‘We needed bills brought to the floor that are supported by the majority of the majority,’ fulminated Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., on the House steps Wednesday night.

In other words, Republicans wield the House majority with 217 members. So Greene insists that at least 109 Republicans should be in favor of an issue before voting. A ‘majority of the majority.’

But Greene did not necessarily practice what she preaches.

In an audacious move, Greene had just forced the House to tangle with her resolution to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. The House soundly thumped Greene’s effort into parliamentary oblivion on a vote of 359-43. Seven members voted present.

Greene is a member of the majority party. Yet 196 of the 217 members of the House Republican Conference voted in favor of killing Greene’s motion to dismiss Johnson.

Clearly, a majority of the majority.

As we say, it’s about the math.

In fact, only 11 Republicans — including Greene — voted for a prospective recall of the Speaker. Yet, as House Democratic leaders promised, a staggering 163 Democrats voted to protect Johnson. It was perhaps one of the most extraordinary cross-party votes in decades on Capitol Hill — especially considering the fact that the minority party successfully shielded Johnson, safeguarding his Speakership.

But let’s be clear: had Democratic reinforcements not arrived, Johnson would no longer occupy the Speaker’s suite. Only eight Republicans favored dumping former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., last autumn. But 11 Republicans seemingly wanted to upend Johnson this time — even though the GOP majority is more narrow now than eight months ago.

‘The Democrats saved him,’ fumed Greene. ‘(Former House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., voted for him. Pelosi doesn’t vote for Republicans unless she has full control of the House. (House Minority Leader) Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. The entire leadership team. (Reps.) Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Jamie Raskin, D-Md. They all voted for Mike Johnson.’

Media scrum

Greene procured lengthy audiences with Johnson in the Speaker’s office on both Monday and Tuesday as she laid out her complaints. A massive scrum of reporters then clustered around Greene after each conclave. 

On Monday evening, the press blob occupied Statuary Hall in the Capitol, just in front of a statue of Sam Houston. By Wednesday night, the daily press forums with Greene graduated to the House steps. The demand for Greene was so high among reporters, that staffers from the House Radio/TV Gallery brought out a mic stand for her.

‘Oh, is that for me?’ asked Greene on Wednesday night as she walked gingerly down the House steps after the vote to sidetrack her Speaker gambit. A mobile swarm of photographers slid delicately next to her, snapping photos, as though trained in ballet.

Greene may have at least temporarily won over the attention of the Congressional press corps as reporters wondered if and when she might move against Johnson. But Greene’s relations with GOP colleagues took a hit. Kendrick Lamar and Drake get along better than Greene and most of her fellow House Republicans.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wisc., briefly heckled Greene as she descended the Capitol steps to speak to reporters.

‘You can be productive, or you can be destructive. Ms. Taylor Greene is choosing destructive,’ said Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D. ‘It’s going to sow discord and dissent.’

‘Moscow Marjorie has clearly gone off the deep end. Maybe the result of the space laser,’ posited Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.

‘Marjorie is going to find herself in a very lonely place,’ predicted Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio.

Dozens of Republicans howled and booed when Greene called up her resolution to remove Johnson late Wednesday afternoon. In fact, no one was sure if Greene would follow through or just continue to milk her ploy. After all, Greene first announced she would attempt to bounce Johnson back in mid-March. Some Democrats even wondered if Greene’s daily summits with Johnson may warrant reconsideration of their position to defend the Speaker.

‘When Speaker Johnson meets with her for hours, people should be asking, ‘What is Marjorie Taylor Greene extracting from the Speaker?’’ asked House Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Ted Lieu, D-Calif.

No support

Colleague Tyler Olson followed up, inquiring whether Democrats would still support Johnson.

‘It would depend on what Marjorie Taylor Greene is able to extract,’ replied Lieu.

As it turned out, Greene apparently didn’t cull any concessions out of Johnson. Not that she gave the Speaker much of a chance. She dialed up her motion to vacate the chair the next day. Support for Greene’s maneuver never materialized.

‘Weeks ago, when I filed my motion, I said ‘this is like a pink slip.’ And in my mind, I was hoping it served to be a warning to Mike Johnson. Maybe shake him up and wake him up,’ said Greene. ‘And apparently it didn’t serve to be a wake-up call at all.’

