Politics
Government shutdowns may be fewer, but they’re increasingly disruptive
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
At 12:01 a.m. ET on Friday, the federal government entered its first shutdown of the new year,
Shutdowns aren’t a new phenomenon in Washington, D.C., but they’ve slowed in their frequency since the turn of the century. Even so, rising partisan rancor, energized political bases and congressional gridlock have contributed to longer, more disruptive shutdowns in recent decades.
SENATE REPUBLICANS PUSH FOR HOUSE GOP REBELLION AGAINST FUNDING PACKAGE, VOTER ID LEGISLATION
Since 1976, the U.S. government has experienced 22 shutdowns. All shutdowns are unique in why they happen, and typically, the party that thrusts the government into a closure doesn’t win the policy dispute at its core.
The most recent one, the longest in U.S. history, happened because of a funding dispute over Obamacare enhanced premium subsidies. Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded that Republicans negotiate or outright extend the subsidies, which eventually expired last month.
That closure, which saw every federal agency shut down, lasted 43 days.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS MUTINY SCHUMER’S DEAL WITH WHITE HOUSE, THREATENING LONGER SHUTDOWN
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hold a joint news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 8, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
Before that, the previous shutdown lasted 34 days, from December 2018 to January 2019, and was triggered over President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall. At the time, Schumer and then-incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., refused to give Trump more money to build his wall along the Southern border.
He walked away from that then-record-shattering shutdown without the funding.
This current shutdown, which just entered its second day on Sunday, is an outlier of sorts. Trump and Schumer agreed on a funding deal that stripped out the controversial Department of Homeland Security spending bill and replaced it with a short-term, two-week funding extension.
The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
That deal advanced out of the Senate on Friday, despite grumbling from both sides of the aisle.
Its survival in the House is an open question, given heavy resistance among House Republicans who are demanding some policy wins, like the inclusion of voter ID legislation into the bill.
Politics
Tariffs Raised Consumers’ Prices, but the Refunds Go Only to Businesses
You probably won’t receive a huge tariff refund.
The largest businesses stand to reap the biggest bucks as the Trump administration begins to return more than $166 billion in duties deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. Even though President Trump’s trade policies have led to higher prices for companies and consumers, many families aren’t in line to benefit directly from the coming refund checks.
The discrepancy is a reflection of the nation’s complicated import laws — and the ever-fluid nature of Mr. Trump’s trade war.
When the government applies taxes to foreign goods, it charges the firms and brokers that bring those items into the country. Those costs proved substantial during the president’s first year back in office, after he imposed a set of so-called reciprocal tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.
But a majority of justices on the nation’s highest court struck down those duties in February, forcing the administration to pay back much of its coveted tariff revenue. As a result, the government owes refunds to the importers on its record books — meaning companies, in many cases — even if those businesses ultimately shifted the costs of Mr. Trump’s taxes on to their customers.
The beneficiaries may include retail giants, such as Costco, Gap, Home Depot, Kohl’s, Lowe’s, Target and Walmart. For some, analysts estimate that the refunds may total into the billions of dollars apiece, leaving them with a choice of whether to keep the money or share it with consumers, even if indirectly in the form of future discounts.
But almost none of those U.S. retailers commented by Thursday on their exact plans. Only Costco promised previously to pass savings on to customers, without explaining how, as the buy-in-bulk company faces one of a series of class-action lawsuits from furious Americans who believe they are owed refunds.
Heather Boushey, who served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., described the refund process as a “windfall for businesses,” some of which foisted the tariffs on consumers.
“American families,” she added, “are certainly the losers.”
That could turn the tariff refunds into a divisive political issue, at a moment when a majority of voters have already expressed dissatisfaction with the president’s handling of the economy. Democrats have demanded that the administration return the money to families, but Mr. Trump has opposed returning the money at all — and he suggested this week that it would be “brilliant” if companies chose to forgo repayment.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump has insisted that foreigners, not Americans, have shouldered the financial burden of his punishing global trade war. But the data has always told a more complicated story, one in which Americans have actually been left to pay a substantial toll.
One measure from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, published in February, estimated that nearly 90 percent of the economic burden from Mr. Trump’s duties had fallen on U.S. companies and consumers. Its findings prompted an unusually harsh rebuke from the White House, which attacked the report’s economists for a conclusion at odds with the president’s beliefs.
