FIREWORKS! - Republican-Controlled U.S. House Votes 235 to 191 Democrats Throw a Fit As Controversial Bill Passes
WASHINGTON, D.C. — May 4, 2026
The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives advanced two significant legislative priorities on Wednesday, approving an extension of a key foreign surveillance program and a budget framework aimed at bolstering immigration enforcement funding. The votes followed hours of internal Republican negotiations and partisan tensions that briefly disrupted proceedings on the House floor.
Lawmakers voted 235-191 to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a program set to expire this week that permits U.S. intelligence agencies to collect communications of foreign targets located outside the United States. In a separate vote, the House approved a Senate-passed budget resolution by a narrow 215-211 margin. The measure is expected to initiate the process of securing long-term funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.
The day in the chamber was marked by delays and internal divisions within the GOP’s narrow majority. A group of conservative Republicans initially blocked a procedural vote, preventing several major bills from reaching the floor. Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team engaged in extended negotiations with holdouts, including Reps. Andy Biggs, Tim Burchett, and Harriet Hageman.
After lengthy discussions, the rule governing debate was approved 216-210, clearing the way for consideration of the FISA extension, the budget resolution, and a sweeping farm bill. “These are some of the most complicated public policy matters that Congress deals with, and they’re all sandwiched together because of deadlines that are upon us,” Johnson said.
The budget resolution could help unlock funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which has been partially shut down for 74 days amid disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over immigration enforcement policies. It directs congressional committees to draft legislation authorizing approximately $70 billion for ICE and the Border Patrol over the next three years. Republicans plan to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the funding measure, which would allow it to clear the Senate with a simple majority.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee defended the surveillance authority during floor debate. Rep. Jim Himes stated, “If we saw the slightest hint that these authorities were being abused, I wouldn’t be standing here today to support this bill. Section 702 is not a dragnet. It is not an authority that can be used to surveil Americans.”
The farm bill, which sets agricultural policy for the next five years, could receive a final vote as early as Thursday. Republican leaders are working to resolve disagreements over provisions such as year-round sales of E15 fuel. Rep. Glenn Thompson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, expressed confidence the bill would pass. However, Rep. Lauren Boebert criticized aspects of the legislation and indicated she would support it only while seeking changes in negotiations with the Senate.
The surveillance program renewal faces uncertainty in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the House version is unlikely to advance and that he is pursuing a short-term extension. Democrats pushed for policy changes in exchange for funding, including requirements for body cameras for agents and limits on enforcement actions in sensitive locations. Those provisions are not included in the current framework.
Additional funding for other Department of Homeland Security agencies could be considered separately. A Senate-passed bill includes funding for agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Transportation Security Administration. House leaders are weighing whether to bring that measure to the floor before lawmakers leave Washington for a scheduled recess. No final decision has been announced.
The votes came after a chaotic scene in which Democrats stormed into Speaker Johnson’s office to protest the proceedings. Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, described the day’s events in blunt terms when asked to summarize them.
The developments reflect ongoing partisan divisions over national security surveillance, immigration enforcement, and budget priorities as lawmakers navigate tight deadlines and narrow majorities.
BLOCKBUSTER 231-186 VOTE — The Democratic Party is Never Coming Back from This
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants accused of committing welfare fraud, approving the measure over strong opposition from most Democrats. Lawmakers voted 231-186 to pass the Deporting Fraudsters Act, with 186 Democrats voting against it. The bill was introduced by Rep. David Taylor, R-Ohio.
The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly classify fraud involving public benefits as a deportable offense. Republicans said the measure is designed to ensure that noncitizens who defraud taxpayer-funded programs are removed from the country and barred from returning. “If you admit to or you’re convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return,” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said during debate on the House floor.
Democrats largely opposed the bill, arguing that existing law already allows for the deportation of noncitizens convicted of fraud. They characterized the legislation as unnecessary and duplicative. “Another week, another redundant and completely unnecessary immigration crime bill,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said. Democrats also raised concerns about due process, arguing the bill could allow for deportation before a criminal conviction is secured. They warned that such a provision could prevent alleged victims from having their cases heard in court. “By bypassing the conviction requirement, this legislation would hand a liberal get-out-of-jail free card to immigrants who commit fraud by deporting them without going through the criminal justice system and giving their victims a day in court,” Raskin said.
Republicans pushed back on that claim, saying the bill does not prevent criminal prosecution before removal and maintains existing legal processes. GOP lawmakers argued that the measure strengthens enforcement by closing perceived loopholes. The bill faces long odds in the Senate, where it is expected to encounter significant Democratic opposition. Most legislation in the chamber requires 60 votes to advance.
The vote comes amid increased scrutiny by House Republicans into alleged welfare fraud schemes. In December, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into fraud involving Minnesota’s social services programs. Federal prosecutors have said that up to $9 billion in taxpayer funds may have been stolen through various fraud schemes, with nearly 100 individuals charged. Some of those cases have drawn national attention.
Republicans have also pointed to reporting from independent journalist Nick Shirley, who has investigated alleged daycare fraud in Minnesota and California. GOP lawmakers cited those findings as evidence of systemic issues requiring legislative action. “We have already seen why action is needed,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., said during a House GOP leadership news conference. “Independent journalist Nick Shirley helped expose a massive fraud scheme, showing how organized and widespread these scams can become even when oversight fails,” she said.
The legislation reflects broader Republican efforts to link immigration enforcement with fiscal responsibility and protection of public benefits programs. Proponents argue that the measure addresses loopholes that allow noncitizens to exploit taxpayer-funded resources without facing swift removal. Opponents maintain that the existing framework already provides adequate tools for deportation following convictions and that the new bill risks due process concerns. The debate underscores ongoing partisan divisions over immigration policy, welfare program integrity, and the balance between enforcement and legal protections.
As the bill moves forward, attention turns to the Senate, where procedural hurdles and the need for 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster could limit its prospects. The House vote nevertheless sends a clear signal of Republican priorities heading into the midterm election cycle, with welfare fraud and immigration enforcement emerging as central themes. Legal analysts note that the measure could face constitutional challenges if enacted, particularly around due process and equal protection claims. The outcome may influence future legislative strategies on similar issues as both parties position themselves on border security and fiscal accountability.
UNANIMOUS' 7-0 Ruling — Virginia Attorney General Stuns Americans, Democrats In Full Meltdown
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) stated that he believes the Virginia Supreme Court is likely to strike down the state’s newly approved congressional map in a unanimous 7-0 ruling. His comments come as the legal fight over the referendum intensifies following a lower court ruling blocking its certification.
Cuccinelli made the remarks during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Friday. He pointed to both procedural concerns and constitutional questions surrounding how the measure was brought before voters. The referendum narrowly passed earlier this week and would reshape Virginia’s congressional delegation. Under the map, Democrats would be favored in 10 of the state’s 11 districts.
Just one day after the vote, a judge in Tazewell County moved to block the results from taking effect. The court cited multiple issues, including concerns over how the ballot language was presented to voters. Tapper raised that development during the interview. “This judge in Southern Virginia ordering results to not be certified. The judge called the ballot language ‘flagrantly misleading.’ What’s your reaction?” he asked.
Cuccinelli agreed with that characterization. “Well, it certainly was flagrantly misleading, but my basic reaction is that I appreciate lower court wins, but the Virginia Supreme Court is going to decide this,” he said. He pointed to long-standing legal precedent in the state. “Over a hundred years of Virginia legal precedent says that the vote in a referendum is part of the legislative process. It’s analogous to a governor signing a bill,” he said.
Cuccinelli said the timing of the legal challenge aligns with that precedent. “You don’t sue on a bill that hasn’t passed yet. So what they’ve done here in terms of timing is very much in keeping with the Virginia legal history,” he said. He argued the process used to pass the referendum may not meet constitutional standards. “What isn’t in keeping with Virginia legal history is how this general assembly has so blatantly ignored the requirements of the constitution to amend the [state] constitution,” he said.
Cuccinelli said he expects the issue to be resolved soon. “So I think it’s highly likely that this will be overturned probably in May,” he said. The discussion also turned to the role of campaign spending in the referendum. Cuccinelli said money may have influenced the vote, but would not determine the outcome of the legal challenges. “It’s hard to say that money didn’t make that difference, but now they have to win four constitutional challenges, state constitutional to clarify, challenges, and they have to win all four of them to hold on to this referendum,” he said.
He expressed skepticism that supporters of the measure could succeed in court. “I just don’t think they can do it. There’s some very basic processes in the Constitution for amending the Constitution that they ignored,” he said. Cuccinelli also addressed arguments about respecting the outcome of the vote. “And now they’re gonna say, just like Terry did, well, you know, three million people voted, and you can’t ignore the will of the people,” he said.
He countered that point by focusing on the process. “Well, they were ignoring the will of the people and how they brought this forward. And now we’re gonna have it decided by the Virginia Supreme Court,” he said. Cuccinelli suggested the ruling could be decisive. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see a seven-zero ruling throwing this out,” he said.
The legal battle comes as redistricting disputes continue to play out across the country. Courts have increasingly become the deciding factor in determining whether new congressional maps can be implemented. The outcome in Virginia could have significant implications for control of the U.S. House. With the midterm elections approaching, the timeline for a final decision may shape the political landscape in the state. Legal experts note that Virginia’s constitution imposes strict requirements on amendments, including specific procedural steps that must be followed by the General Assembly before a referendum can be considered valid.
Analysts suggest the case highlights broader tensions over mid-decade redistricting efforts in multiple states. Similar challenges have arisen in other jurisdictions where ballot measures or legislative actions have sought to alter congressional boundaries outside the traditional decennial census cycle. The Virginia Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling could set a precedent influencing how states handle future attempts to redraw maps for partisan advantage. Both parties have engaged in aggressive redistricting strategies in recent cycles, leading to ongoing litigation and public debate over fair representation and electoral integrity.
The lower court’s decision to block certification has already delayed implementation of the new map. If the state Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s findings, the existing congressional districts would remain in place for the upcoming midterm elections. This would preserve the current 6-5 Republican advantage in Virginia’s delegation rather than shifting it toward a 10-1 Democratic edge as proposed under the referendum. Observers from both sides of the aisle are closely monitoring the case as it moves toward a final resolution in the coming weeks.
She Is Dead - Announcement Rocks Washington DC After It Is Confirmed That The Wife Of Khamenei Was killed in Strikes....
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Iranian state television has announced the death of Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh, the 79-year-old wife of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. She succumbed to injuries sustained in the same US-Israeli airstrike that killed her husband at his compound in Tehran.
According to reports, Bagherzadeh died two days after her husband. State television declared that her “long dream of martyrdom became true” and said her death would spark “a massive uprising in the fight against oppressors.” The announcement followed an earlier broadcast in which an anchor tearfully reported the Supreme Leader’s death. Iran declared an official 40-day mourning period and a seven-day national holiday.
Bagherzadeh married Khamenei in 1965. The couple had four sons and two daughters. In a 2011 interview with state media, she described her role as maintaining a calm home environment so her husband could work in peace. “I think my biggest role was to preserve a calm atmosphere in our home so that he could do his work in peace,” she said. She also said she visited him in prison without burdening him with family problems and “would only give him good news.” She acknowledged distributing pamphlets, carrying messages, and hiding documents during the revolutionary period but described those efforts as “not worth mentioning.”
Her death comes amid escalating military exchanges between Iran and US-Israeli forces. The Iranian Red Crescent Society said at least 555 people have been killed across Iran in the campaign, with more than 130 cities coming under attack. Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Reza Najafi, condemned the strikes as “unlawful, criminal and brutal” and alleged that the Natanz nuclear enrichment site was targeted. “Their justification that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons is simply a big lie,” Najafi told journalists.
Ali Larijani, a senior Iranian security official, wrote on X that “we will not negotiate with the United States.” Iran is believed to have launched multiple retaliatory attacks across the region. An attack reportedly struck the American embassy compound in Kuwait City, though there were no immediate reports of damage or casualties. Kuwaiti air defenses mistakenly shot down three American F-15E Strike Eagles. US Central Command confirmed that all six aircrew ejected safely, were recovered, and are in stable condition.
A pro-Iranian militia in Iraq launched attacks targeting Irbil and a British base in Cyprus. Officials in Oman said a drone boat struck an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman near Muscat, killing one mariner. Saudi Aramco temporarily shut down its Ras Tanura oil refinery near Dammam after Iranian drones targeted it. Saudi state television described the shutdown as “a precautionary one.” Officials reported 11 people killed in Israel and 31 in Lebanon during the exchanges. Iran’s combat fleet was engaged in the conflict for the first time.
Iranian officials have framed Bagherzadeh’s death as an act of martyrdom as the country enters a prolonged mourning period. The conflict continues to evolve as regional tensions remain high.
A senior White House official stated on Sunday that Iran’s “new potential leadership” has indicated a willingness to engage in talks with the United States. This announcement follows a significant military operation by American and Israeli forces, which resulted in the deaths of Iran’s supreme leader and several high-ranking officials. The official, who requested anonymity to discuss internal administration matters, mentioned that President Donald Trump is “eventually” open to negotiations, but for the time being, the military operation “continues unabated.” The official did not specify who the potential new leaders of Iran are or how they expressed their willingness to negotiate.
Trump told The Atlantic on Sunday that he planned to speak with Iran’s new leadership. “They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” he said, declining comment on the timing.
The developments mark a significant shift in the regional power structure following the strikes. Iranian state media has used the deaths to rally domestic support while condemning the actions of the United States and Israel. International observers are monitoring the situation closely as the two-week period for potential negotiations begins amid ongoing retaliatory actions and heightened alert levels across the Middle East.
The announcement of Bagherzadeh’s death adds to the human toll of the conflict and underscores the personal impact on Iran’s leadership. As the mourning period is observed, questions remain about the future direction of Iranian policy and the possibility of de-escalation through diplomatic channels. The White House has emphasized that any talks must prioritize American interests and the security of its allies in the region.
President Donald Trump WINS By Just 2 Votes After Last-Minute Drama - Livid Democrats Rage After Trump's Fed Chair Pick Move...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — May 4, 2026
The Senate Banking Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to approve Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the Federal Reserve, positioning him to replace current chair Jerome Powell. The vote was 13-11, with all Republican senators supporting the nomination and Democrats voting against it.
Warsh previously served as a top Fed official but has also sharply criticized the institution and Jerome Powell’s leadership. He has argued that the inflation surge to 9.1% in 2022 marked the central bank’s biggest policy mistake in four decades.
A full Senate vote is not expected until next month, though he could be confirmed before Powell’s term as chair ends May 15, the Associated Press reported.
The committee vote was the first of two major developments involving the Fed’s leadership this week. Also Wednesday, Jerome Powell was set to preside over what could be his final meeting of the Fed’s rate-setting committee as chair. During an afternoon news conference, Powell signaled he would take the virtually unprecedented step of remaining on the central bank’s Board of Governors after his term expires.
By staying on the Board, Powell deprives the incoming administration of the opportunity to name a new member. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent criticized Powell’s decision in an interview with Fox Business host and former first-term Trump economist Larry Kudlow.
“It is unusual for soon-to-be-former Fed Chair Jay Powell to stay on at the @federalreserve. For someone who speaks so often of norms, his unilateral decision to stay flies in the face of tradition,” Bessent posted on the X platform along with a video clip of his interview.
“Kevin Warsh will bring about a new day at the Fed, with accountability, management, and sound policymaking in the lead,” he added.
Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican and chair of the Banking Committee, praised Warsh as “battle tested” and added that “It is incredibly important that we break the bind of Bidenomics on households across this nation.”
The vote came the same day Powell and the Fed decided to leave interest rates at their current 3.6 percent level, once again defying calls for a lower rate.
In March, a federal judge blocked the Justice Department’s effort to issue grand jury subpoenas targeting the Federal Reserve Board. The judge concluded the move appeared to be an attempt to pressure Powell.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has issued a number of rulings against the Trump administration, made the determination in a newly unsealed ruling. He said prosecutors failed to present evidence that Powell committed any crime.
Boasberg wrote that the subpoenas appeared to serve an improper purpose. He suggested the effort was intended to pressure Powell into lowering interest rates or stepping down.
“Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” he wrote.
The dispute stems from a criminal inquiry opened earlier this year by U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro. The investigation focused on Powell’s June 2025 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee.
That testimony centered on the Federal Reserve’s long-running renovation project at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. Powell disclosed the existence of the investigation in January and described it as an attack on the central bank’s independence.
Pirro responded Friday by announcing that the Justice Department will appeal the ruling. She accused Boasberg of interfering with the legal process.
“This process has been arbitrarily undermined by an activist judge,” Pirro said, arguing further that the ruling improperly blocked prosecutors from pursuing the case.
May you like
The developments reflect ongoing tensions over the future direction of monetary policy and the independence of the Federal Reserve as the new administration prepares to take office. The committee’s approval of Warsh marks a key step in reshaping leadership at the central bank, with Republicans emphasizing the need for greater accountability and a shift away from policies they associate with the previous administration’s economic challenges.
