Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned that if House Republicans try to jam voter ID legislation into the Trump-backed funding deal, it would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

House Republicans want to walk away from the current spending fight with a victory of sorts, despite President Donald Trump taking the lead and negotiating a temporary funding truce with Schumer and Senate Democrats. 

They’re demanding that the five-bill funding package, which stripped out the controversial Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill in favor of a two-week funding extension, also include the House Republicans’ updated Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act, dubbed the SAVE America Act. 

But doing so is a bridge too far for Schumer. The top Senate Democrat argued that the legislation, which has been sitting on the shelf in the House for months, is ‘reminiscent of Jim Crow-era laws,’ and would act as a means to suppress voters rather than encourage more secure elections. 

‘I have said it before, and I’ll say it again, the SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow-type laws to the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate,’ Schumer said in a statement. 

‘It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to. If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown,’ he continued. 

The updated version of the SAVE Act would require that people present photo identification before voting, states obtain proof of citizenship in-person when people register to vote and remove non-citizens from voter rolls.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who is leading the push to attach the voter ID legislation to the funding package, countered Schumer’s accusation in a post on X.

‘If you are a minority that wants a voter ID, apparently you are for racist policies according to [Schumer],’ she said.

Schumer’s edict touches on the reality of the partisan divide in the Senate and the nature of passing any legislation in most cases. In order for the SAVE Act to become law, it would have to get at least 60 votes in the upper chamber. And given Senate Democrats’ disdain for the bill, that is unlikely. 

And adding the bill would further disincentivize House Democrats, who are already leery of the deal. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., may need their support given the anger simmering in his conference. 

Further complicating matters is that if the modified package with the SAVE Act were to make it out of the House, it would have to go back to the Senate, creating a virtual ping-pong between the chambers as what was meant to be a short-term partial government shutdown drags on.

Still, House Republicans aren’t backing off of their demands and have backup in the upper chamber from Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and a co-sponsor of the updated SAVE Act.

‘House Republicans shouldn’t let Schumer dictate the terms of government funding,’ Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said on X. ‘If Dems want to play games, no spending package should come out of the House without the SAVE Act attached — securing American elections must be a non-negotiable.’

Costa Ricans have elected conservative populist Laura Fernández as their next president, according to preliminary results, making her the latest right-leaning leader to win office in Latin America.

With results from 96.8% of polling places counted, Fernández of the Sovereign People’s Party won 48.3% of the vote, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal reported.

Her closest challenger, economist Álvaro Ramos of the National Liberation Party, trailed with 33.4%, the Associated Press reported. 

Ramos conceded the race on election night, with Fernández, 39, to begin her four-year term in May.

A former government minister, Fernández is the chosen successor of outgoing President Rodrigo Chaves, who is constitutionally prohibited from seeking re-election.

She campaigned on continuing Chaves’ populist agenda, which reshaped Costa Rican politics by arguing against traditional parties and promising tougher action on crime.

Fernández served as minister of national planning and later as minister of the presidency, giving her a central role in Chaves’ administration.

Crime had dominated the campaign in Costa Rica amid sharp rises in homicides, gang activity and drug trafficking by cartels.

The murder rate had increased by 50% over the last six years, according to reports.

Fernández pledged a hard-line security strategy, including increased cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and tougher measures against organized crime.

She has also floated controversial proposals inspired by El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele.

This included construction of a special prison for gang leaders, the Associated Press reported.

‘My hand won’t shake when it comes to making the decisions we need to restore peace in Costa Rican homes,’ Fernández said during the campaign.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio congratulated Fernández in a statement Monday.

‘Under her leadership, we are confident Costa Rica will continue to advance shared priorities to include combating narco-trafficking, ending illegal immigration to the United States, promoting cybersecurity and secure telecommunications, and strengthening economic ties,’ Rubio said.

‘I hope that we can immediately lower the flags of whichever political party and start working only in favor of the Costa Rican flag,’ Fernández said after the result. 

‘I believe the Costa Rican people expect nothing less of us,’ she added.

