Politics
Potential Supreme Court candidates during a second President Biden term
WASHINGTON — A continuing focus on diversity appears to be the political strategy for how President Biden would approach filling any Supreme Court vacancies in a second term.
Sources close to the White House and his re-election campaign say the president would use the successful nomination of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as a template for navigating any future high court opening.
For now, officials say he plans to more prominently tout Jackson’s confirmation to various key constituencies as the presidential campaign intensifies, especially to Black voters who will be key to his re-election.
After Justice Stephen Breyer announced his 2022 retirement, Biden committed early on to naming the first Black woman as his replacement and gathered a number of qualified jurists for initial vetting. That internal list then expanded before three finalists were ultimately reached — Jackson and judges Leondra Kruger and J. Michelle Childs. Kruger and Childs remain top contenders for the Supreme Court, sources say.
BIDEN ADMIN WEIGHS GOING AROUND ISRAEL TO NEGOTIATE RELEASE OF US HOSTAGES DIRECTLY WITH HAMAS: REPORT
President Biden arrives at Omaha Beach to commemorate “D-Day” in France. (Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images)
The president, in public remarks, has made much of the diversity of his judicial nominees for the courts. Almost two-thirds are women, more than twice those named by President Trump in his single term (Biden 127; 64% as of May 22, versus Trump 55 total; 24%). Biden has also named an equal percentage of members of a racial or ethnic minority group to the federal bench — about 64%.
Biden could make history with the first justice who identifies as Asian American or Pacific Islander and would have more than 30 AAPI judges he has named to the lower federal courts to choose from.
But any retirement by Justice Clarence Thomas, who turns 75 June 23, or Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who turns 70 two days later, would put political pressure on the next president to name a Black or Latino to the Supreme Court.
BIDEN’S CRUSADE AGAINST US ENERGY HARMS AMERICA AND OUR ALLIES
Overall, Biden has been actively finding qualified federal candidates to fill bench vacancies. His 200th federal judge was confirmed by the Senate last month, slightly outpacing the number by his predecessor at this point in his presidency.
The following is an unofficial list of potential candidates for the Supreme Court by Biden. It was compiled from a number of sources, including officials within his inner circle, his political campaign and Democratic political and legal circles.
The current White House administration, like those before, quickly began compiling an informal list of possible high court nominees to consider in the event of a sudden vacancy. But serious vetting only begins when such a vacancy occurs or is announced in advance by a retiring justice.
Justice Leondra R. Kruger at a session at the California Supreme Court in Los Angeles. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
- Leondra Kruger, California Supreme Court Justice
Born in 1976, Kruger is a former Obama Justice Department lawyer and argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court. She also clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens and was a finalist for the 2022 court seat that went to Brown Jackson. Her sterling resume and relatively young age could continue to make Kruger a strong favorite for a Supreme Court seat, especially if Thomas retires. She’s considered something of a moderate on the state high court and often a “swing” or deciding vote in close cases. But state judges rarely receive serious consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court. The last was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981. Kruger’s parents were both pediatricians. Her mother is Jamaican. Her late father was the son of Jewish immigrants. She gave birth to a daughter in March 2016.
- Sri Srinivasan, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Washington
Born in 1967 in India, Srinivasan was later named to the court in 2013 (97-0 vote), months before colleague Patricia Millett joined him. He is now chief judge on that bench. He was a finalist for the seat that Garland was nominated for. The son of Indian immigrants and raised in Kansas. Padmanabhan Srikanth Srinivasan was the principal deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department and argued more than two dozen cases before the Supreme Court. He would be the high court’s first Asian American. He clerked for Republican-nominated federal judges Harvie Wilkinson and Day O’Connor. Obama called him “a trailblazer who personifies the best of America.” Known as low-key, practical and non-ideological, he may not excite many progressives, nor give conservatives much to dislike.
Fun fact: Justice Elena Kagan has praised him (both worked together in the Obama SG’s office), saying Srinivasan “cools it down” with his calm manner during oral arguments.
