Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso is ready to go nuclear on Senate Democrats and their blockade of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., to their respective home states, Senate Republicans were on the verge of a deal with their colleagues across the aisle to hammer out a deal to ram through dozens of Trump’s picks for non-controversial positions.

But those talks fell apart when Trump nuked any further negotiations over funding demands from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Currently, there are 145 pending nominations on the Senate’s executive calendar, with that number expected to balloon when the upper chamber reopens for business.

Lawmakers are set to return on Tuesday, and Barrasso, R-Wyo., wants to immediately tackle the nomination quandary. He’s engaged in a public pressure campaign, writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal directly calling out Schumer.

Meanwhile, he’s facilitated talks among Senate Republicans on the best path forward, and told Fox News Digital in an interview that, at this point, he’s willing to do anything necessary to see the president’s picks confirmed.

‘We need to either get a lot of cooperation from the Democrats, or we’re going to have to roll over them with changes of the rules that we’re going to be able to do in a unilateral way, as well as President Trump making recess appointments,’ he said.

Senate Democrats, under Schumer’s direction, are unlikely to play ball, however.

Schumer, in response to Barrasso’s public jab against him and Senate Democrats, contended in a statement that ‘historically bad nominees deserve a historic level of scrutiny by Senate Democrats.’

‘Anybody nominated by President Trump is, in Schumer’s words, ‘historically bad.’ Why? Because they were nominated by President Trump,’ Barrasso shot back. ‘That is his sole criteria for which these people are being gone after and filibustered, each and every one of them, even those that are coming out of committee, many, many of whom are with bipartisan support.’

Unilaterally changing the rules, or the nuclear option, would allow Republicans to make tweaks to the confirmation process without help from Democrats, but it could also kneecap further negotiations on key items that would require their support to advance beyond the Senate filibuster.

Barrasso was not worried about taking that route, however, and noted that the nominees that he and other Republicans were specifically considering would be ‘sub-Cabinet level positions’ and ambassadors.

Up for discussion are changes to the debate time, what kind of nominee could qualify for a speedier process and whether to give the president runway to make recess appointments, which would require the Senate to go into recess and allow Trump to make appointments on a temporary basis.

‘When you take a look at this right now, it takes a 30-minute roll-call vote to get on cloture, and then two hours of debate time, and then another 30-minute roll-call vote,’ Barrasso said. ‘Well, that’s three hours, and it’s time when you can’t do legislation, you can’t do any of the other things.’

But there is a menu of key items that Congress will have to deal with when they return, particularly the deadline to fund the government by Sept. 30.

Barrasso acknowledged that reality, and noted that it was because of the hefty schedule that he wanted a rules change to be put front and center.

‘There’s not going to be any time to — or there’s going to be limited time, I should say, to actually get people through the nominations process, which is just going to drag on further, and you’ll have more people having hearings and coming out of committees,’ he said.  

‘This backlog is going to worsen this traffic jam at the Schumer toll booth. So, we are going to do something, because this cannot stand.’

America First Legal (AFL) sued the Food and Drug Administration on Friday to obtain Biden-era records related to the government’s internal guidance for the recommended use of puberty blockers for kids.  

The Trump-aligned legal group previously uncovered communications from the former administration through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which reportedly showed the FDA knew that these drugs increased mental health risk but still recommended approving them for kids.

Following those uncovered communications, AFL followed up with a separate FOIA requesting documents specifically pertaining to the FDA’s internal guidance for the off-label use of these drugs. Despite acknowledging the federal information request, the FDA has not cooperated, and the deadline to produce documents is up.

‘The Biden administration pushed gender-denying treatments on American kids. Now, it’s time to expose what officials really knew,’ AFL counsel Will Scolinos, said. 

Similar to AFL’s current FOIA request, the group was required to engage in litigation to compel the release of the first set of documents. 

But, eventually, documents were released that seemed to show the Biden-era Division of General Endocrinology at the FDA recommended the agency approve puberty blockers for children despite the knowledge that there were negative impacts associated with them, such as increased depression, suicidality and seizure risks.

