The House of Representatives is beginning the final legislative sprint of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" before the commander in chief signs it into law.The powerful House panel is the final gatekeeper before most pieces of legislation get a chamber-wide vote.It comes after the Senate spent more than 24 hours straight considering the bill, eventually passing it along the narrowest of margins around midday Wednesday. Vice President JD Vance was on Capitol Hill to cast the tie-breaking vote.NATIONAL DEBT TRACKER: AMERICAN TAXPAYERS (YOU) ARE NOW ON THE HOOK FOR $36,215,806,064,740.36 AS OF 6/27/25It's not clear how long the House Rules Committee meeting will go; when the panel considered the House's own version of the bill in May, Democrats introduced dozens of amendments to symbolically object to the bill and delay the process.Meanwhile, two conservatives on the House Rules Committee, Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., and Chip Roy, R-Texas, are among those in the lower chamber raising concerns about the bill.Their opposition in committee would not be enough to stop it, but the legislation could face serious threats House-wide, where just four GOP "no" votes would be enough to sink the bill.The House first passed the bill a mammoth piece of legislation advancing Trump's agenda on taxes, the border, energy, defense and the national debt in late May by just one vote.Modifications made by the Senate in order to pass that chamber's own razor-thin, three-vote majority must now be approved in the House before getting to Trump's desk.Republican leaders have a self-imposed deadline of getting the bill to Trump's desk by the Fourth of July.House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told Fox News Digital early evening on Monday that he expected his chamber would begin considering the bill as early as 9 a.m. Wednesday.But two members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Norman and Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital earlier that same day that they believed the bill would not survive a House-wide procedural vote Wednesday if the Senate's text did not materially change.The bill would permanently extend the income tax brackets lowered by Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), while temporarily adding new tax deductions to eliminate duties on tipped and overtime wages up to certain caps.REPUBLICANS CHALLENGE 'IRRELEVANT' BUDGET OFFICE AS IT CRITIQUES TRUMP'S 'BEAUTIFUL BILL'It also includes a new tax deduction for people aged 65 and over.The legislation also rolls back green energy tax credits implemented under former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which Trump and his allies have attacked as "the Green New Scam."The bill would also surge money toward the national defense, and to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the name of Trump's crackdown on illegal immigrants in the U.S.The bill would also raise the debt limit by $5 trillion in order to avoid a potentially economically devastating credit default sometime this summer, if the U.S. runs out of cash to pay its obligations.

A new study linking daytime napping to increased mortality rates in older adults may have some rethinking that midday snooze.The study, presented last month at SLEEP 2025, the 39th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies in Seattle, Washington, found that frequent, longer and irregular daytime naps especially in the early afternoon were linked to a higher risk of death over an eight-year period."Our study fills a gap in knowledge," lead author Chenlu Gao, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Fox News Digital.STUDY REVEALS EXERCISING EVERY DAY MAY NOT BE NECESSARY: 'BETTER THAN NONE'The research shows "not just whether someone naps, but how long, how variable, and when they nap during the day may be meaningful indicators of future health risk," he said.The study included 86,565 participants averaging 63 years of age all of whom worked regular daytime schedules who were monitored by actigraphy, which detects movement during sleep but not brain activity.Scientists defined daytime napping as sleeping between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.After the initial study, researchers kept tabs on the participants for eight years and discovered that 5,189 (6.0%) of them died during that time period.MOST AMERICANS HIT THE SNOOZE BUTTON EVERY MORNING HERES WHY IT COULD BE BAD FOR YOUR HEALTHThe research showed that taking longer naps and napping between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. or between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. was associated with a higher mortality rate.Results were adjusted for other potential factors influencing mortality, like demographics, weight, smoking, alcohol consumption and nighttime sleep duration, the researchers stated."Naps are not necessarily problematic unless they are used to compensate for chronically poor sleep at night," Dr. Chelsie Rohrscheib, a neuroscientist and sleep specialist at Wesper in New York, told Fox News Digital."Getting seven to nine hours of good quality sleep is required to maintain health and reduce the risk of developing dangerous medical conditions like heart disease and