Congress could determine the future of college sports.

Thursday was a seminal day as to whether Congress can either salvage – or potentially ruin – intercollegiate athletics. It’s a congressional Hail Mary as senators address name, image and likeness (NIL) deals for athletes, compensation packages and transfers between schools.  

“College sports is in crisis,” declared Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

“There’s a sense of urgency in that room you can feel it, right? You’ve got to do something rapidly,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.

TED CRUZ, MARIA CANTWELL UNVEIL BIPARTISAN COLLEGE ATHLETICS BILL AMID NIL CHAOS, LAWSUITS, ‘LANE KIFFIN RULE’

The Commerce Committee approved a bipartisan gameplan to fundamentally alter college sports. The full Senate plans to debate the bill in July. 

“We have put something on the table that’s going to bring more certainty and predictability to the system,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the panel. 

Establishing a nationwide payout framework is a key aspect of the deal. Lawmakers know that inaction could mean that monied, major programs will simply outbid smaller schools. Perhaps even for a future NFL MVP.

“I’m worried that we’ll never see a Josh Allen again at the University of Wyoming,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., referring to the Buffalo Bills standout quarterback. “It leaves those of us who don’t really have a donor base [to struggle to] pay for players of that caliber.”

The bill also restricts athletes to one transfer between schools during a five-year period without a penalty. 

“Now we have this unbelievable number of players that get in the (transfer) portal every year and we have nothing to control the agents,” said former Alabama head football coach Nick Saban to a Senate panel earlier this month.

UCLA QUARTERBACK ATTEMPTS TO EXPLOIT LOOPHOLE IN TRANSFER PORTAL WINDOW WITH UNIQUE TACTIC

 Lawmakers believe this plan will curb the constant roster chaos. 

Advocates of the legislation believe it protects student-athletes.

“It definitely makes sure that predatory contracting done by agents or universities or conferences or shill organizations, don’t get students stuck in binding arbitration,” said Cantwell.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., is the only former Division I college athlete in the Senate. He played tight end for Stanford’s football team. Booker opposes the bill.

SENS MARSHA BLACKBURN, MARIA CANTWELL HUSTLING TO PROTECT COLLEGE ATHLETES’ FINANCES IN MURKY NIL WORLD

“I’ve seen decade after decade, how the NCAA has screwed athletes. And so we need to make sure there’s firm athletic protections and not trust the NCAA to do it,” said Booker. 

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., is the only former Division I football head coach in the Senate. He led programs at Auburn, Ole Miss, Texas Tech and Cincinnati. He joins Booker in condemning the legislation.

“They’re trying to turn college sports into the same situation we got in with Obamacare,” said Tuberville on Fox News Radio. “We can’t get the federal government involved in college sports.”

During a floor speech, Tuberville argued that “Congress should not decide how much money student athletes can earn.”

Yet Tuberville conceded that “college sports is facing a five-alarm fire. It’s getting ready to be over with as we know it.”

That’s why Cruz believes Congress should intervene.

“If the alternative is do nothing and allow chaos to continue in college sports to be destroyed, I think that alternative is unacceptable,” said Cruz.

Congress struggles to do lots of things right. That’s why some observers doubt that Congress is a good substitute for the NCAA.

Matt Mackowiak is a former GOP Senate aide who’s written about Brendan Sorsby, his gambling scandal and the saga involving Texas Tech megabooster Cody Campbell. Big money lured Sorsby to the school for a hot minute. Mackowiak says the Cruz/Cantwell bill fails to prevent another Sorsby situation. But Mackowiak’s biggest concern is congressional willingness to undercut the NCAA.

“I don’t know why you need to create some new system and make it overly complicated. You have a governing body. They haven’t had a lot of teeth in their enforcement in recent years.”

Some of that is because super conferences like the Big Ten and SEC wield more power than the NCAA. Notably, neither of those conferences endorsed the Senate bill. But it was the NCAA which demanded congressional intervention. The NCAA has told lawmakers it can’t address NIL on its own and pushed for a national standard set by Capitol Hill.

But Booker isn’t enamored with the NCAA.

“The NCAA, which can’t be trusted, has shown decade after decade, (of) failing college athletes,” he said.

There’s concern the bill could undercut current sports broadcasters by diversifying the number of streamers and outlets carrying games. That could complicate viewing. Additional options aren’t necessarily good for fans if they struggle to find their games.

“Then the fans get hurt because all the content is behind a paywall,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. 

