Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration sparred in federal court in Boston on Monday over the administration’s decision to slash roughly $2.6 billion in federal research funding for the university – the latest in a series of high-stakes court clashes that have pitted the Trump administration against the nation’s oldest university. 

Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over the funding freeze, which it described in its lawsuit as an unlawful and unconstitutional effort to assert federal ‘control’ over elite academic institutions, according to a filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs. 

The Trump administration, for its part, has accused Harvard of ‘fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,’ and refusing to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force sent to the university earlier this year.

Both sides have asked Burroughs, an Obama appointee, to issue a summary judgment by early September, which could allow them to avoid a lengthy trial before the start of the new school year.

In court on Monday, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to coerce the university into complying with the administration’s policies and violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections.

Lawyers for Harvard have argued that the Trump administration’s actions amount to an unconstitutional ‘pressure campaign’ to influence and exert control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoed on Monday.

He told Burroughs the funding freeze is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the ‘inner workings’ of the university, and one he argued could cause lasting damage.  

He pointed to earlier claims from Harvard that the administration ‘fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.’

‘By accepting federal funds, Harvard agreed to abide by the provisions in Title VI and the relevant agencies’ corresponding regulations,’ lawyers for the university said in filing the lawsuit earlier this year.

But Harvard’s agreement, they said, does not constitute a ‘blank check for agencies to impose the government’s recent, unrelated demands as a condition of continued funding.’

Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the Justice Department, countered that the administration has ‘every right’ to cancel the funding, which they sought to frame as a mere contract issue and one that should be heard in a different court. 

The Justice Department also reiterated that they see Harvard’s actions as violating the administration’s order combating antisemitism. 

‘Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,’ Velchik said on Monday. ‘The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.’

President Donald Trump signaled dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – vowing on social media to appeal any ruling against the administration to a higher court.

He also took aim at Burroughs. ‘How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?’ he said on Truth Social, ‘When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,’ 

Trump further took aim at Harvard, accusing the university of being ‘anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,’ despite having ‘$52 billion’ sitting in the bank.

‘Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other schools, colleges, and institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer,’ Trump said. 

Burroughs ended Monday’s hearing by saying she would take the case under advisement, and would issue a ruling after she had sufficient time to weigh the matters presented by the administration and the university. 

She did not offer a timeframe for when she planned to rule on the matter.

Still, the judge appeared skeptical during the hearing of some Trump administration claims, including how it could make such wanton cuts to university funding.

At one point, Burroughs noted to Velchik that she had doubts about the government’s so-called ‘ad hoc’ decisions to cut billions in grant money without providing further evidence, documentation or procedure to ‘suss out’ whether the university or its administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemItism or comply with the guidance handed down by the Trump administration.  

‘The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,’ she told Velchik at one point during the hearing. 

‘I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech.’

Since Trump took office in January, the administration has targeted the university with investigations from six separate federal agencies. 

It has also sought to ban Harvard’s ability to host international students by attempting to revoke its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. 

Burroughs in June issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP credentials, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer ‘immediate and irreparable harm’ if the action was enforced.

Harvard, meanwhile, has signaled no plans to stand down in its fight with the Trump administration.

‘Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else,’ Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview earlier this summer discussing the administration’s actions.

Congressional Republicans are facing an uphill battle over the next two months to deliver on their promises to cut spending in the next fiscal year – while avoiding a partial government shutdown if no deal is struck.

‘When’s the last time we got 12 appropriations bills actually done, and completed in a couple of weeks? It’s almost impossible to do,’ Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., told Fox News Digital last week.

Passing 12 individual appropriations bills, each funding separate aspects of the federal government, has been Republicans’ goal each time the Sept. 30 fiscal year (FY) deadline nears.

But that has not happened since 1996 — FY1997 — and the partisan environment in Washington has only gotten more polarized since. Recent Republican-backed legislation has all but sidelined the once-powerful appropriations committees in both chambers.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are more broadly eager to adhere to the Trump administration’s request to cut $163 billion from non-defense government spending than their Senate counterparts – which could result in a standoff between the two chambers.

