House Republican leaders on Thursday called on Rep. Tony Gonzales to drop his bid for reelection after the Texas Republican admitted to having an affair with a staff member.

The House Ethics Committee on Wednesday announced it was investigating Gonzales’ relationship with the aide, Regina Santos-Aviles, who died by suicide in September. Later on Wednesday, Gonzales went on a conservative radio show and for the first time admitted to the affair, calling it “a lapse in judgment.”

After Tuesday’s primary elections in Texas, Gonzales is heading to a runoff election in May against Brandon Herrera, who is challenging the incumbent from the right.

“Congressman Gonzales has said he will fully cooperate with the investigation. We have encouraged him to address these very serious allegations directly with his constituents and his colleagues,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and House Republican Caucus Chair Lisa McClain, R-Mich., said in a joint statement.

“In the meantime, Leadership has asked Congressman Gonzales to withdraw from his race for re-election,” the statement continued.

Gonzales office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on Thursday.

Katy Padilla Stout, a Democrat running for Gonzales’ seat, won outright in her party’s primary on Tuesday and advanced to the November general election. The district is in southwestern Texas along the border with Mexico. Cook Political Report lists it as “Solid R.”

“I would like to thank Speaker Johnson and House leadership for holding Congressman Tony Gonzales accountable for actions that have tarnished the office,” Herrera said in a post to X on Thursday. “I’m looking forward to representing the district the way the people of West Texas have always deserved.”

Since the U.S. attack on Iran, congressional Democrats and opponents of President Donald Trump called the operation unconstitutional and vowed to rein-in the president. But another impeachment — which the president says he fears if Democrats retake the U.S. House — hasn’t seriously entered the conversation.

That may change post-midterms if the party wins the House and Republicans lose their grip on both chambers of Congress plus the White House. Trump knows he would be in Democratic crosshairs and has expressed fear of a third impeachment to congressional Republicans, telling them to they need to win in November.

“If you swing at him, you want to make sure that you don’t miss,” Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist who has worked on the Hill and for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, said in an interview.

House Democrats convened last week to hash out strategy for this year, meeting before the new Iran war — which Trump began without seeking congressional approval — gave another potential grounds to seek impeachment.

Impeachment tends to be unpopular with voters, and there is concern in some Democratic corners that past attempts to rein-in Trump have not resonated. He was impeached by the U.S. House in 2019 over allegations that he withheld military aid to Ukraine to exert political pressure and in 2021 over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2020 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Both times the Senate voted to acquit.

But if Democrats win back the House, there will likely be serious pressure to impeach Trump a third time. No other president has been impeached twice.

“We’re not afraid of impeachment or any other constitutional tool in our arsenal, but we have learned that impeachment is no panacea,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview before the operation in Iran. 

“It’s not a fetish with us, but it’s also not a taboo with us,” Raskin said. “If we think that this will be the most effective way to address some of the crises of the republic that have been unleashed by President Trump or particular members of his cabinet, then it will have to be considered.”

Given that any talk of impeachment is purely symbolic with Republicans in control of both the House and the Senate, Leopold said he did not expect to see any groundswell of impeachment talk in the short term.

“You’ve seen some come out at various points, using the ‘I word’ usually as sort of an attention seeking device,” Leopold said. “People mostly want to see Democrats fight back in a way that has real world impact. … Sometimes if you’re a football team, you want to hand the ball off and get first downs instead of trying to go for a Hail Mary every play.”

While the Iran attack didn’t bring a deluge of new impeachment calls, Democrats since Trump retook office last year have threatened to impeach Trump over his 2025 strikes on Iran, his ousting of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro without congressional approval and for a grab bag of other alleged offenses. 

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who as recently as the Maduro ouster in January had said she was “reconsidering” her view that pursuing impeachment now was unrealistic, put the kibosh on any similar effort now.

“I don’t want to go there. I think that we’re focused on what is happening in Iran,” Waters said Tuesday as she left a Trump administration briefing on the Iran operation. “I think when we take control of the House we will consider that.”

