Attorney General Pam Bondi directed her staff Monday to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has learned.

Bondi ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings, and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury to secure a potential indictment, according to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News Digital and a source familiar with the investigation.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the report of an investigation but said Bondi is taking the referrals from Gabbard ‘very seriously.’ The spokesperson said Bondi believed there is ‘clear cause for deep concern’ and a need for the next steps.

The DOJ confirmed two weeks ago it received a criminal referral from Gabbard. The referral included a memorandum titled ‘Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing ‘Russian and criminal actors did not impact’ the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure’ and asked that the DOJ open an investigation.

No charges have been brought at this stage against any defendants. A grand jury investigation is needed to secure an indictment against any potential suspects.

The revelation that the DOJ is moving forward with a grand jury probe comes after Gabbard declassified intelligence in July that shed new light on the Obama administration’s allege determination that Russia sought to help Trump in the 2016 election.

Former President Barack Obama and his intelligence officials allegedly promoted a ‘contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t,’ Gabbard said during a press briefing of the intelligence.

Among the declassified material was a meeting record revealing how Obama allegedly requested his deputies prepare an intelligence assessment in December 2016, after Trump had won the election, that detailed the ‘tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.’ 

That intelligence assessment stressed that Russia’s actions did not affect the outcome of the election but rather were intended to sow distrust in the democratic process.

It is unclear who is under investigation and what charges could be in play given statutes of limitations for much of the activity from nearly a decade ago have lapsed.

Former Obama intelligence officials, including John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey have drawn scrutiny from Trump officials for their involvement in developing intelligence that undermined Trump’s 2016 victory.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

A federal court fight over President Donald Trump’s authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court for review, legal experts told Fox News Digital, in a case that has already proved to be a pivotal test of executive branch authority.

At issue in the case is Trump’s ability to use a 1977 emergency law to unilaterally slap steep import duties on a long list of countries doing business with the U.S.

In interviews with Fox News Digital, longtime trade lawyers and lawyers who argued on behalf of plaintiffs in court last week said they expect the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a matter of ‘weeks,’ or sometime in August or September – in line with the court’s agreement to hear the case on an ‘expedited’ basis.

The fast-track timeline reflects the important question before the court: whether Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he launched his sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.

Importantly, that timing would still allow the Supreme Court to add the case to their docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins in early October. That could allow them to rule on the matter as early as the end of the year. 

Both Trump administration officials and lawyers for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if the lower court does not rule in their favor. And given the questions at the heart of the case, it is widely expected that the high court will take up the case for review.

In the meantime, the impact of Trump’s tariffs remains to be seen. 

Legal experts and trade analysts alike said last week’s hearing is unlikely to forestall the broader market uncertainty created by Trump’s tariffs, which remain in force after the appeals court agreed to stay a lower court decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade. 

Judges on the three-judge CIT panel in May blocked Trump’s use of IEEPA to stand up his tariffs, ruling unanimously that he did not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under that law. 

Thursday’s argument gave little indication as to how the appeals court would rule, plaintiffs and longtime trade attorneys told Fox News Digital, citing the tough questions that the 11 judges on the panel posed for both parties.

Dan Pickard, an attorney specializing in international trade and national security issues at the firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said the oral arguments Thursday did not seem indicative of how the 11-judge panel might rule.

‘I don’t know if I walked out of that hearing thinking that either the government is going to prevail, or that this is dead on arrival,’ Pickard told Fox News Digital. ‘I think it was more mixed.’

Lawyers for the plaintiffs echoed that assessment – a reflection of the 11 judges on the appeals bench, who had fewer chances to speak up or question the government or plaintiffs during the 45 minutes each had to present their case. 

‘I want to be very clear that I’m not in any way, shape or form, predicting what the Federal Circuit will do – I leave that for them,’ one lawyer for the plaintiffs told reporters after court, adding that the judges, in his view, posed ‘really tough questions’ for both parties.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who helped represent the 12 states suing over the plan, told Fox News Digital they are ‘optimistic’ that, based on the oral arguments, they would see at least a partial win in the case, though he also stressed the ruling and the time frame is fraught with uncertainty.