The Justice Department (DOJ) has removed its pardon attorney from an internal ‘Weaponization Working Group,’ even as officials say the politically sensitive panel is now meeting more frequently, Fox News has learned.

Ed Martin currently serves as the DOJ’s pardon attorney, a role appointed by President Donald Trump that involves reviewing clemency applications and advising the White House on pardons and commutations. He had also participated in the department’s internal Weaponization Working Group.

A DOJ spokesperson confirmed to Fox News on Monday that Martin had been removed from the working group, though it was not immediately clear why.

‘President Trump appointed Ed Martin as Pardon Attorney and Ed continues to do a great job in that role,’ a DOJ spokesperson said.

Trump nominated Martin, a former defense attorney who represented Americans charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia in February of last year.

But after concerns from lawmakers stalled Martin’s confirmation, Trump withdrew the nomination.

Trump instead nominated Jeanine Pirro for the role, and she was ultimately confirmed.

Martin was appointed to serve as U.S. pardon attorney on May 14, 2025, and was named by Trump at the time to serve as director of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group, a role he held until his removal was announced Monday.

The working group was formed in early 2025 and is now meeting more frequently, with the goal of eventually meeting daily. It is an internal review body created to examine claims that federal law enforcement and prosecutorial powers were misused for political or partisan purposes.

Martin has previously drawn scrutiny over his actions involving New York Attorney General Letitia James. In August, a lawyer representing James criticized Martin for visiting her Brooklyn residence and publicly suggesting she resign, calling the visit a ‘made-for-media stunt.’

Martin later said he visited the property to ‘lay eyes on it’ and shared images of the visit on social media.

He was subsequently granted special prosecutorial authority to pursue mortgage fraud investigations involving James and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., both of whom have denied wrongdoing and described the probes as politically motivated.

Martin also urged James to step down in a letter he described as ‘confidential’ but later shared publicly on X.

Nearly half of state attorneys general will demand the House Judiciary Committee expand its probe into climate policy-related influence on federal judges to include a gold-standard guide judges use to examine subjects they are not typically versed in.

The development comes after a Fox News Digital report highlighted criticisms of the latest edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC) 1,600-page ‘Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.’ Critics said the traditionally apolitical reference guide is now rife with climate change–related ideological bias, citing extensive footnotes drawn from left-leaning and climate-alarmist sources.

The Federal Judicial Center itself is the research and education agency of the federal judiciary, and its governing board is chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers is leading the effort, writing to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, urging them to expand their improper-influence probe to include what they call an ‘inappropriate attempt to rig case outcomes in favor of one side.’

The latest edition was published December 31 and includes a foreword by Justice Elena Kagan before delving into subject matter footnoted to environmental law expert Jessica Wentz, climatologist Michael Mann, and a slew of others involved in climate change research and advocacy.

‘Those same improper influence concerns apply to the Federal Judicial Center and its new ‘Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence’,’ the attorney generals wrote in part.

They noted that Kagan’s foreword said previous editions of the manual helped ‘bring about better and fairer legal decisions,’ but argued her words would not echo the same in the latest edition.

‘Like [the] Climate Judiciary Project that the Committee is investigating, the new chapter presents a highly biased, agenda-driven view favoring radical interests pursuing lawsuits against producers and users of traditional forms of fossil fuel energy,’ the attorneys general argued, citing the inclusion of findings from Jessica Wentz, a climate change advocate at Columbia University, among other names.

They cited a court brief crafted by Wentz in opposition to the Willow drilling project in Alaska, where she was quoted as saying ‘the world needs to phase out fossil fuels as rapidly as possible in order to avert potentially catastrophic levels of global warming and climate change.’

The prosecutors also pointed to the inclusion of work from an attorney who represented the city of Honolulu in cases against traditional energy firms.

‘Not surprisingly, given the strong biases of its authors, reviewers, and sources, the climate change chapter presents as settled the very methodologies that plaintiffs rely on to impose liability on fossil-fuel defendants,’ the letter reads.