“The morally bankrupt Trump administration has partnered with another morally bankrupt authoritarian to declare an unprovoked war on Iran, already killing scores of civilians,” candidate Kat Abughazaleh posted on BlueSky. “We need an immediate vote from Congress on a War Powers Resolution. Then articles of impeachment.”

Fellow candidates Evanston, Ill. Mayor Daniel K. Biss and state Sen. Laura Fine similarly called for Trump’s impeachment.

Before the Iran attack, Democratic leaders were weighing how to effectively keep Trump in check without drowning out other issues. Party leaders have discussed prioritizing an affordability message, the same topic Republicans want Trump to focus on for the election year.

When Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, brought a resolution to impeach Trump in December, just 140 Democrats voted against a motion to table the measure. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, whose leadership team opted not to drum up votes for the resolution, was one of 47 Democrats to vote “present,” not supporting or opposing the measure.

“What we tell our members and what we tell candidates who are running is we have to do all of the things,” Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said at the Democratic policy retreat last week. “We have to do oversight and accountability and we have to talk about the affordability agenda and how we’re going to make life better for people if we’re given the opportunity to lead and if we’re given the opportunity to govern.”

Rep. Deborah Ross, D-N.C., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said at the retreat that some Democratic attempt to impeach is all but certain. The trouble, she said, would be determining on what grounds to impeach. Jeffries is “not going to just have a free for all,” she said.

“I think the difficulty would be narrowing down the high crimes and misdemeanors. Because I think there are high crimes and felonies,” Ross said. 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., lashed out at Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday, calling her leadership of the agency a “disaster.”

“We’re an exceptional nation. And one of the reasons we’re exceptional is we expect exceptional leadership. And you have demonstrated anything but that,” said Tillis, who has previously called on Noem to resign. He struck out at Noem for her handling of disaster response and the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota, among other things.

“What we’ve seen is innocent people getting detained that turned out are American citizens,” Tillis said in a roughly 10-minute diatribe that included references to passages from her autobiography in which she describes killing a poorly behaved dog.

Noem was making her first appearance before Congress since the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents during the Minnesota immigration crackdown. It is the first of two this week, as she is due to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

She was met with hostility from Tillis, who is retiring at the end of his term, and Democrats on the panel and skepticism even from some other committee Republicans.

“Mistakes have been made,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in his opening remarks. “Let’s make it clear. One death is too many. But officers should never be threatened or harmed while enforcing our laws,”

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned Noem on a $220 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign, that included a lucrative contract with a Republican consulting firm with ties to Noem and Department of Homeland Security aides. Those commercials feature Noem prominently, in one case on horseback with Mount Rushmore in the background, and warn immigrants about entering the country unlawfully. She denied any role in choosing the firm and said the ads have been “extremely effective.”

“Well they were effective in your name recognition,” Kennedy said. “It troubles me. A fifth to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money when we’re scratching over every penny and we’re fighting over rescission packages. I just can’t agree with.”

Noem’s appearance also coincided with an ongoing DHS shutdown. Funding for DHS lapsed last month, and Democrats have so far refused to back an appropriations bill over frustrations with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. DHS still has billions of dollars at its disposal to keep some programs running thanks to last year’s massive tax and spending bill.

Some Republicans argued that in light of the recent military action in Iran, failing to fund DHS presented a security risk.

“Can we not understand America’s under siege now, likely to be attacked because radical Islam is under siege and they’re going to hit back, and we’re sitting here looking at each other and not funding DHS?” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Democrats in Congress have been sharply critical of Noem’s leadership of DHS. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., introduced articles of impeachment for Noem in January after federal officers killed Good and Pretti.

“Under your leadership, the Homeland Security Department has been devoid of any moral compass or respect for the rule of law,” Senate Judiciary ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at the hearing. “Without hesitation or remorse, DHS agents have wreaked havoc in our cities … and acted with unspeakable cruelty against children, immigrant families and American citizens.”

Friends and family members of individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention were present at the hearing. They held signs and shouted in Noem’s direction as she took her seat in a Senate committee room.

Two protesters interrupted testimony and were forcibly removed from the room.

Durbin and others members also took issue with Noem’s handling of the Pretti shooting in Minnesota. In the immediate aftermath, Noem said Pretti, a Minneapolis intensive care unit nurse, “committed an act of domestic terrorism,” then walked the claim back after video of the incident emerged.