In the interim, the White House forged ahead with enacting Trump’s tariffs as planned.

Pickard, who has argued many cases before the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, noted that the oral arguments are not necessarily the best barometer for gauging the court’s next steps – something lawyers for the plaintiffs also stressed after the hearing.

Even if the high court blocks the Trump administration from using IEEPA, they have a range of other trade tools at their disposal, trade lawyers told Fox News. 

The Trump administration ‘has had more of a focus on trade issues than pretty much any other administration in my professional life,’ Pickard said. 

‘And let’s assume, even for the sake of the argument, just hypothetically, that the Supreme Court says this use of IEEPA exceeded your statutory authority. The Trump administration is not going to say, like, ‘All right, well, we’re done. I guess we’re just going to abandon any trade policy.’

‘There are going to be additional [trade] tools that had been in the toolbox for long that can be taken out and dusted off,’ he said. ‘There are plenty of other legal authorities for the president. 

‘I don’t think we’re seeing an end to these issues anytime soon – this is going to continue to be battled out in the courts for a while.’

Both Pickard and Rayfield told Fox News Digital in separate interviews that they expect the appeals court to rule within weeks, not days. 

The hearing came after Trump on April 2 announced a 10% baseline tariff on all countries, along with higher, reciprocal tariffs targeting select nations, including China. The measures, he said, were aimed at addressing trade imbalances, reducing deficits with key trading partners, and boosting domestic manufacturing and production.

Ahead of last week’s oral arguments, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said lawyers for the administration would continue to defend the president’s trade agenda in court.

Justice Department attorneys ‘are going to court to defend [Trump’s] tariffs,’ she said, describing them as ‘transforming the global economy, protecting our national security and addressing the consequences of our exploding trade deficit.’

‘We will continue to defend the president,’ she vowed. 

A new memo being sent to House Republicans on Monday is encouraging them to tout new work requirements for Medicaid and federal food benefits, as lawmakers return to their districts for Congress’ annual August recess period.

Democrats and Republicans are locked in a messaging war over President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ a fight that’s only expected to intensify as the 2026 midterm elections creep closer.

Advancing American Freedom (AAF), a group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, is looking to provide backup to GOP lawmakers with new guidance on how to sell the bill to constituents.

The memo positions Democratic attacks as ‘Left Wing operatives…already working to distort and malign every part of the [one big, beautiful bill].’

Democrats have been accusing Republicans of ripping federal benefits like Medicaid away from millions of people in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

They’re hoping to gin up enough outrage against the bill to carry them to take back the House of Representatives next year.

But the memo’s first section encourages GOP lawmakers to point out that ‘every Democrat voted against’ the bill, followed by three of what the right sees as its strongest points.

The AAF memo urges Republicans to say, for example, that the bill’s extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) avoided a cumulative $4 trillion tax increase for Americans, including ‘working families.’

The bill also includes ‘$165 billion to secure the border, including 3,000 new border patrol agents, $10,000 bonuses for ICE and Border Patrol agents, and $46.5 billion for the wall,’ and ‘$150 billion to rebuild our military including shipbuilding, nuclear arsenal, and the Golden Dome,’ which Democrats opposed as well in their votes against the bill.

In addition to more talking points celebrating the bill’s tax cuts, energy provisions, and spending cut measures, AAF appears to be calling on Republicans to take on Democrats’ criticism of federal benefit reforms head-on.

The memo touts ‘commonsense Medicaid reforms’ like ‘a work requirement for able-bodied adults who are not caretakers or parents of children under 15 years old in the Medicaid and SNAP programs.’

It also encourages Republicans to point out the bill ‘reduces payments for Medicaid to states that provide coverage to illegal aliens by a commensurate amount’ and ‘requires regular reviews to ensure that dead or ineligible people are not enrolled.’

