Connect with us

Politics

Barely: House GOP passes government funding bill without help from Democrats

Published

on

Barely: House GOP passes government funding bill without help from Democrats

We learned something on Capitol Hill this week.

House Republicans can pass a government funding bill without Democratic assistance.

Barely. 217-213.

Republicans could only lose one vote. And that’s all they lost: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHERE WE STAND WITH A POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

Advertisement

The GOP bill even picked up one Democratic yea: Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine.

Passing government funding bills on their own wasn’t always the case for the House GOP. Republicans have held the House majority for more than two years now. The GOP majority consistently leaned on Democrats – serving in the minority – for many of the votes to keep the government open and lift the debt ceiling. But that changed late Tuesday afternoon as House Republicans approved their own bill to keep the lights on.

But before the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., berated Democrats for opposing the temporary spending package, known as a “Continuing Resolution” or “CR.”

“If Congressional Democrats refuse to support this clean CR, they will be responsible for every troop who misses a paycheck. For every flight delay from reduced staffing at TSA. For every negative consequence that comes from shutting down the government,” said Johnson.

It was unclear if Johnson could pass the bill with just Republicans. Especially as the Speaker upbraided Democrats for vowing to vote nay.

Advertisement

“You continually criticize the Democrats,” yours truly said to the Speaker. “Doesn’t that imply that you don’t have the votes on your side? Because you wouldn’t need Democratic assistance to keep the government?”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 7, 2025.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

“No. We will have the votes,” responded Johnson. “We’re going to pass the CR and we can do it on our own.”

A few hours later, the Speaker made good on his promise.

But he had an assist.

Advertisement

Vice President JD Vance came to the Capitol to assuage fears of skeptical House Republicans Tuesday morning. But Vance didn’t quite close the deal.

“I saw some looks in there that didn’t leave me feeling good as to securing the votes of those who may be having questions,” said Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., after the House Republican conclave with Vance.

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., and others said they needed more assurances about future spending cuts. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said he would “pray” about how to vote on the bill. But heading into the meeting, Burchett conceded he hadn’t yet experienced any political intercession.

“I’m uncomfortable with giving the Pentagon more money, even though overall, we’re cutting,” said Burchett.

By afternoon, Burchett told me he was “closer,” but still not there.

Advertisement

And when the House voted, it passed the bill.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: HERE WE GO AGAIN (AGAIN)

But what made the difference when it came to convincing skittish Republicans to vote yes?

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox he was “barely” for the CR.

“What’s the ‘barely’ part?” I asked.

Advertisement

“The ‘barely” is Donald Trump. He is the difference maker. I would never support this language. But I do trust Donald Trump,” said Burlison. “He’s not let me down. I think that he is a man of his word. And so I believe him when he’s when he says he’s going to get it done.”

But that was only half of the battle. The bill earned the support of all but one Senate Republican. But 60 votes are necessary to break a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 GOP members. So that would entail assistance from Democrats.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he opposed the bill because it didn’t cut spending. Paul said he didn’t get any blowback from the President or fellow Republicans on his position.

The US Capitol in Washington, DC, on Monday, Nov. 11, 2024.  (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“People know kind of where I am. I’m pretty consistent on opposing debt and opposing spending,” said Paul.

Advertisement

Contrast the silence Paul has heard to how President Trump unloaded on his Bluegrass State colleague, Thomas Massie. Mr. Trump argued that Massie should face a primary for his defection.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., is the only Democrat on the record support the stopgap spending bill.

So, it’s about the math.

With only 52 Republicans primed to crack a filibuster, that means the Senate needs eight Democrats to vote yes. That includes Fetterman. Note that they don’t have to vote yes on the bill. Just to overcome the filibuster. Republicans can pass the bill on their own with a simple majority.

This leaves Democrats as badly torn as any party in recently on any issue.

Advertisement

On one hand, Democrats don’t want to shutter the government. They fear that will imperil already skittish federal workers. And it could lead to additional cuts from Elon Musk and DOGE if federal workers aren’t on the job.

On the other hand, they want to be seen as fighting for their base and rally against President Trump and Musk.

But it is often the darkest before the dawn.

TRUMP’S UNION-ENDORSED PICK CONFIRMED BY SENATE TO LEAD LABOR DEPARTMENT

Democrats must either go to the mat or try to salvage something before the 11:59:59 pm et government funding deadline Friday.

