The Department of War is moving to overhaul its partnership with Scouting America, saying the organization must return to ‘core values’ and eliminate DEI policies to remain eligible for federal support.

The review focused on the department’s financial relationship with Scouting America, formerly known as the Boy Scouts of America, including its involvement in the organization’s National Jamboree, Sean Parnell, assistant to the Secretary of War for public affairs, said in a statement posted on social media.

Parnell described Scouting America as ‘a great organization’ that has ‘lost its way’ in recent years.

‘But, for more than a decade now, Scouting America’s leadership has made decisions that run counter to the values of this administration and this Department of War, including an embrace of DEl and other social justice, gender-fluid ideological stances. This is unacceptable,’ he wrote.

Parnell referenced an executive order that President Donald Trump signed at the start of his second term that focused on ‘terminating radical DEl preferencing in federal contracting,’ adding that all organizations affiliated with the department must meet that standard.

DOW and Scouting America are nearing a final agreement, according to Parnell.

‘Scouting America remains far from perfect, but they have firmly committed to a return to core principles,’ Parnell wrote. ‘Back to God and country—immediately!’

Scouting America told Fox News Digital in a statement via email that the organization was ‘encouraged’ by Parnell’s post.

‘For nearly 116 years Scouting has stood as a cornerstone of American ideals, good citizenship, service, and adventure for American youth,’ Scouting America said. ‘We are encouraged by [Monday’s] social media post by the Pentagon, and we look forward to providing more details as we move ahead.’

Parnell, however, added that the partnership would continue only on condition that Scouting America ‘rapidly implements the common-sense, core value reforms’ the Trump administration has put forth.

‘They are on the clock, and we are watching,’ Parnell wrote, adding that officials may have more to announce soon.

Investigations by Credit Suisse have uncovered hundreds of Nazi-linked accounts at the bank, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, announced Tuesday.

Multiple reports provided to Grassley have identified 890 accounts linked to the Nazi regime, including wartime accounts for the German Foreign Office, a German arms manufacturing company and the German Red Cross, Grassley told reporters Monday.

The new accounts are coming to light after UBS acquired Credit Suisse in a 2023 takeover. The bank then hired U.S. prosecutor Neil Barofsky to identify any Nazi-linked accounts.

Grassley and representatives of UBS will dig deeper into the findings during a Senate Judiciary hearing on connections between various Swiss banks and the Nazis later Tuesday morning.

‘We approach today’s topic with solemn respect,’ Robert Karofsky, president of UBS Americas, is expected to say at the hearing, according to a copy of his remarks obtained by NBC News.

‘Now, with three years of experience, our priority is to complete this review so that the world can benefit from the findings in the coming final report,’ the remarks continue.

Grassley’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Tuesday’s hearing comes a week after International Holocaust Remembrance Day, during which President Donald Trump’s administration reflected on the genocide committed by Nazi Germany during World War II.

‘Today, we pay respect to the blessed memories of the millions of Jewish people, who were murdered at the hands of the Nazi Regime and its collaborators during the Holocaust— as well as the Slavs and the Roma, people with disabilities, religious leaders, persons targeted based on their sexual orientation, and political prisoners who were also targeted for systematic slaughter,’ Trump said in a statement.

‘On January 27, 1945, 81 years ago today, Allied forces liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau, the Nazi Regime’s largest concentration and death camp in World War II, where over one million people were marched to their senseless deaths,’ the presidential message, released by the White House, noted.

Trump noted that since returning to the presidency last year he has sought to use the federal government to battle antisemitism.

‘After I took office as the 47th President of the United States, I proudly made it this administration’s priority directing the Federal Government to use all appropriate legal tools to combat the scourge of antisemitism. My Administration will remain a steadfast and unequivocal champion for Jewish Americans and the God-given right of every American to practice their faith freely, openly, and without fear,’ he asserted.

A group of Senate Republicans warned the Trump administration that floods of ‘illicit Chinese e-cigarettes’ entering the country carried a darker side effect.

Several Senate Republicans alerted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital that the Chinese government was reaping massive profits from the devices.

And given that connection between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and China’s State Tobacco Monopoly Administration (CSTMA), it’s possible that so-called smart vapes could be used as spying devices.

The lawmakers charged that the ‘highly sophisticated’ vapes had the ability to connect to a person’s cellphone and have become extremely commonplace.

‘These devices have the capacity to initiate data breaches or malware infections and can also access and collect sensitive user data,’ they wrote. ‘Given the interconnected relationship between Chinese industry and state intelligence services, the targeting of U.S. military personnel with these devices raises profound national security concerns.’

President Donald Trump made the crackdown against Chinese vapes one of the many side quests that his administration pursued last year, going so far as to try and crush the supply of the devices at ports across the country.

Last year, for example, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the capture of roughly $90 million worth of vape products from China in one fell swoop.

The lawmakers, which included Sens. Steve Daines, R-Mont., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Katie Britt, R-Ala., Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and nine others, lauded Trump’s ‘aggressive, multi-agency enforcement actions’ against the influx of vapes, but noted that the ‘magnitude and consequence requires a comprehensive strategy and response.’

It’s not just a spying threat either.

The Republicans contended that the funding generated by the sale of vapes could be funneled toward military or technological initiatives in China meant to undermine American interests.

They also noted that the vapes have been linked by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to Mexican cartels, specifically using the devices and operations as a money laundering front. That trade-based money laundering scheme, the lawmakers said, was part of a plan to move fentanyl proceeds on behalf of the cartels.

‘Given the scale and severity of this threat, we urge the Treasury Department and USTR to use their respective enforcement and diplomatic authorities to combat illegal Chinese e-cigarettes,’ they wrote.

On Tuesday in Washington, Congress is holding a high-stakes hearing that goes well beyond Hollywood — it’s about American jobs, who controls our media and U.S. national security. If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he would urge every American to watch this hearing closely. Reagan understood that culture, storytelling and media are powerful weapons in the battle of ideas — and that foreign adversaries use them to weaken free societies from within.

Lawmakers are weighing whether U.S. companies like Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery will be allowed to compete and grow — or whether government action will weaken them at a moment when foreign powers are aggressively using media and culture to influence the world.

This matters to everyday Americans because media is no longer just entertainment. It shapes public opinion, exports American values and serves as a counterweight to authoritarian propaganda. When U.S. companies are weakened, foreign governments — especially China — fill the void.

Decisions made Tuesday on Capitol Hill will help determine whether American storytelling remains independent and secure, or whether foreign influence gains even more ground inside one of America’s most powerful strategic assets.

At the center of this debate is the proposed merger between Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery. This should not be treated as just another corporate deal. It directly affects American jobs, American moviemaking and America’s ability to compete in a global information war.

For more than a century, American films and television have carried our values around the world — freedom, creativity and open expression. That cultural influence has been one of America’s greatest strategic advantages. Today, it is under real threat.

The entertainment industry supports hundreds of thousands of good-paying American jobs — writers, actors, camera crews, editors, visual-effects artists, set builders, marketers and engineers. These are middle-class jobs spread across states like California, Georgia, New Mexico, Texas and New Jersey.

And this is not theoretical.

Netflix recently committed $1 billion to build a new production studio at the former Fort Monmouth Army base in New Jersey, a project expected to create more than 5,000 high-paying American jobs. That investment transforms a former military base into an engine of American production, innovation and employment — and it only happens when companies have the scale and stability to invest for the long term.

Streaming, however, is capital-intensive. When companies are weakened or fragmented, productions slow, opportunities shrink and layoffs follow. Scale brings stability. Stability protects — and creates — jobs.

A combined Netflix–Warner Bros. Discovery would create a stronger, more resilient American company able to invest consistently in U.S. production. That means more projects made here at home and more investments like Fort Monmouth, not fewer.

Hollywood, however, is more than an industry. It is a strategic national asset.

American movies and television reach more people globally than any government program or diplomatic initiative. They shape how the world views the United States and serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian propaganda.

China understands this — which is why it tightly controls media at home and heavily invests in state-backed platforms abroad.

And we have already seen how that censorship works.

Consider ‘Top Gun: Maverick.’ The film was a massive global success. Yet China refused to allow it to be shown in its theaters.

Why?

Because of a small patch on Tom Cruise’s leather flight jacket depicting the flag of Taiwan.

Not violence. Not offensive content. A jacket patch.

That single symbol was enough for Beijing to block the film entirely. The message was unmistakable: access to China’s market requires political compliance and self-censorship.

Ronald Reagan understood this fight long before streaming existed. He knew movies, television and storytelling were powerful tools in the battle of ideas — and that foreign or communist influence over American media posed a real threat. As Reagan warned, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.’ Protecting American cultural leadership became a cornerstone of his presidency.

That lesson matters now more than ever.

