Politics
In One Swing District, Guarded Optimism After Trump’s First Six Weeks
Keith Mann, a self-described independent voter, sat out the 2024 election, dismayed by both candidates for president.
He still does not care for President Trump’s character. But more than a month into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Mann, a 41-year-old Phoenix resident, said he was cautiously optimistic about what he had seen so far.
“He’s doing what he said he would do,” Mr. Mann said. He was encouraged by reports of fewer migrants crossing the border, in favor of reducing aid to Ukraine and hopeful that Elon Musk would root out excessive government spending and, “like Robin Hood,” deliver the savings to citizens in the form of $5,000 dividend checks.
“I’m just waiting to see how it pans out,” Mr. Mann said. “At the end of the day, he’s our president — you can’t just wish him bad.”
As Mr. Trump prepares to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening — a stand-in for the State of the Union during a president’s first year in office — voters in battleground districts around the country are trying to make sense of the frenzy of executive orders and other actions that have so far defined Mr. Trump’s second term.
In Arizona’s First Congressional District, around the swingy suburbs of Phoenix and Scottsdale — areas that helped flip Arizona blue in 2020 before shifting rightward again last year — reactions to Mr. Trump ranged from elation among Republicans to disgust among Democrats, with a few wary independents wedged in between.
The partisan rancor in this competitive district remains high, but, in conversations with several dozen voters across the political spectrum, many seemed willing to give Mr. Trump the runway he needs to execute his “America First” vision of the country.
“I feel great,” said Rashad Davis, 33, a Republican who was particularly enthused about the import tariffs Mr. Trump has announced. “He’s sticking to his word — everything he said.”
Many voters singled out the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting effort, as a major driver of their open-mindedness toward the Trump administration — at least, to a point.
Maureen Wielgus, 69, said that she had voted for Mr. Trump in each of the last two elections and that she was pleased with his performance so far, though she added that he needed “to soften his approach a bit sometimes.”
Ms. Wielgus had similarly qualified praise for Mr. Musk’s initiative, which has fired thousands of workers and boasted of tremendous government savings, often only to backtrack and delete its mistakes.
“They’re going in like a bulldozer, a little firm,” she said. “But they’re finding the corruption and the fraud.”
Around the state, Arizonans seemed to be split on Mr. Trump. Recent polling there has found that roughly half of the state’s residents at least somewhat approve of his handling of the job. Rich Thau, the president of the nonpartisan research firm Engagious, said that, in a recent focus group of a dozen Arizona residents who voted for Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020 before switching their support to Mr. Trump last year, all of the people gave Mr. Trump high marks for his performance.
“They want somebody who’s a strong leader, who takes command, does what he says, and that’s what they feel like they’re getting when they see Trump in action,” Mr. Thau said. But, he added, “they are very concerned about his getting distracted.”
Dan Hylen, 39, an independent who did not vote last November, said he had seen “some good and some bad” from Mr. Trump so far.
“Some of the government efficiency stuff I feel like is maybe going in the right direction,” he said. “I like the idea of cutting the fat.”
But he disliked Mr. Musk’s “willy-nilly, shoot-from-the-hip attitude,” and was not in favor of Mr. Trump’s approach to Ukraine. “I don’t want to be in every single war in the world,” Mr. Hylen said, “but I think we have to help some people out sometimes.”
Some voters said Mr. Trump’s combative showdown with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on Friday, in which he angrily rebuked Mr. Zelensky for not showing sufficient gratitude for the United States’ support of Ukraine in its war against Russia, was a shameful display.
“It’s an embarrassment,” said Greg Wise, 53, who votes Democratic. “Throwing away decades of good will with neighbors.”
Others saw it as the perfect representation of a foreign policy agenda that prioritizes American interests.
“He’s showing that we’re not messing around,” said Tasha K., a Republican from Scottsdale who declined to give her last name out of fear that her husband, who is a federal employee, would face retribution. “He put America first, and that’s what we hired him to do.”
The First Congressional District’s ambivalence toward Mr. Trump could be seen recently in moments beyond conversations with voters.
On Monday, Democratic groups organized a protest on a busy street corner in the district, accusing Mr. Trump and the district’s Republican representative, David Schweikert, who voted for a budget resolution last month that calls for deep cuts to government spending, of neglecting their interests. Protesters held up signs reading “Fire Musk,” as well as images of a “missing” Mr. Schweikert on a milk carton. Many passing drivers honked in support, while others rolled down their windows to voice their dissent.
Still, in a purple district where voters of different political stripes frequently brush up against one another, even some of the president’s steadfast opponents were willing to look for silver linings.
Nina Meixner, 71, said she was a conservative who had backed former Vice President Kamala Harris last year because she disliked Mr. Trump’s personality. But she was encouraged by his tough stance on immigration and the tariffs he was putting into effect.
Ms. Meixner cringed at the chaos that she said was Mr. Trump’s “business model.” But, she added, “there’s things that I am happy for.”
By John Ismay, Gilad Thaler, Nikolay Nikolov, Rafaela Balster, Stephanie Swart and Whitney Shefte
June 19, 2026
Politics
Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.
“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”
It was Washington whiplash.
“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)
“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.
All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.
They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.
“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”
The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”
Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”
Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.
Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.
In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.
The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.
When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.
A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.
But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.
Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.
Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.
The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.
-
Nevada5 minutes agoCaltech readies to build world’s most sensitive radio telescope in Nevada
-
New Hampshire8 minutes agoTransgender former New Hampshire state representative sentenced to 33 years for child sex abuse: report
-
New Jersey13 minutes agoYellowcard Brings Ocean Avenue to New Jersey’s Own Ocean Avenue
-
New Mexico20 minutes agoEdgewood and Santa Fe County finalize agreement to keep emergency services going
-
North Carolina23 minutes ago‘Infuriating, heartbreaking’: Raccoon recovering after getting caught in leg trap at Mecklenburg County park
-
North Dakota28 minutes agoOne year later, tornado survivors rebuild and remember
-
Ohio35 minutes ago
Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)
-
Oklahoma38 minutes agoOklahoma lawmakers ask Supreme Court to let customers join ONG rate hike case
