Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to only pay Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers as the Homeland Security shutdown drags on.

Despite being in the minority and not controlling the Senate floor, Schumer used an arcane tactic to force a procedural vote to allow the Senate to get onto the bill in Democrats’ move to shift the narrative of the ongoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown.

“It is unacceptable for workers and travelers and entire airports to get taken hostage in political games,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “But that’s what the Republicans are doing. It is unacceptable to say we will only pay TSA workers if it is attached to a bill that funds ICE with no reforms, but that’s what the Republicans have been doing.”

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

The shutdown entered its 36th day on Saturday as the ongoing partial closure hurtles toward matching the record-breaking full government shutdown from last year. Schumer’s failed gambit follows increasingly long wait times at airports as thousands of TSA agents go without pay.

Senate Democrats have dug in deep in their demands for stringent reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and have so far refused to reopen the agency or temporarily extend funding to end the closure until they get what they want.

Senate Republicans and the White House made a new compromise offer to Democrats on Friday night after an open letter from the administration on several reforms to immigration operations was revealed earlier this week. The letter spurred two back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill with Republicans, Democrats and administration officials.

THUNE ACCUSES CRITICS OF ‘CREATING FALSE EXPECTATIONS’ AMID BACKLASH OVER STALLED SAVE AMERICA ACT

Whether they accept that offer or counter remains in the air for now. Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who was in the meeting, said that she hoped there would be another soon.

“That will be up to them, but I hope so,” Britt said.

Still, Republicans tried and failed for a fifth time to fully reopen the agency on Friday. In the background, there have been several attempts by Senate Democrats to move forward with standalone funding bills — like Schumer’s gambit — to open parts of DHS, save for immigration enforcement.

DHS SHUTDOWN TIED FOR SECOND-LONGEST EVER AS DEMS AGAIN BLOCK FUNDING AMID AIRPORT CHAOS, TERRORISM CONCERNS

Time is also running out for lawmakers to find middle ground on reopening the agency, given that they are set to leave Washington, D.C., for a two-week break at the end of next week.

At a press conference earlier Saturday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital that it’d be “very, very hard to explain if we leave town this next week without having funded the Department of Homeland Security.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“At some point the Democrats are going to be held accountable for this,” Thune said.

“I know they think it’s, as has been described by one of their leaders, ‘very serene, very serene’ with their position,” he continued. “Well, I’m telling you something, the people who are sitting in those lines at the airports right now don’t see it as very serene. This needs to be resolved.”

Meta, YouTube and Snapchat are already under scrutiny for risks they pose for young people. Now they are facing another hurdle in their home state.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to restrict social media use for teens and children under 16 years old. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and others introduced a bipartisan bill that would bar social media platforms from allowing users under 16 years old from creating or maintaining accounts.

The legislation comes amid mounting concerns about how social networks impact the mental health of young people. Anxiety among parents and lawmakers has heightened as platforms and AI chatbots become more intertwined with people’s daily life.

Last month, tech executives, including Meta’s chief executive and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, testified in a landmark trial in Los Angeles over a lawsuit that alleges social media is addictive and harms children.

The trial centers on whether tech companies such as Instagram, which is owned by Meta, and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly promoting a harmful product and addicting users to their platforms.

California has passed legislation before aimed at making social media platforms and chatbots safer but faced pushback from tech industry groups that have sued to stop new laws from taking effect. Tech companies are have responded by releasing more parental controls and restrictions for young users.

Other countries have been moving forward with restrictions on social media. Last year, Australia barred children under 16 years old from having social media accounts.

TechNet, whose members include Meta and Google, said in a statement that it hasn’t taken a position on the California bill but doesn’t believe a ban will effectively achieve the Legislature’s goal’s.

“We support balanced, evidence-based solutions that strengthen protections for young people, equip parents with meaningful tools, and ensure accountability across platforms. Our companies have made significant investments in teen safety and parental controls, and we remain committed to building on that progress,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet Executive Director for California and the Southwest in a statement.

The use of social media by young people has divided tech executives.

Pinterest Chief Executive Bill Ready wrote in an op-ed in TIME published on Friday that governments should follow Australia’s lead and ban social media for kids under 16 years old if tech companies don’t prioritize safety.

“Social media, as it’s configured today, is not safe for young people under 16,” he said.”Instead, it’s been designed to maximize view time, keeping kids glued to a screen with little regard for their well-being.”

Lowenthal’s bill cited social media’s dangers such as “exposure to harmful content, compulsive use patterns, exploitation, and adverse impacts on mental health and well-being.”

“Existing age-based restrictions that rely primarily on user self-attestation have proven ineffective and place an unreasonable burden on children and families rather than on the entities that design, operate, and profit from social media platforms,” the bill states.

A spokesman for Lowenthal didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Four Democrats running for governor called on their fellow candidates to boycott an upcoming debate at USC, reiterating concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.

“We ask each and every candidate who is in this race to recognize that if we can’t have a fair process for a debate, then we should all not participate,” said Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary. “We call on them to withdraw from this biased forum.”