‘It’s looking like it’s going to be higher than what the president’s budget is. And that, I’m not a fan of,’ Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News Digital last week.

Another committee Republican, Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., said, ‘I’m really proud of the work the committee has done so far. I do feel like we’re gonna be able to get these bills done. The question is, what’s the Senate going to do?’

Further compounding difficulties between the two sides of the U.S. Capitol is the 60-vote filibuster threshold that most bills in the Senate must ram through. 

That means that any spending bills have to be bipartisan, but after Senate Republicans advanced President Donald Trump’s $9 billion rescissions package, Senate Democrats have warned that they won’t play ball. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that he would like to go ahead with a regular appropriations process, but that Senate Democrats ‘have signaled that they don’t want one.’

‘The Democrats have been very clear,’ he said. ‘They are already conferencing the idea of a government shutdown — I don’t have any idea, no idea how that is helpful for them or to anyone.’ 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., previously warned that if Republicans were successful in passing the rescissions package — after icing out Democrats during the budget reconciliation process — that there could be trouble down the road in generating enough bipartisan support to pass spending bills, nonetheless avert a partial government shutdown. 

Sen. John Hoeven, chair of the Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittee, told Fox News Digital that if Democrats planned to block everything, then ‘what would you expect?’

‘By working with us, that’s how they actually will get some of their priorities,’ the North Dakota Republican said. ‘But when they’re going to just block us, then why should their priorities be included?’

A House Appropriations Committee member who spoke with Fox News Digital on the condition of anonymity indicated that Republican lawmakers are beginning to accept the possibility of a short-term continuing resolution (CR), a stopgap measure extending the previous fiscal year’s funding levels in order to keep the government open.

‘You could see a situation where you’re in a short-term CR, and we’ll try to negotiate topline numbers and all that,’ that House lawmaker said.

It’s a situation that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., didn’t rule out to reporters early last week – while agreeing with Senate Republicans’ concerns about Democrats failing to work across the aisle.

‘I’m always worried about a shutdown, because I think the Democrats have a very hard time bargaining with Donald Trump. I mean, that’s why we ended up in a CR,’ Cole said, referring to the last round of government funding talks that resulted in a CR from March through the end of FY2025.

‘We offered them a much better deal than a CR, and they couldn’t do it. So I hope this time they can, but the temperature on the other side is very high, and Democratic voters are punishing their own members for cooperating on things like keeping the government open.’

That could create issue with members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, however, who have fiercely pushed back against CRs or ‘omnibus’ spending bills in the past – though no such standoffs have led to a shutdown in recent years.

Both House and Senate Republicans are dealing with razor-thin margins of just three votes.

House Republicans scored an important victory last week in passing their $832 billion defense funding bill. That, along with the bill funding military construction and Veterans’ Affairs, make up more than half of the discretionary budget requested by the White House earlier this year.

But they’re not expected to hold House-wide votes on any of the remaining 10 bills before early September, when Congress returns from August recess.

Senate Republicans are also gearing up to consider their first spending bill, one for military construction and the VA, on Tuesday that will likely end up being a test of how the appropriations process, and likely government funding extension, will play out in the coming months. 

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said after the rescissions package passed that she wanted to see the panel return to form, and in doing so, keeping the bipartisan spirit of appropriations alive. 

‘It is unfortunate that many members of this body have voted to make that a whole lot harder,’ the Washington state Democrat said. 

One senior House GOP lawmaker who spoke with Fox News Digital ultimately downplayed concerns of a shutdown, however.

‘The factors of the Senate wanting more money than the House, Democrats wanting more money than Republicans – those have been in place for a generation. And most of the time, shutdowns don’t happen,’ that lawmaker said. 

‘It would seem to me that although the Democrats are big mad about Elon and Trump, and reconciliation, at some point, that temperature’s going to fade and people are going to realize that a shutdown doesn’t really serve our national interests.’

Iran said it will hold talks with Russia and China on Tuesday in an attempt to circumvent U.N. snapback sanctions as the deadline for a nuclear agreement looms. 

‘We are in constant consultation with these two countries to prevent activation of the snapback or to mitigate its consequences,’ Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said during a Monday press briefing, reported Iran International. ‘We have aligned positions and good relations.’

Both China and Russia are signatories of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that seemingly failed to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions following the U.S. withdrawal from the deal under the first Trump presidency in 2018 and the subsequent nuclear advances Tehran made. 

The news of the impending meeting comes one week after France, Germany and the U.K. announced they would enforce snapback sanctions on Tehran if it fails to enter into a new nuclear agreement by the end of August. 

What would need to be included in a new nuclear deal remains unclear and Iran has not yet renewed nuclear negotiations with the U.S. after Washington levied significant strikes against its top atomic facilities last month in coordination with Israel. 

The snapback mechanism was reserved under the JCPOA and allows any signatory of the agreement to recall stiff international sanctions on Iran to be enforced by all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council – including Russia and China – if Tehran is determined to have violated the terms of the 2015 deal. 

Since the first Trump presidency, the U.S. has threatened the use of snapback sanctions, though Washington can no longer call for the re-implementation of the economic tool as it left the agreement – a decision determined by the U.N. and the other JCPOA signatories. 

But top D.C. officials, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have continued to encourage European allies to use this tool to push Iran to cease nuclear development. 

Iran is also set to hold talks with France, Germany and the U.K. – an alliance also known as the E3 – this Friday, though the window to secure a new nuclear deal is closing despite years of repeated attempts.

‘Snapback at the UNSC remains, not just the Trump administration’s, but the international community’s most powerful political and diplomatic tool against the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program,’ Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iranian expert and senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Iran program, told Fox News Digital.

‘Snapback and a restoration of older, tougher UNSC resolutions that contain arms export prohibitions, missile testing prohibitions, as well as a panel of experts to monitor sanctions compliance, will actually magnify the political and military dividends that the U.S. and Israeli strikes have given,’ he added.

Security experts have been sounding the alarm for months that it will take roughly six weeks for U.N. sanctions to be enforced, largely due to procedural reasons, and the ability to enforce snapback sanctions under JCPOA terms will expire on Oct. 18.

Ben Taleblu also warned that these intense sanctions on Iran could instigate further security threats to the West when it comes to Tehran’s nuclear program, as it could prompt Iran to leave other major international nuclear agreements like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Former Obama administration officials named in new revelations surrounding the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation have been silent amid allegations they ‘manufactured’ intelligence that led to the opening of the yearslong probe.

On Friday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents revealing ‘overwhelming evidence’ that demonstrated how, after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia collusion probe.

Gabbard said the documents revealed that Obama administration officials ‘manufactured and politicized intelligence’ to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise.

The new documents name former President Barack Obama, top officials in his National Security Council, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others.

Gabbard, on Monday, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department related to those findings. DOJ officials did not share further details on whom the criminal referral was for.

Gabbard told Fox News Digital that this ‘is not a partisan issue,’ but one that ‘concerns every American.’

‘The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government,’ Gabbard told Fox News Digital. ‘Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.’

Gabbard said the ‘egregious abuse of power and blatant rejection of our Constitution’ by Obama-era officials ‘threatens the very foundation and integrity of our democratic republic.’

‘No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again,’ Gabbard said. ‘The American people’s faith and trust in our democratic republic, and therefore the future of our nation, depends on it.’

Gabbard added: ‘As such, I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.’

Gabbard’s criminal referral comes just a week after CIA Director John Ratcliffe sent a criminal referral for Brennan.

FBI Director Kash Patel opened a criminal investigation into Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump-Russia probe, including allegedly making false statements to Congress, Justice Department sources told Fox News Digital.

