The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether a state can block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, in a technical interpretation over healthcare choices that has become a larger political fight over abortion access.

In nearly two hours of oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority offered measured support for South Carolina’s position.

The specific issue is whether low-income Medicaid patients can sue in order to choose their own qualified healthcare provider. The federal-state program has shared responsibility for funding and administering it, through private healthcare providers.

Federal law bans taxpayer money from going to fund almost all abortions, but Planned Parenthood also provides a range of other medical services with and without Medicaid subsidies, including gynecological care and cancer screenings.

Blocking the provider from Medicaid networks could effectively defund it. Given the divisive underlying issue of abortion, groups on both sides rallied outside the high court ahead of the arguments. 

The state’s governor in 2018 signed an executive order blocking Medicaid funding for the state’s two Planned Parenthood clinics, saying it amounted to taxpayers subsidizing abortions. 

Courts have put that order on hold, leading to the current case. 

South Carolina now bans abortion around six weeks of pregnancy, or when cardiac activity is detected, with limited exceptions. 

The key provision in the 1965 Medicaid Act guarantees patients a ‘free choice of provider’ that is willing and qualified. 

Much of the court session dealt with whether Planned Parenthood was a ‘qualified provider’ under the Medicaid law, and whether individual patients have an unambiguous ‘right’ to sue to see their provider of choice, under its specific language.

‘It seems a little bit odd to think that a problem that motivated Congress to pass this provision was that states were limiting the choices people had,’ said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. ‘It seems hard to understand that states didn’t understand that they had to give individuals the right to choose a provider.’

‘The state has an obligation to ensure that a person… has a right to choose their doctor,’ added Justice Elena Kagan. ‘It’s impossible to even say the thing without using the word ‘right.”

But some conservative justices questioned how to interpret a provision that does not contain the word ‘right.’

‘One can imagine a statute written as an individual benefit that’s mandatory on the states but isn’t right-creating’ for the patient, said Justice Neil Gorsuch. ‘I mean, that’s an imaginable scenario.’ 

Justice Samuel Alito added it was ‘something that’s quite extraordinary’ to give individuals that right to sue under the Constitution’s spending clause. 

The votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett could be key: They asked tough questions of both sides.

Barrett offered a hypothetical of the right of a patient to go to court over their doctor accused of medical malpractice. ‘Does it make sense in that circumstance for Congress to want plaintiffs to be able to sue?’ she asked.

Planned Parenthood says its future is at stake, noting nearly $700 million – about a third of its overall nationwide revenue – originates from Medicaid reimbursements, and government grants and contracts.

But the group notes just $90,000 in Medicaid funding goes to Planned Parenthood facilities every year in South Carolina, which is comparatively small to the state’s total Medicaid spending.

Julie Edwards, a South Carolina resident, sued along with Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which operates two clinics in Columbia and Charleston. She has type-1 diabetes and associated medical complications and wanted to choose the Columbia clinic for its range of services, including reproductive care. 

A federal appeals court ruled against the state in 2024, concluding the ‘free choice of provider’ provision ‘specifies an entitlement given to each Medicaid beneficiary: to choose one’s preferred qualified provider without state interference.’

In a 2023 Supreme Court opinion involving care for nursing home residents, the justices concluded that a different law from Medicaid gives individuals the right to sue. 

A year earlier, the high court overturned its Roe v. Wade precedent of a nationwide right to abortion.

Several states – including Texas, Missouri and Arkansas – have already done what South Carolina wants to do by cutting Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood and more could follow if South Carolina prevails. 

‘The people in this state do not want their tax money to go to that organization,’ said Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, who attended the oral argument. ‘I believe the decision of this court will be that the people of South Carolina have the right to make this decision for themselves, for our state. Other states may make a different decision, but not ours. South Carolina stands for the right to life, and we’ll do whatever is necessary to protect that.’

The Trump Justice Department is supporting the state, and abortion rights groups say the issue is about patient choice.

‘Our health centers serve an irreplaceable role in the state’s healthcare system, providing birth control and cancer screenings to people who can’t afford those services anywhere else,’ said Paige Johnson, interim president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. ‘Government officials should never block people from getting healthcare or be able to decide which doctor you can or cannot see.’ 

One concern raised by healthcare advocates is finding gynecological and family planning services in states with limited facilities. Low-income women often have greater difficulty traveling long distances to get such quality care, a requirement for Medicaid providers.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he would make it his mission to bring as much clarity over when patients can go to court, which he called a 45-year ‘odyssey.’