diabetes," added Rohrscheib, who was not involved in the study.The study did not establish proof that naps directly affect the risk of death."These are associations," Gao told Fox News Digital. "We cannot conclude from this study whether napping causes poor health."MOST SLEEP-DEPRIVED CITIES IN US REVEALED IN REPORT: WHERE DOES YOURS RANK?In another potential limitation, because the study relied on detecting movement but not brain activity, "quiet wakefulness" may have been misclassified as sleep.Additionally, defining daytime napping as sleep between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. could have mistakenly included participants actual sleep, affecting the accuracy of what would count as a nap, the researchers stated.Excessive napping could also be a marker of other health issues, such as chronic disease, systemic inflammation, or disruptions to circadian rhythms, which may themselves increase mortality risk."Someone who requires daily naps to get through the day is likely not getting sufficient sleep during the night, or has an underlying health condition that causes daytime sleepiness," Rohrscheib noted.Gao added, "We need more research to understand the causal relationships before we can conclude that a certain type of napping pattern would benefit health.""However, we suggest that monitoring napping patterns might help us identify health conditions early, so that we can implement interventions accordingly."The American Academy of Sleep Medicine encourages healthy adults to limit naps to no longer than 20 to 30 minutes in the early afternoon.CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTERWhile a brief "power nap" can improve daytime alertness and performance, naps of 30 minutes or longer may cause a person to feel groggy after waking up. This grogginess, or "sleep inertia," can delay the short-term benefits of a nap, experts say.For more Health articles, visitwww.foxnews.com/healthOverall, the findings suggest that when it comes to mid-day snoozing, moderation is key and that napping patterns could be a window into broader health concerns worth discussing with a medical provider.

Much has been written in recent days about the war of words between Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown-Jackson in the opinions handed down in Trump v. Casa, Inc., the case involving an injunction issued in a case challenging birthright citizenship.But as I pointed out in a Post on X Friday morning, Barretts decision was written on behalf of herself and the five other justices in the majority.The fact that Barrett was assigned this opinion by the chief judge (the chief judge decides who writes the opinion when he votes with the majority) is a signal that the other five justices turned her loose on Jackson.Such an unsparing smackdown of the most junior justice with a vastly different view of the judicial function would have been received much differently had it come from one of the other five justices in the conservative wing of the Court.BARRETT EVISCERATES JACKSON, SOTOMAYOR TAKES ON A 'COMPLICIT' COURT IN CONTENTIOUS FINAL OPINIONSBut coming from another female justice, one with only two more terms on the Court than Jackson, it was the least harsh way to deliver the rebuke that the majority opinion represented.But the language was anything but gentle, and the point was anything but subtle.If Jackson seems out of her element, there's a reason. There have been many career paths followed by justices who have been appointed to the Supreme Court.But it is quite uncommon for someone to be appointed to the Supreme Court without meaningful experience at the level of an appellate court, as is the case with Jackson.Justice Elena Kagan charted a very different course to the Supreme Court, largely through academia.However, before joining the court she did serve in various DOJ positions in the Clinton administration, and as the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama. The solicitor general argues cases on behalf of the United States before the Supreme Court. Kagan also wrote extensively on legal issues during the nine years she served as both a professor and dean at Harvard Law School.Another outlier was Justice Lewis Powell, who joined the Court in 1972 directly out of a large law firm where he had practiced corporate law for 35 years, never having been a judge in any court at any level.Jackson did not join the Court with no experience as a judge as was the case with Justices Kagan and Powell.But the judicial experience she had is not necessarily conducive to the largely cerebral approach of judging that happens on the Supreme Court.Jackson hashad a distinguished academic career, having graduated from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School with honors. In the 17 years between Harvard Law School and her first judicial appointment, she had several noteworthy positions in various legal enterprises, including five years as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.Jackson also served as an assistant federal defender in the District of Columbia for three years, during which she enjoyed success as a trial lawyer.Her first judicial appointment was to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2014, where she served as a district judge for seven years. In