Democrats on Capitol Hill are publicly rejecting recent polls showing former President Donald Trump taking a lead over President Biden in the 2024 presidential election.

A Tuesday poll from the New York Times and Sienna College found that Trump had a 46% to 44% lead over the sitting president. Trump’s lead was even more drastic among younger voters, who favored Trump 49% to 43%. That poll’s findings echoed surveys in November as well.

Democrats, however, are remaining publicly unphased, according to reports.

‘I think polling is increasingly useless,’ Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., told Punchbowl News. ‘If we haven’t taken that away from the last few elections, I don’t know how much more we need to see.’

‘What are we, 11 months out from the next election? I mean, that’s a double eternity in politics,’ Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., told the outlet.

Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., who is running a symbolic primary campaign challenging Biden, says the polls are starting to twist screws in private.

‘Everyone’s reading the polls, everybody sees,’ Phillips said, adding that Democrats in competitive ‘Frontline’ races ‘won’t say it publicly, most likely, because that’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. But I think they’re all feeling the same thing.’

Polling has increasingly showed that voters have massive reservations when it comes to Biden, particularly with regard to his age. Large majorities of even Democrats have stated that he is too old to effectively serve as president in a second term.

Meanwhile, Trump’s lead in 2024 GOP primary polls only continues to grow.

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised to ‘take swift action’ on the national supplemental security bill early next year, which will unlock billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel and the southern border.

‘Challenging issues remain, but we are committed to addressing needs at the southern border and to helping allies and partners confront serious threats in Israel, Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific,’ the statement read. ‘The Senate will not let these national security challenges go unanswered.’ 

Lawmakers in the upper chamber have been negotiating with White House officials since last week on a border security policy that would be included in the supplemental package. 

Republicans first demanded stronger border security provisions in the package last month, but Democrats were unwavering in their quest to exclude any immigration policy changes from making headway in the bill until negotiations began heating up last week. 

The clock has now run out for any deal to be reached this year, even as Schumer canceled part of the Senate’s holiday recess to continue negotiations this week. 

‘As negotiators work through remaining issues, it is our hope that their efforts will allow the Senate to take swift action on the national security supplemental early in the new year,’ the joint statement read.

The leaders said that negotiators — Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., Sen. Krysten Sinema, I-Ariz., and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. — and Biden administration officials will ‘continue to work in good faith’ on a framework for border security legislation. Lawmakers have cited in the last few days that ‘progress’ was being made but would not reveal specifics. 

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection sources on Tuesday, there were more than 12,600 migrants encountered at the southern border in the preceding 24 hours, the highest figure recorded in a single day. 

Talks have been ongoing with senators and Biden administration officials as Republicans have refused to pass some $60 billion in additional aid to Ukraine unless it is tied to strict border security measures, such as immediate screenings for asylum processing, more detention beds and quicker expulsions for illegal entrants. 

The total amount of supplemental aid the White House first requested in October amounts to roughly $106 billion and includes $14 billion to assist Israel. President Biden has been urging Congress to take action on the package, and Ukraine President Volodymr Zelenskyy made a final plea last week to both chambers in private meetings.

The White House has sent more than $100 billion to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in February 2022. Last week, Biden announced the administration would send $200 million in additional military aid to the Eastern European nation.

On the floor Tuesday night, Schumer announced Wednesday’s Senate session at noon would be for ‘housekeeping business’ and that there would be no more votes until January. 

Senators proceeded to reauthorize temporary funding for the Federal Aviation Administration until March 8 and confirmed by a voice vote the remaining 11 military nominees, who were previously delayed by Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s monthslong blockade over the Pentagon’s abortion policy.

Congress will return the week of Jan. 8 and will also have to pass some appropriations bills to keep some government agencies afloat by Jan. 19. 

Fox News’ Bill Melugin contributed to this report. 

The president of El Salvador quickly weighed in after news that former President Trump was kicked off the ballot in Colorado by criticizing the idea of ‘democracy’ in the United States.  

‘The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about ‘democracy,’’ El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted on X on Tuesday night.

Bukele, a vocal supporter of Trump in the past, was responding to breaking news on Tuesday night that the Colorado Supreme Court, citing the 14th Amendment, has disqualified former President Trump from appearing on the state’s ballots in 2024 as a result of the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot.

Bukele’s post, which had been seen almost 5 million times by Wednesday morning, was touted by many conservatives on social media.

‘Exactly right,’ America First Legal posted on X. ‘Which is one of many reasons why we must all collectively fight to see that it is overturned. This cannot stand.’

‘This is the president of El Salvador,’ conservative radio host Larry O’Connor posted on X. ‘All the Norms restored!!!!’

‘This is an accurate statement,’ GOP Congressman Derrick Van Orden posted on X.

‘we need an american Bukele,’ The Blaze’s Logan Hall posted on X. 

Tuesday night was not the first time Bukele has weighed in on Trump’s legal issues and used it as an opportunity to question democracy in the United States. Earlier this year, the El Salvadoran leader went viral on social media over his response to Trump’s indictment in New York City.

‘Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted,’ Bukele, who has faced criticism in his own country over the constitutionality of his re-election campaign, wrote. ‘But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate.’

‘The United States ability to use ‘democracy’ as foreign policy is gone.’

Trump touted the relationship he had with Bukele as president during a 2019 bilateral meeting in New York City.

‘I have great respect for you, and I really appreciate what you’re doing,’ Trump told Bukele. ‘The president has done an incredible job with MS-13. He realizes what a threat they are. And they have been very, very tough, and we all appreciate that.’