Ironically, the House dodged a rather unnoticed disaster Wednesday — thanks to Democrats assisting Johnson. The House voted on an interim bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration for one week. The vote came right before Greene offered her motion to remove Johnson. The House OK’d the bill preemptively, anticipating the Senate would sync up this week. The Senate later plodded through a bill to re-up the FAA for five years — as well as the temporary measure.

Based on the 11 Republicans who voted alongside Greene, had the Democrats not bailed out Johnson, the House likely would have voted to declare the Speakership empty. Just like last October. If the Speakership is vacant, the House shuts down. It’s paralyzed. It can’t do anything.

That would have imperiled the FAA.

Yes, the Senate likely would have aligned with the House on a Band-Aid bill for the FAA as it did on Thursday night. But the Constitutional officer of the House — the Speaker or his designee — must sign the ‘enrolled bill’ (a bill, approved by both chambers) before it goes to the President for signature. So, even if the Senate lined up with the House later on a stopgap FAA bill, its authorization may have lapsed if there was no Speaker to sign the bill.

Could an acting Speaker Pro Tempore sign a bill? Maybe. But opponents could challenge the legality of that.

Democratic intervention

Former House Acting Speaker Pro Tempore Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., did little besides gavel the House in and out of session when he filled the void following McCarthy’s departure.

That’s the problem with vacating the chair. The House nosedives into a cryogenic freeze until it elects a Speaker. It took 22 days to tap a Speaker last October. Who knows how long it would take in these circumstances? 

Democratic intervention salvaged Johnson’s Speakership. But it also kept planes in the air, air traffic controllers in the towers and travelers aboard planes. That might not have been the case had Democrats followed their own lead from October when they refused to assist McCarthy.

So what’s next for Greene? Could there be consequences? Sanctions? Shunning? Another motion to vacate? Greene didn’t rule that out this week.

Anything is possible.

But House members are now used to the chaos.

‘One dumpster fire at a time,’ said Dusty Johnson.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Republican senators believe President Biden’s ‘disgraceful’ warning to cut offensive aid to Israel during its conflict with Hamas was a political decision to appease ‘the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrat Party’ in November.

President Biden recently threatened to cut aid to America’s ally Israel if the country invades Rafah, a city in the Gaza Strip.

‘If they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities — that deal with that problem,’ the president told CNN Wednesday.

The decision comes after weeks of anti-Israel agitators causing chaos on college campuses across the nation, and lawmakers are connecting the two as the president seeks another term in the White House.

When asked about Biden’s decision coming amid the anti-Israel riots, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital ‘the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrat Party is growing.’ 

‘I do think he caved to the folks on campus, who are calling for the death of Israel. And I think the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrat Party is growing. And these are political decisions, trying to meddle in another country’s elections,’ Schmitt said.

‘You know, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden called for Benjamin Netanyahu to be ousted in the middle of a war, and now he’s withholding arms that have been appropriated. It’s really outrageous,’ he added. ‘And I think, again, it just sort of shows how desperate Joe Biden is to try to again appease these radicals in his party. He’s willing to risk U.S.-Israel relations.’

Biden has received bipartisan backlash for his recent comment about aid to Israel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country ‘will stand alone’ to defeat Hamas if necessary.

‘Sadly, this administration has been the most anti-Israel administration we’ve ever seen,’ Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. ‘And right now, what do you see the Biden administration doing? They are simultaneously flooding cash to the Hamas terrorists while they’re cutting off weapons to Israel. They’re undermining our friend and ally Israel. It is disgraceful. And, yes, part of it is that today’s Democrat Party is terrified of the radical left in the party, the extreme anti-Israel, antisemitic protesters we see at college campuses all across the country.’

The senator added there is a ‘pro-Hamas wing’ of the Democratic party.

When asked by Fox News Digital if the campus riots were linked to Biden’s recent warning to Israel, Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C. said the two events are ‘absolutely’ connected to Biden seeking another term.

Budd said Biden’s warning to Israel was about the November election and Biden ‘collapsing in these swing states.’

‘I just got back from Israel this week, met with the prime minister. Met with many people here rather easily. They’re wondering, ‘What the heck is the U.S. doing?’ This is all about November, Joe Biden. This is about Minnesota. This is about Michigan. He’s collapsing in these swing states. And so he’s trying to stitch this together, and it’s completely off the rails. 

‘It’s showing the world that you can’t trust the U.S.,’ Budd added. ‘It’s very frustrating, particularly when you’re trying to get the eight U.S. hostages home and respect these families that have been waiting and waiting for over 200 days. This just demonstrates weakness and confusion to the world.’

