An official with the Republican National Committee (RNC) confirmed Thursday that the third GOP presidential debate will be held in Miami, Florida, in early November.

The news comes following speculation the next debate would be held at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, however the RNC official confirmed to Fox News Digital that would not be the case.

According to CNN, who first reported the location, NBC News and Salem Media are in talks to host the debate, people familiar with the matter told the outlet.

The first Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on Aug. 23 with eight candidates in attendance. Former President Donald Trump, the front-runner in the race, did not attend.

The second Republican debate will be hosted by Fox Business and Univision, and will be held in Simi Valley California at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Sep. 27 from 9 to 11 p.m. ET.

So far, six candidates have qualified for the debate, including:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantisEntrepreneur Vivek RamaswamyFormer South Carolina Gov. Nikki HaleyFormer Vice President Mike PenceSouth Carolina Sen. Tim ScottFormer New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

Trump has met each of the requirements to participate, except for signing the pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee should it be a different candidate.

The RNC has not yet announced the requirements to qualify for the Miami debate.

Fox News’ Kyle Morris contributed to this report.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham says state Republicans are fundraising off her back amid her controversial gun order in the state’s capital that has riled the GOP, members of her own party and gun rights groups. 

‘I’m still waiting on a thank-you note from the New Mexico GOP,’ she wrote Thursday on X, formerly known as Twitter. ‘Way to use my call to action around gun violence as a fundraiser instead of using it as an opportunity for immediate action to save New Mexican lives.’

The remark came after the state Republican party sent fundraising notices related to the opposition to Grisham’s order announced last week that temporarily bans the open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque. 

In response, the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a lawsuit Thursday in the state’s Supreme Court.

‘Please rescind your unlawful and blatantly unconstitutional orders and uphold your oath to defend the constitutional rights of those in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Until then, we’ll see you in court,’ NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch wrote to Lujan Grisham on Thursday, according to a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital. 

On Tuesday, the Republican Party of New Mexico said it also plans to sue the governor. 

‘We’re filing a lawsuit against @GovMLG and the Secretary of Health for violating the rights of New Mexicans! America is not a totalitarian nation! We will not stand for the governor’s unconstitutional actions,’ it posted on social media. 

As the ban continues to elicit criticism, a federal judge has temporarily blocked parts of the public health order for at least 30 days. 

Grisham cited the city’s spike in gun violence for the move. New Mexico placed third among states with the highest firearm mortality rates in 2021, according to the most recent data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The state had a firearm death rate of 27.8 deaths per 100,000 people. Only Louisiana and Mississippi recorded more deaths, with 29.1 and 33.9, respectively. 

President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was indicted on gun charges on Thursday bringing to the forefront frequent calls and moves from the president in recent years aimed at cracking down on illegal gun sales. 

Hunter Biden was charged in Delaware on Thursday with making a false statement in the purchase of a firearm, making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federal firearms licensed dealer, and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. 

During his presidency, the Biden White House has repeatedly called for crackdowns on illegal gun purchases and signed executive orders aimed at preventing the sale of illegal guns.

‘The secondary consequences of the pandemic and the proliferation of illegal guns have led to increased violence over the past year and a half,’ a senior administration official said in 2021 as Biden was rolling out measures aimed at stemming the flow of firearms used in crimes, after pledging to push for sweeping changes to firearms laws.

Additionally, the Biden administration has cracked down on gun dealers by stripping licenses away from dealers who have made paperwork mistakes on background checks.

‘My message to you is this,’ Biden said in 2021, addressing gun dealers who ‘willfully’ break the law. ‘We will find you and we’ll seek your license to sell guns. We’ll make sure you can’t sell death and mayhem on our streets.’

In 2021, Biden’s Justice Department launched an anti-gun trafficking initiative meant to stem the flow of illegal guns throughout the United States.

‘I have already taken more executive action to reduce gun violence than any other president, and I will continue to pursue every legal and effective action,’ Biden wrote in an op-ed this spring. ‘But my power is not absolute. Congress must act, including by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring gun owners to securely store their firearms, requiring background checks for all gun sales, and repealing gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability. We also need more governors and state legislators to take these steps.’

In July, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was pressed by a reporter about President Biden’s steadfast support for stricter gun laws throughout his political career, and asked if he believed ‘someone who is charged with possessing a firearm illegally should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,’ referencing Hunter.

The reporter pressed Jean-Pierre, noting Biden’s previous work on gun legislation and his comments on getting ‘illegal firearms off of our streets.’ ‘So when someone possesses one illegally, what does the president believe should happen today?’ the reporter asked.

‘The president has been very clear. You just laid out where his position has been, what his policies have been, what he was able to pass into law. I’m going to be very mindful here. I’m going to be very careful because I see where this question is going,’ Jean-Pierre responded.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Hunter Biden could potentially be sentenced to up to 25 years in prison if convicted on all charges.

Reuters and Fox News Digital’s Brandon Gillespie contributed to this report

Democrats from across the political spectrum are expressing hesitancy toward accepting that President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris represent the best chance for a Democratic presidential ticket to win in 2024.

This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to say she believes Harris is Biden’s best running mate in 2024. 

‘He [Biden] thinks so,’ Pelosi said. ‘And that’s what matters.’ 

Pelosi added her name to a growing list of politicians and pundits on the left who have publicly expressed concerns over Biden’s age, his many gaffes, and Harris’ cratered favorability rating.

‘I don’t think Biden and Vice President Harris should run for re-election,’ Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a favorite scribe of the liberal establishment, wrote on Tuesday, pointing to the fact that Biden would be 82 at the start of a second term. 

‘It’s painful to say that, given my admiration for much of what they have accomplished. But if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping [former President] Trump.’ 

Rep. Dean Phillips, a Democrat from Minnesota, told NBC News recently that he believes ‘there are other candidates who have a far better chance and don’t have the actuarial risk that the president has.’

‘Why does everyone have blinders on? Why are we essentially being led to this cliff without knowing what’s on the other side?’ Phillps said. 

Former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile addressed the issue of Biden’s age over the weekend and acknowledged that Democrats should be ‘concerned’ and should be running like they are ’10 points behind’ in order to boost enthusiasm.

‘I’m not sleeping at night thinking all is well, OK?’ Brazile told ABC’s ‘This Week.’ ‘I have nieces and nephews who say, ‘Well why should I vote for this guy? He’s a little old.’ I say, ‘Your papa was old too, and look what he did to help you.’ So I think the Democrats have to continue to make the case. Democrats should be concerned.’ 

According to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, ‘every’ Democrat he has spoken to concedes that Biden is too old to run again. 

‘[Co-host] Mika [Brzezinski] and I, everybody we talk to, every political discussion, all it talks a lot about Trump, but when it comes to Joe Biden, people say, ‘Man, he’s too old to run, isn’t he?’’ Scarborough said on Wednesday.

‘When I say every discussion, I don’t mean 99% of the discussion — every discussion,’ Scarborough added. ‘I asked Reverend Al [Sharpton] if he was hearing it all the time on our show this past week. He’s hearing it as well.’

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital but has repeatedly defended Biden’s age and mental acuity when asked by reporters.

‘Look, here’s what I know,’ White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told Fox News’ Peter Doocy last week in response to a question about polling showing voter concerns over Biden’s age. ‘Here’s what I can speak to. I can speak to that – a president who has wisdom. I can speak to a president who has experience. I can speak to a president who has done historic – has taken historic action and has delivered in historic pieces of legislation. And that’s important.’

In an Associated Press poll this summer, 77% said Biden is too old to be effective for four more years with 89% of Republicans taking that position along with 69% of Democrats.

Calls are growing for Democrats to find an alternative to President Biden before the next election. With the first primary contests a few months away, is it too late for them to find a viable replacement?

The short answer is no, but time is running out.

Biden would either need to face a serious primary challenge now or decide to step down later. Either method would make history in the modern era.

Pathway 1: The Democratic primary

Democrats already have a process in place to find a new candidate for the general election. That is the presidential primary. Democrat voters will head to the polls from January to June next year and select a presidential nominee.

Biden already faces competition from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson for that nomination, but polling shows that Democrat voters are not enthusiastic about them.

Instead, a well-known candidate with broad appeal to the Democrat base would need to step up.

The most likely candidate is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has toured red states, called for a national referendum on guns, and challenged presidential candidate and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to a debate on Fox News.

Biden’s inner circle increasingly sees Newsom as a nuisance, according to reports, though advisers say publicly that they view him as a top surrogate.

Rumors are also swirling around the popular governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer. And Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who ran for president in 2020 on the need for generational change, has maintained a high profile while serving in the Biden cabinet.

If any of these candidates want to mount a challenge, they have a few weeks left to join the race without compromising their ability to win.

Under the normal rules, many states require candidates to file a declaration by a certain date to appear on their primary ballot. Nevada has the earliest deadline on Oct. 15 – one month from today.

