Senators believe that after reaching a deal to end the longest shutdown on record, they won’t be in the same position early next year.

The bipartisan package that advanced from the Senate late Monday night would, if passed by the House this week, reopen the government until Jan. 30. Lawmakers believe that extension would give them enough time to fund the government the old-fashioned way, making another shutdown a moot point.

But that all depends on whether they can complete work on spending bills, find agreement with the House, and get them on President Donald Trump’s desk before the new deadline.

There’s also the possibility that if the guarantee for a vote on expiring Obamacare subsidies does not go how Senate Democrats want, that could significantly hamper Congress’ ability to avert yet another shutdown.

‘We’ll take them one day at a time,’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said. ‘Obviously, it’s another deadline we have to deal with. But the immediate objective is to get the government open and enable those conversations to commence.’

‘There are Democrats and Republicans who are both interested in trying to do something in the healthcare space,’ he continued. ‘And clearly, there is a need. I mean, there is an affordability issue on healthcare that has to be addressed, and the current trajectory we’re on isn’t a sustainable path.’

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital that Democrats needed to be united in their demand that ‘Republicans be held to their promise of having a vote on the healthcare subsidies in December.’

Thune reiterated his guarantee on Sunday and teed up the second week of December as the deadline for getting a Democratic proposal to the floor.

‘The future is unpredictable, but we need to continue our fight unequivocally, unyieldingly, for affordable healthcare insurance through extending the subsidies and other measures under the [Affordable Care Act],’ Blumenthal said. ‘Republicans have a reflexive obsession with repealing or destroying the ACA.’

The hope is that funding the government with appropriations bills will be the key to preventing another shutdown.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said that she anticipated Thune to tee up a new package of spending bills, this one combining the defense, labor, transportation and housing bills into one chunk.

‘The more appropriations bills that we’re able to pass, the better off we’re going to be, the better off the American people will be served,’ she said.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was unsure if lawmakers would be in the same spot again come January.

But he believed that the desire to move forward with spending bills, spurred largely by the bipartisan deal struck to reopen the government, was a good start.

‘It makes it a whole lot easier not to have a shutdown again,’ he said.

Despite the rancor and frustration from the Democratic side of the aisle over the collapse of their healthcare demand, they also want to pass bipartisan funding bills, largely in a bid to push back against cuts made by the Trump administration.

However, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., predicted that it would be quite difficult to pass a long-term bipartisan budget.

‘We cannot sign on to a long-term budget that does nothing on healthcare and has nothing to stop the destruction of our democracy,’ he said. ‘You know, there are no real protections in the short-term spending bill against Trump’s illegality.’

For now, some see the January deadline as ‘light years away,’ like Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., while others aren’t ready to make a prediction about what comes next.

‘Just one step at a time,’ Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told Fox News Digital.

The House will vote on reopening the federal government Wednesday after lawmakers’ funding bill survived a key hurdle earlier in the morning.

The bipartisan deal to end the 42-day government shutdown advanced through the House Rules Committee overnight Wednesday, with all Republicans supporting the measure and all Democrats against.

It now moves to the full House for consideration, where multiple people familiar with GOP leaders’ conversations told Fox News Digital they believe it will pass with nearly all Republicans on board.

Passage through the House Rules Committee is a meaningful step toward ending the shutdown, now the longest in U.S. history by roughly a week.

The panel’s hearing to advance the bill lasted more than six hours, kicking off Wednesday evening and ending shortly after 1 a.m. on Thursday.

Democrats attempted to force votes on amendments dealing with COVID-19-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year and other issues opposed by the GOP, though all failed.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made a notable surprise appearance at one point, testifying in favor of his own amendment to extend those subsidies for another three years.

The lengthy hearing saw members on opposite sides of the aisle clash several times as well, with Democrats repeatedly accusing Republicans of robbing Americans of their healthcare and taking a ‘vacation’ for several weeks while remaining in their districts during the shutdown.

‘I am sick and tired of hearing you all say we had an eight-week vacation,’ House Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said at one point. ‘I worked every day. I don’t know about you. I don’t want to hear another soul say that.’

Democrats and some Republicans also piled on a provision in the funding bill that would allow GOP senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 for secretly obtaining their phone records during ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation.

‘I think there’s gonna be a lot of people, if they look and understand this, they’re going to see it as self-serving, self-dealing kind of stuff. And I don’t think that’s right,’ Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said.

‘I’m trying to figure out what we can do to force the Senate’s hand to say, ‘You’re going to repeal this provision and fix it,’ without amending it here.’

The bill will now get a House-wide ‘rule vote,’ a procedural test that, if it passes, allows lawmakers to debate the legislation itself.

Lawmakers are expected to then hold a final vote sometime on Wednesday evening on sending the bill to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.

Trump signaled he was supportive of the legislation in comments to reporters on Monday.

‘We’ll be opening up our country very quickly,’ Trump said when asked if he backed the deal.

The Senate broke through weeks of gridlock on Monday night to pass the legislation in a 60-40 vote, with eight Democrats joining the GOP to reopen the government.

Meanwhile, travel disruptions have been causing chaos at U.S. airports, with air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers being forced to work without pay since last month. Many of those employees had been forced to take on second jobs to make ends meet, fueling staffing shortages and flight delays that threatened to overshadow the Thanksgiving holiday.

Millions of Americans who rely on federal food benefits were also left in limbo amid a partisan fight over whether and how to fund those programs during the shutdown.

The bill would extend fiscal year (FY) 2025 federal funding levels through Jan. 30 to give negotiators more time to strike a longer-term deal for FY 2026.

It would also give lawmakers some headway with that mission, advancing legislation to fund the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration; the Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction; and the legislative branch.

They are three of 12 individual bills that are meant to make up Congress’ annual appropriations, paired into a vehicle called a ‘minibus.’

In a victory for Democrats, the deal would also reverse federal layoffs conducted by the Trump administration in October, with those workers getting paid for the time they were off.

A side-deal struck in the Senate also guaranteed Senate Democrats a vote on legislation extending Obamacare subsidies that were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are set to expire at the end of this year.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., however, has made no such promise in the House.

Tensions flared at a House hearing to advance legislation aimed at ending the government shutdown on Tuesday night, with two senior lawmakers on opposite sides of the aisle trading barbs over the fallout.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., clashed with Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee repeatedly at the outset of the hearing. Cole accused Democrats of derailing the federal government, while McGovern railed against the GOP’s refusal to attach provisions extending expiring enhanced Obamacare subsidies to its funding bill.

‘This is the stuff you said you would never do. ‘We would never shut down the government. We would never do this.’ That’s exactly what you’ve done,’ House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said a short while later. ‘You’re putting thousands of people out of work.’

McGovern, who said emphatically that his constituents were ‘getting screwed,’ said, ‘You tried over 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act,’ Obamacare’s formal name.

He said he was getting calls from constituents who were ‘out of their minds’ trying to figure out how to pay for healthcare without the subsidies.’

‘Well the most immediate crisis in my district are the thousands of workers that you and your colleagues have put out of work, that aren’t getting a paycheck,’ Cole said.

‘They’re the ones that keep the airplanes flying. They’re the ones that do the national weather center. They’re wondering why they’re not getting paid.’

McGovern shot back, ‘You get no calls about healthcare?’

‘We could have had these debates, we could have had these arguments. Why are they being held hostage?’ Cole continued.

‘The healthcare issue you’re talking about is a subsidy you passed on your own, you said it was COVID-related…The most immediate crisis in my district, you’ve created. My people aren’t getting paid thanks to you and your colleagues.’

McGovern, who tried to interject multiple times, said, ‘So nobody in your district is complaining about healthcare?’

Cole conceded, ‘People complain everywhere about everything, but you asked me what the most important calls I get —’

McGovern cut him off with, ‘—We have a chance to do something about this.’

‘— is, ‘Why am I not getting paid? Why am I being forcibly furloughed?’’ Cole continued.

‘We have a chance to do something to help millions of people afford their health insurance. And what you’re all telling me is you’re not interested,’ McGovern said.

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., was ignored as she banged her gavel multiple times in an attempt to call order.

Cole, meanwhile, said the subsidies ‘have nothing to do with the work of my committee.’

‘But you’re willing to hijack my committee,’ he continued, before McGovern cut him off again, accusing Republicans of voting to ‘cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires’ in the GOP’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ earlier this year.

‘But you could not extend these for people?’ McGovern asked.

The House Rules Committee is the final hurdle for most legislation before it sees House-wide votes. Lawmakers on the key panel vote to advance a bill while setting terms for its consideration, like possible amendment votes and timing for debate.

The funding bill at hand is expected to advance through the committee on party lines. Democrats on the panel are likely to oppose the measure in line with House Democratic leaders, while Republicans have signaled no meaningful opposition.