Advertisement

There are rattlings that Democrats may ask for votes on a universe of amendments – none of which would pass. But at least Democrats could save face – telling their loyalists that they fought for their values and tried to stand up to the President and Musk. They could also make the case that a shutdown is worse than keeping the government open.

Fox is told senators would be interested in votes on the following subjects:

  • Restoring funding for Washington, DC
  • Restricting DOGE and/or efforts by the administration to “impound” money already appropriated by Congress
  • A Democratic one-month, stopgap spending bill

Fetterman appeared to be the only Democrat willing to vote for the GOP interim spending bill, but Thursday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced he would vote for it. And it’s possible that a vote on a set of amendments could unlock a few Democratic votes to break a filibuster on the bill.

But tensions are now running high.

Reporters staking out a meeting of Senate Democrats talking about the shutdown heard who they believe was Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand, D-N.Y., screaming at her colleagues through he thick Capitol walls.

Multiple Senate Democrats were utterly silent as they left a lengthy Senate Democratic Caucus. None of the senators approached by Fox were willing to talk – even though some are quite loquacious under other circumstances. In fact Fox even asked several of the Democrats if they were told not to say anything. Several replied “no comment.”

Advertisement

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., talks with reporters in Russell building after a senate vote on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Quiet on Capitol Hill often means something is up and that lawmakers are trying to broker a very fragile deal. It also means that lawmakers are fuming.

There was genuine fear among Democrats that a government shutdown could permanently imperil the federal government and perhaps trigger additional layoffs of thousands of federal workers.

Here’s the other problem: If the government shut down, no one is quite sure HOW it could re-open. It’s about the math. And the calculus under those circumstances simply did not work to for the House and Senate to eventually pass the same bill and re-open the government. That calculus simply did not seem to work. 

That’s why Schumer made the decision to support the Band-Aid spending bill – as risky as it is. 

Advertisement

Schumer and Trump. (AP/Getty Images)

This is why multiple Senate Democrats refused to comment on what Schumer told them at the closed-door caucus meeting today. That’s why tempers flared and Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was heard yelling through the thick Senate walls.

But this is not without peril for Schumer.

He needs to convince six other Democrats (for a grand total of eight) to support overcoming a filibuster. 

There are 53 Senate Republicans. 60 votes are needed to avert a filibuster. 

Advertisement

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a no. So the deficit is eight. Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) are the first two Democrats to say they are willing to vote to overcome a filibuster. So Schumer needs six more. 

If he can’t find those votes, the government will close. And Schumer will have committed a tremendous tactical error. 

As the saying goes, a leader with no followers is just a man out for a walk.

Former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, used to say that “nothing good” ever happens when Congress has been in session for more than three consecutive weeks.

Members grow angry. Antsy. Tempers are short.

Advertisement

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., noted that the Senate has met for ten consecutive weeks.

“Senators have been seeing a lot of each other lately. In fact, too much,” said Thune.

That includes three all-night sessions and weekend sessions. This period is the longest stretch of consecutive weeks for Senate activity in 15 years.

The Senate is scheduled to be out next week for the first time this year. A government shutdown trashes the recess. Senators have barely seen their family members. It’s been a frenetic pace.

Advertisement

That’s why the most powerful people in Washington could have the ultimate say about funding the government: Senate spouses.

And if the Senate aligns with the House, they will have averted a government shutdown.

But barely.

Politics

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

Published

on

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.

It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called “aggression” against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.

Advertisement

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, pictured above. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Adelola Tinubu/U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet )

The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had “suppressed” Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.

Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.

IF KHAMENEI FALLS, WHO TAKES IRAN? STRIKES WILL EXPOSE POWER VACUUM — AND THE IRGC’S GRIP

Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)

Advertisement

Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.

Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as “ineffective,” though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.

Smoke rises over the city after the Israeli army launched a second wave of airstrikes on Iran in Tehran on Feb. 28, 2026. (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.

Advertisement

The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report. 

Related Article

Iraq War flashbacks? Experts say Trump’s Iran buildup signals pressure campaign, not regime change
Continue Reading

Politics

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Published

on

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Advertisement

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

Advertisement

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Advertisement

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Advertisement

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

Advertisement

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Advertisement

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending