House Republican lawmakers left a closed-door meeting late on Wednesday afternoon furious at their 19 GOP colleagues who blocked the chamber from advancing a bill to renew a key surveillance tool of the federal government.

‘When you have a majority, where members in the majority will not support the rules and the procedures set forth by the majority, you effectively are turning control over to the minority party. And that’s what these members are doing,’ Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital.

It comes after a normally sleepy procedural vote, known as a rule vote, on a bill to reform and renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act failed 193 to 228 Wednesday afternoon — the seventh time a rule vote failed this Congress. Prior to that, a rule vote had not failed in two decades.

‘Here’s what frustrates me — is that the same members who are taking down this rule are vociferously advocating for reforming FISA. There are 56 major reforms of FISA 702 that are embedded in the base bill. I understand they don’t think those 56 reforms go far enough…But by taking down the rule and by making it impossible to pass this reform base bill, they’re gonna get nothing,’ Barr said.

Conservative privacy hawks who tanked the bill were angry over how it was handled, including the exclusion of an amendment mandating warrants for the purchase of U.S. citizens’ data from third-party data brokers.

But Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., suggested that the group’s tactics on House floor votes take away from their actual goals.

‘I think people make good, salient arguments. The problem is in the delivery — if all you do is scream, no one listens to you anymore,’ he said. ‘And I think there can be merits on lots of good arguments, but when you cry wolf all the time, when everything’s a no, you undermine your credibility.’

A rule vote would typically fall along party lines, with even lawmakers opposed to the bill voting in favor of allowing it to proceed if it was introduced by their own side. However, small factions of the House GOP’s razor-thin majority have weaponized rule votes to kill their own party’s legislation as a form of protest against their leadership.

‘What I heard in there was that they weren’t p—ed off about the underlying bill. The FISA bill itself was 56 reforms, all that stuff. That’s good,’ another GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital. ‘Why they voted against the rule, it wasn’t because of the FISA bill itself. It was the process. It was the amendments that they didn’t get allowed to bring to the floor that actually made them move against it.’

Section 702 is a tool that allows the federal government to surveil non-Americans on foreign soil with suspected terror links without a warrant, even if the person on the other side of their communications is an American.

The fight ahead of its April 19 expiry deadline has put Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in a difficult spot between the House Judiciary Committee and its allies, and the U.S. intelligence community and national security hawks in Congress. The former have cast Section 702 as a tool of exploitation and privacy infringement, while the latter have maintained it’s a narrowly focused tool critical to preventing terror attacks.

Another issue for GOP hardliners has been Johnson’s opposition to an amendment backed by Judiciary Republicans, which would force the federal government to seek a warrant to query data about a U.S. citizen.

One of the 19 Republicans who sunk the bill, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good, R-Va., told reporters, ‘Some of us would rather see it expire than see it not reformed properly.’

But another GOP lawmaker who is supportive of the bill argued that such an amendment would gut the tool’s purpose. 

They explained that if a suspected terrorist overseas is communicating with a U.S. citizen at home, a Section 702 search would already pick up their specific communications with that U.S. citizen. The amendment would force authorities to seek a warrant before seeing the contents of that communication, which critics have warned could waste valuable time in the event of a serious threat.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, meanwhile, suggested to reporters on Wednesday evening that letting Section 702 expire on April 19 would have dire consequences, warning, ‘We will go blind on April 20.’

‘Unfortunately, there’s a great deal of misinformation about FISA. FISA is not a bulk data collection program. It is not spying on Americans,’ he continued. ‘It is collecting foreigners’ data that are abroad that represent a very small group of 250,000 who are a national security threat. Unfortunately, the proposed warrant would render our ability to see communications with people who… are with national security threats like the head of ISIS, head of Hamas, head of Al Qaeda, in an unworkable structure.’

It’s not immediately clear what House GOP leaders’ next steps would be. Multiple GOP lawmakers told Fox News Digital that among the considerations are a short-term extension of the current Section 702 program, which both sides of the argument have criticized as ripe for abuse, or being forced to take up the Senate’s renewal bill.

Privacy hawks, meanwhile, are pushing Johnson to allow as many amendment votes on the bill as requested to ensure all members have a voice in shaping the bill — even if those amendments would not get past the Democrat-controlled Senate.

