Partisan fights played out publicly in high-profile votes in the Senate this week, but lawmakers are quietly finding common ground in their support of a push to have the unedited footage of Caribbean boat strikes released.

Tucked into the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a provision that would require the Pentagon to release the full, unedited footage of boat strikes carried out in the Caribbean in exchange for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s travel budget to be fully funded.

The Trump administration has come under scrutiny on Capitol Hill for repeated strikes on alleged drug boats from Venezuela over the last several months, which came to a head last week in the wake of the deadly Sept. 2 double-strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean Sea.

‘I think we need to see all of the video footage, particularly of the second strike from Sept. 2,’ Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital.

Lawmakers in the upper chamber don’t know who slipped the provision into the colossal legislative package, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who told reporters, ‘I would imagine that it got added at the leadership level.’

The massive legislative package sailed through the House on Thursday and is set for a series of procedural tests in the Senate beginning on Monday. And many lawmakers broadly support the release of the footage, particularly of the double-tap strike, to Congress.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Fox News Digital that his committee, and ‘maybe the [Senate] Intel Committee,’ should have complete access to the unedited footage.

‘And then, based upon that, we can decide whether or not we would push further,’ Rounds said. ‘But let us look at the facts first.’

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who also sits on the Armed Services Committee, told Fox News Digital that he fully supported the provision and noted that Hegseth and the Pentagon had already released partial footage, treating it like ‘almost a commercial.’

‘So you released part of the video, and you’re banging your chest about it,’ Kaine said. ‘You should release the whole thing.’

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, agreed and told Fox News Digital that it shouldn’t be a roadblock to passage of the broader defense package, either.

‘There’s no excuse for not releasing it. It shouldn’t. If somebody is not releasing something, it usually tells me that they don’t want it to see the light of day,’ he said. ‘I just want the video of the rest of the strike. That’s not me. It’s the American people who need to see this. They need to know what’s being done in their name.’

During the week, the so-called ‘Gang of Eight,’ which includes Republican and Democratic leadership from the Senate and House along with the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees in both chambers, met with Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for a briefing on the strikes.

Neither Thune nor Senate Intel Committee Chair Tom Cotton, R-Ark., commented on the briefing, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., characterized it as ‘very unsatisfying.’

‘I asked Secretary Hegseth, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, would he let every member of Congress see unedited videos of the Sept. 2 strike? His answer, ‘We have to study it well,’’ Schumer said. ‘In my view, they’ve studied it long enough. Congress ought to be able to see it.’

Some Republicans support more transparency on the matter, too, including Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who told Fox News Digital that he didn’t ‘have any problem’ releasing the footage.

But he emphasized that the entire point of the strikes was to combat the flow of drugs into the country.

‘We’re losing sight of the most important narrative, and that is, more Americans have died of illegal drugs in the last seven years than World War I, World War II and Vietnam combined,’ Daines said.

United States Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz recently returned from a Middle East swing, touting the ‘amazing progress’ in the implementation of President Donald Trump’s Israel–Gaza peace deal, and telling Fox News Digital that the situation abroad is ‘night and day to where we were a year ago.’

Fox News Digital spoke exclusively with Waltz Thursday evening, just hours after he returned to the United States from the Middle East.

Waltz traveled from the Lebanese border to the Syrian border, the Egyptian border, Jordan to Israel and beyond.

‘The purpose of the trip was to get on the ground and see the implementation,’ Waltz said. ‘We met with the Jordanians, the king, the prime minister and president of Israel — we met with our troops.’ 

Waltz explained that there is a ‘small contingent’ of approximately 100 U.S. troops in Israel — not in Gaza — to help to pull together humanitarian aid and military coordination.

‘We have had air defense assets in Israel for quite some time to deal with attacks from Iran,’ Waltz said. ‘This is now a small headquarters element to provide a coordination — no one was talking to each other, and the U.S. military is doing what it does best.’

Waltz said the U.S. troops in Israel are working with the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, the Israelis, Egyptians and Arab countries, while having contact with Palestinians and ensuring that humanitarian aid is being delivered.

‘From an ‘America First’ standpoint, the United States shouldn’t be doing this alone,’ Waltz said. ‘Burden-sharing is a key component and dozens are helping under President Trump’s leadership.’

Waltz led the charge at the United Nations, implementing the now-adopted resolution that endorses the Board of Peace, sets parameters for Gaza’s transitional governance and launches the International Stabilization Force outlined in Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan.