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., agreed Biden’s statement was in response to the protests, saying, ‘I think he’s caved to the college agitators. And just, in general, the Palestinian community. It just doesn’t make sense to any of us. And that’s why I encourage everybody to not listen to what he says. Watch what Joe Biden does. It makes no sense.

‘I describe it as Biden’s schizophrenic national security policies,’ he continued. ‘On the one hand, he says he wants to minimize casualties, public casualties. But, on the other hand, he keeps us from sending smart bombs. On the one hand, he says that he wants a minimum loss of life, that he wants the hostages released. But when he tells the world, ‘We’re not going to send any more weapons,’ what is the message? Do they back out of the negotiations? So, everything that Joe Biden touches when it comes to national security just turns to mud.’

Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., filed articles of impeachment against Biden Friday for his threat against Israel, saying ahead of the move that ‘these are the same accusations made against President Trump, which resulted in his impeachment by Democrats. The same must happen for Joe Biden, which is why we’re drawing up articles of impeachment now.’

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

The Biden administration told Congress it would waive sanctions on military sales to several Middle Eastern nations the day before President Biden publicly declared the U.S. would not give Israel offensive aid if it invaded Rafah.

Some of those countries have been accused of playing an active role in the proliferation of Hamas and other terror groups intent on wiping Israel off the map.

The State Department sent Congress a notification Tuesday that it would extend existing sanctions waivers for Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia through April 30, 2025, according to a copy of the notice obtained by Fox News Digital Friday.

Biden made the high-stakes ultimatum to Israel’s government in a CNN interview that aired Wednesday night as it prepares for a ground invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The city is home to more than a million Palestinians who left other parts of the Gaza Strip, where Israel has conducted its mission to eradicate the terrorist group Hamas.

President Biden said Israel would continue to see U.S. support for its defensive systems, like the Iron Dome, in the CNN interview. He added, however, that ‘if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, that deal with that problem.’

The day before, however, the administration appears to have quietly approved the sale of ‘defense articles or defense services’ to countries the U.S. previously accused of engaging in anti-Israel boycotts, according to the document.

Under current law, the president is permitted to enact and extend sanctions waivers on Arab nations boycotting Israel if the waiver ‘is in the national interest of the United States’ and if the U.S. deems waivers ‘objectives of eliminating the Arab League boycott.’

The notice was first reported by The Washington Free Beacon.

Lebanon is home to terror group Hezbollah, which claimed credit for rocket strikes against Israel as recently as Friday, according to AFP. 

In the State Department notice, the Biden administration acknowledges Lebanon has had an active Israel boycott since June 1995 but added as its reasoning for a sanctions waiver, ‘The waiver’s extension is in the U.S. national interest as it facilitates U.S. support for Lebanese stability, sovereignty, and efforts to undermine violent extremist influences in Lebanon and to strengthen the ability of Lebanese security institutions.’

For Yemen, where Iran-backed Houthi rebels have caused chaos in the Red Sea for months in retaliation for Israel’s invasion of Gaza, the Biden administration argued a sanctions waiver was necessary ‘in our national security interest as we seek to continue working with the Government of Yemen to tackle regional threats — particularly the Houthis.’

Qatar, a wealthy gulf nation on the list, has for over a decade housed Hamas’ top officials, including its leader, Ismail Haniyeh. The arrangement, though requested by the U.S., has come under criticism recently in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Qatar is also playing an active role in cease-fire negotiations.

The State Department said Qatar’s sanctions waiver ‘underscores the strength of our bilateral relationship, which is crucial to maintaining security in the region, while also permitting U.S. officials to continue working closely with the Government of Qatar to eliminate further instances of boycott requests.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department for comment.

President Joe Biden was blasted on social media this week over a past anti-Trump tweet that critics said showed he should be impeached for withholding some weapons from Israel if it moves forward with a military operation in Rafah, Gaza.

‘President Trump withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine unless they granted him a political favor,’ Biden tweeted as a candidate in 2019 about the impeachment push against Trump over a phone call with Ukraine that Democrats claimed was a ‘quid pro quo.’

‘It’s the definition of quid pro quo. This is no joke—Trump continues to put his own personal, political interests ahead of the national interest. He must be impeached.’

Trump was ultimately impeached  for ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of Congress’ related to his dealings with Ukraine.

