FIRST ON FOX: A leading marine industry association is suing the federal government over what it argues is an unconstitutional bureaucratic system that is creating burdensome regulations by targeting blue-collar fishermen.

The New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), which was founded in May to unite a variety of marine stakeholders, filed the lawsuit against Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, the National Marine Fisheries Service and two regulators. The lawsuit — filed this month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine — takes aim at regional councils set up to govern the fishing industry.

‘When I was a vessel captain, the New England Fishery Management Council controlled every facet of my business, from catch quotas to conservation measures,’ NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. 

‘Despite the significant power council members exercise, they are shielded from democratic control and political accountability,’ he continued. ‘We live in a democracy and our fishery is a public resource. The public needs to be able to participate in its management and care.’

Under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress established eight regional fishery management councils, which are tasked with regulating marine resources. As a result, NEFSA said America’s oceans ‘have become Constitution free zones.’

According to the NEFSA, the law allows the regional councils to essentially establish significant rules that affect the fishing industry by decree. While such rulemakings are legally reviewed by the federal government, the councils have final say when finalizing them.

In addition, the NEFSA said council members are given unprecedented federal protections from removal, that many members cannot be removed for any reason and that the councils’ ‘selection and removal criteria are patently unconstitutional.’

‘Despite the national importance of offshore fishing regulation, Congress has removed the issue from democratic control,’ the lawsuit states. ‘Rather than make these decisions itself or vest them in executive agencies accountable to the elected President, Congress has assigned control of the nation’s fisheries to novel federal councils that violate the Constitution’s structural protections in multiple respects.’

‘Councils operate independently, free of administrative oversight. They cannot be removed at will, if they are removable at all,’ it continues. ‘And their policy judgments cannot be overturned by any federal official that answers to the President — or even by the President himself.’

The NEFSA said the issue is of particular importance in light of regulations that target haddock fishing off the coast of New England, which it said could decimate independent fishermen.

Earlier this year, the New England Fishery Management Council, which oversees fisheries from Connecticut to Maine, issued a rule that mandated a more than 80% reduction in haddock landings in the region, substantially curbing how much of the species fisherman are legally allowed to catch.

The regional council further cut the white hake commercial catch limit by roughly 13% and restricted access to the New England cod fishery by installing a 10-year Gulf of Maine cod rebuilding plan.

‘The Council’s restrictions will cause Mr. Leeman and NEFSA members to spend much of their time at sea avoiding areas where tightly regulated fish might be present — a difficult task when it comes to groundfish, and especially deep-water fish like white hake,’ the NEFSA’s lawsuit states. ‘And the cod rebuilding plan ensures that fishery will not take up the slack any time soon.’

It added that the regulatory regime put forward by the New England Fishery Management Council ‘threatens a generations-long history of groundfishing in the North Atlantic.’

While the lawsuit outlines how the regional fishery council system may be unconstitutional, it asks the court to strike down the rules related to haddock, white hake and cod fishing.

The Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Several Senate Republicans are uniting in support of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s move to initiate an impeachment inquiry against President Biden despite a growing number of skeptical GOP leaders in the upper chamber.

The inquiry will determine whether there are grounds to bring formal charges (articles of impeachment) against Biden over allegations of ‘abuse of power, obstruction, and corruption,’ McCarthy said Tuesday.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Wednesday on his ‘Verdict with Ted Cruz’ podcast that he’s been ‘calling for the House to open impeachment inquiries for months.’

‘I think the evidence long ago cleared that threshold, but they finally done it,’ he said.

‘Joe Biden’s confession on tape is direct evidence that he committed one of the critical elements of bribery,’ Cruz later said. ‘Now, we don’t yet have direct evidence of every element of the crime, but we have direct evidence of one of the most critical aspects of the crime, which is the quote that Joe Biden has admitted and that is unequivocally direct evidence, and it’s pretty damn compelling.’

Meanwhile, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that he didn’t think ‘we would be down this road’ if the Biden administration was ‘being open and transparent with everybody to begin with.’

‘There was a lot of information that was requested by the committee that has jurisdiction, from the Ways and Means [Committee] to Judiciary to Oversight,’ he said. ‘And the fact is, is they were slow-balling or just refusing to share the information.’

If enough evidence is compiled and articles of impeachment are sent over to the upper chamber, Mullin said, ‘Then it’s our job to put him on trial and, if so, convict him.’

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said the House has ‘done an excellent job trying to uncover the tangled web of corruption that we’ve seen coming out of the Biden administration and specifically the Biden family.’

‘Clearly, there are facts that need further investigation,’ he said. ‘The House is headed in the right direction.’

Also on Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters that he would probably be a ‘yes’ vote on impeaching the president, The Messenger reported.

‘If I had any legitimate questions, and I think there are questions about the narrative, yeah, I would,’ he said.

‘I’ve been involved in every impeachment in this country but one,’ Graham said.

Although Graham supports an inquiry, he said that ‘we need to have structure here’ in response to McCarthy evading a floor vote before launching the inquiry. McCarthy said former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created that precedent when she sidestepped a vote to impeach former President Donald Trump for the second time in 2021.

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., also said in a statement Tuesday that ‘serious allegations’ have been elevated about Biden’s ‘involvement with his son’s overseas business dealings that can’t be ignored.’

‘We need to get to the full truth, and an impeachment inquiry is the right way to do that,’ he said.

Conversely, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has not indicated his support of the inquiry. He told reporters Tuesday when asked about the House’s effort: ‘I don’t think Speaker McCarthy needs any advice from the Senate on how to run the House.’

White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations Ian Sams slammed the effort as ‘extreme politics.’

COMER DEMANDS STATE DEPT EXPLAIN ‘SUDDEN’ DECISIONS LEADING TO FIRING OF UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR PROBING BURISMA

‘House Republicans have been investigating the President for 9 months, and they’ve turned up no evidence of wrongdoing. His own GOP members have said so. He vowed to hold a vote to open impeachment, now he flip flopped (sic) because he doesn’t have support. Extreme politics at its worst,’ Sams wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

The House is probing Biden’s foreign business ties with his son, Hunter, in Ukraine and China. Republicans hope to unearth bribery negotiations that suggest Biden leveraged his position as then-vice president under former President Barack Obama for personal gain.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., will lead the inquiry alongside House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.

Should the House vote to impeach Biden, the Senate would serve as a tribunal where senators would review evidence, listen to witnesses and cast votes for the acquittal or conviction of the impeached official.

GOP legislators may face an uphill battle as the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to convict Biden. Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Wednesday called the decision to launch an impeachment inquiry ‘absurd.’

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was so offended by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling him a ‘moron’ that he met with her successor, Democratic leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., to make a mutual vow that they would play nice.

Pelosi was dismissive of McCarthy’s leadership during his time at the head of the Republican minority, but his relationship with Jeffries has been notably more respectful. The pair are up front with their disagreements, but have not yet resorted to name-calling.

‘We’ll continue to agree to disagree without being disagreeable with each other and find common ground when possible, therefore continuing to work together,’ Jeffries told Punchbowl News on Wednesday. ‘It remains a positive, forward-looking, communicative relationship.’

‘I have a great deal of respect for him,’ McCarthy said of his counterpart. ‘We’re going to disagree on different issues. I believe based on the information that we have now, the Congress just needs to get more answers. That’s what we’re going about doing,’ he added, referring to a presidential impeachment inquiry.

‘I have worked hard to make sure we have respect for one another. Even when we have, like any relationship, a difference of opinion, I’m going to explain my position to him. He has been very honest and direct with me when he has disagreed, which has been many times. I respect his position. I know what happens today, tomorrow it can be something else,’ he told Punchbowl.

Pelosi, who has just announced plans for re-election, hasn’t let off the gas on McCarthy, however. She described McCarthy as having an ‘incredibly shrinking speakership’ during an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Sunday.

Pelosi first got on McCarthy’s bad side in 2021, in an incident that came when McCarthy slammed a House mask mandate as not following the science.

‘Make no mistake – The threat of bringing masks back is not a decision based on science, but a decision conjured up by liberal government officials who want to continue to live in a perpetual pandemic state,’ McCarthy said at the time.

Asked to react to McCarthy’s comment at a filmed public event, Pelosi responded: ‘He’s such a moron.’

McCarthy and Jeffries’ respectful relationship is likely to be tested in the coming months as Republicans get underway with their impeachment inquiry against President Biden. Jeffries has already called the effort ‘illegitimate.’

Fox News’ Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim Scott, a contender in the Republican race for the White House, took aim at American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten on Wednesday after she likened school choice and parental rights advocates to segregationists who opposed the integration of schools.

‘There might not be anyone that’s done more damage recently than Randi Weingarten to the kids living in distressed communities, especially like the ones where I grew up,’ Scott told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s so frustrating to hear these liberal lies, hearkening back to a day that no longer exists.’

The comments from Weingarten – who serves as president of the second-largest teachers union in the United States, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) – came during an interview released Tuesday that she took part in with the Burnes Center for Social Change.

During the interview, Weingarten likened school choice and parental rights advocates to segregationists in the 1950s who had taken issue with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Brown v. Board of Education, which found it unconstitutional to separate children in public schools on the basis of race.

‘Those same words that you heard in terms of wanting segregation post-Brown v. Board of Education, those same words you hear today,’ Weingarten told Seth Harris, a Burnes Center senior fellow. ‘I was kind of gobsmacked when I was talking with [the] Southern Poverty Law Center, and they showed me the same words – choice, parental rights.’

Words like those, according to Weingarten, are used as an ‘attempt to divide parents versus teachers.’

Scott, who has represented South Carolina in the Senate since 2013, told Fox he took issue with that claim.

‘I’m so sick and tired of liberals – too many of them happen to be White – crying racism every single time they’re losing an argument,’ Scott said. ‘I can’t think of anything more actually racist than trapping poor Black kids in the failing schools in these big blue cities dominated by a super-majority of radical progressives who are running the cities and destroying the schools.’

‘They’re the ones, with their teachers unions, standing in the doorway of the schoolhouse, trapping poor kids in as if the house is on fire, but they won’t let a single soul out,’ he went on. ‘It’s really frustrating, and it’s one of the reasons why I think we have no choice but to break the backs of these teachers’ unions. They’re the problem. They’re literally destroying the future of millions of kids.’

If elected, Scott said he would work to break the influence on schools from teachers’ unions and provide ‘choice in education’ because he believes parents in America ‘deserve the choices that they need so that their kids have a chance to succeed.’

Scott reflected on the progress that’s been made in the last century to bridge racial gaps in America and said Weingarten and others who have similar beliefs within the teachers’ unions represent the ‘height of hypocrisy.’

Weingarten’s comments, however, did not mark the first time she’s claimed that certain school choice advocates of today are behaving like segregationists from days gone by.

In 2017, according to National Review, Weingarten declared during a union convention that ‘the real pioneers of private school choice were the White politicians who resisted school integration.’ During the same event, she also reportedly referred to school-choice programs as being the ‘only slightly more polite cousins of segregation.’

In 2021, Weingarten was mocked for inadvertently making the case for school choice after she shared an article and praised a Michigan parent who chose to drive their child to school districts that had mask mandates during the pandemic.

‘This parent chooses to drive her students to a school district that has a mask mandate. Masks save lives and limit the spread of #COVID,’ Weingarten wrote on Twitter, now known as X.

School choice advocates joked they were pleasantly surprised Weingarten was suddenly taking up their cause, zeroing in on the word ‘chooses.’

