Trump Qatar, David Hogg, 2028 presidential race

A Michigan judge ruled on Tuesday that the state's 24-hour waiting period and informed consent rules restricting abortion were unconstitutional.The waiting period, which allows abortion-seekers to consider their options before the procedure, was voted into the state constitution by Michigan voters in 2022, before being challenged in a 2024 lawsuit filed by abortion rights groups."The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially forcing the patient to forgo a medication abortion for a more invasive procedure," state Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel wrote in her opinion.SCOOP: REPUBLICANS DISCUSS DEFUNDING 'BIG ABORTION' LIKE PLANNED PARENTHOOD IN TRUMP AGENDA BILLPatel also ruled it was unconstitutional to ban nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants from performing abortions.Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a post on X that she was "overjoyed" with the decision."Im overjoyed to say that the Michigan Court of Claims has seen these restrictive provisions for what they are: an unconstitutional overreach that infringes on our constitutional right to make our own reproductive health decisions," Whitmer wrote. "Todays ruling reaffirms what we already know: reproductive health decisions belong between a patient and their doctor, not the government. Im proud to know that this Womens Health Week, we can celebrate by protecting and expanding womens fundamental rights and freedoms."TRUMP FOE LETITIA JAMES LEADING CHARGE ON NEW MULTISTATE LAWSUIT OVER HHS CUTSMichigan Catholic Conference President and CEO Paul Long said the intent of the proposal was to grant constitutional protections to "an industry that places itself above the health and safety of women and the lives of pre-born children.""This decision is a tragic reminder that the normalization of abortion in Michigan exists to the detriment of some 31,000 children every year who will never have the opportunity to experience the gift and blessings of life," Long wrote in a statement. "Now, more than ever, we encourage others to envision a world where human life at every stage from conception to a natural end is truly cherished and protected, where expecting mothers are supported with love and care and have access to maternal needs, regardless of the circumstance of the pregnancy."GENDER-AFFIRMING TREATMENTS DONT BENEFIT YOUTH, SAYS PEDIATRICIANS GROUP: IRREVERSIBLE CONSEQUENCESThe court upheld a rule that requires abortion providers to screen for signs of coercion.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPIf the decision is appealed, the case would be elevated to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

A legal firm and an activist group are pressuring the Indiana High School Athletics Association (IHSAA) board of directors, urging it to get rid of two DEI quotas for board members.The current criteria for the board's members includes a requirement for two female members and two members who are racial minorities."The Board of Directors shall be comprised of nineteen board seats. Twelve board seats shall be filled by any qualified individual (open seats), and seven board seats shall be filled by Two (2) qualified female representatives, Two (2) qualified minorities," the policy states.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMNow, the law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), and the activist group, Equal Protection Project (EPP), have sent a letter to the IHSAA board of directors, objecting to this criteria and demanding change."No one should be denied the opportunity to serve on a public board due to their race or sex. Our Constitution and civil rights law demand that individuals be judged on their character, qualifications, and achievements, not on characteristics they cannot control. IHSAA has a constitutional duty to treat all Board of Director nominees equally under the law," part of the letter reads."Race- and sex-based quotas like those used by IHSAA perpetuate stereotypes, patronize the qualified, and undermine the ability of other qualified citizens to serve their communities. We strongly urge this Board to reconsider its use of these unconstitutional quotas."Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Laura DAgostino condemned the IHSAA's criteria."Public boards should reflect the talents and commitment of all citizens, not arbitrary categories of race or sex. Every individual who wants to step up and serve their community should be encouraged to do so based on what they bring to the table, not held back because of who they are," D'Agostino told Fox News Digital.PLF and EPP ended the letter by providing a deadline of May 30 for the IHSAA to respond with an agreement to remove those two requirements for its board of directors.TRUMP TO PRESIDE OVER HISTORIC SPORTING EVENTS WHICH TEAMS AND STARS COULD SKIP WHITE HOUSE VISITS?EPP founder William A. Jacobson suggested further legal steps could be taken if the deadline passes with no agreement."We hope