House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., is accusing Democrats of being hypocritical in their opposition to Republicans’ latest election integrity bill.

The No. 3 House Republican ripped the rival party after nearly all of them voted against the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act last week, specifically over its provision mandating federally accepted photo identification at the polls. It’s also sometimes referred to as the ‘SAVE Act.’

‘These guys are doing the same old broken record about voter suppression,’ Emmer told Fox News Digital. ‘Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs at the airport? Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs when you check out a book at the library?’

Emmer pointed out that a photo ID was required for attendees to watch former Vice President Kamala Harris accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for the White House in Chicago last year.

‘By the way, if they think it’s voter suppression, why do they require photo IDs at the Democrat National Convention to get in?’ Emmer said.

‘I mean, I think Americans are so much smarter than these people can understand, can let themselves understand,’ he said.

The SAVE America Act passed the House on Wednesday with support from all Republicans — an increasingly rare sight in the chamber — and just one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

A previous iteration of the bill, just called the SAVE Act, passed the House in April of last year with support from four House Democrats.

Whereas the SAVE Act would have created a new federal proof-of-citizenship mandate in the voter registration process and imposed requirements for states to keep their rolls clear of ineligible voters, the updated bill would also require photo ID to vote in any federal election.

That photo ID would also have to denote proof-of-citizenship, according to the legislative text.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have both panned the bill, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries calling it ‘voter suppression’ and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., dismissing it as ‘a modern-day Jim Crow.’

Jeffries also specifically took issue with a provision that would enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to initiate removal proceedings if an illegal immigrant was found on a state’s voter rolls, arguing DHS would weaponize the information.

But voter ID, at least, has proven to be a popular standard in U.S. elections across multiple public polls.

A Pew Research Center poll released in August 2025 showed a whopping 83% of people supported government-issued photo ID requirements for showing up to vote, compared to just 16% of people who disapproved of it.

A Gallup poll from October 2024 showed 84% of people supported photo ID for voting in federal elections.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is ready to put Senate Democrats to the test on voter ID legislation.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has earned the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, including Thune, which is enough to break through a key procedural hurdle.

Whether it can pass from the Senate to President Donald Trump’s desk is, for now, an unlikely scenario if lawmakers take the traditional path in the upper chamber. Still, Thune wants to put Democrats on the spot as midterm elections creep closer.

‘We will have a vote,’ Thune told Fox News Digital.

His comments came as he crisscrossed his home state of South Dakota, where he and Republicans in their respective states are out selling their legislative achievements as primary season fast approaches.

Thune viewed the opportunity of a floor vote as a way to have Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus explain to voters why they would block a legislative push to federally enshrine voter ID and proof of citizenship to register to vote.

‘We will make sure that everybody’s on the record, and if they want to be against ensuring that only American citizens vote in our elections, they can defend that when they have to go out and campaign against Republicans this fall,’ Thune said.

But the political makeup of the Senate will prove a tricky path to navigate if Republicans want to pass the bill.

Though the majority of the Senate GOP backs the bill, without at least a handful of Senate Democrats joining them, it is destined to fall victim to the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

And Schumer has time and again made clear that he and the majority of Senate Democrats view the legislation, which passed the House last week, as a tool of voter suppression that would unduly harm poorer Americans and minority groups.

So Senate Republicans are looking at their options.

One, which Thune already threw cold water on, is nuking the Senate filibuster. The other is turning to the talking, or standing, filibuster. It’s the physical precursor to the current filibuster that requires hours upon hours of debate over a bill.

Some fear that taking that path could paralyze the Senate floor. Thune acknowledged that concern, having previously made it himself, but noted another wrinkle.

‘A lot of people focus on unlimited debate, and yes, it is something that could drag on for weeks or literally, for that matter, months,’ Thune said. ‘But it’s also unlimited amendments, meaning that every amendment — there’s no rules — so every amendment will be 51 votes.’

He argued that there are several politically challenging amendments that could hit the floor that would put members in tough reelections in a hard spot and possibly cause them to pass, which ‘could also be very detrimental to the bill in the end.’

Thune didn’t shut down the idea of turning to the talking filibuster, especially if it ended in lawmakers being able to actually pass the SAVE America Act. But in the Senate, outcomes are rarely guaranteed on politically divisive legislation.

