The campaign firm that helped Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani spread his message in New York City is now turning its focus to vulnerable Republicans across the country.

Among other races, the firm has set its sights on defeating two vulnerable House Republicans in Pennsylvania: Reps. Rob Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie.

Fight Agency — a six-man crew with experience in over 300 winning elections — focuses on many of the issues Mamdani made a fixture of his campaign, like affordability and housing.

‘If you’re doing everything right but finding it harder and harder to get by, you’re not alone. We know a simple truth about American life: the economy is not delivering enough for enough people. If the next forty years are like the last forty years, the American middle class will disappear,’ the firm states on its website.

The balance of power in the House of Representatives is in a precarious position ahead of the 2026 midterms. With Republicans holding just a three-seat majority, even one or two key losses for Republicans could cut the legs out from under the GOP’s control over the chamber. Pennsylvania — home to both Bresnahan and Mackenzie — also makes up a key battleground state with several competitive districts. According to the Cook Political Report, the state has five competitive Republican-held districts all projected to be a five-point contest or less.

In that struggle, the Fight Agency’s leaders have come to the support of Paige Cognetti, a former mayor of Scranton, Pa., who is running to unseat Bresnahan. Bresnahan, a freshman lawmaker, won election to Congress in 2024 by just 1.6 percentage points.

‘We can stand tall against a Washington that takes advantage of working people and makes it work for us,’ Cognetti said in her launch video.

Rebecca Katz, the Fight Agency’s strategist for the election of Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., reposted Cognetti’s campaign ad in a post to X.

‘If you can, pls chip in a few bucks and let’s get someone who cares about people in Congress,’ Rebecca Katz wrote. 

Cognetti, the former mayor, has also highlighted the firm’s other work, saying she was ‘proud to know these folks’ in a repost showcasing the agency’s past campaigns.

Like in Cognetti’s campaign, the Fight Agency team is also supporting Bob Brooks and his race against Republican incumbent Ryan Mackenzie in Pennsylvania. Mackenzie won election by a single percentage point in the last cycle.

‘The biggest problem we face is a Washington that burns working people,’ Brooks said in his campaign launch video. ‘I’m running for Congress in one of the closest districts to take on the billionaires and big corporations holding us back.’ 

Morris Katz, the firm’s lead on the Mamdani campaign, reposted Cognetti’s launch video alongside Fight Agency’s main account. Brooks has returned the favor, reposting Fight Agency’s productions in a Maine Senate race. 

With Mamdani, the firm helped produce lighthearted content with a brighter, more comedic edge. In one video, the firm mimicked the style of ‘The Bachelor,’ the TV romance show known for its match-making drama.

‘New York, will you accept this rose?’ Mamdani asked in the video.

In the past, the firm has supported Democrat candidates away from the mainstream of the party, gravitating towards either more progressive candidates or candidates with an unconventional streak.

Besides Mamdani, some of Fight Agency’s previous partners include Sen. Bernie Sanders,’ I-Vt., bid for president and Sen. John Fetterman’s 2021 campaign. 

Today, some of their more high-profile current candidates include Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner and Nebraska Senate hopeful Dan Osborn, both featured prominently on the firm’s website.

Fight Agency did not respond to a request for comment.

The Club for Growth says it has President Donald Trump’s back as the president pushes Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional maps in order to create more right-leaning districts to help defend the GOP’s fragile House majority in next year’s midterm elections.

‘We’re all in on helping Republicans do redistricting,’ David McIntosh, longtime president of the deep-pocketed and influential conservative group, said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital.

McIntosh highlighted that the Club for Growth’s seven-figure efforts ‘give Republicans a better shot at winning those extra districts.’

The push by the Club is the latest example of its strong support for the president and his policies, just two years after the group worked to prevent Trump from winning the 2024 Republican presidential nomination amid a bitter feud.

Trump and his political team are aiming to pad the GOP’s razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in next year’s midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats.

Trump is trying to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 midterm elections.

Texas was the first Republican-controlled state to pass rare but not-unheard-of mid-decade congressional redistricting, although a ruling by two federal judges threatens to overturn the redrawn map. Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have also drawn new maps as part of the president’s push.