Trump’s plan to end the Gaza conflict calls for Gaza to be a de-radicalized, terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors. It also calls for Gaza to be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza and more.

Under the peace plan, Israeli forces would withdraw from the region, and a temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people of Gaza will be created.

That government will be under the oversight of a new international transitional body called the Board of Peace, chaired by Trump and other members and heads of state.

The resolution makes the plan international law.

‘At the end of the day, Hamas has to go,’ Walz explained. ‘What we cannot let happen is Hamas survives, and the international community pours billions of dollars into the situation — Hamas attacks Israel again, as they previously pledged to do, and Israel responds, and we are in the same situation — we cannot let that happen again. That’s why we are doing things differently this time.’

Waltz pointed to the Board of Peace led by Trump, as well as the newly formed stabilization force, with troops from countries like Indonesia and Azerbaijan — as well as the technocratic committee responsible for turning government services back on.

‘This has never been done before,’ Waltz said. ‘My job was to get the United Nations and the international community to bless that, and we did.’ 

‘The bottom line is this: this was not a big symbolic thing or deal for the president,’ Waltz continued. ‘He is serious about bringing Middle East peace once and for all.’ 

Waltz explained that the ‘next strategic step will be an extension of the Abraham Accords,’ which he described as the president’s ‘true objective.’

Waltz explained that the implementation of the peace deal ‘unlocks the next round of the Abraham Accords.’

‘There are a number of great conversations ongoing,’ he said.

‘We have to remember where we were a year ago, and see everything in perspective,’ he explained. ‘You had Iran marching towards a nuke; Hezbollah launching rockets on Israel; hostages in tunnels, and now you have hostages out; Lebanon has the best chance in a generation; and Iran had its nuclear capabilities obliterated in Operation Midnight Hammer—all in ten months.’

Waltz added: ‘It is truly incredible. It is night and day to where we were a year ago.’

President Donald Trump is being sued by a historic preservation group seeking to stop construction of his new White House ballroom.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit Friday against the Trump administration, arguing that it skipped mandatory reviews and failed to seek congressional approval before demolishing the East Wing of the White House.

‘No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,’ the lawsuit stated. ‘And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.’

Attorneys for the nonprofit argued Trump’s project ‘should be immediately halted’ and work on the 90,000-square-foot ballroom project should be paused until the reviews are completed.

When reached for comment, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told Fox News Digital, ‘President Trump has full legal authority to modernize, renovate and beautify the White House – just like all of his predecessors did.’ 

Construction on the ballroom started in October, leading to the demolition of the White House’s historic East Wing. The project is being privately funded at an estimated cost of $300 million, up from a $200 million estimate in July when the project was unveiled.

The lawsuit claims the Trump administration failed to submit its demolition plans to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts and Congress before construction began, arguing it is ‘depriving the public of its right to be informed.’

Additionally, the National Trust said the project violates numerous federal statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and claimed Trump circumvented the Constitution. 

‘The President, acting unilaterally, is wholly without constitutional authority to build or demolish anything on federal Grounds,’ the lawsuit stated.

The National Trust is requesting that a federal judge prevent the Trump administration from continuing work on the Ballroom project until the necessary federal commissions have reviewed and approved the project’s plans, an adequate environmental review has been conducted and Congress has authorized the ballroom’s construction.

The White House is expected to submit plans for Trump’s new ballroom to a federal planning commission before the end of the year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

House Republicans have released a 111-page plan for reforming healthcare that they hope to vote on next week.

House GOP leadership aides also told reporters on Friday afternoon that they expected a vote on extending enhanced Obamacare subsidies to also happen next week as part of the amendment process to the final bill, called the ‘Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.’ The subsidies have been the subject of fierce inter-party debate for Republicans.

‘We expect that there will be an amendment that I believe is being worked on, so the process will allow for that amendment,’ aides said.

The plan as-is includes provisions to codify association health plans, which allow small businesses and people who are self-employed to band together to purchase healthcare coverage plans, giving them access to greater bargaining power.

Republicans also plan to appropriate funding for cost-sharing reductions beginning in 2027, which are designed to lower out-of-pocket medical costs in the individual healthcare market. House GOP leadership aides said it would bring down the cost of premiums by 12%.