South Korea’s prime minister and senior presidential officials have offered to resign en masse following Wednesday’s parliamentary elections.

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and all senior presidential advisers to conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol submitted their resignations, according to Yoon’s office, after Wednesday’s elections dealt a huge blow to Yeol’s party. The elections secured the liberal opposition forces’ control of parliament until after Yoon completes his single five-year term in 2027. 

The results will likely set back Yoon’s domestic agenda and weaken his grip on the party. He will also have to face the opposition’s intensifying political offensive during his remaining three years, experts say.

Yoon’s office did not immediately say whether Yoon would accept their resignations.

With most of the votes counted, the main opposition Democratic Party and its satellite party appeared to have won a combined 175 seats in the 300-member National Assembly, according to South Korean media tallies.

Yoon’s ruling People Power Party was projected to have obtained 108 seats.

The final official results were expected later Thursday.

The final voter turnout for South Korea’s 44 million eligible voters was the highest for a parliamentary election since 1992, according to the National Election Commission.

In a news conference, ruling People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon announced he was stepping down to take responsibility for the election defeat.

‘I apologize to the people on behalf of our party, which wasn’t good enough to win the people’s choices,’ he said.

Yoon, a former top prosecutor who took office in 2022, will stay in power and his major foreign policies will likely be unchanged. 

Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, who lost the 2022 presidential election to Yoon, praised Wednesday’s results. 

‘The results of the parliamentary elections are not the victory by the Democratic Party, but the great victory by our people,’ Lee said Thursday. ‘Now, the elections are over. Both the ruling and opposition political parties must pull together all their strength to resolve economic and public livelihood problems.’

In South Korea, executive power is mostly wielded by the president, but the prime minister is the country’s No. 2 official and would take power if the president becomes incapacitated.

The incoming parliament is to begin meeting on May 30 for a four-year term. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Biden and Vice President Harris’ re-election campaign has announced a new push to win over a group of voters that it claims is ‘a force to be reckoned with.’ The initiative comes just seven months ahead of the president’s rematch with the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

As Biden seeks to win another term in the White House despite facing historic low approval ratings, Team Biden-Harris announced the launch of ‘Out for Biden-Harris.’ The campaign describes the program as a national effort to mobilize LGBTQ+ voters and community members across the country.

In a statement, Biden-Harris 2024 campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said, ‘LGBTQ+ voters are a force to be reckoned with.’

‘They were critical to our victory in 2020, and they will be critical to winning again this November,’ Chavez Rodriguez added. ‘That’s why we’re thrilled to launch Out for Biden-Harris, which will harness the LGBTQ+ community’s organizing prowess to reelect President Biden and Vice President Harris this November.’

In a campaign video that accompanied the announcement, Vice President Harris said, ‘Rights are won only by those who make their voices heard. And because you made your voices heard, marriages are more secure.’

‘We will do what we have always done in this movement, in this community, which is collectively, we will continue to build unity. We will continue to build coalition. We will always be fueled by knowing we have so much more in common than what separates us. We will be fueled by knowing we are all in this together,’ Harris said.

The campaign statement boasted the Biden-Harris administration is ‘the most pro-LGBTQ+ in history’ and identified LGBTQ+ voters as ‘a key part’ of the re-election strategy.

The campaign has picked up endorsements from LGBTQ+ organizations across the country, including Equality North Carolina PAC, Fair Wisconsin, Delaware Stonewall PAC, the Center for Black Equity Political Action Fund, Equality California, Silver State Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Trans Equality Action Fund and Equality PAC.

‘Collectively, these groups represent more than 3.8 million members who will use their resources to mobilize equality voters across every battleground state,’ the campaign said.

In the statement, Rodriguez added: ‘LGBTQ+ Americans couldn’t have more at stake this election.’

‘LGBTQ+ Americans deserve leaders who will fight for every American’s freedom and dignity,’ she said. ‘There has never been a more critical time to protect the rights of all Americans, no matter who you love or how you identify, and Out for Biden-Harris will be critical to not just safeguarding, but strengthening the rights and voice of every single American.’

The new program will kick off a series of events in the coming weeks, including virtual organizing calls, virtual training sessions and a series of ‘Out for Biden-Harris’ house parties and community events.

