A federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan announced in an op-ed published Sunday that he resigned from his position, relinquishing his lifetime appointment to speak out against President Donald Trump, whom he views as eroding judicial independence and using the law to reward allies and punish opponents.

Mark Wolf, who was appointed by Reagan in 1985, said in The Atlantic that he had looked forward to serving on the bench for the rest of his life but felt compelled to resign.

‘My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment,’ he wrote.

‘This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.’

The former federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said he began his career in public service at the Department of Justice in 1974, several years after the Watergate scandal.

Wolf served under former President Gerald Ford’s Attorney General Edward Levi, who he argued helped shape his views on what it means to uphold the rule of law and to seek justice in a nonpartisan way.

‘I decided all of my cases based on the facts and the law, without regard to politics, popularity, or my personal preferences. That is how justice is supposed to be administered—equally for everyone, without fear or favor. This is the opposite of what is happening now,’ he wrote.

Wolf’s successor was selected and nominated after he became a senior judge in 2013, and the seat was officially filled by Judge Indira Talwani in 2014.

‘I hope to be a spokesperson for embattled judges who, consistent with the code of conduct, feel they cannot speak candidly to the American people,’ he told The New York Times.

White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson told the Times that judges who look to ‘inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench.’ 

‘Any other radical judges that want to complain to the press should at least have the decency to resign before doing so,’ she said.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Let’s put politics aside, as if that were possible, and look at how the craziness of the last few days is affecting people.

A week ago, President Donald Trump announced that the 42 million Americans on the SNAP nutrition program would not be getting their benefits — this against the backdrop of a government shutdown that has now reached its 40th day.

This against the backdrop of millions of federal workers who have not been paid while the shutdown drags on — and many of whom live paycheck to paycheck.

This against the backdrop of Trump throwing a lavish, Great Gatsby-themed Mar-a-Lago bash where guests in formal wear watched opera and feasted on blue cheese mousse, sliced beef filet, seared scallops and Trump chocolate cake.

Meanwhile, a federal judge ordered the administration to resume SNAP benefits, which cost $8.5 billion a month, but the Supreme Court gave Trump time to appeal.

And when at least nine states said they would pay for SNAP benefits during the crisis, Trump ordered them to ‘immediately undo’ any effort to provide food stamps to lower-income families — or face financial penalties.

Let’s see: how does this make the president look?

I hate this word, but what are the optics of this determined effort to stop these benefits from reaching hungry families?

After all, when a wealthy donor pal, Timothy Mellon, a banking and railroad heir, offered $130 million to ensure that American troops get paid during the shutdown, Trump seized the opportunity.

After all, the Trump tax cut was tilted toward the wealthy.

After all, Trump has further cut capital gains taxes on home sales that will mostly benefit the affluent and wealthy, enabling many to pay zero, or a reduced rate, on these sales. If you are totally unaware of this, you probably don’t qualify.

After all — this may have been the weirdest thing — Trump said Obamacare is so terrible that he wants to send people $2,000 checks so they can buy their own insurance.

But, where would they buy it, if not from an insurance company? And what would they do if the stock market plunged? There’s a reason that privatization of health insurance has never gone anywhere.

So to come back to politics (inevitably), how does any of this help Trump?

I get the notion that he’s trying to boost the pain level so that Democrats will end the shutdown on his terms.

The Democrats, who have made soaring Obamacare premiums a central part of their pitch — and fear millions will lose coverage unless expiring subsidies are extended — have hung on longer than anyone expected.

For what it’s worth, both sides deserve a ton of blame for failing to keep the lights on during this endless blame game, rather than work out a compromise, which is what we pay them to do.

But don’t Trump and JD Vance, who called the judge’s order ‘absurd,’ look like they don’t particularly care if millions of families go hungry, or are taking food from dumpsters?

Seriously, is there an alternative explanation?

Blaming the other side is fine for the usual political fun and games. But doing it during this kind of self-inflicted crisis?

With the opposition throwing out charges of cruelty, is there some nine — dimensional chess level on which this helps Trump?

Trump says former President Joe Biden ‘went totally crazy’ and handed out food stamps to ‘anybody that would ask.’ So is this liberalism gone wild? I decided to do a little digging.

Turns out there are income limits, and those in the program must meet work requirements. What’s more, the oft-repeated charge that illegal immigrants are getting SNAP benefits is simply untrue, though there are exemptions for children and refugees. (Obviously, you can never completely rule out instances of fraud.)

During the pandemic, when unemployment soared, Congress passed an emergency measure that temporarily suspended a work requirement for adults without dependents who were capable of holding jobs. This happened under … President Trump, in his first term, in 2020.

Under a deal with Republicans in 2023, work requirements for SNAP were increased. That happened under … Biden. Some Republicans, meanwhile, said the measure didn’t go far enough.

By the way, SNAP participation peaked in the fall of 2017, under Trump, which was related to hurricane emergencies.

Sorry for the green-eyeshade stuff, but I thought it was worth more research.

Most people don’t have the time or interest in excavating the details. They just know they aren’t getting the food aid they expected and that neither are millions of other lower-income families. And especially with his dogged determination to block the states from helping out, many are holding Trump accountable.

President Donald Trump has granted ‘full, complete and unconditional’ pardons to several key allies accused of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin announced Sunday night.

In a post on X, Martin shared Trump’s proclamation granting pardons for dozens of people, including notable figures like Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and Sidney Powell.

The pardon proclamation was posted in response to a message Martin shared on X on May 26, 2025, that said, ‘No MAGA left behind.’

‘This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation,’ the document reads.

Trump wrote in that proclamation that he did not include himself in the pardons.

The Senate took a massive step forward on its way to reopening the government on Sunday, with a group of Senate Democrats caving and joining Republicans in their bid to pass a revamped plan to end the shutdown.

Signs that the shutdown, which entered its 40th day, could be ending became more and more clear as the day went on, particularly with the unveiling of a bipartisan package of spending bills that lawmakers hope to attach to a modified bill to reopen the government.

Eight Senate Democrats crossed the aisle to mark the first step in the GOP’s quest to end the shutdown. Many of the lawmakers that splintered from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., were among those engaged in bipartisan talks over the last several weeks.

Among the defectors were Sens. Angus King, I-Maine, John Fetterman, D-Pa., Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., Jacky Rosen, D-N.M., Tim Kaine, D-Va., and the number two Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

‘The question was, does the shutdown further the goal of achieving some needed support for the extension of the tax credits? Our judgment was that it will not,’ King said. ‘It would not produce that result. And the evidence for that is almost seven weeks of fruitless attempts to make that happen.’

Schumer and Senate Democrats long stayed the course that they would only vote to reopen the government in exchange for a solid deal on extending expiring Obamacare subsidies.

But the solution developed over the last several days included nothing of the sort. While there were some wins in the updated continuing resolution (CR), like reversals of some of the firings of furloughed workers undertaken by the Trump administration and guaranteeing back pay for furloughed workers, there was no guaranteed victory in sight on the Obamacare issue.

That means that Senate Democrats effectively caved with little to show for their healthcare push, save for the guarantee of a vote on the subsidies from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., which was reflected in the updated CR. 

Schumer panned the compromise deal, and charged that when Republicans rejected Democrats’ own counter-proposal that would have extended the expiring subsidies for a year, ‘They showed that they are against any health care reform.’

‘This healthcare crisis is so severe, so urgent, so devastating for families back home that I cannot, in good faith, support this CR that fails to address the healthcare crisis,’ Schumer said. 

Thune was optimistic that the plan would work, and reiterated his promise of a vote on the expiring subsidies. However, whatever legislation is produced to address the Obamacare issue is likely to fail. 

‘Regardless, as I have said for weeks to my Democrat friends, I will schedule a vote on their proposal, and I’ve committed to having that vote no later than second week in December,’ he said. 

Progressives in the caucus were unhappy with the developments, too.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, charged that it would be a ‘horrific mistake’ for Democrats to cave now without an Obamacare deal.

‘If Democrats cave on this issue, what it will say to Donald Trump is that he has a green light to go forward toward authoritarianism,’ Sanders said. ‘And I think that would be a tragedy for this country.’

Still, there is a long way to go before the government officially reopens.

Sunday’s vote was the first in a series needed in the Senate to modify the original House-passed continuing resolution and combine it with the three-bill spending package and updated CR, which, if passed, would reopen the government until Jan. 30, 2026.

Lawmakers hope that if given the extra time, they could finish funding the government with spending bills rather than turning to another CR or colossal omnibus spending package, which crams all 12 government funding bills into one piece of legislation.

‘If we blow this window, we’re going to get stuck with a yearlong CR,’ Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said.

And the shutdown won’t end in the Senate, given that the changes to the legislation will need to be greenlit by the House before making it to President Donald Trump’s desk.

Democrats could still extract pain through procedural hurdles unless there is unanimous agreement from all 100 senators to move forward with the remaining votes.

The Obamacare issue is still bubbling on both sides of the aisle, however. Senate Republicans slammed the state of healthcare throughout Saturday, particularly over how the subsidies funneled money to insurance companies.

Democrats still remained skeptical if their frustration, and desire to make changes to take on insurance companies, was legitimate.

‘The point, I think that’s really relevant here, is if they’re serious, and I really question whether that’s the case,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) started reducing air traffic across 40 airports Friday due to air traffic controller staffing issues stemming from the government shutdown.

As the government shutdown has hit 40 days, more air traffic control workers have refused to come to work as they’re about to miss a second paycheck next week — prompting the FAA to make cuts to ensure no safety issues arise.

But these flight reductions will likely continue if the shutdown does — or worsen — and could impact thousands of flights daily, according to Marc Scribner, a senior transportation policy analyst at the libertarian Reason Foundation think tank.

‘This would affect thousands of flights per day, and tens of thousands of passengers potentially seeing their flights canceled — a major disruption,’ Scribner told Fox News Digital Thursday.

As of Sunday, there are now enough Senate Democrats willing to back a revamped plan to reopen the government. But if the shutdown doesn’t end, air travel disruptions are at risk. 

‘I don’t think we would expect, if the shutdown continues, for staffing levels to improve over what they are right now,’ Scribner said. ‘If anything, they will continue to deteriorate as controllers call out sick or perhaps even resign. So I would expect it would not get better as long as the shutdown continues.’

Scribner said that travelers shouldn’t be concerned that the reduction in flights would translate to a lapse in safety, but said they should be aware that their travel schedules will likely take a hit as a result.

‘They’re not going to allow unsafe flights. So whatever that means in terms of staffing capability and workflow, they are going to reduce the flights in order to maintain that very high level of safety that’s demanded of that,’ Scribner said. ‘Travelers shouldn’t be concerned about safety in this, but they should be concerned about their travel schedules, which are likely to be impacted.’

Richard Stern, director of the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, also said he expects this reduction to continue until the shutdown ends. 

‘Unfortunately, I think it’s going to have to continue until the shutdown ends, because they’re running through resources that they don’t have until this funding again,’ Stern told Fox News Digital Thursday. 

Stern said the government has been entering into uncharted territory now with what minimum services the government is required to provide, despite the fact that funding has expired. 

‘No one really knows exactly what the next steps are after this,’ Stern said. 

No clarity has been provided regarding how long this reduction in flights is expected to continue. The Department of Transportation, which oversees the FAA, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

The FAA said Friday that air traffic will be cut by 10% in the coming days across 40 ‘high-volume’ markets, including those in major cities like Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Orlando, Miami and San Francisco, according to a list of airports obtained by The Associated Press. Major metropolitan areas with several airports like New York and Chicago will have outages at multiple locations.

Reducing air traffic in response to the lapse in funding from the government shutdown is unprecedented, according to FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford.

‘I’m not aware in my 35-year history in the aviation market where we’ve had a situation where we’re taking these kinds of measures,’ Bedford said at a news conference Wednesday.

Air traffic controllers have been working without pay since the shutdown kicked off Oct. 1, and often are required to work six days a week in addition to mandatory overtime.

Bedford said that the decision to reduce air traffic was made in order to prevent a crisis from emerging, amid increased staffing pressures and voluntary safety reports from pilots suggesting that air traffic controllers were facing heightened levels of fatigue.

‘We’re not going to wait for a safety problem to truly manifest itself when the early indicators are telling us we can take action today to prevent things from deteriorating,’ Bedford said. ‘The system is extremely safe today and will be extremely safe tomorrow. If the pressures continue to build even after we take these measures, we’ll come back and take additional measures.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Senate Republicans unveiled a crucial piece of the puzzle in their bid to reopen the government and plan to plow ahead with a vote on Sunday. 

While both sides still appear at an impasse on extending expiring Obamacare subsidies, appropriators moved ahead with a package of spending bills that Republicans hope will jumpstart the government funding process, and lead to an end to the 40-day government shutdown. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee released the three-bill spending package, known as a minibus, Sunday afternoon. Lawmakers are still waiting on text for an updated continuing resolution (CR), that, if passed, is expected to reopen the government until late January. 

It includes legislation that would fund military construction and the VA, the legislative branch and agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

Senate Republicans view the package as a sweetener that they hope attracts enough Senate Democrats to break through the logjam and move toward reopening the government. And given that the minibus is a largely bipartisan product, lawmakers believe it could succeed. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., made clear in the last few days that he would not put a bill on the floor that did not have the votes to pass after spending several weeks daring Senate Democrats to vote against the original House-passed continuing resolution (CR). 

‘There’s going to be something to vote on, let’s put it that way,’ Thune said. 

Still, the package does not include a deal on Senate Democrats’ chief demand throughout the government shutdown to extend expiring Obamacare subsidies. 

Thune has promised Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus a vote on the expiring subsidies after the government reopens. And for several weeks, Senate Democrats said that was not enough to assuage the concerns. 

Senate Democrats are expected to huddle Saturday night before a likely vote to plot a path forward. If Schumer and his caucus agree to the deal, they would effectively be caving from their deeply-entrenched position that has seen the government shutdown stretch over a month. 

Lawmakers will now have time to read over the bills, with a vote expected later Sunday evening. 

But, it’s just the first step in what could be a long and drawn-out process. First, Thune will tee up the original House-passed CR for a vote, which lawmakers view as the vehicle to attach the minibus and updated CR to. 

Then there will be two more votes before the package advances from the Senate. Then, it will have to go back to the House before making its way to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

Schumer and his caucus could still apply pain on the process, too, through procedural hurdles. And despite rumblings of some in the caucus ready to break ranks, some Republicans aren’t too optimistic that this will be an easy process. 

‘I don’t expect anything from the Democrats,’ Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said. ‘At this point, their demands have been so ridiculous, I don’t know what they’re going to do, and at this point, I frankly, don’t give a crap.’ 

The Iranian regime has managed to smuggle at least $1 billion to its terrorist proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon despite heavy sanctions this year, top officials at the U.S. Treasury Department say.

John Hurley, the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, says Iran remains committed to its proxy groups throughout the Middle East. Nevertheless, he says there is any opportunity to cut off the funding streams while Iran is in its current weakened state.

‘There’s a moment in Lebanon now. If we could get Hezbollah to disarm, the Lebanese people could get their country back,’ Hurley said.

‘Even with everything Iran has been through, even with the economy not in great shape, they’re still pumping a lot of money to their terrorist proxies,’ he continued.

‘The key to that is to drive out the Iranian influence and control that starts with all the money that they are pumping into Hezbollah,’ he argued.

Hurley pushed for the increased pressure campaign during a tour of Turkey, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Israel this weekend.

Western nations have already laid down heavy sanctions on Tehran over its unwillingness to negotiate a nuclear deal. The regime insists its nuclear development program exists solely for civilian purposes.

President Donald Trump ordered bombings on Iran’s key nuclear cites earlier this year in Operation Midnight Hammer, which U.S. officials say succeeded in crippling Tehran’s progress toward a bomb.

Iran has nevertheless continued its efforts to spread chaos across the globe. U.S. officials say they, along with Israel and Mexico, thwarted an Iran-backed attempt to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Mexico earlier this year.

‘We thank the security and law enforcement services in Mexico for thwarting a terrorist network directed by Iran that sought to attack Israel’s ambassador in Mexico,’ Israel’s foreign ministry told Fox News on Friday.

‘The Israeli security and intelligence community will continue to work tirelessly, in full cooperation with security and intelligence agencies around the world, to thwart terrorist threats from Iran and its proxies against Israeli and Jewish targets worldwide.’

A U.S. official told Reuters the plot targeting ambassador Einat Kranz Neiger ‘was contained and does not pose a current threat.’

Fox News’ Greg Norman and Reuters contributed to this report.

Republican Rep. Riley Moore said the United States could take a range of actions — including sanctions and ‘even kinetic military action’ — in response to what he called the ‘genocide’ of Christians in Nigeria.

Trump designated Moore, a member of the Appropriations Committee from West Virginia, along with Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., to lead an investigation into the killing of Christians by Islamist militants in the African nation.

Frustrations with the matter boiled out into the open when Trump this week designated Nigeria as a country of particular concern and ordered the Pentagon to prepare to intervene militarily.

In a video on Truth Social this week, Trump threatened to ‘do things to Nigeria that Nigeria is not going to be happy about’ and ‘go into that now-disgraced country guns-a-blazing.’

Moore told Fox News Digital the designation unlocks ’15 different levers’ the administration can use against Nigeria, including halting arms sales, freezing aid and sanctioning officials or institutions accused of ignoring or enabling religious killings.

‘All options are on the table here for this, even kinetic military action,’ Moore said. ‘That could mean targeted, strategic counterterrorism strikes to get rid of some of the top leadership if that’s what it takes to stop the killing.’

‘We’ve been providing security assistance to this country since at least 2009 – billions of dollars worth of arm sales, training and equipment that they’ve received. And it’s a question of prioritization in what’s important to them. And clearly this has not been one of the most important things.’

The West Virginia Republican said he has been working with the House Appropriations Committee and the State Department to identify what he called ‘legislative levers’ that could support the administration’s response. Moore said he’s also consulting with NGOs and Christian organizations ‘on the ground’ in Nigeria to document the scale of the violence.

He described the attacks as a ‘genocide,’ claiming Christians are being killed at a rate of five to one compared with non-Christians. Moore accused Nigeria’s government of ‘looking the other way’ despite receiving billions in U.S. security aid since 2009.

‘They’re not taking this seriously,’ he said. ‘We had a pastor warn the government about an impending attack — they called it fake news. Within 24 hours, that pastor and 20 of his congregants were murdered.’

The Nigerian government denies a genocide is taking place. ‘Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality. Terrorists attack all who reject their murderous ideology — Muslims, Christians, and those of no faith alike,’ the office of the presidency wrote on X. 

Moore said he and House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., plan to meet with Nigerian officials in Washington this month as part of the investigation, and may even send delegations to the nation. He added that the U.S. could still work with Nigeria’s government if it shows a willingness to confront extremist groups.

‘It’s not all sticks here — there are some carrots in this,’ Moore said. ‘If they’re willing to work with us, this could actually lead to a stronger relationship between our countries.’

The Nigerian government has denied that the killings amount to religious persecution, arguing that extremist and criminal groups target civilians of all faiths.

With a population of more than 230 million, Nigeria’s vibrant and often turbulent cities and villages are home to people of strikingly diverse backgrounds. The country’s more than 500 languages and mix of Islam, Christianity, and traditional indigenous faiths have long been marred by tension.

Nigeria’s faith communities remain sharply divided, with Muslims dominating the northern regions and Christians concentrated in the south.

Christianity took firm root in the 19th century, when freed slaves educated in Sierra Leone returned home as teachers and missionaries — establishing schools, churches, and early congregations that continue to shape southern Nigeria’s identity today.

Despite vast oil and mineral wealth, decades of corruption and mismanagement have left much of the nation impoverished.

Nigeria’s growing cache of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other rare minerals has drawn quiet U.S. attention as Washington looks to counter China’s dominance in Africa’s critical-minerals market. The Commerce Department and U.S. International Development Finance Corp. have eyed investment opportunities in Nigeria’s nascent lithium industry, but persistent insecurity in mining regions threatens Western access and future development.

For over a decade, Nigeria’s Christians fleeing the nation’s northern half have been subject to the violence of Boko Haram, an Islamist militant group known for its terrorist spectacles. Churches and homes burned, communities vanishing in the group’s night raids.

