Politics
Column: Don't cancel those summer plans yet. Who knows if the presidential debates will come off
Today we discuss travel, leisure, sunsets and presidential debates.
Goody! Looks like we’ll have two Biden-Trump debates to tide us over this summer.
It seems that way. But who knows.
Wait. I shouldn’t cancel my dream vacation just yet?
I wouldn’t.
I mean, I don’t want to pop your party balloon. If a political debate is your idea of a good time — rather than, say, sitting on the sugary sands of some beach watching a dappled sunset play on the water, more power to you!
But we’re still a long way from the moment President Biden and former President Trump share a debate stage.
I thought it was all settled.
The prospective debates did come together rather quickly after Biden issued a taunting challenge and Trump immediately agreed to two face-to-face meetings.
The first is scheduled for June 27 on CNN. The second is set for Sept. 10 on ABC.
However, there are still a lot of details to be worked out, and plenty of opportunity for one party or the other to walk away.
Remember, in 2020 Trump bailed on a debate with Biden because the terms — a remote set-up, taken as a precaution during the COVID-19 pandemic — weren’t to his liking.
I thought all the details were ironed out by an independent debate commission.
That’s how it used to work.
Starting in 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates — a nonprofit entity with a bipartisan board of directors — worked with the television networks to set up three presidential and one vice presidential debate each election cycle.
Matters such as the format, the choice of moderators and the seating (or standing) arrangements were settled ahead of time.
All the candidates had to do, apart from cramming for the 90-minute sessions, was show up.
So what happened?
The commission laid out its plans for four debates this fall, starting on Sept. 16 and ending on Oct. 9. But Biden and Trump chose to disregard the commission and ignore its proposed schedule.
They can do that?
Yes, indeed. There’s absolutely no requirement the candidates abide by the commission’s recommendations, or debate at all.
Jeepers.
Actually, the move wasn’t all that startling.
Trump was unhappy with the commission for several reasons. He complained about the moderators chosen in 2016 and again in 2020. He also didn’t like a decision to mute candidates’ microphones during parts of the second 2020 debate after he persistently talked over Biden in their first meeting.
Two years ago, at Trump’s behest, the Republican National Committee officially withdrew from the debate commission.
So Trump blew it up.
No. Biden had issues with the commission as well.
Two of his top political advisors, Anita Dunn and Ron Klain, were part of a bipartisan panel that issued a 2015 report calling for an overhaul of the presidential debate process by, among other things, expanding the pool of potential moderators and eliminating on-site audiences.
The bottom line is both campaigns thought it better suited their interests to bail on the commission and work out a debate schedule by themselves.
So it’s a win-win for Biden and Trump?
You could look at it that way.
Biden doubtless would have preferred to come nowhere near Trump. If he was running away with the contest, the president might have gotten his wish.
But debates have come to be expected of the two major party candidates, and if Biden refused it would have invited further unwanted questions about his health and stamina.
By agreeing to two debates, and no more, Biden limits the risks of a campaign-jeopardizing stumble. Also, by holding the debates earlier than usual — the last takes place nearly two months before election day — it allows the president plenty of time to recover politically if he turns in a less than stellar performance.
That said, Biden could be boffo — or at least perform decently enough. He’s shown a penchant for rising to important occasions, such as his well-received State of the Union speech in March.
What’s in it for Trump?
He’s been salivating to get onstage with Biden, repeatedly saying he’d debate the president anytime, anywhere. So Trump couldn’t very well refuse when Biden replied, OK, let’s do it.
More than that, Trump and his strategists are thoroughly convinced that Biden is a walking, or rather, doddering disaster. In fact, while it’s typical for a candidate to downplay expectations — the better to crow about their performance once the debate is over — Trump has done the opposite.
He’s described Biden as “the WORST debater I have ever faced” and a man who can’t “put two sentences together.”
So if he puts two sentences together, Biden wins?
I wouldn’t say so.
It doesn’t matter how high, or low, Biden or Trump set expectations. Voters can watch and judge their performances independent of any pre-debate spin. That’s why tens of millions of people tune in. The debates offer one of the few occasions during a campaign where the candidates can be seen unscripted and thinking and acting on their feet.
What about other candidates?
Trump and Biden would both be happy to exclude Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the leading independent candidate, since neither side is certain whom he helps or hurts more.
Regardless of how Kennedy performed, standing on the same stage as Biden and Trump would automatically elevate his candidacy.
That’s another reason the two major party candidates agreed to their own arrangements — though Kennedy could still qualify under the criteria put forth by CNN and ABC. His participation is among the open questions surrounding the debates and something that could end up nixing one or both.
So should I stick with or cancel my summer plans?
Go ahead. Get out there and see the world. It’s summertime!
