Senior Democratic Party officials vowed Monday to ‘fight tooth and nail’ to keep in place federal campaign spending limits up for Supreme Court review this fall — describing the GOP-led effort to repeal the limits as unprecedented and dangerous ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review the case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, taking up a challenge filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and on behalf of two Senate Republican candidates, including now-Vice President JD Vance, following the 2022 elections.

In a statement Monday, the Democratic campaign groups vowed to fight back against what they characterized as the GOP’s attempt to ‘sow chaos and fundamentally upend our campaign finance system, which would return us to the pre-Watergate era of campaign finance.’

At issue are federal spending limits that restrict the amount of money political parties can spend on behalf of certain candidates — and which Republicans argue run afoul of free speech protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

A decision from the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority could have major implications on campaign spending in the U.S., further eroding the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, a law Congress passed more than 50 years ago with the aim of restricting the amount of money that can be spent on behalf of candidates.

That law, and subsequent amendments, restricts the amount of money that political parties can funnel into certain campaigns.

Senior Democratic Party officials described the GOP-led effort Monday as the latest effort by Republicans to claw back campaign spending limits and erode some 50 years of federal election law.

‘Republicans know their grassroots support is drying up across the country, and they want to drown out the will of the voters,’ DCCC chair Suzan DelBene, DSCC chair Kirsten Gillibrand, and DNC chair Ken Martin said in a joint statement Monday. 

The case is almost certain to be one of the most high-profile cases heard by the Supreme Court this fall.

Adding to the drama is the involvement of the Trump-led Justice Department, which said in May that it planned to side with the NRSC in the case — putting the Trump administration in the somewhat unusual position of arguing against a law passed by Congress.

Justice Department officials cited free speech protections as its basis for siding with the NRSC, which they said represents ‘the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach’ of backing federal laws.’ 

Meanwhile, the Democratic groups sought to go on offense with their message, describing the GOP efforts as the latest iteration of a decades-long effort to ‘rewrite’ election laws in ways that benefit the party. They cited another Republican-led challenge to campaign spending limits brought more than 20 years ago, in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC. 

That challenge was ultimately rejected by the high court, DNC officials noted.

‘To date, those efforts have failed at every turn, ensuring a stable, predictable campaign finance structure for party committees and political candidates across the country,’ DNC officials said. 

Meanwhile, Republican officials praised the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, which they described as helping the GOP ensure they are in ‘the strongest possible position’ ahead of the 2026 midterms and beyond.’

‘The government should not restrict a party committee’s support for its own candidates,’ Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C. who chair the NRSC and NRCC, respectively, said Monday.

‘These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the court’s decision to hear our case,’ they added.

The State Department has joined the pope in lashing out at the latest massacre of Christians in Nigeria, reportedly by Islamist Fulani ‘terrorists.’

Pope Leo XIV declared during a recent address to thousands at the Vatican that ‘some 200 people were murdered, with extraordinary cruelty’ on June 13 in Yelewata, in Nigeria’s Benue State.

Late Monday, a State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘We strongly condemn these increasing attacks, including recent massacres in Benue state which primarily targeted Christian farming villages.’

‘Shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (Arabic for ‘God is great’), they (the attackers) burnt the buildings and attacked people with guns and machetes,’ NGO Aid to the Church in Need wrote in a statement, adding that the militants ‘used fuel to set fire to the doors of the people’s accommodation before opening fire.’

The pope told the crowds in Rome that the majority of those ‘brutally killed’ in Yelewata had been sheltering in a Catholic sanctuary. ‘Most of the victims were internal refugees, who were hosted by a local Catholic mission,’ the pontiff stated. He added that he would pray for ‘security, peace and justice,’ particularly for ‘rural Christian communities of the Benue state who have been relentless victims of violence.’

Nigeria is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a Christian, according to Open Doors International’s 2025 World Watch List (WWL). Of the 4,476 Christians killed worldwide in WWL’s latest reporting period, 3,100 of those who died – 69% – were in Nigeria. 

Talking to Fox News Digital, a State Department spokesperson reinforced reports that the attacks on Christians are being carried out by Islamic militant groups. ‘The United States remains deeply concerned about the levels of violence in Nigeria, including the threats posed by terrorist groups like Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa in northern Nigeria, and the impact that violence has on all communities in Nigeria.’

This year, Islamist militants have often attacked areas of Nigeria where the people are predominantly Christian. Benue State, where the latest massacre took place, is said to be 93% Christian. 

One Nigerian church leader, who asked to remain anonymous for his safety, told Fox News Digital just last month that what the attackers ‘want is to be sure that Islam [takes] over every part of these places. … And so they’re doing everything to make sure that Christianity is brought down and Islam is [the] established No. 1. They want to make sure that Sharia law (strict Islamic law) has taken over Nigeria.’

The State Department spokesperson appeared to back up this viewpoint, saying, ‘violent extremist groups target a wide range of civilians and military targets as part of their broader campaign against a secular state. The increase in violent Islamic extremism and repeated attacks against vulnerable communities in Nigeria must be addressed more effectively.’

A Nigerian bishop told Fox News Digital in June that he had been threatened and his home village murderously attacked after he appealed to lawmakers at a March congressional hearing for the killing of Christians to stop.

Bishop Wilfred Anagbe said that after he went to Washington to testify, ‘terrorist Jihadists’ killed 20 parishioners in four attacks in 10 days in his diocese, the area he is responsible for.

Now, the bishop is in hiding after several foreign embassies in Nigeria’s capital Abuja warned him of credible high-level official threats that ‘something might happen to him.’

The State Department spokesperson added, ‘We regularly urge the Government of Nigeria to intensify their efforts to protect civilians, enforce rule of law, and hold perpetrators accountable. The United States partners with the Government of Nigeria to strengthen Nigeria’s counterterrorism capabilities, working together toward the elimination of terrorist organizations and their networks of support.’