BIDEN WANTS TO ‘BASTARDIZE’ HIS FAMILY STORIES TO GET ‘WEIRD POLITICAL POINTS WITH CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHICS’
- Elizabeth Prelogar, U.S. Solicitor General (pronounced: PRE’-low-guhr)
Born in 1980, Prelogar became the 40th solicitor general in October 2021, after serving for months in an acting role. The Idaho native clerked for justices Ginsburg and Kagan, a former solicitor general, and for then-Judge Merrick Garland on the D.C. Circuit appeals court. Besides Kagan, former solicitors general to later become a justice include William Howard Taft, Robert Jackson, Stanley Reed and Thurgood Marshall.
Fun facts: She was a beauty pageant contestant named Miss Idaho in 2004 and appeared last fall on the NPR quiz show, “Wait, Wait… Don’t Tell Me” (her topic was vacuum cleaner salespeople).
- Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General
Born in 1968, Monaco was a former federal prosecutor and national security adviser under Obama from 2013-2017. She worked as a researcher under then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden starting in 1992. Monaco would also be a favorite for attorney general in a second Biden term if Garland retires.
Candace Jackson-Akiwumi testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C. (Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images)
- Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Chicago
Born in 1979 in Norfolk, Virginia, both her parents are judges, U.S. District Judge Raymond Alvin Jackson and former Norfolk General District Court Judge Gwendolyn Jackson. A former federal defender in Chicago and, before that, a partner in a D.C. law firm, Jackson-Akiwumi was nominated by Biden in March 2021, one of three Black women named to appeals court seats in the administration’s first months.
- J. Michelle Childs, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Washington
Born in 1966, Childs was nominated in December 2021 to serve on the high-profile D.C. Circuit appeals court, replacing the retiring Judge David Tatel. She was Biden’s second Black woman on the D.C. Circuit, after now-Justice Jackson. Sources say Rep. Clyburn (D-S.C.) strongly pushed the White House to name the South Carolina-based Childs to this seat. The D.C. Circuit is seen as something of a professional stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Besides Jackson, recent justices who earlier served on that appellate bench include John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. Childs had previously been a federal district court judge since 2010. The Detroit native went to law school at the University of South Carolina.
Born in 1974, Pérez was a 2021 appointee to her current seat. She previously served at the progressive Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law as director of its Voting Rights and Elections Program. A native of San Antonio, she would be given serious consideration, especially if Sotomayor retired.
- Nancy Maldonado, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Judge, Chicago
Born in 1975, Maldonado was nominated for a seat on the 7th Circuit. She would be the first Hispanic judge on that federal appeals bench. Her nomination to the high court would have a strong backer in her home state of Illinois.
- Patricia Millett, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Washington
Born in 1963, Millett was named in 2013 to a bench considered a stepping stone to the high court, where four current justices once served (so did Justice Scalia). Formerly a private Washington-based appellate attorney — Obama called her “one of the nation’s finest” — who also had more than a decade experience in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office. Millett argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court, second-most ever for a female lawyer. Sources from both ideological stripes call her fair-minded, no-nonsense and non-ideological. Age may be a drawback for any future high court vacancies.
Fun fact: Her husband is U.S. Navy reservist Robert King, and the two met at a Methodist Church singles event.
BIDEN’S INNER CIRCLE DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH FAMILY’S BUSINESS DEALINGS: REPORT
President Biden gives a speech at the White House. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
- Cindy Kyounga Chung, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Pittsburgh
Born in 1975, Chung, a Korean-American native, is a Biden appointee to her current seat and a former U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh.
- Roopali Desai, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Phoenix, Arizona
Desai was born in 1978 in Toronto, Canada, to parents of Indian descent. After law school in Arizona, Desai, as a private attorney, worked successfully with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office to throw out challenges to the state’s 2020 presidential election results. She was then appointed by Biden to the largest federal appeals court.
- Lucy Haeran Koh, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, San Francisco
Born in 1968, Koh was renominated in 2021 by Biden to the federal appeals court. Her 2016 nomination expired with the end of the 114th Congress, and then-President Trump subsequently named someone else to the seat. The Oklahoma native is of Korean descent. Koh had been overseeing separate multidistrict litigation involving such tech giants as Samsung and Apple, Inc. She is married to state Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (see below).