None of the former Obama-era officials have responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Former special counsel David Weiss got little support from the Department of Justice (DOJ) when he sought lawyers to help prosecute President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, Weiss told Congress during a recent closed-door interview.

Amid delicate plea deal negotiations between Hunter Biden and Weiss in 2023, Weiss said he asked the DOJ deputy attorney general’s office for a team of trial lawyers and received a single resume, according to a transcript of the interview reviewed by Fox News Digital.

‘Actually, as I think about the sequencing, I had started to reach out myself directly to offices or people that I knew and make my own inquiries,’ Weiss told House Judiciary Committee staff of his struggle to hire lawyers for the sensitive job of trying the president’s son.

Weiss appeared on Capitol Hill for the interview in June as part of the committee’s inquiry into the DOJ’s years-long investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden.

Now no longer a DOJ employee, Weiss spoke candidly for hours with the committee, shedding new light on his interactions with the Biden DOJ and giving fresh insight into why Hunter Biden was never charged with certain violations.

Who is David Weiss?

Weiss was appointed U.S. attorney of Delaware during the first Trump administration and began investigating Hunter Biden at that time. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland made Weiss special counsel in August 2023 after a plea agreement with Hunter Biden fell apart.

Republicans had accused Weiss of offering Hunter Biden a ‘sweetheart’ plea deal that involved only misdemeanors. But in an unusual move, a judge rejected the deal, leading Weiss to instead bring two successful indictments against the then-first son, one for illegal gun possession and another for nine tax charges, including three felonies.

Weiss came under enormous scrutiny by Republicans and Democrats for his handling of the investigation, which had become a hyper-political national news story centered on the salacious behavior and wrongdoings of Hunter Biden, a recovering drug and alcohol addict, and allegations that Joe Biden was complicit in his son’s crimes.

Republicans claimed Weiss was not tough enough on Hunter Biden, while Democrats said he was being treated more harshly than a typical defendant because he was the president’s son. Joe Biden ultimately granted an unconditional pardon to his son, a move widely criticized by members of both parties.

Weiss gets ‘one resume’

Weiss said during the interview that he was ‘fortunate enough to obtain a couple very excellent prosecutors,’ a reference to the two DOJ attorneys who handled trial preparations for Hunter Biden.

But, Weiss also indicated that when he first requested lawyers in the spring of 2023, he had to be self-sufficient in finding them and that the deputy attorney general’s office was unhelpful. Weiss noted he did not deal directly with former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco at all and assumed she was recused from Hunter Biden’s cases.

Weiss said that at one point he ran into the director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, which handles recruitment, at an event and asked if any hiring progress had been made.

Weiss did not ‘have a whole lot of success’ during that conversation, he said.

‘What do you mean, you didn’t have success? … They didn’t give you lawyers?’ a committee aide asked.

‘I got one resume,’ Weiss replied.

The aide asked, ‘Nobody wanted to come prosecute Hunter Biden?’

‘I don’t want to say that because I don’t know that they weren’t trying to find people,’ Weiss said. ‘All I know was I didn’t get a whole lot of resumes.’

Weiss eventually gained two attorneys, Leo Wise and Derek Hines, who went on to secure a conviction by a jury in Delaware after a week-long trial on gun possession charges and a guilty plea to all nine of Hunter Biden’s tax charges.

A committee aide pressed Weiss on why he felt there was ‘such a drought’ of help at DOJ headquarters.

‘As I said a moment ago … I did not receive a lot of resumes in response to my initial request,’ Weiss said, noting that eventually the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section assisted him.

Asked if the Public Integrity Section helped him because Weiss proactively reached out, Weiss replied, ‘Probably.’

Burisma tax years and FARA

For his testimony, the Trump DOJ gave Weiss permission in a letter to talk to Congress about Hunter Biden’s cases. The department noted, however, that it could not authorize Weiss to talk about the former first son’s confidential tax information.

