Repairs have been completed after the historic Potomac River sewage spill in Washington, D.C., less than a month after President Donald Trump approved a disaster declaration that allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to help.

“Emergency repairs to the Potomac Interceptor are complete,” DC Water said Saturday. “Full flow has been restored, and the C&O Canal has been fully drained as part of site restoration. Since Jan 19, crews worked around the clock to stabilize the site and protect the Potomac River.”

The declaration came after a sewage pipe interceptor ruptured Jan. 19, releasing more than 240 million gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a disaster emergency over the Potomac sewage spill and requested federal assistance with the cleanup.

Trump said he was worried the Potomac River would still stink when America250 celebrations kick off this summer, according to the White House.

SEWAGE SPILL SENDS E COLI SURGING IN THE POTOMAC RIVER NEAR DC

The president had directed his ire toward Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and other local leaders in Virginia and Washington, D.C., on the issue, claiming incompetence led to the disaster.

Moore and his office, however, pushed back on Trump’s assertions, claiming the federal government has oversight over the sewer utility.

“This is a Washington, D.C., pipe on federal land,” Moore told Fox News Digital last month. “Maryland has nothing to do with this. In fact, the only thing Maryland did was when we saw a neighbor who was in need. That’s why I ordered people, our people to go support them, and that’s what we’ve been doing the past month.

“We’ve been doing essentially the federal government’s job because it’s the federal government’s job to be able to protect the Potomac interconnector because that’s federal land,” Moore said. “For the president now to come and attack me on this, I find that to be … absurd.”

The sewage pipes are managed by DC Water, an independent utility based in the District of Columbia.

A class action lawsuit was filed by a Virginia resident on March 6 that accused DC Water of negligence.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The plaintiff, Nicholas Lailas, who is a recreational boater, is seeking compensation for people “whose property interests in and use and enjoyment of the Potomac River … have been impaired by Defendant’s conduct,” the lawsuit said.

He is seeking unspecified damages.

Fox News’ Stephen Sorace and Jasmine Baehr and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Fans of the musical “Hamilton” know three things about the nation’s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?

A threat.

Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59: “With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.”

Hamilton’s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections. This month he’s at it again.

He’s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver’s license isn’t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn’t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel: Consider that this year, during primary season, we’ve already witnessed natural disaster — such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas — upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.

The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters — with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax — at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.

Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.

For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it’s simply about political survival. He needs the president’s endorsement heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.

Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority — not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.

You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country’s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state’s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud other than his own.

The party that famously railed against “the bridge to nowhere” is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don’t match their birth certificates.

Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump’s favor; he’s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.

“If a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn’t make him a pacifist — it just means he has bad aim,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. “Standing still and giving him a second free swing wouldn’t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.”

In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied — without evidence — that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state’s party chair to overturn the result. He’s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president’s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn’s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Former Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema admitted to having an affair with her former bodyguard while in office and while he was still married — an admission that came by way of an explosive new court filing in the state of North Carolina, seeking to dismiss a so-called “homewrecker” lawsuit filed by the bodyguard’s estranged wife.

Sinema, who served in the Senate from 2019 to 2025, acknowledged the relationship with her former bodyguard, Matthew Ammel, in a motion to dismiss the “alienation of affection” lawsuit filed in North Carolina by his estranged wife.

The complaint accused Sinema of engaging in “intentional and malicious interference” in Ammel’s marriage and sought $25,000 in damages from Sinema as a result of allegedly “willful and wanton” conduct. 

KYRSTEN SINEMA RIPS SENATE DEMOCRATS FOR APPARENT FLIP-FLOP ON FILIBUSTER NOW THAT THEY NEED IT

Neither the motion to dismiss, nor the sworn declaration Sinema submitted to the court, seeks to dispute the nature of her affair with Ammel — described as both “romantic and intimate.”  

Rather, the filings argue that the case should be dropped because the communications in question occurred “exclusively outside” the boundaries of the Tar Heel state.

Combined, the new filings leave little to the imagination regarding the nature of the affair between Sinema and Ammel, which began in May 2024 in Sonoma, Calif., and involved months of phone calls, emails, and Signal messages, in addition to various romantic relations in cities across the U.S. cities.

KYRSTEN SINEMA’S SWITCH TO INDEPENDENT DESCRIBED AS ‘GUT PUNCH’ TO DEMOCRATS: ‘NO WIGGLE ROOM’

“I keep waking up during my sleep and reaching over for your arms to hold me,” Sinema told Ammel in one Signal message, which she recalled was sent in June 2024 from Scottsdale, and received by Ammel while in Kansas.

That fall, another Signal exchange between the two was apparently interrupted by Ammel’s estranged wife. She allegedly responded to Sinema directly, stating: “Are you having an affair with my husband? You took a married man away from his family.”

Just six states, including North Carolina, still recognize “alienation of affection” lawsuits, though the ones that do still require the spouses to meet a difficult legal burden.

In order to succeed in the lawsuit, plaintiffs in an “alienation of affection” lawsuit must prove to the court three things: First, that the marriage had real affection and a viable relationship before any third-party involvement; second, that the “love and affection” was destroyed, or significantly diminished; and finally, that the defendant directly “caused the destruction of that marital love and affection.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Sinema for comment.