Though Senate Republicans were successful in their mission to pass President Donald Trump’s clawback package, not every member of the conference was on board.

Only two Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, joined with every Senate Democrat to vote against the $9 billion package geared toward clawing back foreign aid and public broadcasting funding.

Senate Republican leaders had hoped that stripping $400 million in cuts to Bush-era international AIDS and HIV prevention funding could win over all the holdouts, both public and private. But the lawmakers who voted against the bill had deeper concerns about the level of transparency during the process and the impact successful rescissions could have on Congress’ power of the purse.  

Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she agreed with rescissions in general and supports them during the appropriations process, but couldn’t get behind the White House’s push because of a lack of clarity from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about exactly what would be cut and how.

She said that ‘the sparse text’ sent to lawmakers included little detail and did not give a specific accounting of programs that would be cut to hit the original $9.4 billion target.

‘For example, there are $2.5 billion in cuts to the Development Assistance account, which covers everything from basic education, to water and sanitation, to food security — but we don’t know how those programs will be affected,’ she said.

Murkowski demanded a return to legislating and appeared to warn that lawmakers were just taking marching orders from the White House rather than doing their own work. 

Both Murkowski and Collins were also concerned about the cuts to public broadcasting, particularly to rural radio stations. Both attempted to make changes to the bill during the vote-a-rama. Collins’ ultimately decided not to bring her amendment, which would have reduced the total amount of cuts in the bill to north of $6 billion, to the floor. However, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., still brought the change for a vote. And Murkowski offered an amendment that would have drastically reduced the cuts to public broadcasting. 

The climactic vote for the bill came hours after tsunami warnings rippled through Alaska, and Murkowski argued that federal warnings were relayed through local public broadcasting. 

‘The tsunami warnings are now thankfully canceled, but the warning to the U.S. Senate remains in effect,’ she said. ‘Today of all days, we should vote down these misguided cuts to public broadcasting.’

Still, both attempts to modify the bill failed to pass muster. 

Their decision to go against the package left some scratching their heads. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., argued that the cuts amounted to less than a tenth of a percent of the federal government’s entire budget.

‘This should be a chip shot, OK? I have faith in [OMB Director] Russ Vought,’ he said. ‘I have faith in the Trump administration. They’re not going to cut things that are important spending.’

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who is leading the bill in the Senate, rebuked the duo’s arguments and said that lawmakers weighing in on the rescissions package was in line with their legislative duties.

‘That’s exactly what we’re doing,’ the Missouri Republican said. ‘I would hope that maybe what this will also do is highlight some of the wasteful spending, so when we get into the appropriations process in the next few months that we would be more keen to be focused on saving people money.’

Trump’s bill, which would cancel unspent congressionally approved funding, would slash just shy of $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS.

Some lawmakers, like Sen. Thom Tillis, who earlier this month voted against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ over cuts to Medicaid funding, understood where the pair were coming from.

The North Carolina Republican told Fox News Digital that Collins, in particular, would be leading negotiations for an end-of-year bipartisan funding deal with Senate Democrats, and to vote in favor of canceling congressionally approved funding could hurt her ability to find a solution to keep the government funded.

‘I don’t think people really understand the value of your word and your consistency and your living up to commitments and how important that is to getting things done,’ Tillis said. ‘And this, I think, that’s what Susan’s looking at, I think Murkowski is as well, and I respect them for that.’

The State Department on Sunday blasted Yemen’s Iran-sponsored Houthi terrorist movement for lethal attacks on cargo ships in the Red Sea and on Israel as new calls emerged for President Donald Trump to support Yemen’s legitimate government to topple the Houthi regime.

Walid Phares, a leading American expert on the Middle East, told Fox News Digital that regarding ‘negotiations with Hamas and the regime in Tehran, in my view, Iran is simply buying time to rearm and resume its regional expansion.’ 