Weingarten has also been repeatedly criticized for her efforts involving school closures throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Weingarten testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in April to address her union’s role in influencing public policy on school lockdowns. In her testimony, she alleged that President Biden’s transition team was the first to contact her union for guidance on school closures during the pandemic.

Fox News Digital has reached out to a union spokesperson for comment.

Fox News’ Hanna Panreck and Jessica Chasmar contributed to this report.

The Biden administration is facing criticism from Democratic lawmakers over its latest effort to clamp down on critical mineral production needed for green energy technologies.

Democratic Nevada senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen criticized the administration after a federal interagency working group (IWG) published a long-awaited final report outlining steps and policy recommendations it said would help modernize mining regulations. 

Cortez Masto and Rosen echoed a top mining industry group, arguing the policies listed would restrict vital mineral production.

‘Unfortunately, these recommendations to impose new taxes and change the mining claims process would make it harder to create new mining projects in the United States at a time when too many companies are sourcing these minerals from communist China,’ Cortez Masto said. 

‘We need lithium and other critical minerals to drive our clean energy industry, and I will continue to make sure any changes to mining policy work for the tens of thousands of Nevadans powering this industry.’

Cortez Masto said strengthening domestic mineral supply chains is key to ensuring clean energy jobs and lower costs for tens of millions of Americans. Nevada is home to substantial reserves of lithium, a mineral that is a key component of electric vehicle batteries but which is largely produced in foreign nations.

Rosen added that some of the policy recommendations in the report were reasonable, but others would harm mining efforts.

‘While this report offers needed recommendations to reform federal mining regulations, some of the proposals will hurt the mining industry and fail to bolster our nation’s domestic mineral supply chain,’ Rosen said in a statement. 

‘We must focus on strengthening our domestic energy supply chains and moving away from our reliance on foreign adversaries for critical minerals. I’ll keep fighting for regulations that support Nevada’s mining industry and the good-paying jobs it creates in an environmentally-sustainable way.’

Overall, the report Tuesday listed 65 recommendations to inform efforts to update the General Mining Act of 1872. Environmental advocacy organizations have for years called for mining reform, saying more stringent environmental protections are needed.

Among the policies, the IWG report recommends a federal leasing program for critical mineral deposits, replacing the current system in which mining companies are able to freely stake claims. 

The report also recommends companies pay royalties on land they are approved to mine for resource development. IWG Chair and Deputy Interior Secretary Tommy Beaudreau explained Tuesday that the current structure lacking royalties is why there is little funding for addressing abandoned mines he said create ‘safety hazards and pollution for land and water across our country.’

And the report further recommends a controversial 7-cent per ton fee on material displaced by hard rock mining, a ‘dirt tax’ proposal that would also increase prices for the mining industry.

‘Unfortunately, if the Biden-Harris administration’s stated objective is to secure our nation’s domestic mineral supply chains while supporting responsible mining, the recommendations contained in this report don’t do anything to advance the ball,’ Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said in a statement to Fox News Digital Tuesday.

‘In fact, some of the recommendations — including the consideration of a leasing system, imposition of a punitive dirt tax or application of the higher end of suggested proposed royalties — will throw additional obstacles in the way of responsible domestic projects and would-be investment, forcing the U.S. to double down on our already outsized import reliance from countries with questionable labor, safety and environmental practices.’

The Department of the Interior declined to comment.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre went off Wednesday when asked repeatedly about the impeachment inquiry into President Biden, even snapping at a reporter who tried to push back against her claim that the president ‘didn’t do anything wrong.’

The exchange occurred during the daily White House press briefing after Jean-Pierre was asked how confident she was that there would be no evidence incriminating Biden in his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings, his alleged involvement in which has been the centerpiece of House Republicans’ investigation into the family’s finances.

‘Any specifics to the inquiry, certainly — I want to say this at the top … I’m going to refer you to my colleagues at the counsel’s office,’ Jean-Pierre responded, something she noted throughout the briefing when asked questions related to the inquiry.