“I suspect everyone in this room has heard about frustrations from their constituents in trying to watch their favorite professional sports teams play. They are met with blackouts and paywalls,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.

The House of Representatives stumbled in two previous efforts to regulate college sports. The House Republican leadership had to yank completely different college sports regulation bills off the floor in December and this spring because they lacked the votes. So, now it’s the Senate’s turn to try.

There are lots of questions about whether the Senate, like the House, can command the votes for this bill. Moreover, what bandwidth does the Senate even have for serious legislating in July? The Senate is trying to figure out what’s next about the nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence. The future of FISA Section 702 – the nation’s top program to fight terrorism – is up in the air after authorization expired a few weeks ago. And some Republicans are optimistic the Senate can advance a third “reconciliation package” to pay for the war in Iran, cut taxes and reduce fraud.

It would seem that those priorities might outweigh something on college sports.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: HOUSE DEMS QUESTION SPORTS BILL TIMING AMID LANE KIFFIN CONTROVERSY

But as Cruz and Tuberville both say, the situation in college sports is dire. There’s worry that the SEC and/or Big Ten might form a mega conference. Or develop their own broadcast platforms for games. And there may be a lot more Brendan Sorsbys as gaming becomes more ubiquitous. 

None of this is going to get any better.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 

The future of college sports is on the line. 

So, to fix it, the Senate might just give it the old college try.

The U.S. Department of Justice — make that the U.S. Department of “Justice” — is sniffing around Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

This is widely seen as a throw-me-in-the-briar-patch gift from President Trump, coming as California’s governor edges ever closer toward a 2028 run for the White House. The presumed effort to cut down a political foe could instead boost Newsom’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination, or so it’s being suggested.

After all, look at how Trump’s verbal bludgeoning elevated former Rep. Adam Schiff. The House has typically been a dead end for lawmakers seeking statewide office in California. Today, the former Burbank congressman and Trump tormentor is a United States senator.

In truth, however, it’s far too early to say how the investigation of Newsom and his wife plays out politically, not least because it’s unclear whether there’s merit to the probe or if it’s merely a fruitless search-and-destroy mission by Trump’s Department of Retribution, Vengeance and Settling Old Scores

Beyond that, the first ballots of the 2028 campaign won’t be cast for roughly a year and a half. The Democratic National Convention, where the party will install its nominee, doesn’t begin for another 778 days.

Your friendly political columnist won’t resort to that hoariest of cliches about such-and-such duration being a lifetime in politics. But for some perspective, let’s go back 778 days.

President Joe Biden was running for reelection and about to challenge Trump to a pair of early debates. Trump was sequestered in a New York City courtroom being prosecuted on 34 felony counts.

A lot happened in the weeks and months that followed, including Biden’s self-immolation on the debate stage and Trump’s criminal conviction. A lot more will happen in the weeks and months to come. There’s no telling what. But it’s safe to say the fight for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination will not be decided by anything that’s taken place in June 2026.

Still, Newsom is once again sunning himself in the national spotlight and for that he has Trump to thank.

With his exquisitely tuned political antennae, the governor jumped out front of the president by announcing last week the feds were targeting him and his wife. (Naturally, Newsom’s revelation was accompanied by a rage-bait email — subject line: “Because I am thinking of running for president” — that denounced the “political witch hunt” and asked for money.)

“After calling for my arrest last year, Donald Trump directed his Department of Justice to investigate me,” Newsom said in a 4 ½-minute, direct-to-camera video that framed the investigation before prosecutors had the chance. “And just in the last week, I’ve learned his campaign has reached my own home: To get me, he’s coming after my wife, Jen.”

Newsom and his wife both adamantly denied any wrongdoing and, of course, they must be presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise.

But there was something a bit disingenuous about the governor’s chivalrous defense. Siebel Newsom, a documentary filmmaker who calls herself California’s “First Partner,” is no mere housewife baking cookies and holding teas, in the famous words of Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Hold the outrage, folks, this is not some retrograde criticism of career-seeking women.)

Among her many public-facing activities, Siebel Newsom heads The Representation Project, a nonprofit focused on challenging gender stereotypes. The organization has faced criticism for accepting donations from companies that lobby the governor, so it’s not unreasonable to ask whether those interests have improperly sought to influence Newsom by giving money to Siebel Newsom’s causes.

My Times colleagues reported that an investigation related to Siebel Newsom has been underway for about a year and was launched by federal prosecutors in Sacramento based on whistle-blower information provided in California. It was not, their source said, the result of a directive out of Washington.

