A new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows President Biden’s slight lead over former President Trump vanishing despite Trump’s ongoing criminal trial in New York City.

Trump’s trial, related to the 34 counts of falsifying business records he’s charged with, began last week with jury selection and moved into opening arguments this week. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges. 

The poll also found the presidential race to be in a dead heat with Biden and Trump tied at 46% support. 

The two remain tied at 37% with the inclusion of independent presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (16%) and Dr. Cornel West (3%) and the Green Party’s Jill Stein (3%).

Those numbers mark a significant closing of the gap for Trump, who trailed Biden 48%-45% in Quinnipiac’s March poll. However, with the inclusion of Kennedy, West and Stein, Trump held a one-point lead over Biden 39%-38%. 

Biden’s job approval remained dismally low at 35% support, down from 37% in March, while 61% said they disapprove of his job performance, up from 59%.

Regarding the charges Trump faces in his ongoing New York trial, a plurality of 46% said they believe the former president did something illegal, while 45% said he didn’t. However, 27% believe he did something unethical but not illegal, and 18% believe he did nothing wrong.

If Trump were to be convicted on the charges, 21% said they would be less likely to vote for him, 62% said it would not affect their vote and 15% said they would be more likely to vote for him.

Trump has argued the trial is pure politics, a ‘political persecution,’ and he maintains his innocence. The former president, the first ever to be a defendant in a criminal trial, vowed to ‘tell the truth’ if he takes the stand.

He has also argued the trial is unfairly keeping him from the campaign trail, giving Biden an advantage. 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Former President Trump said New York Judge Juan Merchan ‘thinks he is above the Supreme Court,’ after ‘prohibiting’ him from attending arguments Thursday on presidential immunity, telling Fox News Digital it is ‘the most important case in many years’ before the high court. 

The former president and presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee spoke exclusively to Fox News Digital on Wednesday after spending the last two days in a Manhattan courtroom for opening arguments and witness testimony in his unprecedented criminal trial. 

Trump had requested to attend arguments at the Supreme Court when it holds oral arguments about the former president’s immunity on Thursday, but Judge Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, rejected that request. 

‘Because he thinks he is above the Supreme Court, he is prohibiting me from going to the presidential immunity hearing where some of the great legal scholars will be arguing the case — the most important case in many years on the Supreme Court,’ Trump told Fox News Digital.  

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on whether Trump is immune from prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith out of his investigation into 2020 election interference. 

‘Without presidential immunity, the presidency becomes a ceremonial position only, it will be decimated,’ he continued. ‘He’s prohibiting me from going. He is a radical left Democrat.’ 

When Trump requested to attend the Supreme Court arguments last week, Merchan told his attorney: ‘Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I can certainly appreciate why your client would want to be there.’ 

‘But a trial in New York Supreme Court… is also a big deal,’ Merchan said last week, requiring the former president to be in his Manhattan courtroom on Thursday, instead of at the high court in Washington, D.C. 

A ruling from the Supreme Court on the issue of presidential immunity is expected by late June. 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges. 

‘Virtually every legal scholar and expert in the country said that this case should not have been brought, that there was no crime, that everything was done properly and that this is a case that should be dropped immediately,’ Trump told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.

‘It’s an embarrassment to Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party who are duly standing behind it and the judge is totally conflicted — totally conflicted,’ he said. 

‘If falsifying a business record is because a bookkeeper wrote down ‘legal expense’ in paying a legal fee, that’s not falsifying,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘They call it a legal expense — and that’s what it was. It was a legal expense.’ 

He added: ‘It was legal fees paid to a lawyer — that’s called a legal expense.’ 

Trump’s criminal trial stemming from Smith’s investigation has been put on hold pending a Supreme Court decision on whether Trump is immune from prosecution. 

Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Those charges stemmed from Smith’s investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

Meanwhile, Trump also requested to skip court on May 17 to attend the high school graduation of his youngest son, Barron. 

‘The other thing is, the judge is prohibiting me from going to my son’s graduation from high school — my son Barron, who has worked very hard and he’s a great student,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘He can’t have his father at his graduation because of a vicious judge that’s totally conflicted.’ 

Trump added: ‘He should never be allowed to do this case.’ 

Trump and his attorneys had sought Merchan to recuse himself from the case due to his daughter’s Democrat-affiliated political work. 

