A handful of judges, some of whom are Supreme Court contenders, will tackle antisemitism at an annual convention this week, joining a rare multi-judge panel in a forum typically reserved for one-person lectures, Fox News Digital has learned. 

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, who will moderate the discussion among the judicial heavyweights, said the panel is ‘unprecedented’ and a needed change to address what he said was a rise in antisemitism in the aftermath of Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel in 2023. The panel is part of the Federalist Society’s annual National Lawyers Convention.

‘This conversation on faith, understanding, and moral responsibility could not be more timely,’ Altman said. ‘It reflects the importance of the moment, the endurance of Western values, and Judge [Robert] Bork’s abiding belief in moral clarity and in the strength that comes from open dialogue.’

The judges who will participate in the discussion include seven Trump appointees, including Altman, one appointee of former President George Bush, and a justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

They include Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, who was floated in Bloomberg Law as a good successor to Justice Clarence Thomas, in part because he would be the first Asian American justice, a ‘positive’ when weighing replacing the second-ever Black justice.

Two others, Judge David Stras and Raymond Gruender, both of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, were on Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist during the president’s first term. Judge Martha Pacold of the Northern District of Illinois appeared on another one of Trump’s shortlists in 2020.

The Federalist Society event has for years been named after the late Bork, who, incidentally, once helped break a law firm’s avoidance of hiring Jewish lawyers, according to Senate testimony by his peers in 1987. 

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Altman, a vocal Jewish judge who is based in the Southern District of Florida, said he has also arranged numerous trips for federal judges of varying faiths to visit Israel after the Oct. 7 attack.

He said that although his personal conversations about Israel had largely been centered on campuses, ‘it became clear’ to him that the judiciary needed to chime in because heated discourse surrounding the topic involved legal questions.

The deadly attack in Israel reignited conflict in Gaza and led to nationwide anti-Israel protests, especially on U.S. college campuses. Protesters claimed Israel was killing thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately, while the Israeli government said it gave fair warning about its offensive and that its targets were Hamas terrorists.

‘Those claims, is Israel violating the laws of war? Is it an apartheid state? Does it occupy land that doesn’t belong to it?’ Altman said. ‘Those are just legal questions with legal answers, and I thought, who better than federal judges to understand what the applicable legal rule is, to adduce and find out what the relevant facts are, and then to apply the facts to the law and issue a judgment, than a federal judge.’

Some of the judges who will participate on the panel have been on Altman’s Israel trips.

The Federalist Society indicated that the judges plan to speak about their personal experiences talking with people of other faiths about anti-Jewish sentiments. They also plan to address First Amendment concerns surrounding antisemitism.

The discussion comes as the Trump administration has aggressively targeted noncitizens for speech that it has claimed in court is at odds with its national security posture because it is too critical of Israel and potentially supportive of Hamas.

Free speech proponents have warned that offensive and politically charged speech is protected under the Constitution. In the case of Mahmoud Khalil, which has become a flashpoint in these discussions, the courts have been examining the extent to which noncitizens enjoy First Amendment protections.

Altman said he has observed a one-sidedness in the opposite direction on campuses and that pro-Israel expression has been suppressed. Just this year, New York University canceled Jewish legal scholar Ilya Shaprio’s talk there because of what it said were security risks from protesters.

‘I was shocked, honestly, to discover that so many young people in our country, especially on our college campuses, had a totally incorrect view about the one Jewish state in the world and its role in the Middle East and its history and how it came to be, and it also became clear that the sort of debate that was taking place on campus wasn’t really a debate, because only one side of the story was being told,’ Altman said.

Israel said the remains of three people returned by Hamas on Friday did not match any of the deceased hostages. 

Following forensic testing, Israeli officials said it was concluded that the remains do not belong to the 11 deceased hostages still being held in Gaza, Fox News has learned.

‘The remains we received are not our hostages,’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office told The Associated Press following the examination of the remains. However, neither Netanyahu’s office nor any other Israeli authorities confirmed the identities of the remains to the AP. It is still unclear who these people were and why they were given to Israel.

