Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., are pushing legislation that would hike the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and provide for annual increases to account for inflation.

The proposal would implement a dramatic increase from the current $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, which has been in place for more than 15 years.

‘For decades, working Americans have seen their wages flatline. One major culprit of this is the failure of the federal minimum wage to keep up with the economic reality facing hardworking Americans every day. This bipartisan legislation would ensure that workers across America benefit from higher wages,’ Hawley said, according to press releases from both lawmakers.

The purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has eroded significantly over the years due to inflation.

Under the proposed legislation, the yearly increases to the initial $15 per hour federal minimum wage would be based on ‘the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (or a successor index), as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ and would be ’rounded to the nearest multiple of $0.05, if the amount … is not a multiple of $0.05.’

‘We’re in the midst of a severe affordability crisis, with families in red and blue states alike struggling to afford necessities like housing and groceries. A stagnant federal minimum wage only adds fuel to the fire. Every hardworking American deserves a living wage that helps put a roof over their head and food on the table–$7.25 an hour doesn’t even come close,’ Welch said, according to the releases.

‘Times have changed, and working families deserve a wage that reflects today’s financial reality. I’m proud to lead this bipartisan effort to raise the minimum wage nationwide to help more folks make ends meet,’ the senator added. 

In post on X, conservative commentator Dana Loesch decried the idea of raising the federal minimum wage, pushing back against Hawley’s advocacy for the policy.

‘This is a horrible, progressive idea,’ Loesch asserted in the tweet.

President Trump’s tariffs will remain in effect for now after a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday to pause a lower court decision that had blocked them. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the stay and scheduled an expedited review of the case, which centers on whether Trump exceeded his authority under federal law.

The case involves challenges from five small businesses and a coalition of states who argue that President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs was unlawful. 

The U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the plaintiffs earlier this year, issuing an order to block the tariffs. That decision is now on hold pending further review.

The Federal Circuit found that both sides raised substantial arguments and that a stay was appropriate under the legal standards used to evaluate such motions. 

The court’s brief order noted that the stay was necessary to preserve the status quo while the appeal proceeds. The case will now be heard by the full bench of active judges in an en banc session, a rare move reserved for matters of exceptional legal significance.

Oral arguments are scheduled for July 31 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 201 at the Federal Circuit courthouse in Washington, D.C.

The Liberty Justice Center, which represents the five businesses, criticized the court’s decision to allow the tariffs to remain temporarily but welcomed the accelerated review.

‘We’re disappointed the federal circuit allowed the unlawful tariffs to remain in place temporarily,’ said Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation at the Liberty Justice Center. 

‘It’s important to note that every court to rule on the merits so far has found these tariffs unlawful, and we have faith that this court will likewise see what is plain as day: that IEEPA does not allow the president to impose whatever tax he wants whenever he wants. We are glad the federal circuit recognized the importance of this case, and agreed to hear it before the full court on an expedited schedule.’

The full opinion can be read here.

White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the Trump administration’s executive powers in a statement to Fox News Digital, saying it welcomed the US Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay order.

‘The Trump administration is legally using the powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address our country’s national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking. The US Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay order is a welcome development, and we look forward to ultimately prevailing in court,’ Desai said.
 

The majority of House Democrats voted in favor of allowing non-citizens to participate in Washington, D.C. elections on Tuesday.

The House of Representatives passed a bill led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, to prohibit non-U.S. citizens from voting in elections in the nation’s capital.

It passed 266 to 148, with 56 Democrats joining Republicans in passing the measure. One Democrat voted ‘present,’ while 148 voted against the bill.

‘I believe strongly in not having federal overreach, but we have jurisdiction, Congress has jurisdiction over Washington, District of Columbia…and we don’t like to utilize our jurisdiction and our authority, but in this case, they’ve gone too far,’ Pfluger told Fox News Digital in an interview before the vote.

D.C.’s progressive city council passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting non-U.S. citizens the ability to vote in local elections if they’ve lived in the district for at least 30 days.

Noncitizens can also hold local elected office in the D.C. government.

The local measure has been a frequent target of GOP attacks, with Republican national security hawks raising alarms about the possibility of hostile foreign agents participating in D.C. elections.

