House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan said he plans to hold hearings on recent judicial rulings against the Trump administration’s agenda, after President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and conservatives have called for impeaching federal judges.

James Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., had ruled that Trump must stop the deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants, a move that prompted swift backlash from the president’s base. Shortly after Trump called for the House to start proceedings to remove Boasberg on Tuesday, Texas Rep. Brandon Gill filed articles of impeachment against him. Other Republicans quickly signed on.

In a CNN interview Wednesday, Jordan indicated the first hearing on Boasberg’s and other judges’ decisions could come as early as next week. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over judicial impeachments.

“We’re gonna hold hearings on this entire issue,” the Ohio Republican said. “The 15 injunctions that have been done in an eight-week time frame, Judge Boasberg’s decision. We plan on holding hearings — hearing from experts talking about this whole kind of body of law, this whole situation.”

Any judicial impeachment measures are unlikely to be successful, even if Jordan pursues the issue. Republicans have an incredibly thin majority in the House, and Speaker Mike Johnson does not have the votes to impeach any judges at this point.

Jordan emphasized that “everything is on the table” and floated that there might be another “legislative remedy” beyond judicial impeachments. He did not specify further.

Jordan added that he had not yet spoken to Trump about the issue but had plans to speak with the president later this week.

President Donald Trump wants Congress to repair a significant cut to the District of Columbia’s budget and is happy to leave the procedural details to Speaker Mike Johnson, according to two White House officials.

But the president is prepared to work the phones — or, if needed, fire off a social media post — to correct legislative language that could have major repercussions for the capital city if left unaddressed.

Last Friday, the Senate passed a Trump-endorsed bill that would restore as much as $1.1 billion in local funding, according to District officials, that was — inadvertently, by some accounts — slashed by the government spending measure signed into law the next day.

The president has confidence the speaker will bring the bipartisan measure up for a vote, said a White House official granted anonymity to discuss Trump’s thinking.

How the bill gets through the House, however, is “sausage-making in the background,” said the official. “I don’t think he’ll publicly call for Johnson to bring [the fix] to the floor — that’s going to be a behind-the-scenes thing. If [Trump] must, though, a pressure campaign from Truth Social is always a possibility.”

If need be, Trump also is open to making calls to individual House members to ensure their support for the budget fix: “The president has no problem using his phone to make sure members get on board with what he’s trying to do.”

A second White House official, also granted anonymity to share private conversations, described the District of Columbia cut in the funding bill as “an oversight” that would eventually be fixed. That official said the White House wasn’t pressuring House GOP leaders and was giving Johnson space to figure out the way forward.

But Trump could, at some point, grow impatient: part of his interest in getting the budget fix approved is about extending an olive branch to Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, one of the White House officials said.

While Bowser has pushed back on the threat to the city’s budget, she has mostly spoken respectfully about Trump and has recently taken steps to comply with GOP priorities for the city — for instance, dismantling the “Black Lives Matter Plaza” her administration set up near the White House amid the 2020 racial justice protests.

She so far has been viewed by the White House as a “good actor” in the endeavor to get the budget fix enacted, according to the official.

Still, congressional Republicans note the city won’t run out of money in the meantime; they also argue the shortfall is closer to $500 million, not $1.1 billion. In any case, local elected officials and their allies say a failure to enact the repair bill would effectively force the District of Columbia to make dramatic mid-fiscal-year cuts to law enforcement, infrastructure improvement efforts and public education.

As House Republicans worked to advance a seven-month funding bill to avert a government shutdown last week, GOP leadership did not include routine language allowing the District to continue spending its local budget dollars. And while leaders made several changes to the bill text just before bringing it to the House floor for a vote, they didn’t address Washington’s funding omission.

It caught many senior lawmakers off guard.

“It came as a surprise to me and explains why the mayor has called me,” Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine said in an interview. “It certainly wasn’t something we did.”

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) at first told reporters he thought the omission was to rescind funding for “a lot of inaugural stuff,” saying “we’re not leaving inauguration funding going to D.C. in a bill when there’s not an inauguration.”