Since the U.S.-brokered ceasefire, which began earlier this month, Hamas has returned the remains of 17 hostages. With those already handed over, there have been instances in which Israel has claimed that Hamas returned remains that did not match the remaining deceased hostages. Hamas previously returned additional remains belonging to Ofir Tzarfati, whose body was first recovered in 2023.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) made clear its role in the transfer of hostages’ remains. In a statement, the ICRC said that it ‘does not take part in locating the remains.’

‘In accordance with international humanitarian law, it is the responsibility of the parties to search for, collect, and return the dead,’ the ICRC said.

On Thursday, Israel received the remains of Amiram Cooper and Sahar Baruch, leaving 11 deceased hostages in the Gaza Strip, including U.S. citizens Itay Chen and Omer Neutra.

Israeli intelligence suggests Cooper was alive when he was taken from his home in Kibbutz Nir Oz during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said that it estimates Cooper was killed in February 2024. He was 84 years old. Cooper leaves behind a wife, four children and 11 grandchildren.

Baruch was taken from his home in Kibbutz Be’eri during the massacre. The IDF said that it estimates he was murdered on Dec. 8, 2023, at the age of 25. Baruch leaves behind his parents and two siblings.

In addition to Neutra and Chen, the remaining deceased hostages include Meny Godard, Hadar Goldin, Ran Gvili, Asaf Hamami, Joshua Loitu Mollel, Dror Or, Oz Daniel, Lior Rudaeff and Sudthisak Rinthalak.

Fox News’ Yonat Friling and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The First Amendment won out this week in a court case over a man who repeatedly called for President Donald Trump’s assassination and openly fantasized about his violent demise. 

A jury acquitted the man, Peter Stinson, of one charge of soliciting a crime of violence, raising questions about when speech is protected by the Constitution and when it becomes incriminating.

A former longtime Coast Guard officer, Stinson called for someone to ‘take the shot’ in reference to Trump, according to court papers. ‘Realistically the only solution is violence,’ Stinson wrote.

Stinson said he ‘would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh’ and that he ‘would be willing to pitch in’ for a hitman contract.

‘He wants us dead. I can say the same thing about him,’ Stinson wrote in another post during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A witness for the defense, Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland, said people ‘rooting for Trump to die online’ is common.

‘On one hand, I would not encourage anyone to post those thoughts on social media,’ Golbeck said, according to the Washington Post. ‘On the other hand, I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things. … It’s a very common sentiment. There’s social media accounts dedicated to tracking whether Trump has died.’

Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that one issue with the charges in Stinson’s case was that it was not clear whom Stinson was soliciting to carry out the crime.

‘Solicitation is when it’s directly tied to the crime. So, if he contacts an actual hit man and tries to arrange some sort of hit contract, that’s solicitation,’ VanderVeen told Fox News Digital. ‘Without more … that probably does not meet the elements of actual solicitation.’

Stinson’s attorneys argued in court documents that their client’s posts were not threats but rather ‘political advocacy that the First Amendment was squarely designed to protect.’

‘They lack the ‘specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action’ required to fall outside constitutional protection,’ the attorneys said.

Threats to conservative SCOTUS justices and Obama

The jury acquittal, which was handed down quickly after a two-day trial, came at a time when political violence has taken the spotlight, particularly in the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a string of recent violence toward immigration enforcement officers and Republican and Democratic political figures continuously facing threats.

A person convicted of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh had taken concrete steps by searching the internet for mass shootings, discussing killing a Supreme Court justice in internet chats and showing up armed at Kavanaugh’s house in 2022.

A man who participated in the Jan. 6 riot was convicted by a judge in a separate case of firearms charges and making a hoax threat aimed at former President Barack Obama. He was sentenced this week to time served after he livestreamed himself driving around the former president’s neighborhood and saying he was ‘working on a detonator.’ He was found with a machete and illegal weapons.

