Politics

Multiple venues on the 2024 presidential campaign trail

Published

2 years ago

January 5, 2024

Press Room

Multiple venues on the 2024 presidential campaign trail

It would be like playing the Super Bowl at Churchill Downs.

The Stanley Cup Finals at Fenway Park.

Running the Indianapolis 500 in the old Boston Garden.

The 2024 presidential campaign likely won’t unfold in all the old familiar places.

THE SPEAKER’S LOBBY: LEGISLATION ON COLLEGE SPORTS RELEGATED TO THE JV

The presidential proving ground for former President Trump may be in various courthouses, ranging from New York to Atlanta.

But House Republicans hope the presidential validation field for President Biden in 2024 is in the halls of Congress.

House Republicans didn’t accomplish much in 2023. But in mid-December, House GOPers finally conjured up the votes to formalize an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. That dynamic — emerging in an election year — could expose whether voters buy the GOP narrative that Mr. Biden, Hunter Biden and his family have something to hide about overseas business entanglements and financial dealings.

Or, the maneuver could reveal whether Republicans came up with blanks.

There is also the risk that voters believe the GOP is just engineering a not-so-shadow campaign to knife President Biden politically in 2024.

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., began inching toward a House impeachment inquiry in late June and early July. But McCarthy never had the votes to officially launch an inquiry. And we all know what happened to McCarthy.

There were two camps of Republicans in the House when it came to impeachment. Not so much on whether the House should impeach Mr. Biden, but on how long an impeachment investigation should take.

Republican presidential candidate and former President Trump speaks at a campaign event last month in Waterloo, Iowa. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

One cohort of GOPers argued last summer they could wrap up the investigation soon and determine by fall whether they should impeach President Biden. They fretted about dragging things out into an election year. The other group didn’t set a timetable. Lawmakers appeared determined to let any inquiry run its course.

And so, here we are in 2024 — a presidential election year. Republicans burned valuable time through 2023 fighting over who should be Speaker of the House and potential rendezvous with government shutdowns and the debt ceiling. So is there any surprise impeachment drifted into 2024?

And therein lies possible trouble.

Of course, any impeachment investigation is dangerous for a sitting president. But historically, it has been just as dangerous for the party undertaking the impeachment investigation.

Consider for a moment: what political benefit has any party ever reaped from an impeachment? Ever? And that includes the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.

What do Democrats have to show with their two impeachments of former President Trump? Few consequences. Mr. Trump roared back stronger than ever after the Capitol riot and is the presumptive Republican nominee.

CONGRESS’ FIGHT OVER IMMIGRATION REFORM COULD LAST A WHILE

What did House Republicans get from their impeachment of former President Clinton in 1998? Well, Republicans almost lost control of the House. And the Republicans of 1998 churned through two House Speakers. The Clinton impeachment signaled the end for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. Gingrich’s intended successor — former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., never became Speaker. It was revealed the night before the House impeached former President Clinton for deeds related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky that Livingston had also had an affair. So Livingston stepped aside.

This is why impeachments are risky. They often backfire. And while there’s a lot of turmoil, they don’t shift the political landscape.

“Without evidence, you simply cannot persuade those suburban voters who will sometimes vote Republican and sometimes vote Democratic, that the Republicans are doing the right thing in the House,” said University of Mary Washington political scientist Stephen Farnsworth. “As much as the far right conservatives in the safe seats are going to want this impeachment inquiry to move forward, the reality is that doing so may very well cost the Republicans their majority.”

We have no idea how or if House Republicans will actually impeach President Biden.

It’s about the math.

Rioters descend on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/John Minchillo/File)

Republicans begin 2024 with a 220-213 advantage in the House. The already meager GOP majority could dwindle further. Republicans cannot lose more than three votes on any roll call and still pass something without assistance from the other side.

Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, will resign in mid-January. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., is out until February recovering from cancer treatment. That means that in late January, Republicans effectively will have 218 operational votes in a 432-member House. They can lose two votes on any given roll call. Otherwise, the Democrats will prevail.

So, it’s unclear if Republicans will ever have the votes to impeach President Biden.

That presents the worst case scenario for the GOP.

Here are three problems:

If Republicans fail to impeach President Biden, the conservative base will be apoplectic.

That’s because Republicans have talked and talked about impeachment since President Biden took office. They potentially raised the bar and failed to deliver. Their voters could turn tail on them.

Then you have this mid-December impeachment inquiry vote. The average voter doesn’t follow the grand details of “impeachment” and the difference between an inquiry and actually impeaching the president. But all House Republicans — including those from battleground districts or the 18 districts President Biden won — are on the hook. That vote alone could be enough to torpedo many of those Republicans in the general election, regardless of how they try to finesse it.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said a “formal impeachment inquiry vote on the floor will allow [Republicans] to take it to the next necessary step.” (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Finally, imagine Republicans not impeaching President Biden, but keeping impeachment on the table with regular hearings and days of closed-door depositions. The public wonders why Republicans are dithering. Their base is displeased that they didn’t impeach the President. Skeptics ask what Republicans are spending all of their time on.

It could be a lose-lose-lose scenario.

Never mind that Republicans run headlong into a legislative jumble later this month and February with possible government shutdowns. And utterly nothing is figured out about securing the border despite weeks of talks. That hamstrings the release of potential aid to Ukraine and Israel. Republicans linked President Biden’s international assistance package to border security. That may work politically. But now it’s looking like it’s imperiling any way to get Ukraine and Israel the money they need.

This is why Republicans are now teeing up a potential impeachment inquiry against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. And Republicans are planning to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for skipping out on a subpoena for a deposition last month.

A contempt of Congress citation cuts two ways.

Republicans will wail that Hunter Biden didn’t comply with a subpoena. But McCarthy, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Scott Perry, R-Penn., and Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., all defied subpoenas in 2022 from the House committee investigation the Capitol riot.

That said, it is hard for the House to enforce a subpoena against a sitting member from one of its committees.

However, watch to see if the Justice Department prosecutes Hunter Biden if the House holds him in contempt. The DoJ prosecuted former Trump aides Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for not complying with subpoenas. If the DoJ doesn’t prosecute, Republicans will argue that the Biden Justice Department is shielding the President’s son. Former President Trump will assert that he’s getting unfair treatment facing prosecution from Special Counsel Jack Smith.

So there are two venues for the 2024 campaign trail.

Yes. States like Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and New Hampshire could determine who is president.

But the battlefield is in the halls of Congress and courtrooms across the nation.

Chad Pergram currently serves as a senior congressional correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

1 minute ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

: “How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
Advertisement

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

1 hour ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget.

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening.

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders.

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said.

“Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023. (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

2 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”