Fox News Sunday 06-29-2025
53:03 Share

Why does the United States pay higher drug prices than other countries? Because America's the only country in the world where 340B hospitals mark up drug prices and PBM middlemen charge billions in hidden fees. Meanwhile, Americans subsidize the research and development for new cures. Other countries benefit, but don't pay their fair share.

Crack down on the middlemen. End the free-riding. Lower drug prices. Go to balancethescales.org to learn more. Paid for by Pharma. Live from Capitol Hill, I'm Shannon Bream inside America's cradle of democracy. The big, beautiful bill to fund the president's domestic policy agenda, it faces yet another make-or-break moment.

Call your senators, call your congressmen. We have to get the vote. A mad dash to get Republican holdouts in line and pass the president's big, beautiful bill by the July 4th deadline as Senate lawmakers are forced back to the drawing board over key sticking points in the measure. Fifty-three members will never agree on every detail of legislation. But Republicans are united in our commitment.

Republican Senator Jim Banks joins us exclusively with the latest on the GOP's internal debates over the Trump mega bill. Then...

Clearly, someone who had their hands on this, that person was irresponsible with it, and we need to get to the bottom of it. The administration ramps up the search for the source of a leaked preliminary report on the Iran strike and vows to crack down on intelligence sharing with members of Congress. Democrat Chris Coons, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, weighs in on the implications. Plus...

No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation. A major win for the Trump agenda, as the Supreme Court significantly limits the power of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions. We'll break down what it means for birthright citizenship and scores of other legal battles. And I will fight for a city that works for you. We don't need a socialist in City Hall anymore.

A self-declared Democratic socialist defeats one of the most prominent names in politics in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. How it impacts the trajectory of the party as we inch closer to next year's midterms. All right now on Fox News Sunday.

And hello from outside the Capitol here in Washington. So by a vote of 51 to 49, Senate Republicans were able to clear a key procedural step to advance President Trump's big, beautiful bill and get it to this next debate stage late last night. All Senate Democrats and two Republicans voted to block the tax and spending cuts bill going forward.

Vice President J.D. Vance was on hand as the votes were being tallied just in case he needed to break a tie. So right now, Democrats are forcing the entire bill to be read out loud on the Senate floor, something the GOP has also done in the past. In a moment, we'll talk with Republican Senator Jim Banks, who voted for debate to begin on the bill, and Democrat Chris Coons, who voted against. But first, we have team coverage with Fox News correspondent Maddie Rivera at the White House.

And Fox News Senior Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram right here with me on Capitol Hill. And Chad, it's been an all-nighter. We begin with you. Good morning, Shannon. Well, drama of the highest order in the Senate last night. A three-and-a-half-hour vote in the Senate. Vice President Vance came to the Capitol to potentially break a tie. But after a delay, the GOP finally got the votes and moved to start debate on the bill.

But it's time to call the question, have a binary decision and vote yes. You know, you have to look at the whole and see if the whole of the bill is better for America than killing the whole of the bill. It's about the math. Vance's vote was not needed. The Senate voted 51 to 49 to begin debate. Ron Johnson flipped his vote from no to yes. But Rand Paul and Tom Tillis voted no.

President Trump excoriated Tillis. He wants someone to primary Tillis. Democrats plan to stretch out the process with an extended vote series. We will show how it cuts health care, raises costs, rewards the ultra-rich. We welcome this debate. And if Republicans succeed, proceed, and follow Donald Trump over the cliff, with this bill tied to their ankles like an anvil, they will not only doom their own communities...

They will doom their political fortunes. Now, Schumer blocked the Senate from starting the debate. He is making the Senate clerks read the entire 940 page bill out loud. It started at 1108 last night. Section 523 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. Here are the amounts specified in this paragraph. A facility shall not fail to be treated as qualified child care facility of the taxpayer.

Now, the reading will not finish until midday. Then the Senate can finally debate the bill. That's followed by a lengthy vote series. It will run anywhere from nine to 15 hours and final passage could come sometime.

on Monday. Shannon? There's a lot of could in there. We don't know exactly what's going to happen. That's why we're going to have you come back at the end of the show to walk us through where we are. Chad, thank you very much. Always appreciate it. Okay, let's turn now to Fox News correspondent Madeline Rivera live at the White House with how the president's reacting to how this is all going down on the Hill. Hello, Madeline.

Good morning, Shannon. President Trump is in D.C. this weekend pressuring skeptical GOP lawmakers. He is praising the Senate for advancing the legislation overnight, seeing in a Truth Social post. Very proud of the Republican Party tonight. God bless you all. But he is calling out the two senators who voted no on the bill, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina.

It is hard to overstate how crucial this moment is for the president's agenda, which already received a boost after the Supreme Court limited the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. These injunctions have blocked our policies from tariffs to military readiness to immigration to foreign affairs, fraud, abuse and many other issues. The judges have tried to seize the executive branch's power and they cannot do that no longer, no longer.

The high court's ruling comes in the heels of a consequential week for the president with NATO members agreeing to bump up their defense spending to 5% of their GDP. On trade, the U.S. and China formally signed a framework agreement to de-escalate tensions and allow rare earth magnets to flow back into the U.S. The president, though, is ending talks with Canada because of their plans to impose a digital services tax on American tech companies.

The president has also repeatedly expressed frustration at Iran's supreme leader for downplaying the U.S. and Israeli strikes. The administration has been on a PR blitz defending the U.S. operation last week after a leaked preliminary intelligence report claimed Iran's nuclear program was only set back by months. He tells Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures he does not think Iran moved its stock of enriched uranium before they were targeted.

They didn't move anything. They didn't think it was going to be actually doable, what we did. And what we did was amazing. Turning back now to the one big, beautiful bill, the president remains optimistic it will head to his desk by July 4th. But he also said that date is not the end all, suggesting he may be flexible with the timing.

We shall see. Maddie Rivera at the White House, thank you. Joining us now, Republican Senator Jim Banks of Indiana. Senator, you voted, of course, to proceed with this bill last night. I want to read you something from a man who came to Washington. He says his goal was to cut spending, debts, and deficit. His name's Elon Musk. He says this about the latest version. The draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country, utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.

He says Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal conservatism, and this doesn't meet that definition. Well, Shannon, this is the biggest spending cut in American history, a $1.6 trillion spending cut, getting rid of the Green New Deal scams from the Biden administration. And it's the biggest tax cut

in American history for working class families, for mechanics, for factory workers, teachers, beauticians, the working class men and women of this country who just gave President Trump a historic election victory. Republicans are going to follow through and extend the Trump tax cuts. No taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime. And America is going to be healthier. The economy is going to be stronger for it.

And then we'll move on to the next bill and hopefully do even more in spending cuts and helping the American people even more after that. OK, so this one, Senator Chris Coons, your colleague from across the aisle, is going to be up next on the show. And he said that this bill hurts everyday Americans. It takes away health care, health care insurance coverage, food for people in need. He says this administration has not gotten prices down. And now this is going to be a tax break for billionaires and the wealthiest Americans ever.

Polls show us that that messaging is landing, that people are very skeptical. They have very negative impressions of this bill. Well, it's just not true. I mean, it's a good thing that the clerk in the Senate right now just passed page 600. So they got they got a little ways to go, but they're they're reading the bill. And the truth is in the bill, the Medicaid reforms would affect able bodied people.

Americans, those who are sitting at home, who can work, who don't work, who don't have a sick kid or a sick mom, they shouldn't receive Medicaid without working. And on top of that, the bill would take Medicaid away from illegal immigrants. One of the most important amendments that we're going to vote on, hopefully sometime tonight or tomorrow morning, would be whether or not illegal immigrants should get Medicaid. And Democrats are going to have to

They're going to vote on that and tell the American people whether or not that's fair to those men and women who work hard every day and pay taxes that go to work, that people who can work but don't work and illegal should get Medicaid instead. Those would be the Americans who are affected. But at the end of the day, this is the biggest tax cut on working class families if we don't pass this bill.

everyone's taxes on average will go up $2,000 a household. And that's not fair to the regular Americans who work hard every day. That's what this bill is all about. So there have been changes, obviously, to the Senate bill, and we'll talk about a little bit of that. But following

Following those changes, here's what the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has to say. This thing would explode the debt. They say if you thought the House bill borrowed too much, and it did, the Senate manages to make things even worse. This $4 trillion borrowing bonanza is fiscally dangerous at a time of already exploding debt. It would borrow $1 trillion more than the House bill.

It violates the House's reconciliation instructions by hundreds of billions of dollars, and it is littered with special interest giveaways. Total hogwash. Again, $1.6 trillion in spending cuts by eliminating the Green New Deal tax credits, those scams that were passed during the Biden administration.

Do those totally phase out, or is it over time? Much of it is phased out in a quick period of time over the next two or three years. And that's where much of the cost savings come from. Remember, this is a tax bill. This is about taxes on working-class Americans. And if we don't pass this bill...

These Americans will get such a big tax increase. I'm the son of a factory worker. Everyone in my family is blue-collar, working class. They're all going to get socked by another $2,000 on average every year. They already tell me they can't keep up right now. And the Democrats want them to pay more in taxes? The Republicans are the party of the working class that

The Democrats are focused on screwing the working class with higher taxes and increasing the size and the scope of government, spending more on government. That's who they care about. President Trump and Republicans are serious about cutting taxes on the people who need it the most. OK, let's talk about Medicaid, because this has been a great concern. With a number of your GOP colleagues who are very much worried not only about the

practical impact, but how this is perceived for the party as well. So Senator Tom Tillis was one of the no votes. He's had a lot of concern about this. He said this yesterday, cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding from North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. We can and must do better than this. Now, he's got a tough reelection fight next year. The president's talking about primarying him.

Are you allowing spaces, the Republican leadership in the Senate, allowing space for him to be able to vote no on this and go tell North Carolina, I tried as hard as I could? Or do you think there's still a way to get him to a yes vote? I don't know. Hopefully he does vote for it. I mean, I don't know much about North Carolina politics, but in Indiana, my voters expect me to cut taxes for the people who need it the most and support President Trump in this endeavor.