‘I think that, you know, this obviously is a mechanism of trying to pursue an outcome, but I don’t know that, in the end, it’ll get you the outcome you want,’ Thune said. ‘And there could be a lot of ancillary damage along the way.’

Senate Republicans now have enough support within their conference to pass Trump-backed voter ID legislation, but a major hurdle remains.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has secured the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, following a pressure campaign by the White House and a cohort of Senate conservatives over the past several weeks.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has led the charge in the upper chamber, ramping up his efforts last week as the bill moved through the House.

Lee told Fox News Digital that he was ‘ecstatic’ about the progress made in shoring up support for the legislation and hoped the Senate would move as quickly as possible to consider it. 

‘I would love to see us turn to it next week, perhaps the day after the State of the Union address,’ Lee said. ‘I think that would be good timing. But I think this needs to get done sooner rather than later.’

That multifaceted campaign — both on social media and behind closed doors in the Senate — proved successful, drawing support from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and several others.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th senator to back the bill. That gives Republicans the internal support they need to advance the legislation procedurally, but only if they turn to the standing, or talking, filibuster.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., for a weeklong break last week, Lee and other supporters, including Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., pitched the voter ID proposal and potential pathways to pass it to colleagues.

‘We had some good senators stand up and say, ‘No, we got to fight for this,’’ Johnson told Fox News Digital. ‘I’m with them. We need to fight for this.’

Still, the effort faces heavy resistance from Senate Democrats, who are nearly unified in their opposition.

The only potential outlier is Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has pushed back against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., characterization of the bill as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ but has not said whether he would ultimately support the SAVE America Act.

Despite that possibility, Schumer and most of his caucus plan to block the legislation.

‘We will not let it pass in the Senate,’ Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. ‘We are fighting it tooth and nail.’

Not every Senate Republican is onboard, either. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has announced she will vote against the measure, while Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have not signed on as co-sponsors.

One option to bypass Democratic opposition would be nuking the filibuster and its 60-vote threshold — a move some congressional Republicans argue has effectively become a ‘zombie filibuster,’ since legislation can be blocked simply by withholding votes rather than holding the floor.

Despite previous pressure from President Donald Trump to eliminate the filibuster, the move does not have the votes among Republicans to succeed — a point Thune underscored last week.

‘There aren’t anywhere close to the votes — not even close — to nuking the filibuster,’ Thune said.

That leaves a return to the standing, or talking, filibuster — the precursor to today’s procedural hurdle. Under that approach, Senate Democrats would be required to hold the floor and publicly debate their opposition, as senators did for decades before the modern filibuster became standard practice.

The idea appears to be gaining traction among some Republicans, though critics warn it could effectively paralyze the upper chamber for days, weeks or even months, depending on Democrats’ resolve.

Lee said that many senators he’s spoken with are open to the idea, and that those who were reluctant didn’t believe it wouldn’t work. 

‘I understand why people might have questions about a procedure that we’re not familiar with,’ Lee said. ‘It doesn’t mean we don’t have to do it, because we do.’

Meanwhile, Trump has suggested he could take matters into his own hands if Congress cannot pass the SAVE America Act.

In a Truth Social post last week, Trump called the legislation a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’

‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW! If we can’t get it through Congress, there are legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted,’ Trump wrote. ‘I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’

The Senate inched closer to striking a compromise on a Homeland Security (DHS) funding deal as the partial government shutdown entered its fourth day Tuesday.

Whether Senate Democrats and the White House can reach a deal this week while lawmakers are out of town remains an open question.

Negotiations between the Trump administration and Senate Democrats were seemingly at an impasse through much of Monday after little activity over the weekend. The White House provided a counteroffer to Democrats’ list of demands midway through last week, which they summarily rejected and, in turn, blocked attempts to fund DHS.

But that changed when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., office announced that Senate Democrats had sent their counterproposal to the White House late Monday night. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was wary of whether Schumer and his caucus would actually put forth a response, but remained hopeful that negotiations would continue. 

‘We’ll see if they are at all serious about actually getting a solution to this, or whether they just want to play political games with these really important agencies,’ Thune told Fox News Digital. 

He also noted that lawmakers went through the same exercise last year when Senate Democrats slow-walked negotiations during the 43-day shutdown.  

‘It’s wrong, in my view, for Democrats to use these folks as collateral in yet another harmful government shutdown,’ Thune said.

