A partisan dispute about funding for three of Pennsylvania’s state-related universities may mean higher tuition for in-state students as a budget impasse continues further into the summer.

The state government approached two weeks without full spending authority on Tuesday, while loose ends remained untied. Snarled in limbo is funding for three Pennsylvania universities that receive state subsidies — Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh and Temple. Gov. Josh Shapiro and his Democratic allies have supported raising state aid to the three schools by 7% to $623 million, collectively.

Republicans, however, have balked. House Republicans repeatedly rejected efforts to approve the aid in recent weeks, complaining that the schools are too willing to raise tuition and saying they would prefer to send money to students, not the institutions.

As a whole, the dispute over approving a final spending plan shows no signs of ending quickly. Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana, sent a letter on Tuesday to his counterpart in the House about the amount of work that still needs to be done, placing the onus on the Democratic-controlled House to do so.

The House and Senate both approved a $45 billion spending plan for the fiscal year, but an administrative task — signing the bill on the floor of the Senate — is keeping the legislation from going to Shapiro’s desk.

Senators aren’t due back until September, and Pittman said the chamber ‘sees little value in returning to session’ to give final approval to the plan without the legislation to direct how money in the budget bill can be spent.

The uncertainty about state aid has thrown a wrench into the universities’ own budget planning and could result in the very thing that Republicans have criticized the schools for: increased tuition costs for students.

In a statement, Penn State said its leadership was disappointed the bill failed to pass the House. The state funding supports the university’s 40,000 in-state students, ‘which thousands of Pennsylvania students and their families rely on each year,’ a spokesperson said.

Hari Sastry, senior vice chancellor and chief financial officer for the University of Pittsburgh, said the entire state subsidy goes to an in-state discount for Pennsylvania students, impacting about 17,000 students and about $16,000 for undergraduates.

‘That is a pretty large bit of uncertainty that they’re going to have to plan around,’ he said. ‘We can’t obviously wait until September to do things like set tuition rates. So, we’re going to have to figure out what that interim looks like.’

Sastry can’t recall a year where the Legislature did not grant any money to the universities, but it wouldn’t be the first time funding for the schools has come late. This year, he said, inflation is creating more stress on families and the university.

‘It’s a very different situation right now, I think, than what we’ve seen before,’ he said.

By just about every measure there is, Pennsylvania has some of the highest student debt and lowest affordability of its colleges compared to other states. Some education advocates blame lawmakers for the lack of sufficient higher education aid.

<!–>

–>

ATLANTA – House Republicans have introduced a bill aimed at securing election integrity across the country while also issuing a stark warning to Americans to watch out for possible Democrat deception surrounding the legislation.

Five Republican members of the Committee on House Administration (CHA) held a press conference at the famous Marietta Diner near Atlanta on Monday to officially roll out the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act, something they say will give states the tools they need to not only protect the integrity of their elections, but also restore voter confidence in the elections process.

The bill includes a photo ID requirement to cast a federal election ballot, bars non-citizens from voting, requires annual maintenance of voter rolls, and prevents the mailing of unsolicited ballots to rolls that have not been maintained.

According to Committee chairman Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., the ACE act will make it ‘easy to vote and hard to cheat,’ and will give states access to federal resources to ensure they can do things as ‘simple’ as remove voters from voters roles upon their death.

‘It should be this simple,’ he said, later referring to the bill as ‘commonsense legislation’ and ‘a rational approach that Americans can get behind.’

Steil was joined at the Marietta Diner by fellow committee Reps. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., Stephanie Bice, R-Okla., Laurel Lee. R-Fla., and Mike Carey, R-Ohio, who each echoed Steil on the importance of the bill, and touted what their own states had done to combat voter fraud.

Loudermilk, who represents the district that includes Marietta, told attendees the bill put incentives in place for other states to pass bills similar to the voting law Georgia passed in 2021, S.B. 202, that set off a wave of criticism from Democrats, who dubbed it ‘racist,’ ‘voter-suppression,’ ‘Jim Crow 2.0,’ and ‘a redux of Jim Crow in a suit and tie.’

The committee stressed the significance for the roll-out of the new bill to be in Georgia because of the vast damage the state endured following the backlash to its bill. The damage included the MLB moving the All-Star game from Atlanta, which resulted in what some estimates said was a more than $100 million hit to the local economy.