Biden’s 2019 post drew immediate push back on social media from conservatives who argued that Biden’s recent move to withhold some military aid from Israel due to his objection to their military campaign in Gaza was similar to what Democrats accused Trump of during the impeachment.

‘Joe Biden endorses his own impeachment,’ Red State writer Bonchie posted on X.

‘Wow — how newly relevant,’  New York Post reporter Jon Levine posted on X.

‘Joe Biden is withholding Congressionally appropriated aid to Israel unless they grant him a political favor. It’s the definition of quid pro quo,’ conservative communicator Steve Guest posted on X.

‘This is no joke—Biden continues to put his own personal, political interests ahead of the national interest. He must be impeached,’ Federalist co-founder Sean Davis posted on X.

‘Joe Biden withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to uproot Hamas in a political pay off pro-Hamas radicals,’ Trump adviser Stephen Miller posted on X. ‘This warrants impeachment and criminal investigation — including exploring all ties between Biden aides and Iran.’

Some have pushed back on the suggestion that Biden committed an impeachable offense, including those who have pointed to a 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan office that analyzes U.S. policy, that says, ‘The Arms Export Control Act of 1961 ‘prohibits the sale or delivery of U.S.-origin defense articles if the President finds that a recipient country has used such articles for unauthorized purposes.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a White House official dismissed the accusations of hypocrisy as ‘ridiculous.’

‘Senior administration officials had already made multiple public statements about Rafah similar to the President’s, including that we are also ensuring Israel gets every dollar appropriated in the supplemental,’ the official said. ‘Trump failed to spend dollars appropriated by Congress that he was legally required to spend. This is about a purchase made by a foreign government using its own funds, not funds appropriated by Congress, and our decision whether to deliver that purchase right now, which could enable an operation we’ve publicly and privately objected to.’ 

House Republicans disagree with the assessment from the White House as evidenced by news on Friday that articles of impeachment were filed against President Biden over the controversy.

‘In violation of his oath to faithfully execute the office of President and to uphold the Constitution, President Biden abused the powers of his office by soliciting a ‘quid pro quo’ with Israel while leveraging vital military aid for policy changes,’ GOP Rep. Cory Mills said in a statement first reported by Fox News Digital.

‘This egregious action not only compromised the credibility of the United States but also undermined the interests of our longstanding ally, Israel. Therefore, President Biden’s conduct warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office, and disqualification from holding any future office under the United States.’

Biden has faced criticism from members of his own party as well including Democratic Rep. Ritchie Tores, who said he suspects that Biden is ‘pandering to the far left.’

‘It looks like election year politics was driving it,’ Tores said. ‘That’s my impression.’ 
 

The House Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into the Biden administration over its threats to withhold offensive aid from Israel if it proceeds with a ground invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., questioned both the decision-making process and the timing of the announcement itself in a letter to President Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan.

He also requested a congressional briefing from the White House National Security Council in addition to communications and other documents related to discussions about pausing any kind of aid to Israel, with a deadline of May 24.

‘The Committee is alarmed by the Biden administration’s willingness to play political games with U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance going to Israel,’ Comer wrote in a letter signed by Republicans on the Oversight Committee. ‘On May 9, 2024, President Biden made public that he would not supply offensive weapons that Israel could use in its offensive on Rafah—the last major Hamas stronghold in Gaza.’

‘Further reporting indicates that the National Security Council actively chose to withhold this information from the public eye for days, in part so that news of the decision would not be known when President Biden delivered a speech touting support for Israel on Holocaust Remembrance Day. The Committee seeks a briefing, as well as documents and information related to this decision, including any legal justification for withholding essential supplies from Israel in its fight against Hamas terrorists who still have Israeli and American hostages.’

Biden made the high-stakes ultimatum to Israel’s government in a CNN interview that aired Wednesday night as it prepares for a ground invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The city is currently home to more than a million Palestinians who left other parts of the Gaza Strip, where Israel has conducted its mission to eradicate the terrorist group Hamas.

‘The idea that we would cut off military aid to an ally, our only true, true ally in the entire region, is absolutely preposterous. It’s just beyond my comprehension anyone would do that.’

— Then-presidential candidate Joe Biden in a 2019 PBS interview

Biden said Israel would continue to see U.S. support for its defensive systems, like the Iron Dome, in the CNN interview. He added, however, that ‘if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, that deal with that problem.’