Merchan’s daughter, Loren, has a leadership role and ownership stake at Authentic Campaigns Inc., which Trump lawyers say ‘services exclusively Democrat clients’ and is ‘the #21 ranked vendor in the country in connection with the 2024 election.’

Some of Authentic’s top ‘featured clients’ on its website include campaigns associated with Trump opponents — including ‘President Biden, Vice President Harris, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Congressman [Adam] Schiff, Congressman [Hakeem] Jeffries, Congressman [Dan] Goldman, Congresswoman [Lauren] Underwood, and Congresswoman [Summer] Lee.’ The website also features its work for the Democrat-backed ‘Senate Majority PAC,’ and the Democrat-backed ‘House Majority PAC.’ 

Merchan said he saw no basis for recusal. 

As for Barron’s graduation, Merchan has yet to formally grant or deny Trump’s request, and instead has said he will make his decision based on how the trial is going. 

The Biden campaign will stay on TikTok, even after President Biden signed a bill into law that would force its China-based parent company to sell the video sharing social media platform or face a ban in the United States, Fox News has learned. 

Biden campaign officials told Fox News on Wednesday that the Biden-Harris campaign ‘will stay on TikTok.’ 

President Biden, on Wednesday morning, signed a Senate-passed bill to force TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, which is based in China, to sell the app or be banned in the United States, as lawmakers accuse the platform of being a risk to U.S. national security, collecting user data, and spreading propaganda. 

The TikTok legislation was part of a set of bills providing $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. 

House Republicans’ decision last week to attach the TikTok bill to the foreign aid package helped expedite its passage, after an earlier version of the bill had stalled in the Senate. The Senate version would have given ByteDance six months to divest its stake in the platform, which some lawmakers believed was too short of a window for a complex deal potentially worth tens of billions of dollars.

The new measure gives ByteDance nine months to sell TikTok, as well as a possible three-month extension if a sale is in progress. The bill would also prohibit the company from controlling the algorithm that shows users videos based on their interests.

The passage of the legislation comes amid bipartisan fears in Congress over Chinese threats, which includes the ownership of TikTok. Lawmakers and administration officials have expressed concerns for years that Chinese officials could force ByteDance to provide U.S. user data and influence Americans by promoting certain content on the platform.

China has previously said it would oppose forcing the sale of TikTok, and has signaled it would oppose the latest legislation. TikTok has long denied it is a security threat, and is preparing a lawsuit to block the legislation.

‘At the stage that the bill is signed, we will move to the courts for a legal challenge,’ TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, Michael Beckerman, wrote in a memo sent to employees on Saturday.

‘This is the beginning, not the end of this long process,’ Beckerman wrote.

The platform has had some success with court challenges in the past, but it has never attempted to prevent federal legislation from going into effect.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, TikTok blasted the law as ‘unconstitutional.’

‘This unconstitutional law is a TikTok ban, and we will challenge it in court,’ TikTok said in a statement. ‘We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail.’ 

The company said it has ‘invested billions of dollars to keep U.S. data safe and our platform free from outside influence and manipulation.’ 

‘This ban would devastate seven million businesses and silence 170 million Americans,’ the company continued. ‘As we continue to challenge this unconstitutional ban, we will continue investing and innovating to ensure TikTok remains a space where Americans of all walks of life can safely come to share their experiences, find joy, and be inspired.’

Fox News’ Mark Merideth, Landon Mion and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is in the middle of yet another intraparty conflict within the House GOP after showing support for one of his vulnerable incumbents on Tuesday.

Johnson was in San Antonio this week for a campaign fundraiser held by Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, who is facing a primary challenger backed by members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus and their allies.

It came days after Gonzales infuriated the GOP rebel group when he called two of his colleagues, House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good, R-Va., and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., ‘scumbags’ and compared them to Klansmen in a stunning CNN interview over the weekend.

‘It’s my absolute honor to be in Congress, but I serve with some real scumbags like Matt Gaetz. He paid minors to have sex with him at drug parties. Bob Good endorsed my opponent, a known neo-Nazi,’ Gonzales said. ‘These people used to walk around with white hoods at night. Now they’re walking around with white hoods in the daytime.’

The allegations against Gaetz, which he denies, were the subject of a federal probe that prosecutors ultimately decided not to move forward with.

Gaetz and Good’s allies seized on the comments and, soon after, on Johnson’s plan to appear with Gonzales.