There are also serious concerns about foreign money entering the American media ecosystem — and the national-security risks that come with it.

Some competing proposals involving legacy studios would shrink the field from five major studios to four, concentrating more power in fewer hands and driving up costs for families who just want to watch a movie at home. That kind of consolidation reduces competition, limits choice and historically leads to layoffs — not innovation.

Even more troubling, some proposed takeovers are reportedly backed by $24 billion from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar.

I am hardly a fan of excessive regulation. But we have laws on the books for a reason — to protect the American marketplace and the American people from foreign manipulation.

Let’s be clear: $24 billion from the Middle East is not philanthropy.

In today’s world, influence is power. When American content is weakened, something else fills the void—and increasingly, that content is shaped or approved by authoritarian governments.

Foreign governments do not invest billions in American media for fun. They do it to gain leverage, influence narratives, and shape what people see and hear. That is a direct national security concern.

In today’s world, influence is power. When American content is weakened, something else fills the void — and increasingly, that content is shaped or approved by authoritarian governments.

That is not just an economic issue. It is a national security issue.

To be clear, I have been openly critical of Netflix in the past, particularly when it comes to some of its woke and radical programming decisions. I have not hesitated to call those out publicly, and I won’t stop doing so.

I also do not own stock in Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery, or any of the companies discussed here.

My position is not about defending a corporation — it is about defending American workers, American creativity and America’s strategic interests at a moment when cultural influence and national security are inseparable.

The Netflix–Warner Bros. Discovery merger does not eliminate competition. The streaming market remains crowded and fiercely competitive. This deal simply allows an American company to compete at scale against Big Tech and state-backed foreign players.

Ronald Reagan knew cultural influence was national power. That truth hasn’t changed.

In a global competition where China and other foreign powers are using culture as leverage, America cannot afford to weaken one of its most powerful tools.

This merger strengthens it.

Laura Fernández Delgado declared victory in the Costa Rican presidential election on Sunday after preliminary results showed her Sovereign People’s Party leading the national vote with just over 48% support.

The National Liberation Party followed in second place with approximately 33% of the vote, according to the latest official tally from Costa Rica’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which oversees and certifies national elections.

‘Change will be deep and irreversible,’ Fernández said at her victory party in San Jose, according to a translation of her remarks from Reuters.

A former government minister, she is the handpicked successor of outgoing President Rodrigo Chaves, who is constitutionally prohibited from seeking re-election.

Fernández, 39, is set to become Costa Rica’s second female president, after Laura Chinchilla, who served from 2010 to 2014.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday congratulated Fernández on her victory in Costa Rica’s presidential election, emphasizing the United States’ commitment to working closely with her incoming administration.

‘Under her leadership, we are confident Costa Rica will continue to advance shared priorities to include combatting narco-trafficking, ending illegal immigration to the United States, promoting cybersecurity and secure telecommunications, and strengthening economic ties,’ Rubio said.

Reuters reported that Fernández, who is married and has a young daughter, has built her political profile around conservative Catholic values and a strong emphasis on family, helping her gain traction among Costa Rica’s expanding evangelical electorate.

She has publicly expressed admiration for Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, and his tough stance on crime, signaling openness to enhanced security measures in violence-prone areas.

Fernández has also said she would complete construction of a maximum-security prison modeled on El Salvador’s CECOT facility as part of a broader strategy to address serious crime.

The president-elect is scheduled to be sworn in on May 8.

Fox News’ Emma Bussey contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump urged Republicans to ‘take over’ and ‘nationalize’ voting on Monday.

Trump made the comments during an interview with former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. Under the Constitution, states set the rules for both federal and state elections, establishing ‘the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate.’

‘The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over,” Trump told Bongino. ‘We should take over the voting … in at least many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. We have states that are so crooked and they’re counting votes.’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pounced on the idea during remarks on the floor of the Senate.

‘Just a few hours ago, Donald Trump said he wants to nationalize elections around the country. That’s what Trump said. You think he believes in democracy? He said, ‘We want to take over, the Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Schumer said Monday. ‘Does Donald Trump need a copy of the Constitution? What he is saying is outlandishly illegal.’

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson later clarified Trump’s comments in a statement to ABC News. She argued Trump was expressing his desire for the U.S. to have free and fair elections.

‘President Trump cares deeply about the safety and security of our elections – that’s why he’s urged Congress to pass the SAVE Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting,’ Jackson said.