‘The chapter presents this science as authoritative without acknowledging contrary views or disclosing the many conflicts of the authors, reviewers, and sources. Ethics experts have noted that these issues raise serious ethics concerns.’

In comments to Fox News Digital, Hilgers said the FJC’s new science manual should present complex evidence impartially, but instead ‘appears to embed the views of climate activists and diversity, equity, and inclusion ideologues into what is presented as neutral guidance.’

‘When the same advocates and experts who are actively litigating climate cases help write and review a chapter that will be used by federal judges behind the scenes, it raises obvious and serious concerns about the impartiality of the judicial system,’ Hilgers said.

‘Nebraskans, and all Americans, deserve courts that are neutral and fair.’

The letter was also signed by Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman and their fellow state prosecutors in Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming.

‘We’ve seen ridiculous legal warfare grow across the country — politically motivated groups, using our courts and liberal justices to push their climate agenda. That’s bad enough,’ McCuskey told Fox News Digital, saying it is time to prevent the influence of ‘junk science.”

‘We… must protect our judicial system and its impartiality,’ he said.

McCuskey also fired off a missive to the FJC itself, co-signed by Marshall, Uthmeier, Cox and others.

He told the center’s director — Obama-appointed federal judge Robin Rosenberg of Florida — that the manual’s ubiquity must remain trusted.

‘At least up to this point, [FJC] has been careful to stress that the Manual merely ‘describes basic principles of major scientific fields… Instead, the Fourth Edition places the judiciary firmly on one side of some of the most hotly disputed questions in current litigation: climate-related science and ‘attribution’.’

‘Such work undermines the judiciary’s impartiality and places a thumb on one side of the scale,’ McCuskey said.

American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac added that the FJC wrongly used taxpayer funds to publish a reference manual that ’embeds disputed, plaintiff-driven climate alarmist theories into materials judges consult.’

‘That is not education, it is outcome-shaping, and it directly undermines judicial impartiality,’ Isaac said.

O.H. Skinner of Alliance for Consumers called the development ‘the woke lawfare playbook in action’ and said climate change activists see the courtroom as their best chance to bring permanence to their ideology.

When reached for comment on the matter of her footnotes coming under scrutiny, Wentz replied, ‘no comment.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Jordan and Grassley for comment, as well as the FJC.

President Donald Trump is trying to quell a growing rebellion against the funding deal he negotiated with Senate Democrats as a growing number of House conservatives threaten to sink the legislation if a key demand is not met.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is walking a tightrope with House Republicans demanding the inclusion of election integrity legislation to the Trump-backed deal, which he negotiated with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., last week. 

The government is in its third day of a partial shutdown. Adding the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, to the package would send the legislation back to the Senate, where Schumer has already vowed to block it. 

That would likely extend what was intended to be a temporary closure.

Trump took to Truth Social to lower the temperature among House Republicans, and noted that he was ‘working hard with Speaker Johnson to get the current funding deal, which passed in the Senate last week, through the House and to my desk, where I will sign it into Law, IMMEDIATELY!’

‘We need to get the Government open, and I hope all Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting this Bill, and send it to my desk WITHOUT DELAY,’ Trump said. ‘There can be NO CHANGES at this time.’ 

‘We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown that will hurt our Country so badly — One that will not benefit Republicans or Democrats,’ he continued. ‘I hope everyone will vote, YES!’

A cohort of House Republicans, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., wants to see the SAVE Act attached to the five-bill funding package plus short-term extension for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

It would require states to obtain proof of citizenship in-person when people register to vote and remove non-citizens from voter rolls.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital on Monday that he was leaning against voting to advance the funding deal if the SAVE Act was not attached. Reps. William Timmons, R-S.C., and Eric Burlison, R-Mo., have foreshadowed similar threats.

It’s legislation that has long been shelved since advancing from the House last year. Its passage in the upper chamber is even more unlikely because of the 60-vote filibuster threshold and Senate Democrats’ reticence to even consider supporting it. 