BIDEN’S ‘PERPETUAL STATE OF CONFUSION’ ON DISPLAY IN NORMANDY AMID RISING COGNITIVE QUESTIONS
- Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc Nguyen, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Pasadena, California
Born in 1965 in Dalat, Vietnam, and named to the court in 2012 after two years as a federal district court judge, Hong-Ngoc Nguyen could make history as the high court’s first Asian American justice. She is already the first Asian American woman to sit on a federal appeals court. A former state judge, federal prosecutor and private attorney, he moved with her family to the U.S. when she was 10, just after the fall of South Vietnam to the communists. Her parents eventually set up a doughnut shop in North Hollywood, California.
- Michelle Friedland, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, San Jose, California
Born in 1972 and named to the appeals court seat in 2014, Friedland was sworn in by former Justice O’Connor, for whom she once served as a law clerk.
- Arianna Freeman, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Philadelphia
Born in 1978, Freeman is a Biden appointee and the first Black woman on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Her service as a former federal public defender in the City of Brotherly Love was criticized by Senate Republicans during her judicial confirmation.
Tamika Montgomery-Reeves testifying at her confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
- Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Wilmington, Delaware
Born in 1981 in Jackson, Mississippi, Montgomery-Reeves was named by Biden in 2022 to her current seat after her service on the Delaware Supreme Court. Her home state professional roots would be an obvious selling point to the president.
- Paul Watford, private attorney in Los Angeles and former judge
Born in 1967, Watford’s age and background until recently made him a favorite among some liberal court watchers. Named to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2012, he resigned in May 2023 to go into private practice. He was a finalist for the seat that went to Garland in 2017, although that nomination ultimately failed. He clerked for conservative-libertarian former federal Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit and later for Bader Ginsburg. He is also a former federal prosecutor and law firm partner. Supporters call the Orange County, California, native an ideological moderate, which may not sit well with progressives seeking a stronger liberal voice. But his rulings limiting police discretion in search and seizure cases have been applauded by left-leaning advocates.
Born in 1970 and of Taiwanese descent, Liu is a former Justice Ginsburg law clerk who helped draft her dissent in Bush v. Gore. Liu joined the state high court after twice being rejected in 2011 by Senate Republicans for a seat on a San Francisco-based federal appeals court. He was eventually filibustered after conservatives said he was “outside the mainstream,” expressing concerns over his past statements on a variety of hot-button topics such as same-sex marriage and health care reform. A Liu nomination would be among the most contentious made by a Democratic president.
- Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, former California Supreme Court Justice
Born in 1972 in Mexico, Cuéllar was named in 2021 as president of the D.C.-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Nicknamed “Tino,” Cuellar served in the Obama and Clinton administrations and is a former academic specializing in administrative law. He is married to federal Judge Lucy Koh (see above).
- Jane Kelly, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Born in 1964, Kelly is only the second woman to serve on the St. Louis-based court, appointed in 2013 (96-0 vote). She spent most of her legal career as a federal public defender in Iowa. One of her biggest fans is fellow Iowan Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
Fun fact: Kelly graduated in 1991 from the same Harvard Law School class as Obama.
- David Barron, 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Boston
Born in 1967, Barron was confirmed to the bench in May 2014. He formerly served as acting assistant attorney general in the Obama administration, then went to Harvard Law School as a professor. He also clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens. Being a white male may hurt his chances if President Biden feels political pressure to replace Justice Ginsburg with another woman.
- Robert Wilkins, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Washington
Born in 1963, Wilkins is an Indiana native and was raised by a single mother. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1989. He filed a civil rights lawsuit in 1992 against the Maryland State Police after being pulled over for speeding after officers were instructed to focus on young Black males when making lawful traffic stops.
- Cheryl Ann Krause, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Philadelphia
Born in 1968, Krause was a law clerk for two Republican-appointed court judges, including Justice Anthony Kennedy. She was named to her current seat in 2014 by Obama.
- Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
A few members of Congress typically get mentioned on these lists, often as a political courtesy, especially to those senators who would vote on any nomination. Frequently mentioned are two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (and former 2020 presidential candidates) who gained national prominence during the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.