A second probe, they reported, is related to Newsom’s ex-chief of staff, Dana Williamson, who pleaded guilty last month to bank and wire fraud involving a scheme to steal campaign funds from Xavier Becerra, the Democratic candidate for governor.

The problem with all this federal sleuthing is the utter lack of credibility attached to Trump’s Justice Department. Which is what happens when you turn the department into an arm of Trump’s malevolent fiefdom and deploy its prosecutors as henchmen targeting the president’s perceived enemies.

“This is a huge problem,” Randall Eliason, former chief of the Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, told Politico. “In any political corruption prosecution, the defense almost always claims it is a ‘political witch hunt,’ that prosecutors are targeting him or her for some political reason.

“The best defense to that has always been [the Justice Department’s] tradition of independence from politics and long track record of pursuing corruption cases based only on the facts and law, without regard to political considerations,” Eliason said. “The Trump administration has abandoned that independence without even trying to hide it.”

The probe of Newsom and his wife presents more questions than answers.

It’s grody, but not criminal on its face, for lobbyists to curry favor with the governor by throwing cash at his wife’s endeavors — if, in fact, that’s been the case. Special interests spending money to gain access and influence is about as common in Sacramento and other capitals as statues, domed buildings and manicured lawns.

So why then are the feds investigating Newsom? Why now? Is there any fire, or is it all a lot of smoke?

Perhaps most important, where can you turn to get an impartial answer?

President Donald Trump may have united Republicans behind military action against Iran, but his push to formalize peace is proving far more divisive.

As details of a memorandum of understanding emerge, GOP hawks are questioning whether the administration gave up too much, while Trump allies argue the president achieved a historic objective that crippled Iran’s military capabilities without dragging the U.S. into another prolonged war.

The disagreement is about more than Iran. It has exposed a growing divide inside the GOP over what Trump’s “America First” foreign policy should look like in practice — and what victory should mean once a military campaign ends.

At its core, the debate centers on competing visions of American power. One camp views military success as leverage to extract maximum concessions from adversaries and secure lasting strategic gains. The other sees it as a tool to neutralize threats and end conflicts before they become another Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump’s Iran agreement has forced those competing philosophies into a rare public collision.

That divide is already playing out among some of the party’s most prominent national security voices.

TOP SENATE REPUBLICAN RIPS INTO TRUMP’S IRAN DEAL, SAYS $300 BILLION MAKES OBAMA DEAL LOOK LIKE ‘A PITTANCE’

The deal’s fiercest Republican critics argue Trump is giving away leverage at the very moment Iran is most vulnerable. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., has blasted the agreement on X as the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” while Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., has warned it appears “out of step” with the goals of the military campaign.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has questioned the concessions offered to Tehran and former U.N. Ambassador and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has criticized proposals that could help rebuild Iran.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has gone even further, calling the agreement a potential “lifeline” for the regime and warning it “smacks of appeasement.”

VANCE SAYS ‘UNITED STATES WINS EITHER WAY’ AS HE DEFENDS TRUMP’S IRAN DEAL AGAINST GOP SKEPTICS

Trump’s allies, however, argue critics are overlooking the sweeping military campaign that preceded the agreement.

Vice President JD Vance and other administration officials contend the president achieved his core objective after U.S. and allied forces struck key Iranian military and nuclear sites, eliminated senior commanders and inflicted significant damage on Tehran’s military infrastructure. Supporters say those operations crippled Iran’s ability to project power, restored deterrence and ultimately brought the regime to the negotiating table without requiring a large-scale deployment of American ground troops.

They argue victory is defined by achieving U.S. objectives and ending the conflict on favorable terms — not by risking another prolonged war in the Middle East.

The clash highlights a foreign policy debate that has been simmering inside the Republican Party for years.

NEW SATELLITE IMAGES SHOW FIRES, NAVAL BASE DAMAGE ACROSS IRAN AFTER US-ISRAELI STRIKES

While Republicans have largely rallied around Trump’s use of military force against Iran, the disagreement over what comes next reflects a deeper tension inside the party.

For traditional hawks, military victories create opportunities to reshape adversaries and secure lasting concessions. For many America First conservatives, the objective is narrower: neutralize threats, avoid nation-building and keep U.S. troops out of prolonged conflicts.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

As lawmakers and conservative leaders continue debating the memorandum of understanding’s merits, the fight may ultimately be less about the details of the Iran deal than about the future direction of Republican foreign policy — and what victory should mean in the Middle East.