It is part of the continued fallout from the House passing Johnson’s $95 billion foreign aid plan for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific. Johnson’s plan got wide bipartisan support but angered a rebellious faction of House GOP lawmakers who feel increasingly sidelined by Johnson as he navigates critical legislation with a historically slim majority.

Johnson’s campaign events are typically planned well in advance, but the backlash to this recent stop shows the historic division that’s plagued the House GOP for much of this Congress.

‘I’m just beside myself that that’s where things are. And I don’t mind saying it, but I’m going to be very clear. I’m being attacked. Conservatives are being attacked. Bob Good, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus is being attacked by Tony. He said that he’s a Klansman,’ Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said on local radio station KTSA. 

Gonzales’ opponent, pro-Second Amendment social media personality Brandon Herrera, responded to Gonzales’ comments on X on Sunday shortly after the congressman’s interview. ‘He has to cry to his liberal friends about me, because Republicans won’t listen anymore,’ Herrera wrote.

Gaetz accused Gonzales of ‘laundering lies on CNN’ and pointed out that Gonzales was censured last year by the Texas GOP for his support of gun control measures in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting, which occurred in Gonzales’ district, where 19 elementary school students and two teachers were murdered by an 18-year-old with an AR-15.

On Wednesday morning, Gaetz mocked Johnson and Gonzales with a photo from the event and accused them of having ‘briefed donors in Texas about their hard work to secure the border……of Ukraine.’

A source familiar with Johnson’s campaign plans told Fox News Digital that the event with Gonzales was a longstanding stop that was part of a wider campaign season swing through Texas.

Gonzales wrote on X of the fundraiser, ‘Proud to host an incredible crowd for our Fiesta luncheon! Thank you to Speaker Johnson for attending and being a champion for the issues that impact.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Gonzales’ campaign for comment on the GOP rebel-led backlash but did not immediately hear back. Fox News Digital reached out to Good’s campaign as well.

When reached for further comment by Fox News Digital, Gaetz listed off what conservatives say are Johnson’s legislative shortfalls, including the bipartisan government funding deal, renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and his support of Gonzales.

‘Speaker Johnson has undergone a metamorphosis that would make the monarch butterfly blush,’ he said.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, is accusing liberal billionaire George Soros of trying to fast-track his acquisition of a major radio company through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

‘I write today regarding Soros Fund Management’s acquisition of over $400 million in debt held by Audacy — the second-largest broadcast radio station owner in the country. Of particular concern, the Soros groups are asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve a change in ownership in Audacy without the FCC running its normal, statutorily required process,’ Roy said in a letter.

‘This transaction, which affects radio stations that reach millions of listeners across the U.S., including in Texas’ 21st congressional district, should — at minimum — be subject to rigorous FCC oversight to ensure U.S. radio stations are not subject to undue influence.’

Soros’ investment firm became the largest shareholder of Audacy last month, which owns local radio stations across the country. Audacy filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. 

Soros Fund Management was involved in a similar corporate restructure last year when it was one of the companies that acquired Vice Media after its bankruptcy filing last year.

Now, however, Roy raised alarm over Audacy also requesting that federal officials grant it a temporary exemption to existing FCC rules that forbid foreign company ownership of U.S. radio stations to exceed a 25% share, which would normally slow down the approval process.

‘But instead of going through the usual petition for declaratory ruling process, which would enable the FCC to review and assess those foreign ownership interests as part of its transaction review, the Soros group has asked the FCC to waive that process and put it off until sometime down the road — indicating that those foreign stakeholders will be given ‘special warrants’ in the meantime,’ Roy wrote.

‘The Soros group says that skipping the foreign ownership review at this time will enable the FCC to expedite its approval of the Soros applications and thus allow them to more quickly realize their ownership interests in, and take the reins at, these hundreds of local radio stations across the country.’

Audacy’s restructuring deal, which includes Soros’ firm and others, has been approved by the courts and is now awaiting its final hurdle — FCC approval, according to Inside Radio.

Roy told Fox News Digital that he heard from constituents who ‘reached out and raised issues and concerns about the extent to which it’s very clear that Soros is, you know, making a move in the radio world.’

‘I wanted to pose those questions to…understand what’s happening with the FCC on this, and raise the awareness publicly of the extent to which Soros’ people may be using — either the rules to their advantage, or frankly, the rules are getting abused to fast-track getting in there and grab that debt as a backdoor way to try to acquire a significant amount of ownership over local radio,’ he said.

Fox News Digital reached out to Audacy, the FCC and a Soros representative for comment.

The Supreme Court is set to consider arguably the highest-profile cases of the term Thursday to determine whether former President Trump can claim presidential immunity against criminal charges brought by the Biden Justice Department.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought charges against Trump following his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and Trump’s alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election result, argued in briefs submitted to the high court that ‘presidents are not above the law.’

Trump’s legal team conversely argued, ‘A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President… [t]he threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency.’ 

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while all nine justices might be skeptical of Trump’s sweeping immunity claims, they are likely to give guidance on where presidential immunity from criminal prosecution ends for actions taken while in the Oval Office — which could have a profound impact in the criminal cases against the former president.

Jonathan Turley, a practicing criminal defense attorney and professor at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital the case is ‘surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs.’

‘This case may be rather maddening for the justices because it is surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs. If the court goes one way, a president has little protection in carrying out the duties of his office. If they turned the other way, he has a little accountability for the most serious criminal acts,’ Turley said. 

‘This is a court that tends to be incremental. They tend not to favor sweeping rulings,’ he said.

The Justice Department argued in lower court that a president has virtually no immunity when he leaves office, and the lower court agreed.

Turley says the justices ‘could reject the lower court decision and send it back for a more nuanced approach on constitutional immunity.’

‘The justices may find that presidents do require immunity, even with regard to some criminal acts,’ Turley said, adding that ‘any remand would work significantly in the former president’s favor on a tactical level.’

Turley explained that if the case were to be remanded back down to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the D.C. District Court, that process would make a trial before the November election ‘even less likely.’ 

‘There are both constitutional and tactical aspects to the ruling, but I think these justices are likely to approach this argument with an eye toward balancing these interests, and if that’s the case, they could well come up with a different approach than the lower court or the former president,’ Turley said.

The thrust of Trump’s legal argument is that Supreme Court precedent says absolute immunity from civil liability exists for a former president for his official acts, and that the same immunity should apply to a criminal context. 

‘There’s a real likelihood that the Supreme Court will give some concrete guidance on the exact amount of protection a president is entitled to,’ Jim Trusty, former legal counsel for Trump and a former federal prosecutor, told Fox News Digital.

‘There are still likely to be factual issues that the lower courts will then have to decide as to where President Trump’s actions fit within this continuum of protected or unprotected conduct,’ he explained.

John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations, gave a similar view.

‘The chances of the Supreme Court giving the office of the president some amount of level of immunity are pretty good,’ Shu told Fox News Digital.

But Shu also said ‘there’s also a decent chance that whatever immunity the court carves out, it may not encompass Trump’s alleged acts.’

‘They won’t be making purely legal arguments, but political power arguments as well, and they’ll have to get at least five Supreme Court justices to agree with them,’ Shu said.

Trusty said the questions put to each of the parties in Thursday’s oral arguments ‘could be pretty transparent as to each justice’s view of immunity.’

So far, Shu observed, Trump’s attorneys have argued that the president has absolute immunity, even after he leaves office, for any and all acts.

‘I don’t think the court will go that far,’ Shu said.

Similarly, Trusty said he expects the court to ‘give very little credit to the notion of absolutely unlimited immunity, as President Trump’s lawyers have argued.’

‘But I do think there is a strong possibility that the court confirms the notion that immunity protects the president and that their ruling could set in motion the eventual dismissal of the Jan. 6, Mar-a-Lago and Georgia cases,’ he said.

The Supreme Court will hear the case, Trump v. United States, on Thursday at 10 a.m.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement, ‘Without immunity for official acts, there can be no Presidency. No President in American history has faced prosecution for his official acts — until now.’

‘Allowing political opponents to prosecute the President once he leaves office will distort the President’s most important decisions. Even during his Presidency, his enemies will blackmail and extort him with threats of lawless criminal charges and imprisonment once his term ends. The Framers of our Constitution wisely created a system that prevented this endless, destructive cycle of recrimination for 234 years,’ he continued.

‘The Supreme Court should uphold Presidential immunity and put an end to Jack Smith’s deranged, unconstitutional witch hunt against President Trump, once and for all.’

The ocean depths are a new frontier explored by humans and autonomous vehicles.

Leading the charge is Northrop Grumman’s innovative Manta Ray uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV), a technological innovation set to revolutionize undersea missions.