AAF also believes the conservative policy wins in the bill will also be a strong talking point, urging GOP lawmakers to point out that the legislation effectively defunds Planned Parenthood for a year, establishes a new tax credit for school choice, and ‘disincentivizes gambling by letting gamblers only write off 90% of their losses.’

House Republicans working to sell the bill will have their work cut out for them over the next four weeks, however.

A recent Fox News poll conducted in mid-July found that 58% of registered voters disapproved of the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ compared to just 39% who supported it.

The gap between Republicans and Democrats is significant – 73% of registered Republican voters approved of the bill, compared to just 10% of Democrats. Independents opposed the bill by a margin of 29% to 70%.

But Democrats aren’t in the clear, either. A new poll released Monday by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that a significant number of Democratic Party voters see their party as ‘weak’ and ‘ineffective.’

A Senate Republican wants to crack down on public officials who use their position to grow their wealth.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is set to introduce legislation that would create stiffer penalties for public officials who commit federal bank fraud, tax fraud, or loan or mortgage fraud. Cornyn’s bill comes on the heels of two such instances where top officials and lawmakers were hit with allegations of mortgage fraud.

Indeed, Cornyn’s Law Enforcement Tools to Interdict Troubling Investments in Abodes (LETITIA) Act is named for New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Justice Department earlier this year opened an investigation into James, who successfully won a civil case last year against President Donald Trump and his Trump Organization over allegations of faulty business practices, for alleged mortgage fraud.

Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte alleged in a letter that James could have engaged in mortgage fraud by making false or misleading statements on property records, like a loan application that said her property in Virginia is her primary residence, a building record stating her multifamily Brooklyn property incorrectly has five residences instead of four, and a mortgage application that falsely stated James was her father’s spouse.

‘This legislation would empower President Trump to hold crooked politicians like New York’s Letitia James accountable for defrauding their constituents, violating their oath of office, and breaking the law, and I’m proud to lead my Republican colleagues in introducing it,’ Cornyn said in a statement.

Fox News Digital reached out to James for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Cornyn’s bill also comes after his colleague Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was similarly hit with allegations of mortgage fraud.

In another letter to the Justice Department, Pulte charged that Schiff falsified bank documents and property records by listing homes in Maryland and California as his primary residence out of an effort to allegedly get more favorable loans.

Marisol Samayoa, a spokesperson for Schiff, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that both Trump and Pulte’s ‘false allegations are a transparent attempt to punish a perceived political foe who is committed to holding Trump to account.’

‘The facts here are simple: Senator Schiff and his wife accurately represented to their lenders that they would occupy and use the Maryland house they purchased in 2003 as a ‘principal residence,’ rather than a vacation home or an investment property,’ she said. ‘He also disclosed to his lenders – repeatedly – that he maintained another home in his district in California, where he lived when not in Washington, and which was also a principal residence, not a vacation home or an investment property.’ 

‘This was done in consultation with relevant House counsel. As was proper, he claimed only a single homestead tax exemption (from California) worth approximately $70 in annual savings,’ she continued.

The bill, which is so far co-sponsored by six Senate Republicans, would increase federal statutory maximum sentences and fines for public officials who abuse their offices and violate the public trust to commit bank fraud, loan or mortgage fraud, or tax fraud.

It would create new mandatory minimum sentences, including one year for bank fraud, one year for loan or mortgage fraud, and six months for tax fraud. And if a public official engages in a repeated pattern of offenses, minimum sentences increase to five years for bank or loan fraud and two years for tax fraud.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that nuclear submarines he ordered to counter Russia are now ‘in the region’ ahead of U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff’s visit. 

Before boarding Air Force One in Allentown, Pa., to return to Washington, D.C., Trump was asked if the nuclear submarines had already been deployed to ‘face Russia.’ Trump said on TRUTH Social on Friday that he ordered two nuclear submarines ‘to be positioned in the appropriate regions’ in response to what he considered ‘highly provocative statements’ from former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev about potential war with the U.S. 

