The Senate confirmed Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as the ninth Homeland Security secretary, capping a sprint to replace embattled outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem.

It also caps off a 13-year career in Congress that began in the House and saw Mullin score a seat in the Senate in 2021 where he became the de facto bridge between both chambers, helping to build trust between the House and Senate during last year’s push to pass the “big, beautiful bill.” Ahead of the vote he arrived flanked by his family, and was excited to cast his final vote on himself.  

Mullin, who was picked by President Donald Trump earlier this month to lead the Department of Homeland Security, was confirmed on a largely party-line vote. Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., joined nearly every Republican to clinch his nomination.

Heinrich said he bucked his party because he has seen that Mullin — who co-chairs the Senate Legislative Branch spending committee with him — “is not someone who can simply be bullied into changing his views.”

MULLIN’S CONFIRMATION SURVIVES KEY TEST VOTE AS DHS REMAINS SHUT DOWN

“And I look forward to having a secretary who doesn’t take their orders from Stephen Miller,” Heinrich said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the only Republican to vote against Mullin, citing their chilly relationship and Mullin’s past comments that his 2017 assault was “justified.”

Mullin’s confirmation also saw the close of a whirlwind month in which Noem was reassigned after an explosive pair of hearings on Capitol Hill, as well as the deaths of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, who were fatally shot by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

SCHUMER GAMBIT FAILS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS 36 DAYS AND AIRPORT LINES GROW

Still, Noem’s ousting and Mullin’s ascension have done little to shift Senate Democrats from their position. They continue to demand sweeping reforms to ICE and have so far blocked funding to the agency five times, along with several GOP attempts to temporarily extend funding to DHS.

The path to ending the shutdown appeared to become more complicated over the weekend.

Both sides began meeting for the first time during the shutdown, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., characterizing the talks as “productive.”

However, Trump threw a wrench into negotiations Sunday night, writing on Truth Social: “I don’t think we should make any deal with the Crazy, Country Destroying, Radical Left Democrats unless, and until, they vote with Republicans to pass ‘THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.’”

GOP SENATOR’S GAMBIT EXPOSES FALSE DEM CLAIMS ABOUT SUPPORTING VOTER ID

“In other words, lump everything together as one, and VOTE!!! Kill the Filibuster, and stay in D.C. for Easter, if necessary,” Trump said.

That comes after Thune suggested to the president that Republicans could carve out ICE and Customs and Border Protection funding from a broader DHS package and instead fund those agencies through budget reconciliation.

Canceling recess may be a hard sell in the upper chamber, given that votes this past weekend were plagued by absences. When asked if he would cancel the upcoming two-week break, Thune said, “We’ll see.” 

A cohort of Senate Republicans met with Trump ahead of Mullin’s confirmation vote. Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., told reporters after that the meeting went “really well.” 

When asked if Republicans had a solution to end the closure, she said, “We do.” 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Still, Senate Democrats remain unified in their opposition to the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

“We’re ready to meet with the White House today to keep talking,” Schumer said. “In fact, we were going to meet this morning with Tom Homan. But apparently the White House pulled that meeting because of Donald Trump’s temper tantrum. They’re all scrambling around there in the White House. They don’t know what to do.” 

The University of Southern California canceled its Tuesday gubernatorial debate after facing fiery criticism about excluding every gubernatorial candidate of color.

Although the university defended the methodology used to determine who was invited to participate in the forum, they canceled the debate less than 24 hours before it was set to take place because of the mounting controversy.

“We recognize that concerns about the selection criteria for tomorrow’s gubernatorial debate have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters,” the university said in a statement to The Times. “Unfortunately, USC and [debate co-sponsor] KABC have not been able to reach an agreement on expanding the number of candidates at tomorrow’s debate. As a result, USC has made the difficult decision to cancel tomorrow’s debate and will look for other opportunities to educate voters on the candidates and issues.”

The move came hours after Democratic legislative leaders called on voters to boycott the debate if the university did not invite candidates who were excluded from participating.

The unsparing letter added another layer of controversy to Tuesday’s forum.

“We are writing to demand you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates,” said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish and women’s caucuses. “The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates’ attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters. Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.”

USC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening after the letter was sent. Tuesday’s debate was set to take place less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes, in the midst of a gubernatorial contest with a sprawling field of candidates that is more unpredictable than any statewide race in recent memory.

Political scientists, public policy professors and researchers associated with USC, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard and several other universities across the nation issued a letter Monday defending Christian Grose, the USC political science professor who developed the methodology that determined which candidates were invited to participate in the debate.

They called on the university to publicly defend Grose, arguing that although scholarly debate is important, the criticism about the debate criteria he fashioned had turned ugly and was part of a broader effort to chill academic speech.