Engineering inspired by nature

The Manta Ray UUV was built through a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program. It is a testament to human ingenuity and nature’s inspiration. Drawing from the hydrodynamic form of its namesake, the manta ray, this extra-large glider vehicle promises to soar through the ocean on long-range missions without human assistance.

A cloak of secrecy surrounding the Manta Ray

Details on the Manta Ray are sparse, shrouded in mystery, much like the ocean depths it’s designed to explore. What we do know is that it’s built for endurance and versatility, capable of carrying various payloads tailored to specific missions.

Technological underwater leap forward

Northrop Grumman isn’t just creating a vehicle but pioneering advanced autonomous technologies. The Manta Ray’s energy-saving systems and modular design are set to revolutionize subsea warfare and beyond.

Advancing UUV technology

The Manta Ray program is set to introduce critical technologies for a new class of UUVs. These technologies include:

Novel energy management techniques for UUV operations and undersea energy harvesting at operationally relevant depthsLow-power, high-efficiency propulsion systems that redefine undersea travelNew methods for underwater detection and classification of hazards and counter-detection threatsMission management approaches for extended durations, taking into account the dynamic maritime environmentLeveraging existing maritime data sets and exploiting novel maritime parameters for high-efficiency navigation, command, control and communications (C3)Innovative solutions to mitigate biofouling, corrosion and material degradation for long-duration missions

The program’s multiphase effort includes at-sea demonstrations of these critical technologies, employing a disciplined systems engineering approach to define objectives and identify enabling technologies needed for future systems.

Kurt’s key takeaways

The Manta Ray UUV is more than just a machine; it’s a leap into the future of undersea exploration and combat. Its ability to operate autonomously and adapt to various missions represents a significant advancement in unmanned maritime technology.

With the deployment of the Manta Ray UUV and similar autonomous technologies, what concerns do you have about the escalation of undersea warfare and its potential consequences for global security? Let us know by writing us at

For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to

Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you’d like us to cover.

Answers to the most asked CyberGuy questions:

What is the best way to protect your Mac, Windows, iPhone and Android devices from getting hacked?What is the best way to stay private, secure and anonymous while browsing the web?How can I get rid of robocalls with apps and data-removal services?

Copyright 2024 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.

The Supreme Court is set to consider a second abortion case on Wednesday, this time dealing with claims by a Republican-led state that the Biden administration is attempting to wield a 40-year-old federal law as an ‘abortion mandate.’

On the heels of a debate over the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of an abortion pill, the high court will consider whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts the state of Idaho’s newly enacted Defense of Life Act – which makes it a crime for any medical provider to perform an abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.  

The Justice Department argued that the state’s law does not go far enough to allow abortions in more medical emergency circumstances.

However, proponents of the state law say that the administration’s lawsuit against Idaho is attempting to use a federal statute as an ‘abortion mandate’ to benefit the president ahead of the 2024 elections.

‘Construing EMTALA as a federal abortion mandate raises grave questions under the major questions doctrine that affect both Congress and this Court,’ Idaho argued in legal filings. 

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said, ‘The Supreme Court made it clear that it’s up to the states to decide what our laws should be and that it’s not for the federal government.’ 

‘But Joe Biden and his administration decided to come straight and sue us in federal courts.  We are excited to go before the Supreme Court to show that the state should be deciding these issues and not the federal government,’ he said.

The DOJ said in its response to the high court that while Idaho’s law makes it a felony for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy unless doing so is ‘necessary’ to prevent the patient’s ‘death,’ that exception is ‘narrower’ than EMTALA, which by its terms ‘protects patients not only from imminent death but also from emergencies that seriously threaten their health.’ 

However, Idaho accused the administration of ‘construing the spare phrase’ in the federal law ‘as a blank slate to be filled with the Executive Branch’s preferred abortion policy collides with multiple statutory provisions guaranteeing emergency medical care for a pregnant woman and her unborn child.’ 

‘It’s clear that the administration is just manipulating EMTALA and that both laws should be able to coexist,’ John Bursch, senior litigator at civil rights firm Alliance Defending Freedom and co-counsel in the case, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

‘If a woman’s life is in danger, Idaho’s Defense of Life Act makes it clear that the women should be treated and helped. Because in that instance, when the mom’s life is in danger, it’s not an abortion in Idaho or any of the other 49 states,’ he said.

But the White House says that the 21 states enforcing abortion bans are causing ‘chaos and confusion.’