When asked by Fox News Digital if the committee expected any pushback from Democrats despite the ‘voter-suppression’ narrative surrounding Georgia’s bill being debunked after the state saw record turnout in the 2022 midterm elections, Steil didn’t parse words.

‘Rest assured, the left is going to attack this legislation. It’s one of the reasons I think it’s important that we’re here in Georgia, because we saw the left’s false attacks against voter integrity legislation previously,’ he said. 

‘I have no doubt that the left is going to attempt to attack, to mislead, to disguise the work that we’re doing. It’s all the more important that we’re here in the open holding hearings, not just in Washington, D.C., but here in Atlanta, Georgia, and across the country so people have the opportunity to read, to review the legislation,’ he added.

Loudermilk emphasized a hypothetical scenario Steil cited earlier that under current laws in Washington, D.C., any person who spends 30 days in the U.S., including a Russian national working at the Russian embassy, would be eligible to vote in the city’s mayoral elections, or even run for mayor themselves.

Even if passed by the narrow Republican majority in the House of Representatives, it’s unlikely the bill would advance through the Democratic controlled Senate or be signed into law by President Biden.

The bill follows Democrats’ own elections bill, H.R. 1, or the For the People Act, which passed the then-Democratic controlled House in March 2021, but failed to make any headway in the Senate due to a lack of unanimous Democratic support.

U.S. Attorney David Charles Weiss is coming under increasing scrutiny after he announced a probation-only plea agreement for Hunter Biden that has Republicans accusing the Justice Department of corruption.

Weiss on Monday again denied claims by two IRS whistleblowers who alleged officials at the Justice Department, FBI and IRS interfered with Weiss’ five-year investigation into President Biden’s son.

Weiss previously defended his probe of Hunter’s financial dealings after he announced in June that Hunter had agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax violations and enter into a diversion program for a felony gun charge, keeping him out of jail.

Critics call it a sweetheart plea deal and are alleging the Department of Justice is operating under a two-tier justice system, which Attorney General Merrick Garland has denied.

Weiss, a Philadelphia native, began his legal career in 1984 as a law clerk to Justice Andrew D. Christie of the Delaware Supreme Court. 

Though he’s a registered Republican, it doesn’t appear that he’s made any significant political donations, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Weiss served as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1986 through 1989, where he prosecuted corruption, money laundering, and mail and wire fraud. He then spent a decade in the private sector, taking top positions at Duane Morris and The Siegfried Group, before he returned to serve as the first assistant U.S. attorney.

In November 2017, Weiss was nominated as U.S. attorney by then-President Donald Trump after he was recommended by Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons, who are both Delaware Democrats.

‘David is a career prosecutor and dedicated public servant, longtime Delawarean, and valued member of our law enforcement community,’ Coons said at the time. ‘I want to thank the White House for working with Sen. Carper and me to present an excellent nominee for U.S. attorney.’

Weiss was later confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as the attorney for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on February 22, 2018. 

In February 2021, shortly after President Biden took office, the DOJ pressured Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys to resign, but Weiss was asked to stay on due to the Hunter Biden probe, which began sometime in 2018.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent letters to Weiss and Garland in June, demanding answers amid allegations from the whistleblowers suggesting the probe was slow-walked and influenced by politics.

The whistleblowers alleged in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that Weiss was ‘constantly hamstrung, limited, and marginalized by DOJ officials as well as other U.S. Attorneys.’ They testified that Weiss had requested to have special counsel authority, but was denied.

‘It is imperative these allegations are addressed head-on,’ Graham wrote to Garland, questioning whether he was ‘aware of any request’ by Weiss to be designated special counsel.

Weiss responded in a letter Monday, saying he had not requested special counsel designation and reiterating that he has ‘never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction.’

The Justice Department has also denied the whistleblowers’ claims, with Garland saying Weiss was ‘given complete authority to make all decisions on his own behalf.’ 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and the Fox News Brainroom contributed to this report.

The Indianapolis City-County Council passed a proposed gun control measure by a vote of 18 to five Monday evening.

Introduced by Mayor Joe Hogsett as part of his public safety plan, Proposal 156 was initially approved nine to four by the city’s Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee. 

The ordinance increases the age required to purchase a gun in the city to 21 years old, bans ‘assault rifles’ within city limits and mandates a license to carry.

‘Tonight’s Council votes on Proposals 149 and 156 prove that Indianapolis and its leadership won’t back down from taking bold steps to protect residents and neighborhoods,’ Hogsett said in a statement. ‘I applaud the Council’s bipartisan support for funding our partnership with U.S. Attorney Zach Myers, holding the worst of the worst offenders to account.’ 

