A new memo being sent to House Republicans on Monday is encouraging them to tout new work requirements for Medicaid and federal food benefits, as lawmakers return to their districts for Congress’ annual August recess period.

Democrats and Republicans are locked in a messaging war over President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ a fight that’s only expected to intensify as the 2026 midterm elections creep closer.

Advancing American Freedom (AAF), a group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, is looking to provide backup to GOP lawmakers with new guidance on how to sell the bill to constituents.

The memo positions Democratic attacks as ‘Left Wing operatives…already working to distort and malign every part of the [one big, beautiful bill].’

Democrats have been accusing Republicans of ripping federal benefits like Medicaid away from millions of people in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

They’re hoping to gin up enough outrage against the bill to carry them to take back the House of Representatives next year.

But the memo’s first section encourages GOP lawmakers to point out that ‘every Democrat voted against’ the bill, followed by three of what the right sees as its strongest points.

The AAF memo urges Republicans to say, for example, that the bill’s extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) avoided a cumulative $4 trillion tax increase for Americans, including ‘working families.’

The bill also includes ‘$165 billion to secure the border, including 3,000 new border patrol agents, $10,000 bonuses for ICE and Border Patrol agents, and $46.5 billion for the wall,’ and ‘$150 billion to rebuild our military including shipbuilding, nuclear arsenal, and the Golden Dome,’ which Democrats opposed as well in their votes against the bill.

In addition to more talking points celebrating the bill’s tax cuts, energy provisions, and spending cut measures, AAF appears to be calling on Republicans to take on Democrats’ criticism of federal benefit reforms head-on.

The memo touts ‘commonsense Medicaid reforms’ like ‘a work requirement for able-bodied adults who are not caretakers or parents of children under 15 years old in the Medicaid and SNAP programs.’

It also encourages Republicans to point out the bill ‘reduces payments for Medicaid to states that provide coverage to illegal aliens by a commensurate amount’ and ‘requires regular reviews to ensure that dead or ineligible people are not enrolled.’

AAF also believes the conservative policy wins in the bill will also be a strong talking point, urging GOP lawmakers to point out that the legislation effectively defunds Planned Parenthood for a year, establishes a new tax credit for school choice, and ‘disincentivizes gambling by letting gamblers only write off 90% of their losses.’

House Republicans working to sell the bill will have their work cut out for them over the next four weeks, however.

A recent Fox News poll conducted in mid-July found that 58% of registered voters disapproved of the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ compared to just 39% who supported it.

The gap between Republicans and Democrats is significant – 73% of registered Republican voters approved of the bill, compared to just 10% of Democrats. Independents opposed the bill by a margin of 29% to 70%.

But Democrats aren’t in the clear, either. A new poll released Monday by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that a significant number of Democratic Party voters see their party as ‘weak’ and ‘ineffective.’

A Senate Republican wants to crack down on public officials who use their position to grow their wealth.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is set to introduce legislation that would create stiffer penalties for public officials who commit federal bank fraud, tax fraud, or loan or mortgage fraud. Cornyn’s bill comes on the heels of two such instances where top officials and lawmakers were hit with allegations of mortgage fraud.

Indeed, Cornyn’s Law Enforcement Tools to Interdict Troubling Investments in Abodes (LETITIA) Act is named for New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Justice Department earlier this year opened an investigation into James, who successfully won a civil case last year against President Donald Trump and his Trump Organization over allegations of faulty business practices, for alleged mortgage fraud.

Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte alleged in a letter that James could have engaged in mortgage fraud by making false or misleading statements on property records, like a loan application that said her property in Virginia is her primary residence, a building record stating her multifamily Brooklyn property incorrectly has five residences instead of four, and a mortgage application that falsely stated James was her father’s spouse.

‘This legislation would empower President Trump to hold crooked politicians like New York’s Letitia James accountable for defrauding their constituents, violating their oath of office, and breaking the law, and I’m proud to lead my Republican colleagues in introducing it,’ Cornyn said in a statement.

Fox News Digital reached out to James for comment but did not immediately hear back.