Indiana, where McIntosh served three terms as a congressman 25 years ago, is the latest battlefield in the high-stakes redistricting showdown pitting Trump and Republicans versus Democrats to shape the 2026 midterm landscape in the fight for the House majority.

‘Democrats for years have gerrymandered and Republicans have not, and now it’s time so we can have Republicans in Congress for states like my home state of Indiana, step up to the plate, draw the district, so Republicans can be represented,’ McIntosh argued.

Trump has threatened to back primary challenges against Republican state lawmakers in Indiana who are reluctant to pass redistricting.

‘I was delighted to see President Trump calling them to do it. And you know, he said, we’re going to start endorsing against you if you don’t do what’s right for the Republican Party and for the nation. Club for Growth will be there to back up his endorsements,’ McIntosh said.

And the Club’s political arm, the Club for Growth Action super PAC, which is one of the biggest spenders in Republican primary showdowns thanks to the support of top-dollar conservative donors, is running ads to support the president’s push in right-leaning states across the country.

‘We’re way over seven figures when you put together all the different states. And what we’re doing is running ads. We have a new ad today that talks about the need for redistricting,’ McIntosh revealed. ‘We have a program that brings constituent calls into the Senate members, and so they get to hear directly from their voters that they want them to do this.’

It’s not just redistricting.

The Club is spending seven figures in next week’s hotly contested special election for a Republican-controlled vacant House seat in a solidly red congressional district in Tennessee.

‘Matt Epps is going to win,’ McIntosh said as he pointed to the Trump-endorsed GOP nominee in the race to succeed former Republican Rep. Mark Green, who resigned from office in June to take a private sector job.

‘It’s going to be a hard race. They all are, but he’s going to win that race because he’s more in line with Tennessee,’ McIntosh said of Van Epps. ‘I’m confident of him, and we’re going to help him do it.’

And looking ahead to next year’s midterms, McIntosh shared that the Club has ‘already started raising a $40 million fund to keep the House majority, and we’re about 25 million into it.’

‘I’m going to keep going, and then we’ll deploy that to make sure Republicans can keep the majority,’ he emphasized.

And as they’ve done in the past, the Club, which pushes a fiscally conservative agenda, including a focus on tax cuts and other economic issues, will once again play an influential role in GOP primaries.

‘We’re interviewing a lot of candidates now. We’re going to look for the strongest conservative candidate, somebody who wants to continue the economic progress, less regulation, lower taxes, balance the budget, the things that will make America great,’ McIntosh said. ‘And then when we endorse them, we’ll come in with our funding to pay for ads. We’ll recruit and help them raise money. It’s important we get the right Republicans in these primaries, and there are a lot of open seats.’

Democrats are energized coming out of their party’s sweeping victories earlier this month in the 2026 elections.

‘Democrats have racked up wins this year by running on affordability and lowering costs, and headed into 2026 our momentum continues to build,’ CJ Warnke, communications director for the Democrat-aligned House Majority PAC told Fox News Digital.

Warnke predicted, ‘As Trump’s poll numbers on the economy continue to plummet and voters see him prioritizing the elite over lowering prices, his broken promises will sink House Republicans. No Republican-held seat is safe, and HMP will do whatever it takes to win the House in 2026.’

McIntosh sees the 2025 elections as ‘a warning sign, a wake-up call for two things.’

‘One, we got to get our voters out, and that’s the job of the party and Club for Growth and groups like us,’ McIntosh noted.

But he added that ‘the party has to explain how our agenda makes life more affordable, how we can lower your insurance costs by forcing the insurance industry to tell you how much they’re charging. We can lower housing by getting rid of all sorts of regulation.’

McIntosh and the Club have had an up-and-down relationship with the president. They opposed Trump as he ran for the White House in 2016 before embracing him as an ally. In the 2022 cycle, Trump and the Club teamed up in some high-profile GOP primaries but clashed over combustible Senate nomination battles in Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Club was on the outs with Trump as the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race got underway. Trump repeatedly criticized McIntosh and the Club, referring to them as ‘The Club for NO Growth,’ and claimed they were ‘an assemblage of political misfits, globalists, and losers.’