‘These extreme state laws have caused chaos and confusion, and women are being denied the essential care they need. But these dangerous state laws do not change the responsibility that health care providers have to their patients in emergencies covered by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act,’ White House spokesperson Kelly Scully told Fox News Digital.

‘The Biden-Harris Administration has long been clear that federal law requires hospitals to offer health and life-saving care to patients in an emergency. The Administration remains focused on working with doctors, hospitals, and patients to make these federal requirements clear while the Department of Justice defends that understanding in the Supreme Court. No woman should be denied the care she needs,’ she said. 

The Center for Reproductive Rights also filed a lawsuit in September 2023, calling Idaho’s abortion ban ‘a six-week ban that has ‘vigilante’-style civil liability provisions.

The Center filed the suit on behalf of seven plaintiffs: four women who were denied medically necessary abortion care in their home state, two Idaho physicians who provide obstetrical care, and a professional membership organization consisting of Idaho physicians, medical residents and medical students.

EMTALA is a federal statute signed by then-President Reagan in 1986 after earning bipartisan congressional support, designed to prevent hospitals from turning away indigent patients who are in critical need of medical care and offer the same ‘stabilizing’ care they would to a patient who could pay or is covered by insurance.

After the Dobbs decision in 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade and left states to decide their own abortion limitations, Bursch said the Biden administration, for the first time in the law’s history, used it to impose an ‘abortion mandate.’

A district court sided with DOJ and ordered a preliminary injunction of the state’s law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision, which Idaho then appealed to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments are set for April 24. 

‘What the Biden administration wants to do is take this law and turn it into an abortion enclave in emergency rooms,’ Bursch said. ‘And to the point where even if a patient came in, and they said that they were in critical condition because of a mental health problem, like depression, or anxiety, that would give doctors a carte blanche ability to ignore laws like Idaho’s and take the life of the innocent child, and EMTALA doesn’t say anything like that.’ 

Bursch added that what he believes is ‘so ironic’ is that following the Dobbs decision, President Biden himself said that he disagreed with the decision, but that he understood that states operating through the democratic process would get to decide what abortion laws would control each state. 

‘And it was only a matter of weeks later that he changed course and said, ‘oh no, the federal government is just going to impose this new requirement by reinterpreting EMTALA in a way that it’s never been interpreted in its nearly four-decade history.’

 ‘It is subverting states’ rights. It’s pushing abortion on states that don’t want it, and it’s all blatantly illegal,’ he said.

Stephen Billy, vice president of state affairs for SBA Pro-Life America, said the administration’s novel legal challenge to a state’s abortion law looks politically motivated ahead of the November elections amid Biden’s dwindling poll numbers. 

‘The Biden administration doesn’t feel like they have any other issue to run on, and it’s clear what they’re going to talk about and what they’re trying to run on. Whether abortion is going to be a campaign issue or not, the Biden administration is going to try to make it one,’ he added.

Billy cited the Women’s Health Protection Act, which Democrats in Congress attempted to pass last year. It would have legalized virtually limitless abortion nationwide, but ultimately failed.

‘Congress’s opposition to that comes from the will of the people who sent the elected representatives to D.C., and they have very little national support when you look at the polling for the extreme position of the Women’s Health Protection Act,’ said Billy.

‘So Biden turned to executive action, ignoring the text of laws and just trying to use executive fiat to expand abortion on demand wherever you can, and however you can. And EMTALA is just one example of that,’ he said. 

Billy added that he believes the Biden administration is using ‘fear and scare tactics’ around the issue. 

‘The entire case is basically a claim that women can’t get medical care,’ he said, but noted that every ‘pro-life state’ allows for a mother’s health exception and allows doctors to act when there’s a medical emergency. 

‘They are trying to use that fear to drive a political agenda and to save their campaign because they don’t really have anything else to run on,’ he said. 

The Justice Department declined to comment on pending litigation.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, criticized the Senate’s passage of the foreign aid package Tuesday night, calling it ‘wrong,’ ‘shameful’ and a ‘sad day for America’ for spending money the government does not have to fund another country’s war.

The $95 billion package includes $61 billion to support Ukraine’s war against Russia, $26 billion for Israel and humanitarian aid amid the Jewish State’s war against Hamas and nearly $8 billion for the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan. It would also force TikTok’s China-based parent company ByteDance to sell the platform or face a ban in the U.S.

The Senate passed the legislation by a 79 to 18 vote, and it now heads to President Biden, who said he will sign it on Wednesday.

