Handful of Democrats Join House GOP To End DHS Shutdown
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and end a weeks-long partial shutdown. In a notable break from party leadership, four Democrats joined Republicans to support the measure, highlighting deepening cracks in the opposition's strategy.
The bill cleared the House by a 221–207 vote, aiming to restore full operations through the end of the fiscal year. However, the victory was short-lived as the Senate blocked a similar measure earlier that day in a 51-45 procedural vote, falling short of the 60 votes required to advance.
Bipartisan Defection and the Senate Blockade
The four House Democrats who crossed the aisle to support the funding were Reps. Henry Cuellar (TX), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (ME), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA). Their support reflects a growing concern among moderate Democrats regarding the optics of a shuttered security apparatus.
In the Senate, the GOP found a lone Democratic ally in Sen. John Fetterman (PA), who was the only member of his caucus to vote with Republicans to end the stalemate. Most Democratic lawmakers continue to oppose the legislation, citing fierce disagreements over immigration enforcement policies and oversight provisions under the current administration.
Impact of the February 14 Shutdown
The DHS has been partially shut down since February 14, following the expiration of temporary funding. While essential personnel—including TSA agents, Coast Guard members, and FEMA employees—continue to work to protect the homeland, they are currently doing so without pay.
FEMA & TSA: Classified as essential; employees remain on duty despite the lack of a paycheck.
CISA: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has been forced to furlough several employees, potentially weakening defenses against infrastructure threats.
Training & Grants: Multiple DHS training programs and grant funding cycles have been suspended indefinitely.
House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) slammed the Democratic resistance on the House floor, stating, “Shutting down the Department of Homeland Security over a partisan fight hasn’t changed the stakes... President Trump is not the one feeling the pain of the shutdown; it's the agents keeping our communities safe.”
Appeals Court Rules Trump Retains Control of Calif. National Guard
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied California’s request for an en banc rehearing in Newsom v. Trump, effectively preserving an earlier panel ruling that allowed President Donald Trump to retain federal control over California National Guard troops.
The short order from the court confirmed that a majority of eligible judges did not support a full-court review, thereby concluding the state’s challenge under docket No. 25-3727.
The decision upholds the Ninth Circuit panel’s June 19 ruling by Judges Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller, and Jennifer Sung, which stayed a lower court order and found Trump’s federalization of the Guard likely consistent with federal law.
The case centers on events that began on June 6, 2025, when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents carried out raids near the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. The operation resulted in 44 arrests and detentions of an additional 70 to 80 individuals.
Protests quickly followed, escalating into confrontations in which demonstrators reportedly threw objects at federal officers and caused minor damage to federal property.
In response, President Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 the next day, ordering the federalization of 4,000 California National Guard troops for 60 days. His directive tasked them with protecting federal personnel and property amid the unrest. Governor Gavin Newsom, who once championed the use of the National Guard for border security, challenged the move in a lawsuit filed on June 9 in the Northern District of California.
The suit argued that Trump violated statutory protocols requiring federalization orders to be routed through state governors and claimed the order infringed on state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer initially sided with the state on June 10, issuing a temporary restraining order that blocked the deployment and returned command of the Guard to Newsom. The Justice Department immediately appealed and secured an administrative stay, followed by the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision on June 19 to stay the district court’s order entirely.
The panel applied a “highly deferential” standard of review and found Trump’s action likely lawful under § 12406(3), given the immediate threat to federal officers and property and the inability of local law enforcement to contain the situation. The judges concluded that delivering the order through California’s Adjutant General met the statutory requirement for routing it via the governor, even if it did not follow every procedural detail. The panel also rejected the district court’s broader injunction, emphasizing that courts do have a role in reviewing federal troop deployments, countering the administration’s claim that such actions were entirely beyond judicial oversight.
Following the en banc denial, Senior Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon issued a sharply worded statement, joined by Chief Judge Mary Murguia and nine others. Berzon warned that the panel’s deference set a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power to deploy troops in American cities during events that local authorities could typically handle.
“This case presents an issue of the gravest consequence: the peacetime deployment of military troops in American cities,” she wrote, raising concerns about the erosion of federalism and the balance of powers. Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould dissented separately, urging a full-court reconsideration given the risk of future executive overreach.
Although the 60-day deployment has since expired, the Ninth Circuit panel has yet to issue a final ruling on the merits of the appeal. Governor Newsom’s office has not announced whether it will seek U.S. Supreme Court review, though a petition for certiorari remains possible within the standard 90-day window.
The ruling carries broader implications. Within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction—covering nine Western states—the decision expands presidential authority to federalize National Guard units without state consent during domestic disturbances. Legal analysts have pointed to the panel’s composition—two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee—as key to the outcome that blocked Newsom’s attempt to regain control of the Guard.
Similar legal battles are unfolding in Oregon and Illinois, raising the possibility of a circuit split that could eventually draw in the Supreme Court.
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
WASHINGTON — A ferocious battle over the soul of American democracy erupted on cable news this week, proving once again that the clash over election integrity is reaching a boiling point.
During a high-stakes segment on Fox News' top-rated program The Five, liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov ignited an intense firestorm by sounding the alarm on the Republican-backed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act).
Her warning was sharp, direct, and unapologetic: This isn't just a simple Voter ID bill—it’s a bureaucratic roadblock designed to keep millions of legal Americans away from the ballot box.
"Far Beyond Voter ID": Tarlov Sounds the Alarm
While GOP proponents frame the SAVE Act as a common-sense measure to restore trust in elections, Tarlov shredded that narrative live on air, dissecting the fine print of the proposed federal mandate.
Under the bill, anyone registering to vote in federal elections would be legally required to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a physical U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate, or naturalization papers.
"People hear 'Voter ID' and think it’s just showing a driver's license at the counter," Tarlov argued. "It’s not. This bill demands physical proof of citizenship upfront. Millions of everyday, hard-working American citizens do not have a valid passport sitting in a drawer or immediate access to an official birth certificate. This creates an artificial barrier to a fundamental constitutional right." without instant paperwork access.
Integrity Guardrail or Voter Suppression? The Great Debate
The fiery television debate reflects a massive political rift tearing through Capitol Hill and statehouses across the country.
The Conservative Defense: Republican sponsors and conservative commentators insist the measure is vital to national security and sovereign elections. They argue that verifying citizenship at registration is a necessary safeguard to prevent non-citizens from ever slipping onto federal voter rolls.
The Progressive Pushback: Critics like Tarlov argue that non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, strictly policed, and exceptionally rare. Opponents caution that adding heavy administrative hurdles will unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters—particularly students, low-income citizens, rural voters, and women whose names have changed due to marriage.
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
As the debate over voter access versus election security intensifies, the SAVE Act has turned into a major political litmus test.
Is requiring physical proof of citizenship a mandatory protection to guarantee that every vote is lawful? Or is it an unnecessary, red-tape nightmare that punishes legal citizens for not having their paperwork in order?
One thing is certain: as long as voices like Jessica Tarlov continue to push back on prime-time television, the fight over who gets to vote—and how hard it is to do so—is far from over.
Jessica Tarlov Says Trump Has 35% Approval Rating in Most Polls
Supporters of the bill strongly disagree, saying it is designed to protect election integrity by preventing non-citizens from registering to vote. Opponents argue the existing safeguards are already sufficient and fear the measure could unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters. Is the SAVE Act a necessary election safeguard, or does it create unnecessary barriers to voting?
Jessica Tarlov Suspended Indefinitely After Allegedly Assaulting Fox News Crew Member
Jessica Tarlov Suspended Indefinitely After Allegedly Assaulting Fox News Crew Member
NEW YORK — The set of Fox News’ hit show The Five has seen its fair share of heated shouting matches, but what went down behind the scenes this week turned a political debate into an outright crime scene.
In a shocking move that has sent shockwaves through Manhattan media circles, network executives have suspended co-host Jessica Tarlov indefinitely following an alleged physical assault on a crew member during a commercial break.
The reason for the explosive violent outburst? A camera operator made the fatal mistake of laughing out loud at one of her political talking points.
The Laugh That Triggered a Rampage
According to multiple insider accounts and studio witnesses, the situation escalated with terrifying speed. During a taped segment discussing presidential leadership, Tarlov aggressively defended President Joe Biden, passionately declaring him to be "one of the most alert and engaged presidents in American history."
While her conservative co-hosts on The Five usually counter her hot takes with eye-rolls and sharp rebuttals, it was an off-camera crew member who couldn't hold back.
A veteran camera operator reportedly chuckled out loud at the statement—a moment of candid disbelief that pushed Tarlov entirely over the edge.
"She just flew completely off the handle," one studio staffer revealed under the condition of anonymity. "Jessica has always been hyper-sensitive to pushback, but this was different. The moment she heard that laugh, her face changed. She lost control, lunged at the crew member, and turned physically aggressive. It took two floor managers to pull her off."
Fox News Responds: A Mandatory "Cooling-Off" Period
Network executives acted swiftly to control the fallout. Within hours of the incident, Tarlov was escorted from the building and informed of her immediate, indefinite suspension.
While the network hasn't closed the door permanently—noting they will consider a formal appeal at a later date—the consensus inside the building is clear: She is out for the foreseeable future.
In a internal memo, management framed the suspension as a mandatory "cooling-off period" to review safety protocols and investigate the physical altercation. However, staff members say the atmosphere on set remains deeply rattled.
Beyond Political Delusion: When Rhetoric Turns Violent
Political commentators across social media were quick to seize on the scandal. For years, Tarlov served as the resident liberal voice on The Five, regularly taking fire from a panel of staunch conservatives. But critics argue that defending the indefensible finally broke her composure.
To many viewers, claiming Biden was "sharp and alert" in 2024 or 2025 was already seen as an exercise in extreme political bias—but resorting to physical violence when called out on it marks a dangerous new low.
"This isn't just about partisan bias anymore," noted one media analyst following the story. "When a commentator becomes so consumed by political delusion that a simple chuckle triggers a physical assault, you've crossed a line from political debate into total instability."
What’s Next for The Five?
As Fox News searches for a temporary replacement to fill the liberal chair, the network faces intense scrutiny over workplace safety and on-set decorum.
Will Jessica Tarlov ever walk back onto the set of The Five, or has the "token leftist" finally burned her last bridge in cable news?
This story is actively developing. Scroll down to view real-time updates, legal analysis of the alleged assault, and reaction clips from around the media world!