“Do you retract these statements identifying these individuals as domestic terrorists?” Durbin asked.

“When we have these situations happen, we always offer condolences to those families, and I offer mine as well. These are tragic situations,” Noem said.

Given the broad use of ICE and DHS agents throughout the country, many Democrats have expressed anxiety that federal officers could be deployed to polling places for midterm elections this November, as some White House allies, like Steve Bannon, have urged.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., asked Noem whether she would “rule out the deployment of ICE or CBP to polling places this November?”

“There are no plans to have ICE officers at our polling locations,” Noem said. She did not explicitly rule it out.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued an order effectively barring the redrawing of the boundary lines of the only congressional district in New York City currently held by a Republican for the 2026 midterm elections.

The decision is a victory for the incumbent seeking re-election this November, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, the Staten Island Republican who had asked the Supreme Court to hear her bid to block new lines for that contest.

The Supreme Court order is a potentially significant one for Republicans, who are trying to retain their narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. The order comes on the heels of efforts in Texas, California, and elsewhere to redraw maps for congressional districts before the midterm elections.

The GOP has just a 218-214 majority in the House of Representatives.

Democrats likely would have had a better chance to defeat Malliotakis in her 11th Congressional District if more Black and Latino voters were added to it, as was expected after a ruling in January by a New York state court judge that directed the district’s lines to be redrawn.

Neither the exact numerical breakdown of which Supreme Court justices voted in favor of Monday’s order, nor the rationale for the decision were disclosed. But the court’s three liberal members all dissented from the order.

Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s six-member conservative supermajority, in a concurring opinion in the ruling called a New York state judge’s order that Malliotakis’ district be redrawn for the 2026 election one that “blatantly discriminates on the basis of race.”

“The New York Supreme Court (that State’s trial-level court) ordered the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to draw a new congressional district for the express purpose of ensuring that ‘minority voters’ are able to elect the candidate of their choice,” Alito wrote.

“That is unadorned racial discrimination, an inherently ‘odious’ activity that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause except in the ‘most extraordinary case,’ ” he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the liberal justice who authored a dissent of the order, noted that the order consisted of just 101 words, without explanation, but “can be summarized in just 7: ‘Rules for thee, but not for me.'”

Sotomayor blasted the order for not giving New York state appeals courts time to resolve Malliotakis’ challenge of the judge’s ruling calling for new district lines.

“Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction,” Sotomayor wrote.

“Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not interfere with state-court litigation,” she said. “Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an election. Today, the Court says: except for this one, except for this one, and except for this one.”

The map of the 11th was redrawn in 2024. The district includes all of Staten Island and parts of South Brooklyn.

In the 2024 election, Malliotakis crushed her Democratic challenger by a wide margin.

Last October, four New York City residents filed a lawsuit challenging the design of the district, arguing that it diluted the votes of Black and Latino residents in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution.

In January, a New York state court judge in Manhattan, Jeffrey Pearlman, ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission to redraw the map of the district by Feb. 6.

Pearlman, in his ruling, said that the 11th District, as drawn, denied Black and Latino voters the equal “opportunity to participate in the political process . . . and to elect representatives of their choice” guaranteed to them,” Sotomayor noted in her dissent.

Malliotakis soon after asked the Supreme Court to block Pearlman’s order.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos will head to the White House on Thursday for meetings on his company’s efforts to acquire part of Warner Bros. Discovery as Paramount ratchets up its rival bid, Politico reported Wednesday.

The reported visit is set to occur five days after President Donald Trump demanded that Netflix immediately fire former Obama administration official Susan Rice from its board, or else “pay the consequences.”

It was not immediately clear if Sarandos would be meeting with Trump during the visit, a person familiar with the discussions told Politico.

Netflix declined CNBC’s request for comment on the report. The White House, asked by CNBC to confirm the visit, said, “We do not discuss private meetings that may or may not be happening.”

The acquisition fight over WBD, like numerous other business deals in over the past year, has been entangled with presidential politics.

