The House Judiciary Committee advanced a resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress over the Justice Department’s failure to produce the subpoenaed audio recording of President Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. 

The House Judiciary Committee considered a resolution to hold the attorney general in contempt during a markup session Thursday. The vote advances the measure for a full floor vote. 

The move comes after the White House asserted executive privilege over the audio and video recordings related to Hur’s interviews with the president as part of his classified records investigation. 

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that ‘the attorney general made it clear that law enforcement files like these need to be protected.’ 

‘And so the president made his determination at the request of the attorney general,’ she said. ‘So just want to make that second point that I made really clear.’ 

Hur, who released his report to the public in February after months of investigation, did not recommend criminal charges against President Biden for mishandling and retaining classified documents, and he stated that he would not bring charges against Biden even if he were not in the Oval Office. 

Those records included classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other countries, among other records related to national security and foreign policy, which Hur said implicated ‘sensitive intelligence sources and methods.’

Hur, in his report, described President Biden as a ‘sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory’ — a description that has raised significant concerns for Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign.

Catholic groups and other conservative organizations are going after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra after a GOP lawmaker accused him of withholding federal funds from hospitals that do not perform transgender surgeries on religious grounds.

Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., clashed with Becerra at a heated House hearing on Wednesday, demanding that he commit to not blocking federal dollars from doctors or hospitals ‘that refuse to provide the gender-affirming care that you’re mandating if it violates their religious beliefs.’

‘You’re going somewhere completely different. First, you’re talking about how a doctor should have the rights to not offer particular care. Then you stretch it out to provide for the system-wide services… very different,’ Becerra said in a clip later shared by Miller.

Miller replied, ‘You’ve put out this guidance and doctors do need to know what are you going to do if they refuse to provide this care?’

‘A doctor, if that doctor has religious objections, that doctor under these rules is not required to offer the care,’ Becerra said, adding doctors ‘don’t get federal funding.’

When Miller pressed him about the faith-based hospitals where many doctors work, he said, ‘If a health care facility is violating the law and not providing the service they’re required to, they are not entitled to the resources.’

Becerra told Miller earlier in the exchange, ‘If a provider for religious reasons objects, they are not forced to provide any particular service.’

But Miller posted on X after the hearing, ‘After attempting to lie, HHS Secretary Becerra says the quiet part out loud. Joe Biden’s government will withhold funds from religious hospitals that refuse to provide sex-change operations for young children.’

CatholicVote President Brian Burch told Fox News Digital, ‘Secretary Becerra has made a career of targeting Catholics. Now, in his disdain for faith-based health care institutions and medical professionals, including the numerous Catholic hospital systems across the country, he is threatening the care of millions of Americans.’

‘This administration has done more harm to the Catholic faith and religious Americans than any which has preceded it. It is time for the American people to take a stand against this administration’s overt hostility toward institutions of faith. November can’t come soon enough,’ he said.

Solidarity HealthShare President Chris Faddis said the recent HHS rule, which prohibits health programs that get federal dollars from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age or sex, including whether a patient identifies as LGBTQ+, confirms ‘our grave concern that his agency has no intention of honoring the empty promise to protect religious freedom’

‘These rules mandate gender transition surgeries even when it violates the faith of religious doctors and health care systems, not to mention their best medical judgment,’ Faddis said.

Katy Talento, executive director of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries and a former Trump administration health adviser, said the rule would force hospitals to provide transgender surgeries ‘or else lose access to federal funding to care for the poor and elderly, such as Medicaid and Medicare.’

‘Instead of helping young people embrace how God created them as male or female, the Biden administration wants to permanently alter their bodies and force sterilization in many cases. Not only should hospitals use all available legal options to fight back, but Americans more broadly must wake up to this wicked agenda and roundly reject this wicked gender ideology at every turn,’ said Walker Wildmon, vice president of the American Family Association.

Fox News Digital reached out to HHS for comment.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the funding mechanism that feeds the Obama-era agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is constitutional.

In a 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that Congress uniquely authorized the bureau to draw its funding directly from the Federal Reserve System, therefore allowing it to bypass the usual funding mechanisms laid out in the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. 

‘For most federal agencies, Congress provides funding on an annual basis. This annual process forces them to regularly implore Congress to fund their operations for the next year. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is different. The Bureau does not have to petition for funds each year. Instead, Congress authorized the Bureau to draw from the Federal Reserve System the amount its Director deems ‘reasonably necessary to carry out’ the Bureau’s duties, subject only to an inflation-adjusted cap,’ Thomas wrote. 

