Senate Democrats again blocked Republicans’ short-term funding extension Tuesday afternoon, further increasing the odds of a partial government shutdown and thousands of federal workers going without paychecks.

Democratic lawmakers in the upper chamber, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., banded together to vote against the GOP’s continuing resolution (CR), a move that marked the second time Democrats impeded the legislation’s progress this month.

Congress has until midnight Wednesday to pass a CR or else the government will shut down. However, the possibility of that happening became increasingly unlikely throughout the day as Republicans and Democrats huddled behind closed doors in separate meetings hours before the vote. 

The bill, which was passed by the House GOP earlier this month, failed on a largely party-line vote, 55-45. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the lone Republican to vote against the bill, while Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., and Angus King, I-Maine, crossed the aisle to vote for the funding extension.

Democrats also tried to advance their own counter-proposal, but that bill was similarly blocked by Senate Republicans.

There is still time to avert a partial shutdown, but the window is closing fast. If Schumer and Thune are unable to find a path forward, it would mark the third shutdown under President Donald Trump.

When asked if he believed a shutdown was inevitable, Trump said, ‘Nothing is inevitable.’ 

‘But I would say it’s probably likely, because they want to give healthcare to illegal immigrants, which will destroy healthcare for everybody else in our country,’ he told reporters in the Oval Office. ‘And I didn’t see them bend even a little bit when I said we can’t do that.’ 

Shortly after the vote, however, the Office of Management and Budget released a memo that the appropriations for Fiscal Year 2025 would run out at 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, making a shutdown official. 

‘It is unclear how long Democrats will maintain their untenable posture, making the duration of the shutdown difficult to predict,’ the memo read. 

Republicans want to pass a ‘clean’ short-term extension until Nov. 21 that would give appropriators time to finish spending bills, while Democrats want to extend expiring Obamacare premium subsidies, among multiple other demands.

But the chances of a deal materializing, particularly one that meets Democrats’ demands, are slim. Both Senate leaders traded barbs throughout the day, first on the Senate floor and then in back-to-back press conferences. 

Thune panned Democrats’ push for an extension to the expiring tax credits, which aren’t set to sunset until the end of this year, as well as their other demands to repeal the healthcare portion of Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ and clawback canceled funding for NPR and PBS. 

Republicans argue that reversing the cuts from Trump’s megabill and undoing the public broadcasting rescission would amount to $1.5 trillion in spending tacked onto their short-term funding extension. 

‘These are things that they’re demanding as part of their so-called negotiation,’ Thune said. ‘Ladies and gentlemen, there isn’t anything here to negotiate.’

Schumer, however, countered that the decision to shut the government down was ‘in their court’ and charged that Democrats were working to solve the GOP’s ‘healthcare crisis.’

Still, despite scoring a meeting in the Oval Office with Trump and congressional Republican leaders, in addition to public guarantees from Thune and Republicans that Obamacare tax credits could be discussed after a shutdown was averted, Schumer demanded that Democrats be cut in on negotiations to craft a bipartisan bill. 

Earlier in the day, the top Senate Democrat commandeered a floor chart from Thune that showed how many times Democrats supported CRs under former President Joe Biden. He said that each time, Republicans were involved in the process. 

‘As leader, I sat down with the Republicans every one of those years and created a bipartisan bill. Their bill is partisan. They call it clean. We call it partisan. It has no Democratic input,’ Schumer said. ‘Thune never talked to me.’ 

President Donald Trump shared photos on Truth Social on Tuesday showing red ‘Trump 2028’ hats strategically displayed on the Resolute Desk during an Oval Office meeting with Democrat leaders Monday in hopes of fending off a government shutdown.

Trump’s post came late Tuesday, hours before Washington grappled with its first shutdown since 2018-19. 

‘The Trump administration wants a straightforward and clean CR [continuing resolution] to continue funding the government – the exact same proposal that Democrats supported just 6 months ago, 13 times under the Biden Administration,’ White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital. 

‘But radical Democrats are shutting the government down because they want a nearly $1.5 trillion wish list of demands, including free health care for illegal aliens. The Democrat’s radical agenda was rejected by the American people less than a year ago at the ballot box, now they’re shutting down the government and hold the American people hostage over it.’

Vice President JD Vance warned, ‘I think we’re headed to a shutdown’ after Monday’s meeting. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said at the time the sides ‘have very large differences.’ 

Late Tuesday, the Senate failed a last-ditch vote on extending funding and barreled toward a shutdown as the clock struck midnight on Oct. 1.

Trump posted the photos late Tuesday, a few hours before the shutdown was slated to begin. 

His campaign has sold ‘Trump 2028’ hats since earlier this year.

Democrat leaders downplayed the stunt. 

Schumer said Trump ‘can avoid a shutdown if he chooses to,’ while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., added, ‘we will not back down’ in defending healthcare and spending priorities.’

Trump presided over a 35-day government shutdown in 2018–19, the longest in American history, during his first term in office.

House Republicans’ campaign arm is going after Democrats hours after the federal government entered a shutdown at midnight on Wednesday.

A new National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad being rolled out in 42 battleground districts is aimed at putting pressure on Democratic lawmakers to accept the GOP’s plan and end the shutdown.

‘Democrats refused to fund the government. So now military troops, police and Border Patrol lose their paychecks. Because of Democrats, veterans, farmers, small businesses lose critical funding. Disaster relief — cut off,’ a voiceover states.

‘Democrats are grinding America to a halt in order to give illegal immigrants free healthcare. Tell Democrats: Stop the shutdown.’

The ad buy came at a four-figure price tag, according to an NRCC spokesperson.

It’s being rolled out in 25 districts represented by Democrats and 17 held by Republicans.

The federal government shut down overnight after Democrats and Republicans in the Senate failed to reach a spending agreement in time for the end of fiscal year (FY) 2025 on Sept. 30.

A short-term extension of FY 2025 funding, aimed at giving Congress more time to reach a longer-term deal, failed to advance in the Senate on Tuesday evening.

The measure, aimed at keeping the government open through Nov. 21, passed the House mainly along party lines earlier this month.

Democrats were angered at being sidelined in the spending negotiations, and by the GOP bill’s exclusion of enhanced COVID-19-era Obamacare subsidies. Those subsidies, passed in 2021 under President Joe Biden, are set to expire by the end of 2025 without congressional action.

Republicans have signaled that they will not budge from their measure, citing Democrats’ past support for similar bills aimed at averting shutdowns.

‘Out of touch Democrats shut down the government to bankroll handouts for illegal immigrants and appease their radical base. Voters won’t forget who betrayed them, and the NRCC will make sure Democrats pay the price,’ NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella told Fox News Digital.

President Donald Trump and his administration have wide discretion over what changes occur during a shutdown.

However, it’s likely that thousands of government employees get furloughed, while others are made to work without paychecks until funding is reinstituted. A host of federal agencies and services could also be shuttered.

Some federal workers could lose their jobs permanently as well, with Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought issuing guidance earlier this month warning offices to consider plans for mass layoffs in the event of a shutdown.

A judicial consensus is forming against climate lawfare, but the U.S. Supreme Court must still end environmental extortion of American energy. In two landmark cases, the court will soon have the opportunity to reassert the federal government’s authority over questions of national energy and environmental policy. 

Environmental groups believe that energy use increases global temperatures, causes sea levels to rise and creates more destructive weather. Their campaign to curtail energy has taken many forms — including asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to block pipelines and the Interior Department to deny oil and gas leases — but it met a roadblock with the 2024 election and the Trump administration’s subsequent blizzard of executive orders lifting overregulation.  

Rather than pursue their interests in Congress or before the electorate, environmental extremists have now allied with bankrupt cities and trial lawyers to use the courts to shake down the energy industry. Blue cities and states have filed tort suits in state courts to extract money for allegedly causing weather-related costs in their jurisdictions. 

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take up one of those cases, Boulder County v. Suncor Energy, following a ruling this year from the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed the county’s case to move forward in state court. Borrowing theories of liability from tobacco and opioid litigation, Boulder alleges that energy companies sold their products without disclosing climate risks. Such claims plainly intrude on federal authority over interstate pollution. 

Other climate cases are still progressing in lower state courts. In Hawaii, summary judgment motions are pending in a case seeking damages for rising sea levels. Hawaii’s highest court allowed this litigation to move forward in 2023 with Justice Todd Eddins issuing a remarkable concurrence, declaring that litigation would proceed under the ‘Aloha Spirit,’ regardless of federal precedent.  

In Rhode Island, the state judge presiding over a similar lawsuit against the energy industry compared it to developing nations devastated by natural disasters, citing Kenya, Tanzania and the Seychelles. The suggestion that Rhode Island has suffered comparable ‘severe destruction’ is telling: judges are inflating rhetoric to justify climate claims, not grounding them in law.  

Meanwhile, other states are effectively trying to replace federal authority over environmental policy. In Louisiana, plaintiffs obtained a $750 million judgment (potentially over $1 billion with interest) against Chevron for coastal erosion that they claimed was caused by oil extraction during World War II. Those companies had been under federal contracts to supply aviation fuel for the war effort. Yet eight decades later, Louisiana claims it can punish those practices retroactively. 

The energy firms sought to move the case to federal court because of its genesis in work for the federal government. But a divided 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to allow it. As Judge Andrew Oldham rightly noted in dissent, crude oil extraction plainly ‘relates to’ war production. If states can sue private businesses for their wartime work generations later, future cooperation with the federal government will be chilled, raising the costs of national defense. This coming term, the Supreme Court will review the Fifth Circuit’s decision. 