New transparency requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are also in the legislation, aimed at forcing PBMs to be more upfront about costs to employers.

PBMs are third parties that act as intermediaries between pharmaceutical companies and those responsible for insurance coverage, often responsible for administrative tasks and negotiating drug prices.

PBMs have also been the subject of bipartisan ire in Congress, with both Republicans and Democrats accusing them of being part of a broken system to inflate health costs.

But the most divisive measure for Republicans is likely not yet fleshed out. 

A majority of House Republicans are against extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, which were designed to get affordable health insurance for more Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democrats voted to pass the enhanced subsidies in 2021 and extended them through 2022 when they controlled Congress.

A group of moderate House Republicans has joined Democrats now in vehemently pushing for those subsidies to be extended again, as millions of Americans face near-certain healthcare price hikes beginning in January.

Two separate bipartisan efforts have been launched to force a vote on extending the subsidies in some form. But any such push would require support from virtually all House Democrats to succeed, and their leaders have not given their blessing to either plan.

‘We’re going to evaluate every single good faith proposal. But it has to meaningfully provide certainty to the American people who are at risk of having their health care ripped away from them,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters on Friday.

But conservatives have warned they would not support any such extension unless paired with significant reforms to what they view as a long-broken system that fuels healthcare price inflation.

‘I think that would be a disastrous plan. I mean, we’ve clearly seen that Obamacare is the Titanic. It’s going down. I think throwing money after it is just going to be wasteful,’ House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox News’ Chad Pergram on Friday.

A top Senate Republican argued that if allegations against ‘Squad’ member Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., that she married her brother to enter the U.S. were true, she’d be breaking several laws.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined the long-standing scrutiny against Omar Friday after President Donald Trump revived the allegations during a rally pushing his affordability agenda in Pennsylvania earlier this week.

In a post on X responding to a White House social media account that charged, ‘Yes, [Omar] married her brother,’ Cruz listed a trio of federal and state laws the progressive lawmaker may have violated.

‘If this is true, then Omar faces criminal liability under three different statutes,’ Cruz said.

Cruz argued that Omar could have committed federal marriage fraud, which stipulates that it is a felony to knowingly enter into a marriage to evade immigration laws, and could lead to up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and deportation.

Omar was born in Somalia and came to the U.S. in 1995 after her family was granted asylum. She became a citizen in 2000. Omar, who is Muslim, has been married legally three times, first in a religious marriage to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi in 2002, then to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 before later divorcing and legally marrying Hirsi. In 2020, she married political aide Tim Mynett. 

Cruz noted that Omar could also be breaking Minnesota’s state incest law, a felony in the state punishable by jail time up to 10 years. He also contended that she could be liable for tax fraud, specifically if joint tax returns were filed while she was not legally married.

That violation would levy up to a $100,000 fine and up to three years in prison.

The Senate Republican’s legal analysis of the situation comes after Trump resurrected the unsubstantiated claims that Omar had married her brother for immigration purposes that have dogged the lawmaker since she entered politics nearly a decade ago. She has denied the allegations.

Still, Trump charged, ‘She married her brother to get in, right?’

‘If I married my sister to get my citizenship, do you think I’d last for about two hours or something less than that? She married her brother to get in,’ he said. ‘Therefore, she’s here illegally. She should get the hell out.’

Fox News Digital did not immediately hear back for comment from Omar’s office.

GOP House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said he plans to commence contempt of Congress proceedings against Bill and Hillary Clinton for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas related to its ongoing probe into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. 

In July, a bipartisan House Oversight Subcommittee approved motions to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton and a slew of other high-profile political figures to aid its investigation looking into how the federal government handled Epstein’s sex trafficking case. 

The subpoenas were then sent out in early August, and the Clinton’s were scheduled to testify Dec. 17-18. 

‘It has been more than four months since Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed to sit for depositions related to our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s horrific crimes. Throughout that time, the former president and former secretary of state have delayed, obstructed, and largely ignored the committee staff’s efforts to schedule their testimony,’ Comer said in a press release issued Friday evening.

‘If the Clintons fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January, the Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings to hold them accountable.’

Comer’s threats come as Democrats from the House Oversight Committee released a new batch of photos obtained from Epstein’s estate, which included further images of the disgraced financier with powerful figures like President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Thousands of images were reportedly released, with potentially more to come.

Other high-profile figures subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee include James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.

In addition to testimony from these individuals, Comer and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for all documents and communications pertaining to the case against Epstein.

In September, the committee released tens of thousands of pages of Epstein-related records in compliance with the subpoena, and the Oversight Committee indicated the DOJ would continue producing even more records as it works through needed redactions and other measures that must occur before they are released.

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a Biden appointee, is a judicial disgrace. Boasberg’s recent rulings show he is unfit for the bench.

His repeated abuse of judicial power, whether undermining national security, releasing violent threats, or enabling unlawful surveillance, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the Constitution and a dangerous partisan agenda that disqualifies him from holding a lifetime appointment.

The time has come for the House of Representatives to do its job and impeach him.

The Constitution fixes the term of service for a judge as ‘during good Behaviour.’ The Constitution also dictates that impeachment is proper for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’  House Democrats in 2020 argued an official can get impeached for an abuse of power even without a statutory crime, setting an important precedent. The Constitution draws no distinction between the requirements for impeaching Executive Branch and Judicial Branch officials. What is good for the Executive Branch goose is just as good for the Judicial Branch gander, so the House should not hesitate to pursue a judicial impeachment.

Boasberg’s first act of misconduct occurred during a judicial conference. During the earliest stages of President Trump’s second term, Boasberg expressed the view to Chief Justice John Roberts that President Trump would not follow court orders. The President has not violated a court order. Boasberg’s claim had no basis and was plainly partisan. Boasberg baselessly told Chief Justice Roberts that Trump wouldn’t follow court orders, an unfounded partisan claim that undermines any expectation of impartiality.

Tren de Aragua is a barbaric international state-sponsored terrorist organization from Venezuela. MS-13 is an animalistic gang based in El Salvador.  Thousands of these gang members have come to the United States and perpetrated horrific acts. In March, the Trump administration deported hundreds of these barbarians to El Salvador, where they were sent to a maximum security prison. Boasberg issued a highly illegal and dangerous order directing the government to turn around planes as they were in international airspace, flying over the Gulf of America. In doing so, Boasberg exposed an ongoing military operation and gave an order that could have endangered Americans.

Why would we have security in place in the United States to deal with an unexpected influx of hundreds of dangerous terrorist, because some rabidly partisan judge just illegally opened his courtroom and stunningly attempted to sabotage an ongoing military operation? Rather, the security footprint was in El Salvador—hundreds of military, intel, and law-enforcement officials—where the terrorists were expected to land. There was also a serious risk to the personnel on the planes, given that they had a limited fuel supply and were in the middle of the Gulf of America. Boasberg showed a blatant disregard for these serious risks in issuing a highly illegal and dangerous order that he lacked jurisdiction to give.

The planes landed in El Salvador, and Boasberg began contempt proceedings. Even after a D.C. Circuit panel rejected his reasoning, Boasberg pressed ahead, ordering the administration to detail its deliberations that March day. The Justice Department is objecting, asserting that Boasberg is violating the foundational principle of separation of powers by having executive branch officials illegally divulge privileged internal discussions.

Moreover, Boasberg played a key role in Operation Arctic Frost—one of the most dangerous spy scandals in our history. Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith, a political scud missile sent to take out President Trump via lawfare with the full blessing of Biden and his Justice Department, subpoenaed the phone records of nearly a dozen U.S. senators. Boasberg issued a gag order preventing the phone companies from disclosing the information for a year. With no basis, he reasoned that disclosure could lead to destruction of evidence and witness intimidation. The relevant statute, 2 U.S.C. § 6628, explicitly requires disclosure to the Senate when such spying occurs. Boasberg now is attempting to weasel his way out of this jam, claiming that he did not know that Smith was seeking the senators’ records. Either Boasberg is lying, or he was an illegal rubber stamp who signed whatever Smith put under his nose. It is disgraceful, and Boasberg, citing the same separation-of-powers claim that the Justice Department is using in the contempt proceeding, refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last week.

Finally, Boasberg has shown a flippant concern for the security of President Trump. Nathalie Rose Jones is a deeply disturbed woman. She made a social media post threatening to disembowel President Trump. She admitted to the post when the Secret Service visited her. Then, Jones attended a protest and was spotted near the White House carrying a knife. Authorities arrested her, and even Democrat-appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, exercising the most basic level of common sense, ordered her held without bail. Then, Boasberg stepped in and overruled Upadhyaya, releasing Jones to go home with an electronic monitor.