‘The Committee finds both the decision to withhold essential military aid and hiding that decision from the public for political purposes disturbing, especially given that on President Biden’s first day in office, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki pledged that the administration would, ‘bring transparency and truth back to government.’ Hiding information from the public for political gain does not meet this Committee’s definition of transparency,’ Comer wrote.

‘The Biden administration’s priorities appear to be motivated by public perception, and not what is best for national security or diplomacy.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby suggested to reporters on Thursday that Israel was aware of the Biden administration’s warning about offensive aid before his CNN interview and stressed that Israel has yet to wage a full invasion of Rafah’s population centers.

‘The President said yesterday that if Israel in fact proceeds with a major ground operation in Rafah, he will not provide certain categories of weapons to support such an operation.  The Israeli government has understood this for some time,’ Kirby said.

‘He also said yesterday that he will continue to ensure that Israel has all of the military means it needs to defend itself against all of its enemies, including Hamas.  For him, this is straightforward: He will continue to provide Israel with all of capabilities it needs, but he does not want certain categories of American weapons used in a particular type of operation in a particular place. And again, he has been clear and consistent with that.’

Notably, however, Biden said of Israel aid in a 2019 PBS interview, ‘The idea that we would cut off military aid to an ally, our only true, true ally in the entire region, is absolutely preposterous. It’s just beyond my comprehension anyone would do that.’

The House Oversight Committee has already been investigating the Biden administration’s funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), after staffers for the refugee organization were accused of links to the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attack in southern Israel.

The U.S. has promised to vote against any resolution that would seek to grant the Palestinians full membership in the United Nations after a General Assembly resolution passed with significant support from member states. 

‘Our vote does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood,’ U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the U.N. Robert Wood said after the vote. ‘We have been very clear that we support it and seek to advance it meaningfully: Instead, it is an acknowledgment that statehood will only come from a process that involves direct negotiations between the parties.’

‘This resolution does not resolve the concerns about the Palestinian membership application raised in April in the Security Council through the admissions committee process,’ Wood added. ‘Should the Security Council take up the Palestinian membership application as a result of this resolution, there will be a similar outcome.’ 

The vote, brought to the floor by the United Arab Emirates, received support from 143 members, with nine voting against and 25 abstaining.

The ‘no’ votes included Argentina, Hungary, Israel and the United States, among others, while the abstentions included Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Monaco, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, among others.

‘A negotiated two-state solution remains the best path towards an enduring peace where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side with equal measures of security, freedom, and dignity,’ the U.S. Mission to the U.N. wrote on social media platform X after the vote. ‘Unilateral measures like the UNGA resolution on Palestinian UN membership adopted today will not advance this goal.’

Wood in his address to the General Assembly stressed that the resolution ‘does not alter the status’ of the Palestinians at the United Nations, labeling the motion ‘unproductive,’ but assured that as the resolution did not ultimately grant the Palestinians the rights that would provide ‘the same standing as a member state.’ 

As such, the U.S. has indicated it will therefore not cut funding to the United Nations or specialized agencies, which it would have had to do under Public Law 101-246. President Obama during his administration cut funding to UNICEF after the organization admitted the Palestinians as members. 

Prior to the vote, Israel’s Ambassador the U.N. Gilad Erdan accused members who would support the motion of ‘shredding the U.N. charter.’

‘Shame on you,’ Erdan said as he shredded a small paper with ‘Charter of the United Nations’ written on it in a handheld paper shredder. 

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro University Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, told Fox News Digital that ‘Roughly 75% of U.N. member states evidently believe that there is one exception to the U.N. Charter’s membership core requirement of being a ‘peace-loving state,’ namely, the would-be Palestinian terror state. 

She warned that ‘With today’s resolution, the U.N. General Assembly could soon have a President from the so-called ‘State of Palestine’ – without any negotiation or agreement to live in peace and security with a Jewish state. Hamas and its Palestinian Authority UN mouthpiece at the helm of the United Nations’ lead body. A day in infamy.’ 

Several members in their post-vote statements stressed that they condemned the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, but argued that they deemed Israel’s actions in Gaza of having gone too far: Singapore argued that supporting the motion would hopefully push Israel and the Palestinians to resume discussions aimed at establishing a two-state solution. 

France’s mission stressed that it supported the admission of the Palestinians as members of the U.N., but that while it voted in favor of the resolution to indicate ultimate support for the motion, it did not support attempts to ‘circumvent’ the membership admission process. 

Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., formally filed articles of impeachment against President Biden on Friday over his recent comments about withholding offensive weapons aid to Israel, drawing parallels to House Democrats’ first impeachment of former President Donald Trump.

The first-term House Republican told Fox News Digital it was his ‘constitutional duty’ to do so.

His legislative text, first obtained by Fox News Digital, accuses Biden of ‘abuse of power’ and charges that he tried to force Israel into changing its own defense policies by leveraging lethal aid.

‘In violation of his oath to faithfully execute the office of President and to uphold the Constitution, President Biden abused the powers of his office by soliciting a ‘quid pro quo’ with Israel while leveraging vital military aid for policy changes. This egregious action not only compromised the credibility of the United States but also undermined the interests of our longstanding ally, Israel. Therefore, President Biden’s conduct warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office, and disqualification from holding any future office under the United States,’ Mills said in a statement.

Fox News Digital was first to report Mills’ intent to file the impeachment articles on Thursday. He and other GOP lawmakers have drawn comparisons between Biden’s comments on Israel and Trump’s leveraging of lethal aid to Ukraine unless Kyiv announced an investigation into the Bidens.

‘Joe Biden is pressuring Israel, our biggest ally in the Middle East, by pausing their funding that has already been approved in the House, if they don’t stop all operations with Hamas. It’s a very clear message, ‘this for that,” Mills said Thursday. ‘These are the same accusations made against President Trump, which resulted in his impeachment by Democrats. The same must happen for Joe Biden, which is why we’re drawing up articles of impeachment now.’

Biden made the high-stakes ultimatum to Israel’s government in a CNN interview that aired Wednesday night as it prepares for a ground invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The city is currently home to more than a million Palestinians who left other parts of the Gaza Strip, where Israel has conducted its mission to eradicate the terrorist group Hamas.

President Biden said Israel would continue to see U.S. support for its defensive systems, like the Iron Dome, in the CNN interview. He added, however, that ‘if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities, that deal with that problem.’

Mills’ legislative text argues that in making those comments, Biden ‘used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and its ally Israel.’

It’s highly unlikely for the push to reach the level of a Senate trial, with the House’s current ongoing impeachment inquiry into Biden still searching for smoking gun evidence amid accusations of improper behavior and bribery, all of which the White House has denied.

But it shows the sky-high tensions that have taken over Washington amid Israel’s war on Hamas after the terrorist group’s Oct. 7 attack.

A White House official told Fox News Digital that Mills’ push was ‘ridiculous’ on Thursday.

‘Senior administration officials had already made multiple public statements about Rafah similar to the President’s, including that we are also ensuring Israel gets every dollar appropriated in the supplemental. Trump failed to spend dollars appropriated by Congress that he was legally required to spend. This is about a purchase made by a foreign government and our decision whether to deliver that purchase right now, which could enable an operation we’ve publicly and privately objected to,’ the official said.

Meanwhile, White House national security communications adviser John Kirby told reporters on Thursday, ‘As the President said, Israel has not yet launched such an operation, so he was talking about what would happen in the future if they did. That is a choice Israel will have to make. We hope they don’t. We will keep working with them to develop alternative approaches that we think have a better chance of strategic success and a better chance of eliminating the threat that Israeli people still face from Hamas.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for further comment on Friday.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, accused his Senate opponent, Democratic candidate Rep. Colin Allred of Texas, of being financially backed by the same powerful families who are supporting the anti-Israel and antisemitic demonstrations at universities across the country. 

Between April 18 and May 3, police either arrested or detained more than 2,200 people on at least 49 college campuses during protests in 26 different states.

‘Those protests are being funded by Joe Biden and the Democrats’ top donors,’ Cruz told Fox News Digital in an interview, saying Allred’s donors — the Soros, Rockefeller, Pritzker, and Gates families — had also been either in the past or presently connected to organizations that are supporting the demonstrations against Israel. 

‘They’re being funded by George Soros and the Rockefeller brothers and Bill and Melinda Gates and the Pritzkers,’ he claimed. 

Cruz continued, ‘Those folks are not just Joe Biden’s top donors. They’re among Colin Allred’s top donors.’

‘Colin Allred has accepted $80,000 from those donors that are funding the anti-Israel, antisemitic protests on college campuses,’ the Texas senator said. 