Phares said if the talks fail, there is a need ‘to reassemble a ground force comprised of units loyal to the legitimate Yemeni government (now in exile in Aden), and—crucially—the Southern Transitional Council (STC), whose forces are based in the Aden region and maintain frontlines adjacent to Houthi-controlled territory. Notably, STC forces have achieved the most significant victories against the Khomeinist militias in past years.’ 

Phares, who advised Trump when he was a candidate for president in 2016, continued, saying that ‘The United States should back, fund, and train these southern forces for renewed ground operations along the Red Sea coast, particularly to retake the vital port city of Hodeidah. Simultaneously, northern units loyal to the Yemeni government could advance toward the capital, Sanaa. Allied airpower would provide the necessary cover to enable a southern-northern pincer movement that could collapse the Houthi hold on Yemen and eliminate the threat entirely.’

He argued that ‘This would pave the way for future negotiations—not with Tehran’s proxies—but with a federated, pro-Western Yemeni government independent of Iranian influence. ‘

In May, Trump announced that after a military air campaign against the Houthi movement, saying the Houthis ‘just don’t want to fight…and we will honor that. We will stop the bombings.’

The Houthi terrorists, however, appear to have violated their pledge to Trump to stop attacks in the Red Sea.

Department of Defense spokesman Sean Parnell told Fox News Digital, ‘The DOD remains prepared to respond to any state or non-state actor seeking to broaden or escalate conflict in the region. Secretary Hegseth continues to make clear that, should Iran or its proxies threaten American personnel in the region, the United States will take decisive action to defend our people. We will not discuss future operations.’

Fox News Digital reported on July 7 that Israel exchanged missile fire with Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen on Monday, targeting the group’s ports and other facilities.

Israel’s initial strikes came in reaction to a suspected Houthi attack on a Liberian-flagged ship in the Red Sea. The vessel was targeted with explosives and small arms fire, causing it to take on water and forcing the crew to abandon ship. The Houthis have not yet claimed responsibility for the attack. Israel’s military issued a warning prior to its attack, which targeted ports at Hodeida, Ras Isa and Salif.

‘These ports are used by the Houthi terrorist regime to transfer weapons from the Iranian regime, which are employed to carry out terrorist operations against the state of Israel and its allies,’ the Israeli military said.

The Houthi attacks last week resulted in the sinking of the bulk carrier Magic Seas, resulting in the presumed killings of four people and 11 others who are missing, according to an AP report.

The announcement came as satellite photos show long, trailing oil slicks from where the bulk carrier Eternity C went down, and another when the Houthis sank the bulk carrier Magic Seas.

The Times of Israel reported that both ships were attacked over a week ago by the rebels as part of their campaign targeting vessels over the war in Gaza. The Houthi campaign has upended shipping in the Red Sea, through which $1 trillion of goods usually passes a year.

A spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News Digital, ‘The United States condemns these attacks. These recent attacks have led to the loss of life, injury to sailors, and the sinking of cargo ships.Houthi attacks continue to endanger the lives of seafarers, harm economies across the region, and risk environmental disaster.’

The spokesperson added, ‘Global freedom of navigation and Israel have been under attack by the Houthi rebels for too long. The U.S. supports Israel’s ability to exercise its right to self-defense.’

After the Biden administration de-listed the Houthi movement as a foreign terrorist organization, the Trump administration swiftly restored the terrorist designation in March. 

The official slogan of the Houthi movement (Ansar Allah) reads, ‘Allah is Greater. Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse on the Jews. Victory to Islam.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom and AP contributed to this report.

In recent weeks, some public commentary has accused the Department of Justice of defying court orders and insinuated that Emil Bove’s confirmation will undermine the rule of law. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Department of Justice follows court orders—even when those orders are legally unsound or deeply flawed. And Emil is the most capable and principled lawyer I have ever known. His legal acumen is extraordinary, and his moral clarity is above reproach. The Senate should swiftly confirm him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

This administration has repeatedly been targeted with sweeping, overreaching injunctions, often issued by ideologically aligned judges in defiance of settled law—including orders of the Supreme Court. Time and again, these rulings have been reversed on appeal, and easily so.  The pattern is familiar by now: aggressive district court orders grab headlines, only to be walked back when subjected to the slightest judicial scrutiny. 