We in addressing some of those concerns about rural hospitals, which is what Senator Tillis has been talking about for the last week. Leader Thune and President Trump have added a fund specifically geared toward keeping those rural hospitals going and making up for some of the losses that might be incurred. So that that'll go a long way to take care of that. But remember, the Medicaid reforms in this bill are about work requirements and taking illegals off of Medicaid funds.

That's what's in the bill. That's what the clerk is reading on the floor right now. That's the truth. Well, and that's the part that when that part of that question is billed or polled, that actually works for you. People seem to be in agreement, the average American, on that. Okay, so this bill has gone through the so-called birdbath. We won't get too wonky with people, but it means the parliamentarian here in the Senate can kick things out that

aren't germane to the underlying legislation. You got to keep that together so you can pass this with a simple majority. House Republican Chip Roy, you served with him over in the House. He thinks that some folks in the Senate, some GOP senators are using the parliamentarian as kind of a cop out. Here's a bit of what he said about that. I think the Senate is hiding behind the parliamentarian. I think the Senate wants to be able to avoid some of these cuts and these savings, and they want to be able to blame it on the parliamentarian. So don't blame the parliamentarian.

So you were a member of the House just months ago on the other side of the hill. Is he right that some of your colleagues are hiding behind her decisions to say, well, we tried? Well, these are process questions. First of all, the Senate bill cuts more than the House bill. One point.

six to 1.7 trillion dollars in spending cuts in the Senate bill is more than what came out of the house but second assessment is it spends more to well it extends these tax cuts and helps out the working-class Americans we were elected to serve so I'm not sure what he means by that but at the end of the day

We can override the parliamentarian with 60 votes on the floor. There will be a lot of amendment votes. The voter-rama is going to go on for several hours, hundreds of amendments that are filed. I think this bill is going to be better after we get through the amendment process than what it is right now. It will be different, and the speaker has worried about that. Because of substantive changes here in the Senate, you've got members out there, publicly, House members, saying, I can't vote for this or I'm not going to vote for this when it comes back. There's a really tight timeline to get this to the president's desk by July 4th.

How much does that factor into your assessment of what you will and won't vote for in the amendment process, knowing that there are House members who say, where it's squeaked by the first time, there are no this time with some of these changes? There's been a lot of coordination between the House and the Senate. Speaker Johnson has been in our Senate lunches several times, working closely with Leader Thune to make sure that we get this right. There's no margin for error, but never bet against President Trump. I mean, he is on the phone. He is working.

working it. They passed this by one vote out of the House before we're likely to pass it with a similar margin in the Senate. But don't bet against President Trump. He's going to get it done. The Senate's going to pass this bill in the next 24 to 36 hours. We're going to send it back to the House, and then the House needs to act on it quickly and get the president to sign it into law.

I want to ask you, too, about the assessment about Iran and how successful that strike was. You all had an intel briefing today. I want to play something that Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat, had to say when he came out from that briefing.

I walk away from that briefing still under the belief that we have not obliterated the program. The president was deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated. It is certain that there is still significant capability and significant equipment that remain.

So his assessment after hearing from the briefers, and a lot of folks credited former Senator, now Secretary Marco Rubio, with the thoroughness of that. But that obliterated is not the right word. He says they still have functional capability for a number of things they need for their program. Yeah, I sat through the same briefing. And my takeaway is that we set the program in Iran back by...

if not several months, several years. And it's almost hilarious to me that we're arguing over whether or not it was 90 percent obliterated or 70 percent obliterated. At the end of the day, the Democrats know these were effective strikes. President Trump acted in the way that he should have to

meet his commitment to never allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapon. And he struck these three sites. They were effective, set back their program by a long period of time, and then bringing Iran to the table to negotiate a deal. And that diplomatic process is beginning. The ceasefire between Israel and Iran is real. And President Trump's right in the middle of it, and he deserves a lot of credit for it. All right, we'll talk about that assessment with Senator Coons, who was in there as well. Senator Banks, thank you very much for your time. Good to see you this morning.

OK, you're going to hear from the other side of the aisle, Delaware Senator Chris Coons, just back from the NATO conference, by the way, where President Trump was praised for accomplishing something that no other U.S. president ever has. That's up next. Here's to getting better with it. You may get a little excited when you shop at Burlington. What a low price! Did you see that? They have my favorite! It's like a whole new world! I can buy two!

I'm saving so much! Burlington saves you up to 60% off other retailers' prices every day. Will it be the low prices or the great brands? Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow! I told you so. Styles and selections vary by store.

We're back live from Capitol Hill, where Republican senators have been working through the weekend in an attempt to get the president's budget plan over the finish line. The president has been working to convince holdouts to get on board with the bill. Success last night with that first step in this process. Now, all this comes days after he returned from a NATO summit where he got new commitments from partner nations and reassured some skittish counterparts.

Joining me now, Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons, who was at the NATO summit as well. Welcome back to the show. It's good to have you. Thanks. Great to be on with you. OK, so let's start here. There's now a commitment from just about every member nation to get to 5 percent of their GDP for defense spending.

Secretary General gives the president credit. There was this text message between the two. The president released, the secretary general said he was fine with that. It said this, Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe and the world. You will achieve something no American president in decades could get done. Europe is going to pay in a big way as they should, and it will be your win. Now, I know you're concerned about

the way some of that money will be spent moving forward. But do you give him the win? Absolutely. I think this was a successful NATO summit from every perspective. Having President Trump recommit to Article 5, having our European allies, our transatlantic allies come together and commit to significant increased investment in their security is positive from every perspective.

