Democrats and Republicans repeatedly clashed on Tuesday during a lengthy hearing on what the GOP calls ‘activist judges’ blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittees on the Constitution and on courts held the joint hearing in preparation for a House-wide vote on legislation that would limit district judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That bill is currently stalled, however, after an unrelated fight on proxy voting paralyzed the House floor.

During the hearing, Democrats repeatedly tried to press Republicans on the issue of judicial impeachments — something pushed by conservatives but that House GOP leaders have shown little appetite for pursuing.

‘Some guy I’ve never heard of, he, might be in Congress, introduced an impeachment resolution, and he’s not here,’ Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said of an impeachment resolution targeting U.S. district Judge James Boasberg by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas.

‘He hasn’t been here for at least the last hour, and every witness here is in agreement that we really shouldn’t be impeaching judges. I haven’t heard a single colleague on the other side say we should be impeaching judges.’

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who was co-chairing the hearing alongside Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, asked Swalwell to yield his time — but the California Democrat refused.

‘I don’t think they have anything to talk about with the bills, since they offered a similar bill, and even the solicitor general, as late as October of last year in the Biden administration, wanted exactly what we’re moving out of committee today,’ Issa told Fox News Digital about Democrats’ ploy.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., compared conservatives’ push to impeach judges to House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry efforts into former President Joe Biden — which ultimately did not end in any such proceedings.

‘I guess we’re taking a page out of [House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer’s] playbook, we’re just doing fake impeachments,’ Moskowitz told Fox News Digital.

But Roy, who co-led the hearing with Issa, told Fox News Digital it was about ‘trying to make clear that you’ve got a handful of judges acting, clearly politically, to stop the administration from acting.’

‘It’s pretty clear that my Democratic colleagues prefer to defend the right of an MS-13 gang member, clearly here illegally, from being deported,’ Roy said.

But Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., another member of the committee, said at least one goal was to ‘raise the profile of the issue.’

‘Maybe the more headlines a hearing like this gets, it clearly sets it on the plate of Chief Justice Roberts, right, to take action and try to get control of the courts again,’ he said.

It’s not immediately clear when Issa’s bill will get a vote, after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced House floor activity was canceled for the rest of this week.

Mass layoffs reportedly began Tuesday in Health and Human Services agencies as part of the department’s ‘restructuring’ to align with President Donald Trump’s executive order, ‘Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,’ as agencies undergo merges and significant downsizing.

The restructuring is expected to bring down 82,000 federal health employees to 62,000.

The department has been preparing to make major cuts in recent weeks across its health agencies, especially pertaining to administrative costs and DEI-related spending.

According to the HHS, the layoffs ‘will save taxpayers $1.8 billion per year’ and ‘streamline’ functions of the department while ensuring that essential services like Medicare and Medicaid continue without disruption. The announcement of the layoffs came last week.

The HHS oversees several major agencies that will likely see some sort of restructuring: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration for Community Living (ACL), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

‘We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,’ HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in a statement. ‘This Department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.’

The new plan will reduce the number of HHS divisions from 28 to 15. One of the key changes includes the creation of the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which will combine several agencies, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to ‘break down artificial divisions between similar programs.’ In addition, HHS is reorganizing its regional offices, cutting them down from 10 to 5.

Other changes, according to the HHS, include the creation of a new assistant secretary for enforcement to tackle fraud and abuse in federal health programs.

Another major focus of the restructuring is addressing America’s growing ‘epidemic of chronic illness.’ The plan focuses on clean food, water, and air, while working to eliminate environmental toxins that contribute to health problems. The CDC will also gain additional authority by absorbing the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), which handles national disaster and public health emergencies.

‘Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,’ Kennedy said. ‘This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves. That’s the entire American public, because our goal is to Make America Healthy Again.’

The Associated Press reported Tuesday morning there were hundreds of federal health employees wrapped around the HHS building in two lines to find out whether they still had a job. 

Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf wrote in a LinkedIn Post Tuesday morning that the ‘FDA as we’ve known it is finished,’ adding that ‘most of the leaders with institutional knowledge and a deep understanding of product development and safety no longer employed.’