Much of the public arguments dealt with whether a ‘right’ to sue was a magic word to automatically decide the matter.

‘I’m not allergic to magic words, because magic words – if they represent the principle – will provide the clarity that will avoid the litigation that is a huge waste of resources for states, courts, providers, beneficiaries.’

The case is Medina (SC DOH) v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (23-1275). A ruling is likely by early summer.

President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners throughout the world Wednesday, saying the U.S. would add a 10% minimum baseline tax on all products coming in.

The Trump administration has identified what it has called the ‘Dirty 15’ as the 15 nations with the largest trade deficit with the U.S., meaning the trade partnerships by which Washington imports more from countries than those nations import from the U.S.

But the White House has also flagged what it describes as other ‘unfair’ trading practices, chiefly implemented through tariffs on U.S. goods. 

CHINA

Washington and Beijing have been in a trade war since the first Trump administration when the first-term president imposed 25% tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods starting in April 2018.

Beijing responded the next day by slapping reciprocal tariffs on 106 U.S. products worth $50 billion, mostly targeting U.S. agricultural products worth some $16.5 billion.

The tariff war would continue with repeated back-and-forth escalating tariffs before some tariff relief was agreed upon beginning in January 2020.

By January 2021, the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) found that the U.S. had lost nearly a quarter of a million jobs.

The Biden administration and China largely maintained the status quo established during Trump’s initial trade war. 

But Trump threatened to hit Beijing with 60% tariffs on the campaign trail and, by February 2025, just weeks after his inauguration, he slapped China with a blanket 20% tariff on all Chinese imports.

Beijing again responded with up to 15% tariffs on more than $33 billion in U.S. agricultural products, including U.S.-grown chicken, wheat, corn and cotton.

China’s trade deficit with the U.S. is $295.4 billion. 

EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union, which is no stranger to Trump’s tariff war, is bracing for a much bigger battle this time around after enduring metal trade spats during his first term. 

Trump has already announced a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports, which directly hits the European Union, the U.S.’s largest trading partner, along with a 25% tariff on imported cars, which will affect nations like Germany. 

The EU said it could impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. of up to $28 billion. 

The U.S. had a trade deficit of $235.6 billion with the European Union in 2024, which Trump has called ‘an atrocity.’

But it is not only the difference in trade agreements that has irked the president.

Last month, the White House said specific levies charged by various trading partners are making it ‘virtually impossible’ for U.S. products to be exported, including a 50% tax on American dairy products sold by EU nations. 

But expert Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst in trade policy with the Heritage Foundation, explained that the dairy industry in particular has massive barriers stopping Europe from being able to lower prices to match American products.

‘They have a very, very protected agricultural market,’ Hale said, highlighting Europe’s strict husbandry practices. ‘Europeans would not be able to compete.’

Hale explained that norms like overcrowding and poor conditions frequently found in the U.S.’s poultry, dairy and pork industries in mass farming are barred in Europe. 

Animal spacing regulations and bans related to hormone injections have required a completely different type of farming that favors quality treatment of the animals versus mass production, which makes European meats and dairy products more expensive than American products and makes it unlikely that the EU drops this tax.

CANADA

The White House has also taken aim at Canada, which is expected to see more tariffs fired at it Wednesday and said it has a 300% tariff on American butter and cheese.

Hale explained that while this is technically true, it is a tariff rate-quota that was negotiated during the first Trump administration under the revised NAFTA agreement, which became the United States Mexico Canada (USMCA), and one which has never been implemented.

The massive tariff would only be used if U.S. exports exceed negotiated tariff rate quotas. Otherwise, daily sales to Canada face no tariffs under the USMCA.

Canada and the U.S. in recent weeks have entered into a tariff war after Trump announced a blanket 25% tariff on 25% on Canadian goods and 10% on its energy.

Ottawa, in return, imposed 25% reciprocal tariffs on $30 billion in U.S. goods, mostly targeting the agriculture sector. 

It has threatened to hit the U.S. with tariffs on $95 billion in U.S. imports if Trump imposes more taxes on the country’s northern neighbor.

HOW IT ENDS

‘Everyone needs to do what Israel has just done, bring down zero tariffs against the U.S. And then we can have absolute free trade,’ Hale said. ‘That’s fair, and we can all have market access.