“What Professor Grose has faced … is not substantive or methodological debate. Attacks and insinuations from members of the political classes include completely baseless allegations of election-rigging, inconsistency, bias, and data manipulation,” the letter said. “These are harmful character assassinations. … They are of a piece with other attempts to strong-arm or malign scholars that have become all too common in America.”

The controversy over the methodology the university used to select candidates centered on the inclusion of San José Mayor Matt Mahan — a white candidate who recently entered the race and is polling poorly — while former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee were excluded.

“The university’s selection process — built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale, has delivered a result that is biased,” the legislative leaders’ letter said. “When a methodology produces this outcome — one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to USC’s donor community and the co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future — the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”

Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, which was also co-sponsored by Univision, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he had asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he were to take a paid role.

USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.

“I had no conversations with the debate hosts or organizers,” Caruso said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “This is the most important election for California in a generation, and I encourage everyone to be engaged, learn as much as possible about each candidate, then form an opinion who can move California forward in the most positive of ways. Watching debates is a part of that process. That is why I believe debates should include all the credible candidates.”

The debate sponsors released a joint statement on Friday defending their decision.

“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” said the statement by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and its broadcast partners. “The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”

Hours later, the four prominent Democrats who were excluded from the debate called on their rivals to boycott the event, reiterating their concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.

The Democrats who were set to participate in the debate — Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan — condemned USC’s selection criteria but did not pull out of the debate.

“It is a shame that USC has decided to elevate one candidate at the expense of others,” Swalwell wrote on X on Sunday. “USC, and every host of a gubernatorial debate, should employ fair, objective, and honest criteria for all candidates. I remain hopeful they will do so Tuesday night.”

Porter expressed similar thoughts.

“Criteria used to determine which candidates qualify to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair, and objective,” she wrote on X. “I’m disappointed by how USC handled the process for Tuesday’s debate. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.”

FIRST ON FOX: A watchdog is urging the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate Nebraska Senate hopeful Dan Osborn, alleging he is improperly steering campaign funds for personal use to nearly half-a-dozen of his relatives, including around a quarter-million-dollars to his wife alone, through his principal campaign committee and a web of political action committees.

Last month, Fox News Digital reported on Osborn’s spending that has come under scrutiny, showing that north of $370,000 had been disbursed to his wife, daughter, sister-in-law, and to himself through his campaign and a web of political action committees. 

A complaint filed with the FEC Monday by conservative watchdog Americans for Public Trust, is now calling on the FEC to investigate Osborn’s spending, and lays out even more relatives receiving money from Osborn’s campaign plus another consulting firm his wife works at that has been receiving funds. In total, the complaint says, Osborn, his wife Megan, daughter Georgia, sister-in-law Jodi, second sister-in-law Bridget and brother-in-law James have received $434,734.42.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Osborn campaign with questions about the payments, but many of them went unanswered. However, a campaign spokesperson did tell Fox News Digital that the campaign “is fully compliant with all FEC rules.”

FIVE SLEEPER RACES THAT COULD UPEND 2026 – FROM THE ALLEGHENIES TO THE LAND OF ENCHANTMENT 

“We haven’t received any formal complaints, but what you describe are baseless, nuisance allegations designed to slow Dan’s momentum as he’s tied with Pete Ricketts in four straight polls,” the spokesperson said. 

While paying family members with campaign money is not necessarily a violation of campaign finance law, concerns have been raised about whether Osborn’s payments to his family members have followed the campaign finance laws that must still be adhered to, such as that the pay must be at fair-market value, it must be strictly for campaign services, must be transparently reported and must not be used for personal expenses, meaning expenses incurred irregardless of the ongoing campaign, like housing costs. 

Entities not controlled and operated by candidates can deal in what is called “soft money,” or money that does not need to comply with federal limits. However, that money cannot then be controlled by the candidate to help him directly with his campaign. Money from entities controlled by candidates, often referred to as “hard money,” must follow the FEC’s limits and other rules.

Americans for Public Trust is accusing Osborn of using an end-around to funnel money to his relatives, including from a now-defunct campaign. They cite the fact that Osborn’s Working Class Heroes Fund (WCHF), which he launched in 2024, has a “join the movement” button that routes users to a form so they can be contacted by a different PAC called the League of Labor Voters. They also cite the involvement of Osborn’s custodian of records for his failed 2024 Senate campaign, Brandon Philipczyk, who was also listed as such in Statement of Organization for Osborn’s WCHF and LLV until just a few days ago.