He later acknowledged that not all the slashed funding fell under that inauguration category, but he declined to address it, saying he’d have to “look at it in more detail” and that “it’s actually in the weeds.”

Many facets of the District of Columbia are subject to congressional oversight, but most of the city’s $21.2 billion budget is funded by local taxpayers. Roughly $5 billion comes from the federal government — the vast majority through formula-based federal programs, such as Medicaid, similar to what states receive.

Johnson now has to figure out when and how to bring the bill up for a floor vote amid opposition from hard-liners in his rebellious conference. GOP leaders feel like they have some time to figure out the way forward.

The speaker is not currently planning to advance the bill Monday through the Rules Committee, which would pave the way for a floor vote requiring a simple majority that could splinter Republicans on a procedural motion needed to bring the measure forward. Most likely, Johnson will need to pursue an expedited floor maneuver in the coming weeks that requires a two-thirds majority vote to secure passage.

Outside pressure — not just from Trump — could continue to build. City residents gathered outside the tiny House Rules Committee room for its initial meeting to set parameters for floor debate on the stopgap funding bill, raising alarms and objections to lawmakers about the consequences of the cuts.

SAN FRANCISCO — Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a sharp critique of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday, suggesting he had forfeited a crucial bargaining chip by allowing a vote on Republicans’ government funding bill.

“I myself don’t give away anything for nothing,” Pelosi told reporters during a news conference at a children’s hospital in San Francisco. “I think that’s what happened the other day.”

Pelosi — who spoke during an event to oppose House Republicans’ proposed cuts to Medicaid — said she still supports Schumer, her longtime ally who’s come under fire from within his own party in recent days over his decision to allow the GOP’s bill to avert a government shutdown through last Friday.

But Pelosi, in response to a question, suggested that if Schumer hadn’t cleared the way, it would have given Democrats more leverage to fight proposed cuts to Medicaid and other social safety-net programs.

“We could have, in my view, perhaps, gotten them to agree to a third way,” Pelosi said. She said a potential outcome could have been a bipartisan continuing resolution to delay a shutdown for up to four weeks while negotiations continued.

She added, “They may not have agreed to it, but at least the public would have seen they’re not agreeing to it — and that then they would have been shutting (the) government down.”

It’s the second time in a week that Pelosi has criticized Schumer over his handling of the funding bill. On Friday, she suggested his move had played into a “false choice” that President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk had offered Congress: shutdown the government or give them a “blank check” to slash government spending.

Pelosi also praised House Democrats and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, her successor, for refusing to support Republicans’ stopgap spending measure, despite blowback from Trump’s administration and GOP leaders, who accused Democrats of risking a shutdown for political reasons.

Tensions between Schumer and Jeffries blew up last week after the Senate Democrat bucked his party’s move in the House. But the two have played nice in recent days, and Jeffries said Tuesday that he supports Schumer’s leadership.

Later Tuesday Pelosi noted her and Jeffries’ shared confidence in Schumer — and she was quick to suggest Democrats are poised to recapture the House in the midterm 2026 elections amid a “drumbeat” of protests over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other public programs.

“What happened last week was last week,” Pelosi said. “We’re going into the future.”

Tim Walz took a jab at Chuck Schumer over his decision to avert a government shutdown, accusing the party of ceding to Republicans.

“I believe that Chuck 100 percent believes that he made a decision that reduced the pain and the risk to Americans,” the Minnesota governor said in the latest episode of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s podcast released on Tuesday. “I see it now that we’re in a point where … that pain is coming anyway and I think we gave up our leverage.”

Walz’s comments are the latest in the chorus of Democratic backlash aimed at Schumer over the Senate Democratic leader’s support for a Republican-backed stopgap measure last week to keep the government funded and prevent a government shutdown.

Walz has long been scheduled to be a guest on Newsom’s podcast, which launched on Tuesday. But Newsom’s conversation with Walz was rerecorded on Monday, according to a person familiar with the discussion who was granted anonymity to discuss it. The original conversation came on the same day Newsom taped his episode with the campus culture warrior Charlie Kirk.