Becerra’s call was echoed by former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee during a Friday afternoon news conference.

The candidate’s request comes a week after some of them raised concerns about the criteria for Tuesday’s debate, arguing that it was engineered to allow the inclusion of San José Mayor Matt Mahan, who entered the race in late January and quickly raised millions of dollars from Silicon Valley executives.

“The rules initially were polling and money. Matt Mahan is [polling] lower than some of us, period,” Villaraigosa said, adding that the debate organizers “then added time in the race,” which resulted in Mahan’s invitation.

Mahan’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Friday, but when Becerra raised such concerns last week, Mahan said the former Biden administration official ought to be included in the debate.

The matter is further complicated by Mahan supporters who have notable ties to the university.

Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist said last week that he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.

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.

A representative for Caruso did not respond to a request for comment.

The debate, hosted by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision, is scheduled to take place on campus at 5 p.m. Tuesday — less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes. The forum will be streamed and broadcast on ABC and Univision affiliates across the state.

USC and the television stations put out a joint statement Friday morning, prior to the candidates’ news conference, justifying the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate and saying none of the debate partners had any influence on the methodology.

“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,” they said in a statement, adding that Christian Grose, a USC political science professor, was asked to develop “data-driven” benchmarks to determine which candidates were invited.

“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.”

After the Democratic candidates called for their competitors to not participate, USC and KABC declined to comment further. Univision did not respond to a request for comment.

Grose defended the methodology he crafted as “objective” in an interview Friday, and said he met with Becerra as well as the staff of other candidates to explain it.

“The idea that it was biased or designed to create some sort of outcome to disfavor the candidates who spoke at the press conference is just not correct,” Grose said, adding that attacks on the methodology have a “chilling effect” on universities and media outlets who sponsor debates.

“I’m not worried about the optics,” he said. “The optics are we are having a debate at USC to inform voters and educate students.”

Jarred Cuellar, a political science assistant professor at Cal Poly Pomona, described Grose’s methodology as “thoughtful” and “empirically grounded,” and characterized the concerns raised by candidates not included in the debate as unfounded and not credible.

“The formula is methodologically sound and represents a clear improvement over how debate participation has often been determined,” he said. “Rather than relying on a single metric such as polling, it takes a multidimensional approach to evaluating candidate viability. That approach better reflects how political scientists measure complex phenomena like electoral competitiveness.”

But the controversy has caused consternation among USC professors past and present.

“It seems like an unforced error that is casting the entire event in a bad light,” said a current USC professor who closely follows politics but is not involved in the debate, and who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “It’s super important that if the debate happens, it happens correctly.”

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist who taught election and environmental law at USC for 19 years, said that while he believes the large field of Democratic candidates needs to be winnowed, that’s not the job of a university or media outlets.

“Every one of these eight [Democratic candidates] is capable of running the state of California,” he said. “It would certainly be my advice to USC and to Univision and to ABC to allow all the candidates to take part, or to cancel the debate.”

The four Democratic candidates not invited to the debate argued that voters are just starting to pay attention to the thus-far sleepy race and that diverse candidates should be represented.

“We are a minority-majority state, and the idea that the four candidates of color are not going to be on the stage to bring those perspectives, to really speak to those communities, is really not doing right by the voters,” Yee said.

Becerra said some of the candidates had requested to speak with top university leadership, including President Beong-Soo Kim. In other conversations, he said university officials raised the possibility of “either canceling this debate or incorporating more of the candidates in it. Evidently they could not agree to do that. … I think they recognize that there were problems with the way this debate had been organized.”

Becerra said he reviewed the formula and has “never seen” debate criteria like it before during his decades of serving in elected office.

“Your fundraising numbers are divided by the number of days you’ve been out there campaigning in front of voters,” he said. “So you could have raised millions of dollars, but if you’ve been in longer than someone else who just raised millions of dollars very quickly, you get penalized.”

Campaigns for most of the invited candidates — Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan; as well as Republican Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County — did not respond to requests for comment on the call to boycott the debate.

Former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican who will be appearing at the debate, blasted the Democrats who were upset about not qualifying for the debate as well as USC’s debate criteria as “completely ridiculous.”

“You’ve got a bunch of Democrats that aren’t doing well enough to get into the debate, complaining about it, and I don’t have any time for that at all. Do better, and then you’ll get in the debate,” Hilton said in a video posted Friday evening on the social media platform X. “Then you’ve got Matt Mahan, who’s a candidate who’s just got into the race, absolutely doesn’t meet the criteria, but they’ve rigged the rules in order to get him in.”

Hilton said he was also offended by the exclusion of developer Elaine Culotti, who starred in the second season of the reality show “Undercover Billionaire” and is running for governor as an independent.

“She’s a businesswoman, she’s got a big following. There’s a lot of independent voters in California now. Of course, I would love those voters to support my campaign, but the fact that you don’t have an independent on that stage, you’ve got a bunch of Democrats, and you’ve got two Republicans, but no independent, that is outrageous,” Hilton said of Culotti, who has never registered support in any public polls. “She should be on that stage next week at USC.”