Americans for Public Trust is alleging that these are not truly outside groups — they are effectively part of Osborn’s operation — and therefore shouldn’t be raising or spending money in ways that function like an end-around to bypass federal limitations.

SQUAD-BACKED PROGRESSIVES HIT WITH ‘COLD SHOWER’ AS MODERATES WIN ILLINOIS PRIMARIES

“Despite being established, financed, maintained, or controlled by federal candidate Dan Osborn and his agents, WCHF and LLV have solicited, received, directed, transferred, or spent funds that do not comply with FECA’s contribution limitations, source prohibitions, and reporting requirements, including receiving contributions from individuals in excess of $5,000 and receiving funds from prohibited sources,” the complaint letter to the FEC states.

Osborn’s wife, Megan, who reportedly was a former bar manager, has raked in around a quarter-million dollars from Osborn’s campaign and a web of political action committees tied to him. In some cases, Megan has gotten money directly from her husband’s campaign and in other cases she has received it from two firms, one called Independent Campaigns LLC, which Megan has a one-third ownership stake in, and Dark Forest LLC, which official candidate disclosures show Megan gets compensation from. 

Just two days after Independent Campaigns was set up, Osborn’s WCHF made its first $50,000 payment to the firm, according to local Nebraska news outlet the Lincoln-Journal Star. Thus far, per the FEC complaint, Independent Campaigns has received nearly $200,000 from Osborn and WCHF and another PAC called the League of Labor Voters (LLV), which Americans for Public Trust also alleges is controlled by Osborn.

In total, per the Americans for Public Trust complaint letter, Osborn’s wife has been able to rake in close to $300,00 for herself for things like “strategy consulting” and work reimbursements. 

Osborn’s daughter Georgia, a part-time dancer who Osborn says still needs help paying her bills, was given $4,200 between when Osborn’s first 2024 campaign lost, and before launching his 2026 bid. The money was for “assistant services” from the then-dormant campaign. 

Osborn’s sister-in-law, Jodi, received $1,400 for “treasurer services” from WCHF at the end of 2025, according to campaign disclosures which also show that she is listed as WCHF’s Treasurer.

GOP OVERPERFORMS IN VIRGINIA SPECIAL ELECTION, FUELING EARLY MOMENTUM TALK IN BLUE-TRENDING STATE

Meanwhile, the group also points to a $2,500 payment to Osborn’s brother-in-law, who served as treasurer of Osborn’s 2024 committee, as part of what it calls a broader pattern of family-linked payments that should be scrutinized for bona fide services and fair-market rates.

“Perhaps the Osborn family is teeming with previously undiscovered, dynastic political talent, akin to the Kennedys or Roosevelts,” the Americans for Public Trust letter to the FEC says. “Or perhaps Mr. Osborn has realized his ability to funnel large amounts of unchecked campaign cash to his own family.”

Caitlin Sutherland, Executive Director of Americans for Public Trust, added that Osborn “has become too comfortable blurring the lines between family, fortune, and campaign finance law.”

“Osborn has engaged in various tactics — including utilizing a defunct campaign account — to enrich members of both his immediate and extended family,” Sutherland continued. “In addition to lining the pockets of his close relatives, who appear to lack any notable professional campaign experience—Osborn is racking up federal campaign finance violations by orchestrating a scheme that seemingly finds him illegally running and controlling multiple federal PACs.”  

Besides questions about how Osborn is paying himself and his loved ones, critics of the candidate have also balked at his decision to run as an Independent. Osborn has indicated he has no plans to caucus with either major party if elected and says on his website that, as an Independent, he is “uniquely positioned” to get things done in Congress. Meanwhile, speaking at a town hall, Osborn reportedly told Nebraskans that if his bid as an Independent didn’t work out, “there’s only one party I would caucus with.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

When pressed on which political party he was speaking of, Osborn replied: “Not (Republican) Pete Ricketts’s party,” according to the audio reviewed by Nebraska news organization The Plains Sentinel. However, Osborn’s decision to cash in on national Democratic Party support, including utilizing the party’s main fundraising platform, ActBlue, have led to questions about how independent he really will be.

In December, Osborn was slammed for hiring an anti-cop staffer seen at an anti-police event featuring severed pig heads, and the agency creating Osborn’s ads, Fight Agency, was also behind ads for the Zohran Mamdani, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, and other Democrats. 

One of the firm’s leaders said they were struck by Osborn’s “over performance” in 2024, leading him to surmise “that Democrats need to run a lot of different kinds of campaigns.”

The consulting firm co-owned by Osborn’s wife, Independent Campaigns, has also worked with Democrat candidates. FEC filings show Nathan Sage, a Democrat running for Senate in Iowa, has paid thousands to Osborn’s wife’s consulting firm.