President-elect Donald Trump’s winter White House is hosting a parade of House Republicans this weekend, all of whom are hoping that getting the incoming commander in chief’s ear will help an ideologically diverse group of lawmakers get on the same page on a massive conservative policy overhaul.

It is also likely to be another test of Trump’s power over Congressional Republicans and whether his influence will be enough to overcome longstanding fractures on fiscal policy.

‘The president is hosting multiple factions, right? It’s not just any one. The goal is to level-set the understanding of what we can accomplish,’ one GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital. ‘Nobody disagrees, in broad brushstrokes, on the large goals. But there are very specific issues that are going to create concerns for folks. And we’ve got to work through them.’

On Friday, Trump is hosting members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, several of whom voted against a government funding bill the president-elect explicitly backed last month.

He is also due to meet with senior Republicans and House committee chairs, as well as GOP lawmakers from blue states.

It comes amid disagreements between Congressional Republicans on the path forward for the budget reconciliation process. The mechanism generally has allowed one party in control of the government to advance their own agenda through one massive bill.

More specifically, reconciliation lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to just a simple majority, putting it on par with the House of Representatives.

Reconciliation only allows for budgetary and other fiscal measures to be passed. However, both parties have traditionally tried to stretch those parameters to advance as much of their agendas as possible. GOP leaders have signaled they want to use reconciliation to deal with border security, energy policy, defense and to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

However, there is broad disagreement on whether to split those goals in half. Proponents of the two-track approach believe that passing an initial bill on border and energy policies will allow Republicans to score an early victory there while taking more time on tax policy.

However, those who advocate for just one bill argue that two reconciliation bills have not been passed in decades, given the heavy political capital needed for even one. They’ve warned that the strategy could put Trump’s tax cuts in danger of expiring.

The House GOP conference is also at odds on other details, such as whether to use reconciliation to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions – a move favored by blue state Republicans who represent the suburbs of New York City and Los Angeles, but which rural representatives are against.

‘I think it’s gonna be a good discussion. I think this is a great opportunity for us to discuss not just SALT…This was just about, you know, blue state Republicans coming with our priorities,’ said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y.

The Big Apple’s new congestion tax, tax reductions for seniors living off social security, and using the tax code to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. were all agenda items Malliotakis named.

‘I have much broader agenda items than just SALT, but SALT is critically important for the New York members in particular,’ she said.

House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., suggested the border would be at the forefront of his mind for his group’s Trump meeting.

‘The main thing is, how do we move forward? It’s going to cost some money to secure our border. It’s going to cost some money to hire more agents. But at the same time, we’ve got to cut spending where we can,’ Moore told Fox News Digital.

‘We need to be on the same sheet of music and I think we’ll have an opportunity for Trump to hear from us, but as well for us to hear from him.’

Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., a staunch Trump ally who said he would also be at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, dismissed concerns about differences on issues like SALT.

‘I think the dialogue is important to have. At the end of the day, we need to deliver for the American people. And so while people feel differently on various issues, it’s important to have that dialogue to figure out how we can put this thing together,’ he said.

Trump himself has not publicly declared the specifics of what he would want to pass via reconciliation. He has said he favors a one-bill approach, but would also be open to two.

Malliotakis and other Republicans on the tax-focused House Ways & Means Committee favor one bill.

However, a member of the House Freedom Caucus doubted that would happen.

‘I think we’ll talk big-picture stuff as far as reconciliation. I’m of the mindset it’ll likely be two bills, not one. But I think that’ll happen organically, you don’t have to force it,’ they said.

President-elect Donald Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s yearslong investigation. 

The president-elect attended his sentencing virtually after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week. Trump sat beside his defense attorney Todd Blanche. 

Judge Juan Merchan did not sentence the president-elect to prison, and instead sentenced him to an unconditional discharge, meaning there is no punishment imposed: no jail time, fines or probation. The sentence also preserves Trump’s ability to appeal the conviction. 

‘After careful analysis, this court determined only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction is an unconditional discharge,’ Merchan said Friday. ‘At this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.’ 

Merchan added, ‘Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.’

Before Judge Merchan announced the sentence, Trump called the case a ‘tremendous setback for the American court system.’ 

‘This is a great embarrassment to the state of New York,’ Trump said, adding that the people saw the trial firsthand, and voted ‘decisively’ to elect him as president. 

Trump said the Justice Department was ‘very involved’ and stressed that a case like this against a former president, candidate and now president-elect has ‘never happened in our country before.’ 