What I have said is we need to make sure those funds are spent wisely, that we coordinate well. Look, frankly, part of what drove this was also Putin's aggression against Ukraine. We stand united in supporting Ukraine's fight for freedom. And what I heard about the meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump was encouraging as well. Overall, I thought it was a big success, the NATO summit.

Did you meet with President Zelensky as well? I did. Did you tell us much about that meeting and that conversation? He was upbeat and positive. He's asking not for American funding for more weapons, but for the ability to buy more American weapons, given that Europeans are funding their next round of weapons acquisition. He really needs air defense because Putin's Russia continues to hammer civilian targets within Ukraine, schools and hospitals and apartment buildings, and they're striking military targets.

They just pulled off a spectacular strike deep inside Russia. President Trump's called for a ceasefire. President Zelensky has agreed. President Putin is not agreeing. He's continuing to strike deep into Ukraine. And I hope that President Trump will realize that Putin's playing him and that he needs to come down harder on Russia. Senators Graham and Blumenthal have a sanctions bill that I hope we will take up and pass.

next week. Okay, so before we leave NATO, I want to talk to you about the Secretary General praising President Trump over the situation with Israel, with Iran. Of course, while you guys were there, that was just playing out, the aftermath of that. Here is the Secretary General with praise for those strikes. I just want to recognize your decisive action on Iraq.

Thank you. You are a man of strength, but you're also a man of peace. And the fact that you are now also successful in getting this ceasefire done between Israel and Iran, I really want to commend you for that. Thank you very much. And I think this is important for the whole world.

I actually referred to him as daddy at one point, saying he's the one who got the two kids to stop fighting in the backseat. How was that playing out in NATO? Because we didn't know. I mean, obviously, there was a little bit of retaliation from Iran. It seemed to be telegraphed to us in advance. Things seem quiet for now.

Well, Shannon, let's start just by being prayerfully grateful that American servicemen and women at Al-Adid Air Base and throughout the Middle East were not harmed, were not struck. No Americans were killed in the Iranian response to this. I did think his use of the term daddy was a little odd.

But frankly, Secretary General Ruta, who leads NATO, I think showed deft handling of the summit overall. And frankly, the fact that the strikes have significantly degraded Iran's enrichment capabilities and facilities is a positive. What I'm very concerned about, and so are many of my colleagues, is what comes next.

next, not knowing what's the path forward for making sure that Iran's nuclear enrichment program does not continue to allow them to race towards a bomb, which may be what they do now. So Brett Stevens writing about this over at The New York Times called this decision to strike. He called it courageous. He writes this Trump's responsibility was to deny Iran's leaders the capabilities that would have allowed them the chance to change their minds and will to devastating effect amid uncertainty. The president acted before it was too late. It is the essence of

of statesmanship. The IAEA made it clear that

Iran was in violation of a number of agreements. You've talked about the fact that they were enriching far beyond what you would use for civilian non-weapons use. So in your opinion, how much longer should we have waited? So, Shannon, the key thing we don't know now is what's happened to the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. It's entirely possible that Iran moved it outside these sites. It would fit in the back of an F-150 pickup truck. And there are open source pictures of

of trucks pulling up to two of these facilities and leaving afterwards. And the White House says they think that that was, in their assessment, concrete being poured or things to make that a tougher target to penetrate. And that may be. But what I think the administration has to do next is come forward to Congress with the most complete picture our intelligence community can give us of what happened, of what's going to happen next, and of what their strategy is.

I'll just note that President Trump, by press accounts, is now moving towards negotiation and offering Iran a deal that looks somewhat similar to the Iran deal that was offered by Obama. Tens of billions of dollars of incentives and reduced sanctions in exchange for abandoning their nuclear program. So let's talk about that because your colleague, Lindsey Graham, you mentioned this sanctions package he's got with respect to Ukraine and Russia, very involved in foreign policy. He says...

Though the White House is open to these talks with Iran, there's got to be one specific precondition. Here's what he says. If you don't get a commitment up front that Iran from this day forward abandons its stated desire to wipe out Israel, and if they're not willing to recognize the Jewish state, you're wasting your time.

All right, so this is a government that chants death to Israel. Yes, and death to America. And, of course, death to America. Are we to expect that they are a valid, legit negotiating partner if they can't come to the table and say, okay, we recognize Israel has at least the right to existence?

That should be one of the key issues on the table. Look, when the IAEA said that they no longer were following their nonproliferation treaty obligations, that meant that what they've long said was their position, Iran claims to have a right to enrich, they've abandoned that. They've abandoned those commitments and

You're right. The fact that for decades they've said we want to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth is what makes them uniquely dangerous as a country with a nuclear program. What do you make of the leak? I mean, the FBI is now investigating the leak that had this initial low confidence estimate out there.

The White House speculates it may have come from a lawmaker. What do you think should happen to that leaker? Look, all of us need to be committed to protecting sensitive and classified information. Administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have struggled to make sure that leaks within the administration or in Congress don't happen.