‘I believe that history will see this a huge mistake. I will be fad if I’m proven wrong, but even then there is no good reason to treat people this way. It will be interesting to hear from the new leadership how they plan to put ‘Humpty Dumpty’ back together again,’ Califf wrote.

Lt. Gen. Daniel ‘Razin’ Caine, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the U.S. top military officer, side-stepped questions from Senate Democrats about his view on the recent Signal leak controversy roiling the Trump administration, but he did say the ‘element of surprise’ should be safeguarded as a result of the incident. 

Democrats, including Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, repeatedly asked Caine about how he would respond to hypothetical scenarios regarding the leak, during a Thursday confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Caine, careful with his responses, repeatedly stressed the importance of ‘preserv[ing] the element of surprise,’ adding that he has ‘always’ communicated sensitive information using the proper channels. 

Blumenthal charged that the ‘element of surprise was very likely lost’ as a result of the leak. 

While the Trump administration and its supporters have denied that anything discussed in the Signal chat amounted to war plans, critics have disagreed, citing the fact the chats included a detailed timeline about a U.S. attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

‘Because of your extraordinary service, general, I can’t imagine anyone better qualified to answer this question,’ Blumenthal said to Caine. ‘Knowing what you do, about the substance of that conversation, how would you feel?’

‘Well, Senator, I stand by what I said before. I think we all can agree that we need to always protect the element of surprise,’ Caine said.

‘And that element of surprise was very likely lost, if there had been any intercept by one of our enemies or adversaries that could be conveyed to the Houthis. Correct?’ Blumenthal asked. 

‘That’s a little bit of a hypothetical question, but, I am thankful, as always, that we we protect our servicemen and women who are going into combat operation,’ Caine replied.

Hirono questioned Caine with a similar hypothetical but went a step further and asked if he would ‘just let this matter drop,’ as she claimed the Trump administration is doing.

‘It’s really not a hypothetical. It is what is confronting this administration,’ Hirono said.

‘Given the fact that the chairman and ranking member have asked for an investigation, I don’t want to comment on the particulars,’ Caine relented as Hirono hounded for an answer. ‘I do want to stay at the strategic altitude and say that we should always preserve the element of surprise.’

Reed proceeded to ask Ciane if he ‘were on that conversation’ would he have ‘objected to the fact that it was being conducted on Signal?’

‘Well, Senator, you know, I was not in that chat,’ Caine responded.

‘I know that that’s why I asked if you were,’ Reed said.

Caine asserted that he has ‘always communicated proper information in the proper channels.’

Caine was tapped by Trump to replace Biden-appointed Gen. Charles Q. ‘C.Q.’ Brown Jr. after he was fired in February.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is a group of senior military officials who advise the president, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council on military matters. The JCS consists of the highest-ranking officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and National Guard, with the chairman serving as the highest principal military advisor.

The chairman is typically required to have served as a four-star general in charge of a military service branch or as a combatant commander, qualifications Caine does not possess. However, the president has the authority to waive these requirements if deemed necessary for national interests. 

Caine’s extensive Air Force military background includes serving as a decorated F-16 combat pilot and playing critical roles in special intelligence operations. Given the slim Republican majority, his full Senate confirmation would require near-unanimous support from Republican senators.

A U.S. appeals court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court ruling that temporarily blocked its ban on transgender military service members – a near-term blow as the administration signals it may take the case to the Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s request for an administrative stay, which would have allowed it to enforce the ban while a lower court weighs the case.

Instead, the appellate court decision leaves in place, for now, a preliminary injunction handed down late last month by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle. That decision blocked the Trump administration from identifying and removing transgender service members for the near-term while the case proceeds in lower court.

‘The Department of Justice has vigorously defended President Trump’s executive actions, including the Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness Executive Order, and will continue to do so,’ a spokesperson for the Justice Department told Fox News Digital. 

The Trump administration filed its appeal to the 9th Circuit last week, seeking to overturn Judge Settle’s preliminary injunction. 

In court filings, the government argued that the transgender military policy ‘furthers the government’s important interests in military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and avoiding disproportionate costs.’