that IHSAA will do the right thing and voluntarily remedy the discriminatory bylaws provisions, but if it does not, all legal options are on the table," Jacobson told Fox News Digital.Fox News Digital has reached out to the IHSAA for comment.Recent executive orders by President Donald Trump have targeted DEI in both public institutions and the private sector, and many states have passed their own laws to prohibit DEI quotas in taxpayer-funded organizations.Trump's day one executive order, which the GSA is aligning its actions with, directed the federal contracting process to "be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws."The order also commanded the Office of Federal Contract Compliance to "immediately cease" promoting "diversity" and any encouragement of federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in affirmative action-like efforts that consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion or national origin when making hiring decisions.Meanwhile, in Indiana, a state bill authored by Republican Sens. Tyler Johnson and Gary Byrne to outlaw "discrimination" in state education, public employment and licensing settings that is "based on a personal characteristic of the person," was signed by Gov. Mike Braun on May 1.Braun signed an executive order in January to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion in all state agencies and replace it with what he calls "MEI" merit, excellence and innovation.Under that executive order, government offices cannot use state funds, property or resources to support DEI initiatives or require job candidates to issue DEI statements.Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X, and subscribe tothe Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Several top Democrats have deflected questions about former President Biden's cognitive decline, as alleged in multiple books about the 2024 election, telling the media that they're looking to move forward and not look back.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., dismissed the questions surrounding the latest book to come out with allegations of the president's decline on CNN, MSNBC and during a press conference on Tuesday.During an interview with CNN's Kasie Hunt, Schumer was asked, "Did you really not have any idea that he was not fit to serve a second term?""Kasie, were looking forward. We have the largest Medicaid cut in front of us. We have the whole federal government," he said as Hunt pushed back, noting the reason they were dealing with President Donald Trump now was because the Democrats lost in 2024.EX-BIDEN AIDE SAYS FORMER PRESIDENT WAS 'FATIGUED, BEFUDDLED, AND DISENGAGED' PRIOR TO JUNE DEBATE: BOOK"Is that not Joe Bidens responsibility for deciding to run again?" Hunt followed up as the Democratic lawmaker repeated, "We're looking forward."Hunt pressed, "That's it?" Schumer said, "That's it," before the interview ended.While multiple books have come out about Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris and the 2024 election, the most recent excerpts from CNNs Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompsons upcoming book, "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," detail several insider concerns over whether Biden could last a second term as president.The senator was also pressed on Tuesday by MSNBC's Katy Tur, who asked him to respond to a specific portion of the book that mentioned the Democratic senator. "The book also reports that Biden put his hands on your shoulder and said, You have bigger, Im going to say huevos, its not what the book said, than anyone Ive ever met. Do you think Biden deserves the blame for the loss in 2024?" Tur asked."Katy, were looking forward. We have the largest Medicaid cut in history facing us. We are focused on the future and doing right for the American people, plain and simple," he said.CHUCK SCHUMER CONFRONTED WITH OLD CLIP OF HIMSELF DECLARING BIDEN'S DECLINE 'RIGHT-WING PROPAGANDA'Tur followed up and asked if Biden actually said what was reported in the book, and he said again, "Were looking forward."The senator gave the same response during a press conference earlier in the day when a reporter asked if he was being straight with the American public in posting on X in June that the president was "in command and impressive" in meetings.The reporter juxtaposed Schumer's post with an insider describing to Tapper and Thompson a "terrifying" moment that same month when Biden failed to recognize award-winning actor George Clooney at a June fundraiser.Schumer dismissed the question, saying, "We're just looking forward."NEW BOOK PLACES BLAME ON BIDEN FOR HARRIS 2024 LOSS TO TRUMPAsked by a reporter on Tuesday whether it was helpful for the Democratic caucus to have these books about Biden and the 2024 campaign, and whether he wanted Biden to help campaign for Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deflected."We're not looking backward, we're looking forward at this particular moment in time," Jeffries said.Gov. JB Pritzker, D-Ill., said the