However, Trump and McIntosh made peace in early 2024, with Trump saying as he was wrapping up the GOP presidential nomination, that they were ‘back in love’ after the protracted falling out.

Asked about the Club’s relationship with Trump, McIntosh said, ‘We’re right there with the President, especially in these races … Club for Growth is very aligned with President Trump, and we’re especially in these contested races, we’re going to help him win.’

A federal judge threw out the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James on Monday, finding they were illegitimate because they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney.

Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false statements charges against Comey and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice, meaning the charges could be brought again.

‘I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,’ Currie wrote.

The Department of Justice could appeal the decision or attempt to bring the charges under a different U.S. attorney. Fox News Digital has reached out to the DOJ for comment.

The move to scrap two of the highest-profile criminal cases the DOJ has leveled against President Donald Trump’s political foes comes after the judge voiced skepticism at a recent hearing in Virginia about Lindsey Halligan’s ability to bring the charges as interim U.S. attorney.

Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.

Halligan acted alone in presenting charges to a grand jury days after Trump ousted the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, and replaced him with Halligan. At the same time, Trump urged Attorney General Pam Bondi in a social media post to act quickly to indict Comey, a call that came as the statutes of limitations in his case was about to lapse. Halligan, who had no prior prosecutorial experience when she took over one of the most high-profile federal court districts in the country, was the lone lawyer to present the cases to the grand jury and sign the indictments. No prosecutors from Virginia joined in on the case.

The DOJ has since put its full backing behind Halligan. Bondi attempted to ratify and then re-ratify the indictments after the fact, a move Currie suggested would not have been necessary if Halligan were a valid appointee.

DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker had argued during the hearing that the motions to dismiss Comey’s and James’ cases involved ‘at best a paperwork error.’

James’ attorney Abbe Lowell said Halligan was a ‘private person’ when she entered the grand jury rooms and completely unauthorized to be in them. Currie agreed, saying in her decision that retroactively validating Halligan and her actions would be unheard of.

‘The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary,’ Currie wrote. ‘It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law.’

One Senate Republican proved that it’s still possible to bridge the chasm between the aisles after brokering an end to the longest government shutdown in history.

The 43-day impasse in Congress may have ended in the House, but it was in the Senate that Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., worked to build an old-fashioned bipartisan coalition to jump-start the stalled chamber.

It took several weeks, numerous conversations and reconstructing broken trust between Senate Republicans and Democrats to pull off what would become a bipartisan package to reopen the government.

And it was something that Britt, in an interview with Fox News Digital, contended she was uniquely positioned to do.

She was chief of staff for former Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and knew how the sausage was made in the upper chamber. She also had longstanding relationships with some of the key Democratic negotiators, like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who ultimately joined most Republicans to reopen the government.

For Britt, who chairs the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, the key to reopening the government was funding the government through spending bills.

‘I’m very grateful for those on the other side of the aisle that had the courage to step forward and say, you know, we’re not going to allow everyday Americans to suffer as a result of keeping this government closed,’ she said. ‘I do think what we saw was a lot of people that were listening to their political consultants instead of the actual constituency that they serve.’

‘Because clearly, I think a lot of people had lost sight of the fact that we were in this place because we hadn’t passed appropriations bills,’ Britt continued.

During the last session of Congress, the chambers were split. Republicans held a tenuous grip on the House while Schumer and Senate Democrats controlled the Senate. Many of the spending bills produced by the House were often partisan, while the bipartisan bills crafted in the Senate never made it to the floor.

‘If you look back over Senator Schumer’s tenure as leader and over the last two years, he didn’t even put one bill on the floor last year, which is what led us to this posture of a CR to start with,’ she said.

Britt believed that at least moving a trio of spending bills could perhaps unstick the gears in the Senate and get lawmakers closer to ending the shutdown. Whether that package of bills could end up attached to legislation to reopen the government, however, remained elusive.

While she lauded both Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., for their roles in ensuring the funding process actually worked, her role as de facto arbiter began roughly three weeks before the shutdown ended.