Their demands come as the House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper for most legislation to get a chamber-wide vote, is set to meet Monday evening to consider the funding deal. Johnson met with Rules Committee members on Monday afternoon ahead of their scheduled meeting.  

Tacking on the SAVE Act would likely kill any chance of the spending deal earning support from House Democrats, who are already resistant to the deal. 

And if it were to make it to the Senate, Democrats in the upper chamber are primed to block it.

Without it, however, the group of House conservatives could kill the spending deal during a procedural hurdle called a ‘rule vote.’ The House Rules Committee advancing the bill sets up a chamber-wide rule vote, which if successful would unlock debate and set up a final vote on passage. 

Rule votes generally fall along partisan lines. And with a one-vote majority after the swearing-in of a new House Democrat who won a special election in Texas over the weekend, Johnson can afford little dissent.

Schumer laid out an edict on Monday against the idea, where he accused Republicans of pushing legislation ‘reminiscent of Jim Crow-era laws,’ that he argued would act as a means to suppress voters rather than encourage more secure elections. 

‘It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to,’ Schumer said in a statement. ‘If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown.’

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard detailed her ongoing election security assessment in a letter to congressional lawmakers Monday, saying President Trump ‘specifically directed’ her to be present for the execution of a search warrant in Fulton County, Georgia last week as part of the probe.

Gabbard sent a letter, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital, addressed to Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn. The letter was also sent to House and Senate leadership, as well as GOP leadership on both committees.

The letter is in response to one sent last week by Warner and Himes, in which they request Gabbard brief them on why she was present at the FBI search of an election office in Fulton County, Ga. last month.

Gabbard announced in April 2025 that ODNI was investigating electronic voting systems in order to protect election integrity.

In the letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, Gabbard said President Trump ‘specifically directed’ her to be at the FBI’s execution of a search warrant on the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Fulton County, Georgia last month—on Jan. 28, 2026.

‘For a brief period of time, I accompanied FBI Deputy Director Bailey and Atlanta Acting Special Agent in Charge Pete Ellis in observing FBI personnel executing that search warrant, issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to a probable cause finding,’ she writes.

Gabbard said her ‘presence was requested by the President and executed under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyze intelligence related to election security, including counterintelligence (CI), foreign and other malign influence and cybersecurity.’

‘The FBI’s Intelligence/Counterintelligence divisions are one of the 18 elements that I oversee,’ she said.

Gabbard said that in twelve FBI field offices across the country, including the Atlanta Field Office, the senior FBI official (assistant director in charge or special agent in charge) is ‘dual-hatted as my Domestic DNI-Representative.’

‘The Domestic DNI-Rep program was established in 2011 through a Memorandum of Understanding between the ODNI and FBI,’ Gabbard explained. ‘Domestic DNI-Reps are distributed by region and focus on specific domestic issues of concern or interest, including threats to critical infrastructure.’

Gabbard said that she has visited ‘several’ of her Domestic DNI-Reps across the country.

‘While visiting the FBI Field Office in Atlanta, I thanked the FBI agents for their professionalism and great work, and facilitated a brief phone call for the President to thank the agents personally for their work,’ Gabbard said. ‘He did not ask any questions, nor did he or I issue any directives.’

Gabbard stressed that the ODNI’s Office of General Counsel ‘has found my actions to be consistent and well within my statutory authority as the Director of National Intelligence.’

Last week, FBI agents were seen carrying out a search at an election hub in Fulton County, Georgia, a location that became ground zero for concerns and complaints about voter fraud beginning in 2020. 

The search warrant authorized the seizure of election records, voting rolls and other data tied to the 2020 election, according to a copy of the warrant reviewed by Fox News.

Gabbard went on to address specific questions initially posed by Warner and Himes, first, detailing how election security ‘is a national security issue.’

‘Interference in U.S. elections is a threat to our republic and a national security threat,’ she writes. ‘The President and his Administration are committed to safeguarding the integrity of U.S. elections to ensure that neither foreign nor domestic powers undermine the American people’s right to determine who our elected leaders are.’

