A House GOP lawmaker is spearheading an effort to name the United States’ coastal waterways after former President Trump.

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., is introducing a bill on Friday to rename the immediate waters surrounding the U.S., called the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as the ‘Donald John Trump Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States.’

If passed, it would mandate the name change on any applicable laws, maps, documents and other records.

An EEZ refers to waterways immediately off a country’s coast where it can claim sole rights for fishing, drilling and other activities.

The U.S. has the largest EEZ in the world at 4,383,000 square miles.

Steube told Fox News Digital that Trump ‘cares about the strength and resilience of our oceans.’

‘During his time in office, President Trump took several commendable actions for our oceans as part of his work to make America strong, secure, and economically prosperous,’ he said. ‘I’m honored to introduce legislation that will rename our coastal waters after President Trump and serve as a reminder of his many contributions to our nation for generations to come.’

His Friday bill introduction lines up with the former president’s 78th birthday.

The legislation is unlikely to be taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate, but it’s evidence of Trump’s enduring influence within the Republican Party.

It’s the second bill proposed this year to name an internationally used entity after Trump. 

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., introduced a bill in April to rename Washington-Dulles International Airport to the Donald J. Trump International Airport.

A few days later, a group of Democrats responded with legislation to change the name of the federal prison in Miami to the Donald J. Trump Federal Correctional Institution.

A Democrat-backed bill that would have expanded access to and provide a ‘nationwide right’ to in vitro fertilization (IVF) services failed to garner enough votes to get past a key test vote on Thursday. 

The Senate voted 48 to 47, falling short of the necessary 60 votes needed to move forward. The package’s failure came as no surprise, as Republicans were anticipated to block the legislation and said the bill was too broad as Democrats work to amplify abortion access and reproductive issues ahead of the 2024 election. 

Republicans Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine were the only two GOP lawmakers to vote in favor of the bill. 

The vote comes after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are legally people and ruled that those who destroy them are liable. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey subsequently signed legislation into law in March that protects medical professionals from civil and criminal immunity in case of unintentional death or damage to an embryo. 

‘Protecting IVF should be the easiest yes vote senators have taken all year. All this bill does is establish a nationwide right to IVF and eliminate barriers for millions of Americans who seek IVF,’ Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor in support of the legislation Thursday. 

‘It’s personal to me. I have a beautiful one-year-old grandson because of the miracle of IVF. And so, in a perfect world, a bill like this would not be necessary. But after the fiasco of the Alabama Supreme Court decision and the generally MAGA views of some on the Supreme Court, Americans are genuinely worried that IVF is the next target of anti-choice extremists.’

Schumer notably changed his vote from yay to nay on Thursday, which will allow him to readdress the bill sooner in the future. 

The bill was introduced by Democratic Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Cory Booker of New Jersey. It included measures such as a statutory right to access to reproductive services such as IVF and would have lowered costs for IVF treatments. 

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Katie Britt released a statement earlier Thursday reaffirming their support of IVF access across the nation, but they slammed the legislation as ‘scare tactics.’ 

‘Senate Democrats have embraced a Summer of Scare Tactics—a partisan campaign of false fearmongering intended to mislead and confuse the American people. In vitro fertilization is legal and available in every state across our nation. We strongly support continued nationwide access to IVF, which has allowed millions of aspiring parents to start and grow their families,’ they wrote. 

Britt and Cruz offered their own version of the legislation Wednesday, which would have barred states from Medicaid funding if they banned IVF treatments. Democrats blocked their efforts to pass the legislation through a unanimous consent request, arguing that the legislation failed to broadly protect access to IVF services. 

Pro-life groups, such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, slammed the bill in the lead-up to the vote for its broad language they said combined ‘four extreme bills that take an ‘anything goes’ approach to fertility treatment.’ 

‘This bill is a solution in search of a problem — fertility treatments are widely available and there are no serious efforts to curb thoughtful care for those experiencing infertility. This is a sweeping bill that protects the industry without protections for parents or their embryos. The bill would allow for genetic testing of embryos, selective reduction abortions and even treatments using human cloning. Instead of serious legislation that balances complex issues, this is a free-for-all for the fertility industry. This bill funnels more money into their billion-dollar business and forces taxpayers to foot the bill,’ Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. 

Fox News Digital’s Julia Johnson and Elizabeth Pritchett contributed to this report. 

A new national poll suggests that the guilty verdicts against former President Trump in his recent criminal trial may have little impact on his 2024 election rematch with President Biden.

And the survey, from Monmouth University, also indicates that more voters agree than disagree with Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts in the first trial of a former or current president in the nation’s history.

But a majority questioned in the poll say the charges against the former president were politically motivated.

Nearly half say the same thing about the trial of Hunter Biden, the president’s sole surviving son, which ended Tuesday with the younger Biden’s conviction on three counts tied to his October 2018 purchase and possession of a revolver while using illegal drugs.

Trump was found guilty late last month of all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to payments during the 2016 election that he made to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about his alleged affair with the adult film actress.

Prosecutors in the case argued that this amounted to illegally seeking to influence the 2016 election.

The Monmouth poll spotlights that the impact on the presidential election of the Trump verdicts is minimal, with both candidates continuing ‘to draw almost identical levels of support, although voter enthusiasm for this rematch has increased among both Republicans and Democrats.’ 

According to the survey, just over four in 10 registered voters say they’ll either definitely or probably vote for the Democratic incumbent and in a separate question, a nearly identical number say they’ll definitely or probably vote for his Republican predecessor in the White House.

Forty-nine percent of those surveyed said they definitely won’t vote for Biden, with an identical number saying the same thing about Trump. 

These results have not moved much since last fall in Monmouth national polling.

Trump for months has held a slight polling edge over Biden in most surveys in the crucial seven battleground states across the country that will likely decide the outcome of the presidential rematch. But Biden enjoys a fundraising advantage, and the upper hand when it comes to ground game operations in the key states.

Nearly half — 47% — of those questioned in the Monmouth survey said they agree with the jury’s guilty verdicts in Trump’s trial, with 34% disagreeing. 

That’s mostly in-line with other national surveys conducted since the end of the trial that indicated about half of those questioned approving of the verdicts, but that opinions of the former president remained stable.

Fifty-seven percent of those questioned in the Monmouth poll said that they thought the decision to bring Trump to trial was politically motivated. By comparison, only 48% thought that the charges against Hunter Biden were motivated by politics.

‘Many Americans are skeptical about these high-profile trials and there is a clear partisan gap depending on which defendant we are talking about. Still, the results indicate Republicans have a higher level of distrust in our judicial process than Democrats do,’ Monmouth University Polling Institute director Patrick Murray said.

The poll was conducted June 6-10, before Tuesday’s conviction of Hunter Biden, with 1,106 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey’s overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Former President Trump gave a wide-ranging speech to House Republicans on Thursday, lashing out at his political enemies and praising his allies.

Trump in particular criticized the prosecutions against him, calling the Department of Justice (DOJ) ‘dirty, no good bastards,’ according to two sources in the room.

One GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital that Trump touted the fundraising and popularity boost he got from his various state and federal criminal charges.

‘He said, ‘They had a saying that we’re going to indict this guy into the White House,’’ the GOP lawmaker said.

The GOP lawmaker said Trump also called President Biden the ‘worst president in history.’

Sources also told Fox News that Trump referred to Biden as a ‘dope.’

Multiple House Republicans said the meeting went well, and that Trump touched on many topics, including military, trade and abortion policies.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital that Trump blamed Biden for the presence of Russian warships in Cuba.

‘What was really on his mind today is the fact that Russia has submarines right off the coast of the United States, and he’s just, he’s really upset… and he should be. I’m concerned. We all should be concerned that we’ve got a president that is, that’s so weak that he’s allowed for [this],’ Burlison said.

Rep. Mike Garcia, R-Calif., said Trump hit Biden for the White House’s threat to veto this year’s defense policy bill, which includes a pay raise for members of the military.

‘That’s a winning issue from a presidential race perspective,’ Garcia said. ‘The fact that Biden has now tripled down on this veto threat… President Trump should just be banging Biden over the head every day on the fact that you are not willing to give our troops a pay raise.’

Two additional sources who spoke with Fox News Digital said Trump also urged Republicans to hone an effective message on abortion, warning that it had ‘cost’ the GOP in previous elections. 

He said the issue was ‘too important to ignore’ and accused Democrats of having ‘radical’ positions on late-term abortion, the sources said.

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

Fox News’ Aishah Hasnie contributed to this report

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruledagainsta challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulatory approval process of the abortion drug mifepristone, in the latest abortion case since the landmark decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade. 

In a victory for the Biden administration and abortion rights supporters, the high court gave a unanimous decision that challengers to the FDA lacked standing to sue the government. 

‘Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. Nor do the plaintiffs’ other standing theories suffice,’ Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, who authored the unanimous opinion.

‘The plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,’ he said. ‘But under Article III of the Constitution, those kinds of objections alone do not establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court.’ The case was remanded back down to the Fifth Circuit consistent with the Court’s opinion.

The case stemmed from a set of lawsuits filed by a group of health care associations, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, who claimed that the drug has a high rate of complications. 

Erin Hawley, counsel for the civil rights firm Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case against the FDA, said, ‘We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the FDA’s lawless removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs. ‘

‘Nothing in today’s decision changes the fact that the FDA’s own label says that roughly one in 25 women who take chemical abortion drugs will end up in the emergency room — a dangerous reality the doctors and medical associations we represent in this case know all too well. The FDA recklessly leaves women and girls to take these high-risk drugs all alone in their homes or dorm, without requiring the ongoing, in-person care of a doctor,’ she said. 

‘While we’re disappointed with the court’s decision, we will continue to advocate for women and work to restore commonsense safeguards for abortion drugs — like an initial office visit to screen for ectopic pregnancies. And we are grateful that three states stand ready to hold the FDA accountable for jeopardizing the health and safety of women and girls across this country,’ she said.

The Supreme Court said that the group couldn’t prove that the FDA’s relaxed rules would have caused them injury, enough to give them standing to sue.

‘Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. For that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions,’ Kavanaugh said. 

‘The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process. And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes,’ he wrote.

In March, the justices heard about 90 minutes of arguments about federal government regulations since 2016 that made access to mifepristone easier, including access by mail.

In overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion and that the matter may be decided by the states.

In the aftermath, 14 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, and two others have banned abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is at around six weeks of gestation. 

Mifepristone is taken along with misoprostol, and the two-drug combination is known as medication abortion or the ‘abortion pill.’ 

Lower courts concluded the federal agency did not fully consider the potential health risks to women when revising regulations for mifepristone beginning in 2016. Those revisions — last updated in 2023 — include reducing the recommended dose, allowing use of the drug up to 10 weeks of pregnancy (from seven weeks), approving a generic version and permitting it to be mailed (eliminating in-person doctor visits), among other measures.

The Biden administration and the maker of mifepristone asked the Court to reverse an appellate ruling that would cut off access to the drug through the mail and impose other restrictions, even in states where abortion remains legal. 

The restrictions would have included shortening the time during which mifepristone can be used in pregnancy from the current 10 weeks to seven weeks.

Data from the Guttmacher Institute research group says nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023 relied on mifepristone. About six million women have used the drug since its approval 24 years ago.

Abigail Long, a spokesperson for Danco, manufacturer of the drug said, ‘We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision in this incredibly important case.’ 

‘By rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s radical, unprecedented and unsupportable interpretation of who has standing to sue, the justices reaffirmed longstanding basic principles of administrative law,’ Long said.

‘In doing so, they maintained the stability of the FDA drug approval process, which is based on the agency’s expertise and on which patients, healthcare providers and the US pharmaceutical industry rely,’ she said. 

‘We thank the Court for its careful analysis and remain committed to developing and bringing to market safe and effective products in this crucial area of public health.’

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, highlighted his concerns with ‘associational standing’ raised in the case.

‘The Alliance’s attempted use of our associational-standing doctrine illustrates how far we have strayed from the traditional rule that plaintiffs must assert only their own injuries. The Alliance is an association whose members are other associations. None of its members are doctors. Instead, the Alliance seeks to have associational standing based on injuries to the doctors who are members of its member associations. Thus, the allegedly injured parties — the doctors — are two degrees removed from the party before us pursuing those injuries,’ he said.

