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

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending