Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. called on the head of President Donald Trump’s Social Security Administration to resign on Tuesday.

Schumer declared a ‘Social Security Day of Action’ during a press conference in New York on Tuesday, accusing Trump, Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of cutting Americans’ social security. Schumer called on acting SSA Administrator Leland Dudek to resign.

‘Dudek is bad medicine for our seniors,’ Schumer said from the podium.

‘Donald Trump and Elon Musk have a hatchet man in Leland Dudek, an acting Commissioner with an emphasis on the ‘acting,’ because his real role is to dismantle the very office he is supposed to lead, make better, and protect,’ he continued. ‘We have seen his audition and his work on the stage, and it is clear: Dudek is incapable of doing this job in the way it needs to be done. He won’t protect seniors. He will hurt them. Leland Dudek should resign.’

‘Republicans are trying to kill Social Security from the inside – it is a cut by another name – and we won’t let that happen,’ Schumer said in another statement.

The press conference comes after Schumer feuded with Musk on social media. The Tesla founder reacted to Schumer’s criticism of DOGE by suggesting the lawmaker was ‘getting a piece of the action with the government fraud.’

‘Another Elon lie. He wants you to think anyone who dares to stand up to him is committing fraud, meanwhile he’s taking tens of billions from the government,’ Schumer declared in a post last week.

Musk also fired off a response to a post in which Schumer suggested that Musk is slashing Social Security benefits.

‘Make no mistake: What Elon Musk is doing at Social Security is cutting benefits,’ Schumer said.

‘The intern running Schumer’s social media account is lying,’ Musk shot back.

During a Senate speech, Schumer claimed that ‘Elon Musk is cutting Social Security benefits.’

‘When offices close down, when websites crash, when phone lines shut off, that’s no different than cutting benefits,’ Schumer said.

A new White House memo highlighting the top 10 Supreme Court rulings federal agencies must follow has legal experts optimistic about reining in the administrative state, while some litigators remain skeptical the directive will be enforced.

‘Any administration that really cares about making sure that they were following the law should be reviewing regulations,’ Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network, told Fox News Digital. ‘We want a government that isn’t just taking every bit of power that it can get away with, but one that wants to make sure the constitutional limits are guarded as well, which is why this memorandum is refreshing and novel in a good way.’

The administration issued a memorandum on April 9 requiring agencies to rescind regulations not in line with 10 recent Supreme Court opinions on proper administrative agency functions. 

The memo, titled, ‘President Donald J. Trump Directs Repeal of Regulations That Are Unlawful Under 10 Recent Supreme Court Decisions,’ says it is in line with a February executive order seeking to rein in the administrative state. 

The memo lists various Supreme Court cases aligned with Trump’s deregulatory agenda as well as the administration’s efforts to get rid of DEI initiatives. Among the cases listed are Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, West Virginia vs. EPA, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 

Both Loper Bright and West Virginia notably narrowed executive agencies’ authority in issuing rules and regulations affecting the American public. Likewise, Students for Fair Admissions rejected the use of affirmative action in university admissions. 

‘The President is right: agencies must repeal regulations that the Supreme Court has deemed unlawful. The President continues to deliver on his promises to roll back regulations and government overreach crippling American enterprise,’ White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

Several of the cases listed are not retroactive, meaning regulations issued prior to these decisions being handed down will not be disturbed as a result of the opinions. However, experts say agencies can re-evaluate previous rules and regulations under the new standards imposed by the Supreme Court opinions.

‘I think that that is good fodder, a good basis for a lot of agencies to go back and look, ‘Where have we created massive regulatory compliance burdens and structures that massively impact the economy or society on the basis of a very thin thread and where can we undo it?” Daniel Huff, senior legal fellow at the American Path Initiative, told Fox News Digital. ‘And we can point to these elephants in mouse holes and when it’s reviewed in the future, they will say ‘Yes, that is a good rationale’ and it will be upheld.’

Kara Rollins is a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the nonprofit organization that argued Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce in front of the high court – Loper’s companion case that sought to scale back the reach of the administrative state. Rollins told Fox News Digital the ‘retrospective look’ these agencies will take toward previous regulations is not ‘misplaced.’ 

However, Rollins raised concerns about the administration’s enforcement of the directive, noting that several related cases were already underway before the Supreme Court issued its rulings.

