Nearly two dozen House Democrats defied their party leaders’ wishes Tuesday to vote in favor of rebuking a progressive lawmaker for what critics called an unfair move to tip the scales in his district’s next election.

The House voted to pass a resolution of disapproval against Rep. Jesús ‘Chuy’ García, a measure that was led by one of his fellow Democrats — moderate Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.

It passed in a 236 to 183 vote, with 23 Democrats voting with the GOP to rebuke García. Four lawmakers voted ‘present’ — Reps. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., and Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio.

The Democrats who voted with Republicans include Reps. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., Sharice Davids, D-Kan., Laura Gillen, D-N.Y., Angie Craig, D-Minn., Kathy Castor, D-Fla., Jared Golden, D-Maine, Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., and Perez.

‘I’m on the Ethics Committee — I just generally, for stuff that should be referred to the Ethics Committee, I voted present,’ Subramanyam told Fox News Digital of his vote.

Houlahan said, ‘I worry that we’re in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat. What [Garcia] did was not correct. But my choice was to say that this needed to be taken up in the Ethics Committee. That’s why I voted the way I voted, because I don’t want people to continue to bring up resolutions against each other for every single thing that happens.’

Craig and Perez declined to elaborate on their votes.

Perez had accused García of ‘undermining the process of a free and fair election’ by abruptly changing course on his re-election bid hours before the filing deadline in his deep-blue Illinois district. Critics of the move said the timing ensured García’s chief of staff was the only person able to file to run instead.

The division caused a political headache for House Democratic leadership, which opposed the resolution.

House Democrats who voted in favor of rebuking García did so against the expressed wishes of Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who said Monday that Americans were ‘focused on the high cost of living in the United States of America.’

‘I do not support the so-called resolution of disapproval, and I strongly support Congressman Chuy García. He’s been a progressive champion for disenfranchised communities for decades, including during his time in Congress. And he’s made life better for the American people,’ Jeffries said.

He released an additional statement on Tuesday morning alongside Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., urging opposition to the resolution.

‘He is a good man who has always prioritized the people he represents, even while experiencing unthinkable family tragedy. We unequivocally oppose this misguided resolution and urge our colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus to reject it,’ they wrote.

García said his decision was due to health reasons for himself and his family, as well as a desire to spend more time with his grandchildren.

Democrats’ bid to kill the measure failed on Monday night, with Perez and Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, voting with Republicans to proceed with the vote.

Perez laid out her case during debate on the measure shortly thereafter.

‘I like Chuy García. I think his reasons for retiring are noble. We are not here to adjudicate the character of Chuy García. I’m asking the body to consider a set of facts laid before us tonight about how he chose his successor and deprived Americans the right to choose their elected representative,’ she said.

‘One week before the filing deadline, Congressman Chuy García filed for re-election and submitted the necessary signatures for that petition. But three days before the filing deadline, he also began collecting signatures for his chief of staff, who shares his last name. Just hours before the filing deadline, Representative García’s chief of staff submitted the paperwork to run with at least 2,500 signatures attached to it, and Chuy García’s signature was the very first one listed in the petition.’

During his own comments, García suggested his wife’s recent multiple sclerosis diagnosis was part of his decision to withdraw, while disputing other accusations against himself.

‘I filed to run for Congress because this work is more important than ever, and I wanted to deliver for my community and to be part, hopefully, of a new House majority next year. I followed the rules of Illinois and its election law … And contrary to claims that were made earlier today, I did not circulate any petitions that I was accused of circulating. I only circulated when I filed on the first day,’ García said.

‘But as I looked ahead, I had to be honest about what the next term would demand and what my family needed. I saw the big picture — supporting my wife as we managed her illness, taking better care of my own health and being present for the grandson that we just adopted two weeks ago. It was a tough decision, but I made that choice.’

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

It was the product of a months-long pressure campaign by Democrats and the bill’s leaders, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif.

Several of Epstein’s survivors were present in the House chamber during the vote as well.

House GOP leaders had voiced concerns about the bill up until the final hours before the vote.

Nearly all House Republicans voted for it, as demands for transparency and President Donald Trump’s green light on the legislation gave them little recourse otherwise.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters at his weekly news conference on Tuesday that he would vote in favor of the bill, despite concerns about what he saw as limited protections for victims and other innocent people whose names may be released against their own wishes.

‘Who’s going to want to come forward if they think Congress can take a political exercise and reveal their identities? Who’s going to come talk to prosecutors? It’s very dangerous. It would deter future whistleblowers and informants,’ he said. ‘The release of that could also publicly reveal the identity, by the way, of undercover law enforcement officers who are working in future operations.’