The administration wants to keep the dialogue going, a White House official told Fox News Digital.

‘The Trump administration remains interested in having good-faith conversations with Democrats,’ the White House official said.

The official noted that Senate Democrats’ refusal to extend DHS funding is affecting several key functions under the agency’s umbrella, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.

‘President Trump has been clear — he wants the government open,’ the official said.

The partial government shutdown, which went into effect over the weekend, stems from Schumer and Senate Democrats’ demands for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE operations are unlikely to be significantly affected by the lapse in DHS funding, as legislation backed by President Donald Trump allocates billions of dollars to immigration enforcement.

Both sides remain at odds over how far those changes should go. Senate Republicans have signaled willingness to cede some ground but have drawn a red line on certain demands, such as requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants or prohibiting them from wearing face coverings during enforcement actions.

Senate Democrats, however, describe their 10 demands as straightforward reforms designed to ensure federal immigration agents adhere to standards similar to those governing local and state police.

‘There’s not much we need to figure out,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital. ‘Either you think ICE agents are special, and they get to own our streets with no accountability, or that ICE agents should follow the same rules as everyone else — that’s all Democrats are asking for.’

The State Department’s allegation that China conducted a yield-producing nuclear test in 2020 is reigniting debate in Washington over whether the United States can continue its decades-long moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. 

U.S. officials warned that Beijing may be preparing tests in the ‘hundreds of tons’ range — a scale that underscores China’s accelerating nuclear modernization and complicates efforts to draw Beijing into arms control talks.

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said recently that the United States has evidence China conducted an explosive nuclear test at its Lop Nur site.

‘I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,’ DiNanno said during remarks at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.

He added that ‘China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020.’

DiNanno also accused Beijing of using ‘decoupling’ — detonating devices in ways that dampen seismic signals — to ‘hide its activities from the world.’

China’s foreign ministry has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of politicizing nuclear issues and reiterating that Beijing maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.

But the accusation has sharpened questions about verification, deterrence and whether the U.S. stockpile stewardship program — which relies on advanced simulations rather than live detonations — remains sufficient in an era of renewed great-power nuclear competition.

Why small nuclear tests are hard to detect

Detecting small underground nuclear tests has long been one of the thorniest problems in arms control.

Unlike the massive atmospheric detonations of the Cold War, modern nuclear tests are conducted deep underground. If a country uses so-called ‘decoupling’ techniques — detonating a device inside a large underground cavity to muffle the seismic shock — the resulting signal can be significantly reduced, making it harder to distinguish from natural seismic activity.

That vulnerability has been debated for decades in discussions over the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which China signed but never ratified. Even a relatively small underground detonation can provide valuable weapons data while remaining difficult to detect.

‘If you detonate a device inside a large underground cavity, you can significantly attenuate the seismic signature,’ said Chuck DeVore, chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former Pentagon official. ‘That makes it much harder to detect with confidence.’

Are simulations enough?

China signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996 but has not ratified it, and the treaty has never entered into force. It has maintained a voluntary testing moratorium — a commitment that a yield-producing detonation would contradict.

As China expands its nuclear arsenal and major arms control frameworks falter, the Cold War principle of ‘trust but verify’ is under growing strain.

‘The arms control community should feel thoroughly discredited at this point,’ DeVore said, arguing that policymakers should not assume Western restraint will be reciprocated by Beijing.

For decades, the U.S. has relied on the Stockpile Stewardship Program — advanced computer modeling and simulations — to ensure its weapons remain reliable without explosive testing. DeVore warned that this approach may no longer be sufficient if competitors are conducting live detonations.

‘The question presupposes that we only live in a technical world,’ he told Fox News, arguing that relying solely on simulations while rivals ‘cheat at every treaty they’ve ever signed’ risks leaving the United States behind.

DeVore also pointed to what he described as a growing institutional challenge.

‘Virtually everyone who had direct experience with live testing is now retired,’ he said. ‘Rebuilding that expertise would take years.’

But not all nuclear experts agree that resuming testing is the answer.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, cautioned that a return to live detonations would be far more complex and costly than critics of the current system suggest.

‘Yield testing isn’t a magic switch,’ Sokolski said. ‘If you want meaningful reliability data, you don’t do one test — you do many.’

He noted that the United States conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests during the Cold War, building a deep database that now underpins the program. Restarting that process, he argued, would likely require years of preparation and significant funding before yielding strategic benefits.