One of the main issues before and throughout the shutdown was a lack of trust that Senate Democrats had in Republicans, an issue that was reaffirmed when the GOP voted to claw back billions in congressionally approved funding earlier in the year.

That trust issue was further solidified due to a lack of commitments from Republicans to prevent the Trump administration from continuing to carve away at federal funding with impoundments and rescissions.

And the key moment that saw the wheels begin to move in the direction of reopening came when Senate Democrats blocked the Defense appropriations bill, which would have paid service members among a plethora of other things.

‘The question that I had for each of them, you know, why? This came out of committee in a bipartisan way, and it was clear, they wanted greater conversation around how we were planning on moving these things forward,’ she said.

It was from those informal talks that she leaned into speaking with more Democratic lawmakers to try and assuage their concerns about what would happen during and after the spending bills were passed. Those conversations brought her all the way to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on whether he would approve of the appropriations process moving forward.

‘Taking a cue from that is why I really leaned into conversations, both with people that I believed were gettable in finding a pathway forward on reopening the government and those who were not,’ she said. ‘You know, just saying, like, ‘Look, guys, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to work to fund these three bills. And if we do that, you know, here will be the ultimate result of it.’’

But, as with any successful legislation, there’s always a numbers game.

Not every Senate Republican was in favor of reopening the government, or at least the vehicle to do so, a point Britt reiterated often. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., had consistently voted against the House-passed bill until that point.

So that meant she needed to find the numbers elsewhere across the aisle. Shaheen, who was leading negotiations for Senate Democrats, largely had her numbers in check, but there was one more that needed an extra nudge: Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

Over the course of 48 hours, the weekend of the penultimate vote to seal the deal in the Senate, Kaine went from being against the package to supporting it. Britt acted as a liaison to the White House, bringing Kaine’s demands that the administration roll back firings carried out during the shutdown and provide protections to federal workers, which the administration ultimately agreed to.

But ending the shutdown was the first hurdle. Lawmakers now have until Jan. 30, 2026, to fund the government. Britt said she would keep doing what she’s been doing: talking to the other side.

‘I am hopeful that people will remember what we’re supposed to be doing, and that is working to pass these bills,’ she said. ‘And I am sure that there will be challenges in front of us, but you know, having dialogue and working to break the logjam will be essential when it does occur to keep America moving.’

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aimed at bolstering U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) initiatives as it unveiled its new ‘Genesis Mission’ to accelerate AI use for scientific purposes. 

The ‘Genesis Mission’ will direct the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and their national labs to work with private companies to share federal data sets, advanced supercomputing capabilities, and scientific facilities. 

‘The private sector has launched artificial intelligence at huge scale, but with a little bit different focus – on language, on business, on processes, on consumer services,’ Secretary of Energy Chris Wright told reporters Monday. ‘What we’re doing here is just pivoting those efforts to focus on scientific discovery, engineering advancements. And to do that, you need the data sets that are contained across our national labs.’ 

Additionally, the executive order instructs the Department of Energy and national labs to create an integrated platform aimed at expediting scientific discovery, in an attempt to connect AI capability with scientists, engineers, technical staff, and the labs’ scientific instruments, according to a White House official.

Trump hinted an effort like this was in the works during the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum Wednesday in Washington, where he said the U.S. would work ‘to build the largest, most powerful, most innovative AI ecosystem in the world.’

The effort comes after Trump issued an AI policy document called ‘Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan’ in July. The document laid out a framework focused on accelerating AI innovation, ensuring the U.S. is the leader in international AI diplomacy and security, and using the private sector to help build up and operate AI infrastructure. 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also currently considering other executive orders pertaining to AI, and more executive orders could be on the horizon. 

For example, Fox News Digital previously reported that the White House was gearing up an executive order instructing the Justice Department to sue states that adopt their own laws regulating AI. 

Trump appeared to address the initiative at the U.S-Saudi Investment Forum as well, claiming that a series of AI regulations imposed at the state level would prove a ‘disaster.’

‘And we are going to work it so that you’ll have a one approval process to not have to go through 50 states,’ Trump said. 

Fox News’ Amanda Macias and Dennis Collins contributed to this report. 