Gabbard said that President Trump ‘tasked ODNI with taking all appropriate actions’ under her statutory authorities towards ‘ensuring the integrity of our elections and specifically directed by observance of the execution of the Fulton County search warrant.’

Gabbard again noted that ODNI has been ‘actively reviewing intelligence reporting and assessments on election integrity’ since she took office.

‘As part of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center’s responsibility to lead, manage, and coordinate counterintelligence matters related to election security, NCSC personnel traveled with me to Fulton County to support this effort,’ Gabbard wrote. ‘They were not present during the execution of the warrant.’ 

Gabbard goes on to stress that the DNI has ‘broad authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyze intelligence related to election security.’ Gabbard also added that ODNI is ‘the lead intelligence agency in the Joint Cyber Planning Office,’ which coordinates and oversees the nation’s strategy to secure critical cyber infrastructure, ‘including cyber infrastructure used for elections.’

Gabbard also told lawmakers that ODNI ‘will not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments concerning foreign or other malign interference in U.S. elections.’ 

‘As I publicly stated on 10 April 2025, there is information and intelligence reporting suggesting that electronic voting systems being used in the United States have long been vulnerable to exploitation that could result in enabling determined actors to manipulate the results of the votes being cast with the intent of changing the outcome of an election,’ she wrote.

‘ODNI and the IC continue to collect and assess all available intelligence concerning this threat to ensure the security and integrity of our elections,’ she said.

In April 2025, Gabbard said ODNI is investigating election integrity. She said, at the time, that ODNI had ‘evidence of how electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and vulnerable to exploitation, to manipulate the results of the votes being cast.’ Gabbard made the comments during a Cabinet meeting, stressing to the president that the information ‘further drives forward your m mandate to bring about paper ballots across the country so that voters can have faith in the integrity of our elections.’ 

Meanwhile, in the letter, Gabbard explained that the process of assessing the intelligence ‘ensures that the IC’s finished intelligence products are objective, independent of political considerations, and based on all available sources.’

‘I will share our intelligence assessments with Congress once they are complete,’ she said.

Gabbard said that the National Security Act of 1947 specifically highlights that the law does ‘not require that the president obtain approval from the congressional intelligence committees before initiating a significant intelligence activity.’

‘Moreover, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued the search warrant on the Office of the Clerk of The Court of Fulton County under seal,’ she writes. ‘As such, I have not seen the warrant or the evidence of probable cause that the DOJ submitted to Court for approval.’

She added: ‘Therefore, the ODNI had no ability, authority, or responsibility to inform the committees about the search warrant ahead of its execution.’

President Trump last week touted Gabbard on her work to protect elections in the U.S. 

‘She’s working very hard on trying to keep the election safe. And she’s done a very good job,’ Trump said. ‘And they, as you know, they got into the votes, you got a signed judge’s order in Georgia…And you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.’

Meanwhile, the Justice Department sued Fulton County in December seeking access to ballots related to the 2020 lawsuit, though the FBI’s search appears unrelated. 

Fulton County is fighting the lawsuit and says the Justice Department has not made a valid argument for accessing the records.

Fox News’ Breanna Deppisch contributed to this report. 

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify in the House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation after lawmakers moved toward holding them in criminal contempt of Congress.

The committee said in a post on X that the Clintons were ‘trying to dodge contempt by requesting special treatment,’ adding that ‘The Clintons are not above the law.’

Angel Ureña, deputy chief of staff to Bill Clinton, confirmed in a post on X that both Clintons will appear before the panel.

‘They negotiated in good faith. You did not,’ Ureña wrote. ‘But the former president and former Secretary of State will be there and look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.’

The committee is examining what the Clintons may have known about Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, including scrutiny of Hillary Clinton’s role overseeing U.S. efforts to combat international sex trafficking while serving as Secretary of State.

A source familiar sent Fox News Digital text of the email the Clintons’ attorneys sent to the House Oversight Committee confirming they would testify on terms set by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.