But Walz wanted the chance to address news that had happened since then, like Schumer’s funding bill controversy.

As a result of Schumer and a small group of other Democrats’ support for the funding patch, Walz warned Newsom that Democrats will face blame for any negative fallout from the bill.

“To the American public who doesn’t do this for a living and is out doing their job, they said, ‘well, they passed this budget and they agreed with Donald Trump, and now we all own that,’” Walz said. “I think you should have made Donald Trump justify why things were getting so bad.”

Walz’s remarks about the funding controversy come on the heels of his recent critiques of the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign, where he said the ticket did not take enough risks. He said he — along with other Democrats — should have made a stronger effort to engage with voters, particularly through town halls.

Walz doubled down on criticism of his party during his interview with Newsom, saying the lack of coordination among Democrats on how to approach the funding debate only reinforced perceptions that the Democratic Party is fragmented.

“I think the public saying is, ‘you guys weren’t even coordinated on that,’” he said.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for the impeachment of the federal judge who ordered a two-week halt to his efforts to remove Venezuelan migrants using extraordinary war powers that haven’t been invoked for decades.

Trump’s call to remove U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. — is the first time since taking office for his second term that he’s asked Congress to seek a judge’s removal, joining increasingly pointed calls by his top donor and adviser Elon Musk and a segment of his MAGA base.

Trump also suggested that “many” of the judges who have ruled against him in other cases should be impeached as well. It’s a significant incursion on the judiciary that comes as Trump has asserted unprecedented unilateral power over federal spending — despite Congress’ constitutional power of the purse — and sweeping authority to remove executive branch officials that previous presidents believed were protected by law.

Although the call represents a significant escalation, any impeachment effort is all but certain to be doomed in Congress, where narrow Republican majorities would lack the votes to remove a judge along party lines. Congress has been loath to entertain impeachment efforts for judges based purely on rulings they disagree with and has typically invoked the extraordinary procedures in cases of clear corruption or misconduct.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social Tuesday morning, called Boasberg a “troublemaker and agitator.” The president also boasted of his sweeping electoral win, underscoring the mandate he believes he was given by the American people to govern. (Judges are given lifetime appointments to insulate them from political pressure and shifts in public opinion.)

“FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY,” Trump wrote. “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do.”

For Trump, the attack on Boasberg is also an attempt to settle a score with a significant figure in his long-running criminal cases. Boasberg, as the chief judge, presided over key aspects of the grand jury proceedings that led to Trump’s criminal charges in Washington, D.C. for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Among Boasberg’s decisions: Requiring former Vice President Mike Pence to testify to the grand jury over Trump’s objection, and ruling that hundreds of emails from Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) should be disclosed to investigators.

Boasberg also presided over some of the grand jury proceedings related to Trump’s criminal case for hoarding classified documents at his Florida estate.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has warned of the pernicious threat of politically motivated calls for the impeachment of judges over disagreements on rulings.

“Public officials … regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges — for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations,” Roberts wrote in a New Year’s Eve message last year. “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”

Prior to Trump’s social media post, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press briefing Tuesday that she had “not heard the president talking about impeachment.” But Trump allies, including conservative lawyer Mike Davis, had been floating a possible impeachment of Boasberg throughout the day on cable and conservative news networks.

The White House has, however, brushed off the idea that Trump’s expanding assertions of power over his coequal branches is causing a constitutional crisis, arguing that it is the courts who are overstepping their legal authority. Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, have largely been content to allow Trump to override their prerogatives.

In court on Monday, Boasberg peppered the administration with questions about whether it had deliberately ignored his order to turn around planes carrying the deportees — an argument the Justice Department responded to by arguing that his verbal order did not count, only his written order.

The Justice Department has also asked a federal appeals court to have Boasberg removed from the case, but the appeals court has not yet acted on their demand. The administration is due to respond to Boasberg’s request for information about the flights by noon Tuesday.