Including both his congressional and Senate campaigns, associated committees and All In PAC, the four families have provided just under $80,000 to Allred’s electoral efforts, as Cruz claimed. 

Open Society, which was founded by Democratic megadonor George Soros and is chaired by his son Alexander Soros, said in a statement that they ‘fund an array of non-profit civil society groups across the United States that advocate for a fairer world.’ 

‘The vast majority of these groups have no involvement with protests of any kind. Others may seek to articulate and amplify dissenting voices through, for example, petitions, meetings, and peaceful public protests,’ a spokesperson said. George Soros himself did not provide comment to Fox News Digital. 

Nicholas and Susan Pritzker’s Libra Foundation also funds smaller social justice organizations, several of which are understood to be involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Politico recently reported. 

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has awarded the organization Jewish Voice for Peace hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants over the last several years, a group that has staged its own anti-Israel demonstrations and explicitly considers itself to be ‘anti-Zionist.’

The fund was founded by the famous Rockefeller family, and its members remain involved in the organization. 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given the controversial Tides Foundation and Tides Center millions of dollars over the last few years, with the most recent grant to the Tides Center being awarded in November and amounting to $616,409. 

Tides is understood to support several anti-Israel organizations with a large presence at the cross-country university demonstrations. 

Both the Tides Foundation and Tides Center are Tides entities and affiliates. The foundation is mostly focused on philanthropic work, while the center ‘supports social change leaders, connects diverse people and organizations, and powers solutions that come directly from communities historically denied power, including women, economically disadvantaged communities, and communities of color.’

The Gates’ foundation told Fox News Digital that it does not have any grants that are active with the Tides Foundation anymore and denied funding the demonstrations either directly or indirectly. 

The foundation told Fox News Digital that grants to the Tides Center were still active but noted that they are related to education. A spokesperson claimed they do not either directly or indirectly fund the demonstrations. 

Allred’s campaign, the Pritzkers’ Libra Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund did not provide comment to Fox News Digital. 

‘Colin has a choice. Will he stand with the people of Israel and send the money back or will he keep the money?’ asked Cruz. 

‘It’s sad what’s happened to the Democrat Party, but Colin Allred has an opportunity to make a choice and to decide which side he stands on,’ he added. 

Former President Trump is demanding President Biden coordinate a presidential debate after both 2024 candidates have expressed enthusiasm for the idea.

Trump wrote a short ‘letter to Joe’ on Thursday via his proprietary social media platform, Truth Social.

‘Dear Joe, now that you’ve committed to Debate on the now dying Howard Stern Show, no less, [sic] let’s set it up right now. I’m ready to go anywhere that you are,’ Trump said.

The former president reiterated venue ideas he’s mentioned in previous debate challenges, including the White House and New York City.

‘We could do it in D.C., even pinpoint the White House, or in New York when your Radical Left Fascists are finished with ELECTION INTERFERENCE against your Political Opponent, ME,’ Trump continued.

The two presidential candidates have traded challenges back and forth since Biden said that he would be ‘happy’ to debate the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee two weeks ago on the Howard Stern Show.

The same day Trump posted his short ‘letter to Joe’, Biden was asked whether he would debate the former president prior to the election.

‘Set it up,’ Biden told reporters following a ceremony celebrating the WNBA Champions, the Las Vegas Aces, on Thursday afternoon.

Despite the bluster from both presumptive candidates, no progress seems to have been made setting up a debate.

The Commission on Presidential Debates will proceed with its original schedule despite requests for earlier events.

‘The CPD’s criteria […] will be applied in early September; afterward, the Commission will extend debate invitations to qualifying candidates,’ the CPD told Fox News Digital last month.

The first presidential debate is scheduled for Sept. 16 at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. The second debate will be in Petersburg, Virginia, on Oct. 1, and the third will be held in Salt Lake City on Oct. 9. A vice presidential debate is scheduled for Sept. 25 in Easton, Pennsylvania.

Fox News Digital’s Sarah Rumpf-Whitten contributed to this report.

The 2020 presidential election was one of the closest and most controversial in American history, and preliminary polling suggests that the 2024 rematch between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden will likely be just as hotly contested. However, there are two major differences between 2020 and 2024 that could prove to be the deciding factors in the race.  

The first is that 2024 features a relatively popular third-party candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Recent national polls show RFK Jr. could capture as much as 16% of the popular vote. If RFK Jr. were to win 16% of the vote, it would make him, by far, the most successful third-party candidate since Ross Perot in 1992. 

