Senate Republicans are worried about the precedent that Senate Democrats have set for future funding fights as the shutdown continues into its 20th day.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Democratic caucus have dug in deep on their demand for an extension to expiring Obamacare subsidies and have worked to spin the narrative from a battle to fund the government to a fistfight for healthcare.

But it’s been over three weeks since Schumer and Democrats blocked Republicans’ first attempt to pass the House GOP’s continuing resolution (CR). And since then, there are no signs that Democrats are willing to back down from their demands.

‘I think Schumer has basically sort of destroyed the institution of the Senate,’ Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital. ‘He has, you know, whether it’s what he’s done on the nominees or with this shutdown. I think he’s made government unmanageable. So, hopefully, this is not the way we continue to operate.’

Informal talks between the parties have ebbed and flowed over the course of the shutdown, but neither side is any closer to an off-ramp than they were when the first vote failed late last month.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., has been involved in those talks but noted that this week they have been fading. When asked if he was worried that Democrats’ shutdown posture might be replicated in the future, he told Fox News Digital, ‘I can’t worry about their position.’

‘It doesn’t make sense,’ he said. ‘If there was a strategy behind it, OK, we get out, we can figure out how to move them. But there is no strategy. It’s just like, burn it all down.’

Senate Republicans now view Democrats’ shutdown position as a hostage-taking exercise, with no real ground for negotiations until after the government reopens.

‘We can’t negotiate with them until we come out of shutdown,’ Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told Fox News Digital. ‘You can’t hold the government hostage. And that’s why it’s very important — we’ve said we’ll work on all these different issues they want to bring up. But you can’t shut down the government, hold the government hostage as part of negotiation.’

The informal talks, which Republicans quickly note aren’t full-blown negotiations, have produced an olive branch of sorts from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who signaled to Senate Democrats that he would offer them a vote on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits if they voted to reopen the government.

But for a 10th time on Thursday, they blocked his effort to turn the lights back on and then hours later blocked a procedural move to allow lawmakers to consider the annual defense spending bill.

In both instances, Democrats wanted guarantees that Thune and Republicans could not provide.

‘The Dems, someday, they’re going to rue the day they did this, because we have offered up an open appropriations process, regular order, doing things that way,’ Thune told Fox News Digital.

‘I think it’s unfortunate, but it’s a reality that we’re dealing with,’ he continued. ‘And I hope they change their mind and realize that it’s in everybody’s best interest to try and at least get the government open and then start going to work and funding the government the old-fashioned way.’

Many Republicans hope that after the ‘No Kings’ rally in Washington, D.C., over the weekend that Senate Democrats may have a change of heart.

But others see it as a performative opportunity for congressional Democrats to show they are fighting back against President Donald Trump and the GOP.

‘Typically, if you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior,’ Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told Fox News Digital. ‘That’s what the Democrats are basically doing. They’re pretending that President Trump didn’t get elected last November. That’s basically the whole fight, because they have the goofballs that are going to be here Saturday, so they have to show the goofballs they’re fighting.’

I went to England on a history vacation. It turned into an archaeological expedition, uncovering the bones of a once-great civilization. 

All the tourist sites are still there. You can still see the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, recall the ‘V’ for victory in the Churchill War Rooms or be inspired to pray at Westminster Abbey. But those are mere historical artifacts, like the pyramids of Egypt or the Acropolis in Greece. The ideals and most of the people who believe in them are long gone.

I was in London less than 24 hours before a terror attack killed two people in a Manchester synagogue. Police also killed the terrorist, a Syrian-born, 35-year-old immigrant named Jihad Al-Shamie, who they said had pledged himself to ISIS. Two innocent Jewish people are dead and a walking, talking metaphor was the cause. Jewish citizens admitted the assault was shocking but not surprising, given the rise of antisemitism in England. 

Two days later, thousands of ‘pro-Palestinians’ held a protest around Trafalgar Square. I watched police arrest a few radicals, while the crowd chanted, ‘Free Palestine.’ British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged everyone not to protest on the Oct. 7th anniversary of the attack on Israel because he said it was ‘un-British.’ Unfortunately, it’s all too British these days. Britain has imported millions of people who hold no allegiance to its nation or its beliefs. They brought with them both a hatred of Jewish people and Western civilization. 