Trump’s comments come amid a desperate battle for advantage in the 2026 midterm elections. The GOP and Democrats battled over Congressional redistricting plans throughout last year, with Texas redrawing maps to create five new GOP-favored seats and California countering with its own new maps.

More redistricting battles are continuing across the country as the midterms near.

Republicans currently hold a razor-thin majority in the House, and midterm elections are historically unfavorable for the sitting president’s party.

Trump kicked off an aggressive midterm campaign schedule with a rally in Iowa last week, warning supporters that losing control of Congress would jeopardize his tax cuts, border policies and broader second-term agenda as he urged Republicans to turn out and ‘win the midterms.’

‘If we lose the midterms, you’ll lose so many of the things that we’re talking about, so many of the assets that we’re talking about, so many of the tax cuts that we’re talking about, and it would lead to very bad things,’ Trump told the crowd.

Fox News’ Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

Relations between President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro have swung sharply from open confrontation to cautious engagement over the past year, setting the stage for a pivotal White House meeting scheduled for Tuesday.

Once considered a model partnership in the Western Hemisphere, U.S.–Colombia ties are now being tested by deep disagreements over drug policy, security cooperation and migration.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the visit, President Donald Trump suggested the tone between the two leaders has shifted in recent weeks, while underscoring that drug trafficking will dominate the talks.

‘I mean, he’s been very nice over the last month or two,’ Trump said during a press availability. ‘They were certainly critical before that. But somehow after the Venezuelan raid, he became very nice. He changed his attitude. Very much so.’

Trump said he is looking forward to meeting Petro in person, while making clear that narcotics remain a central concern. ‘He’s coming in. We’re going to be talking about drugs because tremendous amounts of drugs come out of his country,’ Trump said. ‘And I look forward to seeing him. We’re going to have a good meeting.’

Colombia has long been one of Washington’s closest partners in South America, particularly on counternarcotics and security. Bilateral cooperation expanded dramatically under Plan Colombia beginning in 2000, with U.S. military and law-enforcement assistance playing a central role in Colombia’s fight against insurgent groups and drug trafficking networks. That cooperation helped stabilize the country and eventually led the United States to designate Colombia a major Non-NATO ally. U.S. officials and analysts say that foundation has eroded in recent years amid diverging priorities and growing mistrust.

Tensions first erupted in January 2025, when Petro initially refused to allow U.S. deportation flights carrying Colombian nationals to land. The standoff prompted Trump to threaten tariffs, travel bans and visa restrictions before Colombia reversed course and agreed to accept the flights. The episode marked the first major rupture between the two leaders following Trump’s return to office.

Relations deteriorated further in September 2025, when Petro traveled to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, participated in protests and publicly urged U.S. soldiers to ‘disobey the orders of Trump.’ The remarks prompted the U.S. State Department to revoke Petro’s visa on Sept. 27, 2025. The following month, the Trump administration announced punitive measures targeting Petro and members of his inner circle, citing concerns about drug trafficking and security cooperation.

Colombian officials denounced the moves as politically motivated. Trump publicly labeled Petro a ‘drug leader,’ suspended U.S. aid and threatened additional punitive measures, pushing relations to what observers described as their lowest point in decades.

Signs of de-escalation emerged last month when the two leaders spoke by phone for the first time since the diplomatic breakdown. Trump later described the call as a ‘great honor,’ saying he appreciated Petro’s tone and looked forward to meeting him in person. Both sides agreed to restart dialogue on contentious issues, including counternarcotics, migration and trade. Colombia subsequently resumed U.S. deportation flights as part of broader efforts to stabilize relations, paving the way for Tuesday’s face-to-face meeting.

Melissa Ford Maldonado, director of the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First Policy Institute, said the visit highlights how much is now at stake for both countries.

‘Colombia remains the most important U.S. partner in South America, but that status is conditional, and lately it’s been under real strain, largely because of President Gustavo Petro’s tolerance for criminal networks that threaten both Colombian sovereignty and American security,’ Maldonado told Fox News Digital.

She said the Trump administration’s objectives heading into the meeting are likely focused on restoring what she described as ‘real cooperation’ on counternarcotics and security after years of drift.

‘Counternarcotics and security cooperation will likely dominate the conversation,’ Maldonado said, pointing to record cocaine production and what she described as growing tolerance within parts of the Colombian state for criminal networks. She argued that Washington has increasingly treated Colombia as failing to meet U.S. expectations in the fight against illegal drugs.

Maldonado said the administration has signaled it is no longer willing to accommodate governments it believes enable narco-criminal ecosystems.