In a looming constitutional test, another man is facing charges of threatening federal judges by sending hundreds of ominous messages through the Supreme Court website referencing several justices’ graphic murders. He tried to have his case tossed out over First Amendment concerns, but a judge denied the request, saying a jury would need to weigh that argument.

Presidents, senators, House members and other political figures routinely speak about facing a range of threats, whether in public forums or through direct messages.

High court greenlights ‘vituperative’ language

One legal test in these cases came in 1969, when the Supreme Court decided in favor of a protester who allegedly told a group of people while discussing getting drafted for the Vietnam War that if he is given a rifle, the first man he wants to kill is President Lyndon Johnson. His remark was political hyperbole rather than a ‘true threat,’ the high court found.

‘What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,’ the majority wrote. ‘The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.’

Stinson was initially charged with two counts of a threat against the president, but the DOJ shifted course and brought the one solicitation charge against him.

Department of Justice lawyers argued that Stinson’s incessant violent comments on X and Bluesky, coupled with self-identifying as an Antifa member, met the charging criteria, but prosecutors failed to convince a jury that the speech was more than bluster.

Kirk spurs examination of ‘hate speech’

In the case of Kirk’s murder, finger-pointing ensued. Republicans blamed inflammatory rhetoric from Kirk’s political opponents for inciting his death.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stirred the conversation by saying in an interview after Kirk’s death that the DOJ would ‘absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.’ Bondi later walked back her comment, saying speech that ‘crosses the line into threats of violence’ is punishable by law.

In cases of inciting violence, according to VanderVeen, speech remains protected because of a lacking nexus between the words and the attack.

‘Incitement is more about the imminence. … How much time would have to pass between that person’s speech and the actual unlawful act of the violence?’ VanderVeen said, noting that inciting violence typically involves addressing a mob.

‘If someone’s saying, ‘Violence is good,’ but there’s no imminent lawless action there, someone else has to say, ‘That guy’s right, that violence is good. I’m going to start doing violence,” VanderVeen said. ‘At that point, that’s on the person doing the violence.’

Republican senators issued a torrent of criticism against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg this week after it was revealed that he had signed off on subpoenas and gag orders issued as part of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation — though a cursory review of court rules suggests it is far less provocative than lawmakers have claimed.

Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., were among the Republicans who blasted Boasberg as an ‘activist’ judge, and Cruz, for his part, suggested Boasberg should be impeached. 

‘My assumption,’ Cruz fumed, is ‘that Judge Boasberg printed these things out like the placemats at Denny’s — one after the other.’

At issue were subpoenas and gag orders issued by former special counsel Jack Smith’s team as part of its probe into President Donald Trump’s actions in the wake of the 2020 election. 

The redacted documents were made public this week by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

They included subpoenas of phone records for 10 senators and one House lawmaker, and gag orders sent to Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers of the subpoena. (Verizon complied, AT&T did not.) 

Both the subpoenas and gag orders were signed by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, according to the newly released documents — a detail that prompted fresh criticism and indignation from some of the Republicans in question, including Cruz, who blasted the investigation in question as ‘worse than Watergate’ and a gross violation of prosecutorial powers.

Blackburn blasted Boasberg as an ‘activist’ judge. Some lawmakers further argued for his impeachment as a result of his involvement. 

In fact, his role in the process is far from surprising. 

Local rules for the federal court system in D.C. explicitly state the chief judge ‘must hear and determine all proceedings before the grand jury.’ The subpoenas and gag orders signed by Boasberg were signed in May 2023 — roughly two months into his tenure as the chief judge for the federal court.

It’s unclear whether Sens. Cruz or Blackburn were aware of this rule, and they did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

But it’s also not the first time Judge Boasberg previously noted his oversight of these matters as the chief judge for D.C. — including in the special counsel probe in question. 

Boasberg explained the rule in question in June 2023, when he granted, in part, a request from media outlets to unseal a tranche of redacted documents related to the subpoena and testimony of former Vice President Mike Pence in the same probe. (He explained in a lengthy public memo that he did so because the press movant were seeking record that Pence himself had discussed publicly.) 