If you’re that concerned about missing the political action, just make sure your cabana or mountain aerie has reliable Wi-Fi.
Politics
Congress eyes rare bipartisan housing win with or without Trump’s help
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The House has officially shipped a colossal bipartisan housing package to President Donald Trump, and lawmakers are hoping that, at the very least, he doesn’t veto it.
Trump was supposed to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week, but his last-minute decision to ghost the signing ceremony with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., put into question whether the bill was dead.
His refusal to sign the bill, which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in both chambers, was to leverage the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which doesn’t currently have the votes to succeed in the Senate.
WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON
Trump has refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Trump appears to be in no hurry to sign the bill, despite Republicans who are hungry for a win in the affordability fight ahead of the midterm elections.
“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”
“Here’s what I would like to sign, much more than a bill that — big deal, it’s a yawn,” he continued. “Some people say it’s wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”
GOP INFIGHTING OVER TRUMP’S VOTER ID BILL ERUPTS AS TOP SENATOR CALLS STRATEGY ‘FANTASY’
It’s legislation that is loaded with nearly 60 provisions from both sides of the aisle in both chambers that’s designed to make it easier for homes to be built and for younger Americans to buy their first home. It also includes a ban on hedge funds buying up housing stock that Trump pushed Congress to include during the State of the Union earlier this year.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the architects behind the bill in the upper chamber alongside Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., charged that Congress handed the bill to Trump “on a silver platter.”
“When you ask me what happens next, if he cared about the American people, he’d have already signed the damned thing, and we’d be underway,” Warren said on WCVB’s “On the Record” on Sunday.
But Trump doesn’t have to put his signature on the bill for it to become law.
IRATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE TRUMP OF HANDING DEMOCRATS A WIN AFTER BLOWING UP HOUSING PACKAGE
The Senate advanced a massive, Trump-backed housing package geared toward lowering the costs of homes and supercharging the housing supply. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pitched it as legislation to prevent America from becoming a “nation of renters.” (Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Borrowers; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The Constitution grants presidents the ability to veto a bill within 10 days of it being transferred over to the White House. In that scenario, Congress could override a veto of the housing package.
It’s happened before under the Trump administration. In early 2021, Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act — a massive Pentagon funding authorization package that some House Republicans are trying to use as a vehicle to pass the SAVE America Act.
But during that 10-day period, if Trump doesn’t sign the bill, it would automatically become law. That’s unless Congress completely adjourns, in which case a “pocket veto” could happen. The Senate is currently in recess and the House is scheduled to leave town by week’s end, but neither count as a full adjournment.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Johnson, who spent the last few days meeting with Trump at the White House about the housing bill and the SAVE America Act, said: “I hope he does sign it.”
“If he doesn’t, it’s still law,” Johnson said. “We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively. And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”
Politics
British regulator may challenge Paramount takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery
Britain’s culture minister may challenge Paramount Skydance’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — presenting a potential speed-bump to David Ellison’s plan to wrap up his $111-billion deal by September.
Earlier this month, Paramount secured the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing to buy the Warner assets, which include CNN, HBO, Cartoon Network, Animal Planet and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios in Burbank.
Paramount also must win the approval of British and European regulators, who are known for drilling deeply into media matters because of their influence on society.
Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority took a preliminary step this month by opening an investigation into Ellison’s proposed merger.
On Tuesday, Lisa Nandy, Britain’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, notified Parliament that she was inclined to intervene in the blockbuster deal.
In a written statement, Nandy cited her ability to weigh in on “public interest grounds,” due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market in Britain.
“The UK’s move to intervene in the Paramount–WBD deal confirms what we’ve been saying for months. The real regulatory risk was never in the US — it’s in Europe,” Forrester VP Research Director Mike Proulx said Tuesday in a statement.
While Nandy cautioned she has not made “a final decision on intervention at this stage,” she has invited Paramount and Warner Bros. to respond to her concerns by July 6.
June 2026 photo of Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Lisa Nandy arriving at Downing Street for the weekly Government cabinet meeting in London.
(Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images)
Paramount did not offer immediate comment.
The company owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.
Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.
“I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature,” Nandy wrote in her statement. “In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”
If Nandy decides to intervene, the Office of Communications, known as Ofcom, would launch an assessment of the deal. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also would determine how the merger might reshape the competitive landscape.
Teams from the two companies have been huddling for months to plan for the melding of the two operations as soon as Paramount receives all of its regulatory approvals.
Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, France and Italy have already given their approvals to the deal.
Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to contribute $10 billion to help the billionaire Ellison family pull off the merger, which would make the Saudi royal family a significant, although passive, equity owner. In addition, the royal families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to each contribute $7 billion in equity financing.