Despite some disappointing rulings from activist judges, a growing number of state courts are beginning to resist such frivolous claims. A Maryland judge rejected Baltimore’s lawsuit that alleged fossil fuels caused sea rises that have harmed the city; the Maryland Supreme Court will hear the appeal later in October. A South Carolina court dismissed Charleston’s similar claims, which blue city officials will almost certainly appeal as well. Likewise, nearly identical state and municipal lawsuits have been similarly dismissed in Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and New Jersey. 

Notwithstanding some recent wins, climate lawfare is like Hydra — new cases are constantly being brought. Even if higher courts ultimately overturn them, simply forcing the industry to defend against these suits imposes enormous litigation costs. That alone is a victory for environmental radicals. At this stage, the Supreme Court must act to reaffirm federal authority over national energy and environmental policy.  

If climate change is producing harmful effects nationwide, then the nation should decide how to address it. As the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in a 2021 case rejecting New York City’s lawsuit against Chevron, ‘the question before us is whether a nuisance suit seeking to recover damages for the harms caused by global greenhouse gas emissions may proceed under New York law. Our answer is simple: no.’ However, they frame their aims, blue cities and states are trying to set nationwide climate policy through litigation — violating federal law and tort principles. 

As the country decides how to respond to climate change, those choices — including the possibility of not acting — must have nationwide legitimacy. Courts cannot allow a handful of blue jurisdictions, aided by trial lawyers and environmental activists, to dictate those decisions for the rest of America. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House GOP leaders urged their fellow Republicans to stay united ahead of a likely government shutdown during a lawmaker-only phone call on Monday, Fox News Digital has learned.

‘Realistically, the way [Democrats have] painted themselves into a corner, I don’t think they’ll be willing to yield. There’s going to be some shutdown at least on October 1st, for a few days at least,’ Johnson said on the call, Fox News Digital was told. ‘I think that’s probably a good bet.’

House GOP leaders spent roughly an hour rallying their conference to stay on-message ahead of a possible government shutdown, which will occur if the Senate does not pass a short-term federal funding bill before midnight Wednesday. 

Johnson urged Republicans to ‘stay completely united,’ Fox News Digital was told, while arguing that Democrats have ‘no credible argument’ against rejecting the GOP spending bill.

He asked House Republicans to keep a low profile before they are due to return to Capitol Hill next week, including forgoing any House floor speeches and political events, Fox News Digital was told.

His comments on a shutdown being likely were in response to one House GOP lawmaker asking whether to pull out of a planned event this week.

Democrats and Republicans are at odds over how to avert a potential shutdown, with the former warning they will not vote for the latter’s bill without significant concessions on healthcare reform. 

Republicans, in turn, have pointed out that the funding levels are roughly the same as those Democrats supported under former President Joe Biden at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2024, and have accused Democrats of making unreasonable or partisan demands for a seven-week funding bill.

The measure, a stopgap bill keeping government spending levels mostly flat until Nov. 21, is aimed at giving the House and Senate more time to set funding priorities for FY 2026, which begins on Oct. 1.

It passed the House largely along party lines earlier this month. But in the Senate, where at least several Democrats are needed to meet a 60-vote threshold to advance the bill, its fate is more uncertain.

‘If you want to win the shutdown, we have to stay on offense,’ House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., said on the call. 

He emphasized that Republicans ‘did our job’ in passing the funding bill.

‘We need to keep emphasizing that. And if we do, we’re going to win this battle,’ Emmer said, Fox News Digital was told.

House GOP Conference Chair Lisa McClain, R-Mich., urged Republicans to keep the messaging focus on federal funding, rather than entering into a debate on healthcare, Fox News Digital was told.

Democrats are demanding legislation that reverses some of the Republicans’ Medicaid cuts in their ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill,’ and an extension of COVID-19 pandemic-era Obamacare subsidies.

Republicans, who have accused Democrats of trying to restore barriers on illegal immigrants getting Medicaid, have said the left’s demands would add about $1.5 trillion in spending.

It comes as the top four leaders in the House and Senate are expected to meet with President Donald Trump on Monday afternoon to discuss government funding in a last-ditch effort to avert a shutdown.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) has come under fire for potentially prioritizing cultural sensitivity over significant health concerns after it published a report last week questioning a major issue of public debate — should first-cousin marriages be banned?

Debate over the issue heightened earlier this year after U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would not ban the practice outright, despite known risks to future generations, as children born from first cousins are at increased risk for diseases like sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis.

Starmer, along with members of his Labour government, has argued that education should be prioritized instead of overreaching government mandates.

The article, which was posted to the NHS’s Genomics Education Program’s website and titled, ‘Should the UK government ban first-cousin marriage,’ had been removed by Monday morning, and Fox News Digital could not gain direct access to the report, nor did the NHS immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s questions. 