‘I also wish to thank those who approved our common-sense gun safety measures, including a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, increasing the purchasing age to 21, requiring handgun licenses, and removing the concealed carry of firearms,’ the mayor continued. ‘Tonight we are sending a clear message of where we stand about the causes of gun violence and the proliferation of illegal weapons on our streets.’

The plan, however, is not immediately enforceable, as state law prohibits local governments from enforcing this kind of gun regulation. The city would be allowed to enact the measure if state regulations are lifted or the law is changed by the legislature or the courts, according to WTHR.

Opponents of the plan argue that it is unconstitutional.

‘I’m voting against this because I disagree with the toothless language and the policy itself, but also because it plainly violates state statute and state constitution,’ Republican Council minority leader Brian Mowery said, according to WTHR.

Meanwhile, supporters of the proposal describe it as a necessary public safety measure.

‘You may call this toothless, but this is us taking a stand because it’s too much,’ Democrat Councilor Ali Brown said.

The council also approved a proposal for the city to add three federal prosecutors who will focus on prosecuting federal gun crimes as part of the mayor’s public safety plan.

–>

Iowa’s Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds ordered a special session after the state’s Supreme Court declined to reinstate a 2018 law that bans abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy.The special session is set for July 11, 2023, and Republicans are expected to push for an abortion ban that is similar to the one Reynolds previously signed into law.The ban would prohibit abortion once cardiac activity is detected, which is usually around six weeks.

Iowa’s Legislature convenes Tuesday in a special session focused exclusively on abortion restrictions, where Republican lawmakers will work to push through a new ban on abortion after roughly six weeks of pregnancy.

The day will be a marathon of committee hearings and floor debates in both chambers, with votes likely to extend late into the night. Demonstrators for and against the bill are expected to rally at the capitol building throughout the day.

Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds ordered the rare session after the state Supreme Court declined to reinstate a law she signed in 2018 that is practically identical to the one being proposed Tuesday. Abortion is currently legal in Iowa up to 20 weeks of pregnancy.

‘Iowans know we will defend life and have grown our majority,’ Speaker of the Iowa House Pat Grassley said in a statement.

The current draft, like the 2018 law, would prohibit abortion once cardiac activity can be detected, which is usually around six weeks of pregnancy and before many women know they are pregnant.

There are limited circumstances under the measure that would allow for abortion after that point in a pregnancy — such as rape, if reported to law enforcement or a health provider within 45 days; incest, if reported within 145 days; if the fetus has a fetal abnormality ‘incompatible with life;’ and if the pregnancy is endangering the life of the pregnant woman.

A district court found the 2018 law unconstitutional in 2019 based on rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and Iowa’s Supreme Court that had affirmed a woman’s fundamental constitutional right to abortion.

After both bodies overturned those rulings last year, Reynolds sought to reinstate the 2018 law, but the state’s high court deadlocked last month without ruling on the merits of an abortion ban, leaving the law permanently blocked.

And so Reynolds called lawmakers back to Des Moines.

The draft of the measure released Friday indicates that Republican lawmakers want it to take immediate effect with the governor’s signature. The law as written is likely to be challenged with similar expediency.

Planned Parenthood North Central States is prepared to file that challenge, representatives said Monday, Meanwhile, the organization will refer patients out of state if they’re scheduled for abortions in the next few weeks, and will continue to provide care to patients who present before cardiac activity is detected.

‘We will keep seeing those patients and fight our way back to the Iowa Supreme Court when this law goes into effect,’ said Chief Medical Officer Sarah Traxler.

Most Republican-led states have drastically limited abortion access in the year since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and handed authority on abortion law to the states. More than a dozen states have bans with limited exceptions and one state, Georgia, bans abortion after cardiac activity is detected. Several other states have similar restrictions that are on hold pending court rulings.

<!–>

–>

Former President Trump’s lawyers have requested that a judge postpone the criminal trial into whether he mishandled classified documents to an unspecified date, potentially until after the 2024 presidential election.

In a court document filed late Monday, Trump’s defense attorneys called the case ‘extraordinary’ and argued the large volume of documents and footage to be reviewed should warrant the additional time. They also cited concerns about whether he would get a fair trial amid challenges in selecting unbiased jurors as Trump seeks the Republican nomination to unseat President Biden.