June of 2021, following President Biden's nomination, Jackson was confirmed to replace Merrick Garland on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.But only eight months later, Biden named her to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. In her eight months on the Court of Appeals, Justice Jackson authored only two opinions.The practical reality was that Biden nominated a district court judge to a seat on the Supreme Court consisting of nine justices who decide cases by majority vote.District court is where federal cases begin where "cases" and "controversies" are first decided.The district judges are the "referees" between the litigants, and sometimes they serve as the decision-makers on the outcome of the cases.There is a significant amount of trial work where the district judge presides alone over the proceedings.Many quick decisions and judgments are made during a trial, often with little time for research or considered analysis. Even where time and research are available, the district judge is still working "solo" with the assistance of one or more law clerks.The final decision on such motions belongs to the judge alone.District judges largely operate independent of their peers in the same courthouse.Their decisions are not binding on each other.They preside over their own dockets and make decisions in the cases assigned to them as they see fit.Under this system, legal mistakes and errors are inevitable.The only requirement for proceedings at the district court level including trials is that they be fair.It is not required that they be "error-free."Only when errors result in unfairness that prejudices one side or the other is the outcome of the case called into doubt. Appellate courts sit in review of the outcomes in trial courts. They focus on the errors in the case presented.While broader legal questions are sometimes an issue on appellate review, the focus is primarily on the presence or absence of errors in the case in the district court, and whether any identified errors justify altering the outcome in that court.The Supreme Court plays a very different role.While it does make a judgment about the correctness of the outcome of cases, the focus of the Supreme Court is normally on the broader legal implications for hundreds/thousands of other cases in the future from affirming or reversing the case being reviewed. The federal district judge often plays the role of interrogator of the attorneys representing each side. Anyone who has been a trial attorney for any substantial period of time in federal district courts understands this.The questioning by that district judge can be hostile, aggressive, condescending, dismissive, humiliating, etc. But that questioning is focused on the facts and specific legal issues presented in that case, and not the broader implications of how the outcome of that case might impact other cases.Part of the reason is because that district judges decisions are not binding on other district judges.Jackson just completed her third term on the court.This chart, which is from the 2024-2025 term, is highly revealing in terms of one of the issues that stands between her and her colleagues her conduct as a justice is still influenced by her eight years as a district judge, i.e., she spends much more time examining the attorneys before the court than do her colleagues.The same source has a similar chart for the 2023-2024 Term of the Court, and the numbers are no different.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONSetting aside this quantitative measure, in listening to many oral arguments of the Court this past term, one gets the very familiar vibe from Jackson of a district judgeinterrogating one counsel or the other to wring out admissions or concessions about the specifics of the case.The focus is on the outcome of the case, and not the broader implications that the outcome might foretell. Justice Samuel Alito can often present in the same manner, but he spoke less than half the number of words as Jackson.She separates herself from her colleagues both in terms of how much time she is involved in the dialogue and her sharply partisan tenor that gives away what her likely vote will be in pretty much every case with any political implications.Her rhetoric in dissenting from the Trump v. Casa "With deep disillusionment, I dissent" seems an almost unintended peek behind the curtain of her thinking. What the majority did was take away one of the most powerful weapons possessed by a district court judge to shape how a case goes forward from the outset.The progressive activist inner district judge in her who seeks only to "do right" is protesting that loss.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM WILLIAM SHIPLEY