On Oct. 11, hundreds of thousands of ‘pro-Palestine’ protesters marched in London, shutting down streets and businesses. Even the ceasefire in Gaza didn’t satisfy them. It’s Starmer’s fault. He recognized a Palestinian state, rewarding Hamas for its barbaric assault on Israel and emboldening the protesters. 

Now, the government has to try to look good. It told universities they must ‘take stronger action to protect Jewish students,’ according to Reuters. But, a new YouGov poll says one out of five Britons holds antisemitic views. The message to Jews in England seems disturbingly similar to what it was in 1930s Germany: get out while you still can.

That is only one aspect of the failed British state. Some British people understand they had their history and culture stolen from them, but fear their government enough that they are unwilling or unable to do anything about it. One resident I met was afraid to even wear the British flag for fear of arrest. The same individual referred to England as a ‘tinder box’ that could turn into a civil war.

Those feelings aren’t surprising. A Labour Party member of the British Parliament, Jeevun Sandler, came out on Oct. 12, urging England to take down its flag from lamp posts because it was seen as ‘unwelcoming’ to immigrants. A local politician was investigated by police after she said she was ‘born and bred here.’ And a recent study from the University of Leicester’s Centre for Hate Studies complains that rural England is ‘overwhelmingly White’ and needs ‘inclusion.’ 

It’s not just politics. Canterbury Cathedral, a truly majestic monument to Christianity and Western civilization, was turned into a site for a graffiti-like art demonstration of England’s decline and fall. Christianity Today explains it as an, ‘art exhibit titled ‘Hear Us,’ which features temporary graffiti stickers that were slapped on Canterbury’s stone pillars and aim to highlight minorities while posing challenging questions to God.’ Artist Alex Vellis self describes as ‘an agender goblin-thing.’ Just the person you’d pick to decorate one of the world’s most famous religious sites.

What Vellis did is not art. It’s desecration. Thank God, I saw the cathedral just before this betrayal.

Major institutions embraced the guilt complex that causes all this. It is common for tour guides, museum employees and docents to fill their talks with leftist talking points about climate change and immigration. Many historic sites I visited were quick to demonize British history. Explorer and privateer Sir Francis Drake, who heroically defended England against the Spanish armada, is slammed as an enslaver at the very maritime museum he helped inspire.

British media is worse. The BBC is almost laughably left wing. It layered discussions of the Manchester terror attack with the typical refrain, ‘but Israel.’ Other outlets weren’t as bad, but that’s not saying much. Even commercials show the built-in biases. I saw at least 13 Unicef UK Ads on my television. Nine were about providing aid to Gaza, one more was for Yemen. There were no ads about helping Christians being genocided In Africa. Or even aiding Muslims in China or Myanmar, where they are also being persecuted. Of course, they aren’t fighting Israel in those locations.

Starmer’s many failures make him wildly unpopular and the Reform Party is polling high, looking like it could sweep future elections. The British response is to crack down even more. Rather than defend its own history and culture, the government wars against them. Already, 12,000 people are arrested each year for what they say online. 

British politician and journalist Daniel Hannan summarized these problems with the question, ‘Why are so many British leaders anti-British?’

Those problems are already here in America, they simply haven’t taken root as strongly yet. England is perhaps 10 or 20 years ahead of us. It can serve as a warning or a peek at our inevitable decline. Our campuses are filled with indoctrinated young people, ignorant of history and eager to carry whatever banner will tear down America and the West. It doesn’t matter if it’s the flag of communism or Hamas.

There are some in England who haven’t given up. But the fear is that it is too late. And looking around England, it’s hard to feel otherwise. For America, it’s not too late… yet.

President Donald Trump said he believes Venezuela is ‘feeling heat’ amid his administration’s war against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, which has taken out at least two vessels in just the past week. 

Although Trump has said the strikes are intended to curb the influx of drugs into the United States, experts and some lawmakers contend that they serve another purpose: to exert pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro so he’s ousted from power. 