commentary about the president's health was "very backward-looking" during an interview on CNN on Tuesday, but argued that the former president should have either stayed in the race or not run for re-election at all.He added, "So I dont know whether he should have been the nominee or not. I dont really want to review all of it because its past history, and we live in a moment right now when 500,000 people in the state of Illinois are being told basically theyre going to lose their healthcare because of what the Republicans are doing."CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURESen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., was confronted on Sunday by NBC's Kristen Welker about Biden's insistence that it didn't matter that he dropped out of the race in July, only giving former Vice President Kamala Harris about 90 days to campaign."You know, everything we look at in a rearview mirror after you lose an election. Yes, we would have been served better by a primary, but we are where we are. Were not on the History Channel right now, and I believe that President Biden can come out and speak and do interviews whenever he wants," Klobuchar said."But I will say this: Were not in the History Channel and our Republican colleagues, instead of dealing with where we are now, think theyre in some kind of a way back zone, that they can go bring time backwards and blame everything on Joe Biden. Donald Trump is the president right now, and we have to deal with helping the American people," the senator added.After listing what she wanted the party to focus on going forward, the Democratic senator added, "So Im not interested in going backward in time. Im interested in going forward."Some Democrats acknowledged that the president put the party in a tough spot when pressed on the book allegations, and on whether they should have held a primary.Rep. Morgan McGarvey, D-Ky., told MSNBC on Wednesday when pressed on Biden's decline and revelations from the book that he shouldn't have run for re-election, as he said he was going to be a transitional president."I dont think he should have run for reelection. And I do think that it put the party in a much tougher spot to win, which we needed the best person on the field," McGarvey told MSNBC's Ali Vitali, citing Trump's policies and the high stakes of the election. "We knew the stakes were that high, and we needed to make sure we had the best person on the field for the Democrats at that time."Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said that Biden "maybe" hurt Democrats in running for re-election. However, Buttigieg defended the former president against allegations of decline."The time I worked closest with him in his final year was around the Baltimore bridge collapse. And what I can tell you is that the same president the world saw addressing that was the president I was in the Oval with, insisting that we do a good job, do right by Baltimore. And that was characteristic of my experience with him," he told reporters in Iowa this week.

Angry protesters disrupted a Tuesday hearing on Capitol Hill during which Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified about how the agency's 2026 budget aligns with President Donald Trump's agenda.Kennedy did not even finish his opening statement when multiple protesters disrupted his testimony, yelling that the HHS secretary is killing people "with hate.""RFK kills people with hate!" a protester blurted out, startling Kennedy, who quickly turned behind him to see where the commotion was coming from. "RFK kills people with hate!" the chant continued, with more voices joining in. "RFK kills people with hate!"DEM LAWMAKER SEETHES RFK JR'S 'LEGITIMACY' AS HHS SECRETARY HAS 'EXPIRED' IN HEATED EXCHANGEMultiple people were eventually escorted out of the room, during which the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., paused the hearing. "Members of the audience are reminded disruptions will not be permitted while the committee conducts its business. Capitol Police are asked to remove the individuals from the hearing room," Cassidy said amid the commotion."That was a made-for-C-SPAN moment," Cassidy quipped after things settled down.FDA'S LATEST MAHA MOVE WOULD WIPE OUT KIDS' FLUORIDE PRESCRIPTIONS AS HEALTH RISK EVIDENCE MOUNTSThe Wednesday hearing with the Senate HELP Committee came a few weeks after HHS released its budget for fiscal year 2026. Kennedy was testifying to share how the budget aligns with Trump's priorities."When my team and I took the helm at HHS we set out with clear goals," Kennedy said shortly before he was interrupted.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP"First, we aim to make America healthy again with a special focus on the chronic disease epidemic. Second, we committed to delivering more efficient, responsive, and effective service to over 100 million Americans who rely on Medicare, Medicaid and other programs. Third, we focus on achieving these goals by cutting costs for taxpayers and intend to do more a lot more with less."