British punk-rap duo Bob Vylan doubled down on their anti-Israel statements on Tuesday after being slammed for uttering them during a performance at the Glastonbury music festival over the weekend.In a post shared to their Instagram page, the musicians declared that theyre being "targeted" after being criticized and having their visas removed by the U.S. government for saying "Death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]," and other anti-Israel slogans during their set at the premier British music festival."We are getting targeted for speaking up. We are not the first. We will not be the last. And if you care for the sanctity of human life and freedom of speech, we urge you to speak up, too," the post stated.RETIRED UK POLICE OFFICER SUING AFTER BEING ARRESTED OVER 'THOUGHT CRIME' POST ON SOCIAL MEDIA"We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people," Bob Vylan continued. "We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine. A machine whose own soldiers were told to use unnecessary lethal force against innocent civilians waiting for aid. A machine that has destroyed much of Gaza."During their set on Saturday, one of the members of the London-based rap group shouted, "Death, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]," several times before turning the microphone toward the crowd to get attendees to repeat the chant. Videos from the crowds view showed several Palestinian flags waving as the performer and attendees shouted back and forth.Elsewhere during the performance, he chanted, "Free, Free, Free Palestine," as well as, "Hell yeah, from the river to the sea. Palestine must be, will be inshallah, it will be free."EX-MUMFORD & SONS GUITARIST CRITICIZES MUSIC INDUSTRY FOR SILENCE AFTER BOULDER ANTISEMITIC ATTACKThe anti-Israel chanting went viral on social media, prompting complaints from even the U.K. government. The BBC reported that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the words "appalling hate speech."The BBC, which broadcast the festival live, removed the Bob Vylan set from its iPlayer. The British network also told The Associated Press that it had issued a "very strong and discriminatory language" warning label during its livestream of the event.Festival organizers released a statement on Instagram condemning the stunt."Glastonbury Festival was created in 1970 as a place for people to come together and rejoice in music, the arts and the best of human endeavour," they wrote.British police in Somerset and Avon even reviewed videos of Bob Vylans performance to "determine whether any offenses may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation."CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTUREThe U.S. State Department revoked the bands visas ahead of their U.S. tour later this year. A senior State Department official told Fox News Digital Monday, "The secretary of state has been clear the U.S. will not approve visas for terrorist sympathizers."Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued multiple warnings that the State Department will rescind visas for "terrorists" and those affiliated with them.In their response, the band said the heat on them was a "distraction" from what Israel is doing in Gaza."We, like those in the spotlight before us, are not the story. We are a distraction from the story, and whatever sanctions we receive will be a distraction. The government doesnt want us to ask why they remain silent in the face of this atrocity? To ask why they arent doing more to stop the killing? To feed the starving," they wrote.

WWE World Heavyweight Champion Gunther is next.At least thats what Hall of Famer Goldberg declared as he re-entered the professional wrestling world for one final match. He has had his sights set on "The Ring General" since their interaction at Bad Blood last year. Goldberg will look to avenge some of the comments Gunther made about him and his family at "Saturday Nights Main Event" on July 12.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMGunther told Fox News Digital he was looking forward to the opportunity, even as Goldberg has threatened to "beat the f---" out of him."That is the intensity you expect from Bill Goldberg, that is what he is known for," Gunther said. "He is not somebody that beats around the bush or tells a lengthy story about all the intricate details of why he acts the way he acts. He is straight to the point and that is what made him stand out throughout his whole career."He is 58 years old now, but I can tell everyone when he is in the ring with me, like in front of me, this man is a very intimidating personality, very tall person, still in fantastic shape, so yeah, I am ready for it, and I am ready to face it. It is going to be very interesting how it plays out in the ring."Gunther teased Goldberg in recent weeks about defeating him in three minutes something Goldberg was famous for during the dominant days of his reign in World Championship Wrestling.CODY RHODES, JADE CARGILL EARN TITLE SHOTS AT SUMMERSLAM AS THEY'RE CROWNED KING AND QUEEN OF THE RINGHowever, whether its three minutes, 30 minutes or three seconds, Gunther just wants to walk out of Atlanta as the victor."We shall see. At the end of the day, especially when it is for the title, a win is a win. But I am not too concerned about that," Gunther told Fox News Digital. But it's always been me playing with all the synonymous things or terms out there with Bill Goldberg and that is what made him stand out."An absolute killer his whole career. He was not known for long classic matches. He is known for being a killer, finished off everyone in a very short time, and he was very successful with it. So let's see it is going to be interesting what he wants to do, what his strategy is for everything, is he going to try to play a bit slower or try to stick to what he always did, so it is going to be interesting to see."With Seth Rollins as the holder of the Money in the Bank contract, which guarantees him a title shot at any place or any time, Gunthers second World Heavyweight Championship reign may not be for long.However, Gunther made clear his mind is on Goldberg going into the premium live event later this month.Fox News' Connor McGahan contributed to this report.Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Metas new AI chatbot is getting personal, and it might be sharing more than you realize. A recent app update introduced a "Discover" feed that makes user-submitted chats public, complete with prompts and AI responses. Some of those chats include everything from legal troubles to medical conditions, often with names and profile photos still attached. The result is a privacy nightmare in plain sight.If youve ever typed something sensitive into Meta AI, now is the time to check your settings and find out just how much of your data could be exposed.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, youll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide - free when you join myCYBERGUY.COM/NEWSLETTER.Metas AI app, launched in April 2025, is designed to be both a chatbot and a social platform. Users can chat casually or deep dive into personal topics, from relationship questions to financial concerns or health issues.What sets Meta AI apart from other chatbots is the "Discover" tab, a public feed that displays shared conversations. It was meant to encourage community and creativity, letting users showcase interesting prompts and responses. Unfortunately, many didnt realize their conversations could be made public with just one tap, and the interface often fails to make the public/private distinction clear.The feature positions Meta AI as a kind of AI-powered social network, blending search, conversation, and status updates. But what sounds innovative on paper has opened the door to major privacy slip-ups.Privacy experts are sounding the alarm over Meta's Discover tab, calling it a serious breach of user trust. The feed surfaces chats containing legal dilemmas, therapy discussions, and deeply personal confessions, often linked to real accounts. In some cases, names and profile photos are visible. Although Meta says only shared chats appear, the interface makes it easy to hit "share" without realizing it means public exposure. Many assume the button saves the conversation privately. Worse, logging in with a public Instagram account can make shared AI activity publicly accessible by default, increasing the risk of identification.Some posts reveal sensitive health or legal issues, financial troubles, or relationship conflicts. Others include contact details or even audio clips. A few contain pleas like "keep this private," written by users who didn't realize their messages would be broadcast. These aren't isolated incidents, and as more people use AI for personal support, the stakes will only get higher.If you're using Meta AI, it's important to check your privacy settings and manage your prompt history to avoid accidentally sharing something sensitive. To prevent accidentally sharing sensitive prompts and ensure your future prompts stay private:On a phone: (iPhone or Android)On the website (desktop):Fortunately, you can change the visibility of prompts you've already posted, delete them entirely, and update your settings to keep future prompts private.On a phone: (iPhone or Android)On the website (desktop):If other users replied to your prompt before you made it private, those replies will remain attached but wont be visible unless you reshare the prompt. Once reshared, the replies will also become visible again.On both the app and the website:This issue isnt unique to Meta. Most AI chat tools, including ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini, store your conversations by default and may use them to improve performance, train future models, or develop new features. What many users dont realize is that their inputs can be reviewed by human moderators, flagged for analysis, or saved in training logs.Even if a platform says your chats are "private," that usually just means they arent visible to the public. It doesnt mean your data is encrypted, anonymous, or protected from internal access. In many cases, companies retain the right to use your conversations for product development unless you specifically opt out, and finding that opt-out isn't always straightforward.If youre signed in with a personal account that includes your real name, email address, or social media links, your activity may be easier to connect to your identity than you think. Combine that with questions about health, finances, or relationships, and youve essentially created a detailed digital profile without meaning to.Some platforms now offer temporary chat modes or incognito settings, but these features are usually off by default. Unless you manually enable them, your data is likely being stored and possibly reviewed.The takeaway: AI chat platforms are not private by default. You need to actively manage your settings, be mindful of what you share, and stay informed about how your data is being handled behind the scenes.AI tools can be incredibly helpful, but