‘There is definitely a need for these drugs to be approved for gender transition,’ an FDA official from the agency’s endocrinology division stated in an email uncovered by AFL. In the same communications, the FDA official also explicitly states that studies found ‘increased risk of depression and suicidality, as well as increased seizure risk.’

Such findings have been confirmed by other studies as well.

Researchers at the University of Texas sampled 107,583 patients 18 and older who had gender dysphoria, including some who underwent gender surgery, and concluded that ‘gender-sensitive mental health support … to address post-surgical psychological risks’ is a ‘necessity.’

Males who received surgery had depression rates of 25% compared to males without surgery, who had rates slightly below 12%. Anxiety rates among that group were 12.8% compared to 2.6%.

The same differences were seen among females as well. Those with surgery had 22.9% depression rates compared to 14.6% in the non-surgical group. Females who did get surgery also had a rate of anxiety of 10.5% compared to 7.1% for girls who had not gotten surgery.

Fox News Digital reached out to the FDA for comment but did not immediately receive a response. 

Fox News’ Melissa Rudy and Michael Dorgan contributed to this report

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday grilled lawyers for the Justice Department and Lisa Cook over President Donald Trump’s historic attempt to fire her from the Federal Reserve.

The landmark case is almost certain to be kicked to the Supreme Court for review. Despite the high-stakes nature of the legal dispute, Friday’s hearing ended after more than two hours without clear resolution. 

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, declined to immediately grant the temporary restraining order sought by Lisa Cook’s attorneys, which would keep her in her role on the Fed’s Board of Governors for now. 

Cook’s lawyers included the request for the temporary restraining order in the lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday, challenging Trump’s attempt to fire her from her position on the independent board due to allegations of mortgage fraud. 

Instead, Judge Cobb ordered both parties to submit any supplemental briefs to the court by Tuesday, shortly before she dismissed the lawyers for the long weekend.

Cobb noted the novelty of the case before her, which involves the first attempt by a sitting president to oust a Federal Reserve governor ‘for cause.’ 

The fraud allegations were first leveled by Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He accused Cook of claiming two primary residences in two separate states in 2021, with the goal of obtaining more favorable loan conditions. 

Trump followed up by posting a letter on Truth Social earlier this week that he had determined ‘sufficient cause’ to fire Cook, a dismissal he said was ‘effective immediately,’ prompting her attorneys to file the emergency lawsuit.

The crux of Friday’s arguments centered on the definition of what ‘for cause’ provisions must entail for removal from the board under the Federal Reserve Act, or FRA, a law designed to shield members from the political whims of the commander in chief or members of Congress. 

The arguments also centered on Cook’s claims in her lawsuit that Trump’s attempt to fire her amounts to an illegal effort to remove her from the Fed well before her tenure is slated to end in January 2038 to install his own nominee. 

Lawyers for Cook argued that her firing was merely a ‘pretext’ for Trump to secure a majority on the Fed board, a contention that Cobb admitted made her ‘uncomfortable.’

They also attempted to poke holes in the mortgage fraud allegations, which they said were made on social media and ‘backfilled.’

The case ‘obviously raises important questions’ about the Federal Reserve Board, Cobb said shortly before adjourning court.

She also noted that she had not yet made a determination about the alleged ‘irreparable harm,’ prompting her to set the Tuesday filing deadline.

Cook’s attorneys argued Friday that Trump’s attempt to fire her violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the Federal Reserve Act. 

Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, noted on several occasions that there was no ‘investigation or charge’ from the administration prior to Trump’s abrupt announcement that he would fire Cook.  

Lowell also vehemently disputed the Justice Department’s allegations that Cook had an ‘opportunity’ to respond to the mortgage fraud accusations leveled by Bill Pulte, noting that they were made just 30 minutes before Trump called for Cook to be removed.  

He told Cobb that it was the latest attempt by the Trump administration to ‘litigate by tweet.’

Lawyers for the Trump administration, for their part, argued that the president has broad latitude to determine the ‘for cause’ provision.

Justice Department attorney Yakoov Roth told Cobb that the determination of when to invoke the provision should be left to the president, regardless of whether it is viewed by others as ‘pretextual.’