‘I’ve already put out a statement and the answer is they are in the region, yeah, where they have to be,’ Trump told reporters at Lehigh Valley International Airport on Sunday. 

Trump said that Witkoff is expected to travel to Russia on ‘Wednesday or Thursday.’ Russian state media reported Monday that Witkoff would arrive on Wednesday. The visit comes ahead of the Friday deadline Trump set for Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire agreement with Ukraine or face additional sanctions and tariffs. Trump also has warned about potential secondary tariffs for the purchasers of Russian energy. 

‘Well, there’ll be sanctions, but they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions. You know, they’re wily characters, and they’re pretty good at avoiding sanctions,’ Trump told reporters in front of Marine One. ‘So we’ll see what happens.’

Asked about Witkoff’s message to Moscow and if there’s anything the Russians can do to avoid sanctions, Trump said Sunday, ‘Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed.’ 

‘A tremendous number of Russian soldiers have been killed. And likewise Ukraine, a lower number, but still thousands and thousands of people. And now we’re adding towns where they’re being hit by missiles. So it’s a lot of people being killed in that ridiculous war,’ Trump said. ‘We stopped a lot of countries from war, India and Pakistan, we stopped a lot of countries. And we’re going to get that one stopped too. Somehow. We’re going to get that one stopped. That’s a really horrible war.’ 

‘This should be the easiest to stop, and it’s not,’ Trump added. 

Before ordering the deployment of nuclear submarines last week, Trump had warned Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, to ‘watch his words.’ Medvedev had complained that Trump had shortened the Russia-Ukraine ceasefire deadline from 50 days to just 10 to 12 days, saying that the ‘ultimatum’ was threat toward war ‘not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.’ 

Despite Trump cautioning that Medvedev was entering ‘dangerous territory,’ the Russian official doubled down and referenced Russia’s ‘Dead Hand’ – the Cold War-era automated nuclear retaliation system developed by the Soviet Union. 

The U.S. and Russia hold the largest nuclear arsenals in the world.

Top Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reportedly downplayed the U.S. deployment of nuclear submarines Monday. He told reporters that ‘American submarines are already on combat duty – that’s a constant process’ and the Russians ‘don’t believe this is a case of any sort of escalation,’ according to the Russian-language news website Meduza.

Asked about Medvedev’s remarks, Peskov said members of the leadership in any country have different views but stressed Putin definitively decides Russian foreign policy.

‘We approach any statements related to nuclear issues with great caution,’ Peskov added at the press conference, according to The Moscow Times. ‘Russia is firmly committed to nuclear non-proliferation, and we believe that all parties should exercise the utmost restraint when it comes to nuclear rhetoric.’

Meanwhile, Beijing and Moscow have deepened their ties in recent years, with China providing an economic lifeline to Russia in the face of Western sanctions over the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Russia and China have started mock combat drills and other war games in the Sea of Japan, The Telegraph reported. Citing a statement from the Chinese Defense Ministry, the newspaper said the three-day exercise involves four Chinese vessels, including the guided-missile destroyers Shaoxing and Urumqi, and entails ‘submarine rescue, joint anti-submarine, air defense and anti-missile operations, and maritime combat,’ as well as naval patrols in ‘relevant waters of the Pacific.’ 

At a press conference announcing details of the annual drills last week, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Zhang Xiaogang said the Joint Sea 2025 exercise would be held in the air and seas near the Russian port city of Vladivostok, positioned across the sea from Japan’s west coast. Last year, the drill was held off southern China in the South China Sea.

‘This is an arrangement within the annual cooperation plan between the Chinese and Russian militaries. It is not targeted at any third party, nor is it related to the current international and regional situation,’ Zhang said. 

China and Russia also signed a ‘no-limits’ economic partnership shortly after the war in Ukraine began. 