She attempted to deflect, referencing Biden’s upcoming speech on ‘Bidenomics’ and arguing it was part of the ‘real issues’ the American people truly wanted to hear about, rather than Republicans’ investigations.

‘They have spent all year investigating the president. That’s what they’ve spent all year doing and have turned up with no evidence, none, that he did anything wrong. I mean, that is what we’ve heard over and over again from their almost year-long investigation. And that’s because the president didn’t do anything wrong,’ she said.

New York Post reporter Steve Nelson attempted to push back against Jean-Pierre’s claim, prompting her to snap at him.

‘Even House Republicans have said the evidence does not exist. House Republicans have said that to my friend in the back who just yelled at, which is incredibly inappropriate,’ she said, appearing frustrated. 

‘But House Republicans have said that there doesn’t — there doesn’t — it doesn’t exist. Their own investigations have actually debunked their ridiculous attacks. And the only reason Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy is doing this — is doing this political stunt — and we have seen it, you all have reported, is because Marjorie Taylor Greene has said — she threatened to shut down the government,’ she said. 

Jean-Pierre went on, listing the Republicans she said were threatening House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s speakership, and calling the impeachment inquiry ‘baseless.’

McCarthy announced the formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, stating at a press conference that House Republicans had ‘uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct.’

He listed allegations of ‘abuse of power, obstruction and corruption’ made against Biden by several GOP-led committees who have been investigating the president and his family’s foreign business dealings.

Fox News’ Chris Pandolfo and Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.

FIRST ON FOX: An FBI special agent involved in the Hunter Biden probe told the House Judiciary Committee that they did not believe politics were involved in decision-making during the federal investigation into President Biden’s son, according to testimony reviewed by Fox News Digital.

The FBI agent participated in a transcribed interview behind closed doors Monday. Fox News Digital has reviewed a copy of the transcript of that testimony and agreed not to identify the agent.

The interview comes amid the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the probe after IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley alleged that prosecutorial decisions throughout the Hunter Biden probe were influenced by politics. David Weiss, who served as the U.S. Attorney for Delaware, has been leading the Hunter Biden investigation since its onset.

When the agent was pressed on whether they thought decisions made by the U.S. Attorney’s office were made to ‘give Hunter Biden some favoritism,’ the agent replied, ‘I do not.’

‘So you don’t think when Hunter Biden’s lawyers were notified of pending search warrants, that wasn’t an example of favoritism?’ Counsel asked.

The committee was then told that the agent was not able to speak about specific investigative steps.

Counsel also asked, ‘If members of the Biden family had information relevant to this investigation, would it be an example of political favoritism to shut down those interviews and not allow the investigators to conduct them?’

The agent, again, said it is an ‘ongoing matter,’ and said generally speaking, ‘there are various reasons for why those things may occur.’

The agent clarified and said it ‘depends.’

‘It’s just, you’re asking me to infer on a matter that I wasn’t specifically involved in at that time,’ the agent said. ‘I don’t know all the facts surrounding it. And so it’s very difficult to make that inference.’ 

The agent was asked about whether investigating the son of the president of the United States makes the case ‘more complicated.’

‘I think so — I’ve worked and overseen cases that have complications for various reasons,’ the agent said. ‘Yes, I’ll acknowledge the fact that I think the media has made it seem like it’s more significant in that sense, but that is not how we picture it, and ‘we’ as in the FBI.’

The majority counsel questioned the witness during the interview about some of Shapley’s allegations, which included prosecutors not questioning witnesses about the ‘big guy’ or ‘dad,’ an apparent reference to Joe Biden; investigators being prohibited from interviewing Biden family members about certain payments; and more.