‘That sounds to me like the epitome of a discretionary determination, and that is when the president’s power is at [its] apex,’ Roth said.

DOJ lawyers also noted that Cook, to date, has not disputed any of the allegations in question and argued there is ‘nothing she has said’ about the allegations that would cause her to not be fired.

‘What if the stated cause is demonstrably false?’  Cobb asked, going on to cite hypothetical concerns that a president could, theoretically, use allegations to stack federal boards with majorities.

As for the issue of ‘irreparable harm,’ Justice Department attorneys argued that it would be more harmful for Cook to remain in office, arguing that the ‘harm of having someone in office who is wrongfully there … outweighs the harm of someone being wrongfully removed from office.’

Cook’s attorneys said Friday that in reviewing the lawsuit, the court need not itself establish a definition of what ’cause’ means under the Federal Reserve Act.

Instead, Lowell suggested, the court should instead work backwards to determine whether the accusations leveled by Pulte were in fact ‘backfilled’ by Trump to form the basis of her removal.  

‘It’s very difficult to come up with an 11-page definition of what it is,’ Lowell said Friday of the ’cause’ definition, adding that it is far easier to come up with a one-page definition of ‘what it’s not.’ 

‘Whatever it is, it’s not this,’ Lowell said.

House investigators’ plan to grill former FBI Director Robert Mueller has hit a snag. 

The House Oversight Committee was set to have Mueller appear before the panel on Tuesday as part of the House’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein. However, a source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital that lawmakers ‘learned that Mr. Mueller has health issues that preclude him from being able to testify.’ 

‘The committee intends to withdraw its subpoena,’ the source said. 

Mueller was one of many notable figures, including the Clintons, who House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed to testify before the panel. 

He would have been the second witness appearing in-person before the House Oversight Committee after former Attorney General Bill Barr did so last month.

His closed-door deposition was expected to see at least some lawmakers on both sides attend, with the investigation so far seeing wide bipartisan support in an otherwise highly divided era for Congress.

Mueller was most recently in the headlines for his role as special counsel investigating whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump.

That probe, which did not find Trump to have committed any wrongdoing, saw 34 people indicted and eight convictions or guilty pleas, including several people associated with the president.

House investigators were expected to dive into Mueller’s time as director of the FBI. He led the bureau under former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, from September 2001 until September 2013.

It was during that window that the federal government first investigated Epstein, something Comer pointed out in his letter subpoenaing Mueller.

‘When you were FBI Director, an FBI investigation of Mr. Epstein led to an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida preparing a draft 60-count indictment of Mr. Epstein in 2007,’ Comer wrote.

‘However, the next year, Mr. Epstein pled guilty in Florida state court to two prostitution offenses, and, in exchange, he and his co-conspirators received immunity from federal prosecution through a non-prosecution agreement.’

That non-prosecution agreement has been widely criticized and is now the basis for Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell to appeal her conviction and 20-year prison sentence before the Supreme Court.

It’s not clear how much of a role Mueller would have had in that agreement. Alexander Acosta, the former Trump labor secretary and U.S. attorney in Florida who signed off on the deal, is sitting down with the House Oversight Committee for a voluntary transcribed interview later this month.

Comer sent out a flurry of subpoenas last month in relation to the Epstein probe. 

Other figures also compelled to appear after Mueller are former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton.

A new report from the far-left Human Rights Campaign shows a remarkable shift: a 65% drop in Fortune 500 companies publicly communicating commitments to diversity and inclusion initiatives. Just a few years ago, corporations raced to outdo one another with ever-expanding DEI pledges. Today, many are quietly stepping back.

This is not a retreat from fairness. It is a return to sanity.

For years, corporate America embraced an ideological experiment that blurred the line between equal opportunity and preferential treatment. What began as a push for broader inclusion morphed into quota-driven mandates, demographic scorecards and internal political signaling exercises that often had little to do with business performance.

Now, the legal system — and increasingly federal regulators — are pushing back.

Consider the recent lawsuit against Starbucks, where Missouri’s attorney general alleged ‘systemic discrimination’ in hiring and promotion practices tied to DEI goals. While a federal judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds, the filing itself signaled growing scrutiny over whether corporate diversity initiatives cross into unlawful discrimination.