‘And I would just like to explain that I was treated very, very unfairly. And I thank you very much,’ Trump said Friday. 

Merchan set Jan. 10 for the sentencing, just 10 days before Trump is set to be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. 

Merchan, upon scheduling the sentencing last week, said that he was not likely to ‘impose any sentence of incarceration,’ but rather a sentence of an ‘unconditional discharge.’ 

During Friday’s sentencing hearing, Merchan said he took the ‘unusual step’ of informing Trump of his sentence prior to the proceeding. 

‘The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult decisions that any criminal court judge is called to make,’ Merchan said, noting the court ‘must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.’

Merchan reflected on the case, saying that ‘never before has this court been presented with such a unique set of circumstances.’ The judge said it was an ‘extraordinary case’ with media interest and heightened security but said that once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself ‘was not any more unique or extraordinary’ than any other case.

Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request. 

Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it ‘immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York.’ 

The high court denied the request, saying ‘the application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons.’ 

‘First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal,’ the order states,’ the Supreme Court’s order, filed Thursday night, stated. ‘Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.’ 

The order also noted that ‘Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.’ 

Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. 

Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. 

Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of ‘lawfare’ promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November. 

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Friday morning over whether the social media platform TikTok should be required to divest from its Chinese-owned parent company or be banned in the U.S., in a highly watched case that pits concerns over national security against free speech protections. Justices both conservative and liberal appear skeptical of the social media app’s arguments.

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has ‘no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda,’ and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
‘What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government’ and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  ‘It doesn’t alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated.’

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose ‘grave national security threats’ to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the oral arguments unfold.

Aides for Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy are starting to interview staffers with the federal government for the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), according to a new report. 

Representatives for DOGE have had conversations with staffers from more than a dozen federal agencies — including the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, The Washington Post reported Friday. 

Musk and Ramaswamy are leading DOGE, a blue-ribbon committee separate from the federal government that seeks to address issues concerning government spending, waste, efficiency and operations. They are expected to suggest executive actions for the Trump administration and partner with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate reforms. 

Altogether, the committee aims to cut $2 trillion from the federal government budget through efforts to slash spending, government programs and the federal workforce. 

However, Musk recently cast doubt on the likelihood of eliminating $2 trillion from the federal budget and said there was a better chance at cutting $1 trillion. 

‘I think we’ll try for $2 trillion. I think that’s like the best-case outcome,’ Musk said during tech trade show CES on Wednesday in Las Vegas, the Post reported. ‘But I do think that you kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting $1 [trillion].’

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have voiced support for working with DOGE, and Reps. Aaron Bean, R-Fla., and Pete Sessions, R-Texas, announced the creation of the Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus last year. 

‘Our national debt has surpassed a staggering $36 trillion and should be a wakeup call for all Americans,’ House DOGE Caucus Co-Chair Bean said in a statement in November. ‘We must take action to avoid diving headfirst off the cliff of fiscal ruin. I’m thrilled with President-elect Trump’s appointment of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead DOGE, but taking on Crazy Town will be no easy task — they will need partners.’

Likewise, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, is slated to oversee the Senate DOGE Caucus.

‘The tables are finally turning, the knives are out, and waste is on the chopping block,’ Ernst said in a November statement. 

Currently, DOGE boasts a staff of approximately 50 people who are working from SpaceX’s offices in Washington, D.C., and it is aiming to roughly double that number when President-elect Trump is sworn into office on Jan. 20, according to the Post. 

A representative for Ramaswamy declined to provide comment to Fox News Digital.

DOGE appears to be the source of inspiration for other similar initiatives at the state level. For example, Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte of swing state New Hampshire on Thursday announced the creation of the Commission on Government Efficiency, known as COGE.

‘COGE will make us smarter than ever before when it comes to saving taxpayer dollars and finding better ways to serve the people of our state,’ Ayotte said in her inaugural address. 

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court Friday, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated their argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a ‘grave’ national security risk for American users.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

‘We know that the PRC has a voracious appetite to get its hands on as much information about Americans as possible, and that creates a potent weapon here,’ Prelogar said. ‘Because the PRC could command ByteDance [to] comply with any request it gives to obtain that data.’

‘TikTok’s immense data set would give the PRC a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage,’ she added. 

[Oral arguments began shortly after 10 a.m. Stay here for live updates as the proceedings unfold.]