Boasberg has not simply issued a ruling with which conservatives disagree. Boasberg instead has engaged in a pattern of impeachment-worthy behavior—extremely lawless and dangerous partisan rulings—that shows no signs of ending. He is bolder than ever, refusing to testify before Congress and proceeding merrily along with his absurd contempt vendetta. The House disgraced itself with two impeachments of President Trump. It is time for the House to redeem itself by bringing reason back to the impeachment process. Boasberg is a more-than-worthy candidate, and the House should impeach him before they go home for the year.

Senate Democrats banded together to kill Republicans’ plan to replace expiring Obamacare subsidies on Thursday, knocking the first of two proposals down for the count.

Senate Republicans’ plan from Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, the chairs of the Senate health and finance panels, would have abandoned the Obamacare enhanced premium subsidies for health savings accounts (HSAs), along with several reforms that Republicans appeared largely unified behind earlier this week.

Still, not every Senate Republican voted for the bill. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., joined all Senate Democrats in tanking the legislation on a largely party-line vote.

Lawmakers are now set to vote on Senate Democrats’ plan, which would extend the subsidies for another three years. That proposal is also expected to fail, given that Senate Republicans broadly don’t want to extend the subsidies without myriad reforms.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats have pitched their plan as the only option to prevent healthcare premiums from skyrocketing, while Republicans contended that the subsidies are rife with fraud and that the entire Obamacare system was causing premium prices to crank up year after year.

‘The Cassidy-Crapo [plan] is not a healthcare plan,’ Schumer said. ‘It’s not a plan at all. It’s an excuse. It’s a fig leaf. Because Republicans are so divided and can’t come up with a plan that unites them. They propose this fig leaf.’

‘My guess is most Republicans themselves are grimacing that they even have to vote for this thing,’ he continued. ‘How is a one-time check going to help you if you’re paying 1,000 or $2,000 a month more for health insurance?’

Cassidy and Crapo’s plan would have seeded HSAs with $1,000 for people ages 18 to 49 and $1,500 for those 50 to 65 for people earning up to 700% of the poverty level. In order to get the pre-funded HSA, people would have to buy a bronze or catastrophic plan on an Obamacare exchange.

It also included several provisions that didn’t make the cut in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ including measures to reduce federal Medicaid funding to states that cover illegal immigrants, requirements that states verify citizenship or eligible immigration status before someone can get Medicaid, a ban on federal Medicaid funding for gender transition services and nixing those services from ‘essential health benefits’ for Obamacare exchange plans.

It also included Hyde Amendment provisions to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions through the new HSAs, a red line for many Senate Republicans that has proven divisive between the aisles.

The deadline to either extend or replace the credits, which were first passed and then enhanced under former President Joe Biden during the COVID-19 pandemic, is at the end of the year.

But whether the Senate acts before the deadline remains in the air, given that next week will be their last working week before leaving Washington, D.C., until the new year. There are several plans still on the table for lawmakers to choose from.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said ahead of the vote that it was clear that Schumer wanted Senate Democrats to fall in line for the upcoming vote but noted that there were still ongoing bipartisan conversations, and he didn’t close the door a possible Obamacare fix with the limited time lawmakers had left before the clock runs out.

‘If there is an interest in solving that, I don’t rule it out,’ Thune said. ‘I mean, obviously we don’t have a lot of time to do this, but I think there are ways in which you could where there’s a will, and if there are two sides willing to come together.’

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., called on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign Thursday during opening remarks at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on ‘Worldwide Threats to the Homeland.’

‘You have systematically dismantled the Department of Homeland Security, put your own interests above the department, and violated the law. You are making America less safe,’ said Thompson. ‘So rather than sitting here and wasting your time and ours with more corruption, lies and lawlessness, I call on you to resign. Do a real service to the country and just resign. That is, if President Trump doesn’t fire you first.’

As Noem was giving her opening statement, several protesters against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interrupted, yelling, ‘Get ICE off our streets,’ and, ‘Stop terrorizing our community.’

The protesters were escorted out by Capitol Police and detained outside the hearing room.

Noem, who was joined at the hearing by National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent and Michael Glasheen, the operations director of the National Security Branch of the FBI, said one of her grandchildren, who was in the audience, was crying a little during Thompson’s remarks.

‘I don’t think she agreed with him,’ Noem said jokingly.