Attorney General Merrick Garland praised the unanimous ruling Thursday saying, ‘As I said the day Dobbs was decided, women who reside in states that have blocked access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to travel to states in which that care is lawful.’ 

‘Under the First Amendment, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available across state lines. And, as the Office of Legal Counsel has concluded, the Comstock Act does not prohibit people from mailing mifepristone or misoprostol when they do not intend the recipient to use those drugs unlawfully,’ he said. 

‘For more than two decades, and across five presidential administrations, millions of Americans have relied upon FDA’s expert judgment that mifepristone is safe and effective for termination of early pregnancies. Today, more than half of those who choose to terminate their pregnancies rely on mifepristone to do so,’ he said.

Garland said he is ‘proud’ of the Justice Department lawyers ‘for vigorously defending the FDA’s expert judgment about the safety and efficacy of a medication that women have relied upon for more than twenty years.’

‘But our work does not end today. The Department will continue to work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedoms under federal law,’ he said.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is silent on whether he regrets his alleged efforts in helping discredit Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop that would later be used as evidence in Biden’s federal trial resulting in a conviction.

The ties between Blinken and Biden were brought into the forefront last year after former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell testified to the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, a Fox News Digital review found. 

Morell testified that Blinken, as President Biden’s then-campaign senior adviser, ‘played a role in the inception’ of the public statement signed by intelligence officials claiming Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign just weeks before the 2020 presidential election.

‘In his transcribed interview, Morell testified that on or around October 17, 2020, you reached out to him to discuss the Hunter Biden laptop story,’ House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said in a letter to Blinken last year as the committee was looking into the origin of the letter from 51 former intel officials published in Politico that warned the laptop, first reported on by the New York Post, had ‘all the classic earmarks’ of Russian disinformation.

‘According to Morell, although your outreach was couched as simply gathering Morell’s reaction to the Post story, it set in motion the events that led to the issuance of the public statement.’

‘Morell further explained that one of his two goals in releasing the statement was to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election,’ they wrote. ‘Based on Morell’s testimony, it is apparent that the Biden campaign played an active role in the origins of the public statement, which had the effect of helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story and preventing American citizens from making a fully informed decision during the 2020 presidential election.’

Three days after the letter from the former intelligence officials was made public, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden used the letter as a talking point in the final 2020 presidential debate to rebut criticisms made by then-President Trump.

In the following years, numerous media outlets confirmed the New York Post’s reporting that the laptop was authentic, and the laptop was used by the federal government as evidence in the recent gun crime trial against Biden, where he was convicted on all charges.

Fox News Digital recently reached out to each one of the former intel officials who signed on to the letter and most of the signatories declined to comment, while several doubled down on their involvement.

Additionally, emails from the infamous abandoned laptop that Blinken sought to discredit showed that Biden has friendly personal ties to Blinken and his wife, Evan Ryan, dating back over a decade, having scheduled meetings with him while he was on the board of Burisma and Blinken was the deputy secretary of state.

In an email on May 22, 2015, Hunter tried to schedule a meeting with Blinken, so he could get the deputy secretary of state’s ‘advice’ on some things. However, the meeting appeared to be rescheduled to July 2015 due to the death of Hunter’s brother, Beau, at the end of May 2015.

Biden’s assistant, Joan Mayer, would email Biden, months later, his weekly schedule on July 21, which showed a scheduled meeting with Blinken the following day.

’12:00-1:30pm- Lunch with Tony Blinken (State Department),’ Hunter’s schedule read. ‘Enter at main entrance (‘Diplomatic Entrance’), 22nd & C St, NW.  Proceed to receptionist area where Kenny Matthews will be waiting to escort you to Tony’s office.’

In another email after the meeting, Blinken told Biden it was ‘great to see’ him and ‘catch up.’ He also joked to Biden about how a woman in his office thought Biden was ‘pleasant on the eyes.’

‘Tell your wife,’ Blinken joked.