Despite this consistent trend, the persistent narrative in the media and in the legal community is that it is the Department of Justice that ignores courts. That is plainly wrong. Disagreements over interpretation do not constitute defiance, any more than does filing an appeal. And, histrionics aside, good-faith disputes over timing and implementation of court orders do not represent insubordination—especially given the very difficult and novel problems presented by implementing the unprecedentedly overbroad and vague court orders imposed on this administration. The Department of Justice invariably complies with court orders no matter how much it disagrees with the underlying reasoning or the egregiousness of the judicial error. The appellate process has always been the means of securing relief from an erroneous order, and it still is.

You will search in vain for any critique of district judges who abuse their power and issue baseless injunctions in the editorial pages of The New York Times, CNN, or even the WSJ—even where those injunctions are reversed or stayed on appeal. 

The same commentators who foment anger over the Department of Justice’s good-faith efforts to comply with legally unsound court orders are silent when Article III judges overreach and issue rulings that interfere with the President’s authority and undermine the rule of law.

That brings me to my friend and colleague, Emil. The dedicated lawyers of the Department of Justice work tirelessly to comply with court orders and to promote the rule of law. There is no finer example of that dedication than Emil. 

In a thankless job, Emil expects excellence and courage from every lawyer in the Department, no matter the opposition faced. He pushes our dedicated lawyers to meet the moment and the mission of defending this administration against those who seek to block President Donald Trump from fulfilling his promises to the American people. And he consistently requires the highest level of integrity from all Department employees. 

Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the media has recently amplified slanderous attacks on Emil’s character based on a foundation of selective leaks, misleading reporting, and falsehoods. I am taking this opportunity to clear up a few of those misconceptions.

First, as to the termination of the leaker, it was Attorney General Pam Bondi and I who decided to terminate his employment. It was not Emil’s decision. And contrary to media spin, the employee was terminated for failing to defend his client—the United States of America—in open court; he was not dismissed for admitting an error in court. 

In his courtroom statements, the leaker distanced himself from the Department’s position and attempted to undermine the credibility of his own client. That is not zealous representation. That is an unethical dereliction of duty, which no client should be required to countenance.  

Moreover, Emil has never encouraged lawyers or anyone else to act in defiance of a court order. There was no order to violate at the time of the alleged statements. No injunctive relief had been granted—oral or written. No directive was issued to reverse any executive action. These facts are not in dispute, not even by the leaker. And most critically, after Judge Boasberg did issue an order in the relevant case, the Department fastidiously complied. That is not speculation. That is the explicit position taken by the leaker himself, who signed the government’s brief affirming the United States’ compliance on March 25, 2025. 

The same kind of distortions are being used to attack the Department’s lawful dismissal of the irreparably flawed case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. That decision was reviewed and approved by Department leadership and grounded in sound legal judgment. The judge agreed, granting the government’s motion to dismiss. 

That should end the conversation. But for those who insist on rehashing internal dissent and resignations, it should be obvious that disagreements within the Department do not render a decision unlawful or unethical. To the contrary, Emil’s integrity was displayed when he himself argued the case in favor of dismissal, even as his former colleagues in SDNY retreated. 

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Emil attested what those lucky enough to work with him already know to be true: he believes deeply in the rule of law, and in the importance of court orders. And what he has done time and again over the course of his career is bring rigor, integrity, and decency to his work. 

Emil has the backbone for hard cases, the restraint to wield judicial authority judiciously, and the intellect to master complexity. He will decide cases fairly. He will apply the law as written. He will not bend to political pressure. And that is exactly the kind of judge our country needs.

Emil is a dedicated public servant, an exemplary lawyer, and a person of quiet strength and deep character. 

The Senate should reject the smear campaign and vote to confirm him to the Third Circuit. Justice demands nothing less. 