Still, the controversy comes as Boasberg has found himself squarely in Trump’s crosshairs, after he issued a temporary restraining order in March blocking Trump’s use of a 1798 wartime law to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.

Until that point, however, Boasberg had largely avoided making headlines. 

A graduate of Yale, Oxford University and Yale Law School, Boasberg clerked for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before joining the Justice Department as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C.

He was tapped in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush to serve on the D.C. Superior Court, where he served until 2011, when he was nominated by President Barack Obama to the federal bench in D.C. in 2011. 

His confirmation vote soared through the Senate with a 96-0 vote of approval, including with the support of Sen. Grassley and other Republicans named in the subpoena. 

Boasberg in 2014 was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA Court, comprised of 11 federal judges hand-selected by the chief justice. 

Former special counsel Jack Smith, for his part, has since defended his decision to subpoena the Republican lawmakers’ phone records, which Fox News Digital reported includes phone records for a four-day period surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. 

They did not include the contents of phone calls or messages, which would require a warrant, but they did include ‘[call] detail records for inbound and outbound calls, text messages, direct connect, and voicemail messages’ and phone number, subscriber, and payment information.

 His lawyers told Senate lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that the decision to do so was ‘entirely proper’ and is consistent with Justice Department policy.

Fox News’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report. 

A bipartisan pair of senators are calling on Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth to hand over copies of the orders issued to strike boats in the Caribbean allegedly carrying narco-terrorists.

Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss., released two letters they sent to Hegseth in recent weeks in response to the repeated strikes on suspected drug boats.

The first letter, which was issued on Sept. 23, explained the legal requirements for congressional oversight over the military’s executed orders, including that congressional defense committees must be provided copies of the orders within 15 days of being issued.

‘Unfortunately, the Department has not complied with this requirement,’ the letter reads.

The second letter, issued on Oct. 6, seeks a written opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on the domestic or international legal basis for conducting the strikes and related operations.

Reports indicate that the OLC produced a legal opinion justifying the strikes, which numerous lawmakers have been demanding in recent weeks.

The senators’ letter also asked for a complete list ‘of all designated terrorist organizations and drug trafficking organizations with whom the President has determined the United States is in a non-international armed conflict and against whom lethal military force may be used.’

‘To date, these documents have not been submitted,’ Reed’s office said in a news release on Friday.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have urged the Trump administration to release information related to the strikes.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the administration on Thursday after it excluded Democrats from briefings on the strikes, a move he called ‘indefensible and dangerous.’

On Wednesday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also penned a letter demanding to review the legal justification behind the series of boat strikes they say appear to violate several laws.

‘Drug trafficking is a terrible crime that has had devastating impacts on American families and communities and should be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the President’s actions to hold alleged drug traffickers accountable must still conform with the law,’ the letter states.

The strikes have also garnered scrutiny from Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who raised concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people.

Paul has cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded for suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

The senator has also argued that if the administration plans to engage in a war with Venezuela after it has targeted boats it claims are transporting drugs for the Venezuela-linked Tren de Aragua gang, it must seek a declaration of war from Congress.

In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has made similar statements.

A report published on Friday suggested the U.S. military was planning to strike military installations in Venezuela, but President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the report was inaccurate.

This comes as Hegseth announced the U.S. military on Wednesday struck another boat carrying alleged narco-terrorists. The strikes were carried out in the Eastern Pacific region at the direction of Trump, killing four men on board.

That was the 14th strike on suspected drug boats since September. A total of 61 people have reportedly been killed while three survived, including at least two who were later repatriated to their home countries.

The Pentagon has refused to release the identities of those killed or evidence that drugs were on board.

President Donald Trump spent the week in Asia meeting with other global leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, while his administration ramped up its attacks against alleged drug boats in Latin America.