These events will be held in Phoenix; Ferndale, Michigan; Milwaukee; Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Las Vegas.

The Biden administration has openly LGBTQ+ members, including Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, Undersecretary of Defense Shawn Skelly, Ambassador to Switzerland Scott Miller and others. It also held the Pride Month celebration at the White House in Washington, D.C., last year. 

‘It’s wonderful to welcome all of you — and over a thousand Americans from all across the country,’ Biden said at the June 2023 event. ‘We’re gathered here today to honor the extraordinary the extraordinary courage and contributions of the LGBTQ community, to celebrate their legacy and their progress. And we welcome the largest Pride Month celebration ever held at the White House. But just the beginning.’

‘Jill and I, Kamala and Doug [second gentleman Douglas Emhoff], the entire administration are doing everything we can to advance equality for the LGBTQ community in our nation — the entire nation,’ he added.

In January, Biden’s approval rating plummeted to just 31%, a 15-year low. 

Nearly 4 in 10 voters (38%) approve of the job Biden is doing on the economy, his best rating in a year. He fares worse on inflation (34% approve) and immigration (30%). 

Overall, 41% approve of the job Biden is doing, while 58% disapprove.

Fox News’ Kaitlin Sprague and Victoria Balara contributed to this report.

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon on Tuesday relented to special counsel Jack Smith in a long-running dispute over the names of government witnesses in the classified documents case against former President Trump, agreeing to shield their identities from the public eye. 

Cannon only partially granted prosecutors’ request in agreeing to keep the names of FBI agents, Secret Service agents and other potential witnesses in the case under seal. In a 24-page order, the judge refused to categorically block witness statements from being disclosed, saying there was no basis for such a ‘sweeping’ and ‘blanket’ restriction on their inclusion in pretrial motions. 

Cannon rejected a request by Smith’s team to seal from pretrial motions the substance of all witness statements, except for information that could be used to identify witnesses.

‘As for legal authority, the cases cited in the Special Counsel’s papers do not lend support to this sweeping request; nor do they appear to have been offered as such,’ Cannon wrote. ‘And based on the Court’s independent research, granting this request would be unprecedented: the Court cannot locate any case — high-profile or otherwise — in which a court has authorized anything remotely similar to the sweeping relief sought here.’

The disagreement between Smith’s team and lawyers for Trump, which had been pending for weeks, was one of many that had piled up before Cannon and had slowed the pace of the case against Trump. Tuesday’s order was the second time this month that Cannon was critical of Justice Department prosecutors, yet the judge still ruled mostly in their favor, The Washington Post reported.

The case remains without a firm trial date, though both sides have said they could be ready this summer. 

Cannon, who earlier decided to grant Trump’s request for an independent arbiter to review documents obtained during an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, made clear her continued skepticism of the DOJ theory of prosecution, saying Tuesday that the case raised ‘still-developing and somewhat muddled questions.’

In reconsidering an earlier order and siding with prosecutors on the protection of witness identities, Cannon likely averted a dramatic exacerbation of tensions with Smith’s team, which last week called a separate order from the judge ‘fundamentally flawed,’ according to The Associated Press. 

The issue surfaced in January when defense lawyers filed in partially redacted form a motion that sought to require prosecutors to turn over a trove of documents that they said would bolster their claim that the Biden administration had sought to ‘weaponize’ the government in charging Trump.

Defense lawyers asked permission to file the motion, which included as attachments information that they had obtained from prosecutors, in mostly unredacted form. However, prosecutors objected to unsealing the motion to the extent that it would reveal the identity of any potential government witness.

Cannon then granted the defense’s request for the motion and its exhibits to be filed in unredacted form as long as the personal identifying information of witnesses remained sealed. Smith’s team asked her to reconsider, saying that witnesses could be exposed to threats and harassments if publicly identified.

In agreeing on Tuesday for the witness names to remain redacted, she wrote, ‘Although the record is clear that the Special Counsel could have, and should have, raised its current arguments previously, the Court elects, upon a full review of those newly raised arguments, to reconsider its prior Order.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Former President Trump lashed out at his former vice president in the wee hours of Wednesday over disagreement on abortion policy.

Trump published on his proprietary social media site, Truth Social, a furious tirade against former Vice President Mike Pence.