This week, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will once again be asked to draw the line between what is permissible and impermissible for a Trump nominee, when they decide whether Emil Bove’s nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should receive a full Senate vote.

Confirming Bove would mean redrawing that line to ignore serious concerns about his truthfulness under oath. I was in the room when he made statements that my colleagues and I understood as threats—meant to pressure us into signing a motion to dismiss the federal criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Mr. Bove has since denied making any such statements in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but those denials do not reflect what actually took place.

In February of this year, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered prosecutors in my former office, the Public Integrity Section, to dismiss the bribery case against Mayor Adams. Bove openly admitted in a memorandum that the dismissal was unrelated to the facts and the law. This led to the resignation of five Public Integrity Section prosecutors, including me, to go along with prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York, who also refused the order and resigned. 

The Public Integrity Section has since been reduced to less than five prosecutors, meaning the only component of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division dedicated to prosecuting domestic public corruption exists almost entirely in name only today. 

In his written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bove flatly denied that he ever so much as suggested a threat to me and my colleagues, explaining that during the meeting with our section, ‘[i]t was never my intention to coerce, pressure, or induce an DOJ attorney – through adverse employment actions, threats, rewards, or otherwise – to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams.’ But by the time of that meeting, it’s undisputed that he had already accepted the forced resignation of the U.S. Attorney in New York, put line prosecutors from that office on administrative leave for not signing the motion, and forced the entirety of the Public Integrity Section’s management to resign when it refused to carry out his order. And how does his denial square with his admission that he generally recalls ‘[telling us] he didn’t want to get anyone in trouble … so he didn’t want to know who was opposed to signing the motion’? 

Bove’s nomination would mark a troubling precedent: confirming a nominee who, in my view, gave testimony that was so obviously misleading to the committee and the American public. That’s what makes this so profoundly disturbing. Previous contested judicial confirmation hearings have involved accusations where one nomination’s credibility was pitted against that of an accuser, or judicial credentials were questioned. But never before has a nominee testified in such a demonstrably brazen manner with a wink and nod to the Republican committee members. 

There is only one realistic hope to prevent Bove’s nomination from moving forwardto a full floor vote, and it rests on the shoulders of Sen. Thom Tillis. The North Carolina Republican, a staunch conservative, has previously demonstrated political courage by speaking for his principles, not his party, on many issues. He believes in ‘calling the balls and strikes.’ 

Sen. Tillis prevented the confirmation of Edward Martin, the woefully unqualified nominee for U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, who used his office to pen threatening, typo-ridden letters to Democratic members of Congress, defense attorneys, and Georgetown University. Bove poses a far graver threat, in that his would be a lifetime tenure to a judicial branch he believes should not be a check on the president’s power.

Moreover, Trump’s latest tussle with Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society further reveals that he is no longer looking for jurists who are conservatives, but rather, loyalists. So, who would be better to elevate from a federal circuit court to the Supreme Court if Justices Thomas or Alito decided to retire before 2028 than Bove? 

On the Sunday night before I sent my resignation letter to Attorney General Bondi (Bove was cc-ed) on Monday, I was clearing out my belongings from my office when I noticed that someone had prominently placed a plaque on our reception desk. It quoted Abraham Lincoln: ‘If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.’ 

Bove served as line prosecutor earlier in his career – he knows the prosecutor’s code. But, in my experience, it appears that once he had a whiff of power, Bove was willing to abuse it. With his smug testimony, Bove has essentially called the Republicans’ bluff, believing that Sen. Tillis and the others won’t have the courage to vote against him.

Citizens of all political persuasions should hope that Sen. Tillis shows the courage and character that Bove lacks by voting no on his confirmation.

President Donald Trump launched a blistering attack on Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Tuesday morning, amplifying 2024 claims that Schiff committed mortgage fraud by lying about his primary residence for over a decade, which the senator denies.

Trump, in a Truth Social post, labeled Schiff a ‘scam artist’ and claimed he obtained a mortgage for a residence in Maryland in 2009 but only designated it as a second home in 2020 as part of a ruse to snag better rates and terms from the company, which has been in federal conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis.