Cornyn’s bill also comes after his colleague Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was similarly hit with allegations of mortgage fraud.

In another letter to the Justice Department, Pulte charged that Schiff falsified bank documents and property records by listing homes in Maryland and California as his primary residence out of an effort to allegedly get more favorable loans.

Marisol Samayoa, a spokesperson for Schiff, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that both Trump and Pulte’s ‘false allegations are a transparent attempt to punish a perceived political foe who is committed to holding Trump to account.’

‘The facts here are simple: Senator Schiff and his wife accurately represented to their lenders that they would occupy and use the Maryland house they purchased in 2003 as a ‘principal residence,’ rather than a vacation home or an investment property,’ she said. ‘He also disclosed to his lenders – repeatedly – that he maintained another home in his district in California, where he lived when not in Washington, and which was also a principal residence, not a vacation home or an investment property.’ 

‘This was done in consultation with relevant House counsel. As was proper, he claimed only a single homestead tax exemption (from California) worth approximately $70 in annual savings,’ she continued.

The bill, which is so far co-sponsored by six Senate Republicans, would increase federal statutory maximum sentences and fines for public officials who abuse their offices and violate the public trust to commit bank fraud, loan or mortgage fraud, or tax fraud.

It would create new mandatory minimum sentences, including one year for bank fraud, one year for loan or mortgage fraud, and six months for tax fraud. And if a public official engages in a repeated pattern of offenses, minimum sentences increase to five years for bank or loan fraud and two years for tax fraud.

Attorney General Pam Bondi directed her staff Monday to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has learned.

Bondi ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings, and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury to secure a potential indictment, according to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News Digital and a source familiar with the investigation.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the report of an investigation but said Bondi is taking the referrals from Gabbard ‘very seriously.’ The spokesperson said Bondi believed there is ‘clear cause for deep concern’ and a need for the next steps.

The DOJ confirmed two weeks ago it received a criminal referral from Gabbard. The referral included a memorandum titled ‘Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing ‘Russian and criminal actors did not impact’ the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure’ and asked that the DOJ open an investigation.

No charges have been brought at this stage against any defendants. A grand jury investigation is needed to secure an indictment against any potential suspects.

The revelation that the DOJ is moving forward with a grand jury probe comes after Gabbard declassified intelligence in July that shed new light on the Obama administration’s allege determination that Russia sought to help Trump in the 2016 election.

Former President Barack Obama and his intelligence officials allegedly promoted a ‘contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t,’ Gabbard said during a press briefing of the intelligence.

Among the declassified material was a meeting record revealing how Obama allegedly requested his deputies prepare an intelligence assessment in December 2016, after Trump had won the election, that detailed the ‘tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.’ 

That intelligence assessment stressed that Russia’s actions did not affect the outcome of the election but rather were intended to sow distrust in the democratic process.

It is unclear who is under investigation and what charges could be in play given statutes of limitations for much of the activity from nearly a decade ago have lapsed.

Former Obama intelligence officials, including John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey have drawn scrutiny from Trump officials for their involvement in developing intelligence that undermined Trump’s 2016 victory.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

A federal court fight over President Donald Trump’s authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court for review, legal experts told Fox News Digital, in a case that has already proved to be a pivotal test of executive branch authority.

At issue in the case is Trump’s ability to use a 1977 emergency law to unilaterally slap steep import duties on a long list of countries doing business with the U.S.

In interviews with Fox News Digital, longtime trade lawyers and lawyers who argued on behalf of plaintiffs in court last week said they expect the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a matter of ‘weeks,’ or sometime in August or September – in line with the court’s agreement to hear the case on an ‘expedited’ basis.

The fast-track timeline reflects the important question before the court: whether Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he launched his sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.

Importantly, that timing would still allow the Supreme Court to add the case to their docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins in early October. That could allow them to rule on the matter as early as the end of the year. 

Both Trump administration officials and lawyers for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal the case to the Supreme Court if the lower court does not rule in their favor. And given the questions at the heart of the case, it is widely expected that the high court will take up the case for review.