‘When you add it all up, I mean, there were examples of suggested— where they were told to remove the subject’s name from certain documents and DOJ officials said: ‘well, it’ll get us most of the information we’re looking for’; the statute of limitations were specifically allowed to lapse; certain types of investigative actions were prohibited or delayed; the investigative team was excluded from certain meetings that in their own mind they weren’t felt they were ordinarily excluded from,’ the majority counsel said.

‘When you add all these up, I mean, isn’t it difficult to say that there wasn’t political favoritism?’

The agent responded: ‘When I add that up, and as I am trying to understand what may have happened before I arrive, and just what little bit I know of the folks presently, I don’t surmise that it had political affiliation.’

Instead, the agent attributed it to the probe ‘being very deliberate,’ which the agent said was characteristic of the Delaware attorney general’s office. 

The agent did not believe that Shapely is lying but said that he might be confused owing to miscommunication.

‘I think it’s possible. And, again, of my understanding, as well as my recollection of the meeting, I definitely think there is either some confusion or misunderstanding in things that were communicated,’ the agent said.

Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty in July to two misdemeanor tax counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax as part of a plea deal to avoid jail time on a felony gun charge.

But U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware declined to accept the plea and pretrial diversion agreements with Hunter Biden during his first court appearance related to the charges. She described the DOJ’s deal as unconstitutional, ‘not standard’ and ‘different from what I normally see.’

Hunter Biden was forced to plead not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and one felony gun charge.

Last week, Weiss, who is now acting as special counsel, told Noreika that his team intends to indict Hunter Biden on a federal gun charge by the end of September.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is touting new border wall construction at the state’s border with Mexico – as his administration battles the Biden administration over barrier construction and a reported policy to keep migrants in the state.

‘Texas is adding more border wall today,’ he said on X, formerly known as Twitter. ‘This is in the Del Rio sector.’

The short video shows a crane placing border wall bollards along the Texas border.

Abbott announced in 2021 funding for a state project to continue construction of a wall after the Biden administration abruptly ended the Trump-era construction project that saw over 450 miles built.

The Biden administration has said the wall was ineffective and expensive, but conservatives have charged that borders are a key facet of a strong border security strategy to stop illegal immigration and have renewed calls for construction to be restarted amid the ongoing border crisis.

The border wall project by Texas is part of Operation Lone Star, which has seen resources and law enforcement surged to the border in order to respond to the crisis.

Earlier this year, Abbott announced a separate barrier in the Rio Grande River itself, consisting of floating buoys near Eagle Pass, Texas. But that effort has faced a lawsuit from the Department of Justice, which says it is a safety risk and against federal law.

‘The State of Texas’s actions violate federal law, raise humanitarian concerns, present serious risks to public safety and the environment, and may interfere with the federal government’s ability to carry out its official duties,’ the DOJ said in a letter to Abbott before the suit was filed.

A federal judge ordered the state to move the buoys, but that was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals as the case makes it way through the courts.

Meanwhile, Abbott has rejected a reported plan by the Biden administration to force migrants to remain in Texas while their asylum cases are considered. Abbott warned that his administration would sue over the policy, which reportedly would see migrant families remain in Texas and monitored on an ankle bracelet. He also said his practice of sending buses of migrants to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions would increase.

‘Biden considers forcing migrant families to remain in Texas. This scam was tried years ago & was shot down by a judge,’ Abbott said on X, formerly known as Twitter. ‘We will send Biden the same swift justice.’

‘And, we will add even more buses of migrants to Washington D.C.,’ he said.

FIRST ON FOX: Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio introduced legislation Wednesday that would ban government agencies and federally funded hospitals from forcing employees to partake in programs that ‘promote radical gender ideology.’

‘It is deeply disturbing to see the progressive left infiltrate the American healthcare system and compromise the quality of patient care in the process. I am introducing the Protecting Conscience in Healthcare Act to stop this harmful, radical gender ideology in American hospitals and healthcare facilities,’ Rubio said in comment on the legislation, which was exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital. 

The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and J.D. Vance (R-OH).