Lee made a series of posts on social media Tuesday night calling out the Republican Party for siding with Democrats to pass the measure, taking particular issue with the aid for Ukraine, saying lawmakers are ‘spending money that doesn’t belong to them.’

‘Americans are about to be made nearly $100 billion poorer,’ Lee said Tuesday night on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. ‘Not to secure our own borders. But to secure the borders of other countries. Republicans—spurred by Republican leadership in both chambers—gladly advanced the Democrats’ agenda. Neglecting our own. This is shameful.’

In a video attached to the post, Lee said this was a ‘sad day for America.’

In another video, he said Republicans ‘can do better’ than to accept GOP lawmakers in Washington who ‘act like Democrats.’

‘It is time to expect more, it is time to expect freedom,’ he wrote.

‘They think they’re Churchill,’ Lee said in another post. ‘They’re congratulating themselves for spending money that doesn’t belong to them—money we don’t have and will have to borrow and print. Spending other people’s money to fight someone else’s war—against their will—isn’t heroic. It’s cowardice.’

Several lawmakers sought votes on their respective amendments, including Lee, who proposed an amendment to require repayment of the foreign aid to Ukraine.

Lee wrote on X: ‘We need bold colors in the GOP. We lose with pastels.’

‘It doesn’t end well for any political party whose elected officials repeatedly display contempt for the party’s most faithful voters,’ he wrote. ‘Dems don’t do this to their base. Dems fight for their base, not against it.’

Citing past comments from former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Lee said foreign aid ‘often involves taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries.’

‘I’m sure Americans will sleep better tonight knowing that a few rich people in Ukraine are about to get a lot richer,’ Lee added.

Lee went on to say that the bill is not ‘heroic’ or ‘brave.’ ‘It’s wrong,’ he said.

In response to Biden’s statement commending the passage of the bill, the Republican senator said the measure will lead to more Ukrainian deaths.

‘Mr. President, I believe that this bill will prolong a bloody conflict and cost more Ukrainians their lives, even as their cause is righteous,’ Lee wrote. ‘I also believe that you do want to end the killing. Can we work to establish a negotiated peace in Ukraine?’

A $95 billion package with aid to both Ukraine and Israel passed the Senate on Tuesday night after the House’s various adjustments were approved in the lower chamber over the weekend. 

By a vote of 79 to 18, the Senate sent the package to President Biden’s desk, and he is expected to sign off on the additional foreign aid. It notably passed with more votes than the previous Senate-passed version had garnered in February.

The package ultimately included aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, alongside measures requiring TikTok to divest from Chinese-owned ByteDance and to allow $5 billion in Russian assets held in U.S. banks to be transferred to Ukraine.

Biden had initially requested the supplemental foreign aid in October. A different version of the package with funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan passed the Senate in February but was never voted on in the House. 

Under the measures, roughly $61 billion is set aside for supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia, about $26 billion is allotted for Israel and humanitarian aid, and nearly $8 billion is provided for the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan.

The Senate cleared the way for quick passage of the bills earlier on Tuesday when it voted in favor of invoking cloture, 81-19.

After the cloture motion passed, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., celebrated, telling senators in floor remarks, ‘In a resounding bipartisan vote, the relentless work of six long months has paid off: Congress is sending the supplemental to President Biden’s desk.’ 

‘This is an important day for America and a very important day for freedom-loving countries around the world,’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remarked to reporters following the vote to invoke cloture. 

Prior to the cloture vote, a significant number of senators sought a motion to table an amendment tree, which blocks other amendments from being considered in regular order. The motion to table was a close vote, with 48 supporting it and 50 voting against, allowing the amendment tree to stand.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released a statement following the motion’s failure, noting that it meant his amendment wouldn’t be considered. He wanted to see votes on his two amendments to the package, which would have ended unconditional aid to Israel and restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). 

‘Polls show that a majority of Americans, and a very strong majority of Democrats, want to end U.S. taxpayer support for Netanyahu’s war against the Palestinian people,’ Sanders said in a statement. ‘It is a dark day for democracy when the Senate will not even allow a vote on that issue.’ 

A number of Republican lawmakers also wanted votes on their respective amendments, including Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who proposed an amendment to require repayment of the foreign aid loan to Ukraine, in order to make it ‘real.’ 

If any amendments were passed in the Senate, the bill would be sent back to the House for its consideration once again.