Fourteen more states have filing deadlines before the end of the year.

Each state awards nominating delegates to candidates, so the longer they wait to enter the race, the fewer total possible delegates they can receive.

And Nevada is one of the earliest states on the primary calendar, so it plays an outsized role in setting the direction of the race.

Filling out a declaration takes minutes, but launching a viable presidential campaign takes much more than that. Candidates must court donors, hire staff and develop policies, messaging and a strategy to win.

While that process plays out behind the scenes, media reporting about a new candidate often predates their announcement by weeks or even months. So far, there is no reporting to suggest that any notable candidate is preparing a bid.

In the modern era, an incumbent president has never lost his party’s nomination when running for a second term.

Pathway 2: The Democratic National Convention

Biden’s fate also rests in his own hands. 

While he will appear on the primary ballot and is by far the most likely candidate to win the nomination, he can decide to step down from the race at any point.

The ideal time to complete that process would be during the Democratic National Convention in August. Delegates are awarded to candidates during primaries throughout the first half of the year, but they won’t elect a candidate for president until they vote during that convention.

If Biden wins a majority of delegates but wants to step down, he could use a speech prior to the convention or even during the week to endorse another candidate.

Under Democratic Party rules, pledged delegates are not required to vote for the candidate they represent but are told to ‘reflect the sentiments of those who elected them,’ so an endorsement from Biden would be very influential.

If there are multiple candidates, but a majority voted in line with Biden’s wishes, that candidate would become the Democrats’ presidential nominee. This would be a variation on what is usually called a contested convention.

If Biden fails to convince a majority in this hypothetical, and no candidate wins the first ballot at the convention, a brokered convention would take place. Delegates are released from their pledges, so leading figures in the nominating process, like party leaders and congresspeople, would try to persuade delegates to support their preferred candidate instead.

Rounds of voting would take place until one candidate reaches a majority.

Even the cleanest version of this process is messy. Biden would have to decide between endorsing his own vice president, who is officially next in line for his job but unpopular with voters, or a less known and untested alternative.

Meanwhile, a brokered convention would mean chaos. The Democrats would look disunited and directionless during their week in the spotlight, and with less than three months until the general election.

Contested and brokered conventions are rare in the modern era. The last convention that approached ‘contested’ status was the 1980 Democratic race, when Senator Ted Kennedy tried to take the nomination from President Jimmy Carter. Republicans also came close in 1976; that contest was between then Governor Ronald Reagan and President Gerald Ford. Both parties had brokered conventions in 1952. 

This all makes a second Biden run the most likely outcome in 2024. If a candidate wants to change that, they would need to act now and accept that they are taking on an unprecedented challenge.

FIRST ON FOX: A group of Senate and House Republicans introduced companion bills that would force the federal government to factor potential adverse effects into energy policy decisions.

The Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act — introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo. — is intended to prevent energy poverty and ‘ensure that at-risk communities have access to affordable energy,’ according to the bill’s text. Under the legislation, federal agencies would be required to assess impacts energy-related policies have on a wide variety of Americans.

‘The people most negatively impacted by the Biden administration’s war on American energy have been those in our rural, elderly, and lower-income communities,’ Sullivan told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

‘Under the guise of ‘environmental justice,’ the Biden administration’s hypocritical and short-sighted policies have increased costs on hard-working Americans and disproportionately harmed the very people, particularly Alaska Native communities, this administration so often claims to champion,’ he continued.

Sullivan noted recent actions from the Department of the Interior (DOI) axing oil and gas leases across 365,775 acres and proposing to ban future energy development on 13 million acres of land across the National Petroleum Reserve, an area in North Slope Borough, Alaska. The actions, Sullivan said, was starkly opposed by at-risk and indigenous communities in the region.

Critics argued the DOI’s decision to lock up millions of acres of land from energy development would threaten domestic energy security and was part of a broader climate agenda that will lead to higher prices in the future.

‘I’ve introduced the ‘Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act,’ which requires federal agencies to be transparent about how their regulations drive up energy costs for at-risk communities,’ Sullivan said. 

‘Alaskans are faced with some of the highest energy costs in the nation,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘This legislation will put a spotlight on how this administration’s reckless energy agenda harms our communities and will give them a voice to fight back.’

The legislation, which is designed to be a market-oriented solution, firstly requires the U.S. Comptroller General and Office of Management and Budget to issue a joint report to Congress at-risk communities experiencing energy poverty and offer recommendations for reducing such poverty. At-risk communities include, low-income, minority, rural, elderly and Native communities. 