Zhang criticized ongoing drills that the U.S. Air Force is conducting with Japan and other partners in the western Pacific. Resolute Force Pacific is the largest contingency-response exercise ever conducted by the Air Force in the region, according to the U.S. military. The U.S. Air Force has said their exercise will train its forces to maintain readiness and execute missions under stress to demonstrate their ability to defend the United States and partner nations in the Pacific.

‘The U.S. has been blindly flexing muscles in the Asia-Pacific region and attempting to use military drills as a pretext to gang up, intimidate and pressure other countries, and undermine peace and stability in the region,’ Zhang told reporters. 

Japan’s Defense Ministry said in an annual report earlier this month that China’s growing military cooperation with Russia poses serious security concerns.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump alleged that Senate Democrats are possibly delaying his nominees in exchange for money in a heated post on Truth Social Sunday night.

In the post, Trump accused Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of slowing down the confirmations of more than 150 executive nominees.

‘Democrats, lead[sic] by Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, are slow walking my Nominees, more than 150 of them. They wanted us to pay, originally, two billion dollars for approvals. The Dems are CRAZED LUNATICS!!!’ the post read.

He implied that Democrats were leveraging the process to extract funding agreements — a tactic his associates have described as ‘political extortion.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., met with Schumer recently to discuss an offer during ongoing negotiations, but they have not readdressed it directly since choosing to communicate through intermediaries, according to Thune.

While Trump has urged the Senate to make quick moves, Democrats continue to block more nominees than normal.

‘I think they’re desperately in need of change,’ Thune said of Senate rules Saturday after negotiations with Schumer and Trump broke down. ‘I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.’

Historically, nominees have been confirmed unanimously or by voice vote quickly, but Senate Dems have been reportedly forcing roll-call votes on many of the current nominees.

Thune told Fox News Digital that not much headway was being made as ‘the Dems are dug in on a position that’s just not working.’

Senate Republicans want to strike a deal that would send nominees with bipartisan support through committee to lightning-fast votes on the floor, but Schumer has not relented.

Trump’s claims come after the Senate left Saturday for a month-long August recess without coming to a deal on advancing dozens of nominees, which prompted him to post on Truth Social that Schumer could ‘GO TO HELL.’

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller contributed to this report.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz says the Trump administration plans to invest more than $200 billion ‘more dollars’ into Medicaid following the passage of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’ 

‘I’m trying to save this beautiful program, this noble effort, to help folks, giving them a hand up,’ Oz told CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday.

‘And as you probably gather, if Medicaid isn’t able to take care of the people for whom it was designed, the young children, the dawn of their life, those who are twilight of their lives, the seniors, and those who were disabled living in the shadows, as Hubert Humphrey said, then we’re not satisfying the fundamental obligation of a moral government,’ he continued. 

Oz, the 17th administrator for CMS, said the government wants ‘an appropriate return’ on the Medicaid investment. He addressed the difference in drug costs between the U.S. and Europe, adding that work is being done by the administration in an attempt to bring drug prices down.  

Last week, the Trump administration announced it is launching a new program that will allow Americans to share personal health data and medical records across health systems and apps run by private tech companies, promising that this will make it easier to access health records and monitor wellness.

CMS will be in charge of maintaining the system, and officials have said patients will need to opt in for the sharing of their medical records and data, which will be kept secure.

Those officials said patients will benefit from a system that lets them quickly call up their own records without the hallmark difficulties, such as requiring the use of fax machines to share documents, that have prevented them from doing so in the past.

‘We’re going to have remarkable advances in how consumers can use their own records,’ Oz said during the White House event.

CMS already has troves of information on more than 140 million Americans who enroll in Medicare and Medicaid. Earlier this month, the federal agency agreed to hand over its massive database, including home addresses, to deportation officials.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is back in the national spotlight with her forthcoming book about her short-lived 2024 White House campaign, and she is generating a buzz about whether she’ll try again in 2028.

While politicos are keenly watching Harris for her next moves, she’s also being eyed by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., who is investigating whether top Biden administration officials covered up evidence of a mental decline in former President Joe Biden.