‘The debate isn’t pro-nuclear weapon versus anti-nuclear weapon,’ Sokolski said. ‘It’s about what’s technically necessary and what’s economical.’

A debate inside the weapons complex

Sokolski said the disagreement extends even within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

‘Certainly at one of our major labs that likes using calculations — that’s Livermore — they would say you’re home,’ he said, referring to confidence in advanced simulations and hydrodynamic modeling.

Others place greater weight on empirical validation and preserving the option of live testing.

The dispute, he said, is not ideological but technical — centered on confidence levels, cost and long-term strategic planning.

Allies and the credibility question

The implications extend beyond Washington and Beijing. 

Sokolski warned that the credibility of ‘extended deterrence’ — the U.S. commitment to defend allies under its nuclear umbrella — could come under strain if doubts grow about American resolve or capability.

‘Do they think you’re going to come to their defense?’ Sokolski said. ‘If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how reliable your weapons are, extended deterrence isn’t going to work very well.’

Allies such as Japan and South Korea long have relied on U.S. nuclear guarantees rather than pursuing independent arsenals. Any perception that the balance is shifting could complicate regional stability and long-standing nonproliferation efforts.

The policy crossroads

For now, U.S. lab directors continue to certify that the American arsenal remains safe, secure and reliable without explosive testing. But Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said sustained testing by competitors — particularly absent transparency — could alter that calculus.

‘If Russia and China continue their nuclear testing activities without providing some sort of transparency, then the technical community might make a different assessment,’ she said.

The debate confronting U.S. policymakers is not simply whether to test, but under what conditions testing would meaningfully strengthen deterrence rather than accelerate competition.

Trump previously has suggested the U.S. should ensure testing ‘on an equal basis’ with competitors, though his administration has not formally announced a policy shift.

Trump in October 2025 suggested the U.S. should consider resuming nuclear weapons testing ‘on an equal basis’ with other powers, and at one point said that if others were testing, ‘I guess we have to test.’ 

The president did not clarify whether he meant full nuclear explosive detonations, which the U.S. has not conducted since 1992,  or other forms of testing such as delivery system evaluations that do not involve nuclear explosions. Any return to explosive testing would represent a significant shift in U.S. policy.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both hopeful about becoming their party’s presidential nominee in 2028. They both have a shot. Odds-makers place the New York congresswoman second only to California Gov. Gavin Newsom in the race to be the Democratic nominee, while President Trump, asked whether Vice President JD Vance is his chosen successor, has more than once suggested that Rubio is also in the running.

Recently, both spoke at the Munich Security Conference. While Secretary of State Rubio earned well-deserved applause from policymakers at home and abroad for his speech, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez showed she was not ready for prime time — not even close.

In what may prove a preview of the presidential race two years from now, Rubio and Ocasio-Cortez squared off on geopolitics. For Rubio, the occasion was another opportunity to articulate President Trump’s foreign policy vision — one that embraces American leadership powered by a strong military, a forceful trade agenda, energy independence and a robust economy. And, as we have seen, the Trump White House is not shy about using that military.

Trump has also declined to surrender national sovereignty to global treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord or institutions such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization — bodies he has deemed anti-American. In the case of the United Nations, the recent elevation of Abbas Tajik, Iran’s representative to the United Nations, to serve as vice chair of the 65th Session of the Commission for Social Development — a group purportedly ‘tasked with promoting democracy, gender equality, tolerance and non-violence,’ as one critic described it — proves once again the debasement of the institution’s integrity. Iran, which only recently crushed protests and slaughtered tens of thousands of its own innocent, unarmed citizens, should be thrown out of the U.N., not rewarded. And certainly not congratulated by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution — which he did even as his own Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning the mass murders.

Rubio’s speech was challenging, calling out European allies for succumbing to climate zealotry, encouraging mass migration, exporting industrial self-sufficiency and investing ‘in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves.’ But it was also conciliatory, emphasizing that ‘we are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally,’ and reviewing the many bonds that link the United States and Europe. It was an inspiring call for unity and progress, assuring the appreciative audience that ‘our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours.’