The president said Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Division had uncovered the alleged fraud. Schiff obtained the Maryland property in 2009 while he was a congressman and became a senator in January. Schiff called the accusations ‘baseless.’

‘I have always suspected Shifty Adam Schiff was a scam artist. And now I learn that Fannie Mae’s Financial Crimes Division have concluded that Adam Schiff has engaged in a sustained pattern of possible Mortgage Fraud,’ Trump wrote.

‘Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in MARYLAND to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America, when he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA because he was a Congressman from CALIFORNIA. I always knew Adam Schiff was a Crook. The FRAUD began with the refinance of his Maryland property on February 6, 2009, and continued through multiple transactions until the Maryland property was correctly designated as a second home on October 13, 2020.’

‘Mortgage Fraud is very serious, and CROOKED Adam Schiff (now a Senator) needs to be brought to justice.’

Trump did not provide any evidence of the alleged fraud. 

When asked about the accusations later on Tuesday, Trump appeared to soften on the specific accusation. 

‘I don’t know about the individual charge, if that even happened, but Adam Schiff is a serious lowlife,’ Trump said.

‘When you said that you want Adam Schiff brought to justice, what does that mean?’ Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked, to which Trump said: ‘I’d love to see him brought to justice.’

Schiff was not barred from listing the Maryland home as his primary residence during his term in Congress, since the Constitution only requires that he be an ‘inhabitant’ of California at the time of his election, not throughout his entire service.

However, Schiff cited two residences, one in California and one in Maryland, as his ‘principal residence’ on multiple mortgage and election forms dating back to 2003, Just the News reported in October. 

In at least three cases — in 2009, 2011 and 2013 — Schiff refinanced his Maryland home and declared it his ‘principal residence,’ while also listing his Burbank, California condo as his primary residence in separate financing documents, the outlet reported. He then changed the notations on his Maryland mortgage to be a secondary residence.

The pattern was first detected by Christine Bish, a Sacramento-based real estate investigator who ran for Congress as a Republican last year. She filed an ethics complaint against Schiff in Congress.

Schiff said Trump’s comments were the latest attempt at political retaliation against his perceived enemies and said it would not distract from ‘his Epstein files problem.’

‘Since I led his first impeachment, Trump has repeatedly called for me to be arrested for treason,’ Schiff wrote on X. ‘So in a way, I guess this is a bit of a letdown. And this baseless attempt at political retribution won’t stop me from holding him accountable. Not by a long shot.’

A spokesperson for Schiff said that the accusations have been debunked.

‘The lenders who provided the mortgages for both homes were well aware of then-Representative Schiff’s Congressional service and of his intended year-round use of both homes, neither of which were vacation homes,’ the spokesperson told Fox News Digital. ‘He has always been completely transparent about this.’

The spokesperson did not say whether the Maryland home was designated as a primary residence. Fannie Mae said it would not be commenting on the claims. 

Trump and Schiff have clashed many times since Trump first became president. 

As ranking member and later chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff became the public face of the congressional probe into the now-debunked theory that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Schiff repeatedly suggested there was ‘ample evidence’ of collusion, even when the Mueller report later stated it did not establish a criminal conspiracy. Trump and his Republican allies repeatedly accused Schiff of leaking classified information during the investigation.

Schiff also served as the lead House impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial, stemming from the president’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy while Schiff was also a member of the House Select Committee on Jan. 6, which investigated Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol. Schiff voted to impeach Trump both times. 

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., issued a subpoena to have former President Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff appear before the committee on Friday to provide testimony regarding her former boss’s mental state while serving in the Oval Office.

Comer, who leads the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent interview requests to four key Biden White House aides, including former assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff Annie Tomasini.

The former assistant’s voluntary appearance was requested on May 22, 2025, and it was scheduled for her to appear before the committee on July 18, or this Friday.

For unknown reasons, though, Tomasini’s counsel requested Comer issue a subpoena to compel her to appear.