Mr. Trump’s tariffs have also threatened to cut into families’ finances. Studying Mr. Trump’s latest rates in April, the Yale Budget Lab, a think tank, estimated that his policies could cause prices to rise as much as 1.1 percent in the short run, which would translate to an annual loss in income of about $1,500 per household. But it cautioned that its analysis rested on a set of assumptions about how Mr. Trump’s rates might evolve.
After Mr. Trump unveiled his highest duties last spring, companies in particular tried a variety of tactics to blunt the financial impact. They slowed imports, reduced staff, paused development, renegotiated deals with suppliers or absorbed the bite of tariffs into their bottom lines. And in some cases, they raised prices.
The costs of Mr. Trump’s trade war proved so staggering that some businesses sued in a bid to recover their money even before the Supreme Court ruled on whether the president had acted illegally. The official refund process commenced only on Monday, and by the government’s own count, the task ahead is monumental. By early March, there were more than 330,000 importers that had paid illegal tariffs on more than 53 million entries, customs officials said.
Some of the refunds may be significant. Walmart, for example, may stand to recover more than $10 billion in previously paid tariffs, according to an analysis this month from Citi Research. Target could be due more than $2 billion, Nike could receive $1 billion, and Home Depot could see a more than $500 million refund, the report found.
Paul Lejuez, a managing director at Citi Research who focuses on department stores, said the estimates did not include interest owed by the government on those refunds. He cautioned that the figures were imprecise calculations derived partly from companies’ financials.
Still, Mr. Lejuez said he expected retailers to face pressure soon from consumers, who want to see companies “show some signs of giving back.”
At least three, FedEx, UPS and DHL, have said they intend to share tariff refunds directly with customers. Frequently, the shipping giants pay tariffs as the official importers for shipped goods, but pass along the charges to the consumers, who placed the orders. Each said it would help customers recover money.
Other businesses have been more circumspect. At an April forum hosted by JPMorgan, John David Rainey, an executive vice president at Walmart, said he expected the big-box retailer to “certainly avail ourselves” of any refund process. But he offered few clues on Walmart’s plans for the money.
“We’ve absorbed a lot of that,” he told investors at the time, referring to the president’s tariffs. “In some cases, we had to pass along that price increase to customers.”
The lack of clarity has prompted some unsatisfied consumers to take matters into their own hands. In recent weeks, they have filed class-action lawsuits against FedEx, UPS and other brands, including Costco and Temu, the low-cost online marketplace, according to state and federal court records.
The lawsuits generally seek to recover money directly for shoppers, claiming that companies do not deserve to profit twice — first by raising prices on consumers, then from collecting federal tariff refunds plus interest.
“The consumer, for all intents and purposes, pays the tariff,” a set of lawyers argued in their lawsuit against Costco, filed in March. They asserted that the company’s pursuit of a refund “constitutes unjust enrichment at the expense” of customers.
David French, the executive vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation, a lobbying group, said it would be difficult for companies to try to return money directly to consumers because executives cannot simply look at a tariff and “pull out a specific price increase from a retailer’s array of goods.”
But he said he expected some companies to try to give back in other ways. “It may not be a specific item on a receipt that says, ‘This is a tariff refund,’ but you’re going to see the money returned to customers in many cases,” Mr. French said.
Echoing the sentiment last month, Ron M. Vachris, the chief executive of Costco, told shareholders that his retailer would try to “find the best way to return this value to our members through lower prices and better values.” He also said that Costco did not “pass the full cost” of tariffs on to its members, and that calculating the “exact impact” of duties on prices was difficult.
Mr. Trump’s tariffs are expected to change again, as the White House looks to resurrect its previous sky-high rates using another set of trade powers. The president has already imposed a temporary, across-the-board tariff of 10 percent on most imports, using a provision of law that has been challenged in court.
The expected losses from tariffs still represent a sharp departure from the gains that Mr. Trump had once promised to Americans. Initially, the president had said he would return some of the money collected from his duties to families in the form of a rebate check. The idea never gained much traction even among Republicans in Congress, yet the president still pledged repeatedly to offer “a nice dividend to the people,” as he sought to shore up support for his economic agenda.
Mr. Trump does not appear to have mentioned the idea since losing at the Supreme Court, yet many Democrats have started to demand that his administration compensate families.
On Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers including Representatives Steven Horsford of Nevada and Suzan DelBene of Washington asked the top executives of Walmart, Target and other companies to ensure the coming tariff refunds “reach those who ultimately bore those costs.”
“American families felt the impact of these tariffs in everyday life,” they wrote in a letter. “The question of how refunds are distributed is one of corporate accountability and economic fairness.”
Politics
Trump admin steps up next phase of effort to protect children’s health
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FIRST ON FOX: The Trump administration is stepping up its response to childhood lead exposure, launching new EPA public-education tools while pressing states to use previously awarded lead-mitigation funds that had gone unused, Fox News Digital learned.
“There’s no safe level of lead exposure, and it’s well documented that children are more susceptible to the risks of lead. We’ve made a lot of progress over the decades in reducing childhood exposure to lead, but there’s still more work to do,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi told Fox News Digital in a Zoom interview.
The EPA is revamping its website and launching a new story map tool aimed at making critical information on the risks of lead exposure easier for the public to access. The move comes as the agency shifts funding toward higher-impact efforts and steps up pressure on states to address contamination risks.
RFK JR DEFENDS TRUMP MOVE TO PROTECT PESTICIDE HE TIED TO ‘CHRONIC DISEASE EPIDEMIC’
The EPA is revamping its website and launching a new story map tool making critical information on the risks of lead exposure easier for the public to access. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
Lead can be commonly found in paint, household dust, drinking water, air, and soil. The new tools will provide information to the public on current regulations for prevention.
“We’re also enforcing our rules when it comes to the lead renovation and painting rule. This comes up when you’ve got older homes, 1978 and older. Those are the ones that are more likely to have lead in the home, in the paint,” said Fotouhi. “When those homes are being renovated, it’s critical that folks are following our standards for ensuring the safety of any children that are occupying that home during that renovation.”
OBAMA-ERA GREENHOUSE GAS RULES GONE AS EPA’S ZELDIN SIGNS ‘SINGLE LARGEST DEREGULATORY ACTION’ IN HISTORY
There are 4 million lead service lines carrying drinking water to homes. (iStock)
The agency announced $3 billion in new funding for states to reduce lead in drinking water while also reallocating $1.1 billion in unused funding. Fotouhi explained to Fox News Digital that previous federal dollars to protect against lead poisoning and replace service lines sat unused in a handful of states.
“We’ve really focused on is making sure that states that received lead funding in the past are putting that money to good use,” said Fotouhi. “We encountered a number of situations where states had received funding from EPA to replace lead service lines but had not taken and spent those funds to do that work.”
There are 4 million lead service lines carrying drinking water to homes, according to a 2025 EPA report.
The EPA’s broader push to prevent lead poisoning also included $26 million for states and territories last year to address lead in drinking water at schools and child-care facilities, underscoring the administration’s focus on children’s exposure risks.
READ: DR. OZ PUTS ALL 50 GOVERNORS ON NOTICE OVER BILLIONS LOST TO MEDICAID FRAUD
Make America Healthy Again hats are given out at a news conference on removing synthetic dyes from America’s food supply, at the Health and Human Services Headquarters in Washington, DC on April 22, 2025. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
A committee of senior leaders was reestablished in 2025 across the agency’s program offices and 10 regions as part of EPA’s agency-wide effort to reduce children’s exposure to lead.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“This is federal, this is precious federal grant funding. Designed specifically to reduce human health risk from lead exposure, and the states need to be doing their job here and putting that funding to good use,” said Fotouhi.
The administration has cast children’s health as a cross-agency priority, with HHS helping drive that push through the White House’s Make America Healthy Again initiative, which has focused in part on childhood chronic disease and environmental toxins.
Politics
Contributor: Carlson’s cautious apology does little to repair Trumpism’s damage
When you break a promise as clear as “No new wars,” you shouldn’t be surprised when even your most loyal supporters revolt. And that’s exactly what is happening to President Trump.
One such disillusioned supporter is Tucker Carlson — who on a recent podcast with his brother Buckley admitted, in essence, “My bad.”
“You wrote speeches for him. I campaigned for him. I mean, we’re implicated in this, for sure,” Tucker Carlson said during the conversation.
“In real ways, you and me, and millions of people like us, are the reason this is happening right now,” Calson confessed, referring to the Iran war. “We’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be, and I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people, and it was not intentional.”