‘When you have stupid tariffs, like tariffing stuff you don’t grow and make, that’s just basically being unfair.’

President Donald Trump is poised to unveil a massive series of reciprocal tariffs on Wednesday, when he will likely impose duties on multiple countries as part of what his administration has labeled ‘Liberation Day.’ 

Trump and his administration have long decried that other countries are engaging in unfair trade practices against the U.S., and have advocated for employing tariffs to rectify the nation’s 2024 record $1.2 trillion trade deficit. 

Despite previewing this massive round of tariffs forthcoming on Wednesday, the White House has remained reticent regarding the specifics of the potential tariffs and which countries it plans to target.

Even so, speculation has emerged about a list of countries, known as the ‘Dirty 15,’ that might face new duties.

The term ‘Dirty 15’ stems from an interview Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent conducted on March 18 with FOX Business, where he referenced the 15% of countries that make up the largest trade deficits with the U.S. However, Bessent did not cite specific countries. 

Even so, the Trump administration has given some clues and has pointed to specific countries in certain official documents. 

For example, countries that were singled out in a notice the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative posted in March for a review of ‘unfair’ trade practices included Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the U.K. and Vietnam.

Additionally, the 2024 Commerce Department trade deficit report cited the following countries as those with the highest trading deficit with the U.S.: China, European Union, Mexico, Vietnam, Ireland, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Canada, India, Thailand, Italy, Switzerland, Malaysia and Indonesia. 

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital requesting specifics on which countries would face new tariffs and which were on the ‘Dirty 15’ list. 

Trump has signaled that the tariffs would go beyond just 15 countries. He suggested to reporters on Air Force One on Sunday that tariffs wouldn’t just affect 15 countries, claiming that ‘you’d start with all countries.’ 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday told reporters that Trump was conducting meetings with his trade team that day, and the tariffs would take effect immediately following a Wednesday Rose Garden ceremony. 

Liberation Day will ‘go down as one of the most important days in modern American history,’ Leavitt said Tuesday, and shared that Trump has talked with various countries about the potential tariffs they may face. 

‘I can tell you there have been quite a few countries that have called the president and have called his team in discussion about these tariffs,’ Leavitt told reporters. 

Leavitt also shut down concerns that the tariffs wouldn’t prove effective and would raise prices for consumers. 

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have voiced concerns about how tariffs would impact their constituents, including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell said in February that broad tariffs would drive up ‘costs for consumers across the board.’ 

But Leavitt said the tariffs would bolster the U.S. economy. 

‘It is going to work, and the president has a brilliant team of advisors who have been studying these issues for decades, and we are focused on restoring the Golden Age of America and making America a manufacturing superpower,’ Leavitt said Tuesday. 

While details on the specifics are sparse, the new reciprocal tariffs are expected to match other countries’ tariff rates, and also tackle issues like regulations, government subsidies and exchange rate policies to mitigate trade barriers. 

‘For DECADES we have been ripped off and abused by every nation in the World, both friend and foe. Now it is finally time for the Good Ol’ USA to get some of that MONEY, and RESPECT, BACK. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!’ Trump wrote in a March post on Truth Social about Liberation Day. 

The Trump administration has already imposed a 20% tariff on shipments from China, 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and up to 25% tariffs on certain goods from Mexico and Canada, as well as a 25% tariff on imported auto vehicles. 

Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

Senate Democrats signaled more challenges to President Donald Trump’s emergency declarations at a press conference ahead of a forced floor vote to undo his tariffs against Canada. 

‘One at a time,’ Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told reporters on Wednesday when asked if we would also be introducing a privileged resolution canceling Trump’s emergency declaration in Mexico. 

‘Let’s get this one done. And if we can get this one done and succeed, then we also have to see what President Trump does this afternoon,’ he explained, referencing the president’s planned remarks on tariffs at 4 p.m. in the White House’s Rose Garden. 

‘There may be a whole new series of trade or tariff-related motions coming your way soon,’ the Virginia Democrat said. 

Kaine did note that ‘Canada and Mexico are not completely the same because of some of the issues with respect to fentanyl,’ so it’s unclear whether he would seek to challenge the Mexico emergency specifically. 

The Wednesday press conference was led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to rail against Trump’s Canadian tariffs. 

‘So we’re going to fight these tariffs tooth and nail,’ he said. ‘Trump’s done a lot of bad things. This is way up there.’ 