‘The government’s request to begin a trial of this magnitude within six months of indictment is unreasonable, telling, and would result in a miscarriage of justice,’ said Chris Kise, one of Trump’s lawyers.

Kise did not offer a new date in the postponement request. The Justice Department had previously proposed to set the trial date for Dec. 11.

Trump stands accused of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

Earlier on Monday, Trump’s lawyers filed paperwork saying they agreed with federal prosecutors to delay Friday’s pretrial hearing until next week.

During the hearing, the attorneys are expected to discuss the Classified Information Procedures Act and how classified information is handled during court proceedings.

The delay was agreed upon after an attorney for Trump’s valet Walt Nauta, who was charged alongside the former president, said he has another bench trial this week in Washington preventing him from being able to appear in court in South Florida.

The attorneys said they can appear at the pretrial conference on July 18, but the decision rests with the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who still needs to approve the new date.

Trump and Nauta were charged in a 38-count indictment with conspiring to hide classified documents from federal investigators. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing. He has also claimed the investigation and subsequent prosecution effort are designed to hurt his bid to reclaim the White House in 2024.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

–>

Former President Donald Trump is targeting Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa for staying neutral in the race for the GOP presidential nomination race.

Trump, who’s the commanding front-runner right now as he runs a third straight time for the White House, took to his social media site on Monday to criticize Reynolds, the popular two-term governor of the state whose caucuses for half a century have led off the GOP presidential nominating calendar.

‘I opened up the Governor position for Kim Reynolds, & when she fell behind, I ENDORSED her, did big Rallies, & she won. Now, she wants to remain ‘NEUTRAL.’ I don’t invite her to events! DeSanctus down 45 points!’ the former president wrote on Truth Social.

Trump in 2017 nominated longtime Republican Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad as U.S. ambassador to China. Reynolds – who was lieutenant governor at the time – succeeded Branstad as governor. The then-president endorsed Reynolds ahead of her narrow election in 2018 to a full term in office. Reynolds was easily re-elected by 19 points last year.

Reynolds’ pledge to stay neutral in the presidential nomination race is in line with previous Iowa governors. Iowa’s all-Republican congressional delegation is also staying neutral as the large field of 2024 presidential contenders descends on their state.

The governor joined Trump in March in Davenport, as the former president made his first stop in Iowa as a 2024 candidate. Reynolds didn’t join Trump when he returned to the state in early June and again on Friday.

Trump’s comments came two days after the New York Times reported that some Trump advisers had privately complained about Reynolds’ appearances with DeSantis on the campaign trail.

A source in Trump’s political orbit told Fox News that campaign officials are not frustrated with Reynolds and point to Trump’s overwhelming front-runner position right now in Iowa.

DeSantis trails Trump by double digits in the latest polls in Iowa and the other early voting states, as well as in the national surveys, but the Florida governor leads the rest of the field of contenders, who are in the single digits.

No comment was expected from Reynolds or her political team.

FIRST ON FOX: Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul plans to introduce a bill to protect Americans from the Biden administration violating their First Amendment rights.

Fox News Digital has learned that Paul is expected to propose the Free Speech Protection Act on Tuesday, which would impose harsh penalties on federal employees and contractors who leverage their positions to attack speech protected under the First Amendment.

The bill would empower American citizens to sue the government and executive branch officials who violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, according to Paul’s office.

‘Under my Free Speech Protection Act, the government will no longer be able to cloak itself in secrecy to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans,’ Paul told Fox News Digital.

Paul’s office said the Free Speech Protection Act would mandate the frequent publication of and public access to reports on communications between an executive branch agency and a content provider. It bars agencies from using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions to stop the disclosure of illegal communications.

Paul’s bill also makes sure federal grant money does not go to entities that seek to label media outlets as sources of disinformation or misinformation, and ends several authorities and programs that the senator’s office says threaten Americans’ constitutional rights.

The Kentucky senator plans to introduce the bill on Tuesday. Paul touched on crafting the bill in an interview with Fox News’ Jesse Watters last month.

Paul’s bill comes after a U.S. District Court judge is temporarily preventing White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing that such actions in the past were likely First Amendment violations.

The Tuesday injunction by Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty was in response to recent lawsuits from Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general. The suits allege that the White House coerced or ‘significantly encourage[d]’ tech companies to suppress free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Doughty is barring several federal officials and agencies – including some of President Biden’s Cabinet members and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre – from contacting social media companies in efforts to suppress speech.