The second important change in the 2024 race is one that has not received nearly as much attention. Following the 2020 Census, the House of Representatives reapportioned congressional seats among the states, a constitutional requirement. Whenever the House of Representatives is reapportioned, the Electoral College is also adjusted. 

Although the changes to the 2024 Electoral College map appear minimal at first glance, they could prove to be pivotal for Trump, who benefited significantly from the adjustments. 

Thirteen states experienced changes to their Electoral College vote count in the recent reapportionment. Seven lost one vote: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Five gained one vote: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon. One state, Texas, gained two votes. 

All told, Republican-leaning states gained two votes in the Electoral College and Democrat-leaning states lost two. But the real impact of the changes is much larger than a four-vote swing. The alterations make it possible for Trump to win the 2024 election with fewer states than what was required in 2020. 

For example, in 2020, had Trump beat Biden in Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia — all states he lost — Trump still would have been one vote shy of the 270 Electoral College vote requirement needed to win the race outright. Under the 2024 adjustments, however, Trump would have 272 votes. 

Similarly, all other states remaining the same, had Trump won Georgia and Pennsylvania in 2020, Biden would still have had enough votes to win the presidency. Under the 2024 vote count, Trump would win with exactly 270 votes under such a scenario. 

These aren’t the only situations in which the 2024 changes to the Electoral College apportionment would have had an impact, either. There are a number of scenarios in which the new Electoral College vote count could have an effect, and all the hypothetical situations I could find showed that Trump, not Biden, would benefit. 

If Trump does win in 2024 and the changes to the Electoral College end up contributing to his success, Democrats will use the situation as an excuse to expand their efforts to replace the Electoral College model with a national popular vote system.  

Sixteen states, all of which typically vote for Democratic presidential candidates, have enacted a law that would automatically grant their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who receives the highest national popular vote count. 

The law, which is part of an interstate compact agreement, does not go into effect until the total Electoral College votes controlled by the states in the agreement reaches 270. At present, the 16 states in the agreement control a combined total of 205 Electoral College votes. 

Under the national popular vote model, the presidential candidate with the most votes would win, regardless of whether the losing candidate is more popular in the vast majority of states. That means that the national popular vote would overrule the will of the voters in those states.  

The national popular vote proposal might be simpler and seem on the surface to be fairer, but it could prove to be disastrous for citizens living in much of the country, including in many ‘blue’ states. 

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers chose the Electoral College model is that they were concerned that a national popular vote would give too much power to the citizens of the largest states.  

Under a national vote system, they reasoned that eventually politicians would neglect the needs of Americans in smaller states and rural regions in favor of urban areas where the most voters live. Since the population density of the United States has skyrocketed since the founding era, the Founders’ concerns are more relevant today than ever before. 

As an illustration, consider that in 2020, 158 million ballots were cast for president. Had a popular vote system been in place in 2020, Trump or Biden could have guaranteed a victory with about 79 million votes. The total ballot count for 10 of the highest populated states — California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia — topped 82 million in 2020. 

That means that under a popular vote system, Trump or Biden could have become president without getting a single vote in 40 of the 50 states. 

A national popular vote model would also expand the impact of third-party candidates, because every vote cast for a third-party candidate would have a direct effect on the national vote count. In an election with one or more popular third-party politicians, a candidate could theoretically win the White House with the support of the citizens of just a handful of states and a fraction of the total vote count. 

These aren’t the only situations in which the 2024 changes to the Electoral College apportionment would have had an impact, either. There are a number of scenarios in which the new Electoral College vote count could have an effect, and all the hypothetical situations I could find showed that Trump, not Biden, would benefit. 

The Electoral College model is far from perfect, but it’s the best of many bad options. The United States is too large geographically and too diverse culturally and ideologically for a national popular vote system.  

Those who say that a position as powerful as president shouldn’t be chosen by a minority of citizens are, in my view, correct. But the problem isn’t in the method of choosing, but rather in the powers granted to the executive branch. The modern presidency has far more authority than the Founders ever dreamed of, and our country is worse off for it. 

Instead of trying to find better ways to elect an all-powerful federal government, Americans should be working to shift decision-making back to states and local governments, where it belongs. That would not only alleviate concerns about the Electoral College, it would also give people the opportunity to live in communities where the laws more closely align with their ideological, cultural, and religious views.