The cries of a rigged NBA Draft Lottery are loud and clear once again.The Dallas Mavericks, with a 1.8% chance of earning the top pick months after trading away star Luka Doncic, came away with the right to draft Duke's Cooper Flagg.This, of course, is not the first time there have been suspicions: There's the frozen envelope theory from 1985 for the New York Knicks to get Patrick Ewing; the Cleveland Cavaliers got the No. 1 pick when the top prospect was a local kid named LeBron James (same with the Chicago Bulls and Derrick Rose in 2008); and many believe the San Antonio Spurs were gifted Victor Wembanyama in 2023.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMWell, Hall of Famer Dwyane Wade didn't exactly shut down any ongoing speculation."It's a business," he said in a recent interview.Wade, of course, would not go out and say it is for sure rigged, "because I'm not a witness in it.""But this is a business that we are a part of. And I think people forget that in the competition of sports and what we love, because we grow up playing sports, and it's not a business when we grow up. But when you're in the NBA, it's a business. And the business has to do its best job to make sure that, you know, it's taken care of," he said.SUNS' KEVIN DURANT ISSUES 8-WORD POST AFTER SHOCKING NBA DRAFT LOTTERY RESULTSJames himself and former teammate Kevin Love couldn't help but laugh at the Mavs winning the lottery.The Spurs received the No. 2 pick, the Philadelphia 76ers will pick third and the Charlotte Hornets will have the fourth pick.After Flagg, the two top prospects are considered to be freshmen from the Rutgers Scarlet Knights Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper.Fox News' Ryan Gaydos and The Associated Press contributed to this report.Follow Fox News Digitals sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

FIRST ON FOX: House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is opening an investigation into threats facing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, Fox News Digital was told.It comes as fallout continues over three House Democrats accused of "storming" a detention center in New Jersey.Fox News Digital was told that Jordan is expected to schedule a hearing for next Tuesday, with former ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials expected among the witness panel.The hearing will cover threats against ICE operations, likely including Delaney Hall Detention Center in Newark, New Jersey.NEWARK MAYOR ARRESTED AS DEM CONGRESS MEMBERS STORM NEW JERSEY ICE PRISON TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT VISITIt's also expected to cover the Trump administration's advancements in cracking down on illegal immigration and threats to national security, Fox News Digital was told.The hearing will likely be led not by Jordan's full committee, but by the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on oversight a panel that's led by Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, where the Delaney Hall incident took place.The planned move is a significant development in the situation led by one of President Donald Trump's closest allies in the House of Representatives.Republicans have been discussing what, if any, consequences could be in store for the three Democratic lawmakers who protested Trump's immigration policies at the Newark ICE facility late last week.Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., Rob Menendez, D-N.J., and LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., joined Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and other protesters outside the detention center, and apparently rushed in when the gates opened to let in a bus carrying detainees inside its walls.Democrats have contended that they had a right to enter the facility as federal officials.But Republicans, including DHS, have accused those Democrats of "storming" in and endangering both law enforcement and detainees in a bid to score political points.Both sides have also accused the other of assault.WHITE HOUSE BLASTS DEMS CROSSING THE LINE BY STORMING ICE FACILITYGOP lawmakers and officials have suggested punishments ranging from censure to criminal charges, both of which House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., suggested were a "red line."Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., introduced a resolution to strip those Democrats of their committees earlier this week.The three Democrats said in a joint statement in response to Carter, "As we all know, Members of Congress have a legal right to conduct oversight at any DHS detention facility without prior notice, and thats exactly what we were doing last week. This week, were back in Washington doing exactly what New Jerseyans sent us here to do: delivering for them."