Weiss suggested, though, that he would have charged Hunter Biden for the 2014 and 2015 tax years if he could have.

‘To the extent I can put together — and this is general — a case that involves more years than not and allows me to more fully develop allegations about a course of conduct and a scheme, that’s better for the prosecution,’ Weiss said. ‘So it’s not like I’m looking to cut out years generally when you’re pursuing a tax investigation.’

During the years in question, Hunter Biden was raking in $1 million per year as a board member of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma while his father, then vice president, was overseeing foreign policy with Ukraine. The scenario became ripe for questions about conflicts of interest, in part because of suspicious interactions between Hunter Biden and the Obama State Department.

In Weiss’s final special counsel report, he dodged explaining why he brought charges of failure to pay taxes and tax evasion against Hunter Biden only for the tax years after 2015, citing Joe Biden’s pardon. Now, Weiss said, he would be more willing to talk about it if he were legally allowed to do so.

Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pressed Weiss, saying the ‘political aspects of Burisma’ raised ‘glaring’ questions about the prosecutorial decisions made for the years for which Hunter Biden avoided charges.

‘I understand,’ Weiss replied. ‘Absolutely. Yes. And I wish that I could address it. But it’s my understanding that, for me to trip into 2014 and ’15 is a violation of [U.S. code].’

Weiss also told the committee his team had no serious discussions about charging Hunter Biden under a foreign lobby law called the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

‘We just couldn’t put together a sufficient case,’ Weiss said.

Iran on Monday confirmed it will not give up its nuclear enrichment program in an exclusive interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, set to air at 6 pm on Monday’s ‘Special Report.’ 

Araghchi confirmed that the U.S.’s top ambition in preventing Tehran from further developing a nuclear weapon by blocking all enrichment capabilities is unlikely to come to fruition, despite threats of intense international sanctions.

‘We cannot give up enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists. And now, more than that, it is a question of national pride,’ Araghchi said. ‘Our enrichment is so dear to us,’ he told Bret Baier, anchor and executive editor of Special Report, in a clip released before the full interview airs.

The foreign minister confirmed that the extent of the damage to its nuclear facilities caused by the U.S. strikes last month was ‘serious,’ but he would not comment on whether any enriched uranium survived the strikes.

‘Our facilities have been damaged – seriously damaged,’ Araghchi said. ‘The extent of which is now under evaluation by our atomic energy organization.

‘But as far as I know, they are seriously damaged,’ he added, noting that the damage has also currently ceased all enrichment capabilities for the time being. 

Iran has maintained that it was not seeking a nuclear weapon, but in the lead up to the Israeli and U.S. strikes, security experts were sounding the alarm that Tehran was likely capable of producing at least one nuclear weapon in a matter of days, and several warheads in a matter of weeks. 

While nuclear enrichment is a process needed for nations that also rely on nuclear power, Iran’s nuclear energy usage amounts to less than one percent of the nation’s energy consumption. 

The U.S. has suggested that given the low amounts of nuclear energy which Iran relies on, it should join a consortium that could potentially involve nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia for its enriched uranium needs for civil nuclear power use. 

But Iran has repeatedly rejected this proposal, with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also referring to Tehran’s capabilities as a source of national pride just last month.

‘The number of countries in the world that have achieved a complete nuclear fuel cycle is perhaps fewer than the number of fingers on a person’s two hands,’ Khamenei said in early June. ‘We’re capable of producing nuclear fuel starting from the mine and all the way to the power plant.’

But Iran also faces immense international sanctions and even greater arms restrictions should it fail to reach a nuclear agreement by the end of August – though it is unclear if that agreement must include the U.S. or just European nations including France, Germany and the U.K., also referred to as the E3.

Iranian officials will not only be meeting with its top allies and chief adversaries to the West, Russia and China, on Tuesday, but Tehran is also set to hold talks on Friday with officials from the E3.