without the right precautions, they can also open you up to privacy risks. Whether you're using Meta AI, ChatGPT, or any other chatbot, here are some smart, proactive ways to protect yourself:1) Use aliases and avoid personal identifiers: Dont use your full name, birthday, address, or any details that could identify you. Even first names combined with other context can be risky.2) Never share sensitive information: Avoid discussing medical diagnoses, legal matters, bank account info, or anything you wouldnt want on the front page of a search engine.3) Clear your chat history regularly: If youve already shared sensitive info, go back and delete it. Many AI apps let you clear chat history through Settings or your account dashboard.4) Adjust privacy settings often: App updates can sometimes reset your preferences or introduce new default options. Even small changes to the interface can affect whats shared and how. Its a good idea to check your settings every few weeks to make sure your data is still protected.5) Use an identity theft protection service: Scammers actively look for exposed data, especially after a privacy slip. Identity Theft companies can monitor personal information like your Social Security Number (SSN), phone number, and email address and alert you if it is being sold on the dark web or being used to open an account. They can also assist you in freezing your bank and credit card accounts to prevent further unauthorized use by criminals. VisitCyberguy.com/IdentityTheftfor tips and recommendations.6) Use a VPN for extra privacy: A reliable VPN hides your IP address and location, making it harder for apps, websites, or bad actors to track your online activity. It also adds protection on public Wi-Fi, shielding your device from hackers who might try to snoop on your connection. For best VPN software, see my expert review of the best VPNs for browsing the web privately on yourWindows, Mac, Android & iOS devicesatCyberguy.com/VPN.7) Dont link AI apps to your real social accounts: If possible, create a separate email address or dummy account for experimenting with AI tools. Keep your main profiles disconnected. To create a quick email alias you can use to keep your main accounts protected visitCyberguy.com/Mail.Metas decision to turn chatbot prompts into social content has blurred the line between private and public in a way that catches many users off guard. Even if you think your chats are safe, a missed setting or default option can expose more than you intended. Before typing anything sensitive into Meta AI or any chatbot, pause. Check your privacy settings, review your chat history, and think carefully about what you're sharing. A few quick steps now can save you from bigger privacy headaches later.With so much sensitive data potentially at risk, do you think Meta is doing enough to protect your privacy, or is it time for stricter guardrails on AI platforms?Let us know by writing to us atCyberguy.com/Contact.Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy ReportGet my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, youll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide - free when you join myCYBERGUY.COM/NEWSLETTER.Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump during his visit to "Alligator Alcatraz," located in the swamps of the Florida Everglades, said that California Gov. Gavin Newsom should take a visit to the Sunshine State and "learn something" about curbing illegal immigration. "Mr. President. Mr. Governor, what's your message to Governor Gavin Newsom inside of this facility?" a reporter asked Trump Tuesday as he toured the detention facility for illegal aliens while accompanied by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem."Well, the first thing he should do is come here and learn something because they don't do this," he said. "They wouldn't know where to begin. And if they did, it would cost them a 100 times more. So I would say he should call the governor, Kristi his state is a disaster."DeSantis added that California is home to the original Alcatraz that could be outfitted as a migrant detention center.TRUMP TO VISIT 'ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ' FOR GRAND OPENING OF SWAMPY EVERGLADES DETENTION CENTER FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS"They have the original Alcatraz, so you guys could approve him being able to set one of these up over there. I'm sure the secretary would be happy to do that," DeSantis said, adding he doubts Newsom would "bite on that."Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's office for a response to Trump's remarks, but did not immediately receive a reply.Trump visited "Alligator Alcatraz" Tuesday ahead of its official Wednesday grand opening, when it is expected to begin receiving violent illegal immigrants for deportation. The detention center earned its name due to its location in the heart of the Everglades, which is home to massive reptiles such as alligators and pythons.DeSantis authorized the construction of an illegal immigrant detention center on a 30-square-mile property in the Everglades' swamplands of MiamiDade County under an emergency order. The property is a former airport that has been outfitted with sturdy tent structures to house 5,000 illegal immigrants amid the Trump administration's deportation blitz to remove the millions of illegal migrants who flooded the nation during the Biden administration.Trump, as well as DeSantis, has long traded barbs with the California governor over his leaders of the liberal West Coast state, including in June when anti-ICE riots spiraled in Los Angeles.FLORIDA BUILDING 'ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ' WHERE ICE DETAINEES FACE NATURE'S OWN SECURITY SYSTEMLos Angeles descended into violent riots June 6, when federal immigration officials converged on the city to carry out raids targeting illegal immigrants. Local leaders such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, however, quickly denounced the raids in public statements while offering words of support for illegal immigrants in the state.Protests over the raids soon devolved into violence as rioters targeted and launched attacks on federal law enforcement officials, while Newsom and other Democrats attempted to pin blame on Trump's immigration policies for the violence.TRUMP PUSHES TO REOPEN ALCATRAZ, BUT PELOSI AND NEWSOM DISMISS IT AS A 'DISTRACTION'Trump also was asked during his tour to describe his relationship with DeSantis after the pair traded campaign barbs during the 2024 presidential election cycle. DeSantis ran as a Republican candidate in the race, bowing out in January 2024."I would say its a 10," Trump said, assessing his relationship status with DeSantis. "I think it's a 10, maybe 9.9, because there might be a couple of little wounds. I think we have a 10.""We get along great," Trump added.DeSantis also added that he immediately endorsed Trump in the 2024 race after bowing out."I endorsed him immediately in January 2024. I raised, his one of his PACs millions and millions of dollars. And obviously, we saved him a lot of money in Florida because Florida was a deep red state. He didn't even have to do a rally in Florida," DeSantis said, remarking how Florida has shifted to the right.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that deportation is the "only way out" of the new "Alligator Alcatraz" migrant detention center located deep in the Florida Everglades.Trump speaking to reporters after touring the facility built on former airport in Miami-Dade County, saidit will soon host "some of the most menacing migrants, some of the most vicious people on the planet"It's known as Alligator Alcatraz, which is very appropriate because I looked outside and that's not a place I want to go hiking anytime soon," Trump also said, noting that "we're surrounded by miles of treacherous swampland, and the only way out is really deportation."A sign located next to where Trump was speaking said the facility can hold up to 3,000 detainees and is operated by 1,000 staff members, including more than 400 security personnel. It added that it was built in eight days and is outfitted with over 200 security cameras and more than 28,000 feet of barbed wire. The facility is also surrounded by 10 miles of rugged Everglades terrain on all sides.ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS TRY BLOCKING TRUMPS ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ WITH LAST-MINUTE LAWSUITJoining Trump on Tuesday at a roundtable event after touring the site were Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., Todd Lyons, acting ICE director and Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, among other officials.DeSantis authorized the construction of the illegal immigrant detention center on a 30-square-mile property in the Everglades' swamplands of MiamiDade County under an emergency order. The property is a former airport that has been outfitted with sturdy tent structures.PREVIOUSLY SELF-DEPORTED IRANIAN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT PICKED UP AFTER REFUSING ICE ARREST IN TEXAS"This facility here is a fantastic representation of what can happen when all of government works together, and when it's accountable to the taxpayers and to the citizens that live here," Noem said. "This facility is exactly what I want every single governor in this country to consider doing with us," Noem continued, describing "Alligator Alcatraz" as "state of the art.""Thank you to Governor DeSantis for stepping up and being an example to other governors. I hope my phone rings off the hook from governors calling and saying, how can we do what Florida just did?" Noem also said.Fox News Emma Colton and Mara Robles contributed to this report.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., forced a name change for President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" moments before the legislative package passed the upper chamber of Congress.While Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., was chairing the Senate, Schumer raised a point of order against lines three to five on the first page of the legislative proposal that said, "SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.'"Schumer argued the title of the bill violated Section 313 B1A of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or what's commonly referred to as the "Byrd Rule."SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN OKS BAN ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERAL FUNDING IN TRUMP MEGABILLRicketts