The Federal Communications Commission must evaluate the foreign ownership stakes due to Paramount’s holding of CBS broadcast licenses. U.S. antitrust regulators already have concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws.
Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.
Trump has been eager for changes at CNN.
The U.S. government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures. Many expect that Paramount may have to reconfigure its children’s television holdings abroad due to the proposed combination of two large players — Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.
Nandy suggested that Britain also should scrutinize the impact of combining two major streaming services HBO Max, a Warner property, with Paramount+.
HBO programming, including “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and “Succession,” has long been popular in Britain.
A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, also is expected to challenge the deal, in part, due to concerns about news media consolidation. Bonta’s office has said the matter remains under review.
Opposition to the deal has been building in the U.S. for months. A group of Hollywood activists — led by actors Jane Fonda and Mark Ruffalo — have spearheaded a “block the merger” campaign that now has support from more than 5,000 entertainment workers.
The group’s open letter calls on Bonta to take action to thwart the Ellison expansion effort. Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has blasted the campaign, calling it “fear-mongering” and a partisan distortion of antitrust law.
Forrester’s Proulx noted differences in attitudes toward the deal among the various constituencies.
“For US consumers, this merger has become a proxy fight about political influence and control of media,” Proulx said. “In the UK, it’s being treated as a structural competition issue where regulators, not consumers, will decide how this deal plays out and how long it takes.”
Politics
Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., unloaded on his own party on Sunday evening, blasting a series of victories for progressives he called “anti-America.”
“Big night for the dirtbag left,” Fetterman said, referring to New York’s recent primaries, where two members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won primaries.
“I’ve said the party is becoming an orgy of socialism. Clearly anti-America, anti-Western Civilization,” Fetterman said.
Fetterman’s striking calls give a rare look at how some moderates may view the developments on their far-left flank that have dominated the party’s momentum in recent months, sparking concern that their high visibility is dragging the party further and further left.
FETTERMAN WARNS DEMOCRATS ‘DRIFTING FIRMLY INTO COMMUNISM’ AFTER SOCIALIST PRIMARY WINS
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., speaks to reporters outside the Senate Chamber during votes on Nov. 10, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
His comments come on the heels of a handful of key progressive victories.
In Maine, Graham Platner, a controversial Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, has attracted controversy for denying knowledge of the meaning behind a Nazi-linked tattoo, for off-color comments about race and calling himself a “communist” in a deleted Reddit post.
In New York, one DSA member, Claire Valdez, won a primary on a platform of abolishing ICE and a Green New Deal-style approach to climate change. Similarly, Darializa Avila-Chevalier, another DSA candidate, beat out incumbent Rep. Adriano Espillat, D-N.Y., a high-ranking Democrat and the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
WINNERS AND LOSERS EMERGE AFTER SOCIALIST EARTHQUAKE ROCKS NYC PRIMARIES
Graham Platner, Democratic Senate candidate for Maine, speaks at a primary election night event at the Blue Hill YMCA in Blue Hill, Maine, on June 9, 2026. Platner won the party’s Senate primary after a campaign marked by accusations of past misbehavior and voter concerns. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Both Chevalier and Valdez had the backing of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a socialist.
The wins have captured national attention and drawn criticisms from Republicans who have pointed to their success as emblematic of the direction of the Democratic Party.
Fetterman, who has not shied away from confrontations, has been one of the few Democrats to express alarm about the kind of candidates carrying the party’s banner.
“I mean, you look at some of the things that people have said. Abolish prison, abolish the border, abolish ICE, I mean these crazy people — I have colleagues in my caucus that refuse to even call this out,” Fetterman said.
FETTERMAN REACTS TO MAMDANI’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SUPREME COURT’S IMMIGRATION RULING
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., walks through the Senate Subway during the Senate War Powers vote on April 22, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Between P-hustle in Maine and some of the other winners in New York, they should form their own party and run on all the things that they’ve had to delete on social media,” Fetterman said, referring to Platner.
“That’s where our party has moved,” he added.
-
Wyoming3 minutes agoFree Crow Culture Program at Fort Phil Kearny
-
Crypto6 minutes agoUK investors sue Binance in London for £150 million
-
Finance11 minutes agoWhat the Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling means for the 2026 election
-
Fitness18 minutes agoI pushed myself too hard at the gym – and ended up in the hospital
-
Movie Reviews26 minutes agoYoung Washington (Christian Movie Review) – The Collision
-
World36 minutes agoNeon Closing in on Luca Guadagnino’s Sam Altman Open AI Movie ‘Artificial’ After Amazon Drops Controversial Film
-
Lifestyle1 hour ago‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries
-
Technology1 hour agoGoogle’s NotebookLM can sum up your research in a TikTok-style clip