After the bombshell Tuesday news that convicted killers Erik and Lyle Mendendez have been resentenced to 50 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole, the future for the brothers still remains uncertain.The pair, who admitted to killing their parents, Mary "Kitty" and Jose Menendez, in a bloody 1989 shotgun massacre inside their Beverly Hills home, maintained that their actions were self-defense stemming from a lifetime of physical and sexual abuse by their parents until Tuesday's resentencing hearing.Below is a timeline of how we've reached this point in their resentencing bid, and what could happen next:March 2023: Attorneys for the brothers ask the Los Angeles County District Court to reconsider their convictions and sentencing in light of a new affidavit claiming Jose Menendez raped a 14-year-old boy in 1983 or 1984.The claimant was Roy Russello, a member of the boy band Menudo, who made the rape claim against the former record executive at age 54.He said that he went to the Menendez home and drank a glass of wine, then lost control of his body before Jose raped him.Sept. 2024: The Menendez family defends the brothers against the "dishonest portrayal of the tragedies surrounding our crime" in a Netflix documentary called "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story."Sept. 27, 2024: The Menendez family calls for the brothers' release."We are virtually the entire extended family of Erik and Lyle Menendez. We are 24 strong and today we want the world to know we support Erik and Lyle," their family wrote in a statement that Erik's wife, Tammi Menendez, posted to X in response to the Netflix docuseries. "We individually and collectively pray for their release after being imprisoned for 35 years. We know them, love them, and want them home with us."Oct. 4, 2024: Then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascn announces that he is reviewing evidence in the case.Oct. 14, 2024: Gascon announces that he has found new evidence that affects the brothers' case.That evidence came in the form of a letter allegedly written by Erik to his cousin, Andy Cano, eight months before the double-homicide, claiming that Jose was continually raping his sons.MENENDEZ BROTHERS DISCUSS BULLYING AND TRAUMA IN PRISON IN RARE PUBLIC REMARKS, NEW PODCAST INTERVIEWOct. 16, 2024: Multiple generations of the Menendez family hold a news conference asking for the brothers' release.Oct. 25, 2024: Gascn asks the court to resentence the brothers."After very careful review of all the arguments I came to a place where I believe that, under the law, resentencing is appropriate, and I am going to recommend that to a court tomorrow," Gascon said at the time.Oct. 31, 2024: The brothers' attorney, Mark Geragos, files a request for clemency from Gov. Gavin Newsom.Nov. 5, 2024: Nathan Hochman defeats Gascn in the general election for Los Angeles County District Attorney.Nov. 19, 2024: Newsom says he won't make a clemency decision until Hochman has had time to review the case."The Governor respects the role of the District Attorney in ensuring justice is served and recognizes that voters have entrusted District Attorney-elect Hochman to carry out this responsibility," Newsom's office said in a statement. "The Governor will defer to the DA-elects review and analysis of the Menendez case prior to making any clemency decisions."Nov. 25, 2024: Judge Michael Jesic delays the brothers' resentencing hearing until Jan. 30, 2025.Jan. 3, 2025: Hochman meets with the Menendez family."As we prepare to meet with DA Hochman, our family is hopeful for an open and fair discussion," the family said in a statement at the time. "Despite the abuse they endured as children and the unfairness of their current sentence, Erik and Lyle Menendez have spent the last three decades taking responsibility for their actions and contributing positively to their community through leadership and rehabilitation."Jan. 18, 2025: The brothers' resentencing trial is postponed due to the extreme and destructive Los Angeles wildfires.The new hearing was scheduled for March 2021.WATCH ON FOX NATION: MENENDEZ BROTHERS: VICTIMS OR VILLAINS?Feb. 26, 2025: Newsom announces that he has directed