I do think that just a few months ago there was an alarming incident where the National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense were trading over Signal, an unsecure app, details about an imminent strike on the Houthis. So I think we should be measured and wait for the intelligence to come out about exactly who leaked what here before any action is taken.

All right. Another big headline this week for your party was about the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City. So a lot of attention. The man who won Zoran Mamdani. We're going to scroll some things on our screen that have been attributed to him that he's publicly embraced. He's been described as anti-Semitic, anti-law enforcement. He wants to banish private health insurance, guns and prisons. He says no quid.

I don't share any of the positions that you just described. But look, before we conclude, we can't mistake what is about to happen here and what I think that has in common with voters in New York.

Voters in New York, I think, were principally moved by concerns about costs, costs of housing, costs of groceries, costs of health care. President Trump's campaign was partly successful because he said he would reduce costs. But the big and not very beautiful bill that we are about to vote on here in the Senate is going to cut $900 billion out of Medicaid, is going to throw, according to the Congressional Budget Office...

There is not that much race to Medicaid. You heard Senator Banks. He said it's people who don't belong on this. And he says they're going to force a vote on whether people who are in this country illegally should be getting Medicaid benefits. How will you vote on that amendment? And Senator Banks knows that Medicaid is not available.

The federal funding under Medicaid does not go to people who are not American citizens. It's not supposed to. There are states that are using their state funding to provide health care for people who are undocumented. But let's be clear, those cuts are not about throwing people off of Medicaid who are not here legally. They are about imposing more and more requirements on the beneficiaries of Medicaid. Let me put it simply this way.

I had three dozen nurses from Delaware visit me this week. These are folks who care for seniors in nursing homes, for disabled children, for newborns. And they begged me to vote against this bill because they know it will hurt their ability to deliver needed health care for tens of thousands of Delawareans. Don't believe me? Listen to Senator Tom Tillis. He's been saying loudly this bill is a bad deal for the middle class. It'll raise health care costs.

and throw millions off of needed health care. Well, the bell chiming tells us that our time is up. Senator, we appreciate you coming by. We'll watch as this plays out all week and where those policy fights continue. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Shannon. Okay, we are, by the way, sitting here just across the street from the Supreme Court taking a live look there. The majority handed President Trump a big win this week, limiting the ability of federal judges to block major policy moves, what it means for the Trump agenda, and what Democrats have now at the ability to combat it. That's up next.

You can Venmo this or you can Venmo that.

The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank, and a pursuant to license by MasterCard International Incorporated card may be used everywhere MasterCard is accepted. Venmo purchase restrictions apply. The Supreme Court for this ruling, it's a giant. It's a giant. And they should be very proud, and our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today.

Well, the Supreme Court handing President Trump a major win, significantly narrowing the scope of those nationwide injunctions that have hindered the administration's policy agenda for months. Let's talk about it with our Sunday group. Back in the Fox News Bureau, just a few blocks from here, Olivia Beavers, Wall Street Journal reporter.

Fox News contributors Katie Pavlich and Richard Fowler and Kevin Roberts, Heritage President. Welcome to all of you from just a little bit of a distance. So let's start here. This is the New York Times assessment. They say the Supreme Court term that ended on Friday included an extraordinary run of victories for President Trump, culminating in that six to three ruling, largely eliminating the main tool that his opponents have used to thwart his aggressive agenda. Kevin.

Well, 35 nationwide injunctions came from five district courts, Shannon, as you know. And ultimately, what this the last week of the Supreme Court term indicates is a tremendous and outdated corrective by a conservative court to decades of liberals weaponizing the judicial system. And so President Trump now, with three years left in his term, is sprung for a policy agenda that will deliver justice.

The will of the American people last November. The thing to sum up here, Shannon, I'm most excited about, given my own experience confronting the Obama administration on religious liberty 10 years ago, is the protection of children and families, the securing of the age verification porn law,

In Texas, the securing of eliminating transgender surgery is a grotesque practice in Tennessee and nationwide. This is the will of the American people. It is truly a revolution of common sense, as President Trump referred to in his inaugural.

Well, and one of the other decisions on Friday was saying that parents have a right to know about what books are being used in elementary school classrooms and the opportunity to opt their kids out if it's in conflict with their religious faith. So another six to three win for conservatives on that. But the chief justice was out speaking yesterday. They now begin their summer break, which isn't really a break because they have a very full emergency docket of cases they're still considering. But he talked about what happens in the aftermath of these very contested decisions. Here's what he had to say yesterday.

Every time we do something significant, somebody wins and somebody loses, and the loser generally doesn't have the same view of the process as the winner.

And so one of the losers that was not very happy about being in the dissent was Justice Jackson. She wrote a solo dissent to this nationwide injunctions case, and she said this. The decision will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise. The majority shuns this prescient warning. Even if such institutions may be destined to pass away, it is the duty of the court to be last, not first, to give them up. Katie, this was a very scorched earth, I like to call it, dissent.

