Americans think of, thanks to the iconic scenes with Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Most senators "filibuster" by forcing the Senate to take two cloture votes – spread out by days – to handle even the simplest of matters. That elongates the process by close to a week. But if advocates of a given bill have the votes to break the filibuster via cloture, the gig is up.
But what happens if a senator – or a group of senators – delays things with long speeches? That can only last for so long. And it could potentially truncate the Senate’s need to take ANY cloture vote, needing 60 yeas.
Republicans who advocate for passage of the SAVE Act believe they can get around cloture – and thus the need for 60 votes – by making opponents of the SAVE Act talk. And talk. And talk.
And once they’re done talking, the Senate can vote – up or down – on the SAVE Act. Passage requires a simple majority.
Senate Rule XIX (19) states that "no senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day."
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Easy enough, right? Two speeches per day. You speak twice on Monday, then you have to wait until Tuesday? Democrats would eventually run out of juice with 47 senators who caucus with their party.
But it’s not that simple. Note the part about two speeches per "question."
Well, what’s a "question," in Senate parlance? That could be the bill itself. It could be an amendment. It could be a motion. And just for the record, the Senate usually cycles through a "first degree" amendment and then a "second degree" amendment. So, if you’re scoring at home, that could be six (!) speeches per senator, per day, on any given "question."
Questions?
But wait. There’s more.
Note that Rule XIX refers to a "legislative day." A legislative day is not the same as a calendar day. One basic difference is if the Senate "adjourns" each night versus "recessing." If the Senate "adjourns" its Monday session, then a new legislative day begins on Tuesday. However, the legislative day of "Monday" carries over to Tuesday if the Senate "recesses."
It may be up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., whether the Senate "adjourns" or "recesses." The creation of a new "legislative day" inhibits the GOP effort.
Moreover, talking filibuster proponents could object to a request by Thune to adjourn. If the Senate votes to stay in session, that forces the legislative day of Monday to bleed over to Tuesday.
SCHUMER ONCE BLOCKED TRUMP'S MOVE TO FILL THE NATION'S OIL RESERVES, NOW HE WANTS THEM OPENED
Pro tip: watch to see if the adjournment vs. recess scenario unfolds. If a talking filibuster supporter tries to prevent the Senate from adjourning, that could signal whether the GOP has a shot at eventually passing the SAVE Act. If that test fails, the SAVE Act is likely dead in the water.
We haven’t even talked about a custom practiced by most Senate Majority Leaders to lock down the contours of a bill when they file cloture to end debate.
It’s a Senate custom to recognize the Senate Majority Leader first on the floor for debate. So Thune and his predecessors often "fill" what’s called the "amendment tree." The amendment tree dictates how many amendments are in play at any one time. Think of the underlying bill as a "trunk." A "branch" is for the first amendment. A "sprig" from that branch is the second amendment. Majority leaders often load up the amendment tree with "filler" amendments, not changing the subject of the bill. He then files cloture to break the filibuster.
That tactic curbs the universe of amendments. That blocks the other side from engineering controversial amendments to alter the bill. But if Thune doesn’t file cloture to end debate, then the Senate must consider amendment after amendment, repeatedly filling the tree and voting on those amendments. This scenario unfolds during a "talking" filibuster. Not when Thune is controlling the process by filing cloture and "filling the tree."
This is why Thune is skeptical of a talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
"This process is more complicated and risky than people are assuming at the moment," said Thune.
In fact, the biggest "benefit" to filing cloture may not even be overcoming a filibuster, but blocking amendments via management of the tree. Republicans are bracing for amendments Democrats may offer.
"If you don't think Democrats have a laundry list of amendments, talking about who won the 2020 election, talking about the Epstein files – if you don't think they have a quiver full of these amendments that they're ready to get Republican votes on the record, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you," said George Washington University political science professor Casey Burgat.
Plus, forcing a talking filibuster for days precludes the Senate from passing a DHS funding bill. That’s to say nothing of confirming Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as Homeland Security Secretary.
That’s why there’s a reluctance by some Republicans to push the talking filibuster. And it could come at the expense of the SAVE Act – despite the president’s push.