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board described Rubio’s speech as drawn from Ronald Reagan’s playbook, arguing that Trump’s ‘greatest failure as president is that he won’t, or can’t, articulate his larger principles.’ I would argue that Trump is putting those principles into action, coherently and consistently, and that Rubio brilliantly summarized the Trump doctrine.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez delivered remarks at a forum on the sidelines of the Munich conference and reminded us why she should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Former Vice President Kamala Harris introduced Americans to the magic of word salads — the endless spewing of language that says nothing while helpfully obscuring vast pits of ignorace — but AOC has perfected the art.

Ocasio-Cortez is known as a fierce critic of Israel but otherwise is not known for her geopolitical views, having largely spent her career railing against corporations and the evil rich. But if she wants to run for president, it is important for her to demonstrate some basic foreign policy chops. Hence, the trip to Munich. Unhappily for her, the foray into the world of diplomacy did not go well. Even The New York Times had to admit that she had some ‘shaky moments.’

Asked whether the United States should come to Taiwan’s aid if China attempted to seize the island, Ocasio-Cortez hesitated for several uncomfortable minutes. Even the  description from anti-Trump left-wing Bloomberg, whose reporter had posed the question, said the response was ‘flubbed,’  and wrote: ‘Normally quick to respond, Ocasio-Cortez was at a loss for words, saying, ‘this is such a, a, you know, I think that, this is a, um, this is of course, a, ah, a very longstanding, um, policy of the United States.’’ Hilariously, the piece added that AOC regrouped with what it called a ‘cogent response,’ saying the United States should ‘avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.’ That’s cogent?

The Times, too, admitted the Munich outing ‘demonstrated the relative foreign policy inexperience of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’, and that she ‘struggled at times to formulate succinct answers’. But the Times excused her incapacity, describing the questions posed as ‘probing and specific.’ Asking her policy vis-à-vis Taiwan is hardly ‘probing’; this issue is, along with our relationship with Israel, fundamental.

Ocasio-Cortez also mixed up the trans-Atlantic partnership, referring to it as the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership,’ and scoffed at Rubio’s claim that American cowboy culture came from Spain. (It did.) But the corker was another response she gave, enthusiastically endorsed by the Times, about President Trump’s foreign policy, ‘They are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarians that can carve out a world where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox, where Putin can saber-rattle around Europe.’

Yes, AOC, Trump is withdrawing the U.S. from the ‘entire world’ by trying to end the war between Ukraine and Russia, deliver the people of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba from authoritarian regimes, confront China, protect Christians in Nigeria, strengthen Western defense capabilities and pursue peace in the Middle East. Former President Joe Biden declared that ‘America is back,’ but did nothing to protect our interests around the globe.

Under President Trump, the U.S. is not only ‘back,’ it is also in the lead and moving persuasively forward.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a longtime civil rights leader, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, died Tuesday morning at the age of 84, his family said in a statement.

‘It is with profound sadness that we announce the passing of civil rights leader and founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Honorable Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson Sr. He died peacefully on Tuesday morning, surrounded by his family,’ the statement said.

‘Our father was a servant leader — not only to our family, but to the oppressed, the voiceless, and the overlooked around the world,’ the Jackson family said. ‘We shared him with the world, and in return, the world became part of our extended family. His unwavering belief in justice, equality, and love uplifted millions.’

A cause of death was not mentioned, but Jackson had suffered from multiple health problems in recent years. In 2017, Jackson revealed that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He was also treated for progressive supranuclear palsy, a rare degenerative neurological disorder. Despite health setbacks that weakened his voice and mobility, he continued advocating for civil rights and was arrested twice in 2021 while protesting the Senate filibuster rule.

Born Oct. 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina, Jackson grew up in a segregated community. As a teenager, he excelled academically and earned a football scholarship to the University of Illinois before transferring to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, where he graduated in 1964.

He became involved in civil rights activism as a teenager and was arrested at 18 for participating in a sit-in at a segregated public library. The protest marked the beginning of his rise in the student-led movement challenging segregation across the South.

After graduation, Jackson left his studies at Chicago Theological Seminary to join the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama, and later became a key figure in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. With King’s support, he led Operation Breadbasket in Chicago, a campaign aimed at expanding economic opportunities for Black Americans.

Jackson was in Memphis in 1968 when King was assassinated. In the years that followed, Jackson founded what became the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, an organization focused on civil rights, voter registration and economic empowerment. Over decades of activism, he received dozens of honorary degrees and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000 by President Bill Clinton.