Having worked for Carlson for six years at the Daily Caller, I’ve always found him intelligent and funny and generous, even as I have profoundly differed with him on a variety of issues throughout the Trump era.
It did my heart good to hear him accept some responsibility for what Trump has wrought.
A lot of people were complicit in boosting Trump, and some of them have even subsequently criticized him for various sins (failing to release the Epstein files, going to war with Iran, etc.). But this is the first time I can recall anyone of this stature explicitly apologizing for helping elect Trump. And that warrants a certain amount of respect.
Still, let’s be clear-eyed about what Carlson is — and isn’t — saying here. Specifically, it’s worth noting that the apology doesn’t extend to validating those of us who opposed Trump from the beginning.
In fact, it almost can’t.
Doing that would require the confessor to reinterpret not just Trump’s presidency, but also the entire ecosystem that made supporting Trump a viable option in the first place.
It would mean admitting that the framework he used to evaluate Trump was flawed, not just the outcome.
That would end up being perceived as an indictment on the broader Republican electorate — and on Carlson’s worldview and judgment — not just on Trump’s recent performance or (even more conveniently) the notion that Trump has changed or was co-opted by Israel (or whomever) since 2024.
It’s a much bigger ask than saying, “I regret this specific result.”
Specifically, Carlson is not conceding that the “Never Trump” crowd got it right — which is what those of us who have spent a decade opposing Trump (with little fanfare) have been dying to hear for a decade (even more so than “I’m sorry.”)
This is an important distinction, partly because it means that, although Carlson is now a convenient ally in the “resistance,” he is not opposing Trump for the same reasons that most Democrats or Never Trump conservatives oppose Trump.
If you put aside Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran, the Carlsons’ second-biggest criticism of Trump (based on their two-hour-long podcast) is his failure to more vigorously defend the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters.
That’s right. It’s not that he sicced immigration enforcers on immigrants and that they subsequently killed two American citizens. It’s not that DOGE fired lots of good people. It’s not that this president tried to use the Department of Justice to seek vengeance on his political rivals. It’s that Trump — the person who pardoned these people — wasn’t aggressive enough in defending the criminals who stormed the U.S. Capitol while trying to overturn the 2020 election results.
And while there’s no reason to doubt Carlson’s remarks are sincere (he has been a vocal opponent of war with Iran) and meaningful (he’s an influential figure), his comments may also signal something else: a recognition that opportunity awaits.
Consider this: Trump’s political standing is in deep trouble (Trump’s approval rating is down to 33%, according to a new AP-NORC poll).
What is more, Trump’s fading fortunes aren’t just isolated to Trump. As always, there is collateral damage: JD Vance.
Once seen as Trump’s obvious heir, Vance now finds himself in a difficult position, defending the war in Iran and attacking the pope, while simultaneously releasing a book about his Catholic conversion.
In that sense, Carlson’s apology could be less a grudging epiphany than a strategic recalibration. It acknowledges that Trump has gone off the rails but stops short of examining why it was destined to go wrong in the first place.
Carlson gets close to the answer when he tells his brother, “there were signs of low character. We knew that,” but then dismisses it by saying “there are tons of people of low character who outperform their character.”
Without deeper reflection, this apology risks becoming just another pivot — one that has as much to do with positioning as it does with repentance.
And that would be a shame.
It’s easy to regret an outcome. It’s much harder to interrogate the instincts that led you (and tens of millions of Americans) to enable it.
Apologies like Carlson’s won’t close the chapter on this long national nightmare.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
-
Missouri1 minute agoKansas City, Missouri, police launch homicide investigation, after shooting at 55th and Prospect
-
Montana7 minutes agoEmergency declared as supply chain disruptions hit farms
-
Nebraska13 minutes agoToday in History – April 24: Statue added to top of Nebraska Capitol
-
Nevada19 minutes agoHenderson mental health professionals to be dispatched through 988
-
New Hampshire25 minutes agoNH News Recap: Local police and ICE funds; more YDC scrutiny; good news in Franklin
-
New Jersey31 minutes ago
How are public libraries funded in New Jersey? ⋆ Princeton, NJ local news %
-
New Mexico37 minutes agoHere’s how to get extra SNAP dollars in New Mexico this year
-
North Carolina43 minutes agoNorth Carolina Center Henri Veesaar Entering NBA Draft