Washington and Tehran have yet to resume talks following the U.S. strikes last month.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is blasting people within her own party for ‘lying’ about her position during a key round of government funding votes late last week.

‘Google is free. If you’re saying I voted for military funding, you are lying. Receipts attached,’ Ocasio-Cortez wrote alongside several screenshots showing her vote ‘no’ on Republicans’ military funding bill.

‘Drag me for my positions all you want, but lying about them doesn’t make you part of the ‘left.’ If you believe neo-nazis are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them!’

The New York City Democrat got broadsided from her left over her vote on a specific amendment aimed at blocking U.S. funding for Israel’s Iron Dome, though it did not make it into the final bill – which Ocasio-Cortez voted against.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) criticized the progressive firebrand for voting against an amendment by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to block $500 million in Congress’ annual defense spending bill that was aimed at helping fund Israeli missile defense systems.

‘An arms embargo means keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions. This is why we oppose Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’[s] vote against an amendment that would have blocked $500 million in funding for the Israeli military’s Iron Dome program,’ the DSA said over the weekend.

The DSA noted she did vote against the defense funding bill itself, thereby ‘voting against funding for the imperialist military-industrial complex and the Israeli genocide.’

The group added, however, ‘We were further deeply disappointed by her clarifying statement on her position on the Iron Dome.’

‘Along with other US-funded interceptor systems, the Iron Dome has emboldened Israel to invade or bomb no less than five different countries in the past two years,’ the DSA said.

‘The fact that Representative Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges that Israel is carrying out this genocide makes her support for military aid all the more disappointing and incongruous. We urge the representative to continue voting against the Iron Dome, whether it is part of a larger defense spending bill or as a stand-alone bill.’

The DSA commended Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Al Green, D-Texas, for voting against the amendment.

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and congressional office for comment.

She posted on X after the vote, ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it.’

‘What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end,’ she said.

‘That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established. I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.’

The clash exemplifies how Israel continues to drive an ideological wedge within the Democratic Party. 

It’s not the first time Ocasio-Cortez caught heat from the progressive base for failing to take a critical enough stance on Israel.

In 2021, the New York Democrat cried on the House floor after voting ‘present’ on funding Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.

‘Yes, I wept,’ she wrote in an open letter to constituents after the incident. ‘I wept at the complete lack of care for the human beings that are impacted by these decisions. I wept at an institution choosing a path of maximum volatility and minimum consideration for its own political convenience.’

The overall bill that passed last week calls for $832 billion in defense funding for fiscal year 2026.

That’s separate from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), another annual bill that sets defense and national security policy each fiscal year – essentially detailing how those funds will be spent.

Greene’s amendment to strip $500 million going toward Israeli missile defense programs lost in a lopsided 6-422 vote.

Senate Republican leadership is weighing whether to cancel, or shorten, their upcoming August break following President Donald Trump’s request to stay in town and finish confirming his outstanding nominees. 

Over the last six months, the Senate has moved at a breakneck pace to confirm the president’s nominees all while facing resistance from Senate Democrats. So far, 96 of Trump’s nominees have been confirmed. Still, there are 136 outstanding nominations on the upper chamber’s calendar that haven’t made it over the finish line.

Year in and year out, lawmakers typically escape from the Hill for the entire month of August, either recuperating from months in Washington, D.C., or selling their legislative accomplishments to people back home.

But Trump on Sunday called on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to keep lawmakers in town to finish their work on confirming his slew of outstanding nominees.

‘Hopefully the very talented John Thune, fresh off our many victories over the past two weeks and, indeed, 6 months, will cancel August recess (and long weekends!), in order to get my incredible nominees confirmed,’ Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social. ‘We need them badly!!! DJT’

Thune said he had spoken with the president about the August recess issue, but did not say whether the entire break would be canceled. A senior GOP aide told Fox News Digital that discussions over shortening the August recess were already happening before Trump’s request.