Google, Meta and Twitter were all named in the lawsuits.

The injunction, which was obtained by Fox News, states that the government’s actions ‘likely violate the Free Speech Clause’ and that the court ‘is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments,’ dealing a significant blow to the White House. 

‘During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’’ Doughty wrote.

‘If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,’ the injunction adds. ‘In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.’

The injunction also claims that ‘the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech’ but that issues the case raises are ‘beyond party lines.’

‘Viewpoint discrimination is an especially egregious form of content discrimination,’ Doughty wrote. ‘The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.’

Fox News Digital’s Andrea Vacchiano contributed reporting.

Moms for Liberty reported an increase in death threats and hateful messages aimed at their organization since the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled them a ‘hate and antigovernment’ group alongside the Ku Klux Klan.

The SPLC recently named Moms for Liberty in their ‘Year In Hate and Extremism 2022’ report released in June, attempting to pair the parental rights nonprofit with neo-Nazis and over one thousand other groups they deemed ‘extremist.’

‘At the forefront of this mobilization is Moms for Liberty, a Florida-based group with vast connections to the GOP that this year the SPLC designated as an extremist group,’ the report read. ‘The group hijacks meetings, preventing officials and parents from conducting their normal proceedings.’

Since the SPLC labeled the parental rights group as ‘extremist,’ Moms for Liberty revealed an uptick in threats flooding their inbox.

‘The SPLC is purposely putting a target on all moms’ backs – all moms that are standing up for their children,’ Moms for Liberty said in a statement regarding the uptick in hateful messages and threats. ‘Designating us as a hate group gives people permission to dehumanize us, and the SPLC knows it.’

‘Piece of s— fascists like you deserve to be dragged against a wall and force-fed hot lead. Eat s— and die,’ one person wrote to the group after the SPLC’s map.

Another individual said they would ‘personally eradicate’ Moms for Liberty.

‘The state should remove your kids and/or grand kids from your homes. Evil, evil, evil people you are!’ one message read.

The cofounders said that they are sending the threats to law enforcement as they come in.

The parental rights group has received backlash from the left since their launch, fighting against critical race theory and mask mandates in schools.

‘Name-calling parents who want to be a part of their child’s education as ‘hate groups’ or ‘bigoted’ just further exposes what this battle is all about: Who fundamentally gets to decide what is taught to our kids in school – parents or government employees? We believe that parental rights do not stop at the classroom door and no amount of hate from groups like this is going to stop that,’ Moms for Liberty co-founders Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich told Fox News Digital after the SPLC list came out.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the SPLC for comment. 

A Democrat state representative in New Hampshire called members of Moms for Liberty ‘a–holes’ and compared them to terrorists, as the up-and-coming parental rights group rises in influence.

‘A–holes with casseroles, taliban in minivan,’ state Rep. Catherine Sofikitis said in a charged Twitter post about the group Sunday, garnering dozens of quote tweets condemning the tweet.

Sofikitis, who was first elected to the state House of Representatives in 2016, received backlash from the New Hampshire Republican Party for the tweet, calling the comments ‘disgusting.’

‘The saddest part is that they seem to reflect the Democrat Party’s disdain for parents who dare to get involved with their children’s education,’ said New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Chris Ager.

Tina Descovich, a Moms for Liberty co-founder, responded by saying elected officials need to stop ‘demonizing parents.’

‘Moms for Liberty members are joyful warriors that are standing up to reclaim the failing education system across America,’ Descovich said in a statement to NHJournal. ‘I would hope all elected officials would choose to work with parents to ensure a brighter future for all children instead of demonizing parents.’

Moms for Liberty initially sparked backlash from members on the left after fighting back against mask mandates and critical race theory teachings, and advocating for the banning of explicit books in schools.

The nonprofit, which seeks to ‘unify, educate and empower parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government,’ has often been called a ‘hate group’ by protesters who disagree with their push for parental rights in schools.

Despite the backlash, Moms for Liberty recently held a successful national summit that featured several 2024 Republican presidential contenders as speakers, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., who highlighted that the group is ‘coming under attack by the left.’

‘I see that Moms for Liberty is coming under attack by the left, attack by the corporate media, protests out here in the streets. Now you know how I feel everywhere I go,’ DeSantis said, pointing to protesters outside the event. ‘But I want to congratulate you for that because that is a sign we are winning this fight.’

Sofikitis did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment regarding the tweet.

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.