Booker, born in 1969, is the former mayor of Newark and one of four Black senators. Klobuchar, born in 1960, was a county prosecutor and adviser to former Vice President Walter Mondale. She was mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate for Biden and has frequently been mentioned as a high court candidate, dating back to 2009.
Politics
Biden judge rejects Trump’s sanctuary cities lawsuit, says even a win wouldn’t solve DOJ’s problem
Authorities investigate ICE ramming incident in New Jersey
Criminal defense attorney Josh Ritter and former NYPD Lt. Darrin Porcher react to the New Jersey incident where an illegal alien allegedly rammed an ICE agent. They emphasize the staggering 3300% increase in vehicle attacks against law enforcement officers.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge has tossed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against four New Jersey sanctuary cities, ruling the Justice Department targeted local policies that largely mirror a statewide immigration directive — meaning a court victory wouldn’t eliminate restrictions on ICE cooperation.
U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin of the District of New Jersey, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, on Wednesday dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson, ruling the federal government lacked standing because striking down the cities’ policies would not remedy its alleged injuries.
“The Federal Government’s case has a fundamental flaw — it treats the Challenged Policies as though they operate in isolation. They do not,” Padin wrote. “New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive is a statewide directive that, like the Challenged Policies, limits voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement beyond what the law requires.”
The lawsuit was part of President Donald Trump’s renewed immigration crackdown following his return to office. Since declaring a national emergency at the southern border on Jan. 20, 2025, the administration has aggressively targeted so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, arguing that local policies limiting cooperation with ICE obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution.
DHS TORCHES NEW JERSEY’S PROFANE ‘F—ICE ACT’ AS ASSAULTS ON AGENTS SKYROCKET 1,300%
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents stand outside Delaney Hall detention center in Newark, New Jersey. 5/28/26. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital.)
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in May 2025, arguing the four cities’ sanctuary policies violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal immigration enforcement, including limiting voluntary cooperation with ICE, restricting information sharing, declining to honor certain immigration detainers and barring participation in civil immigration enforcement beyond what federal law requires.
Newark, Hoboken and Jersey City each adopted executive orders declaring themselves “fair and welcoming” or “sanctuary” cities, while Paterson implemented police procedures designed to comply with New Jersey’s immigrant protections. The cities have argued the policies preserve community trust and allow local police to focus on state and local crime rather than federal civil immigration enforcement.
But Padin did not address the question of whether the sanctuary policies are constitutional. Instead, she ruled the federal government lacked standing because New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive independently imposes many of the same restrictions on law enforcement agencies across the state.
GOP CANDIDATE RIPS BLUE STATE DIRECTIVE MEDDLING IN POLICE FORCE’S COOPERATION WITH ICE: ‘HANDCUFFED’
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill said ICE is denying her access to Newark’s Delaney Hall detention center. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital; Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The directive, first issued under former Gov. Phil Murphy in 2018 and codified into state law by Gov. Mikie Sherrill earlier this year, limits when state and local police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities on civil immigration enforcement.
Because the statewide directive wasn’t challenged in this case, Padin concluded that even if she struck down the cities’ policies, many of the same restrictions would remain in place.
“Even if the Court enjoined the Challenged Policies,” she wrote, “its injuries would persist.”
NEW JERSEY’S BAN ON PRIVATELY OPERATED ICE DETENTION CENTERS STRUCK DOWN BY COURT
That directive has already survived multiple legal challenges. The Third Circuit upheld it after New Jersey counties argued it conflicted with federal immigration law, and the Justice Department later sued New Jersey directly over the policy, lost and did not appeal.
“No judgment here could invalidate the ITD or relieve municipal law enforcement officers of their independent obligation to follow it,” Padin wrote.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are seen at Terminal 1 of JFK Airport in New York City. An ICE agent saved the life of a 1-year-old boy at JFK after performing the Heimlich maneuver, the Department of Homeland Security said. (Getty Images)
The opinion also faulted the government for failing to identify concrete injuries caused solely by the cities’ policies. While the Justice Department cited several instances in which ICE detainers allegedly were ignored, every example involved the Essex County Correctional Facility, a county-operated jail that is not a defendant in the lawsuit and is governed by the statewide directive.