Her dissent was scorched earth, but so was the approving opinion of the justices against Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as well, saying essentially she was making her decisions and writing her dissent based on not precedent, but her own feelings that are not within the law or applicable to what the Supreme Court is supposed to be judging, which is the constitutionality of the cases that are before them. But going into the politics of this, of course, the president,

And the White House celebrated this on Friday with a big press conference with Attorney General Pam Bondi. And the president really sees this as a green light for his agenda, which has been opposed every step of the way by these activist courts who have been approached by a number of NGOs and activist groups on the left to try and stop his agenda from moving forward, most notably his deportation agenda of.

criminal illegal aliens, which you've seen become a problem in places like California and elsewhere. And it's interesting to me that Justice Elena Kagan decided not to vote in favor of this opinion, given that just in 2022, she said that it can't be that a single district court judge can stop the national agenda of a duly elected president. And yet here we are with this question before the court. She decided to side with her liberal justices rather than her previous statements on the issue.

Yeah, I did think it was interesting during the arguments at the court. She tried to differentiate this case because there was an acknowledgement that she has said in the past these nationwide injunctions can be a problem. But she said this case was different. So she did sign on to the primary dissent in that case with Justice Sotomayor. But back to this issue of Justice Jackson's solo dissent, you mentioned that the majority opinion, which was authored by Justice Barrett,

Six of them signed on to this, did go after Justice Jackson's dissent. And here's what they said. They said she chooses a startling line of attack. She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition. Everyone from the president on down is bound by law. That goes for judges, too. Richard.

Oh, thanks for having me, Shannon. Number one, I do think this points to a critical flaw in the Trump agenda. Much of it is executive orders, right? And the reason why these injunctions have been passed, been ruled on by judges across the country is because they are executive orders and not legislation passed by the building there behind you. And I think that's problematic for the Trump administration. While I do think this expands executive power, both for Democrats and Republicans, worth pointing out that

Republicans use these national injunctions against Joe Biden as well as President Barack Obama. And so now that, you know, this is a pot call the kettle black here when it comes to them saying now we appreciate this decision. With that being said, I do think it sort of paints a larger problem for the country. What happens in this birthright citizenship case specifically in a world in which you have to now file a class action lawsuit?

for the unborn who will be born in this country? Will they have citizenship? And I think that is the critical question that the American people ask themselves. There's a lot of confusion in this moment. I think there's a lot of federal judges that do not know the limits or the length of their power. And I think that's indeed problematic for a judiciary's job that is to check the administrative branch and administrative authority.

I did hear from a pro-life advocate who said she's happy to hear that Democrats are concerned now about the unborn in this country. So this may play out in the context of abortion, too, as we have this patchwork of laws across the states. I want to get to another big decision this week, which I touched on with Senator Coons, which was the mayoral primary in New York City and the win by Zoran Mamdani. Here's what The Washington Post, not a conservative outlet, had to say. Their editorial board, Democrats should fear that he will discredit their next generation of party leaders for

almost all of whom are better than this Democratic socialist. Here is Democratic Congresswoman Lauren Gillen. Laura Gillen, she is from New York. I'm gravely concerned that if he became mayor and implemented some of these policies, we're going to see an exodus from New York. It's going to crater our economy. It's going to drive up taxes that will be passed on to my constituents. And it will it will destroy our state's economy as well.

So, Richard, she says he's gone on to promise a lot of things that he would have no authority to impact in any way that he's called to defund the police. She calls him too extreme. She talks about his anti-Semitic remarks and calls him, quote, absolutely the wrong choice for New York City. Well, look, a couple of things here. Number one, I think the Democratic voters in New York have spoken. Number two, as you know, Shannon, we sort of got we campaign in poetry and we govern in prose. We'll have to see what his governing style does look like.

But I do think there's a fundamental question we have to ask ourselves as the American people. There's been a lot of folks who've thrown around this word "anti-Semitic," right? And I think we have to question when they throw this word around. It's one thing to say that you have a problem with how a government acts, right? You could say that you have a problem with the Israeli government. You could have a problem with the American government. That's why we have the freedom of speech in this country.

It's another thing to criticize, you know, a group of people, a group of religion. And I think what Zeran is doing here is saying, I have a problem with the Israeli government and I believe that we should not see killing anywhere. And I think that's what he said. Well, hold on a second, Katie. And I think that's what's indeed what he's saying. And I think that's the most important thing we have to ask ourselves. Is this what is this indeed anti-Semitism or is anti-Semitism something else?

Can you call out the Israeli government without it being called anti-Semitic? And Senator Bernie Sanders, who backed him, gets to that point in an op-ed he wrote in The Guardian. He says Mondami, he says, understands that anti-Semitism is a disgusting and dangerous ideology, but that is not anti-Semitic. It's not anti-Semitic to be critical of the inhumane policies of the Netanyahu government. Katie.

What has been happening in New York City is not about what's been happening in Israel. It has nothing to do with the government of Israel. This candidate for mayor has decided he's going to back the violent protests that we've seen at Columbia University, where pro-terrorism, pro-Hamas activists...

have locked students of Jewish descent into their classrooms, into their student dorm rooms, into their lecture halls. They've been unable to go to class. We've seen them hold hostage. Janitors who have filed a lawsuit against the university as a result of this, they have blocked Jewish American students from their civil rights of going to class unheeded. So this idea that this is about the Israeli government when all the evidence points to these violent demonstrations

defenses of these activists on campuses in New York City and elsewhere as pro-terrorism mobs run through the streets and they don't condemn them. It has nothing to do with the Israeli government. It absolutely has to do with anti-Semitism and the support of Islamic terrorism, not just overseas, but also in New York City. Well,

What Katie points to is the nuance in this debate, and I think that's the reason why you can't throw labels like anti-Semitism. I'm calling for a second intifada where thousands of innocent people were killed in Israel and around the world for being Jewish, as this candidate for mayor has said he supports.