‘In this case, we must decide the narrow question whether this funding mechanism complies with the Appropriations Clause. We hold that it does,’ the opinion states. 

The CFPB launched in 2008 with the help of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in the aftermath of the market crash, with authority to regulate banking and lending agencies via federal rules.

A group of banking associations, represented by former solicitor general Noel Francisco, sued the CFPB, arguing that because the agency, not Congress, decides the amount of annual funding and draws it from the Federal Reserve, it violates the Appropriations Clause. 

The Supreme Court’s majority disagreed, saying, ‘Although there may be other constitutional checks on Congress’ authority to create and fund an administrative agency, specifying the source and purpose is all the control the Appropriations Clause requires.’

‘The statute that authorizes the Bureau to draw money from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out its duties satisfies the Appropriations Clause,’ the opinion states. 

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the decision, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, saying, ‘The Court upholds a novel statutory scheme under which the powerful [CFPB] may bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight.’

‘According to the Court, all that the Appropriations Clause demands is that Congress ‘identify a source of public funds and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes,’’ Alito wrote. 

‘Under this interpretation, the Clause imposes no temporal limit that would prevent Congress from authorizing the Executive to spend public funds in perpetuity,’ he stated. 

‘In short, there is apparently nothing wrong with a law that empowers the Executive to draw as much money as it wants from any identified source for any permissible purpose until the end of time.’ 

‘That is not what the Appropriations Clause was understood to mean when it was adopted. In England, Parliament had won the power over the purse only after centuries of struggle with the Crown. Steeped in English constitutional history, the Framers placed the Appropriations Clause in the Constitution to protect this hard-won legislative power,’ he said. 

Alito continued, ‘There are times when it is our duty to say simply that a law that blatantly attempts to circumvent the Constitution goes too far. This is such a case.’ 

‘Today’s decision is not faithful to the original understanding of the Appropriations Clause and the centuries of history that gave birth to the appropriations requirement, and I therefore respectfully dissent,’ he concluded. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday hammered President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., over blocked U.S. military aid for Israel with the House expected to vote on a bill to force bomb deliveries to the Jewish state amid its war against Hamas.

On the steps of the Capitol, Johnson also drew a parallel to Biden’s decision earlier Thursday to assert executive privilege to block House committees from obtaining subpoenaed audio recordings of his interview with former special counsel Robert Hur over classified documents found in the president’s possession. 

‘Rather than defend our closest ally at war, President Biden is using his authority to defend himself politically,’ Johnson said.  ‘Just as President Biden defies the will of Congress with his use of executive privilege, he is brazenly doing so by withholding congressionally mandated aid. Just last month, Sen. Chuck Schumer declared from the Senate floor — this is his quote, ‘The House must rush to Israel’s aid … as quickly as humanly possible.’ 

‘Well, today, Sen. Schumer has done an about-face. He’s reversed course. Yet again, it is President Biden and Sen. Schumer himself who are standing in the way of getting Israel the resources it desperately needs to defend itself. The House has tried multiple times to deliver this much needed aid to Israel, and each and every time. Now, Biden and Schumer have opposed it.’ 

The press conference happened before the House was set Thursday to deliver a rebuke to Biden for pausing a shipment of bombs to Israel, voting on legislation that would seek to force the weapons transfer as Republicans worked to highlight Democratic divisions over the Israel-Hamas war.

Just weeks after Congress passed the national security supplemental, which included $26 billion for Israel, Johnson accused the Biden administration of ‘defying the will of Congress and withholding weapons shipments to Israel,’ claiming that this ‘is a catastrophic decision with global implications’ that is being handled ‘as a political calculation.’

The speaker said the House ‘will be voting on legislation to compel the delivery of defense weapons to Israel as they fight to protect themselves from radical terrorists and defend their very existence as a nation.’ 

‘But Joe Biden is threatening to veto that legislation, and Chuck Schumer is suggesting now that he refuses to bring it to the Senate floor,’ Johnson said. ‘On Oct. 7, Hamas, the radical terrorists, which are proxies for Iran, lit a fire in Israel, the proverbial fire that is still burning. And Biden and Schumer are telling Israel that they are only really allowed to put out part of that fire. That is just simply not going to work. Israel needs to finish the job, and America needs to help Israel extinguish the flame of terror that is wrought by Hamas.’ 