the state parole board to conduct a "comprehensive risk assessment investigation" of the Menendez brothers in response to their request for clemency.March 10, 2025: Hochman asks the court to withdraw Gascn's motion to free the brothers."As a full examination of the record reveals, the Menendez brothers have never come clean and admitted that they lied about their self-defense as well as suborned perjury and attempted to suborn perjury by their friends for the lies, among others, of their father violently raping Lyles girlfriend, their mother poisoning the family, and their attempt to get a handgun the day before the murders," Hochman's motion said.March 11, 2025: Newsom sets June 13 parole board hearings for the brothers in their bid for clemency.March 20, 2025: The resentencing hearing is again postponed, this time until April 18-19.April 11, 2025: Jesic denies Hochman's motion to quash the brothers' resentencing hearing.April 14, 2025: Jesic denies Hochman's motion to withdraw a petition by the brothers for a new trial, and Terry Baralt, the 85-year-old aunt of Erik and Lyle is hospitalized after fainting at the court hearing.Prosecutors were accused of showing unredacted crime scene photos to the court without prior notice to the family, leading to Baralt's medical emergency.Hochman's office later apologized."To the extent that the photographic depiction of this conduct upset any of the Menendez family members present in court, we apologize for not giving prior warning that the conduct would be described in detail not only in words but also through a crime scene photo," his office said.April 18, 2025: The resentencing hearing is postponed until May 9 to address two motions in the case: whether Hochman's office should be punished for showing the graphic photos, and whether it could cite the parole board's comprehensive risk assessment in its arguments.April 28, 2025: Geragos files a motion attempting to disqualify Hochman from the case over an alleged conflict of interest regarding members of his office who opposed the brothers' resentencing.May 9, 2025: Jesic denies Hochman's request to withdraw the March 10 motion in which he asked the court to drop Gascn's attempt to free the brothers.Jesic also denies Geragos' attempt to withdraw his own April 28 motion to disqualify Hochman. Geragos said he wanted to withdraw the motion because he "did not want to waste any more time" and wanted to move forward with the resentencing process.May 14, 2025: Jesic resentences Erik and Lyle to 50 years in prison with the possibility of parole.The brothers have spent 35 years behind bars.At the hearing, they expressed remorse for killing their parents during the hearing, and took full responsibility for their actions, which Hochman previously demanded as a condition of their resentencing."I take full responsibility. I killed my parents. I made the choice to kill my mom and dad in their own home," Lyle said. "I made the choice to make a mockery of the justice system. I offer no excuse and I dont blame my parents. Im deeply ashamed for what I did."MENENDEZ BROTHERS RESENTENCED AS EXPERTS BLAST 'INDEFENSIBLE' BID FOR KILLERS' FREEDOMErik then spoke."I have profound sorrow for the tragedy I created," he said. "I took the lives of my mom and dad. My actions were criminal, cruel, and cowardly. I have no excuse or justification for what I did and I was the one who convinced Lyle we couldn't escape.""I fired all five rounds at my parents and went back to reload. I lied to police. I lied to my family. I'm truly sorry," he said. "This crime should have never happened. I know my parents should be alive and aren't because of me."Newsom's June 13 parole board hearings are planned to go on as scheduled, and the board will have the opportunity to free the brothers.Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani told Fox News Digital on Tuesday that Erik and Lyle Menendez "will likely be freed in a matter of months," adding that he does not expect "the parole board or Governor Newsom" to block their release.Clemency from Newsom is also still a possibility.Fox News' Michael Ruiz, Audrey Conklin, Sarah Rumpf-Whitten and Stepheny Price contributed to this report.