In the meantime, the impact of Trump’s tariffs remains to be seen. 

Legal experts and trade analysts alike said last week’s hearing is unlikely to forestall the broader market uncertainty created by Trump’s tariffs, which remain in force after the appeals court agreed to stay a lower court decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade. 

Judges on the three-judge CIT panel in May blocked Trump’s use of IEEPA to stand up his tariffs, ruling unanimously that he did not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under that law. 

Thursday’s argument gave little indication as to how the appeals court would rule, plaintiffs and longtime trade attorneys told Fox News Digital, citing the tough questions that the 11 judges on the panel posed for both parties.

Dan Pickard, an attorney specializing in international trade and national security issues at the firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, said the oral arguments Thursday did not seem indicative of how the 11-judge panel might rule.

‘I don’t know if I walked out of that hearing thinking that either the government is going to prevail, or that this is dead on arrival,’ Pickard told Fox News Digital. ‘I think it was more mixed.’

Lawyers for the plaintiffs echoed that assessment – a reflection of the 11 judges on the appeals bench, who had fewer chances to speak up or question the government or plaintiffs during the 45 minutes each had to present their case. 

‘I want to be very clear that I’m not in any way, shape or form, predicting what the Federal Circuit will do – I leave that for them,’ one lawyer for the plaintiffs told reporters after court, adding that the judges, in his view, posed ‘really tough questions’ for both parties.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who helped represent the 12 states suing over the plan, told Fox News Digital they are ‘optimistic’ that, based on the oral arguments, they would see at least a partial win in the case, though he also stressed the ruling and the time frame is fraught with uncertainty.

In the interim, the White House forged ahead with enacting Trump’s tariffs as planned.

Pickard, who has argued many cases before the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, noted that the oral arguments are not necessarily the best barometer for gauging the court’s next steps – something lawyers for the plaintiffs also stressed after the hearing.

Even if the high court blocks the Trump administration from using IEEPA, they have a range of other trade tools at their disposal, trade lawyers told Fox News. 

The Trump administration ‘has had more of a focus on trade issues than pretty much any other administration in my professional life,’ Pickard said. 

‘And let’s assume, even for the sake of the argument, just hypothetically, that the Supreme Court says this use of IEEPA exceeded your statutory authority. The Trump administration is not going to say, like, ‘All right, well, we’re done. I guess we’re just going to abandon any trade policy.’

‘There are going to be additional [trade] tools that had been in the toolbox for long that can be taken out and dusted off,’ he said. ‘There are plenty of other legal authorities for the president. 

‘I don’t think we’re seeing an end to these issues anytime soon – this is going to continue to be battled out in the courts for a while.’

Both Pickard and Rayfield told Fox News Digital in separate interviews that they expect the appeals court to rule within weeks, not days. 

The hearing came after Trump on April 2 announced a 10% baseline tariff on all countries, along with higher, reciprocal tariffs targeting select nations, including China. The measures, he said, were aimed at addressing trade imbalances, reducing deficits with key trading partners, and boosting domestic manufacturing and production.

Ahead of last week’s oral arguments, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said lawyers for the administration would continue to defend the president’s trade agenda in court.

Justice Department attorneys ‘are going to court to defend [Trump’s] tariffs,’ she said, describing them as ‘transforming the global economy, protecting our national security and addressing the consequences of our exploding trade deficit.’

‘We will continue to defend the president,’ she vowed. 

Put yourself in Hillary Clinton’s shoes. No, really. I know it’s an abhorrent thought, but imagine being Hillary, having initiated the greatest political dirty trick of all time, watching Russiagate unspool over the past decade. Think of her witnessing the country go down the granddaddy of all rabbit holes in 2017 – a rabbit hole she personally helped dig — looking for proof of Russian collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin that she knew didn’t exist. 

What was she thinking as the country hired a special prosecutor and spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to pursue leads that she and her campaign team had fabricated out of thin air? Was she ever remorseful? Was there ever a moment when she wanted to reel in the whole sorry deception and tell the country that she was sorry, and that she had lied?