“The Federal Government must plead facts that substantiate its feared harm,” Padin wrote.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Padin dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning the administration isn’t barred from bringing the case again if it can overcome the standing issue.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Politics
Supreme Court rules Trump may end legal protection for Haitians and Syrians
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may end the Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians whose home countries remain unsafe.
In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said Congress gave the administration, not judges, the power to cancel or renew this temporary protection for non-citizens who are living and working here.
In a second win Thursday for the Trump administration, the court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the southern border.
By the same 6-3 vote, the court said migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum if they are not already in the United States.
The decision on Temporary Protected Status could affect up to 1.3 million non-citizens who are in the country.
In 1990, Congress authorized this emergency humanitarian relief for non-citizens whose home countries were wracked by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary disruptions.
Under the law, the Department of Homeland Security may grant this protection for 6, 12 or 18 months and either renew or extend it for a similar period.
But this legal authority has been under dispute since Trump returned to the White House last year and targeted the 1.3 million people with TPS from 17 countries who were living in the United States.
Trump’s lawyers said the law made clear there was “no judicial review” of the government’s decision to cancel the grant of temporary protection.
However, immigrant rights lawyers argued the government failed in its duty to consult the State Department and assess whether it was safe for migrants to return home.
Repeatedly, U.S. district judges agreed with the challengers and ruled the administration’s decisions were “arbitrary” and unreasonable. But in nearly every case, the Supreme Court granted emergency appeals from the administration and set aside those orders.
Since TPS was created, the government has ended the protected designation for citizens of 18 countries.
DHS under then-Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Venezuela. A spokesperson for the agency previously said the Haiti designation became “a de facto amnesty program” and that allowing Syrians to remain is contrary to national interest.
Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions and instead acted on political grounds driven by racial animus.
State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had improved enough.
Recently released internal documents show that DHS decided to terminate protections for Haitians without any input from the State Department.
Citing the documents, which were obtained by the National TPS Alliance in a separate lawsuit, lawyers for the Haitians asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case and send it back to lower courts. They argued that the justices should first consider the communications before issuing a decision.
Internal emails show that homeland security officials sought a recommendation from the State Department in May 2025, ahead of Noem’s early June deadline on whether to extend protections for Haiti. But by the time Noem signed what appears to be a final decision memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had not received input from the State Department, the emails show.
“State recommendation for Haiti TPS has not come in despite of many outreach,” a homeland security deputy assistant secretary wrote in a June 2, 2025, email. A recommendation “would be helpful to have,” the person added.
Eleven days later, a USCIS project manager wrote in an email that Noem “recently elected to terminate Haiti without country conditions from DOS.”
USCIS initially recommended automatically extending protections before Homeland Security decided to terminate them, earlier versions of the memo indicate.
The June decision was blocked by a federal judge. In November, DHS issued another notice terminating TPS protections for Haitians.
That time, according a previously publicized email, a homeland security senior counselor asked a State Department official for the agency’s views on the country conditions in Haiti. The official, Spencer Chretien, didn’t address the country conditions but responded that “there would be no foreign policy concerns.”
Lawyers for the Haitians argued that response didn’t meet the legal standard for a sufficient consultation, though the Trump administration disagreed.
Politics
Closed-door outburst turns into victory for Trump’s Iran negotiations
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
An explosive meeting in the Senate turned into a win for President Donald Trump and his administration as key Republicans flipped on another bid to handcuff the administration’s authorities in Iran.
In its final act before leaving Washington, D.C., for an over two-week break, the Senate rejected Democrats’ attempt to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran as talks continue between Iran and the U.S. to hammer out a long-term peace deal.
It was the same war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that passed over a month ago and stunned Republicans in the upper chamber.