The Justice Department asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury materials and lift protective orders in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases after President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Signed by Trump on Nov. 19, 2025, the law requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all unclassified records, communications and investigative materials related to Epstein within 30 days.

The order allows limited redactions for victim privacy or to protect active investigations, but those must be narrowly tailored and justified in the Federal Register.

The department asked the court to expedite the unsealing of grand jury transcripts and exhibits and to modify orders that block public release of discovery materials.

It argued that Congress explicitly authorized disclosure under the law, overriding the secrecy of grand jury proceedings outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The law, the DOJ said, also supersedes earlier court rulings that denied unsealing.

The judge in the Maxwell case set a briefing schedule Monday, ordering Maxwell to file her position by Dec. 3. He also directed prosecutors to notify victims, who may submit letters to the court by the same date.

The government has until Dec. 10 to respond, and the judge will rule afterward, though he has not set a specific date. The judge has acknowledged the law’s 30-day release deadline for Bondi.

The House voted 421-1 last Tuesday to release the files after months of pressure from Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., cast the lone ‘no’ vote, saying the bill ‘reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.’

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., supported the measure but voiced similar concerns. The Senate passed the bill hours later by unanimous consent.

Trump signed the law amid renewed scrutiny of his past association with Epstein after the Justice Department and FBI said in July they would not unseal related materials, citing the case’s closure.

The law directs the department to release all unclassified records related to Epstein and Maxwell, as well as files referencing individuals in Epstein’s prior cases, trafficking allegations, internal communications and details about his death.

Files containing victims’ names, child sexual abuse material, classified content or information that could affect active investigations may be withheld or redacted.

Bondi said Wednesday she would comply with the law, which requires the department to post the files online in a searchable format within 30 days.

The release has drawn strong interest from Trump supporters who have urged the department to disclose Epstein’s alleged ‘client list’ and details of his death.

While the documents are authentic, Epstein’s statements in the emails remain unverified. They do not allege wrongdoing by Trump and only reference him in passing.

Trump has not been formally accused of misconduct related to Epstein, and no law enforcement records link him to Epstein’s crimes.

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Maxwell was later convicted of similar offenses and is serving a 20-year sentence.

Fox News’ Diana Stancy and Emma Colton contributed to this report.

Former FBI Director James Comey hailed the federal judge who dismissed the federal indictment against him on Monday, saying the case against him was based on ‘malevolence and incompetence.’

Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false statements charges against Comey in a Monday ruling, finding that they were brought by an unqualified U.S. attorney. President Donald Trump’s administration maintains that the attorney, Lindsay Halligan, was legally appointed and has indicated they plan to pursue further legal action.

‘I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence, and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking,’ Comey said, before thanking the lawyers who represented him in the case.

‘This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent. That the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies. I don’t care what your politics are. You have to see that as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free,’ he continued.

Comey went on to say that he expects the Trump administration to continue coming after him despite the legal setback. He called on Americans to ‘stand up’ against the ‘fools who would frighten us,’ suggesting Trump is a ‘would-be tyrant.’

Currie’s ruling also threw out the DOJ’s case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the same reason.

‘I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. [Lindsey] Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,’ Currie wrote.

Currie, a Clinton appointee based in South Carolina, was brought in from out of state to preside over proceedings about the question of Halligan’s authority because it presented a conflict for the Virginia judges. Comey’s and James’ challenges to Halligan’s appointment were consolidated because of their similarity.

Halligan acted alone in presenting charges to the grand juries shortly after Trump ousted the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, and urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to replace him with Halligan, a former White House aide and insurance lawyer. Bondi complied, but Currie found the interim U.S. attorney term had already expired under Siebert and that the Virginia judges were now responsible for appointing a temporary U.S. attorney to serve until Trump could get one confirmed in the Senate.

Trump has been unable to persuade the Senate to confirm several U.S. attorneys in blue states, leading the president and Bondi to sidestep the upper chamber at times to install Trump’s preferred appointees, such as Halligan. Currie’s decision comes after federal judges also disqualified appointees in California, New Jersey and Nevada.

Fox News’ Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Democrats are seeking to put limits on private donations to foot the bill for President Donald Trump’s new White House ballroom amid what they say are bribery concerns. 