‘Former Vice President (thank you President Trump!) Mike Pence has been doing a lot of talking about Abortion lately. He never felt I would be able to kill Roe v Wade and bring it back to the States where, according to all legal scholars, it belongs,’ Trump wrote.

‘He started at no abortion for any reason, and then allowing abortions for up to 6 weeks, then up to 15 weeks, and then, who knows?’ the former president asserted.

The comment appears to be a reference to various pro-life bills proposed or backed by Pence that sought to restrict abortion at the state or national level.

The former vice president has been a consistent pro-life advocate since his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000. He has maintained for his entire political career that the termination of an embryo is morally unacceptable at any stage.

The criticism also seems to use recycled language from a previous post attacking Sen. Lindsey Graham, whom he said ‘wanted no Abortions under any circumstances, then he was up to 6 weeks, where you’re allowed Abortion, now he’s up to 15 weeks.’

‘But it doesn’t matter because the Radical Left Democrats will never approve anything on this issue, and Republicans don’t have anywhere close to the number of Senators necessary to make it matter,’ Trump continued in his late night criticism. ‘Mike has been getting very bad advice from Mark Long, & others. That’s why he’s polling at 1%. With better advice, he would be polling at a solid 2%, and maybe even more!!!’

The ‘Mark Long’ referenced in the post is most likely a nickname for Marc Short, Pence’s former chief of staff while he was vice president. Short is now the chairman of Pence’s advocacy group, Advancing American Freedom.

‘Everyone must ask Democrats if they would allow abortions in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month, or allow the execution of a baby after birth, as was suggested by the former Democrat Governor of Virginia,’ Trump concluded. ‘They are the Radicals, not the Republicans!’

The sudden and scattershot criticism of Pence is most likely due to the former vice president speaking out against Trump’s abortion policy plan.

Pence charged on Monday that Trump’s decision not to support a federal ban on abortion is a ‘retreat on the Right to Life’ and ‘a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans.’

The former vice president’s statement came a few hours after Trump took credit for the decision two years ago by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which had legalized abortion nationwide.

However, Trump declined to support the push by social conservatives to ban abortion at the federal level and emphasized his support for states determining their own laws for abortion so long as there are exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

In a statement on social media, Pence argued, ‘President Trump’s retreat on the Right to Life is a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020. By nominating and standing by the confirmation of conservative justices, the Trump-Pence Administration helped send Roe v. Wade to the ash heap of history where it belongs and gave the pro-life movement the opportunity to compassionately support women and unborn children.’

The former vice president lamented that ‘too many Republican politicians are all too ready to wash their hands of the battle for life.’

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., bucked the will of conservative privacy hawks during a closed-door House GOP Conference meeting on Wednesday, cautioning lawmakers against an amendment on warrant requirements as the House of Representatives readies to renew a key federal government surveillance tool.

Two sources in the room during Johnson’s remarks told Fox News Digital that he broached the warrant amendment during House Republicans’ weekly conference meeting, which multiple lawmakers said centered on renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Section 702 allows the government to surveil communications of non-Americans overseas who are suspected of having links to terrorism without a warrant. If Americans are caught at the other end of the line, their data could get swept up as well.

Johnson told GOP lawmakers that while he understood the House Judiciary Committee’s arguments on the amendment, its language on exceptions to the warrant requirement may be ‘too narrow and would be difficult to apply,’ one of the sources said.

The amendment, led by Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., would ban intelligence officials from querying information about U.S. citizens collected through Section 702 without first getting a warrant, save for emergency situations with an imminent threat of death or bodily harm. 

‘702 is narrowly tailored to foreigners abroad. The proposed amendment would require a warrant to search the head of ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s data. That is wrong. It would endanger Americans. I appreciate the speaker’s opposition to the amendment,’ House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital. ‘He understands the importance of protecting Americans civil liberties, and our national security.’

Johnson reasoned that the current bill set to get a vote on Thursday, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America (RISA) Act, itself already carries the necessary reforms to prevent abuse of Section 702.

The federal government has been accused of abusing backdoor loopholes to the existing FISA Section 702 system to collect data on American citizens during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, as well as rioters present at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The new bill, a compromise between the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, is aimed at limiting who can access that data and improving accountability standards on its abuse.