The bill would also mandate the Congressional Budget Office, as part of its review process, to assess how any given legislation impacts an at-risk community’s access to affordable energy.

It would further direct the DOI to study on how any proposed executive action may alleviate energy poverty in at-risk communities. And the bill additionally requires all agencies issuing any energy-related rulemaking to certify the action won’t create energy poverty in at-risk communities.

‘Supply versus demand is the most basic economic concept,’ Hageman said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘Yet, Congressional majorities and presidential administrations led by climate crazed politicians, rather than statesmen, have artificially destroyed supply while demand for energy resources continues to grow.’

‘Whether it was President Biden or Obama, Speaker Pelosi or Leader Schumer, these so-called leaders have waged war against American coal and oil and gas, all the while knowing they cannot replace the very energy resources they are undermining,’ she continued. ‘These same officials roll out strategies promoting ‘environmental justice’ and ‘economic equity’ (while never defining either).’

The Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act received endorsements from several energy industry groups including the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Energy Workforce & Technology Council, Energy Poverty Prevention Project and Domestic Energy Producers Alliance.

‘Skyrocketing energy costs are crushing the livelihoods of vulnerable populations such as low-income, minority, rural, elderly, and indigenous communities,’ said Derrick Hollie, of the Energy Poverty Prevention Project. 

‘The Energy Poverty Prevention and Accountability Act is the right step toward curbing the out-of-control costs of regulation and government overreach driving the epidemic of energy poverty in this country.’

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Reps. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., Brandon Williams, R-N.Y., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., Tom Cole, R-Okla., Pete Stauber, R-Minn., and Garret Graves, R-La., were listed as cosponsors on the legislation.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy set social media ablaze on Thursday after he pushed back against a reporter’s assertion that he launched an impeachment inquiry ‘without evidence.’

‘AP reported that McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry was launched ‘without evidence,’’ GOP operative Arthur Schwartz posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Thursday. ‘Here’s McCarthy forcing an AP reporter to admit that there was lots of evidence to support an impeachment inquiry.’

In the clip, AP reporter Farnoush Amiri asked McCarthy about fellow Republicans who have said that the investigation into President Biden has yet to show an impeachable offense at this point.

‘Is that an assessment you share?’ Amiri asked.

‘You know, an impeachment inquiry is not an impeachment,’ McCarthy responded, ‘What an impeachment inquiry is to do is to get answers to questions. Are you concerned about all the stuff that was recently learned?’

McCarthy then went through a list of instances that many have characterized as possible evidence of wrongdoing from the president. 

‘Do you believe the president lied to the American public when he said he’d never talked to his son about his business dealings?’ McCarthy asked ‘Yes or no?’

‘I can’t answer that,’ Amiri replied. 

‘Do you believe when they said the president went on conference calls? Do you believe that happened?’ McCarthy asked.

‘That’s what the testimony says,’ Amiri answered.

‘Do you believe the president went to Cafe Milano and had dinner with the clients of Hunter Biden, who believes he got those clients because he was selling the brand?’

‘That’s what the testimony said,’ Amiri answered.

‘Do you believe Hunter Biden, when you saw the video of him driving the Porsche, that he got $143,000 to buy that Porsche the next day? Do you believe that $3 million from the Russian oligarch that was transferred to the shell companies that the Biden’s controlled after the dinner from Cafe Milano took place?’ McCarthy asked.

McCarthy then asked Amiri again if she believed the president lied, to which she responded, ‘But is lying an impeachable offense?’

‘All I’m saying is I would like to know the answer to these questions,’ McCarthy said. ‘The American public would like to know.’

The clip was immediately picked up by conservatives on social media who slammed the narrative from many on the left who have claimed there is no evidence of wrongdoing related to President Biden and his family.

‘This is what happens when reporters follow the White House’s commands to engage as activists with the Republican inquiry instead of as journalists impartially seeking facts,’ GOP strategist Matt Whitlock responded on X.

‘It’s on days like today where we see what the left wing foundations that bankroll the Associated Press get for their money,’ former Ted Cruz spokesperson Steve Guest posted online.

‘’Is lying an impeachable offense,’’ The Spectator Editor Stephen L. Miller posted on X. ‘Oh you sweet summer child…’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for The Associated Press said, ‘The Associated Press stands by reporter Farnoush Amiri, an established and respected journalist covering the U.S. Congress.’

McCarthy officially gave the go ahead for an impeachment inquiry on Tuesday after saying that House Republicans have ‘uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct.’