The White House is shutting down accusations from Democrats and anti-Trump "resistance" that nearly 14 million people will lose insurance coverage under Republican Medicaid reform proposals as part of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" with Republicans calling foul on the data spin and saying Dems are using it as a scare tactic.The infighting comes as Democrats and Republicans are going head-to-head over Medicaid spending levels, which has emerged as a prominent wedge between the parties amid the release of new analysis suggesting millions of people would lose their health insurance in order to foot the bill for Trumps tax cuts.While Democrats have merged data from two new reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to back up claims that nearly 14 million would lose coverage, the White House and Republicans are objecting, as not all the policy proposals evaluated were actually included in Republicans' legislation, and far fewer people would actually face insurance loss.Instead, Republicans argue that their proposed reforms to implement work requirements, strengthen eligibility checks and crack down on Medicaid for illegal immigrants preserve the program for those who really need it.MEDICAID BECOMES FLASHPOINT IN HOUSE DEBATE OVER TRUMP BUDGET BILL"President Trump is protecting Medicaid for every eligible American who relies on it by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse within this program," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a Tuesday statement to Fox News Digital. "By taking commonsense measures to strengthen Medicaid, we will ultimately improve care for those who this program is intended to serve: pregnant women, the disabled, seniors, and low-income families.""The President has repeatedly said that he will save Medicaid to ensure it remains a reliable and sustainable lifeline for generations to come," Desai said.A series of calculations from the CBO have recently emerged evaluating multiple different Medicaid proposals further pitting Republicans and Democrats against one another on Medicaid reform.The first new analysis, commissioned by Democrats and released Thursday, failed to examine the exact proposals Republicans are considering and instead, took a shot in the dark at what Republicans might introduce, according to experts.Thats because Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., requested the CBO evaluate various policies that Republicans could have suggested. However, most of the policies analyzed are not identical to the ones that Republicans have actually put forward, experts said.SENIOR HOUSE REPUBLICAN EVISERATES DEMS FOR FEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST TRUMP'S BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL"That was Democrats trying to guess what Republicans were going to do," Ryan Long, a senior research fellow at the Paragon Health Institute, told Fox News Digital Monday.Michael Cannon, the director of health policy studies at the Washington-based libertarian-leaning Cato Institute think tank, voiced similar sentiments about the initial CBO report."The first thing to know is that this is not a Republican proposal that CBO was examining," Cannon told Fox News Digital Monday about the initial CBO analysis. "Theyre similar to Republican proposals, but these were proposals, ideas that the Democrats asked CBO to examine for the purposes of criticizing those proposals, using them as a CBO score as a cudgel against Republicans."While Democrats labeled the first scorekeepers report as proof that Republican policies would lead to "catastrophic" Medicaid cuts and force millions of people off their coverage, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said in a post on X that Democrats sought to "fear monger" Americans.Ultimately, the CBO report released Thursday evaluated five different initiatives that would rein in Medicaid spending, freeing up billions of dollars in spending but jeopardizing healthcare coverage for up to 8.6 million people.HOUSE GOP UNVEILS MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENTS IN TRUMP'S BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL'Additional analysis from the CBO released Monday claimed that an additional 5.1 million Americans could lose their coverage if the measure fails to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits that will expire in 2034, and includes a provision to fully implement the Marketplace Integrity Rule that seeks to crack down on eligibility verification.Although neither of these proposals is included in the Republican legislation, Democrats have added the numbers from these two CBO reports and have asserted that roughly 13.7 million people would go uninsured under Republican policies.Meanwhile, the latest CBO analysis released Tuesday examining Medicaid proposals included in the GOP measure found that adding work requirements, new eligibility checks and removing illegal immigrants from Medicaid would result in 10.3 million people losing coverage, and would leave 7.6 million people without insurance.CBO declined to comment when reached by Fox News Digital.ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLIONAdditionally, Cannon pushed back against accusations that any of the proposals would actually cut Medicaid funding. While federal Medicaid spending is set to increase by 4.5% annually, the proposals CBO evaluated would simply curb that growth to at least 3% annually.But ultimately, Cannon said the report is a mechanism Democrats are using to ignite fears among Republicans as they seek a legislative victory of their own."Democrats want to beat up Republicans, of course they do," Cannon said. "They want to win elections, and they think if they can scare people, they can do it they don't want Republicans to get a political win, like tax cuts, and so this is their best weapon to stop tax cuts. Theyre making the most of it, so that's what's going on with that CBO score."The tension between Republicans and Democrats over Medicaid funding stems from a larger battle over Trumps budget package that is making its way through Congress.Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is seeking to get the measure over the finish line in the House by Memorial Day.Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled a portion of the measure Sunday that tackled Medicaid, as the panel follows through on requests to find $880 billion in spending cuts to foot the bill for other Trump priorities.Specifically, the committees proposal put forth policy initiatives, including a new 80-hour-per-month work requirement on certain able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 that receive Medicaid.The measure also puts limits on how much states spend on expanded Medicaid populations established through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which permitted states to increase their Medicaid coverage to those who make up 138% of the poverty level.Likewise, states that issue Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants are in jeopardy of reduced federal Medicaid reimbursement funding under the measure. That would require the state to pick up additional costs.Still, Democrats claimed that the effort would seize healthcare coverage from "millions of Americans.""This is not trimming fat from around the edges, its cutting to the bone," Pallone said in a statement Sunday night. "The overwhelming majority of the savings in this bill will come from taking healthcare away from millions of Americans. Nowhere in the bill are they cutting waste, fraud, and abuse theyre cutting peoples healthcare and using that money to give tax breaks to billionaires."House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said Democrats are attempting to "scare" Americans."Democrats are pedaling incorrect reports that include policies that arent even in the bill," Guthrie told Fox News Digital Monday.Fox News Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

House Republicans are warning that consequences are in store for three Democratic colleagues the Trump administration accused of "storming" a detention facility in defense of illegal immigrants last week."Look, there's three possible disciplinary actions in Congress that the House can take," Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters at his weekly press conference Wednesday.He noted the House could censure, a symbolic rebuke with no further repercussions that requires a simple majority vote a move Johnson said "probably does seem appropriate here."BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT'S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZYJohnson noted the Republican majority could also boot them off their committees, or even expel those lawmakers though he noted that required a significantly higher threshold."Now, expulsion requires a two-thirds vote. That's not likely with margins that are this small. But, you know, we're looking at what is appropriate," he said.Meanwhile, other House Republicans who spoke with Fox News Digital called for a range of punishments, from censure to arrests."I really think there should be criminal charges filed against them," Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., told Fox News Digital, arguing there was no realistically sufficient punishment the House could levy."A censure doesn't do anything but raise them money, and no one here has the balls to expel anybody. Only Democrats' balls are that big."ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLIONRep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., however, said they should be "censured, at the least.""The Justice Department should be looking at it. If there was any sort of battery or physical assault, that's just unacceptable," Stutzman said.Both Republicans and Democrats have traded accusations of assault since last Friday, when three Democratic members of Congress joined Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and other protesters to rush into an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, the Delaney Hall detention center, in northern New Jersey.Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver and Rob Menendez argued they had every right to be there as federal officials on federal grounds and accused ICE agents of "manhandling" lawmakers who joined protesters that day.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accused the Democrats of "storming" the facility after a bus carrying detainees went through its gates and said their actions put both law enforcement and detainees' safety at risk.But Democrats are circling the wagons around the trio.House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sent a clear warning to Republicans on Tuesday."That's a red line," Jeffries said when asked about possible arrests or sanctions of the lawmakers. "It's been made loudly and abundantly clear to the Trump administration, we're not going to be intimidated by their tactics."Rep. John McGuire, R-Va., said he was in favor of punishing those Democrats."We should be better than that," he said, without elaborating on what retribution was reasonable.Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., introduced a resolution on Tuesday to strip the trio of their committees, which the three Democrats criticized.Fox News Digital reached out to the House Democrats for comment on the latest discussions.