House GOP leaders had also been supportive of a parallel investigation led by the House Oversight Committee that’s led to the release of thousands of pages of documents from both the DOJ and Epstein’s estate.

Massie, Khanna and the bill’s supporters argued it was the best recourse to get justice for Epstein’s victims, and they have criticized Johnson’s favored route as toothless. They have also contended the bill provides sufficient protections for Epstein’s victims.

Several other House Republicans told Fox News Digital on Monday night that they shared the speaker’s concerns and hoped that the Senate would make changes to the legislation.

Khanna and Massie, however, warned the Senate not to go too far during a press conference on Tuesday morning alongside several of Epstein’s victims.

‘Don’t muck it up in the Senate. Don’t get too cute. We’re all paying attention,’ Massie warned. ‘If you want to add some additional protections for these survivors, go for it. But if you do anything that prevents any disclosure, you are not for the people, and you are not part of this effort. Do not muck it up in the Senate.’

It’s not yet clear what Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., will do with the legislation.

His counterpart, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled he would seek to force its consideration in the Senate.

‘Once the House passes the bill to release the Epstein files today, I will move for the Senate to immediately take it up and pass it — period,’ Schumer said in a statement.

‘Republicans have spent months trying to protect Donald Trump and hide what’s in the files. Americans are tired of waiting and are demanding to see the truth. If Leader Thune tries to bury the bill, I’ll stop him.’

President Donald Trump is keeping the world guessing about his next move in Venezuela — simultaneously labeling President Nicolás Maduro the head of a terrorist organization and hinting the U.S. may be open to talks with the Venezuelan leader.

The moment captures a familiar pattern in Trump’s foreign policy: blending threats and outreach to keep opponents uncertain of U.S. intentions. His allies say the ambiguity is leverage; critics call it improvisation that risks miscalculation.

‘We may be having some conversations with Maduro, and we’ll see how that turns out. They would like to talk,’ Trump told reporters over the weekend.

The comment came shortly after Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization, a move that expands U.S. legal authorities to pursue Maduro and his inner circle under counterterrorism statutes — and potentially as military targets.

Trump suggested the designation allows the U.S. military to target Maduro’s assets and infrastructure inside Venezuela.

‘It allows us to do that, but we haven’t said we’re going to do that,’ the president said.

Days earlier, Trump had hinted he’d made up his mind about whether to start a direct conflict.

‘I sort of have made up my mind — yeah. I mean, I can’t tell you what it would be, but I sort of have,’ he said.

The U.S. now has more military assets in the region than it has in decades, topped off by the arrival of the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, on Sunday. The Department of War — the renamed Pentagon under Trump — has carried out 21 strikes on maritime targets allegedly carrying drugs toward the U.S.

Trump also said he doesn’t believe he needs congressional authorization to carry out the strikes.

‘We like to keep Congress involved. I mean, we’re stopping drug dealers and drugs from coming into our country. … We don’t have to get their approval. But I think letting them know is good,’ he said.

‘Headed by the illegitimate Nicolás Maduro, the group has corrupted the institutions of government in Venezuela and is responsible for terrorist violence conducted by and with other designated FTOs as well as for trafficking drugs into the United States and Europe,’ Rubio posted on X about the new designation.

The ambiguity surrounding Venezuela is the latest instance of Trump’s unpredictable approach to foreign policy — a hallmark that has kept allies and adversaries uncertain of U.S. intentions for years.

Trump’s remarks fit a familiar pattern: publicly signaling both confrontation and conciliation in ways that leave world leaders guessing about his next move. Since his first term, he has used such ambiguity to keep counterparts off balance — a strategy that has, at times, produced diplomatic breakthroughs and, at others, strategic confusion.

In 2017, Trump threatened North Korea with ‘fire and fury’ before pivoting months later to a summit with Kim Jong Un in Singapore — the first direct meeting between U.S. and North Korean leaders.

In 2018, his shifting public tone on the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — alternating between defending and condemning Saudi Arabia’s leadership — again confounded U.S. partners. The following year, his abrupt decision to pull U.S. forces from northern Syria stunned both advisors and allies.

His stance on the Russia–Ukraine war has been similarly mercurial. At times, Trump has called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a ‘dictator’ and railed against continued U.S. aid to Kyiv.

At others, he has mused that Vladimir Putin ‘played’ him and floated plans to sell American weapons to Ukraine through allied funding — a swing that left officials in Washington and Europe unsure whether Trump intends to end the war through pressure or compromise.

Most recently, in mid-2025, Trump entered indirect talks with Tehran over sanctions relief and regional de-escalation before ordering surprise airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites — a reversal that underscored his tendency to keep adversaries guessing about U.S. red lines.