Nike is currently facing a federal investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over allegations that certain DEI-related employment practices may have resulted in race-based discrimination against White employees. Whether the agency ultimately finds wrongdoing or not, the investigation underscores a new reality: DEI programs are no longer insulated from legal challenge.

And JPMorgan Chase has been sued over allegations of ‘systemic’ race bias, including claims that the bank conducted ‘fake interviews’ to satisfy internal diversity targets. That allegation — that a company might go through the motions of interviewing candidates solely to hit demographic benchmarks — illustrates how performative compliance can undermine both fairness and trust.

But the scrutiny does not stop at employment law.

In recent weeks, the Federal Trade Commission reportedly sent letters to 42 of the largest and most profitable law firms in the United States, warning that racially discriminatory hiring practices — even if adopted under the banner of DEI — could constitute unfair or anti-competitive conduct. According to reporting, the firms were participating in a program overseen by the Diversity Lab that required at least 30% of leadership candidates to come from underrepresented groups.

That kind of industry-wide coordination raises serious questions.

First, there is the obvious Civil Rights Act concern: employment decisions cannot be made on the basis of race, period. But there is also a broader antitrust dimension. When competitors collectively adopt demographic quotas or coordinated hiring mandates, they may be engaging in collusive conduct — effectively setting industry standards through cooperation rather than competing freely for the best talent.

This theory is not new. Federal antitrust authorities have previously warned climate and ESG coalitions that there is no ‘ESG exception’ to the antitrust laws. As former FTC Chair Lina Khan stated plainly: competitors are not permitted to coordinate with one another simply because the coordination is framed as socially beneficial. The same logic applies here. There is no DEI exception to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

For years, corporate America embraced an ideological experiment that blurred the line between equal opportunity and preferential treatment. 

The implications are enormous.

Retailers such as Nordstrom, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Ulta and Sephora signed the ‘Fifteen Percent Pledge,’ committing to reserve 15% of shelf space exclusively for Black-owned brands. More than seventy major corporations — including competitors like Nike, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren and American Eagle — signed the ‘Count Us In’ pledge, coordinating around policies that include funding transgender surgeries for employees and engaging in shared lobbying efforts.

The legal question is no longer just whether these initiatives are politically popular. It is whether they create exposure under antitrust law by reducing competition or creating coordinated market standards among competitors.

Corporate America is beginning to recognize the risk.

Public companies exist to create shareholder value — not to serve as enforcement arms for shifting social movements. When executives adopted DEI mandates that required race-based hiring targets, demographic quotas, or coordinated pledges with competitors, they exposed their companies to multi-front liability: discrimination claims from employees, regulatory investigations, shareholder lawsuits and now potential antitrust scrutiny.

The 65% drop in DEI messaging suggests something important: boards and CEOs are recalibrating.

That recalibration is healthy. 

There is nothing wrong with expanding opportunity, recruiting broadly, or fostering a respectful workplace culture. But the law demands equal treatment — not equal outcomes engineered through quotas or industry collusion. When companies forget that distinction, they risk violating both civil rights statutes and competition laws designed to protect markets.

Markets function best when companies compete — for customers, for innovation, and, yes, for talent. The moment competitors coordinate around hiring mandates or collective pledges, they drift away from competition and toward centralized standard-setting. That is precisely what antitrust law exists to prevent.

The pendulum is swinging back toward merit.

Employees want to know they were hired because of their ability. Shareholders want disciplined capital allocation. Customers want quality products at fair prices. None of those priorities require demographic quotas or public virtue declarations.

The retrenchment we are witnessing is not an attack on diversity. It is a rejection of coercion and coordination masquerading as virtue. It is a reminder that equal opportunity under the law applies to everyone — White, Black, male, female — and that industry competitors are not allowed to suspend antitrust principles simply because the goal sounds noble.

Corporate America is finally rediscovering a simple truth: treat people equally, compete vigorously, and let merit determine outcomes.

That is not only legally sound. It is economically sound. And it is long overdue.