Comer all but guaranteed his committee would be contacting Harris during an appearance on ‘The Ingraham Angle’ last week. He joined Fox News Channel just after Harris announced she would not be running for governor of California, as some have speculated, and will instead embark on a listening tour to hear from Americans and try to boost fellow Democrats across the country. 

‘I think that that’s another great thing about Kamala Harris not running for governor – she’s gonna have more time to come before the House Oversight Committee and testify about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline,’ Comer said. ‘So I think that the odds of Kamala Harris getting a subpoena are very high.’

During a recent appearance on ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,’ Harris distanced herself from any immediate electoral ambitions. She emphasized she wanted to hear from all voters, however, not necessarily ruling out a future presidential run.

‘I believe, and I always believed, that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that, they’re not as strong as they need to be,’ Harris said.

‘And I just don’t want to for now, I don’t want to go back in the system. I want to, I want to travel the country. I want to listen to people. I want to talk with people. And I don’t want it to be transactional, where I’m asking for their vote.’

Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor and professor at George Washington University Law School, told Fox News Digital the optics of a congressional subpoena would be less than ideal for a potential 2028 candidate.

‘This is a tough question for Harris, who clearly has aspirations to run again,’ Turley said when asked if he would advise Harris to appear. ‘The committee can compel her to appear. However, the optics of forcing a subpoena are not exactly optimal for someone who wants to run again for this office.’

He added, however, that Harris would be a ‘natural’ target for Comer’s probe.

‘Harris held a unique spot within the inner circle of the White House,’ Turley said.

But both he and former House Oversight Committee ChairTrey Gowdy, R-S.C., now a Fox News Channel host, were doubtful that bringing Harris in would yield much new information.

‘Is it worth investigating? Absolutely. Is it worth getting her take on it? Yeah. Is she going to cooperate? No,’ Gowdy told Fox News Digital. 

The former South Carolina congressman, who also served as a federal prosecutor, predicted that Harris’ lawyers would seek to bury any potential appearance in a quagmire of legal proceedings stemming from executive and/or presidential privilege claims.

‘That privilege has been invoked by both parties repeatedly during congressional investigations,’ Gowdy said.

‘Leaving the names out of it, just for the sake of an analogy, I can’t think of an advisor that would be closer to a president than his or her vice president. So, by the time you’re litigating the issue of whether or not you can compel a vice president to talk about conversations that he or she had with a chief of staff, with a spouse, with the president, with the president’s physician – you’ll be as old as I am by the time that’s litigated.’

Turley said House investigators would have to be armed with ‘specific’ questions to avoid someone like Harris being able to answer with ‘a matter of opinion.’

Gowdy agreed Harris was a ‘legitimate’ witness to bring in and that the issue of Biden’s autopen use, particularly for pardons, ‘warrants further scrutiny.’

He warned, however, that a potent subpoena comes with consequences for noncompliance.

‘Prosecutors can send cops and have [people] brought in. Congress can’t do that. Judges can send the marshals or the sheriff’s deputies out to bring a witness in if the witness is recalcitrant. Congress can’t do that,’ Gowdy said. ‘So your power is only as good as what you can do to enforce it.’

A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment on Comer’s subpoena threat when reached by Fox News Digital.

Spokespeople for Harris and House Oversight Committee Democrats did not return requests for comment.

Hours of tense negotiations to strike a deal on President Donald Trump’s nominees blew up Saturday night, and now lawmakers are headed home.

Senate Republicans and Democrats were quick to point the finger at one another for the deal’s demise, but it was ultimately Trump who nuked the talks.

In a lengthy post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., of ‘demanding over One Billion Dollars in order to approve a small number of our highly qualified nominees.’

‘This demand is egregious and unprecedented, and would be embarrassing to the Republican Party if it were accepted. It is political extortion, by any other name,’ Trump said. ‘Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!’

‘Do not accept the offer,’ he continued. ‘Go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!’