Seeking to discourage Israel from its offensive on the crowded southern Gazan city of Rafah, the Biden administration this month put on hold a weapons shipment of 3,500 bombs — some as large as 2,000 pounds — capable of killing hundreds in populated areas. Republicans were outraged, accusing Biden of abandoning the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East.

The bill condemns Biden for initiating the pause on the bomb shipment and would withhold funding for the State Department, Department of Defense and the National Security Council until the delivery is made. Schumer said should the legislation pass the House, it would not receive floor time in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority, telling reporters earlier this week, ‘It’s not going anywhere.’ 

Even if the legislation passes Congress, the White House said Biden would veto it. 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., argued that while Biden is ‘impeding the ability for Israel to defend themselves, Iran is not holding back.’ 

He noted that Tehran fired over 300 drones and missiles into Israel, and Hamas still holds more than 130 hostages, including Americans.

‘Where is President Biden caring about the lives of those American citizens that are being held hostage right now in tunnels under Gaza?’ Scalise said. ‘President Biden is supporting Hamas’ position against Israel. This is disgusting. When this bill passes with a bipartisan vote today through the House, the public pressure will grow so large that Chuck Schumer will have to take this bill up. And if this bill does pass the Senate, like some other bills that President Biden threatened to veto, that he ultimately signed because the public finally had enough. This is one of those cases.’ 

Debate over the bill, rushed to the House floor by GOP leadership this week, showed Washington’s deeply fractured outlook on the Israel-Hamas war.  

The White House and Democratic leadership have scrambled to rally support from a House caucus that ranges from moderates frustrated that the president would allow any daylight between the U.S. and Israel to progressives outraged that he is still sending any weapons at all.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

The Biden campaign accepted CBS News’ vice presidential debate for this summer, setting the stage for a showdown between Vice President Kamala Harris and whoever is selected as the Republican VP nominee, Fox News Digital has learned. 

The campaign notified CBS News that they accepted the invitation to participate in studio on either of the proposed dates — July 23 or August 13. 

The campaign said the debate would ‘be in accordance with the guidelines put forth by the campaign.’ 

On Wednesday, the Biden campaign wrote a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, abandoning the decades-old tradition of three fall events organized by the debate commission. 

Former President Trump, shortly after, exclusively told Fox News Digital that he would accept the timeline proposed by Biden — scheduling the first presidential debate for June 27 on CNN and the second for September 10 on ABC News. 

The Biden-Harris campaign asked that the debates occur inside a TV studio, with microphones that automatically cut off when a speaker’s time limit elapses. The letter also asked that the debates involve just the two candidates and the moderator — without ‘an in-person audience with raucous or disruptive partisans and donors.’ 

They also want the debates without the participation of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or other independent or third-party candidates. 

‘We look forward to the Trump campaign accepting one of these dates so that the full debate calendar for this campaign can be set,’ the Biden campaign said about the vice presidential debate schedule on Thursday. 

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

The fast scheduling began Wednesday morning after Biden posted a video to social media. 

‘Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal,’ Biden said in a video message shared Wednesday morning. ‘I’ll even do it twice. So let’s pick the dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.’ 

Trump, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital shortly after, said: 

‘Crooked Joe Biden is the worst debater I have ever faced – he can’t put two sentences together,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘Crooked is also the worst president in the history of the United States, by far.’ 

Trump told Fox News Digital that ‘it is time for a debate to take place – even if it has to be held through the offices of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which are totally controlled by Democrats and who, as people remember, got caught cheating with me with debate sound levels.’

‘I’m ready to go,’ Trump said. ‘The dates that they proposed are fine. Anywhere. Anytime. Any place. Let’s see if Joe can make it to the stand-up podium.’

‘The proposed June and early September dates are fully acceptable to me,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘I will provide my own transportation.’

And just moments later, Biden posted on his social media that he ‘received and accepted an invitation’ from CNN for a debate on June 27. 

‘Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place,’ Biden wrote. 

When asked for comment, Trump told Fox News Digital that he will accept and ‘will be there.’ The Republican added that he is ‘looking forward to being in beautiful Atlanta.’

Later Wednesday, Trump took to his Truth Social, echoing his comments to Fox News Digital. 

‘It’s time for a debate so that he can explain to the American People his highly destructive Open Border Policy, new and ridiculous EV Mandates, the allowance of Crushing Inflation, High Taxes, and his really WEAK Foreign Policy, which is allowing the World to ‘Catch on Fire.’ I am Ready and Willing to Debate Crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September,’ Trump posted. ‘I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds – That’s only because he doesn’t get them. Just tell me when, I’ll be there. ‘Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!’’ 

Trump on Saturday appeared before a crowd of tens of thousands on the Jersey Shore in the deep-blue state. The campaign event was held in between Trump’s appearances in Manhattan Criminal Court.

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday slammed ‘unprecedented, frankly unfounded attacks on the Justice Department,’ defending President Biden’s decision to assert executive privilege to block subpoenas for audio of Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur regarding classified documents found in his possession. 

On his way to an FBI memorial for fallen agents, Garland briefly took questions from reporters before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and the Judiciary Committee were each expected to hold a hearing to recommend that the full House refers the attorney general to the Justice Department for the contempt charges over the department’s refusal to hand over the audio.

‘In your professional capacity, you suggested to the president to invoke executive privilege. He invoked executive privilege. It protects you both personally. Is that a conflict of interest?’ one reporter asked. 

‘The Justice Department is a fundamental institution of our democracy. People depend on us to ensure our investigations and our prosecutions are conducted according to the facts and the law and without political influence,’ Garland said in response. ‘We have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committees get responses to their legitimate requests, but this is not one.’

‘To the contrary, this is one that would harm our ability in the future to successfully pursue sensitive investigations,’ he continued. ‘There have been a series of unprecedented, frankly unfounded attacks on the Justice Department. This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files is just the most recent effort to threaten, defund our investigations, and the way in which there are contributions to an atmosphere that puts our agents and our prosecutors at risk. These are wrong. Look, the only thing I can do is continue to do the right thing. I will protect this building and its people.’ 

Another reporter asked what the request for the Hur recordings, ‘combined with the efforts to defund Jack Smith and the other attacks on Biden administration officials say about the broader effort to discredit [Garland] and discredit the Justice Department.’ 

‘We have to go about our work following the federal principles of prosecution,’ Garland responded, explaining what he can do as attorney general. ‘We follow the facts and the law. We screen out outside, inappropriate influences. That’s what we’re doing here. We’re protecting our ability to continue to do high-profile and sensitive investigations, and we will continue to do that.’

A third reporter, the final one given the chance to grill Garland before he left for the memorial, said the ‘odds now seem vanishingly small the two Jack Smith federal cases are going to begin trial, let alone finish trial this year,’ asking ‘what does that say about the pace of the justice system and confidence in the Justice Department.’ 

‘The special counsel brought both cases last year. He appropriately requested speedy trials. The matter is now in the hands of the judiciary and I’m not going to be able to comment any further on that,’ Garland said.

Garland advised Biden in a letter on Thursday that the audio falls within the scope of executive privilege. Garland told the Democratic president that the ‘committee’s needs are plainly insufficient to outweigh the deleterious effects that the production of the recordings would have on the integrity and effectiveness of similar law enforcement investigations in the future.’

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte urged lawmakers not to proceed with the contempt effort to avoid ‘unnecessary and unwarranted conflict.’

‘It is the longstanding position of the executive branch held by administrations of both parties that an official who asserts the president’s claim of executive privilege cannot be held in contempt of Congress,’ Uriarte wrote.

White House Counsel Ed Siskel wrote in a separate, scathing letter to Congress on Thursday that lawmakers’ effort to obtain the recording was absent any legitimate purpose and lays bare their likely goal — ‘to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.’ The White House letter is a tacit admission that there are moments from the Hur interview it fears portrays Biden in a negative light in an election year — and that could be exacerbated by the release, or selective release, of the audio.

The transcript of the Hur interview showed Biden struggling to recall some dates and occasionally confusing some details — something longtime aides say he has done for years in both public and private — but otherwise showing deep recall in other areas. Biden and his aides are particularly sensitive to questions about his age. At 81, he is the oldest ever president, and he is seeking another four-year term.

Hur, a former senior official in the Trump administration Justice Department, was appointed as a special counsel in January 2023 following the discovery of classified documents in multiple locations tied to Biden.

Hur’s report said many of the documents recovered at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, in parts of Biden’s Delaware home and in his Senate papers at the University of Delaware were retained by ‘mistake.’

However, investigators did find evidence of willful retention and disclosure related to a subset of records found in Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, house, including in a garage, an office and a basement den.

The files pertain to a troop surge in Afghanistan during the Obama administration that Biden had vigorously opposed. Biden kept records that documented his position, including a classified letter to Obama during the 2009 Thanksgiving holiday. Some of that information was shared with a ghostwriter with whom he published memoirs in 2007 and 2017.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.