The Nigerian government did not respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment. However, President Bola Tinubu visited Benue State this past week and told reporters, ‘Let’s fashion out a framework for lasting peace.’ 

The same day, in the same district, six more people were reported to have been killed.

A deal that had been reached between Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, over how states can regulate artificial intelligence has been pulled from President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ bill.

The collapsed agreement would have required states seeking to access hundreds of millions of dollars in AI infrastructure funding in the ‘big, beautiful’ bill to refrain from adopting new regulations on the technology for five years, a compromise down from the original 10 years.

It also included carveouts to regulate child sexual abuse material, unauthorized use of a person’s likeness and other deceptive practices.

Blackburn announced Monday night that she is withdrawing her support for the agreement.

‘For as long as I’ve been in Congress, I’ve worked alongside federal and state legislators, parents seeking to protect their kids online, and the creative community in Tennessee to fight back against Big Tech’s exploitation by passing legislation to govern the virtual space,’ Blackburn said in a statement to Fox News.

‘While I appreciate Chairman Cruz’s efforts to find acceptable language that allows states to protect their citizens from the abuses of AI, the current language is not acceptable to those who need these protections the most,’ she continued. ‘This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives.’

Blackburn added: ‘Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens.’

When asked about Blackburn pulling her support for the compromise, Cruz told Punchbowl News the ‘night is young.’

But Blackburn appears to now be co-sponsoring an amendment with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would completely pull the AI moratorium from the bill.

Cantwell had earlier said that the since-scrapped deal between Blackburn and Cruz would do ‘nothing to protect kids or consumers.’

‘It’s just another giveaway to tech companies,’ Cantwell said in a statement Monday. ‘This provision gives AI and social media a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation. This is Section 230 on steroids.’

Blackburn is one of several Republicans who have expressed concerns about the 10-year ban on state AI regulation.

Last week, 17 Republican governors wrote a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., calling for the pause to be scrapped completely.

‘AI is already deeply entrenched in American industry and society; people will be at risk until basic rules ensuring safety and fairness can go into effect,’ the letter reads. ‘Over the next decade, this novel technology will be used throughout our society, for harm and good. It will significantly alter our industries, jobs, and ways of life, and rebuild how we as a people function in profound and fundamental ways.’

‘That Congress is burying a provision that will strip the right of any state to regulate this technology in any way – without a thoughtful public debate – is the antithesis of what our Founders envisioned,’ it continued.

Some House Republicans also said they do not support the AI provision, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who admitted she found out about it a few days after voting for Trump’s spending bill.

‘Full transparency, I did not know about this,’ Greene wrote on X. ‘I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.’

Many senators failed to get their amendments across the finish line during the chamber’s vote-a-rama on Monday, leaving the future of President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ uncertain.

Two key failures came from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, with the former proposing a plan that would have boosted funding for rural hospitals and the latter calling for further cuts to Medicaid. 

Collins and Cornyn were far from the only lawmakers who had amendments fail, however. Here are some details on some of the unsuccessful efforts, plus one that succeeded with nearly unanimous support.

Rural hospital funding

Collins’ amendment would have doubled funding for rural hospitals from $25 billion to $50 billion over the next 10 years, and it would have allowed a larger number of medical providers to access the funds.

‘Rural providers, especially our rural hospitals and nursing homes, are under great financial strain right now, with many having recently closed and others being at risk of closing,’ Collins said prior to the vote. ‘This amendment would help keep them open and caring for those who live in rural communities.’

Collins said the bill was something of an olive branch to Democrats, who had criticized the cuts to Medicaid involved in the megabill. Her amendment would also have raised tax rates for individuals who make more than $25 million per year and couples who make more than $50 million.

‘They’ve complained repeatedly about the distribution in this bill, of Medicaid cuts hurting individuals, rural hospitals, and tax cuts being extended for people who are wealthy, and yet when I tried to fix both those problems, they took a very hypocritical approach,’ Collins said.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., argued Collins’ amendment was merely putting a ‘Band-Aid on an amputation.’

Expanded Medicaid cuts

Cornyn was joined by Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and John Barrasso, R-Wyo., in pushing an amendment cutting an additional $313 billion in Medicaid funding on Monday.

The trio said they were pushing to limit the growth of Medicaid, and they had been confident the adjustment would pass. All three were seen entering Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office on Monday as it became clear the amendment lacked support.

The base bill already cuts some $930 billion in funding for Medicaid, leading many of the trio’s colleagues to balk at further cuts.

‘It just seems like we’ve taken it as far as I’m comfortable taking it,’ said Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., regarding trims to Medicaid.

Boosting deductibles for teachers

Kennedy had proposed an amendment that would have allowed teachers to deduct $600 in school supplies that they pay for out of pocket each year.

The proposal ultimately failed in a 46-54 vote.

Child tax credit enhancement

Bennet proposed an amendment that would have increased both the amount and availability of the child tax credit included in the megabill, but it failed to garner enough support.

The Senate rejected Bennet’s proposal in a 22-78 vote.

Clearing the way for state AI laws

One amendment that did succeed was a measure that killed a provision in the bill that would have placed a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulations.

The original version of the bill would have forced states to choose between enforcing AI regulations or accepting federal funding to expand broadband internet access. Sens. Edward Markey, D-Ma., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., joined Sen. Maria Cantwell in sponsoring the amendment.

‘The Senate came together tonight to say that we can’t just run over good state consumer protection laws,’ Cantwell said Monday. ‘States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on Artificial Intelligence that accelerates U.S. leadership in AI while still protecting consumers.’

The Senate passed the amendment in an overwhelming 99-1 vote.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., was the sole vote opposing the measure.