But progressive Democrats like Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., who spoke out against the bill on Tuesday afternoon, have dismissed that as an implausible scenario. 

‘Republicans claim that Congress has a constitutional duty to legislate on local D.C. matters, but this is historically and legally incorrect. Republicans legislate on local D.C. matters only when they think they can score political points, such as by demonizing immigrants,’ Frost said during debate on the House floor.

‘They only bring it up to the floor when they think they can score political points, taking away the democratic rights of people here in D.C. and home rule.’

Frost also argued that it was ‘highly unlikely’ foreign officials would vote in those elections, claiming they would have to ‘renounce their right to vote in their home country’ and because ‘D.C. has no authority in federal matters.’

But Pfluger, who spoke with Fox News Digital before the vote, was optimistic that it would get at least some Democratic support.

He noted that 52 Democrats voted for the bill when it passed the House in the previous Congress. It was never taken up in the formerly Democrat-controlled Senate, however.

‘It’s hard to go back to your district as a Democrat and say, yeah, I want foreign agents to be able to vote in our elections – ‘Oh yeah, it’s not federal elections,’ some may say. But it has an impact on the way the city is run,’ Pfluger said.

‘This could be Russian embassy personnel, they could be Chinese embassy personnel – a number of folks. It’s just wrong. It goes against the fabric of our society,’ he added.

Another bill receiving a vote on Tuesday is legislation that would grant D.C. police the ability to negotiate punishments via collective bargaining, and would help shield the capital’s police force from at least some liability by installing a statute of limitations against the Metropolitan Police Department. 

That legislation was introduced by New York Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took a shot at Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for how he handled the 2020 riots in his state, claiming that the Trump administration wouldn’t let history repeat itself in Los Angeles amid immigration protests. 

Noem, who previously served as governor of South Dakota, defended the Trump administration’s decision to deploy thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to address the protests in Los Angeles, using Minnesota as an example of what happens when a ‘bad governor’ is in charge. 

‘I was a governor of a neighboring state to Tim Walz and watched him let his city burn,’ Noem told reporters Tuesday. ‘And the president and I have talked about this in the past, and he was not going to let that happen to another city and to another community where a bad governor made a bad decision.’ 

Walz was first elected governor of Minnesota in 2019, leading the state as protests broke out after the death of Black man George Floyd at the hands of a White police officer in 2020. While Walz has said he takes the blame for a delayed response activating the National Guard in his state, he has also said he is proud of how Minnesota reacted. 

‘I’m proud of Minnesota’s response. I’m proud of Minnesota’s first responders who were out there, from firefighters to police to the National Guard to citizens that were out there,’ Walz said in a 2022 gubernatorial debate. 

Walz’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is dispatching a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles after protests broke out Friday stemming from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests in the city. 

President Donald Trump has gone head-to-head with California’s governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, over the activation of the troops. While Trump has argued the National Guard troops are necessary to prevent destruction in Los Angeles, Newsom said most of the troops ‘are sitting, unused, in federal buildings without orders.’ 

Additionally, Newsom argued that the move violates state sovereignty because state governors typically oversee National Guard troops. However, Trump invoked a law to place the troops under federal command to bypass Newsom. 

‘This isn’t about public safety,’ Newsom said in a post on X on Monday. ‘It’s about stroking a dangerous President’s ego.’

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Expect the House of Representatives to make ‘technical corrections’ to President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ Wednesday.

But if you blink, you might miss it.

Senate Republicans are now in the middle of the ‘Byrd Bath’ with Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. This is a process, named after late Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to exclude provisions from budget reconciliation packages that don’t comport with special Senate budget rules. 

The Senate must use this special process to avoid a filibuster.

Some items in the House bill don’t fit into the bill under those special budget rules. So, they are tossing them out. But the House must essentially alter the bill and send it back to the Senate.

The House will embed those changes into a ‘rule’ Wednesday to tee up the spending cancellations bill to trim money for USAID and public broadcasting for debate and a vote on Friday.

So, the ‘altered’ bill, with the technical corrections, goes back to the Senate.

‘I think it’s going to be nothing that was unexpected. I don’t think it’s going to be a problem,’ House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said.

‘I’m trying to defend my product that was sent over there. As you all know, it took a long time to get that balance.’