Trump had weeks earlier said he would stay out of the multibillion-dollar bidding war between Netflix, which wants to buy WBD’s studio and streaming brands, and Paramount, which seeks to acquire WBD’s whole business.

But Trump appeared to change course when, in a Truth Social post on Saturday afternoon, he demanded that Netflix fire Rice from its board, calling her “racist” and a “political hack.”

Trump on Truth Social linked to an X post from Laura Loomer, a far-right media figure in Trump’s orbit, slamming Rice and urging the president to “kill the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger now.”

Loomer’s post highlighted a recent podcast appearance in which Rice, who has served in the Obama, Clinton and Biden administrations, predicted that corporations and other institutions that appeased Trump will be held “accountable” when his political opposition regains power.

The WBD deal proposals have raised antitrust concerns. The Department of Justice is investigating whether Netflix’s proposed deal could hurt competition.

Other dynamics have fueled speculation that politics are part of the acquisition fight.

Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison is the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men and a Republican megadonor.

David Ellison was a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Trump loyalist, at the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Paramount most recently raised its bid for Warner Bros. to an all-cash $31 per share, which could “reasonably be expected” to top Netflix’s offer, WBD said Tuesday.

This is developing news. Please check back for updates.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended President Donald Trump’s executive order spurring the domestic production of the weedkiller glyphosate, as his Make America Healthy Again movement reels from the president’s embrace of the chemical they despise.

Trump on Wednesday night signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to compel the domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Glyphosate is the chemical in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup and is the most commonly used weedkiller for a slew of U.S. crops. Trump, in the order, said shortages of both phosphorus and glyphosate would pose a risk to national security.

Kennedy backed the president in a statement to CNBC Thursday morning.

“Donald Trump’s Executive Order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” he said. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

But Kennedy’s MAHA coalition that supported Trump in the 2024 presidential election hates glyphosate, which has been alleged to cause cancer in myriad lawsuits. Now, the executive order threatens to unravel that coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that could loosen the president’s grip on Washington.

“Just as the large MAHA base begins to consider what to do at midterms, the President issues an EO to expand domestic glyphosate production,” Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA activist known as Glyphosate Girl, said in a post on X. “The very same carcinogenic pesticide that MAHA cares about most.”

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog that has pushed back against chemicals in food for years, said in a statement that he “can’t envision a bigger middle finger to every MAHA mom than this.”

“Elevating glyphosate to a national security priority is the exact opposite of what MAHA voters were promised,” Cook said. “If Secretary Kennedy remains at HHS after this, it will be impossible to argue that his past warnings about glyphosate were anything more than campaign rhetoric designed to win trust — and votes.”

Kennedy, a former environmental attorney, notably once won a nearly $290 million case against Monsanto for a man who claimed his cancer was caused by Roundup. The executive order came down one day after Bayer proposed paying $7.25 billion to settle a series of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., knocked Trump for signing “an EO protecting cancer causing Glyphosate in our foods.”

Glyphosate is a critical chemical to American agriculture. It’s applied to many key cash crops, such as corn and soybeans, and has been defended by agricultural trade organizations. Phosphorus is a key input to the creation of glyphosate, which the White House argues is necessary to maintain food security. Elemental phosphorus is also used in the manufacture of some military materials.

“Thank you, President Trump, for acknowledging the importance of glyphosate-based herbicides in American agriculture,” the House Agriculture Committee said Wednesday night in an X post. “This is a vital step forward in ensuring a domestic supply of this critical crop input remains available for our producers.”

House Agriculture Chair Rep. G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., is trying to push a farm bill through Congress this year — a legislative package that covers federal farm support and nutrition subsidies. He’s also come under fire from MAHA recently for a provision in that bill that would block state and local pesticide regulations from differing from federal guidance.

A congressional deposition of Leslie Wexner, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest known associates and top benefactors, kicked off behind closed doors in Ohio on Wednesday.

The deposition of the 88-year-old retail billionaire is occurring weeks after the Department of Justice released millions of additional Epstein-related files, which have revealed new links between the notorious sex offender and major figures in business and politics.