Trump announced in October that construction had started on the ballroom — leading to the demolition of the White House’s historic East Wing — and would be privately funded at an estimated cost of $300 million. That was up from the $200 million estimate first provided in July when the project was unveiled.

But Democrats are concerned the donors — including individuals and other organizations — are footing the bill for the project because they are seeking something in return from the Trump administration, and recently introduced legislation to try to curb it. 

Although the White House released a list of the donors in October, Democrats, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Adam Schiff of California, claim that additional oversight is needed and that the White House has not identified all donors, while others have been granted anonymity.

Among those who’ve donated to the ballroom project are Google, Apple, Meta Platforms, Amazon, Microsoft and Lockheed Martin. As a result, lawmakers argue that those who’ve contributed to the project could be doing so to curry favor with the administration, setting up a ‘pay-to-play’ relationship with the Trump administration. 

Specifically, lawmakers pointed to Google agreeing to a $22 million settlement with Trump in September, stemming from Trump’s censorship lawsuit against YouTube for banning him from the platform after the Jan. 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Google, which owns YouTube, is also involved in an antitrust case leveled against it by the Justice Department, and therefore, could benefit from soliciting favor from the Trump administration, the lawmakers claim. 

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

‘Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom — and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line,’ Warren said in a statement Tuesday. ‘Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether President Trump is building a ballroom to facilitate a pay-to-play scheme for political favors. My new bill will put an end to what looks like bribery in plain sight.’

Warren, along with the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, spearheaded the legislation. Other lawmakers, including Schiff, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and others, have also cosponsored the measure. 

Specifically, the legislation would bar donations from organizations or individuals that present a conflict of interest, and would prohibit the president, vice president or their families and staff from soliciting donations. 

Once donations have been made and are cleared by the directors of the National Park Service and the Office of Government Ethics, the measure would then bar displaying donors’ names in recognition of the donation, and would also require a two-year freeze for the donor to lobby the federal government.

Additionally, it would prohibit using any remaining donated funds to then go toward personal use, or to benefit the president, vice president or their family and staff. 

Likewise, the measure also would require that donors disclose meetings with the federal government that occur in the year following the donation, and prohibit anonymous donations. 

‘President Trump has put a ‘for sale’ sign on the White House—soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars from special interests to fund his $300 million vanity project,’ Blumenthal said in a statement Tuesday. ‘Our measure is a direct response to Trump’s ballroom boondoggle. With commonsense reforms to how the federal government can use private donations, our legislation prevents President Trump and future presidents from using construction projects as vehicles for corruption and personal vanity.’ 

Meanwhile, the White House dismissed the measure and Democrats’ efforts to impose new restrictions on donations.

‘President Trump is making the White House beautiful and giving it the glory it deserves,’ White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Monday. ‘Only people with a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome would find a problem with that.’

Trump has initiated several renovation projects at the White House during his second term, including adding gold accents to the White House’s Oval Office and paving the Rose Garden. 

President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama are polar opposites in many ways, but, as with anyone who has sat behind the Resolute Desk, they do share some similarities.

One thing both have in common is overseeing government shutdowns — one under Obama and two under Trump. And even in that sparse similarity, both men operated differently, particularly in the most recent, 43-day closure.

While both congressional battles were centered on Obamacare, Obama put his shutdown at the center of attention, while Trump kept it at more of an arm’s length.

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that a major difference in the Obama and Trump administrations’ approaches to their respective shutdowns was that in 2013, Obama wanted the pain of shutdown to be felt by Americans, while Trump kept the focus centered on Washington, D.C.

‘During the Obama shutdown, it was more to make it extremely visible, shut down beloved functions — even if you didn’t have to — that affect average Americans,’ she said.

Boccia at the time worked for the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation and recalled the barricades that were swiftly erected around Washington, D.C.’s many national parks.

Those barricades, both concrete and human, spilled out beyond the nation’s capital and were placed around the hundreds of national parks across America as a stark reminder that the government was closed.

Boccia noted that a direct comparison of the two shutdowns would be difficult given the differing lengths, but that the Trump administration, at least early on, sought to inflict direct pain on congressional Democrats and the federal government.