Comer broke down the events leading up to the subpoena in his letter to Tomasini, before directing her to the bottom of the letter for the legal request.

‘The Committee seeks information about your assessment of and relationship with former President Biden to explore whether the time has come for Congress to revisit potential legislation to address the oversight of presidents’ fitness to serve pursuant to its authority under Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or to propose changes to the Twenty-Fifth Amendment itself,’ Comer wrote in the subpoena.

‘The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate ‘any matter’ at ‘any time’ under House Rule X,’ he continued. ‘Further, House Rule XI clause 2(m)(1)(B) grants Committees of the House of Representatives the authority ‘to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary.’’

Comer added that should Tomasini have any questions, she should call the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Majority staff.

The chair previously told Fox News that these ‘unelected bureaucrats’ had an overwhelming influence over Biden and were possibly serving as ‘de facto’ presidents in his stead.’

Along with Tomasini, the committee sent interview requests to former director of the Domestic Policy Council Neera Tanden, former senior adviser to the first lady Anthony Bernal and former deputy director of Oval Office operations Ashley Williams.

Bernal was also subpoenaed after refusing to voluntarily appear before the committee.

Williams and Tanden have already been interviewed by committee members.

The GOP effort to uncover the truth of what went on behind closed doors during the Biden administration comes shortly after the release of ‘Original Sin’ by CNN host Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, which claims that the Biden White House was going all out trying to control the perception of the aging president’s failing health. The book exposes the cover-up of Biden’s decline and his decision to run for re-election.

Tapper said during an interview with Piers Morgan last month that what Biden’s aides did to hide his condition from the public could be ‘even worse’ than the Watergate scandal during Richard Nixon’s presidency. 

‘It is a scandal. It is without question, and maybe even worse than Watergate in some ways,’ Tapper said. ‘The only reason we invoke Watergate is just to make clear like, it’s not Watergate — this is an entirely separate scandal, maybe even worse.’

In his letters, Comer said that while the committee has been investigating the cover-up for nearly a year, ‘newfound details regarding President Biden’s obvious decline demand renewed scrutiny of White House personnel actions and knowledge of relevant information over the course of the prior administration.’

Comer said the committee is seeking ‘to understand who made key decisions and exercised the powers of the executive branch during the Biden Administration.’

Fox News Digital’s Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are seizing on Republican fractures over the Jeffrey Epstein case, demanding a public hearing on the issue.

A letter from Democrats states, ‘To that end, we request that the Committee invite — and, if necessary, subpoena — Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino to testify publicly about the Trump Administration’s review of the Epstein matter, including the conclusions set forth in the undated and unsigned Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI memo providing that ‘no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

They made the request to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a close ally of President Donald Trump’s.

The letter, led by Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is also signed by progressives like Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas.

The memo they referenced, first reported earlier this week, said the late pedophile died by suicide. It also said there is no list of clients whom Epstein may have procured for exploitation by third parties. 

It’s ignited a firestorm within the GOP, with far-right figures going after the attorney general for what they see as backpedaling on her promise to deliver full transparency on the Epstein files.

Democrats, meanwhile, have appeared to put their concerns about fanning the flames of what the left has long seen as a conspiracy theory aside to use the Epstein case as a political cudgel to further divide Republicans.

Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino reportedly considered quitting his federal role over how the Epstein case was handled.

Trump has been among Bondi’s most ardent defenders in the fallout and has publicly urged his base to move on from the discord.

The letter Tuesday from Democrats pointed out that Trump, Bongino and FBI Director Kash Patel all made public statements regarding Epstein before taking power.

‘President Trump and his top appointees at the DOJ and FBI have spent years advancing theories that ‘the Deep State’ has been suppressing the true magnitude of the child sex trafficking and abuse ring created by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates,’ the Democrats said. 

‘These claims have sunk deep into the public consciousness, due in no small part to President Trump, Mr. Patel, Mr. Bongino, and others’ continued authoritative hyping of ‘Epstein files’ conspiracy theories to energize President Trump’s supporters.’