That is a call for murder and violence that has nothing to do with the Israeli government. Very quickly. Once again, I will say this. This is the nuanced debate. It should be nuanced and not debated in 30 seconds. Hold on a second. And not be debated in 30-second sound bites. And to throw around the label of anti-Semitism, which is criticizing a whole religious, a whole group of people,

is indeed something different than saying you have a problem with how the government acts. We got to leave it there. There's much more to come on this. And this is going to be a very heated debate going forward because we're so months away from the general election there in New York. We'll see if the Democratic nominee is the one.

As you would expect, based on the numbers, is the eventual mayor there or if there is something else in store with potentially Cuomo, Adams, Sliwa? We'll see. All right, panel, don't go far. The FBI is now searching for the source of a leaked preliminary assessment on the Iran strike, which the administration spent much of this week disputing. The major impact that leak may have on lawmaker access to classified intel. That's up next as we get a live look at the Washington Monument. We are live on Capitol Hill.

The spirit of innovation is deeply ingrained in America, and Google is helping Americans innovate in ways both big and small. The Air Force Research Laboratory is partnering with Google Cloud, using AI to accelerate defense research for air, space, and cyberspace forces. This is a new era of American innovation. Find out more at g.co slash American innovation.

They don't care what the troops think. They don't care what the world thinks. They want to spin it to try to make him look bad based on a leak. Of course, we've all seen plenty of leakers. And what do leakers do? They have agendas.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth coming out swinging against a leaked preliminary assessment on Iran, which initially questioned with low confidence whether the strike was as effective as the administration claims. That leak now spurring major blowback here on the Hill as President Trump is vowing that it could limit intelligence sharing with lawmakers moving forward. We are now back with our panel. Olivia, quite the buzz on this. And I've heard to a person, you heard both senators here today say they think the leak is wrong. It's got to be investigated. Someone's got to be punished.

Yeah, you know, I think reporters tend to have a different perspective of leaks. We want that information. So I'm just hoping that it's me next time. But that being said, this is a nuanced sort of issue. I get why the White House is complaining. It was an

early raw intelligence data. It said what it said, but it's not the collective intelligence community's broader view of what happened. And that's going to take a lot of time. So I get why they're upset and I get why the senators are upset that it leaked. But we are still actively trying to figure out how much damage the U.S. attacks did in Iran. And

We're also, I think there's some backstory too of why there are a lot of questions about whether the president is overhyping what was done, saying it was obliterated because

Just earlier, before the attacks, there was a difference between his intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, saying that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, and then the president dismissing that. So there's definitely a lot to keep figuring out here. Well, and Kevin, the DNI has suggested that there was taking her words out of context. I mean, she was talking about whether or not the Supreme Leader had given the order. I think some people see that as different from whether they actually had the ability to build a weapon.

Well, it's very different. My national security colleagues at Heritage who were in the NSC in the first term are convinced that

Iran's nuclear capabilities have been seriously degraded. But there's a larger point I would make, at least in terms of domestic politics, Shannon, about this leak. And whoever is behind it is intending to undermine what is, from this American historian, as you know, one of the most successful weeks in American presidential history. The degradation of Iran's nuclear threat, settling a peace with Rwanda and the DRC.

Obviously, imminent passage of the reconciliation bill, which puts the policy trajectory of this administration on the fast track. And lost in all of this, Shannon, is that on Friday, both the S&P and the Nasdaq hit record highs. And then finally, if you think about the NATO summit, I happen to be in Europe until Friday on the heels of the NATO summit meeting with business leaders and heads of state.

They, some of whom are skeptics of Trump and Vance, had to admit, and it was beautiful to see, that President Trump is bringing order back to the world. In this town, leaks are the currency of people who lack virtue, and President Trump is restoring common sense to this ridiculous practice, too.

Listen, I'm across the street from the Supreme Court. We're still trying to solve the leak of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade three years ago. But we're told that the FBI and the DOJ are taking a new look at that. Meanwhile, while that's being investigated, there's an investigation percolating again here on the House side of Capitol Hill into President Biden, what his condition was, what people closest to him knew about his condition, the use of auto pen, who was authorizing different actions.

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Jim Comer sent a letter to former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Friday. He says this, your assertion on multiple occasions that President Biden's decline was attributable to such tactics as cheap fakes or misinformation cannot go without investigation. Richard, he says there are still a lot of questions and they want to know who was actually calling the shots.