The White House did not immediately provide comment to Fox News Digital. 

Kaine’s challenge to Trump’s Canadian tariffs will get a vote on Wednesday evening, and it runs the risk of being agreed to and sent to the White House, as some Republicans have expressed concerns. 

‘Mr. President, the price hikes that will happen for Maine families, every time they go to the grocery store, they fill their gas tank, they fill their heating oil tank, if these tariffs go into effect, will be so harmful. And as price hikes always do, they will hurt those the most who can afford them the least. Therefore, I will support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so likewise,’ Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in floor remarks on Wednesday. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has been a longtime critic of tariffs, even under Trump, will also be voting in favor of the resolution and is a co-sponsor. 

Trump took to social media to call out those he suspected might vote against him. ‘Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, will hopefully get on the Republican bandwagon, for a change, and fight the Democrats wild and flagrant push to not penalize Canada for the sale, into our Country, of large amounts of Fentanyl, by Tariffing the value of this horrible and deadly drug in order to make it more costly to distribute and buy,’ he wrote on Truth Social. 

Last month, Kaine similarly forced a vote to end Trump’s emergency declaration to ‘unleash American energy’ and increase oil drilling and production of natural gas. 

The resolution was voted down, and the White House claimed Kaine wanted ‘to impoverish Americans.’

‘President Donald Trump’s executive order brings America into the future and unleashes prosperity. Senator [Tim] Kaine wants to cost the economy trillions and risk losing nearly a million jobs,’ deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said at the time. 

The White House has also warned of a likely veto if the Canadian tariff resolution is agreed to in the Senate. 

A White House official told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement on Tuesday, ‘President Trump promised to secure our borders and stop the scourge of fentanyl that’s poisoning our communities, and he’s delivering. Democrat Senator Tim Kaine is trying to undermine the President’s Emergency Declaration at our Northern Borders – a measure that prioritizes our national security – for reasons that defy logic.’

President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs during a highly anticipated ‘Make America Wealthy Again’ event which he said will restore the American dream and bolster jobs for U.S. workers. 

‘American steel workers, auto workers, farmers and skilled craftsmen,’ Trump said from the White House Rose Garden Wednesday afternoon. ‘We have a lot of them here with us today. They really suffered, gravely. They watched in anguish as foreign leaders have stolen our jobs, foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories, and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream. We had an American dream that you don’t hear so much about. You did four years ago, and you are now. But you don’t too often.’ 

‘Now it’s our turn to prosper, and in so doing, use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt,’ he said. ‘And it will all happen very quickly. With today’s action, we are finally going to be able to make America great again, greater than ever before or. Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country and you see it happening already. We will supercharge our domestic industrial base.’

Trump was joined by members of his Cabinet for the highly anticipated announcement, which marked the first official presidential event held in the Rose Garden since Trump’s January inauguration. 

‘For nations that treat us badly, we will calculate the combined rate of all their tariffs, nonmonetary barriers and other forms of cheating. And because we are being very kind,’ he said. ‘We will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us. So the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal. I could have done that. Yes. But it would have been tough for a lot of countries.’ 

Trump pointed to the European Union, and explained the U.S. will charge its nations a 20% tariff, compared to its 39% tariffs on the U.S. Japan will see 24% tariffs compared to the 46% the country charges the U.S., while China will be hit with a 34% tariff compared to the 67% it charges the U.S.

Trump rattled off the countries that will face the reciprocal tariffs, which also included nations such as Chile, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and others. 

Other nations will face 10% baseline tariffs, Trump said. 

Trump also railed against ‘non-tariff barriers’ imposed on the U.S. Non-tariff barriers are understood as trade restrictions that limit international trade through means other than tariffs, such as quotas or regulations. Non-tariff barriers imposed by other countries on the U.S. commonly focus on agricultural goods, such as limits on meats and fresh produce the nation can export abroad. 

‘For decades, the United States slashed trade barriers on other countries, while those nations placed massive tariffs on our products and created outrageous non-monetary barriers to decimate our industries,’ Trump said. ‘And in many cases, the non-monetary barriers were worse than the monetary ones. They manipulated their currencies, subsidized their exports, stole our intellectual property, imposed exorbitant taxes to disadvantage our products, adopted unfair rules and technical standards, and created filthy pollution havens.’  

Trump said that for more than 100 years, the U.S. was a tariff-backed nation, which provided a surge of wealth. 