No, there was not. Hillary Clinton even wrote a book called ‘What Happened?’ in which she blamed Putin, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and former CIA Director James Comey for her shocking loss to Donald Trump, a non-politician whom she mocked and derided. To this day, she sticks to her self-serving fable, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was out to get her and, but for his interference, she would surely have become the country’s first female president.

The reality is that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, disliked and distrusted by most Americans. Polling from CNN that came out about the time of the 2016 Democrat Convention gives a taste of what voters thought of Clinton.  The Washington Post reported, ’68 percent say Clinton isn’t honest and trustworthy… her worst number on-record….  The 30 percent who see Clinton as honest and trustworthy is now well shy of the number who say the same of Trump: 43 percent.’ 

The public was right not to trust Clinton; the more we learn about Russiagate, and her role in it, the more apparent that is. 

Any normal person would conclude that Clinton, whose approval rating CNN pegged at a dismal 31% in July 2016, was not a shoo-in come the November election. Barack Obama had been president for eight years and the country had become less Democrat-leaning during his term; only 31% of the nation identified as Democrat in 2016, while 36% had described themselves as true blue in 2008, when he was first elected. 

Though expressing confidence that she would win, maybe Hillary knew she had to pull out all stops to beat Donald Trump. Perhaps that’s why she signed off on two dirty tricks that led to the despicable undermining of Donald Trump’s presidency. 

First, her former campaign manager Robby Mook testified in court that she personally approved her campaign’s scheme in October 2016 to tell a Slate magazine reporter about an unverified server backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa bank in Moscow. This supposed connection formed the first step in trying to convince the public that Donald Trump was a tool of Vladimir Putin. The purported link never existed, but it was widely publicized by Hillary’s supporters and the legacy media (I repeat myself), creating suspicion in the public’s mind. 

After the Slate story emerged, weeks before the election, Hillary put out a tweet claiming ‘Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank,’ followed up by a news release in which she said, ‘This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.’ 

The FBI subsequently concluded no ‘hotline,’ indeed no link, ever existed. Interestingly, another apparatchik pushing the Trump-Alfa bank lie was Jake Sullivan, later presumably rewarded by President Joe Biden appointing the unknown politico to be National Security Adviser. 

Of course, the bigger and more destructive Russia collusion lie that Hillary helped originate came from the salacious allegations contained in the Steele dossier, paid for by the Clinton campaign, which led to the longtime investigation into Russian interference and the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. This is a fact, verified by the fact that the Federal Election Commission under Biden penalized the campaign and the DNC for lying about having funded that opposition research. 

The story, however, goes on. New revelations have revived accusations that Hillary Clinton, as well as Barack Obama, James Comey, John Brennan and others manipulated intelligence and facts to feed the public even more lies about Donald Trump’s supposed ties to Russia. 

Amazingly, the New York Times has again leapt into the breach to protect Clinton, perhaps concerned they might lose their 2018 Pulitzer earned for helping promote a fake news story. They reference, ‘An annex to a report by the special counsel John H. Durham’ but claim the disclosures are an effort by ‘the Trump team [seeking] to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein files.’ They write that GOP allegations that ‘Mrs. Clinton had approved a campaign proposal to tie Mr. Trump to Russia to distract from the scandal over her use of a private email server’ is not valid because…the damning emails contained in the annex are likely fabrications from Russian spies. Sure. 

Will we ever know the complete truth about the plot hatched to discredit the Trump presidency? Probably not, and it is probably also true that key players like Hillary Clinton will never be held accountable.

But, as Hillary watches the ongoing revelations coming from the Trump White House, we can also imagine that she is getting her comeuppance. Her treachery and deceit -– knowing how badly she has abused the public’s trust — has surely shriveled her soul, leaving her bitter and defeated. 

People now see her as a corrupt schemer, someone who knew she could not win an election on her merits and so resorted to lies and fabrications that hurt the country. 

We also now see her as someone who didn’t just attack President Trump, but also the 61 million Americans who voted for him in 2016.