Jackson ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988. In 1984, he won 18% of the primary vote. His campaign faced controversy over an antisemitic remark he made about New York’s Jewish community.

In 1988, Jackson won nearly 7 million votes — about 29% of the total — and finished first or second in multiple Super Tuesday contests. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ultimately secured the nomination.

Though he never held elected office, Jackson remained an influential political figure, advocating for expanded voter registration, lobbying for Washington, D.C., statehood, and at times serving as a diplomatic envoy, including efforts to secure the release of Americans held overseas.

In 2001, Jackson publicly acknowledged that he had fathered a daughter, Ashley, with a woman affiliated with his advocacy organization. He later apologized.

Jackson is survived by his wife of more than 60 years, Jacqueline; their children — Santita, Jesse Jr., Jonathan, Yusef and Jacqueline — daughter Ashley Jackson; and grandchildren.

Public observances will be held in Chicago with final funeral arrangements yet to be announced. 

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), commonly known as Doctors Without Borders, suspended noncritical medical operations at Gaza’s Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, citing security concerns.

MSF said it made the decision, as of Jan. 20, due to concerns about the management of the hospital and what it described as a pattern of unacceptable incidents within the compound. 

The suspension had not been widely reported at the time, and it was not immediately clear when the decision was first publicly posted.

MSF’s frequently asked questions page, where the update appears, shows it was last revised on Feb. 11.

In recent months, the international medical humanitarian aid group said staff and patients have reported the presence of armed and sometimes masked men, intimidation, arbitrary arrests of patients and the suspected movement of weapons on hospital grounds.

‘While none of these incidents occurred in parts of the hospital compound where MSF works, they pose serious security threats to our teams and patients,’ MSF wrote on its website.

‘MSF formally expressed its strong concern to relevant authorities and emphasized the incompatibility of such violations with our medical mission. Hospitals must remain neutral, civilian spaces, free from military presence or activity, to ensure the safe and impartial delivery of medical care,’ the group continued. ‘MSF calls on all armed groups, Hamas, and Israeli forces to respect medical facilities and ensure the protection of civilians.’

In a statement issued Saturday, Nasser Hospital rejected what it called ‘false, unsubstantiated, and misleading allegations’ by MSF regarding the presence of weapons or armed groups inside the facility.

‘These allegations are factually incorrect, irresponsible, and pose a serious risk to a protected civilian medical facility. The Gaza Strip is under an extreme and prolonged state of emergency resulting from systematic attacks on civilian institutions,’ it said. ‘Under these conditions, isolated unlawful actions by uncontrolled individuals and groups have occurred across society, including attempts by some to carry weapons.’

Hospital officials said a civilian police presence had been arranged to help safeguard patients, staff and infrastructure and called on MSF to retract its claims and reaffirm its commitment to medical neutrality.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said Sunday on X that it has intelligence indicating Hamas is using Nasser Hospital as a headquarters and military post, reiterating long-standing allegations that the militant group embeds operations within civilian facilities in Gaza.

‘For over two years, the IDF and the defense establishment has warned about the cynical use by terrorist organizations in Gaza of hospitals and humanitarian shelters as human shields to conceal terrorist activity,’ it wrote.  

Hamas has previously denied using hospitals or other civilian facilities for military purposes.

A rather interesting foursome teed off for a round of golf in Florida this weekend: President Donald Trump was joined by college football coaching legends Urban Meyer and Nick Saban, and perhaps more importantly, a former rival by the name of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

It would go too far to say that Trump and DeSantis have had bad blood, but there has been a rift since the Florida governor’s 2023 primary challenge to Trump, which petered out in New Hampshire before primary votes had even been cast.

To see Trump and DeSantis spending a few hours engaged in what Mark Twain once called a ‘good walk spoiled’ leads to an interesting question: After the ace Florida governor leaves office next year, could he be a hole in one for the Trump administration?

DeSantis is the kind of guy who Trump could put in charge of basically anything in the federal government and fully expect not just his signature competence, but his calm and no-nonsense manner.

In recent weeks, calm is something the administration has been thirsting for.

After DeSantis dropped out in early 2024, the schism in the conservative commentariat more or less was cleaved, notwithstanding some fairly bitter vitriol that had consumed the previous year, and the governor can still be an important buttress to GOP unity.