Trump met with Xi Thursday in South Korea, where the two hashed out a series of agreements concerning trade. Specifically, Trump said he agreed to cut tariffs on Chinese imports by 10% — reducing the rate to from 57% to 47% — because China said it would cooperate with the U.S. on addressing the fentanyl crisis.

Additionally, Trump said that he would not move forward with imposing an additional 100% tariff on Chinese goods that were expected to kick in Saturday. Trump threatened the steep hike after China announced in October it would impose export controls on rare earth magnets, which he said China had agreed to postpone by a year.

Afterward, Trump described the meeting as a massive success, and signaled that a broader trade deal between the two countries would be signed shortly.

‘Zero, to 10, with 10 being the best, I’d say the meeting was a 12,’ Trump told reporters after meeting with Xi. ‘A lot of decisions were made … and we’ve come to a conclusion on very many important points.’

From China’s point of view, Xi said afterward the two countries should work together and complete outstanding tasks from the summit for the ‘peace of mind’ of China, the U.S., and the rest of the world.

‘Both sides should take the long-term perspective into account, focusing on the benefits of cooperation rather than falling into a vicious cycle of mutual retaliation,’ Xi said, according to a state media report on the meeting.

Additionally, Trump announced on the Asia trip, which also included stops in Malaysia and Japan, that he would instruct the U.S. to revive nuclear weapons testing —upending decades of precedent on nuclear policy, as the U.S. has not conducted nuclear weapons testing since 1992. The announcement also left lawmakers, experts and military personnel wondering what he meant since no other country has conducted a known nuclear test since North Korea in 2017.

China’s and Russia’s last known tests go back to the 1990s, when Russia was still the Soviet Union.

The White House did not provide comment to Fox News Digital. The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

However, experts are aligned that Trump likely meant he would instruct the U.S. to either increase its testing of nuclear-powered weapons systems or conduct tests of low-yield nuclear weapons.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters Thursday that Trump would continue to work on nuclear proliferation, but said testing would be done to guarantee weapons are working at optimal capability.

‘It’s an important part of American national security to make sure that this nuclear arsenal we have actually functions properly,’ Vance said. ‘And that’s part of a testing regime. To be clear, we know that it does work properly, but you got to keep on top of it over time. And the president just wants to make sure that we do that with his nation.’

The Trump administration also stepped up its campaign against drug cartels in Latin America, totaling at least 14 strikes against alleged drug boats in the region.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced Tuesday that the U.S. had conducted three strikes against four vessels in the Eastern Pacific, and Hegseth announced Wednesday another strike had also been conducted in those waters.

But the White House dismissed reports Friday that the Trump administration had identified and was poised to strike military targets within Venezuela imminently. Trump later told reporters that he hadn’t determined whether he would conduct strikes within Venezuela.

Lawmakers — including some Republicans — have pressed for more answers on the strikes, and have questioned if they are even legal. For example, Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., spearheaded a war powers resolution that would prohibit U.S. armed forces from engaging in ‘hostilities’ against Venezuela.

‘The Trump administration has made it clear they may launch military action inside Venezuela’s borders and won’t stop at boat strikes in the Caribbean,’ Schiff said in an Oct. 17 statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump wants Senate Republicans to gut the Senate filibuster, but it’s a request that puts his quick-fix desire to end the shutdown at odds with the GOP’s long-held defense of the filibuster.

The Senate filibuster is the 60-vote threshold that applies to most bills in the upper chamber, and given the nature of the thin majorities that either party has commanded in recent years, that means that legislation typically has to be bipartisan to advance.

It has also proven to be the main roadblock in reopening the government. Despite Republicans controlling the upper chamber, they have routinely come up a handful of votes short in their 13 attempts to end the shutdown.

Three members of the Democratic caucus have broken from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and their colleagues to reopen the government, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., needs five more to hit the magic number.

Trump, in a late-night Truth Social post, said that on his return trip from Asia, he ruminated heavily over why the government had shut down despite Republicans being in control. His solution was for Senate Republicans ‘to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option.’