‘What to watch going forward is whether Colombia chooses to course-correct or continues drifting toward the model next door, which blurred the line between the state and organized crime,’ she said. ‘Colombia earned its status as a major Non-NATO Ally through decades of sacrifice. That trust has been badly damaged, but it is not beyond repair if Colombia demonstrates genuine resolve against cartels, rejects political cover for criminal groups and realigns clearly with the United States on hemispheric security.’

She added, ‘This visit should make one thing unmistakable: the United States wants a strong, sovereign Colombia. It is in America’s best interest. However, it will not tolerate ambiguity when it comes to narco-terrorism, regional security or the safety of the American people,’ Maldonado said.  

The ongoing partial government shutdown is now in its fourth day, but House GOP leaders are confident that the end is near.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is aiming to hold a chamber-wide procedural vote on the Senate’s funding compromise on Tuesday afternoon, teeing up a subsequent vote on final passage potentially later in the day.

It comes after he and President Donald Trump quelled a burgeoning rebellion by House conservatives who were threatening to tank the measure if an unrelated election integrity bill was not attached to the funding legislation.

House GOP leaders had been watching anxiously for signs of defections on a House-wide ‘rule vote’ that appears to have been largely abated after the rebellion’s ringleader, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., told reporters she was backing off her threats on Monday night.

A rule vote allows for lawmakers to open up debate on a given bill, and normally falls on partisan lines even if the underlying legislation has bipartisan support.

Under current House margins, Johnson can only lose support from one GOP lawmaker to still advance legislation on a party-line vote.

Meanwhile, Luna had corralled a group of conservatives to vote against advancing the rule if a bill called the SAVE America Act was not attached to the final funding bill.

The SAVE America Act would require voter ID for casting ballots in federal elections and mandate proof of citizenship in the voter registration process, among other election safeguards.

Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Fla., had both signaled to Fox News Digital that they would vote against the rule if it was not attached.

But such a move, if successful, would force the bill to be returned to the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned it would be dead on arrival.

Luna told reporters on Monday night that she and Burchett both changed their minds, however, after getting assurances from the White House that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., would force a vote on the SAVE America Act.

‘As of right now, with the current agreement that we have, as well as discussions, we will both be a yes on the rule,’ Luna said. ‘There is something called a standing filibuster that would effectively allow Senator Thune to put voter ID on the floor of the Senate. We are hearing that that is going well and he is considering that…so we are very happy about that.’

The Senate compromise would fully fund the departments of War, Health and Human Services (HHS), Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Education and Labor through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, lining up with previously passed spending bills.

But Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding would only see current levels extended for two weeks in order to give Democrats and Republicans time to negotiate a bill that would more significantly rein in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

It passed the Senate on Friday after Democrats there walked away from an earlier bipartisan deal that would have also fully funded DHS. Left-wing lawmakers demanded further guardrails on Trump’s immigration enforcement after the second of two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis during anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests there.

And despite House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., indicating to Johnson that Democrats would not help him pass the new deal, there are some signs that it will get bipartisan support.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said she would vote for the legislation after voting against the original House-passed deal.

‘I will take those ten days and see what we can get,’ she said of the stopgap funding for DHS. ‘And at the end of those ten days, if if we can’t decide to go with it, then it’s a no vote, and Department of Homeland Security is shuttered…but not the other five bills because they’re good bills with good things for the people that we care about.’

In the meantime, nearly 14,000 air traffic controllers are expected to work without pay. Members of the military could also miss paychecks if the shutdown goes on long enough, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be limited in its ability to communicate public health updates to Americans.

Planned Parenthood announced it is voluntarily dropping its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s ability to withhold Medicaid payments under a provision in President Donald Trump’s tax bill.

The organization sued in July after President Donald Trump signed a spending bill that included prohibiting federal funding from going to abortion providers, a section of the legislation that Planned Parenthood attorneys argued unfairly targeted their clinics and would leave patients with even fewer health care options.

In December, a federal appeals court ruled that the administration could continue to withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

A separate lawsuit filed by a group of mostly Democratic states suffered a similar setback in January but remains ongoing, and a related case filed in Maine was voluntarily dismissed in October.

A third lawsuit filed in Maine by a network of medical clinics that was also impacted by the spending bill was voluntarily dismissed in October.

Planned Parenthood moved on Friday to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts.