They warned ‘the public will turn to conspiracy theories to fill the void of credible information’ if ‘facts and evidence’ were not made clear.

‘The Trump DOJ and FBI’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and President Trump’s suddenly shifting positions, have not restored anyone’s trust in the government but have rather raised profound new questions about their own conduct while increasing public paranoia related to the investigation,’ the letter said.

‘We must submit to public scrutiny President Trump’s and MAGA’s longstanding claims about the ‘Epstein files,’ new questions as to whether President Trump himself has something to hide, whether he is keeping damaging information secret to protect other individuals or to maintain future blackmail leverage over public and private actors or, perhaps the simplest explanation, whether President Trump and his Administration magnified and disseminated groundless Epstein conspiracy theories for purposes of political gain which they are now desperately trying to disavow and dispel.’

Trump has denied any allegations of impropriety related to Epstein.

Fox News Digital reached out to Jordan’s office for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Senate Republicans agreed to make changes to President Donald Trump’s multi-billion-dollar clawback package to help win over holdouts, but by shrinking the overall size of the cuts in the process.

Lawmakers left a meeting with Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on Tuesday afternoon and announced that about $400 million in proposed cuts to a global AIDS and HIV prevention program would be stripped from the legislation, dropping the total clawbacks in the president’s rescission package to $9 billion.

The original proposed slashes to the Bush-era President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) rattled some Senate Republicans, who warned publicly and privately that they would not support the package if the cuts remained.

But lawmakers agreed to carve out the spending cuts with an amendment, and Senate leadership is hopeful that the change will corral enough holdouts to support the bill during a test vote later Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., can only afford to lose three Republicans during the partisan process.

Thune said after the meeting that there was ‘a lot of interest among our members’ in seeing the PEPFAR cuts removed, and expressed hope that if lawmakers in the upper chamber could advance the bill, then House Republicans would be open to the modification.

The top Senate Republican is eyeing the first test vote on the bill later on Tuesday evening, with another vote to kick off 10 hours of debate shortly after.

The changes to PEPFAR also come after Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., got guarantees that roughly $10 million would go toward rural radio stations on reservations, which was his primary concern, with cuts now redirected toward the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS.

However, whether the changes are enough to sway key holdouts, like Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, remains to be seen.

A senior administration official pushed back against the narrative surrounding the proposed PEPFAR cuts and beyond, telling Fox News Digital that slashes already made to international aid were geared toward limited program cuts targeted at ‘LGBTQ education and capacity building — not core life-saving care.’

‘We’re already working with countries and other partners to ensure that they shoulder a greater share of the burden where they can,’ the official said. ‘We continue to make targeted investments in mother-to-child prevention, and other key areas of focus.’

Sen. Eric Schmitt, who has acted as a bridge between the White House and Senate on the rescission package, said that the administration supported the change, but was still unsure if there were enough votes to get the package across the line.  

‘I’m not in the prediction business, but we’re hopeful we’ll move forward here,’ the Missouri Republican said.

Vought argued that it was still ‘substantially the same package,’ and noted that the Senate had to work its will on the bill.

Lawmakers have until Friday before the stroke of midnight to get the bill on the president’s desk, or else the holds that the White House has on the billions in funding will end.

‘This is multi-year funding, it has to flow,’ Vought said. ‘If we’re outside of the 45-day window, we have to remove our hold on the money. So we will not implement the cuts if this is if this vote doesn’t go our way.’

A new ProPublica report accused Microsoft of allowing China-based engineers to assist with Pentagon cloud systems with inadequate guardrails in an effort to scale up its government contracting business, raising espionage concerns from national security experts. 

The report cited current and former employees and government contractors who worked on a cloud computing program deployed by Microsoft in 2016 that would allow the tech giant to sell its cloud services to the government, known as a ‘digital escort’ framework. 

The security measure, meant to meet federal contracting regulations, was effectively a program that included a ‘digital escort’ chaperone for global cybersecurity officials, such as those based in China, so they can work on agency computing systems. 