Numbers are difficult to verify, but the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law reports at least 52,000 Christians have been killed, some 18,500 abducted and unlikely to have survived, and 20,000 churches and Christian schools attacked between 2009 and 2023.

In 2014, Boko Haram famously kidnapped and enslaved 276 teenage girls in a raid on a high school dormitory. The group regularly arms children as suicide bombers and holds slave markets in captured territories.

But a direct U.S. military campaign would prove difficult with current U.S. assets in the nation and is unlikely, one defense official told Fox News Digital.

The United States currently has no permanent military base in Nigeria, though small teams of U.S. advisors and special operations trainers work periodically with Nigerian forces under AFRICOM programs.

Washington approved about $600 million in security aid to Nigeria over the past decade, mostly focused on counterterrorism in the northeast.

Nov. 8, 2025, marks the 50th anniversary of Chevy Chase’s comedic portrayal of U.S. President Gerald Ford as a bumbling klutz on ‘Saturday Night Live.’

Nowadays, we expect ‘SNL’ to mock the president. (There’s even speculation going into each administration about who will play the president.) 

But when Chase did it for the first time, it was groundbreaking. In fact, in the years before ‘SNL,’ mocking the president on what was still the relatively new mass medium of television often had to overcome resistance from network censors and presidential pressure.

In the early 1960s, NBC executives would not allow a comedy sketch about President John F. Kennedy to appear on its ‘Art Carney Show.’ As a network spokesperson explained, ‘We thought it would have been improper to have performers actually portraying the president and his wife,’ adding the ‘decision was based on a matter of good taste.’

The networks were similarly reluctant to mock Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson. In 1964, NBC imported the British parody show ‘That Was the Week That Was,’ which was specifically developed in England to ‘prick the pomposity of public figures.’ 

Although the show did get in an occasional poke at Johnson, NBC censors constantly battled the show’s producers over LBJ jokes. NBC also took the step of suspending all political humor on the show around the 1964 presidential election.

Another show that tried to make fun of the president was ‘The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.’ The show, which premiered on CBS in 1967, even got pushback from Johnson himself. One skit that mocked Johnson prompted Johnson to tell CBS Chairman William Paley in a late-night call, ‘get those b——- off my back.’ Paley asked the show to go easier on the president.

When Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, the brothers pledged to ‘lay off the jokes’ about the incoming president for a time. But that pledge did not stop them from having the comedian David Frye impersonate Nixon on the show. 

Still, the show was canceled in April 1969, over a host of controversies, including sex and religion jokes, as well as political ones.

On the final episode, the brothers read a letter from former President Johnson, claiming that he had been OK with being mocked.

‘It is part of the price of leadership to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to us. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate humor.’ 

Although the words were admirable, it was a little hard to take Johnson seriously given his earlier intervention with Paley.

As for Frye, with the show canceled, he continued to impersonate Nixon on comedy albums. But even here, the networks continued to obstruct. In 1973, the three major networks refused to accept advertising in New York for Frye’s Watergate-related album. According to a WABC-TV spokesman, ‘It’s such a serious matter we’ve decided not to accept advertising for any comedy material relating to Watergate.’

With this backdrop in mind, ‘SNL’ must have known that it was taking a risk when it had Chase send up the president on live TV. Chase’s portrayal went beyond light jokes at the president’s expense. Chase was pratfalling around the Oval Office, holding up a glass rather than a phone to his ear and pouring water from a pitcher onto the papers on his desk. Yet the show not only survived, it thrived.

That first ‘SNL’ presidential skit was a watershed moment that helped fundamentally change the relationship between the American people and the president. The 1960s and 1970s had brought the U.S. presidency down in the eyes of the American people. The Kennedy assassination shocked Americans who did not realize the president was so vulnerable. 

The Johnson years punctured the bubble of presidential honesty about foreign affairs. Nixon’s Watergate scandal punctured a similar bubble about domestic affairs. And then the unelected Ford came to power and almost immediately pardoned Nixon for Watergate. The decision is lauded in retrospect but was controversial at the time.

Chase’s opening the show as Ford on that day in 1975 brought mocking presidents out from the narrowcast world of Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl comedy routines and more regularly into the mass media. That first ‘SNL’ sketch ushered in a period in which presidents became both closer to and further from the American people. 