That was carried out largely by the Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, who ordered mass firings of furloughed workers and withheld or canceled billions in federal funding to blue cities and states.

‘It’s not that this wasn’t a shutdown, it’s just that the choices the administration made were an attempt to focus the impacts of the shutdown this round on the government itself,’ Brittany Madni, executive vice president of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, told Fox News Digital.

‘This was showmanship from President Obama,’ Madni continued. ‘And if you look at what happened over the last 40 something days, it was the exact same playbook by congressional Democrats.’

Madni argued that discussions and debate during the 2013 shutdown were centered largely in Washington, D.C. The latest closure saw some of that, but it also saw Trump continuing to work on trade deals, particularly during his high-profile visit to Asia, which was a point of contention for Democrats on the Hill.

‘He was doing his job,’ Madni said. ‘He was doing his job. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats, quite simply, were not.’

Still, there was a shared thread in both shutdowns: Obamacare.

In 2013, congressional Republicans wanted to dismantle Obama’s signature piece of legislation. Fast-forward, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., led his caucus to push extensions to enhanced Obamacare subsidies.

Boccia said that played a large part in why Obama was at the vanguard during his shutdown.

‘He was front and center in the media talking about the shutdown, and because it was over his legacy achievement,’ she said.

It was because his key legislative achievement was under fire that Obama took such a central role in the shutdown, Boccia argued, but for Trump, who tried during his first administration to gut and replace Obamacare, it wasn’t a priority.

‘The fact that it was over the Obamacare COVID credits, I think, made the president less necessary and perhaps interested in being the face of the shutdown,’ she said. ‘It was really a congressional battle.’

Madni disagreed that the latest shutdown wasn’t a direct bid by congressional Democrats to go after one of his legislative achievements.

Before the climactic failed vote in the Senate in late September that ushered in the longest shutdown in history, Democrats offered a counter-proposal that would have stripped several provisions from Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ which has so far been the crowning legislative achievement of his second term.

‘It’s really important that everyone remembers the subsidy request was one request in a laundry list of radical, incredibly expensive ideas that added up to $1.5 trillion,’ Madni said. ‘Another item in that list was dismantling key portions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.’

‘If this was really about the subsidies, then the Democrats would have been willing at any point during the last 43 days to adjust their asks and just make it about subsidies,’ she continued. ‘Not once did they.’

President Donald Trump’s administration is rejecting claims that its most recent plan for a peace deal in Ukraine was really a Russian ‘wish list.’

Confusion arose regarding the deal after lawmakers on Capitol Hill claimed they were told by White House officials that the deal was a proposal from the Russian side. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has since pushed back on that claim, however.

‘[Rubio] made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,’ Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said at a press conference. ‘It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received, and as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it — and we did not release it. It was leaked.’

According to The Associated Press, Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said that Rubio told him and his colleagues that it ‘was not the administration’s plan’ but a ‘wish list of the Russians.’

Rubio responded to this narrative with a post on social media, writing that the peace proposal ‘was authored by the U.S.’

‘It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine,’ he added.

Rounds released another statement through his press office after Rubio’s response.

‘I appreciate Secretary Rubio briefing us earlier today on their efforts to bring about peace by relying on input from both Russia and Ukraine to arrive at a final deal,’ Rounds wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Rubio traveled to Geneva on Sunday to meet with Ukrainian officials alongside Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, where they are expected to hash out Kyiv’s misgivings regarding the deal.

Trump himself lashed out at Ukraine over the peace talks in a Sunday statement.

‘UKRAINE ‘LEADERSHIP’ HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS, AND EUROPE CONTINUES TO BUY OIL FROM RUSSIA,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.

While the current agreement has not been made public, a leaked draft has been reported to include terms that would halt the fighting in Ukraine while giving Russia concessions like control over Ukrainian territory that the Russian military does not yet control, as well as barring Ukraine from membership in NATO.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not reject the plan outright in an address last week, but he insisted on fair treatment while pledging to ‘work calmly’ with Washington and other partners in what he called ‘truly one of the most difficult moments in our history.’

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin and The Associated Press contributed to this report.