‘HE NAMED NAMES’: TRUMP’S SENATE MEETING EXPLODES INTO SHOUTING MATCH OVER IRAN
Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate GOP leaders are pushing forward with budget reconciliation to fund the final piece of government that had been shut down by Senate Democrats’ opposition to President Donald Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu)
What seemed like a predetermined outcome just hours after Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., sparred over the Iran war, and the administration’s lack of forthcomingness with lawmakers, during a closed-door meeting to discuss the president’s marquee voter ID and citizenship verification legislation turned into a surprise late night win.
Trump argued to the GOP that the previous war powers resolution, which passed on Tuesday thanks in part to a pair of Republicans being absent, hurt the administration’s negotiating position with the Iranians.
Meetings with key holdouts at the White House helped change the minds of Cassidy and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has routinely voted with Democrats on every war powers resolution brought forward, and provided the administration with a win as they work toward a deal beyond the 60-day memorandum of understanding with Iran.
IRATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE TRUMP OF HANDING DEMOCRATS A WIN AFTER BLOWING UP HOUSING PACKAGE
“I want to thank Vice President [JD] Vance and Special Envoy [Steve] Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran,” Cassidy said on X. “I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns.”
And Paul, who voted present, noted that his “opinion on the debate over war and executive power has not changed and I have voted that way several times.”
“But since hostilities seem to be over and the President asked me to give consideration to his negotiating position, I will do so,” Paul said on X. “My vote of present is a way to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has been at the forefront among Democrats in pushing war powers resolutions in the upper chamber, acknowledged that “this is a different moment,” but cautioned that the ceasefire appeared to be “precarious right now.”
When asked if he believed Trump’s case to Republicans that the successful war powers vote just a day before was hurting the administration’s leverage, Murphy said, “The Iranians don’t — you know, all they have to do is read a poll and find out that people in this country don’t support the war. They didn’t support the war.”
TRUMP HEADS TO CAPITOL HILL FOR PIVOTAL MEETING AS SENATE GOP DIVISIONS DEEPEN
President Donald Trump boards Air Force One as he departs Reading Regional Airport in Reading, Pa., on Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)
Still, it marked a key win for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and the Senate GOP’s whip operation, led by Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., to flip the skeptics into backers of the administration’s long game in Iran after several contentious weeks in the Senate spurred by Trump’s last-minute decisions that either derailed or torpedoed several of his key agenda items.
Thune and Barrasso, accompanied by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, huddled in the GOP leader’s office as the vote wound down late Wednesday to call Trump, and share the news of the vote.
“Wow! The Senate just changed its vote on Iran from 50-48 against, to 50-47 for,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy changed. Thank you to Leader John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno, and all. This vote puts Iran on notice!”
It also comes at a time when speculation has swirled over the nature of Thune and Trump’s relationship as the president, accompanied by chatter online, have ramped up the pressure to pass the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Moreno made the case that the questions over their relationship, and Thune’s position as leader, was just noise, and that “there’s not a single solitary Senator running for office that says leader Thune should be replaced, not one, even non-incumbents.”
“What today showed is that President Trump has a kind of relationship with John Thune where he says, ‘Hey, let me talk to the guys,’ understand the situation,” Moreno said. “As much as Cassidy and Trump got into it, it was because they’re both passionate, they’re both smart people.”
“And now, we’ve most importantly sent the Iranians a message that President Trump has the full backing of the Congress, and that was an incredibly important day,” he continued. “That’s a huge victory for us.”
-
Technology3 minutes agoHere’s a bunch of Prime Day deals on keyboards, mice, and other peripherals we like
-
World6 minutes agoIsrael slams UN report as ‘political blood libel’ for alleging deliberate targeting of Palestinian children
-
Politics11 minutes agoBiden judge rejects Trump’s sanctuary cities lawsuit, says even a win wouldn’t solve DOJ’s problem
-
Health18 minutes agoLatest COVID vaccine may have unexpected health benefit, study suggests
-
Sports21 minutes agoHow to watch USA vs Turkey: Live stream the 2026 FIFA World Cup
-
Technology26 minutes agoBionic hands are now teaching robots to feel
-
Business33 minutes agoSnap CEO Evan Spiegel and Miranda Kerr help erase $550 million in medical debt for Californians
-
Entertainment36 minutes ago
How Culver City-based Scopely built ‘Monopoly Go!’ into a mobile games juggernaut