Should Democrats have any problem answering these questions and reassuring the American people and giving transparency to that administration? Look, I think if a subpoena is issued, I think Democrats will respond to that subpoena. With that being said, I caution Republicans here on this sort of note.

investigating a former administration to the point of taking it down to the studs, as we saw Democrats do over the past four years during the Biden administration, caused the reelection of Donald Trump. So the question for Republicans is, will investigating Joe Biden, right, and investigating his presidency, and maybe some of the good things that happened in his presidency, i.e. the infrastructure bill that Donald Trump could not get passed, will that cause Democrats to see a popularity? Understand the American people do not like this type of accountability because they rejected it in the last election.

All right. So, Katie, there are a number of people who've either been invited to come voluntarily. There are now subpoenas that are going out. Part of the information or the language coming from the committee also says they they believe there's mounting evidence that President Biden was incapacitated for much, if not all of his single term. But what do you make about the caution, Katie, coming from Richard?

I think Democrats would be very happy if Joe Biden were not talked about on the national level, especially going into the midterm elections and the next presidential election. Polling shows the majority of the country believes that the White House was not transparent when it came to the president's health. And as Democrats always say, they believe in democracy and democracy requires that the people who are elected make the decisions, not the people who necessarily work for them. So

The transparency is a good thing. And Democrats want this to go away because they don't want a spotlight on their failed nominee who had to leave the campaign trail before his term was over. So, OK, a super quick round, Robin, I need a yes or no from you. Do you think that this bill gets through the Senate, back through the House and to the president's desk by the Friday deadline or goal that he's got? Each of you give me your one word answer, Kevin. Yes. Happy Independence Day. It's awesome.

Olivia? By the 4th, maybe not, but I do think it eventually passes. Richard? I'll copy and paste what Olivia said. I think it will be a democratically different bill than we see today. All right, Katie. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much to all of you. Have a wonderful Independence Day. We'll see you next Sunday. Up next, my reporter's notebook from an historic term at the Supreme Court, including we're going to give you a behind-the-scenes look at how the big decisions get to me, into my hands, as I'm reporting them live to you at home. That's next.

Right out of her life.

Boring money moves make kind of lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC Bank, brilliantly boring since 1865. The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.

President Trump there reacting to one of the biggest, most eagerly anticipated decisions of this year's Supreme Court term. I was on the ground reporting just across the street when the decision was released by the court. Now, you should know there's a lot of behind-the-scenes help getting you the breaking news as quickly as possible. So I got to give a shout out to two of our college associates who tackled the annual running of these opinions. Grabbing them, respectfully.

From the office where they're released by hand inside the Supreme Court, swiftly running them to me where I'm reporting live. Maria Davis and Nathan Gonzalez were our superstars this year. And yes, we can access the decisions online, but that system is not foolproof. It's gone down before and call me old fashioned, but it's just much easier for me to digest them when I can flip through them by hand. Those hard copies, Maria and Nathan, thank you very much. We'll do it again next year. All right. Right now, the text of the big, beautiful bill is currently being read in full by Senate clerks.

The president wants it passed by the Senate, back through the House and to his desk by Friday. Senior congressional correspondent Chad Pergram is here to tell us if that's going to happen. Yeah, speaking of doing things the old-fashioned way, actually reading the bill out loud, yeah, we think they'll probably have about another three to four hours just to read this bill. Then they go to the actual debate. There's up to 20 hours there. We don't think that they will consume all that time. And then they go to the Voterama. This is where they vote.

And they vote and they vote on end. That's right. And possible changes to the bill. Democrats will put some things in there to try to put Republican senators in competitive states, you know, have to take a tough vote there. Those voteramas last anywhere between nine and 15 hours. So when you look at your watch, I think we're probably looking at passage sometime midday tomorrow.

All right. I am not good at math. That's why I went to law school. So I'm glad that you can dice it out for us. So let's talk about a couple of things that may come up for a vote, because Senator Jim Banks was talking about that they want to put Democrats on the spot about voting for continued Medicaid funding in any way flowing to people who are in this country illegally. You heard what Senator Coons had to say about that.

Both sides want each other to be forced to take some difficult votes. And that's really what happens during these voteramas, where they weaponize these roll call votes. I mean, the only reason sometimes they have these is to say, can you believe that they voted for that? And then next October, when we're getting close to the midterm election, they will say, oh, that was the roll call vote where they voted this way or that way. That's what this is all about. So once, if it makes it through the Senate with all of the wheeling dealing that happened last night to get us to this first procedural vote, it's got to go back through the House where the Speaker has warned the Senate.

don't make too many substantive changes or I can't get it back through my members. And you've heard a number of them say, I don't like some of these changes. I'm a no. So many House conservatives have said they don't want to vote quickly and get jammed by the Senate. There's some options out there maybe to send it back that would definitely push us past the July 4th deadline. But chances are they probably have to eat this if they're going to get it done. And the best whip

In the House for Mike Johnson is the president. OK, who do you watch most closely when it comes to those House members who may be a no vote that could be a problem? Chip Roy, Thomas Massey, maybe somebody like Michael Cloud, Eric Burleson. OK, Chad, we know you're going to be on it around the clock. Thank you so much for doing double duty with us. That's it for us today. Thank you for joining us here on Capitol Hill live today for Fox News Sunday. I'm Shannon Bream. Have a wonderful Independence Day and we'll see you next Fox News Sunday.

It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.fox. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. Listen to Fox News Sunday ad-free on Amazon Music with your Prime membership or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.