‘From 1789 to 1913, we were a tariff-backed nation. And the United States was proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been,’ he said. ‘So wealthy, in fact, that in the 1880s they established a commission to decide what they were going to do with the vast sums of money they were collecting. We were collecting so much money so fast, we didn’t know what to do with it. Isn’t that a nice problem to have?’ 

Trump and his administration have for weeks touted April 2 as ‘Liberation Day,’ arguing that reciprocal tariffs will even the playing field for the U.S. after decades of unfair trading practices. 

‘April 2nd, 2025, will go down as one of the most important days in modern American history,’ White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during Tuesday’s White House press briefing. ‘Our country has been one of the most open economies in the world, and we have the consumer base, hands down — the best consumer base. But too many foreign countries have their markets closed to our exports. This is fundamentally unfair.’ 

Trump and his administration have touted that the tariff plan will encourage business in the U.S. as industries set up shop on American soil to avoid tariffs, opening up job opportunities for U.S. workers. 

White House trade advisor Peter Navarro previewed during a ‘Fox News Sunday’ interview over the weekend that the new tariffs will generate $600 billion annually for the U.S. — or $6 trillion during the next decade.

Details on Trump’s tariff plan remained hazy until his Wednesday announcement. The Liberation Day tariffs follow other tariffs Trump has leveled against foreign nations, including a 25% tariff on all aluminum and steel imports and a 20% tariff on goods from China that were leveraged to help curb the flow of deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl from China into the U.S.

Trump’s previously announced 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada also are slated to take effect Wednesday after Trump granted temporary exemptions that expire on ‘Liberation Day.’ 

Trump also announced a 25% tariff on all imported cars that will take effect Thursday, and another 25% tariff on all car parts will take effect no later than May 3, as well as a 25% tariff on nations that purchase oil from Venezuela that took effect Wednesday. 

The trade announcements have sparked uncertainty about the cost of goods to Americans, which Leavitt brushed aside Tuesday during a press briefing, arguing the tariff plan ‘is going to work.’

Trump’s tariff advisors are ‘not going to be wrong,’ Leavitt told Fox News’ Peter Doocy Tuesday when asked about concerns over the plan. ‘It is going to work. And the president has a brilliant team of advisors who have been studying these issues for decades. And we are focused on restoring the Golden Age of America and making America a manufacturing superpower.’

Trump also rolled out tariff trade policies during his first administration, including 25% tariffs on steel imports and 10% tariffs on aluminum imports, which the second administration championed as proof tariffs are an ‘effective tool for achieving economic and strategic objectives,’ the White House said in a Wednesday press release ahead of the tariff announcement. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is celebrating the GOP’s victory in two Florida special elections, despite Democrats’ full-throated fundraising efforts.

‘Decisive and double-digit wins in Florida show yet again that Americans are fired up to continue electing House Republicans, despite being significantly outraised and underestimated by misleading narratives from the media,’ Johnson told Fox News Digital.

‘Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine will now be strong voices for Florida and our nation who will help us deliver on the mandate voters have given us in Congress,’ he added.

He is celebrating having ‘full’ House GOP membership after kicking off the year – and Republicans’ government trifecta – with a razor-thin majority after two key departures amid Trump administration turnover.

‘Democrats are in disarray, and even after wasting tens of millions of dollars, they could not sell their extreme, radical, and rejected ideas to voters,’ Johnson said. ‘With our full House Republican Conference now in place, we will continue our work to advance President Trump’s America First agenda and defend our majority in 2026.’

Victories for Patronis, who served as Florida’s chief financial officer, and state Sen. Fine means Republicans will have a 220-213 majority in the House for the time being.

Democrats have two vacancies of their own after the recent deaths of two lawmakers.

However, until those are filled, Johnson will be able to afford up to three GOP defections on any party-line vote.

Their votes will be critical for Johnson as he works to enact President Donald Trump’s agenda with little to no Democratic support – particularly with Republicans trying to pass sweeping legislation via the budget reconciliation process.

Fine won his race against Democrat Josh Weil with nearly 57% of the vote in Florida’s 6th Congressional District. He ran to replace National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

In Florida’s 1st Congressional District, which former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., vacated during an unsuccessful bid to become attorney general, Patronis beat Democrat Gay Valimont by nearly the same margin.

Both districts lean heavily Republican, despite Democrats’ significant fundraising efforts.