‘Please be advised, and please advise the Chairman, that my clients accept the terms of your letter and will appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates,’ the text read. ‘As has been the Committee’s practice, please confirm the House will not move forward with contempt proceedings, as the Chairman stated in his letter this morning.’

Ranking member Robert Garcia said the message amounted to full compliance with the committee’s demands.

‘I mean, they sent us and the Republicans affirmation that they’ve accepted every single term that James Comer has asked for, and that they’re willing to come in and testify,’ Garcia said.

Comer, however, disputed that characterization, telling Fox News Digital the agreement lacked specificity.

‘The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again, and they have provided no dates for their depositions,’ Comer said. ‘The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt. I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members.’

Democrats on the committee have pointed out that Comer has not pushed to hold others who did not appear in contempt, nor has he made any threats against the DOJ for failing to produce all of its documents on Epstein by a deadline agreed to by Congress late last year. The department has produced a fraction of the documents expected so far.

The House Republican majority just got reduced to a perilously slim one-vote margin thanks to a Democrat’s victory in Texas over the weekend.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., swore in newly minted Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, on Monday evening, bringing the overall House of Representatives margin to 218 Republicans and 214 Democrats.

That means if a bill gets no Democratic support and the House is in full attendance, losing more than one GOP vote will result in a 216-216 tie — meaning it would fail to pass.

Johnson is no stranger to dealing with slim margins and has eked out significant GOP victories while dealing with majorities between two and three seats. 

But this is a particularly difficult week for House GOP leaders who are scrambling to end an ongoing partial government shutdown.

The House is expected to vote on a funding compromise hashed out between Senate Democrats and the White House sometime on Tuesday, and Republicans will need nearly everyone in lockstep for the legislation to survive a chamber-wide ‘rule vote.’

Rule votes are procedural hurdles that traditionally fall along partisan lines.

Menefee, a former attorney for Houston’s Harris County, won a special congressional election in a left-leaning district in Texas that has been vacant for nearly a year.

He’s replacing the late Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Texas, who died while in office in March 2025.

The Associated Press reported that Menefee defeated former Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards, a fellow Democrat, in Saturday’s runoff election to fill the seat left vacant when Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner died last March.

Sylvester, a former longtime state lawmaker, served two terms as Houston mayor before winning election to Congress in 2024 to fill the seat of the late longtime Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

While Texas has redrawn its congressional maps for the 2026 midterms, as part of the high-stakes redistricting battle between President Donald Trump and Republicans versus Democrats, the special election used the state’s current district lines.

The addition of another lawmaker into the House Democrats’ ranks will give Republican leadership in the chamber further headaches.

And House GOP leaders are painfully aware of the politically difficult situation they’re in.

‘They’d better be here,’ Johnson said of his Republican members last month. ‘I told everybody, and not in jest, I said, no adventure sports, no risk-taking, take your vitamins. Stay healthy and be here.’

Planned Parenthood announced it is voluntarily dropping its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s ability to withhold Medicaid payments under a provision in President Donald Trump’s tax bill.

The organization sued in July after President Donald Trump signed a spending bill that included prohibiting federal funding from going to abortion providers, a section of the legislation that Planned Parenthood attorneys argued unfairly targeted their clinics and would leave patients with even fewer health care options.

In December, a federal appeals court ruled that the administration could continue to withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

A separate lawsuit filed by a group of mostly Democratic states suffered a similar setback in January but remains ongoing, and a related case filed in Maine was voluntarily dismissed in October.

A third lawsuit filed in Maine by a network of medical clinics that was also impacted by the spending bill was voluntarily dismissed in October.

Planned Parenthood moved on Friday to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts.

‘The goal of this lawsuit has always been to help Planned Parenthood patients get the care they deserve from their trusted provider. Based on the 1st Circuit’s decision, it is clear that this lawsuit is no longer the best way to accomplish that goal,’ the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in a joint statement.

Under the tax provision in Trump’s spending bill, Medicaid payments would be stopped if providers like Planned Parenthood primarily offered certain services, including abortion, and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.

Planned Parenthood was not specifically named in the legislation, but the organization’s leaders have said the law is intended to affect their clinics across the country, as Republicans at the federal and state level continue to target the organization.