However, the policy has already faced a wave of early legal challenges.

Settle, who is based in Tacoma, Washington, is not the only federal judge to block the Trump administration’s transgender military ban this year. Last month, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes also temporarily blocked Trump’s ban, citing what she described as a lack of evidence to support the administration’s stated rationale for the policy.

Reyes vehemently contested the government’s assertion that being transgender is ‘not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.’ 

Reyes noted in a scathing, 79-page ruling that transgender service members have provided a combined total of ‘over 130 years of military service,’ have been deployed around the globe, including currently in an active combat zone, and together have earned more than 80 commendations and medals for their service. 

The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit broke with Reyes’s order, however – agreeing to grant the Trump administration an administrative stay.

Still, the judges stressed that the stay ‘should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits’ of the case. The panel also said they reserve the right to reconsider the administrative stay if the military is found to have taken adverse action against passenger service members. 

President Donald Trump ordered the ban in question shortly after taking office in a January executive order. The order states that the ‘adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life’ – which plaintiffs have vigorously contested. 

The case is one of many that will likely be kicked up to the Supreme Court.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich condemned the wave of federal judges blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda as a ‘judicial coup d’etat’ on Tuesday.

Gingrich made the comments while testifying at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing focused on ‘judicial overreach’ by U.S. district court judges across the country. The former lawmaker highlighted that the vast majority of judges filing injunctions or restraining orders against Trump’s executive actions have been appointed by Democrats.

‘Mr. Gingrich, I’m told that 92% of the judges who have issued blanket injunctions against the administration have been appointed by Democrats. That at least suggests a partisan tilt to all of this… doesn’t that undermine public confidence in our courts?’ Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., asked at the hearing.

‘If you look at the recent reports from various polling firms, clearly a majority of Americans believe that no single district judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction,’ Gingrich responded.

‘Look, my judgment is as a historian. This is clearly a judicial coup d’etat. You don’t have this many different judges issue this many different nationwide injunctions – all of them coming from the same ideological and political background – and just assume it’s all random efforts of justice,’ he continued.

‘This is a clear effort to stop the scale of change that President Trump represents,’ he added.

Gingrich went on to argue that it is unacceptable for ‘random’ judges to micromanage the president of the United States.

‘They put both Americans and the nation at risk when they intervene to become basically alternative presidents. You now have potentially 677 alternative presidents, none of whom won an election,’ he said.

The best solution for the wave of injunctions is for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to intervene, Gingrich said. Roberts could ensure that any such rulings from lower federal courts could move straight up to the Supreme Court.

At the center of the court controversy is District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to block the Trump administration from deporting members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador. Other judges have placed injunctions on Trump’s efforts to trim down the federal government.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met privately with Republican judiciary committee members last week for what sources called a ‘brainstorming’ session on how to respond to judges like Boasberg.

Ideas raised by lawmakers included a fast-tracked appeals process, wielding Congress’ spending power over the judiciary, and limiting the ability to ‘judge shop.’

And some conservatives are eager to target specific judges they believe are abusing their power via the impeachment process, but House Republican leaders are wary of that route and believe it to be less effective than other legislative avenues.

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer announced on Monday that her department will return over $1 billion in unused COVID-era funding back to the taxpayer amid the Trump administration’s push for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to slash waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government.

In a press release, the Labor Department said $1.4 billion of unspent COVID funding will be ‘returned to taxpayers through the U.S. Department of Treasury’s General Fund’ and added that ‘action’ is ‘being taken to recover the remaining $2.9 billion.’

 ‘The roughly $4.3 billion was intended for states to use for temporary unemployment insurance during the pandemic,’ the press release states. ‘Instead, several states continued spending millions of dollars despite no longer meeting necessary requirements, which was uncovered in a 2023 audit conducted by the department’s Office of Inspector General.’

The department explained in the press release that the funding originated from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in March 2020 and that the program was meant to provide expanded unemployment insurance for Americans who were not able to work during the pandemic.