Defense Department guidelines require that people handling sensitive data be U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

According to sources who spoke to ProPublica, including some who had intimate familiarity with the hiring process for the $18-per-hour ‘digital escort’ position, the tech employees being hired to do the supervising lacked the adequate tech expertise to prevent a rogue Chinese employee from hacking the system or turning over classified information to the CCP. 

The sources elaborated that the escorts, often former military personnel, were hired for their security clearances more than their technical abilities and often lacked the skills to evaluate code being used by the engineers they were supervising.

In China, people are governed by sweeping laws compelling government cooperation with data collection efforts.  

‘If ProPublica’s report turns out to be true, Microsoft has created a national embarrassment that endangers our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Heads should roll, those responsible should go to prison and Congress should hold extensive investigations to uncover the full extent of potential compromise,’ said Michael Lucci, the CEO and founder of State Armor Action, a conservative group with a mission to develop and enact state-level solutions to global security threats. 

‘Microsoft or any vendor providing China with access to Pentagon secrets verges on treasonous behavior and should be treated as such.’

‘This is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse and arming the chickens with sticks in case the fox gets mad,’ Michael Sobolik, a Hudson Institute foreign policy senior fellow, added. ‘It beggars belief.’

Microsoft uses its escort system to handle sensitive government information that falls below ‘classified,’ which includes ‘data that involves the protection of life and financial ruin,’ ProPublica reported. At the Defense Department, the data is categorized as ‘Impact Level’ four and five, which ProPublica reported includes materials directly supporting military operations.

A Microsoft spokesperson defended the company’s ‘digital escort’ model, saying all personnel and contractors with privileged access must pass federally approved background checks. 

‘For some technical requests, Microsoft engages our team of global subject matter experts to provide support through authorized U.S. personnel, consistent with U.S. government requirements and processes,’ the spokesperson added. ‘In these instances, global support personnel have no direct access to customer data or customer systems.’

The Defense Information Systems Agency’s (DISA) public information office was initially unaware of the program when ProPublica began asking questions about it, but it eventually followed up to point out that ‘digital escorts’ are used ‘in select unclassified environments’ at the Defense Department for ‘advanced problem diagnosis and resolution from industry subject matter experts.’ 

Fox News Digital reached out to the DISA and DOD but did not immediately receive a response.

In 2023, Chinese hackers infiltrated Microsoft’s cloud servers and stole data belonging to senior U.S. government officials, including data and emails from the commerce secretary, the U.S. ambassador to China and others involved in national security work. Hackers were able to access tens of thousands of emails from the Defense Department. 

A postmortem from the federal Cyber Safety Review Board, which has since been disbanded, cited Microsoft security failures that allowed hackers to infiltrate the cloud. However, the after-incident report did not include any links to the ‘digital escort’ program, according to ProPublica.

Microsoft said in response to the recent ProPublica report that it considers ‘anyone’ with access to sensitive government systems, no matter their location or role, a potential risk.

‘We establish layers of mitigation at the platform level with security and monitoring controls to detect and prevent threats. This includes approval workflows for system changes and automated code reviews to quickly detect and prevent the introduction of vulnerabilities,’ a company spokesperson told Fox News Digital. 

The spokesperson added that Microsoft adheres to the federal security requirements outlined by the Defense Department and the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, which was established in 2011 to address the risks associated with moving from entirely government-controlled servers, to cloud-based computing.  

‘This production system support model is approved and regularly audited by the U.S. government,’ the spokesperson concluded.

Still, if the ProPublica allegations are true, Lucci says the federal government should cease its work with Microsoft.

‘If these [ProPublica] allegations are credible, the federal government should never again rely on Microsoft to protect the data that keeps our men and women in uniform safe, especially given Microsoft’s extensive record of being compromised by the CCP,’ Lucci said Monday. ‘Our military cannot operate in security and secrecy if a vendor repeatedly and intentionally invites the enemy into the camp.’