Earlier in oral arguments when TikTok was presenting its case, justices on the bench as a whole appeared skeptical of the company’s core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

‘Exactly what is TikTok’s speech here?’ Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments, in an early sign of the court’s apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, sought to frame the case Friday primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company argues applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof in passing a law. More specifically, the law must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest— a test TikTok says the law fails to meet.

It’s a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— meaning that justices could theoretically consider the case under strict scrutiny and still opt to uphold the law— and the looming Jan. 19 ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted Friday that the case before them appears to be the first one to be heard by the court centered directly on the ownership of a platform or app, rather than speech.

The liberal justice also questioned whether the court might consider the divestiture requirement under the law as a data control case, not properly a free-speech issue, as TikTok’s legal team has sought to frame it.

Weighing the case as a data control case would trigger a lower level of scrutiny— a point that Francisco also acknowledged.

Francisco told justices in oral arguments Friday that the U.S. government has ‘no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda,’ and that he believes the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.

Francisco told Chief Justice John Roberts that he believes the court should grant TikTok First Amendment protections because it is operating as a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary. 

The TikTok attorney was also grilled over the Chinese government’s control over the app, and ByteDance’s control over the algorithm that shows certain content to users.

Asked by Justice Neil Gorsuch whether some parts of the recommendation engine are under Chinese control, Francisco said no.
‘What it means is that there are lots of parts of the source code that are embodied in intellectual property, that are owned by the Chinese government’ and which a sale or divestiture would restrict, he said.  ‘It doesn’t alter the fact that this is, being operated in the United States by TikTok incorporated.’

Unless justices intervene, or TikTok’s owners agree to sell, the app will be barred from operating in the U.S. by Jan. 19.
Oral arguments center on the level of First Amendment protections that should be granted to TikTok and its foreign owner, ByteDance.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has grappled with whether or not full First Amendment protections should be extended to foreign speakers. In previous cases, they have ruled that speech by a foreign government or individuals is not entitled to the full protections. 

The Biden administration, for its part, will argue that the law focuses solely on the company’s control of the app, which attorneys for the administration argue could pose ‘grave national security threats’ to Americans rather than its content. 

Lawyers for the administration will also argue that Congress did not impose any restrictions on speech, much less any restrictions based on viewpoint or on content, and therefore fails to satisfy the test of free speech violations under the First Amendment. 

The court’s decision could have major ramifications for the roughly 170 million Americans who use the app. 

Justices agreed in December to hold the expedited hearing and will have just nine days to issue a ruling before the ban takes place on Jan. 19. 

Tulsi Gabbard, who is President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in his next administration, has reversed course on a controversial item after lobbying from Republican senators. 

Gabbard revealed on Friday that she believes section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) ‘is crucial for gathering foreign intelligence on non-U.S. persons abroad.’

She previously opposed FISA section 702 re-authorization while serving as a Democrat in the House of Representatives. 

‘We have a very important responsibility to strike a balance between national security to keep the American people safe, while also protecting our constitutionally protected freedoms,’ she said on the House floor in 2018. ‘Let us make this critical choice. Vote to keep our country safe. Vote to uphold our constitutional rights that so many have fought and died to protect.’

In her statement, provided by a Trump transition spokesperson, Gabbard said, ‘This unique capability cannot be replicated and must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans.’

‘My prior concerns about FISA were based on insufficient protections for civil liberties, particularly regarding the FBI’s misuse of warrantless search powers on American citizens. Significant FISA reforms have been enacted since my time in Congress to address these issues. If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people,’ she said. 

The change in Gabbard’s beliefs on the key national security issue was first reported by Punchbowl News. 

It comes after multiple Republican senators made the case to her of the importance of FISA’s section 702. 

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told Fox News Digital in a statement: ‘Tulsi Gabbard has assured me in our conversations that she supports Section 702 as recently amended and that she will follow the law and support its reauthorization as DNI.’

One GOP aide shared that during his meeting with Gabbard, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., emphasized how important the authority granted by section 702 is, and how important her navigation of it would be. 

In a podcast appearance earlier this week, Lankford told the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel that there were some issues ‘that people aren’t talking about’ as it relates to Trump’s picks. One of them, he said, was Gabbard and her stance on section 702. 

‘She has voted against what’s called 702 authority every time that she was in Congress and voted against it. Well, now she’s going to be the spokesman for 702 authority. It’s a legitimate question just to say, ‘Okay, how are you going to handle this?’’ he asked. 