She touted the work DHS has done to secure the southern border and protect the U.S.

‘DHS is eradicating transnational organized crime and the stopping of deadly drugs from continuing to be funneled into our communities,’ she told lawmakers. ‘We’re ending illegal immigration, returning sanity back to our immigration system, and we’re defending against cyberattacks against our critical infrastructure.’

The former South Dakota governor, speaking about the global threats facing the country — including those posed by domestic extremists and radical Islamic terrorism — said the U.S. should brace for heightened risks as it prepares to host major events in 2026 such as the World Cup and the nation’s 250th birthday.

‘These large-scale events will be potential targets for a range of bad actors, and they come with an increased level of risk. DHS is using every tool and authority we have to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens, and our visitors can enjoy next year’s events,’ Noem added.

Rumors had swirled in recent days that President Donald Trump was considering replacing her as head of DHS. Trump pushed back on those rumors on Wednesday, telling reporters that Noem has been ‘fantastic.’

Noem also addressed the rumors, speaking to Fox News prior to Thursday’s hearing.

‘Oh, that’s absolutely not true,’ she said. ‘President Trump and I are doing wonderfully. I’m so proud to work for him, and I’m going to continue to serve at his pleasure.’

Fox News’ Bill Melugin contributed to this report.

A lone progressive’s effort to impeach President Donald Trump failed Thursday, with nearly two dozen Democrats joining the House GOP to quash it.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, moved to get a vote on two articles of impeachment Wednesday night via a privileged resolution, a mechanism allowing lawmakers to force action on a bill within two legislative days.

Republicans called for a vote to table the measure on Thursday, a move that effectively kills consideration of the bill itself when a privileged resolution is called for.

Twenty-three Democrats joined Republicans in pushing the impeachment aside. A significant number of Democrats also voted ‘present,’ including all three senior leaders — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif.

‘Impeachment is a sacred constitutional vehicle designed to hold a corrupt executive accountable for abuse of power, breaking the law and violating the public trust. The effort traditionally requires a comprehensive investigative process, the collection and review of thousands of documents, an exacting scrutiny of the facts, the examination of dozens of key witnesses, Congressional hearings, sustained public organizing and the marshaling of the forces of democracy to build a broad national consensus,’ the trio said in a statement explaining their vote.

‘None of that serious work has been done, with the Republican majority focused solely on rubber stamping Donald Trump’s extreme agenda. Accordingly, we will be voting ‘present’ on today’s motion to table the impeachment resolution as we continue our fight to make life more affordable for everyday Americans.’

The final vote fell 237 to 140, with 47 ‘present’ votes.

Among the Democrats who voted to table the measure are Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., Josh Riley, D-N.Y., Jared Golden, D-Maine, Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Sharice Davids, D-Kan., Don Davis, D-N.C., Shomari Figures, D-Ala., and others.

Green has filed articles of impeachment against Trump several times over the past year and notably was thrown out of the president’s joint address to Congress in March for repeatedly interrupting his speech.

The latest impeachment push includes two articles charging abuse of power, according to legislative text viewed by Fox News Digital.

The first count accuses Trump of calling for the ‘execution’ of six congressional Democrats. It was in response to Trump accusing those Democrats of ‘seditious behavior,’ which he said was ‘punishable by death’ after they posted a video urging military service members to refuse illegal orders by the federal government.

The video caused a firestorm on the right, with the FBI opening an inquiry into those Democrats — who all defended their comments.

Green’s second allegation of abuse of power charges Trump with having ‘fostered a political climate in which lawmakers and judges face threats of political violence and physical assault; and in this climate has made threats and vituperative comments against federal judges, putting at risk their safety and well-being, and undermining the independence of our judiciary.’

But while the vast majority of Democrats have made no secret of their disdain and disagreements with Trump, it appears that few have the appetite to make a largely symbolic gesture toward impeachment.

Even Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has side-stepped questions on supporting impeachment multiple times this year, including most recently on Dec. 1 when asked about the military’s double-tap strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat in September.

‘Republicans will never allow articles of impeachment to be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. And we know that’s the case, because Donald Trump will order them not to do it. So what’s on the table is a meaningful investigation, which we can hope would be bipartisan,’ Jeffries said at the time.

Even if the impeachment vote were to move forward, it’s all but certain that the GOP majority in the Senate would quickly dispense of it.