The program was closed in 2021, the department said, but the 2023 audit ‘found four states were allowed to access the funding ‘despite not meeting program requirements,’ totaling over $100 million in spending.’

‘There’s no reason leftover COVID unemployment funds should still be collecting dust,’ DeRemer told Fox News Digital in a statement. ‘I promised to look out for Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars, and we are delivering at the Department of Labor.’

‘Any money still sitting around for pandemic-era unemployment funds is a clear misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars,’ Chavez-DeRemer said in the press release, adding that she is ‘rooting out waste to ensure American Workers always come First.’

Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling said in a statement, ‘It’s unacceptable that billions of dollars went unchecked in a program that ended several years ago.

‘In a huge win for the American taxpayer, we’ve clawed back these unused funds and will keep working to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.’

The announcement comes after DeRemer said in her first memo to the department after taking over last month that she plans to comply with Trump’s executive orders and work with DOGE to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.

‘Under the leadership of President Trump, our focus remains on promoting job creation, enhancing workforce development, and ensuring safe working conditions, wages, and pensions so that every American has the opportunity to succeed,’ DeRemer said to employees in the memo. ‘I challenge each of you to actively engage with your teams to identify innovative solutions that can help us achieve our goals.’ 

Chavez-DeRemer said that the Labor Department must align with the priorities of the Trump administration and ‘must focus on practicing fiscal responsibility, reducing unnecessary spending, and optimizing our resources to ensure that taxpayer dollars are utilized effectively.’ 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is forcing a vote on legislation to enable new parents serving in Congress to vote remotely in the weeks surrounding the birth of their child.

Luna introduced the measure as a ‘privileged resolution’ on Tuesday, which gives House leaders two legislative days to take up the measure.

It’s the latest in an increasingly high-stakes fight between Luna and House GOP leaders, who have teamed up with some of Luna’s now-former House Freedom Caucus colleagues to ensure she cannot force a vote on the legislation.

Luna’s initial plan to fast-track her bill despite opposition from House GOP leaders involved a discharge petition, a mechanism for getting a bill onto the House floor if it gets a majority of lawmakers’ signatures – which Luna’s resolution did.

But Republican leaders had language inserted into an unrelated package of bills in the House Rules Committee on Tuesday morning that would have neutered Luna’s effort in a move that rankled GOP supporters of proxy voting.

Even some Republicans on the House Rules Committee, which did ultimately advance the measure, were frustrated by what they saw as a last-minute play by leadership that was done without briefing those GOP lawmakers, Fox News Digital was told.

House GOP leaders will likely opt for a procedural vote to ‘table’ the resolution or to refer it to the relevant committee for consideration via the traditional route – both moves that would all but kill the bill. If that fails, however, the legislation could very well pass with support from all Democrats and just a few House Republicans, given the GOP’s slim majority.

Luna accused conservatives of holding Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., ‘hostage’ on the matter in a letter to fellow House Republicans on Monday night. She also announced she was leaving the House Freedom Caucus, citing a small group of conservatives who have pressed leaders to kill her measure.

Luna’s bill, which is co-led by Rep. Brittney Pettersen, D-Colo., would give new moms and dads serving in Congress the ability to vote by proxy for up to 12 weeks surrounding the birth of their child.

In her letter she shared praise for House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., whose conduct she called ‘gentlemanly,’ but added, ‘With a heavy heart, I am resigning from the Freedom Caucus.’

‘I cannot remain part of a caucus where a select few operate outside its guidelines, misuse its name, broker backroom deals that undermine its core values and where the lines of compromise and transaction are blurred, disparage me to the press, and encourage misrepresentation of me to the American people,’ Luna wrote.

Johnson said he believed proxy voting was ‘unconstitutional’ in remarks after House Republicans’ regular closed-door meeting last week, and spoke out on the issue again this week.

‘We addressed this in conference this morning. A couple of our, a handful of our colleagues, have gotten behind the effort, and, look, I’m a father. I’m pro-family,’ the speaker said last week. ‘Here’s the problem. If you create a proxy vote opportunity just for young parents, mothers and, the fathers in those situations, then where is the limiting principle?’