Fox News Digital could not confirm what the meeting was about. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Blinken previously denied having a role in the creation of the letter from former intel officials, and has stressed that he does not ‘do politics’ despite his decades of political donations and campaign positions. Between Blinken and his wife, they have donated approximately $70,000 to Democrats over the last few decades.

Blinken has also said the letter ‘wasn’t’ his idea, and said he ‘didn’t ask for it’ or ‘solicit it.’

Multiple profile pieces over the years said Blinken has advised Biden on more than just foreign policy in his decadeslong friendship with the president and serving as a confidant. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., President Biden’s re-election campaign co-chair, told CNN in 2021 that Blinken ‘has been a part of Joe’s evolution, learning, and changes as he has confronted challenge after challenge over decades’ and that he is ‘an irreplaceable part of Joe Biden’s inner core team.’

‘President Biden is personally close to both Tony Blinken and Evan Ryan and Tony has been an incredibly loyal, capable and effective adviser, staffer and personal friend of the sort that is rare in Washington,’ Coons added.

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump made history in 2016 when, as a presidential candidate, he issued an initial list of 11 people he would use as a ‘guide’ for potential Supreme Court nominees, to allay concerns he would not choose conservative judges. He added to those lists while president, which included his three high court candidates: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

He was the first major presidential candidate to telegraph his political strategy so clearly on a tea-leaves topic that is fraught with uncertainty.

Sources close to the presumptive GOP nominee say he again plans to release a similar list in coming weeks or months. As he did eight years ago, Trump will be emphatic, saying he would only choose from the new slates of candidates if there is a Supreme Court vacancy.

As he did during his first election campaign and as president, Trump has been consulting with conservative legal voices, including those from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. He has also spoken with GOP members of Congress to seek their input, say sources close to the former president.

The level of serious consideration for any individual candidate remains a highly flexible, amorphous standard, given Trump’s reputation for shifting political views and strategies.

Trump’s large number of federal judicial appointments (245) in his first term would give him a deep bench of candidates to possibly serve on the Supreme Court, including a number who clerked for Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh as well as the late Antonin Scalia.

Sources say that professional pedigree would be an important factor to Trump, since all three of his high court picks also clerked there (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for Justice Anthony Kennedy, Barrett for Scalia). 

What follows is an unofficial list of potential candidates for the Supreme Court by Trump. It was compiled from a number of sources, including officials within his inner circle, and Republican political and legal circles.

His team is still compiling a public list that remains in flux, but these are some of the names being considered: 

Judge Amul Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, chambers in Covington, Kentucky

Born 1969. Thapar was the first federal district court judge of South Asian descent, whose family emigrated from India. Trump interviewed him personally in 2017 for the Scalia vacancy while still a district judge, then became the president’s second judicial pick when elevated to the appeals court. He was later interviewed by the president for the 2018 high court seat filled by Kavanaugh. Thapar would have the enthusiastic support of his home state senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Thapar was previously a U.S. attorney.

Judge James Ho, 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Dallas

Born 1973. A former Justice Thomas law clerk and former Texas solicitor general, Ho was appointed to the federal bench in 2018. Born in Taiwan, his parents immigrated to California when he was a child. If nominated, he would be the first Asian-American justice. In October remarks at the Heritage Foundation, Ho urged his conservative bench colleagues to ‘get comfortable’ with criticism over their rulings, speaking out against ‘fair-weather originalism’ over that judicial philosophy.

Judge Gregory Katsas, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington

Born 1964. Add him to the list of onetime Justice Thomas law clerks who could make a Supreme Court short list. A former Trump White House deputy counsel, he was appointed to the high-profile appeals court in 2017, where Thomas, Scalia, Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts all once served. His age may be a potential drawback if the president is seeking someone younger who would presumably carve a longer legacy on the bench.

Judge Neomi Rao, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington

Born 1973. Rao grew up in Detroit, the daughter of Indian immigrant physicians. Like her D.C. Circuit colleague Katsas, Rao was a Justice Thomas law clerk. After working as a private attorney and law professor, she was nominated by Trump to the federal appeals court seat held by now-Justice Kavanaugh.