‘Today, I am directing our House committees to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe,’ McCarthy announced in a statement at the Capitol. ‘This logical next step will give our committees the full power to gather all the facts and answers for the American public.’ 

FIRST ON FOX: President Biden’s multibillion-dollar broadband internet investment meant for rural areas is primarily favoring affluent blue cities and states — even encompassing areas with million-dollar residences and beachfront properties — according to a new report from Sen. Ted Cruz, R.-Tx.

The report, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital, found that the earmarked $42.45 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding was allocated ‘despite repeated requests from lawmakers and communities across the country’ to scrutinize how the Biden administration’s telecommunications branch collects data to determine its funding decisions.

Biden, the leading 2024 Democratic candidate, implemented the program in June as part of his ‘Bidenomics’ campaign to promote his economic policies for the 2024 election.

Every state, along with Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, received a base amount of $100 million, while the remaining territories were granted at least $25 million each. Texas and California, the two most densely populated states in the country, lead the funding rankings with $3.3 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively.

KAMALA HARRIS SLIP-UP REVEALS HOW BIDENOMICS HURTING AMERICAN FAMILIES

However, the distribution has gone to states with fewer locations lacking service, and the allocation raises eyebrows when considering some peculiar instances of how the funds were distributed.

In Washington D.C., out of the 184 locations lacking broadband internet, 58 of them are clustered within the Smithsonian National Zoo, which includes popular spots like the Butterfly Garden, Lion-Tiger Hill, and the Otter Pond, the report found.

Another instance of odd distribution was in Delaware, when the state received nearly $108 million from the Biden administration in June to address 2,166 unserved locations in the state.

Among those unserved locations is the Biden Environmental Training Center, a state-operated facility for conferences, training, and retreats located just 11 miles north of Rehoboth Beach.

Washington, D.C., and Delaware, both characterized by small size and high population density, were allotted over $547,000 and $52,000 respectively for each location without broadband access. The national median allocation for areas without connectivity averages $5,600 per location.

‘Providing Washington, D.C., which appears to have almost no unserved locations, with such a disproportionately large amount of funding diverts BEAD funds from truly unserved areas of the country,’ said Cruz, ranking chair of the Senate commerce committee.

And the program did not consider whether locations would soon be served through funding from other federal programs already in motion, resulting in more than five million locations set to receive redundant funding.

‘As a result, the billions in taxpayer dollars sent to these states will be diverted to purposes other than connecting unserved Americans,’ Cruz wrote.

The federal government also favors fiber broadband, also known as fiber-optic broadband, an internet connection that uses fiber-optic cables made of thin strands of glass or plastic to transmit data using pulses of light. It is not an inexpensive feat.

‘This bias will drive up costs and waste taxpayer dollars, especially if the Biden administration’s implementation of other programs serves as precedent,’ Cruz wrote.

Officials may also need to take into account that different regions may require alternative internet technologies.

The report used Tuckernuck Island in Massachusetts as an example, where properties are listed at over $1 million. The island does not have wired internet, but it does have fast satellite internet. According to the FCC, it meets the speed requirements set by Congress for funding.

However, the Biden administration’s rules do not consider technologies like satellite as a ‘reliable broadband service.’

Because of this, the whole island is seen as a gap location and could receive new internet infrastructure, even though it already has a good connection, according to the report.

‘BEAD’s lack of consideration as to whether an unserved location truly needs taxpayer subsidies means that locations like Tuckernuck, will be prioritized to receive expensive fiber service,’ the report stated.

‘Further, some of the ‘unserved’ locations that will receive taxpayer-subsidized fiber-to-the-home service include mansions, beachfront resort communities, and mountain vacation homes,’ it said.

In the U.S., the Biden Administration estimates 8.5 million locations lack access to the internet. 

Big broadband companies like Verizon, Comcast, Charter Communications, and AT&T are reportedly hesitant to invest in providing service to sparsely populated rural areas due to the high costs and fewer potential customers.

‘The $42 billion Bidenomics broadband boondoggle is the latest example of the federal bureaucracy aimlessly throwing around taxpayers’ hard-earned money,’ Cruz said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘We can solve connectivity challenges across our country, but that does not mean taxpayer dollars should be spent bridging the ‘digital divide’ at the National Zoo and beachfront vacation homes in Nantucket.’

Cruz said the report — which is being sent to the White House — should be a ‘call to action’ for the Biden administration to evaluate regions that may have ‘duplicative’ and ‘wasteful’ spending. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.