‘Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW,’ Trump said.

Senate Republicans have already gone nuclear this year to unilaterally change the rules to blast through Schumer’s and Democrats’ blockade of Trump’s nominees. But for many Senate Republicans, including Thune and his leadership team, nuking the filibuster is a proverbial third rail.

‘There’s always a lot of swirl out there, as you know from, you know, social media, etc., but no, we’re not having that conversation,’ Thune said earlier this month when asked about pressure to go nuclear on the filibuster.

And there isn’t much daylight between his sentiments from earlier in October to now.

‘Leader Thune’s position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged,’ Thune’s spokesperson Ryan Wrasse said in a statement.

Earlier this month during an appearance on Fox & Friends, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., shared a similar outlook as Thune when asked if the filibuster was under consideration to be on the chopping block.

‘No, that’s not going to be the case,’ he said. ‘There aren’t the Republicans that would want to support it.’

The filibuster has come under fire in the last decade from Senate Democrats, a point that Trump noted in his lengthy post.

The last time the filibuster was put to the test was when Democrats controlled the Senate in 2022. Schumer, who was majority leader at the time, tried to change the rules for a ‘talking filibuster’ in order to pass voting rights legislation.

But the effort was thwarted when then-Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., joined Republicans to block the change. Both have since retired from the Senate and become independents.

Still, the stalemate in the Senate has shown no signs of shattering as the shutdown heads into November, though bipartisan talks among rank-and-file members have been on the rise as federal food benefits career toward a weekend funding cliff.

Across the building, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., also warned against turning to the nuclear option for the filibuster, even as a handful of House Republicans have demanded that the safeguard be erased.

‘Look, I’ll just say this in general, as I’ve said many times about the filibuster, it’s not my call. I don’t have a say in this. It’s a Senate chamber issue,’ Johnson said. ‘But the filibuster has traditionally been viewed as a very important safeguard. If the shoe was on the other foot, I don’t think our team would like it.’

With no deal in place to reopen the government and no action from the administration to make up for a funding shortfall in federal benefits, millions of Americans are at risk of losing food benefits starting on Saturday.

The argument raging in the Senate mirrors the same argument that has so far seen the government shutdown for 32 days.

Senate Democrats contend that with the stroke of a pen — like on expiring Obamacare subsidies — President Donald Trump could easily see the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps, funded as the shutdown drags on.

‘We don’t want to pit healthcare and food, [Republicans] do,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. ‘We think you can have both.’

But congressional Republicans and the administration argue that food stamp benefits, and numerous other government programs, could be fully funded if Schumer and his caucus would unlock the votes to reopen the government.

Democrats are suing the Trump administration in part over its refusal to use the SNAP emergency fund, which they contend has about $5 billion, to fund the program. But a recent memo by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) argued there was no legal standing to use the fund and that federal SNAP funds would run dry by Nov. 1 if Democrats did not vote to end the shutdown.

A pair of federal judges ruled on Friday that the administration would have to pay out the food stamp benefits for November, either in full or partially. 

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins affirmed the memo during a Friday press conference, ‘There is a contingency fund at USDA, but that contingency fund, by the way, doesn’t even cover, I think, half of the $9.2 billion that would be required for November SNAP. But it is only allowed to flow if the underlying program is funded.’

Nothing typified the dysfunction over the benefits, which 42 million Americans rely on, more than an explosion on the Senate floor this week between Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M.

Luján tried to force a vote on his bill that would fund both food stamps and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), but was promptly blocked by an angry Thune, who argued that Democrats have had 13 chances to fund the program through the shutdown.

‘This isn’t a political game, these are real people’s lives we’re talking about,’ Thune said. ‘And you all have just figured out, 29 days in, that, oh, there might be some consequences.’

Democrats contend that Trump and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program, are actively choosing not to fund the program, given that there is roughly $5 billion in an emergency contingency fund that the administration could dip into.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., charged that it was ‘Trump’s choice.’