However, privacy hawks on the right have complained it does not go far enough and threatened the bill’s passage. The second source in the room for Johnson’s comments said that Judiciary Republicans and their allies pushed back on his opposition but did not elaborate on what they said.

Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, told reporters of Johnson’s decision, ‘Unfortunately, I think the speaker is coming forward, reversing his personal position 180 degrees and weighing in on the Intel side. He’s, unfortunately, I think, surrendered on that notion of neutrality.’

On the other side, Intelligence panel member Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., said the warrant amendment would ‘essentially end’ Section 702 ‘as we know it.’

‘The underlying bill before us is the largest reform of the FBI in a generation and goes beyond Section 702 to implement Title I FISA reforms to end the abuses committed against President Trump,’ LaHood said.

Johnson told Fox News Digital during his weekly press conference that House GOP leadership would not whip against the amendment but lauded the RISA bill in its current form.

– A cohort of state attorneys general are warning the Justice Department against plans they claim Attorney General Merrick Garland signaled ‘intrude’ on their states’ authority to carry out elections.

Led by Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita of Indiana, the group of 16 GOP prosecutors wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday criticizing his comments from March 3 at the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama, in which he claimed that ‘democracy’ is under attack by ‘discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot.’

‘The DOJ has no authority to dictate to the states in matters that concern their sovereign right to ensure safe, secure, and free elections,’ the letter says.

Garland launched the Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force in March, saying he doubled the number of lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.  

‘The right to vote is still under attack,’ Garland said last month. ‘That is why we are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes, and voter ID requirements.’

‘That is why we are working to block the adoption of discriminatory redistricting plans that dilute the vote of Black voters and other voters of color. We are holding accountable jurisdictions that fail to provide accessible vote centers for voters with disabilities,’ he said.

The AGs wrote in their letter that Garland’s actions amount to a ‘weaponization’ against the states, and his ‘views about elections are not only a serious threat to the principles of federalism and separation of powers, but also to democracy and the rule of law.’

‘Although we do not know exactly the strategy the DOJ intends to take with its numerous election attorneys, we intend to vigorously defend our election laws. We will not allow intimidation and fearmongering to supersede the will of the people,’ they wrote.

‘The Biden administration is weaponizing the U.S. Department of Justice against the states,’ Rokita told Fox News Digital. ‘These actions pose a direct threat to democracy, election integrity and the rule of law. We will stand up and defend our rightful authority within the framework of American federalism.’ 

‘With voter confidence at an all-time low,’ he said. ‘The U.S. Department of Justice should champion voter security measures instead of attacking states that implement them. And the DOJ should respect, as well, the constitutional provisions giving states the role of regulating elections.’

The AGs said that Garland’s claim that voter ID is an ‘unnecessary restriction on access to the ballot’ is incorrect.  

‘On the contrary, voter ID laws prevent voter fraud by stopping those who attempt to impersonate others at the polls,’ they wrote. 

The AGs note that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that voter ID laws are constitutional and do not impose a burden on the electorate. 

They also wrote that ‘voter fraud and voter impersonation is very real and occurs frequently.’

The AGs also took issue with Garland’s claim that some states have imposed ‘unnecessary restrictions’ related to absentee voting, including ‘mail-in voting’ and ‘the use of drop boxes.’

‘Numerous security risks exist with mail-in voting and drop boxes, and these methods of voting have led to the proliferation of election fraud,’ they noted.

Garland also asserted that the Voting Rights Act has been ‘drastically weakened’ with an ‘increase in legislative measures that make it harder for millions of eligible voters to vote and to elect the representatives of their choice.’ 

‘This statement is factually incorrect,’ the AGs wrote. ‘The Voting Rights Act is not under attack. Election security measures passed by state governments do not ‘make voting more difficult,’ nor are they dismantling the right to vote. 

‘Instead, common sense election laws strengthen our electoral process to ensure free and fair elections are conducted among the states, especially since voter fraud does exist.’

‘Across the country, the 2020 general election generated mass confusion and distrust in the system,’ they said. 

‘Public confidence in our election system is at record low with more than 30% of the electorate believing that the 2020 election was stolen due to voter fraud. By using the DOJ against the states, you continue to sow the seeds of distrust among the American electorate,’ they wrote.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.