Federal law bans taxpayer money from covering most abortions, but many Republicans have long argued that abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood used Medicaid money for other health services to subsidize abortion.

Planned Parenthood said 23 of their health clinics have been forced to close due to Trump’s spending bill. More than 50 clinics closed in 18 states last year, with most located in the Midwest.

‘President Trump and his allies in Congress have weaponized the federal government to target Planned Parenthood at the expense of patients — stripping people of the care they rely on,’ Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

‘Through every attack, Planned Parenthood has never lost sight of its focus: ensuring patients can get the care they need from the provider they trust,’ she continued. ‘That will never change. Care continues, as does our commitment to fighting for everyone’s freedom to make their own decisions about their bodies, lives, and futures.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Senate’s compromise to end the ongoing partial government shutdown survived an important hurdle on Monday night, teeing up the legislation for a vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most bills get a chamberwide vote, advanced the upper chamber’s deal with the White House with little internal discord among Republicans on the panel.

But the measure could face issues on the House floor during a second procedural hurdle called a ‘rule vote,’ which needs a simple majority of lawmakers to unlock debate and a vote on final passage. House votes normally fall along partisan lines, and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will need virtually all GOP lawmakers to vote in lockstep to succeed.

The current partial shutdown, affecting roughly 78% of the federal government, is in its third day after Congress failed to send its remaining spending bills to President Donald Trump’s desk by Jan. 30.

House lawmakers passed an initial set of bipartisan bills to finish funding the government through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2026, Sept. 30, but Democrats rebelled against the plan en masse in protest of Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

Senate Democrats walked away from the deal in protest of its funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), after federal law enforcement shot and killed a second U.S. citizen during anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) demonstrations in Minneapolis.

Trump has responded by removing Customs and Border Protection (CBP), whose agents shot the second person, from the Midwest city, and replacing senior officials leading the crackdown there.

But Democrats are demanding further guardrails, like judicial warrants, to restrict agents in Minneapolis even further.

The resulting compromise would fund areas of government that were caught up in the political standoff — the departments of War, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Education — while simply extending the current federal spending levels for DHS for two weeks.

That two-week span is aimed at giving lawmakers time for more bipartisan negotiations on a longer-term deal.

The Senate passed the new deal on Friday, but House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is sharply divided from his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in his position.

Despite Schumer and Senate Democrats negotiating the plan with Trump’s White House, Jeffries told Johnson not to rely on House Democrats’ support to pass the bill.

It’s a stunning division between the top two Democrats in Congress, and one that will leave House Republicans largely on their own for much of the process of ending the shutdown.

But Trump managed to quell another rebellion on the conservative side earlier on Monday, easing at least one headache for House GOP leaders.

At least four House Republicans signaled they could vote against their own party during the rule vote on Tuesday over its exclusion of an unrelated measure requiring proof of citizenship in the voter registration process.

The president posted on Truth Social earlier Monday demanding ‘NO CHANGES’ to the current deal, effectively undercutting conservatives’ push for the legislation.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., had been leading a group of conservatives threatening to tank the rule vote if the SAVE America Act was not attached.

But Luna told reporters on Monday night that she and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., both changed their minds after getting assurances from the White House that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., would force a vote on the bill — called the SAVE America Act.

‘As of right now, with the current agreement that we have, as well as discussions, we will both be a yes on the rule,’ Luna said. ‘There is something called a standing filibuster that would effectively allow Senator Thune to put voter ID on the floor of the Senate. We are hearing that that is going well and he is considering that…so we are very happy about that.’

It’s not clear if it’s enough for other House Republicans, however, some of whom are upset over the new deal opening up the need for bipartisan discussions on reining in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Johnson can only lose one House GOP vote for the funding deal to survive a chamber-wide rule vote.

In the meantime, nearly 14,000 air traffic controllers are expected to work without pay. Members of the military could also miss paychecks if the shutdown goes on long enough, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be limited in its ability to communicate public health updates to Americans.