The vast majority of House Democrats have threatened to oppose the bill over its exclusion of the enhanced Obamacare credits, despite the legislation netting support from eight members of their own party in the Senate.

Republican leaders have signaled a willingness to discuss reforms to the system, which they have criticized as flawed. However, they’ve rejected any notion of pairing a healthcare extension with a federal funding bill that is otherwise largely free of partisan policy riders.

A senior federal judge in Massachusetts who was appointed by former President Reagan announced he has resigned in protest against President Donald Trump, who he says has been ‘using the law for partisan purposes.’

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, 78, resigned on Friday and explained that the Trump administration’s actions that he described as threatening the rule of law compelled him to speak out.

In a piece for The Atlantic, Wolf wrote that he had looked forward to serving for the rest of his life when Reagan appointed him in 1985 but decided to step down last week because of Trump’s ‘assault on the rule of law’ that he finds ‘so deeply disturbing.’

‘I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom,’ the former judge wrote. ‘President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment. This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.’

‘When I accepted the nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, I took pride in becoming part of a federal judiciary that works to make our country’s ideal of equal justice under law a reality,’ he continued. ‘A judiciary that helps protect our democracy. That has the authority and responsibility to hold elected officials to the limits of the power delegated to them by the people. That strives to ensure that the rights of minority groups, no matter how they are viewed by others, are not violated. That can serve as a check on corruption to prevent public officials from unlawfully enriching themselves. Becoming a federal judge was an ideal opportunity to extend a noble tradition that I had been educated by experience to treasure.’

Wolf added that he now wants to do ‘everything in my power to combat today’s existential threat to democracy and the rule of law.’

The former judge noted that Trump cannot replace him with a nominee of his own, as former President Obama named Judge Indira Talwani as his successor in 2013.

Wolf criticized the Department of Justice’s prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and Democrat New York Attorney General Letitia James. The former judge also took issue with Trump’s social media post in which he asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey, James and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

He also said that even if a prosecution ends in an acquittal, it ‘can have devastating consequences for the defendant.’

Wolf also wrote that the DOJ must ensure prosecutors do not seek an indictment unless they have ‘sufficient admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’

‘Trump has utterly ignored this principle,’ Wolf wrote.

Wolf blasted Trump’s ‘unconstitutional or otherwise illegal’ executive orders, criticized the president’s calls for judges to be impeached for ruling against him, said there was ‘corruption by [Trump] and those in his orbit’ and emphasized that attacks on the courts have led to actual threats against judges.

‘I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy,’ Wolf wrote. ‘I also intend to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves.’

‘I cannot be confident that I will make a difference,’ he added. ‘I am reminded, however, of what Senator Robert F. Kennedy said in 1966 about ending apartheid in South Africa: ‘Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.’ Enough of these ripples can become a tidal wave.’

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said Wolf’s ‘steadfast commitment to the rule of law, determination in wrestling with novel issues of fact and law, and dedication to making fair, equitable and legally sound decisions without fear or favor are the hallmarks of his time on the bench.’

‘His many opinions on complex issues of law in notable cases have had a great impact on jurisprudence,’ Chief Judge Denise J. Casper said in the statement. ‘In addition, his tenure as Chief Judge led to the increased engagement with the bar and community, including the initiation of the Court’s bench/bar conference and his continued support of the Court’s Fellowship Programs. I, along with my colleagues and this Court community, applaud his years of dedicated service.’

President Donald Trump called on Netflix to fire board member Susan Rice immediately or ‘pay the consequences.’

Trump’s comments followed remarks Rice made Thursday on the ‘Stay Tuned with Preet’ podcast, hosted by former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. 

During the interview, Rice warned that corporations she said had ‘taken a knee’ to Republican pressure should not expect forgiveness from Democrats if they return to power.

‘This is not going to be an instance of forgive and forget. The damage that these people are doing is too severe to the American people and our national interest,’ Rice said.

It was not immediately clear what specific actions the Trump administration might pursue.

Netflix did not immediately respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment.

Rice made the remarks while discussing what she described as corporate retreats from diversity and governance commitments amid pressure from Republican lawmakers.

‘If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back into power, are going to, you know, play by the old rules, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, never mind. We’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted.’ I think they’ve got another thing coming,’ Rice added.

Rice, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, predicted an ‘accountability agenda’ awaited those entities, forecasting an electoral shift in the upcoming midterm elections. 

She also pointed to waning public approval for Trump’s economic and immigration policies in making her case.