said the point of order was sustained, meaning that text will be stricken from the bill."This is not a big, beautiful bill at all. That's why I moved down the floor to strike the title. It is now called the act. That's what it's called. But it is really the big ugly betrayal, and the American people know it," Schumer told reporters. "This vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come. Because of this bill, tens of millions will lose health insurance. Millions of jobs will disappear. People will get sick and die, kids will go hungry and the debt will explode to levels we have never seen."This bill is so irredeemable that one Republican literally chose to retire rather than vote yes and decimate his own state," Schumer added, referring to Sen. Thom Tills, R-N.C.Asked whether he hoped to irritate Trump by changing the name of the bill, Schumer responded, "I didn't even think of President Trump. I thought of the truth. This is not a beautiful bill. Anyone who loses their health insurance doesn't think it's beautiful. Any worker in the clean energy industry who loses their job does not think it's beautiful. Any mom who can't feed her kid on $5 a day doesn't think it's beautiful. We wanted the American people to know the truth."The Senate narrowly passed Trump's $3.3 trillion spending package by a 51-50 vote on Tuesday after an all-night voting session.Vice President JD Vance was the tiebreaking vote. No Senate Democrats crossed the aisle to support the legislation. Tillis and Republican senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine opposed the megabill.Democrats condemned the bill's passage, including Schumer's fellow New Yorker, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. She has not confirmed a primary run."JD Vance was the deciding vote to cut Medicaid across the country," the progressive "Squad" member wrote on X. "An absolute and utter betrayal of working families."CONGRESS MUST RECONCILE KEY DIFFERENCES IN BOTH VERSIONS OF TRUMP'S SIGNATURE BILLVance championed the bill as securing "massive tax cuts, especially no tax on tips and overtime. And most importantly, big money for border security.""This is a big win for the American people," the vice president wrote.He also approved an assessment by longtime GOP operative Roger Stone."The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Trump's reconciliation bill would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade by extending the president's tax cuts that he first implemented in 2017. In fact, federal revenues spiked after the 2017 Trump tax cuts just like they did after Reagan and JFK implemented across-the-board tax cuts," Stone wrote."The deficit is caused by excess spending which the administration is addressing in a series of recision bills. PS the CBO is always wrong."Despite initial reservations, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted in favor of the legislation after Republicans added Alaska-specific provisions to curry her favor.The bill now heads back to the House for final approval. Congress must reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill, namely on Medicaid. Republican leaders are aiming to get it to the president's desk by Friday, July 4.

The Milwaukee Bucks front office has been tasked with retooling the roster amid uncertainty about the future of franchise player Giannis Antetokounmpo.ESPN reported, citing sources, that the Bucks decided to waive star guard Damian Lillard. Lillard is still owed $113 million and those payments are expected to be stretched over the next five years, per the report.Lillard's 2024-25 season in Milwaukee was cut short due to a torn Achilles tendon.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMLillard underwent a procedure to address his injury in May. He is expected to continue his rehabilitation in Portland, where he spent the first 11 seasons of his NBA career.Meanwhile, the Bucks acquired center Myles Turner from the Indiana Pacers. Turner and the Bucks reached an agreement on a four-year deal worth $107 million, according to ESPN.Turner spent a decade in Indiana, but the NBA's two-time blocks leader seemed to be at an impasse with his state of affairs in Indianapolis.NUGGETS ACQUIRE CAM JOHNSON FOR MICHAEL PORTER JR., UNPROTECTED 1ST-ROUND PICKSince the Pacers and Turner's representatives were unable to come to an agreement on a new deal, it opened the door for the Bucks to land their new center.Turner is one of just three NBA players who have recorded 700 3-pointers and 1,400 blocks.Brook Lopez was the Bucks' primary center the last several seasons, but he recently left in favor of a deal with the Los Angeles Clippers.The reshaping of the roster continued on Tuesday as the team signed Gary Harris to a two-year contract, per reports. Harris started his NBA career with the Denver Nuggets, before spending the last few years with the Orlando Magic.After a long run with the Portland Trail Blazers, Lillard was included in a blockbuster three-team deal during the 2023 campaign that resulted in him leaving the Western Conference and landing in Milwaukee.Lillard is a nine-time NBA All-Star. The Pacers eliminated the Bucks in the first round of the NBA playoffs.Follow Fox News Digitals sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.