There has been a frustration, especially from former DeSantis supporters, of late, that the White House has been too tolerant of extreme views from figures in its orbit. The best answer to that is not to cancel supposed cancers but to bolster the administration’s credibility.

I don’t know what DeSantis’s middle name is, but I would not be surprised to find that it is ‘crediblity.’ With the possible exception of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, no leader in America, maybe the world, handled COVID better.

The knock on DeSantis is that, credible though he may be, he’s not particularly compelling. He does not, in the parlance of entertainment, chew up the scenery. I remember spending much of the spring of 2023 thinking, as he geared up for the presidential run, ‘Less talking, more throwing the baseball around.’

But, to be frank, the Trump administration has a sufficient current supply of colorful characters.It needs more competence, more Lee Zeldins and Scott Bessents.

In a column for the Washington Examiner this week, Byron York asked whether it is time for Trump to shake up his cabinet. Wherever one stands on that interesting political question, you do have to ask, who could the Senate confirm as a new member?

Let’s say Attorney General Pam Bondi, or Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who have been lightning rods for criticism, leave their positions. I’m not advocating for that, but should it happen, DeSantis is one of a few prominent Republicans who could sail through Senate confirmation.

The subtext to all of this, including the round of golf that I’m just going to go ahead and assume Trump won, is the 2028 presidential election, in which DeSantis is one of only a handful of figures who rate among the public.

The polls, early though they are, show Vice President JD VanceJD Vance with a big lead, especially given that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has all but endorsed him. But for now, DeSantis is the most viable GOP option who is not already in the administration or related to Trump.

While politically this may be a reason for the Florida governor to eschew an administration position, to remain the Republican who isn’t seen in the Oval Office day after day fawning over Trump, a national position could be great for him, and for the party.

And honestly, where is DeSantis supposed to go after leaving office, if not Washington?

Whether the 19th hole of this golf outing with Trump and football royalty turns out to be a position in the administration or not, Republicans should rejoice to see these two conservative leaders hanging out.

Unity must be the watchword for Republicans both in this year’s midterms and in the presidential race of 2028. In both cases, DeSantis can be a voice for common sense, competence and American values.

America needs all the good leadership it can get in Washington, and DeSantis is the poster child for it. Trump should seriously consider giving him a prominent national platform.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., vowed Sunday that Senate Democrats will block the latest GOP-backed effort to require proof of citizenship to vote.

‘We will not let it pass in the Senate,’ Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. ‘We are fighting it tooth and nail. It’s an outrageous proposal that is, you know, that shows the sort of political bias of the MAGA right. They don’t want poor people to vote. They don’t want people of color to vote because they often don’t vote for them.’

Schumer’s comments came after Tapper pressed him on his opposition, noting that polling shows roughly 83% of Americans support some form of voter identification. That figure comes from a Pew Research poll published last year that found 71% of Democratic voters surveyed supported presenting an ID to vote.

Still, Schumer and most Senate Democrats have criticized the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which passed the House last week and is expected to face a vote in the Senate.

The bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and would establish a system for state election officials to share information with federal authorities to verify voter rolls. It would also allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to pursue immigration cases if noncitizens are found listed as eligible voters.

Schumer and his caucus have panned the bill as voter suppression targeting poorer Americans and minority groups.

‘What they are proposing in this so-called SAVE Act is like Jim Crow 2.0,’ Schumer said. ‘They make it so hard to get any kind of voter ID that more than 20 million legitimate people, mainly poorer people and people of color, will not be able to vote under this law.’

Without support from Senate Democrats — save for a possible defection from Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. — the bill is likely to fail.

The only way around that would be eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold — a move Republicans oppose — or forcing a so-called talking filibuster that could require hours of debate and stall other Senate business.

Schumer also pushed back on comments from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who earlier this week said elections ‘may be one of the most important things that we need to make sure we trust, is reliable, and that when it gets to Election Day that we’ve been proactive to make sure that we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country.’

The comments come as Senate Democrats and the White House negotiate funding for DHS, which has been shut down since midnight Friday.

Part of those negotiations includes Democrats’ demand that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents be kept away from several areas, including schools and polling places.

‘That’s a load of bull,’ Schumer said. ‘They show no evidence of voter fraud. They show there’s so little in the country. And to have ICE agents, these thugs, be by the polling places, that just flies in the face of how democracy works, of how we’ve had elections for hundreds of years, very successfully.’