Wexner, the retired founder of Victoria’s Secret former parent company L Brands, has faced intense scrutiny for years over his personal and financial relationships with Epstein. The latest document dump raises new questions about the extent of that relationship and how long it lasted, despite Wexner’s claim that it was “completely severed” nearly two decades ago.

“I was naïve, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein,” Wexner said in a statement submitted to the House Oversight Committee ahead of the deposition.

“He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide,” Wexner said.

He went on to call Epstein a “master manipulator” who “lived a double life,” insisting that any criminal activities were “most carefully and fully hid from me.”

“Again, to be clear, I never saw or heard about Epstein being in the company of a minor girl,” Wexner said.

Decades earlier, Wexner had given Epstein, a high school math teacher turned well-connected money manager, power of attorney over his finances. Wexner had long been Epstein’s only publicly known client.

“The most important information for us is really about the money,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the Oversight Committee’s ranking Democrat, said on CNN earlier Wednesday.

“We know that Wexner was Jeffrey Epstein’s single largest benefactor,” Garcia said. “When you think about Epstein’s wealth, whether it was the plane, the island, the amount of money when had, his homes — much of that came directly from Wexner.”

“We’re not exactly sure why. It’s not clear,” he said. “When you talk to survivors, they’ll all share with you that Wexner was at the center of what Epstein was doing.”

Wexner has not been charged with any crime. After Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 — and died by suicide in jail a month later — Wexner said he was embarrassed to have been “taken advantage of by someone who is … so depraved.”

The Oversight Committee had subpoenaed Wexner and other Epstein associates in January with bipartisan support.

In his prepared statement before Wednesday’s deposition, Wexner maintained that he “completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar.”

“And, let me be crystal clear: I never witnessed nor had any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity. I was never a participant nor coconspirator in any of Epstein’s illegal activities. To my enormous embarrassment and regret I, like many others, was duped by a world-class con man. I cannot undo that part of my personal history even as I regret ever having met him,” Wexner’s statement said.

Wexner said he hired Epstein as a financial manager years after being introduced to him in the 1980s by insurance giant Aon’s former vice chairman Bob Meister. Wexner also said he consulted about Epstein with Ace Greenberg and Jimmy Cayne, of Epstein’s former employer Bear Stearns, and Elie de Rothschild of the Rothschild family banking dynasty, whom Epstein offered as a reference.

Epstein initially refused to take on Wexner as a client, instead offering occasional financial advice for free. “Little did I realize that, from the very start, Epstein was conniving to gain my trust,” Wexner’s statement read.

Wexner eventually succeeded in formally hiring Epstein. “Because my public company and other duties required my full attention, I provided Epstein with a power of attorney so he could execute transactions quickly, without constantly requiring my signature,” according to Wexner.

“The need for a power of attorney was clear to me, and I provided the same scope of authority to Epstein as I did to his successor, Dennis Hersch,” the statement said. “What I did not anticipate was Epstein misusing the trust I placed in him despite his fiduciary obligation to act in my best interest.”

As for the allegations that Epstein ran a widespread sex trafficking operation that exploited girls and young women, Wexner is adamant that he knew nothing about it.

“He knew that I never would have tolerated his horrible behavior. Not any of it. At no time did I ever witness the side of Epstein’s life for which he is now infamous,” Wexner’s statement said.

“To be clear, never once in 36 years have I been unfaithful to Abigail in any way, shape, or form. Never,” he said referring to his wife. “Any suggestion to the contrary is absolutely and entirely false.”

Wexner also said he never traveled on Epstein’s airplane and disputed the “rumor” that he gave Epstein a townhouse in New York. Epstein “purchased it from me for what I was told was the appraised value,” and Wexner never entered the house afterward, according to the statement.

Wexner admitted visiting Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but said he did so only once, when his wife and young children “stopped for a few hours one morning while we were on a cruise on our boat.”

Wexner said he revoked Epstein’s power of attorney in September 2007, months before Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida to a state charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution.

“In light of his eventual guilty plea and deception of our family, we completely severed our relationship with Epstein. Epstein was permanently and irrevocably out of my life,” Wexner wrote.

The Wexner Foundation told CNBC in a statement, “We hold in our hearts the survivors of Epstein’s horrific crimes and pray for their healing and strength.”