According to U.K.-based media outlets, the article caused some uproar after it suggested there were certain ‘benefits’ to first-cousin marriages, including ‘stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages,’ the Telegraph reported. 

The NHS report also noted that inter-family marriages have ‘long been the subject of scientific discussion’ due to the increased risk of inherited diseases, and that first-cousin marriages have been legal in the U.K. since the 1500s, when King Henry VIII married Catherine Howard, his ex-wife’s cousin.

First cousin marriages are also not federally banned in the U.S., where the practice is still permitted in 20 states.

The article also noted that there are risks of genetic disorders related to other external factors like alcohol use during pregnancy and smoking. The age of the parents can also impact certain disorders. 

The report pointed out that ‘none of [these factors] are banned in the U.K.’

‘Genetic counseling, awareness-raising initiatives and public health campaigns are all important tools to help families make informed decisions without stigmatizing certain communities and cultural traditions,’ the article added, according to the Telegraph.

The article, first posted last week, drew rebuke from conservative Tories like Member of Parliament Richard Holden, who accused the Labour government, headed by Starmer, of ‘taking the knee to damaging and oppressive cultural practices.’

‘The Conservatives want to see an end to cousin marriage as a backdoor to immigration too, but Labour are deaf to these sensible demands,’ he told the Daily Mail.

Similarly, Conservative Member of Parliament Claire Coutinho took to X on Monday to say, ‘The NHS puts conditions on IVF by age, BMI and history of conception. The NHS tells you (a lot) not to smoke or drink during pregnancy. But the NHS won’t say a word against cousin marriage.’

The Daily Mail report also noted that the NHS article said in first-cousin marriages the increased risk of being born with a genetic condition was ‘small.’

‘In the general population, a child’s chance of being born with a genetic condition is around two to three percent; this increases to four to six percent in children of first cousins. Hence, most children of first cousins are healthy,’ the article said, according to the Daily Mail.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, who oversees the NHS, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s questions for this report.

Proponents of the ban in the U.K. tend to be conservative Tories, while Labor officials have argued the ban insensitively targets certain cultures, like British Pakistanis, where in-family marriages are more common. 

Starmer’s cabinet office directed Fox News Digital’s questions to the Department of Health and Social Care, who did not immediately provide comment for this report. 

Holden also could not be immediately reached for this report. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Qatar for striking its territory during a meeting with President Donald Trump, the White House said Monday.

Israel’s military targeted senior Hamas leadership in Qatar with an airstrike earlier this month that also killed a Qatari security official.

Trump distanced himself from Netanyahu’s decision to strike a top ally in the Middle East, writing on Truth Social at the time it ‘does not advance Israel or America’s goals.’

Qatar has been a key host of discussions aimed at hashing out a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. It also hosts about10,000 U.S. troops. 

During a trilateral call with Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, Netanyahu expressed ‘deep regret that Israel’s missile strike against Hamas targets in Qatar unintentionally killed a Qatari serviceman,’ according to a White House readout.

‘He further expressed regret that, in targeting Hamas leadership during hostage negotiations, Israel violated Qatari sovereignty and affirmed that Israel will not conduct such an attack again in the future.’

Al Thani welcomed the assurances, according to the readout, and Trump ‘expressed his desire to put Israeli-Qatar relations on a positive track after years of mutual grievances and miscommunications.’

‘They really had a heart-to-heart conversation,’ Trump said in a news conference after his meeting with Netanyahu. ‘It was a great conversation, and I thought it was productive.’

He said that the U.S., Israel and Qatar agreed to launch a formal trilateral mechanism to begin dialogue ‘to enhance mutual security, correct misperceptions, and avoid future misgivings.’

Trump praised the emir as a ‘fantastic person’ and noted his role as a mediator in the peace process. He added that he hoped Qatar could join the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization deals between Middle Eastern nations and Israel that Trump brokered during his first administration.

It came as Trump unveiled a 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza.

The plan includes granting Hamas terrorists who give up their arms in favor of peace ‘amnesty,’ establishing Gaza as a ‘deradicalized terror-free zone’ and Israel pulling back from the territory and ceasing military operations.

The plan explained that within 72 hours of Israel accepting the agreement, Hamas will release remaining hostages in its captivity — whether they are alive or deceased.

Upon the release of the remaining hostages, Israel will then release ‘250 life-sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after Oct. 7, 2023,’ according to the fifth point of the plan.

‘Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries,’ the sixth point of the plan read.

Gaza will not be controlled by Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, but by ‘those committed to peace,’ according to Netanyahu.

Hamas has not yet accepted the agreement, with Trump threatening the terrorist group to accept the plan or likely face further bloodshed.

‘Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas,’ Trump said Monday during a press conference, warning Hamas to accept the deal.