‘The goal of this lawsuit has always been to help Planned Parenthood patients get the care they deserve from their trusted provider. Based on the 1st Circuit’s decision, it is clear that this lawsuit is no longer the best way to accomplish that goal,’ the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in a joint statement.

Under the tax provision in Trump’s spending bill, Medicaid payments would be stopped if providers like Planned Parenthood primarily offered certain services, including abortion, and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.

Planned Parenthood was not specifically named in the legislation, but the organization’s leaders have said the law is intended to affect their clinics across the country, as Republicans at the federal and state level continue to target the organization.

Federal law bans taxpayer money from covering most abortions, but many Republicans have long argued that abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood used Medicaid money for other health services to subsidize abortion.

Planned Parenthood said 23 of their health clinics have been forced to close due to Trump’s spending bill. More than 50 clinics closed in 18 states last year, with most located in the Midwest.

‘President Trump and his allies in Congress have weaponized the federal government to target Planned Parenthood at the expense of patients — stripping people of the care they rely on,’ Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

‘Through every attack, Planned Parenthood has never lost sight of its focus: ensuring patients can get the care they need from the provider they trust,’ she continued. ‘That will never change. Care continues, as does our commitment to fighting for everyone’s freedom to make their own decisions about their bodies, lives, and futures.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Senate’s compromise to end the ongoing partial government shutdown survived an important hurdle on Monday night, teeing up the legislation for a vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.

The House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most bills get a chamberwide vote, advanced the upper chamber’s deal with the White House with little internal discord among Republicans on the panel.

But the measure could face issues on the House floor during a second procedural hurdle called a ‘rule vote,’ which needs a simple majority of lawmakers to unlock debate and a vote on final passage. House votes normally fall along partisan lines, and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will need virtually all GOP lawmakers to vote in lockstep to succeed.

The current partial shutdown, affecting roughly 78% of the federal government, is in its third day after Congress failed to send its remaining spending bills to President Donald Trump’s desk by Jan. 30.

House lawmakers passed an initial set of bipartisan bills to finish funding the government through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2026, Sept. 30, but Democrats rebelled against the plan en masse in protest of Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

Senate Democrats walked away from the deal in protest of its funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), after federal law enforcement shot and killed a second U.S. citizen during anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) demonstrations in Minneapolis.

Trump has responded by removing Customs and Border Protection (CBP), whose agents shot the second person, from the Midwest city, and replacing senior officials leading the crackdown there.

But Democrats are demanding further guardrails, like judicial warrants, to restrict agents in Minneapolis even further.

The resulting compromise would fund areas of government that were caught up in the political standoff — the departments of War, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Education — while simply extending the current federal spending levels for DHS for two weeks.

That two-week span is aimed at giving lawmakers time for more bipartisan negotiations on a longer-term deal.

The Senate passed the new deal on Friday, but House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is sharply divided from his counterpart, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in his position.

Despite Schumer and Senate Democrats negotiating the plan with Trump’s White House, Jeffries told Johnson not to rely on House Democrats’ support to pass the bill.

It’s a stunning division between the top two Democrats in Congress, and one that will leave House Republicans largely on their own for much of the process of ending the shutdown.

But Trump managed to quell another rebellion on the conservative side earlier on Monday, easing at least one headache for House GOP leaders.

At least four House Republicans signaled they could vote against their own party during the rule vote on Tuesday over its exclusion of an unrelated measure requiring proof of citizenship in the voter registration process.

The president posted on Truth Social earlier Monday demanding ‘NO CHANGES’ to the current deal, effectively undercutting conservatives’ push for the legislation.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., had been leading a group of conservatives threatening to tank the rule vote if the SAVE America Act was not attached.

But Luna told reporters on Monday night that she and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., both changed their minds after getting assurances from the White House that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., would force a vote on the bill — called the SAVE America Act.

‘As of right now, with the current agreement that we have, as well as discussions, we will both be a yes on the rule,’ Luna said. ‘There is something called a standing filibuster that would effectively allow Senator Thune to put voter ID on the floor of the Senate. We are hearing that that is going well and he is considering that…so we are very happy about that.’

It’s not clear if it’s enough for other House Republicans, however, some of whom are upset over the new deal opening up the need for bipartisan discussions on reining in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Johnson can only lose one House GOP vote for the funding deal to survive a chamber-wide rule vote.

In the meantime, nearly 14,000 air traffic controllers are expected to work without pay. Members of the military could also miss paychecks if the shutdown goes on long enough, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be limited in its ability to communicate public health updates to Americans.