And on Tuesday — five months after the strikes and over seven years since he pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 Iran deal – Trump again suggested he would be open to talking with Iran about a potential deal on its nuclear ambitions.

‘I am totally open to it,’ he said.

Trump’s relationship with China has followed the same whiplash rhythm. He has threatened massive new tariffs and warned of ‘total decoupling,’ only to later describe President Xi Jinping as a ‘great friend,’ tout Beijing as a partner in fighting drugs and stabilizing markets and promise to expand student visas for Chinese students.

Whether Venezuela becomes the next stage for Trump’s blend of diplomacy and deterrence remains uncertain — which, for Trump, may be precisely the point.

President Donald Trump ripped insurance companies in a Truth Social post on Tuesday, indicating that the only healthcare policy he would be willing to greenlight would involve funds flowing directly to Americans.

He emphasized his point by using all caps.

‘THE ONLY HEALTHCARE I WILL SUPPORT OR APPROVE IS SENDING THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE, WITH NOTHING GOING TO THE BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE MADE $TRILLIONS, AND RIPPED OFF AMERICA LONG ENOUGH. THE PEOPLE WILL BE ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE AND BUY THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, INSURANCE. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!’ the president wrote in the post.

He urged lawmakers to make it happen.

‘Congress, do not waste your time and energy on anything else. This is the only way to have great Healthcare in America!!! GET IT DONE, NOW,’ he declared.

The president’s comments in the post on Tuesday echoed remarks he made in Truth Social posts earlier this month.

In a post on Nov. 8, Trump declared, ‘I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare, BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over.’

‘In other words, take from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate, per Dollar spent, the worst Healthcare anywhere in the World, ObamaCare,’ Trump wrote.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., responded at the time by indicating that he agreed. 

‘Totally agree, @POTUS! I’m writing the bill right now. We must stop taxpayer money from going to insurance companies and instead give it directly to Americans in HSA-style accounts and let them buy the health care they want. This will increase competition & drive down costs,’ Scott noted in a post on X.

In another Truth Social post on Nov. 8, Trump exclaimed, ‘NO MORE MONEY, HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, TO THE DEMOCRAT SUPPORTED INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR REALLY BAD OBAMACARE. THE MONEY MUST NOW GO DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, TAKING THE ‘FAT CAT’ INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF THE CORRUPT SYSTEM OF HEALTHCARE. THE PEOPLE CAN BUY THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER POLICY, FOR MUCH LESS MONEY, SAVING, FOR THEMSELVES, AN ABSOLUTE FORTUNE!!!’

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman committed his country to increasing his planned investment into the U.S. economy to nearly $1 trillion over the next year on Tuesday.

MBS made the announcement while meeting with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, saying the investments will take place across the U.S. economy. Trump initially stated that the investment would amount to ‘at least’ $600 billion, but the Saudi leader confirmed the higher amount during his remarks.

‘You’ve agreed to invest $600 billion into the United States and because he’s my friend, he might make it a trillion, but I’m going to have to work on him. But it’s 600. We can count on 600 billion. But, that number could go up a little bit higher,’ Trump said Tuesday.

‘That means investments in plants, in companies, money on Wall Street. And what it really means for everybody, what really counts is jobs. A lot of jobs. We have a lot of jobs,’ Trump added.

Bin Salman vowed to meet the $1 trillion number just minutes later during comments to the press.

Today and tomorrow, we are going to announce that we are going to increase that, that $600 billion to almost $1 trillion of investment, real investment and real opportunity in many areas,’ he said.

‘You know, that’s great. I appreciate that. That’s great. We’re doing numbers that nobody’s ever done. And in all fairness, if you didn’t see potential in the U.S, you wouldn’t be doing it,’ Trump replied.

‘Definitely,’ bin Salman said.

‘You don’t want to lose money,’ Trump joked.

Trump rolled out the red carpet for the Crown Prince on Tuesday, greeting the Middle Eastern leader outside the White House flanked by dozens of U.S. servicemembers. It represents a return to the fold for Saudi Arabia after the country was largely shunned under former President Joe Biden’s administration.

Former national security officials could soon lose their security clearances — or even face lifetime bans from lobbying for foreign adversaries — under a new crackdown from Texas Republicans John Cornyn and August Pfluger.

The three-bill package takes direct aim at Washington’s revolving door, closing the loopholes that have let former officials and power brokers — many with deep knowledge of U.S. defense secrets — quietly push the interests of China, Russia and other hostile regimes inside the U.S. government.

If enacted, the legislation would require the Pentagon to revoke security clearances from former defense officials who lobby for Chinese-owned companies and impose a lifetime ban on any Senate-confirmed official lobbying on behalf of designated adversaries — including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

A third measure — the PAID OFF Act (Preventing Adversary Influence, Disinformation and Obscured Foreign Financing Act) — would overhaul the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by eliminating the ‘commercial’ and Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) exemptions for entities tied to countries of concern. That change would force anyone representing or advocating for companies substantially owned or controlled by adversary governments, such as China or Russia, to register publicly as foreign agents and would expand the Justice Department’s enforcement authority to pursue unregistered influence campaigns.

The new bills aim to tighten lobbying restrictions amid a growing list of former officials and politically connected figures who have leveraged their Washington access to benefit foreign governments and corporations with minimal disclosure.

The effort marks the full bicameral rollout of the Cornyn-Pfluger package. Cornyn introduced the PAID OFF and CLEAR Path Acts earlier this year in the Senate and is introducing the REVOKE Act today, while Pfluger is introducing all three bills in the House.

The legislation has bipartisan consensus: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., is the Democratic Senate co-lead on each measure, while Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., is co-sponsoring the CLEAR Path and PAID Off Acts, while Rep. Don Davis, D-Ill., is co-sponsoring the REVOKE Act.

The REVOKE Act was included in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act, and the PAID OFF Act was included in the Senate-passed version, giving key parts of the proposal bipartisan traction in both chambers.

From the Pentagon’s E-ring to K Street boardrooms, a generation of former officials has turned national security experience into private contracts with foreign-linked companies. 

The same revolving door extended into the legal world. President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch, now a partner at a major Washington firm, represented DJI Technology, the Chinese drone manufacturer later labeled by the Pentagon as a ‘Chinese military company.’ In 2023, she wrote to the War Department urging DJI’s removal from that list and led litigation challenging the designation before the company changed counsel in December.

DJI’s influence campaign in Washington reached far beyond Lynch’s firm. Jeff Denham, a former Republican congressman and Air Force veteran, was among the lobbyists listed on K&L Gates’s 2020 filings for DJI, focused on defense and commerce issues.

John P. Flynn, a former Air Force officer and deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for legislative liaison, also appeared on Squire Patton Boggs’s lobbying disclosures for the company in 2022 and 2023. Their paths from military and congressional service to representing a Chinese defense-linked firm show how deeply the revolving door runs — and how easily government experience in the national security realm can become a global commodity once officials enter the private sector.

That network extended to Barry Rhoads, the chairman of Cassidy & Associates, one of Washington’s most established defense lobbying firms. A former Army JAG officer and counsel to the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee, Rhoads was listed among the lobbyists who represented DJI between 2018 and 2022. His decades of Capitol Hill and Pentagon experience made him a sought-after adviser for defense contractors — and, under current law, even for companies tied to U.S. adversaries.

In another high-profile example, former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen once worked with Huawei Technologies, the Chinese telecom company later deemed a U.S. national security risk. After leaving the Pentagon, Cohen founded The Cohen Group, which advised Huawei in 2010.

A spokesperson for the firm told Fox News Digital the work was done ‘with the support of the Department of Defense and Director of National Intelligence’ and was meant to limit Huawei’s business in the U.S. to activities acceptable to the U.S. government. The firm said it helped draft a plan that would have restricted Huawei’s sales under a national security agreement, but ended the project when the company ‘decided to take a different path.’

U.S. intelligence agencies have since warned that Huawei’s technology could be used by Beijing for espionage, prompting limits on its access to American networks and suppliers.

Lynch, Flynn, Denham and Rhoads did not respond to requests for comment.

The pattern has not been limited to defense insiders. Hunter Biden, who has faced a years-long Justice Department investigation into his foreign business dealings, including work for a Romanian real estate tycoon and his position on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, has also drawn scrutiny from congressional investigators.

They have examined his contacts with businessmen linked to Russian and Chinese interests during the same period. No charges have been filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but the probe has drawn attention to how politically connected figures can pursue lucrative overseas ventures that blur the line between private consulting and foreign influence. 

‘It is the bare minimum expectation that U.S. government employees work for the betterment of America, both during their service and long after it. Yet far too often, we see individuals leave government only to lobby on behalf of foreign adversaries who wish to see America fail,’ said Pfluger in a statement. ‘This is a dangerous flaw in the incentive structure for those serving at the highest levels of government.’

 ‘American policy should not in any way reflect the handiwork of foreign adversaries who are actively working to tip the scales in their favor and undermine our interests,’  said Cornyn.