Judge Barbara Lagoa, 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Miami

Born 1967. Former Florida Supreme Court justice, the first Hispanic woman and the first Cuban-American woman on that bench. A finalist for the 2020 Supreme Court vacancy that went to Justice Barrett.

Kate Comerford Todd, former deputy White House counsel

Born 1975. Another former Justice Thomas law clerk, she was given serious consideration for the 2020 high court vacancy that went to Justice Barrett. At the time, Todd was a key Trump White House adviser on judicial selection, among other areas. Now a private attorney, she could play another prominent role in a Trump administration, but her lack of judicial experience may be a drawback. Described as smart, principled, with a strong ‘originalist’ view of the Constitution.

Judge Lawrence Van Dyke, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Reno, Nevada

Born 1972. A former Nevada and Montana solicitor general who worked for his family’s Montana construction business while in college. His supporters say that as a private attorney, Van Dyke did pro bono work for both the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom and the progressive ACLU. His 2019 Senate confirmation to the appeals court was contentious, with the nominee tearfully denying claims he was and would be unfair as a judge to the LGBTQ+ community. 

Judge Britt Grant, 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Atlanta 

Born 1978. Former justice on the Georgia Supreme Court. Prior to her state appointment in 2017, Grant served as the Georgia solicitor general and as a private attorney. She served as law clerk to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit. He swore her in to her current post in August 2018 during his own high court confirmation.

Judge Kyle Duncan, 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Born 1972. The Louisiana native worked in the state’s attorney general’s office and was then general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. As a private attorney, he represented 15 states before the Supreme Court that had prohibited same-sex marriage. The high court ultimately ruled such laws unconstitutional. Duncan’s views on LGBTQ+ rights were a major source of contention at his Senate confirmation hearings for the appellate court seat in 2018.

Judge Andrew Oldham, 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas

Born 1978. Former law clerk to Justice Alito, and served as general counsel to Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbot before assuming his federal judicial seat.

Judge Kevin Newsom, 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Birmingham, Alabama

Born 1972. A former Justice David Souter law clerk, Newsom was Alabama’s solicitor general before joining the federal bench. 

Judge Joan Larsen, 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Born 1968. A former law clerk to Justice Scalia, she delivered one of the tributes at his memorial service in March 2016. She served in the Justice Department office that produced the legal justifications for the enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that critics have called torture. Larsen was previously on the Michigan Supreme Court before becoming a federal appellate judge in 2017. A finalist for the high court in 2018 and 2020, Trump teased to Fox News four years ago he was considering ‘a great one from Michigan’ and later said she was ‘very talented.’ The seat ultimately went to Justice Barrett.

As a college student, Larsen volunteered for Democrat Joe Biden’s 1988 presidential candidacy – ‘stuffing envelopes, making phone calls,’ as she recalled – but her current conservative credentials are little in doubt.

Judge David Stras, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Minneapolis

Born 1974. Served on the Minnesota Supreme Court and believed to be the first Jewish member of the state’s high court. Stras, too, clerked for Justice Thomas and once headed the Institute for Law and Justice, a well-respected academic think tank on public policy and judicial politics. Nominated in 2017 to sit on the appeals court.

Kristen Waggoner, Alliance Defending Freedom CEO, president and general counsel

Born 1972. Prominent conservative legal advocate whose faith-based organization has won 15 cases before the Supreme Court. That includes the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation over the right of private business owners to refuse their artistic services that might violate their ‘sincerely-held’ religious beliefs, including opposing same-sex marriage. Waggoner is a Washington state native.

Judge Allison Jones Rushing, 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Asheville, North Carolina

Born 1982. The North Carolina native was a law clerk for then-Judge Gorsuch and later Justice Thomas. She, too, was considered for the 2020 high court vacancy.

Judge Patrick Wyrick, U.S. District Court for Western Oklahoma, Oklahoma City

Born 1981. Prior to his appointment in 2019, the Atoka, Oklahoma, native served on the state’s highest court and as the state’s solicitor general.  

Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Mike Lee, R-Utah

A few members of Congress typically get mentioned on these lists, often as a political courtesy, especially to those senators that would vote on any nomination. Frequently mentioned are two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cotton is an outspoken Trump supporter and a vocal advocate for gun rights and immigration reform. Lee may have the best credentials of any lawmaker to be a justice: a former appellate and constitutional lawyer, both in Utah and Washington, who twice clerked for Alito on both the federal appeals court and later the Supreme Court. The relative youth of both senators (Cotton is 47 and Lee is 52) would ensure either could serve many years on the high court and bring a unique, politically charged dynamic to it.

A House committee is issuing subpoenas to 15 executive agencies in the Biden administration related to constitutional concerns with one of Biden’s executive orders and the departments’ implementation. 

In March 2021, Biden signed Promoting Access to Voting, which states that ‘executive departments and agencies should partner with State, local, Tribal, and territorial election officials to protect and promote the exercise of the right to vote, eliminate discrimination and other barriers to voting, and expand access to voter registration and accurate election information.’

The plan has already come under scrutiny from Senate Republicans, who have called it a federal ‘voter mobilization’ effort with ‘potentially partisan impacts.’

Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., chairman of the Committee on House Administration, is subpoenaing Biden’s 15 cabinet secretaries for their detailed plans for carrying out the order just five months out from the November election. 

‘The Committee has concerns about the implementation of E.O. 14019, particularly regarding its compatibility with provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NRA) of 1993,’ Steil told the agencies in a subpoena letter. 

‘Congress delegates to federal agencies specific functions and missions, which by law they are required to follow. Congress’s delegation of authority to HUD does not include using funds and resources to provide Americans with voter registration materials,’ he said.

‘Moreover, E.O. 14019 requires every federal agency to submit a strategic plan outlining how the agency can promote voter registration and voter participation.  

‘Over the last few months, some agencies have taken actions that were likely outlined in their strategic plans. Examples include the Department of Education’s new federal work-study requirements, and the Small Business Administration’s entrance into a voter registration agreement with Michigan,’ Steil explained. 

‘Both of those actions and the actions of other agencies raise substantial questions and concerns, some of which may be answered by access to the strategic plans drafted by the agencies.’ 

Steil added that the committee is considering legislation that would repeal E.O. 14019 and require the agencies’ strategic plan to be submitted to Congress. 

‘As the Committee continues to investigate this issue, the strategic plans and other documents requested will inform the Committee on what additional legislation, if any, needs to be considered to clarify that the NRA does not enable executive branch agencies to focus on voter registration,’ he wrote. 

Included in the subpoena list are the Department of Commerce, Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Justice Department, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Interior, Department of Labor, Office of Management and Budget, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Treasury Department and the Department of Agriculture. 

A spokesperson for OMB told Fox News Digital Thursday the agency has not been served with a subpoena.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Steil called the executive order a ‘scheme’ to carry out ‘partisan activities’ for which Congress did not appropriate funds.

‘Elections are partisan, but our election administration should never be partisan. Allowing federal employees from the Biden administration to flood election administration sites threatens election integrity and reduces Americans’ confidence,’ Steil said. 

‘This executive order is another attempt by the Biden administration to tilt the scales ahead of 2024. I will continue working to provide transparency and accountability on this administration’s latest scheme as Congress did not appropriate taxpayer funds for partisan activities.’

In November, top Republican senators pushed the Biden administration for answers about its ‘voter mobilization’ efforts and said they were stonewalled by the White House for months. 

Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., sent a letter with 23 senators, co-signed by top leadership, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., admonishing President Biden for his administration’s ‘failure to respond’ to their inquires about the executive order on Promoting Access to Voting.

‘This policy directive merits congressional oversight both as a general matter and under the Antideficiency Act,’ the lawmakers wrote, reiterating their request for how federal agencies planned to carry out the executive order, including a request for copies of their plans submitted to the White House. 

In April, a lawsuit challenging the executive order alleged it targeted key demographics to benefit the president’s political party and his own re-election.

Tarren Bragdon, president and CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability, which filed an amicus brief in a case now pending before the 3rd Federal Circuit, said ‘it’s no wonder Team Biden is using their authority and resources to target welfare populations with a federally funded get-out-the-vote effort.

‘If they are allowed to fully execute their plan, it could swing the election outcome.’