‘The Trump administration is likely attempting to force Maduro to voluntarily leave office through a series of diplomatic moves, and now military action and the threat thereof,’ Brandan Buck, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said in an email to Fox News Digital Thursday. ‘Whether this constitutes a ‘regime change’ or something else is a question of semantics.’ 

The Trump administration repeatedly has said it does not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state, but instead, a leader of a drug cartel. In August, the Trump administration upped the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, labeling him ‘one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.’

So far, the Trump administration has been tight-lipped when asked about Maduro, and Trump declined to answer Wednesday when asked if the CIA had the authority to ‘take out’ Maduro. 

However, Trump confirmed that he authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela, after the New York Times reported Wednesday he signed off on the move. Trump told reporters he did so because Venezuela has released prisoners into the U.S., and that drugs were coming into the U.S. from Venezuela through sea routes. 

Additionally, Trump confirmed Friday that Maduro offered to grant the U.S. access to Venezuelan oil and other natural resources, claiming the Venezuelan leader didn’t want to ‘f*** around’ with the U.S. 

Still, these recent strikes are unlikely to majorly undermine drug flow into the U.S., according to Buck. 

‘It is more likely that those strikes are part of this incremental effort to dislodge Maduro than merely an effort to wage war on the cartels,’ Buck said. ‘Pacific and overland routes through Mexico are considerably more prolific, and Venezuela itself is a relatively minor player, especially when it comes to fentanyl.’ 

The Trump administration has employed maritime forces to address drug threats, and has bolstered naval assets in the Caribbean in recent months. For example, Trump has sent several U.S. Navy guided missile destroyers to enhance the administration’s counter-narcotics efforts in the region starting in August.

Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council international affairs think tank, said that the Trump administration wants these additional forces to encourage the Venezuelan military to take matters into their own hands. 

‘What President Trump is hoping is that this deployment will signal to the Venezuelan military that they should rise up against Maduro themselves,’ Ramsey said in a Thursday email to Fox News Digital. ‘The problem is that we haven’t seen this approach bear fruit in twenty years of trying. Maduro is terrible at governing, but good at keeping his upper ranks fat and happy while the people starve.’

‘What is needed here is some kind of a road map, or a blueprint for a transition, that can be more attractive to the ruling party and those around Maduro who might secretly want change but need to see a future for themselves in a democratic Venezuela,’ Ramsey said. 

Meanwhile, the second Trump administration has adopted a hard-line approach to address the flow of drugs into the U.S., and designated drug cartel groups like Tren de Aragua, Sinaloa and others as foreign terrorist organizations in February.

Additionally, the White House sent lawmakers a memo Sept. 30 informing them that the U.S. is now participating in a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug smugglers, and has conducted at least six strikes against vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The U.S. seized survivors from the most recent strike Thursday — the first one involving survivors. At least 28 other individuals have died from previous strikes. 

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have voiced concerns over the legality of the strikes, and Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., filed a war powers resolution in September to bar U.S. forces from engaging in ‘hostilities’ against certain non-state organizations.

The resolution failed in the Senate by a 51–48 margin on Oct. 8, but Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted alongside their Democratic counterparts for the resolution.

On Friday, Schiff, Kaine and Paul introduced another narrower war powers resolution that would block U.S. armed forces from participating in ‘hostilities’ against Venezuela specifically. The lawmakers said the resolution came in response to Trump’s comments considering land operations in Venezuela. 

‘The Trump administration has made it clear they may launch military action inside Venezuela’s borders, and won’t stop at boat strikes in the Caribbean,’ Schiff said in a statement Friday. ‘In recent weeks we have seen increasingly concerning movements and reporting that undermine claims that this is merely about stopping drug smugglers. Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela. And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America.’

When asked about lawmakers’ concerns about the legality of the strikes, Trump dismissed them and said that lawmakers were informed the vessels carried drugs. 

‘But they are given information that they were loaded up with drugs,’ Trump said on Tuesday. ‘And that’s the thing that matters. When they’re loaded up with drugs, they’re fair game. And every one of those ships were and they’re not ships, they’re they’re boats.’ 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.