Bukele has earned worldwide attention and praise from many for his major crackdown on MS-13 gang members, which has led to tens of thousands of arrests, construction of a mega prison, and a drop in homicides.

President Biden’s House Democrat challenger for the White House is endorsing the progressive policy of ‘Medicare-for-All.’

Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., threw his hat behind the controversial state-provided free healthcare policy in a recent interview amid his challenge against Biden for his job.

Phillips said he was signing on to the bill led by House Progressive Caucus chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., with his staff saying the congressman would sign onto the bill Wednesday.

Phillips, a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus who has long been considered a centrist, had not signed onto the proposal before.

His signature on the bill shows him moving toward the progressive wing of the party. The congressman told Politico that his policy shift did not have anything to do with his presidential bid against Biden.

However, Phillips’ endorsement of the policy puts him in stark contrast to Biden amid his White House challenge against the president.

Biden refused to endorse socializing healthcare during the 2020 presidential election — even as his eventual running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, did. Prior to his election, he indicated during an MSNBC interview that he would veto Medicare-for-All legislation as president over its price tag.

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s campaign for comment.

Phillips also said he has his issues with the plan, such as prohibiting almost all private health insurance.

The Democratic congressman said his ‘journey’ to endorsing the plan was ‘a long one.’ Phillips said he took his healthcare access for granted until he saw uninsured children battling cancer after his daughter’s Hodgkin’s lymphoma diagnosis almost 10 years ago.  

The issue entered his mind again in 2016 when he opened up coffee shops and found it ‘profoundly disappointing’ that he could not afford health insurance for his part-time employees.

Phillips also took another look at the policy after being elected in 2018 to represent the district that headquarters UnitedHealth Group.

‘I started to recognize this massive disconnect between the behemoths in the health insurance business and then the people that I represented, who were telling me the most horrifying stories about having their coverage denied or having to take on medical debt or going bankrupt,’ Phillips told Politico.

‘I have a progressive heart, a pragmatic head, and want to work with people on both sides of the aisle to achieve better outcomes for the country that both improve care and lower costs,’ he added. ‘Those are the best combinations of progressive and conservative principles I could possibly imagine, and that makes this proposition remarkably centrist.’

Phillips declined to say how ‘Medicare-for-All’ would be paid.

Fox News Digital reached out to Phillips’ campaign for comment.

FIRST ON FOX – A group of Republican state attorneys general ripped Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to the Supreme Court to expedite former President Trump’s immunity case as ‘driven by partisan interests, not the public interest.’ 

Earlier this month, Smith petitioned the high court to decide Trump’s immunity claims in his case facing charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. 

Smith asked for expedited consideration of the case to essentially have the high court take over jurisdiction before the lower federal courts have fully decided the matter, bypassing an entire appellate process though a special rule – Rule 11 — reserved for emergencies. 

But 19 attorneys general filed a brief to the high court Tuesday arguing that Smith’s rationale is politically motivated to keep Trump’s trial ahead of the 2024 election in November.

‘The United States’ petition repeatedly proclaims – but never explains why – ‘[i]t is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,’’ the brief states. 

‘That silence is both telling and troubling, suggesting that the United States’ demand for extraordinary and immediate relief is driven by partisan interests, not the public interest,’ it says. 

Rule 11 says that a petition to the high court to review a case pending in an appeals court, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of ‘such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.’

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who led the brief for the GOP states, told Fox News Digital in a statement that the special counsel’s petition ‘is strong evidence of a political prosecution designed to decide the 2024 election.’

‘In November of last year, Joe Biden vowed that Donald Trump would never become president again. Then, in August 2023, more than 30 months after the events alleged in the indictment, the federal government indicted Trump and now seeks to rush him to trial in March 2024. But the former President is entitled to appeal the trial court’s order denying him presidential immunity,’ said Marshall.

‘Thus, worried about losing his trial date, the special counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into the fray. But he gives no reason why the public interest demands a rushed trial, which suggests the real reason is to swing the presidential election,’ stated Marshall.

 ‘The Court should not play along,’ he said. 

Smith wants the Supreme Court to answer, ‘whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.’

Smith argues that the ‘ordinary process… may not result in a final decision for many months,’ which ‘might prevent this Court from hearing and deciding the case this Term.’ 

But the AGs maintain that ‘[t]hat’s not an argument. It’s a tautology: If the Court does not ‘review now,’ it cannot ‘review now.’ But why is it imperative to review now?’

The top state prosecutors went on to reference when the high court did allow for expedited proceedings – for example, the Iranian hostage crisis in the ’80s and the steel production crisis during the Korean War.

In contrast with Trump’s case, they said, ‘The government has not shown an urgent need in this case. 

‘Is there a war, a hostage negotiation, or a border crisis at issue? No. And the petition cites no authority for its position that some prosecutions must go so quickly that a criminal defendant loses his right to an orderly appeal,’ adding that, ‘the government’s recitation of the trial date is quite meaningless as every prosecution that goes to trial has a trial date.’

‘All criminal defendants have a right to a fair and orderly process. The gravity of this particular prosecution is all the more reason to ensure that right,’ the AGs write. 

‘For reasons unknown, the prosecution has sought and secured an expedited trial and an expedited appeal. But this Court’s Rule 11 requires more than a vague government interest in speedy trials. The United States has not shown that its plan to take President Trump to trial on March 4, 2024, ‘is of such imperative public importance as… to require immediate’ intervention by this Court,’ the Republicans said. 

The brief was submitted by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.