The man accused of planning to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh plans to plead guilty, according to court documents. Attorneys for Nicholas Roske confirmed his plea on Wednesday in a letter to Judge Deborah Bordman.

‘We write to inform the Court that Mr. Roske wishes to plead guilty to the one-count indictment pending against him,’ Roske’s attorneys wrote in a letter to the judge. The legal team also submitted a letter that Roske signed, which outlined the offense, penalties and ‘a factual basis in support of a guilty plea.’

Roske was set to go on trial on June 9, 2025. However, after the filing, both his attorneys and the government are seeking to schedule a hearing on April 7 or 8, during which he will formally enter the plea.

In May 2022, months before the midterms, a draft decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that would strike down Roe v. Wade was leaked and t. This ignited protests as pro-choice advocates and Democrats fought to keep Roe in place. The Court overturned Roe on June 24, 2022, making abortion a key issue in the November midterms and fueling anger among many Americans, including Roske.

When Roske made his way from Los Angeles to Maryland on June 7, 2022, to attempt to kill Kavanaugh, only the leaked draft was available to the public. 

The letter that Roske signed detailed the series of events that led to his arrest outside of Kavanaugh’s home on June 8, 2022. According to the document, Roske admits that the government would be able to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that he flew to Washington with an unloaded firearm and ammo, took a taxi to Kavanaugh’s neighborhood, and told police he had suicidal and homicidal thoughts and that he was there ‘to act on them.’

Roske was picked up by police on a nearby street after calling 911 on himself. At the time, he allegedly told police he wanted ‘to give his life a purpose’ by breaking into Kavanaugh’s home, killing the justice and then himself. He was later charged with attempted murder. 

According to an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Roske told detectives that ‘he was upset about the leak of a recent p regarding the right to an abortion as well as the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas,’ and believed Kavanaugh ‘would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws.’

Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace and Fox News’ David Spunt contributed to this report.

Elon Musk will exit his role with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on schedule later this spring, once ‘his incredible work at DOGE is complete,’ the White House confirmed Wednesday. 

‘This ‘scoop’ is garbage,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted to X Wednesday. ‘Elon Musk and President Trump have both *publicly* stated that Elon will depart from public service as a special government employee when his incredible work at DOGE is complete.’ 

Leavitt was referring to a Wednesday Politico article reporting that ‘Trump has told his inner circle & members of his Cabinet that’ Musk ‘will be stepping back in the coming weeks from his current role.’ Musk, however, has long been anticipated to step back from DOGE when his 130 days as a ‘special government employee’ run out in May. 

Musk has been the public face of DOGE since President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing the office Jan. 20. 

Musk officially was hired as a ‘special government employee,’ which is a role Congress created in 1962 that allows the executive or legislative branch to hire temporary employees for specific short-term initiatives.

Special government employees are permitted to work for the federal government for ‘no more than 130 days in a 365- day period,’ according to data from the Office of Government Ethics. Musk’s 130-day timeframe, beginning on Inauguration Day, runs dry May 30. 

‘Politico has become a tabloid paper that would rather run fake news for clicks than real reporting,’ White House spokesman Harrison Fields told Fox Digital Wednesday of Politico’s report. ‘This is exactly why President Trump and DOGE have terminated millions of dollars in wasteful, government contracts to so-called news organizations that have diminished their credibility with the American people.’ 

DOGE is a temporary cross-departmental organization that was established to slim down and streamline the federal government. The group itself will be dissolved on July 4, 2026, according to Trump’s executive order.

Musk and Trump have both previously previewed that Musk’s role was temporary and would come to end in the coming weeks. 

‘You, technically, are a special government employee and you’re supposed to be 130 days,’ Fox News’ Bret Baier asked Musk during an exclusive interview with the DOGE leader and members of his team Thursday. ‘Are you going to continue past that or do you think that’s what you’re going to do?’ 

‘I think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that time frame,’ Musk responded. 

Trump hinted at Musk’s departure in comments to the media Monday when asked if he wants Musk to remain in a government role for longer than the predetermined 130 days. 

‘I think he’s amazing. But I also think he’s got a big company to run,’ Trump responded. ‘And so at some point he’s going to be going back.’

‘I’d keep him as long as I can keep him. He’s a very talented guy. You know, I love very smart people. He’s very smart. And he’s done a good job,’ the president added. ‘DOGE is, we’ve found numbers that nobody can even believe.’ 