Instead of finding a pathway to vote on as many as 60 of the president’s nominees, all of which moved through committee with bipartisan support, lawmakers rapid-fire voted on seven before leaving Washington until September.

But Schumer treated Trump’s move as a victory for Senate Democrats. He countered that it was the president who gave up on negotiations while he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., worked to find a bipartisan solution, ‘provided the White House and Senate Republicans met our demands.’

‘He took his ball, he went home, leaving Democrats and Republicans alike wondering what the hell happened,’ Schumer said, standing next to a poster-sized version of the president’s post. 

‘Trump’s all-caps Tweet said it all,’ he continued. ‘In a fit of rage, Trump threw in the towel, sent Republicans home, and was unable to do the basic work of negotiating.’

But prior to the president’s edict, both sides of the aisle believed they were on the verge of a breakthrough to both meet Trump’s desire to see his nominees confirmed and leave Washington.

said that there were ‘lots of offers’ made between him and Schumer over the course of negotiations.

‘There were several different times where I think either or both sides maybe thought there was a deal in the end,’ he said.

Senate Democrats wanted the White House to unfreeze billions in National Institute of Health and foreign aid funding, in addition to a future agreement that no more clawback packages would come from the White House.

In exchange, they would greenlight several of Trump’s non-controversial nominees.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., accused Schumer of going ‘too far’ by upping the price tag on his demands.

‘We’ve had three different deals since last night,’ he said. ‘And every time it’s been, every time it’s ‘I want more,’’ Mullin said of Schumer’s demands.

He said that Republicans weren’t caught off guard by Trump’s call to halt talks, and noted that the White House had been heavily involved in negotiations.

‘You get to a realization that there was, it was never about making a deal,’ he continued. ‘They want to go out and say the President’s being unrealistic, and because he can’t answer to his base to make a deal like we have in every other president in history.’

Now, Republicans won’t pursue recess appointments, but Mullin noted that moving ahead with a rule change to the confirmation process when lawmakers return in September was going to happen in response.

‘The asks evolved on both sides quite a bit over time,’ Thune said. ‘But in the end, we never got to a place where we had both sides agree to lock it in.’

Senate Democrats, on the other hand, countered that their offer never changed, and that Republicans kept increasing the number of nominees they wanted across the line, and attempted to include more controversial, partisan picks.

Schumer wouldn’t reveal the details of his demands, but charged that any changes to Senate rules would be a ‘huge mistake,’ and urged Trump to work with Senate Democrats moving forward, particularly as Congress hurtles toward yet another deadline to fund the government in September. 

‘They should stop listening to him,’ Schumer said. ‘If they want to do what’s good for the American people, they shouldn’t be in blind obeisance to Donald Trump.’
 

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is investigating former special counsel Jack Smith, the OSC has confirmed to Fox News.

Smith was tapped in 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to serve as special counsel regarding two probes pertaining to then-former President Donald Trump.

The OSC is investigating Smith for allegedly violating the Hatch Act, which bars government employees from partaking in political activities. It is not a criminal investigation. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on Saturday, but did not receive a response.

The OSC is not the same as a special counsel appointed by an attorney general, as Smith was, but ‘is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency,’ according to its website. 

‘OSC’s statutory authority comes from four federal laws: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA),’ the website explains.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas recently asked the OSC to look into whether Smith illegally engaged in political activity to influence the 2024 election against Trump.

‘I write requesting the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether Jack Smith, Special Counsel for Attorney General Merrick Garland, unlawfully took political actions to influence the 2024 election to harm then-candidate President Donald Trump,’ Cotton wrote in a July 30 letter to Acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer.

‘President Trump of course vanquished Joe Biden, Jack Smith, every Democrat who weaponized the law against him, but President Trump’s astounding victory doesn’t excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference. I therefore ask the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether Jack Smith or any members of his team unlawfully acted for political purposes,’ Cotton wrote.

Fox News’ David Spunt contributed to this report.