‘He’s got $5 billion that he could be using right now to help people, to help people feed their kids, and he’s choosing not to do that,’ he said. ‘What he’s doing is sick, deliberately making this shutdown more painful as a means to try to get Democrats to sign on to an immoral, corrupt budget.’

The argument has been much the same in the House of Representatives, which passed the GOP’s federal funding bill on Sept. 19. Both Republicans and Democrats appear worried, however.

‘I just left the local food pantry in my district and was speaking with seniors there, and they’re all very concerned,’ Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., whose district is home to more than 120,000 SNAP recipients, told Fox News Digital. ‘They agree with me that the Senate, beginning with their own senator, Senator Schumer, should vote to continue the existing funding levels that they previously voted for four times and prevent this unnecessary pain.’

There is a desire among both sides of the aisle to fund the program before the government reopens, but the likelihood of piecemeal bills, or ‘rifle-shots,’ making it to the floor was squashed by Thune during the week.

Both Luján and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have bills that would fund food stamps, with Hawley’s bill having 29 bipartisan co-sponsors, including Schumer.

One of the co-sponsors, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital that the administration’s argument, in part, was because the $5 billion in the contingency fund was not enough to cover a month’s worth of food stamp benefits.

‘It’s hurricane season, and that’s what it’s really satisfying,’ he said. ‘But it’s not enough, either way. We’ve tried 14 times to be able to fully fund SNAP — once with an actual appropriation bill … to say, ‘let’s just fund it for the entire year,’ 13 times to do short term. It’s a little frustrating. Some of my Democratic colleagues are saying, ‘Well, find some way to fund it for a week or so, move things around.’’

But on the House side, it’s not clear if Democrats nor Republicans have the appetite for piecemeal bills during the shutdown.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has consistently said he will only call the House back into session if Senate Democrats vote to reopen the government.

Meanwhile, Fox News Digital asked Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., during a press conference on SNAP this week whether he was discussing food stamp legislation with his Senate counterparts.

‘I’m familiar with the proposals, and I know that many of my colleagues … have proposed legislation here in the House as well. Those conversations will continue,’ Neguse said. But, ‘ultimately,’ he added, ‘legislation doesn’t need to be passed in order for these funds to be released. It is the law.’

President Donald Trump’s tone on Ukraine has softened dramatically in recent weeks, from tough talk aimed to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin last month to a more hands-off approach.

After signaling strong support for Ukraine and pledging to bring an end to Russia’s invasion, Trump now appears far less committed to aiding Kyiv or forcing a resolution to the war.

The reversal began quietly two weeks ago when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Washington. Many had expected Trump to approve Tomahawk long-range missiles for Ukraine — but he didn’t.

The president said it would take too long to train on the missile system and that the U.S. needed them for its own stockpile. He vociferously denied a Wall Street Journal report suggesting the U.S. had lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to fire into Russia.

Then came Thursday’s announcement from the Department of War that a rotational U.S. Army brigade stationed in Romania, with forces also in Hungary and Bulgaria, would be coming home. Trump dismissed the pullback as ‘not very significant, not a big deal,’ though European allies saw it differently.

‘This will be an invitation for Russia to increase their attacks on Ukraine, increase its influence in the region,’ one European official told Fox News Digital.

The softer posture extended to Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday. Despite previously pressing India to curb its purchases of Russian oil, Trump made no such demand of Xi.

‘We really didn’t discuss the oil,’ he told reporters afterward.

Ending the war did come up, but in a noticeably less urgent tone.

‘We’re both going to work together to see if we can get something done,’ Trump said. ‘We agree that the sides are locked in, fighting, and sometimes you have to let them fight, I guess. Crazy. But he’s going to help us and we’re going to work together on Ukraine.’

For a president who vowed to ‘end the war on Day One,’ those comments suggest a shift from urgency to resignation — and a foreign policy that appears increasingly reactive rather than strategic.

Not everyone is alarmed by the change. Last week, Trump sanctioned two major Russian oil companies — Lukoil and Rosneft — in what supporters of Ukraine hope will deal a significant blow to Moscow’s war coffers. Both companies have since announced plans to sell international assets in response.