House Republicans are still divided after proceedings ground to a halt on Tuesday over a push by a small group of GOP lawmakers to block Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., from changing chamber procedures.

Nine House Republicans joined Democrats in blocking a normally sleepy procedural vote, known as a ‘rule vote,’ from passing on Tuesday afternoon. It came after House leaders tucked an unrelated provision into the measure that would have stopped Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., from forcing a vote on giving new parents in the House the ability to vote remotely.

Johnson called the move ‘disappointing’ and cut the House’s legislative week short, sending lawmakers back to their districts two days early and canceling the remaining votes.

‘If a career in politics doesn’t work out for me, I have ample credentials to work at a circus,’ a senior House GOP aide said when asked about the current situation. 

It’s led to bitter feelings on both sides of the standoff – and in some cases, toward both parties.

‘America did not vote for Congress paternity proxy voting at home. America did not vote for Congress to put a lid on the week on a Tuesday,’ Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., wrote on X on Wednesday morning. ‘I’m pretty disgusted with the events of yesterday. Republicans should not be joining with Democrats for their own personal agendas, and we shouldn’t quit and go home when things don’t go our way.’

Republicans who were against Luna’s push accused her of acting against the will of the House GOP majority and the country.

‘I don’t think most Americans want their Congress members voting from home. Our constituents have to show up to work, and we should too,’ Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, told ‘The Ingraham Angle.’

Johnson accused Luna and her allies of delaying Trump’s agenda.

Luna, however, has pointed out that Johnson could have stripped the provision killing her measure out of the ‘rule’ and held the vote again, when it likely would have passed.

‘I am 100% supportive of [President Donald Trump] and his America First agenda. It is disingenuous for [Johnson] to lie about me,’ Luna wrote on X in response to the speaker’s comments. ‘[House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and Johnson] did not have to send us home.’

Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., appeared to defend Johnson’s decision to end the week.

‘What I would say is, the speaker has a responsibility, and he is engaging in that responsibility to protect the institutions from proxy voting,’ Houchin said. ‘I support that, and we’ll continue to have these conversations and hope that we’ll come back together next week, and we’ll get back to business.’

Another House Republican told Fox News Digital of the decision to send lawmakers home early, ‘Lots of torn-up feelings. Might be better to press pause for a couple of days.’

The ‘rule,’ if passed, would have allowed for debate and eventual House votes on a bill to limit district judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and a measure requiring proof of citizenship in the voter registration process, respectively.

But House leaders also added a provision that would have neutered lawmakers’ ability to file discharge petitions, a mechanism that forces the chamber to consider legislation even if those in charge oppose it.

Luna had used a discharge petition to try to force a vote on a bipartisan bill to allow new parents in the House to vote remotely for 12 weeks surrounding the birth of their child.

That bill gained support from all Democrats and enough House Republicans to net the necessary majority threshold, despite Johnson and a group of conservatives being vehemently opposed.

Republicans who voted with Luna on Tuesday argued they did so to protect a tool of the House majority.

‘Don’t buy the BS. My ‘no’ vote was about process—not whether new parents should be able to proxy vote,’ Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., wrote on X. ‘I voted against a rule bill that undermined a Member’s right to utilize the discharge petition—a century-old tool that empowers individual Members to force a vote when leadership blocks legislation.’

Steube himself successfully used a discharge petition last year to force a vote on legislation to offer tax relief for disaster victims.

Luna said in a statement Wednesday night, ‘The reason a discharge petition is put in place is in the event that members are unable to bring legislation to the floor because, for whatever reason, the leadership blocks it. There are a few bills that have been filed for a while but have never been voted on. This place loves to consolidate power. The discharge petition must be protected at all costs.’

Johnson huddled with members of the House Rules Committee on Wednesday morning, but Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., one of the conservatives opposed to Luna’s push, told Fox News Digital that no decisions had been made.

‘Nothing has changed. I like Anna Paulina Luna. I just don’t like proxy voting. I think that opens Pandora’s Box,’ Norman said. ‘We didn’t come up with any solutions today, but I think we’ll come up with something.’

If Johnson decides to strip out the discharge petition language from the ‘rule,’ the measure will have to be debated and advanced out of the House Rules Committee again.

He said little to Fox News when asked about the standoff on Wednesday.

‘We’ll work through it. We’ve already begun that process today,’ Johnson said. He added that ‘another rule’ will be moved ‘early next week.’

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.