Lankford suggested that this is something that matters to other Republican senators. ‘I don’t hear anyone really coming up publicly and saying, ‘I’m adamantly opposed” to Trump’s nominees, he explained. 

But, ‘What I hear is a lot of people saying, ‘Hey, I want to give a fair hearing. I want people to be able to answer questions publicly.’’ 

While most GOP senators are supportive of FISA, some have been vocal critics. ‘Voting to reauthorize FISA 702 without a warrant requirement is difficult to defend. So are those casting such votes—especially if they purport to care about the Fourth Amendment,’ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote on X ahead of the most recent FISA re-authorization. 

Another top critic, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in 2023, ‘Using 702, Americans’ communications content and metadata is inevitably swept up and kept in government databases without a warrant. Law enforcement agencies then access Americans’ communications without a warrant.’ 

These Republicans may not be as happy about Gabbard’s change of heart. However, there isn’t any indication that it would harm their support for her as of yet. 

One Republican senate source cast doubt on Gabbard’s new stance, noting that she has been ‘a life-long skeptic of intelligence gathering.’ They suggested it is unlikely that she has ‘completely changed her mind.’ 

A GOP Senate source confirmed to Fox News Digital that conservative senators are encouraged by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and his apparent desire to confirm Trump nominees on the day he is sworn into office. 

The group is eager to have all national security nominees confirmed on Trump’s first day, they added. 

Democratic lawmakers were noticeably silent following the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump despite previously commenting on the cases against him, as Washington prepares for a Republican trifecta in Congress.

Trump was sentenced on Friday after being found guilty on 34 charges related to falsifying business records in May.

The incoming president was sentenced to unconditional discharge, which means that he will not receive any jail time, fine or probation time. The sentence also preserves Trump’s ability to appeal the conviction. 

After Trump was found guilty in criminal court in May, Democratic members of Congress put out a flurry of reactions on social media but appeared mum after the sentencing on Friday, which comes just days before he will be sworn into office on Jan. 20. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in May, wrote in a post on X, fomerly Twitter, that ‘the jury has spoken and carefully rendered a decision. Responsible leadership requires the verdict to be respected,’ while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said that ‘nobody is above the law.’

However, Democrats appeared less reactive to Friday’s sentencing, which left Trump free of any penalty.

One Democratic congresswoman put out a statement following the unconditional discharge sentence, claiming that ‘our system of justice is not just.’

‘There is a two-tiered system of justice in this country, and Donald Trump lives on the tier where he gets to walk into the White House without spending a single day in jail or being put on probation after being convicted of 34 felonies. On the other tier are the clients I represented as a public defender in Texas, like the seventeen-year-old boy who was held on felony probation for taking some candy from his school’s concession stand,’ Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said in a post on X. 

‘The scales are not equal,’ she added.

On the flip side, Republicans were very vocal following the sentencing. 

‘I have no respect for the process being used in New York. I find the judge and prosecutor’s motives to be dripping with politics,’ Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement. ‘This is a sad day for America.’

Trump, ahead of the sentencing, said that he would appeal the decision.

Trump filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, but the high court ultimately denied his emergency petition to block his sentencing.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

President-elect Trump announced his latest picks to join the growing number of Cabinet choices as his Jan. 20th inauguration nears. 

Trump, in a Friday evening announcement, said that Bill Briggs would serve as the next Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. If confirmed, Briggs will serve alongside Trump’s pick for SBA Administrator, Kelly Loeffler.

‘Bill is a successful businessman who served in my First Term as the Acting Associate Administrator in the Office of Capital Access at SBA,’ he said. ‘During his tenure, Bill helped oversee our Historic Paycheck Protection Program that saved many of our Small Businesses, and millions of jobs.’

The president-elect also announced Ed Russo as his pick for the Environmental Advisory Task Force.

‘I am pleased to announce that Ed Russo, an Environmental Expert, will lead our Environmental Advisory Task Force, which will advise my Administration on initiatives to create great jobs and protect our natural resources, by following my policy of CLEAN AIR and CLEAN WATER,’ he said. ‘Together, we will achieve American Energy DOMINANCE, rebuild our Economy, and DRILL, BABY, DRILL.’

The nominations come as Trump continues to round out picks for his Cabinet as Jan. 20 nears.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate will soon begin holding hearings for Trump’s Cabinet nominees.

Republicans will control the Senate with 53 seats to the Democrats’ 47 once Senator-elect Jim Justice of West Virginia is sworn in later in January and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appoints a senator to fill Vice President-elect Vance’s seat.