Rubio pointed to a recent article from the Washington Free Beacon in his press release on the legislation, which uncovered ‘coordination between more than 2,200 health systems in the U.S. and the Human Rights Campaign,’ the nation’s largest LGBTQ political lobbying organization.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has a ranking system for hospitals called the Healthcare Equality Index, which assess health care providers’ ‘policies and practices related to the equity and inclusion of their LGBTQ+ patients, visitors and employees,” according to the HRC’s website.

The Free Beacon reported in May that the 2022 index was funded by Pfizer and a trade group that represents pharmaceutical companies called PhRMA. The index ranks hospital systems on criteria such as conducting HRC-approved LGBTQ-focused training for staff, if the hospitals display symbols supporting the gay, lesbian and trans community, or the use of patient’s preferred pronouns. 

Dozens of children’s hospitals also use the index, with the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., receiving 2022’s highest score.

‘To earn a high score on the HRC’s index, hospitals must conduct training that advocates radical gender ideology, display pro-LGBTQ symbols, force employees to use patients’ preferred pronouns, and use the same treatments for gender dysphoria that they use for other medical conditions, such as precocious puberty,’ Rubio’s office said in the press release.

‘Furthermore, the index penalizes hospitals for allowing religious and medical conscience exemptions, calling these ‘discriminatory treatment.”

Under Rubio’s legislation, employees of hospitals would not be required to attend an event celebrating or affirming a person’s ‘identity that is incongruent with an individual’s sex,’ require an employee to use a patient’s preferred pronoun or require an employee to share their preferred pronoun with colleagues and patients.

‘No Federal or State government or agency, or covered entity shall require an employee to participate in a seminar, workshop, training, or other educational or professional activity, or in using a curriculum, that advocates for the idea that an individual can have an identity that is incongruent with their sex,’ the legislation reads.

Religious freedom is at the heart of Rubio’s legislation, which states that the bill would ‘protect health care workers and other government employees from various forms of compelled speech.’

The legislation would prohibit a hospital from firing an employee ‘based on their religious or moral beliefs’ or if ‘the employee refuses to support, condone, or acknowledge someone’s professed identity that is incongruent with sex.’

The Florida senator has previously called out woke rhetoric within health care, including in May when he wrote a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for ‘prioritizing’ woke initiatives such as promoting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives as well as gender surgeries.

Rubio charged in the letter that the ‘NIH has completely catered to the administration’s woke rhetoric instead of the science of so called ‘gender-affirming care.’’ He also said the NIH is championing gender surgeries and puberty blockers as ‘safe’ while rolling out projects that are ‘harming patients, and then considering the study a success.’

–>

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, used President Biden’s own words against him on Wednesday while calling on him to drop his 2024 bid for re-election and join him in retirement at the end of his term.

Romney’s challenge to Biden comes just hours after the first-term senator officially announced he would not be seeking a second term, citing his own advanced age as his main reason for the decision.

‘President Biden, when he was running, said he was a transitional figure to the next generation. Well, time to transition,’ Romney said when asked by a reporter if his decision not to run for re-election because of his age should also apply to Biden, 80, and former President Donald Trump, 77.

Romney’s comments were in reference to Biden calling himself a ‘transition candidate’ during his 2020 campaign for the presidency, something he later meant he would be someone who would help pave the way for a new generation of Democratic leadership.

‘I think it would be a great thing if both President Biden and former President Trump were to stand aside and let their respective party pick someone in the next generation … I think both parties would be far better served if they were going to be represented by people other than those of us from the baby boom generation,’ he added.

Concern over Biden’s age amid his re-election has continued to grow, even from within his own party. A recent Associated Press-NORC poll found 69% of Democrats think Biden is too old to run again.

Romney’s inclusion of Trump in his concern about the age of the two presidential front-runners joins that of Trump’s closest rival in the Republican primary, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said during a recent interview on CBS that the former president’s age was ‘a legitimate concern’ for voters going into 2024.

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.