‘The sanctions are a step of actual consequence. European troop withdrawals are expected, but the changes seem marginal,’ another European official said. ‘The rest is your typical Trump pendulum — swinging away, this way one day, that way the next.’

At the same time, Trump announced the U.S. would resume nuclear weapons testing for the first time since 1992, blaming ‘other countries’ testing programs.’

Russia claims it recently tested a nuclear-powered drone along with a nuclear-capable missile and submarine, but the tests did not involve a detonation. Russia has not confirmed a nuclear weapon test since 1990. 

Weeks ago, Trump suggested European nations dealing with Russian drone and jet incursions into their airspace should ‘shoot them down,’ and administration officials vowed to defend ‘every inch’ of NATO.

He’d planned to meet with Putin in Hungary this month, but canceled the meeting after deciding he didn’t want to ‘waste time.’

‘Every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don’t go anywhere,’ Trump complained last week. ‘They just don’t go anywhere.’

Meanwhile, Russia bombarded Ukrainian cities with 705 missiles and drones overnight on Thursday, according to the Ukrainian Air Force. Ukraine repelled many of the projectiles, but four people were killed.

Even as Trump insists his administration is pursuing peace ‘through strength,’ his latest actions and rhetoric paint a more complicated picture — one that has left allies guessing which version of Trump’s Ukraine policy will prevail next.

A prominent Empire State Republican is backing former Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral race next week in a bid to derail Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.

Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., a House lawmaker who previously chaired the New York State Republican Party, told Fox News Digital it was a ‘no-brainer’ backing Cuomo, despite their disagreements, over Mamdani.

‘This is a simple choice. I mean, one candidate has a shot to win. I mean, there’s polling that has him 10 points down in a very fluid situation,’ Langworthy said.

‘This is about saving the city from communism. I’ve had plenty of disagreements — very publicly over the years — and fought tooth and nail with Gov. Cuomo. But there’s no doubt in my mind he would be a far superior mayor than a communist.’

He is one of several prominent Republicans in New York coming out to publicly back Cuomo in the waning days before the election.

Early voting began in the New York City mayor’s race last weekend. Mamdani is the presumptive frontrunner in the deep blue Democrat stronghold, with Cuomo running as an independent candidate and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa running as the Republican.

Cuomo and Sliwa have both made overt movements to court independent and Republican voters, however, with concerns from Mamdani’s critics that the two could cancel each other out.

Langworthy would not say whether it was a mistake for Sliwa not to drop out of the race earlier but said, ‘Everyone’s really got to check, is this a vanity project? Or is this something you’re trying to do to seriously be the mayor?

‘There’s only one candidate running against Mamdani that has a credible path to win. And there’s Andrew Cuomo. And, you know, he knows how to run a government,’ he said. ‘I may have policy disagreements with him, but he’s certainly a better option than the alternative of Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America running the city with no checks and balances.’

It comes as other New York Republicans are making last-ditch overtures to Big Apple voters as well.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., the only House Republican representing part of New York City and who ran for mayor in 2017, said she believed Sliwa was ‘the best choice’ but said polling showed ‘Cuomo’s got the best chance of beating Mamdani.’

‘I’ll take either of the two, quite frankly. I’ll take anybody but the communist,’ she said. 

‘He lacks the experience. You know, 34 years old. His only job was a hip-hop artist — a bad one, to boot. And if we have another hurricane, another pandemic, another terrorist attack, this guy is not capable of managing this city through it.’

But House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., who represents part of the New York City suburbs on Long Island, said he believed a Mamdani victory was likely a ‘forgone conclusion.’

‘The Democrats, the way they just set the system for themselves — somehow the primary is ranked choice, but the general is not. I mean, it’s ridiculous,’ Garbarino said. ‘We’ll see, though. I mean, the polls have been wrong before.’

Election Day in New York City is Tuesday, Nov. 4.