Mockery can keep physically- removed politicians less distant from everyday citizens. As a result, presidents are now nearly ubiquitous in a world of TV and social media, with constant mockery taking them down a peg — or more. In this world, even a short presidential disappearance of a day or two can lead to unfounded rumors of a presidential demise.

At the same time, presidents are further from the American people in that the security bubble around them is so much tighter. The White House resembles an armed camp. Presidential motorcades are unapproachable, and presidents are hard-pressed to continue to communicate regularly with friends. George W. Bush gave up e-mail. Obama resisted pressure to give up his BlackBerry.

In our current Chevy Chase-enabled world, presidential mockery is a constant. While Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel learned that presidents and network suits can still target an individual comic or show, those are unfortunate exceptions rather than the rule, and even Kimmel’s exile lasted barely a week. 

The continuing mockery of the president on Kimmel, as well as South Park, Jon Stewart, social media and a host of other places, shows that the genie of mass market, largely uncensored, mockery of presidents unleashed by Chevy Chase on ‘SNL’ a half century ago is not going back in the bottle, and for that we should be grateful.

The Senate could take a test vote as early as tomorrow afternoon on a revamped Republican bill to end the government shutdown and fund parts of the government for the rest of the fiscal year. 

We are still waiting on bill text on a measure which would fund the government through late January and provide money for the Agriculture Department (which funds SNAP), the Veterans Affairs Department and military construction projects and Congress through Sept. 30, 2026. 

But things will begin moving once text is posted tonight or tomorrow morning. 

This appears to be a pure spending bill with nothing separate for renewing Obamacare subsidies. 

The test vote needs 60 yeas. That entails Democratic buy-in. Fox is told to watch the following Democratic senators to see if they will vote to break a filibuster — although they might not be needed to vote for the final bill. Only a simple majority is needed there. 

Fox is told here is the universe of potential senators who caucus with the Democrats to watch as possible yeas to break a filibuster:

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Jack Reed, D-R.I., Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., John Fetterman, D-Pa., Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., Gary Peters, D-Mo., Angus King, I-Maine, and Patty Murray, D-Wash. Murray is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Fox is told that Murray scored some significant language in the tenuous spending pact. 

This is a fragile coalition and could fall apart. 

But if the Senate breaks the filibuster, it is just a matter of time before the senators vote to re-open the government. In fact, it’s possible that the Senate could vote Sunday night if senators can forge a time agreement. 

By the book, the Senate is afforded significant debate time once it breaks a filibuster. Fox is told that progressives, steamed that they scored nothing on health care — and were burned by their own party — could try to stretch things out as much as possible. That could mean the Senate doesn’t vote until Tuesday or beyond on final passage. 

But by the same token, Democrats are only preventing SNAP benefits from going out. So they could agree to an expedited process. 

The House is on 48 hours notice to come back. So the House may not return until midweek to align with the Senate and re-open the government. But it’s likely the House could be recalled as soon as possible. 

The House’s disposition is unclear on this legislation. However, it’s hard to believe that most Republicans wouldn’t take this deal. In additon, Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., and Jared Golden, D-Maine, are among moderate Democrats who may be in play to vote yes if the GOP loses a few votes. Golden was the lone House Democrat who voted for the old interim spending bill on Sept. 19. Golden has since announced his retirement.

Here’s another question:

Would the House swear-in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., before or after the vote? Democrats will bray if Johnson fails to swear-in Grijalva before a possible House vote.

And, as we say, it’s always about the math. 

Swearing-in Grijalva puts the House at 433 members with two vacancies. The breakdown is 219 Republicans to 214 Democrats. That means the GOP can only lose two votes before needing help from the Democrats.
 

In addition, brace for the internecine Democratic warfare which will start once Democrats break with their party. Big divisions will emerge between those Democrats who vote to break the filibuster and those holding out for Obamacare subsidies. 

Moreover, consider the emerging chasm between House and Senate Democrats once this is over. 

And, here’s the kicker: It’s entirely possible that a group of Senate Democrats threw their colleagues under the bus to end the shutdown — and the party scored no guarantees on health care money despite their risky political shutdown gambit.