‘We’re thinking about it,’ Thune said. ‘We want to get as many noms through the pipeline as we can. And honestly, it’d be nice to have Democrats who actually would kind of act more according to historical precedents when it comes to this.’

The remaining spots that need to be filled run across nearly every facet of the federal government, including positions in the Defense Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Commerce Department and a slew of ambassadors, among others.

Among the remaining nominees are some familiar faces from the 2024 election and beyond, including Hung Cao, who ran against Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and was nominated as Navy undersecretary; Donald Trump Jr.’s ex-fiancee Kimberly Guilfoyle, who was tapped to be the U.S. ambassador to Greece, and former Rep. Marc Molinaro, R-N.Y., who was nominated to be Federal Transit administrator.

Thune accused Senate Democrats of being obstructionist and noted that so far, not a single nominee has been approved through the fast-track voice vote or unanimous consent processes. Indeed, every nominee has been put to a floor vote. Only Secretary of State Marco Rubio received a near unanimous, 99 to 0, vote.

Earlier this year, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., supported delaying all the president’s nominees who lack unanimous support in the upper chamber, effectively triggering floor votes for each. He also used an arcane Senate procedural move to stall federal prosecutors in committee.

‘This is something that we’re very committed to, and we’re going to be looking at all the options in the next few weeks to try and get as many of those across the finish line as we can,’ Thune said. 

A judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stripping some Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood after Congress and President Donald Trump agreed to partially defund the nonprofit through passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said in her order partially granting a preliminary injunction that the bill unconstitutionally punishes Planned Parenthood member organizations that do not provide abortions. 

The injunction will risk ‘at most minimal harm—financial or otherwise’ to the Trump administration while the lawsuit proceeds, Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote.

The judge’s order appears to apply to some but not all Planned Parenthood facilities. The nonprofit said in a statement that it viewed Talwani’s order as a partial win and remained ‘hopeful’ that the judge would take further judicial action down the line.

‘This isn’t over,’ the organization said. ‘While we’re grateful that the court recognized the harm caused by this law, we’re disappointed that not all members were granted the necessary relief today.’

Talwani’s order arose from a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a massive budget bill that passed Congress this month with no Democrat support. Trump signed the bill into law on July 4.

A provision in the bill stripped Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, which the nonprofit said could force it to close about 200 of its 600 facilities and deprive about half of its customers, more than one million people, of services that do not include abortion.

Planned Parenthood attorneys noted in court filings that Medicaid typically does not cover abortion.

The attorneys argued that the bill would cause cancer and sexually transmitted infections to go undetected, especially for low-income people, and that more unplanned pregnancies would occur because of a lack of contraception access. They said the consequences of losing Medicaid funding ‘will be grave.’

Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys had previously argued in court filings that the purpose of the budget provision was to stop ‘federal subsidies for Big Abortion’ by freezing federal funds for certain Medicaid recipients who provide abortions. Weakening Planned Parenthood has been one of the pro-life movement’s leading priorities since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Talwani granted a temporary restraining order two weeks ago in favor of Planned Parenthood. The judge initially offered no explanation for her decision, a move that led to widespread backlash among Republicans who described it as judicial overreach. Days later, Talwani offered more context in a subsequent order.

The preliminary injunction will partially leave in place the pause on defunding Planned Parenthood indefinitely, but the Trump administration is likely to appeal the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The judge noted that her injunction applied to Planned Parenthood entities that do not provide abortion services or receive less than $800,000 in annual Medicaid reimbursements.

DOJ attorneys had previously argued to the court that blocking a measure that was passed by Congress and signed by the president was an extraordinary move and unjustified.

‘Beyond the futility of the claims on the merits, Planned Parenthood fails to demonstrate imminent irreparable harm to justify an injunction, asserting only classically reparable economic injury and irrelevant potential harm to patients, who are third parties not before this Court,’ DOJ attorneys wrote.