‘What happens to these cases that are currently active where DOJ or the agency is just taking the wrong position?’ Rollins said. ‘Who’s looking at that? Who’s clearing out those cases and saying, in light of this memorandum, we’ve looked at our litigation position and we can no longer sustain it? And that’s the real sort of open question, particularly for litigators right now.’

Rollins said that, as a litigator, her concern is agencies have yet to change positions when it comes to these Supreme Court opinions: ‘That sort of signals that there is a problem between what the president is saying he wants to have happen and what’s being effectuated on the ground.’

In the memo, Trump directs agencies to employ the Administrative Procedure Act’s ‘good cause’ exception ‘where appropriate,’ which allows agencies to do away with the usual notice-and-comment rulemaking process in the interest of the public. The usual process requires time for public input on the proposed rule. 

Huff said there is ‘less of a need’ to impose the regular notice-and-comment rulemaking process given that agencies will likely be reviewing previous rules rather than passing new ones. 

‘They’re not adding new burdens. This isn’t new to people,’ Huff said. ‘People already sort of know what’s there and it was there before. And we’re just turning back the clock. We’re putting it back to the way it was. We’re restoring the original status quo.’

Severino said there could be litigation over the use of the exception despite the fact that the language is ‘very broad.’ 

‘But I do think there are strong arguments for it because the laws must keep with the constitutional limits on government, and, of course, be in the public interest.’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told rally attendees not to let Republicans ‘trick’ them into thinking they ‘can be separated’ by race or into stoking ‘deep divisions along race, identity and culture,’ despite President Donald Trump’s recent efforts to rid identity politics from public and private spaces.

The progressive ‘Squad’ lawmaker’s comments came at a ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ rally Monday night in Idaho alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. It was the pair’s latest stop in a tour of appearances across the country. 

‘The only chance they have to get away with such an unpopular and hurtful agenda is to stoke deep divisions along race, identity and culture to keep us fighting and distracted. It’s not going to work anymore,’ AOC told rally goers. ‘Don’t let them trick us into thinking we are enemies. Don’t let them trick us into being weak and being into thinking we can be separated into rural and urban, black and white and Latino.’

The rally with AOC and Sanders was largely centered around criticizing ‘billionaire’ oligarchs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and President Donald Trump, who, as president, has been leading an anti-DEI push that is aimed at ridding identity politics from public and private spaces.

In fact, per political analyst and regular MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude, identity politics was ‘at the heart’ of former Vice President Kamala Harris’ election loss to Trump. 

‘The only thing that was woke or representational about [Kamala Harris’] campaign was her, her body, the fact that she was a woman of color. So I think that the concern, the so-called backlash, to tending to the diversity of the nation actually proves the point,’ Glaude said in an interview with NPR shortly after Republican’s November election victories. 

Meanwhile, since being inaugurated, Trump has implemented executive actions explicitly targeting ‘identity politics.’

‘Prior to harmful changes introduced by the Obama and Biden administrations, the United States military offered equality of opportunity to every American capable of and interested in serving their country. Yet these two administrations exploited the military in favor of identity politics—harming our national defense, undermining the non-political nature of our military, and eroding morale and recruitment,’ Trump wrote in one of his first Executive Orders after being sworn in. ‘Due to this ‘woke’ assault, the Services together logged their lowest recruiting records since 1940 with a 41,000-troop shortfall in 2023.’

Trump has also taken steps to rid DEI from universities, the federal government and even the private sector. 

According to Trump, it was Democrat President Joe Biden who implemented ‘illegal and immoral discrimination programs,’ which often tied individual success to immutable factors like race, sex and ethnicity. 

‘President Trump is restoring fairness and accountability in federal hiring, and terminating DEI across the federal government,’ reads a March fact sheet from the White House.

The chairman of the largest House GOP caucus is using Tax Day to send a warning about the financial strain American families could face next year if Republicans fail in their plans for a massive conservative policy overhaul.

Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital that millions of Americans could see their taxes increase by as much as one-fifth if Congress does not pass a budget reconciliation bill extending President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

‘If Democrats get their way and let these tax cuts expire, Americans will be crushed by the largest tax hike in history – a 22% increase hitting 40 million families and 26 million small businesses,’ Pfluger said. 

‘It’s time to lock in these historic tax cuts permanently to boost job creation, fuel America’s economic engine, and protect family budgets from the Left’s tax-and-spend agenda.’

The RSC acts as the House GOP’s de facto conservative think tank and has more than 175 members. Pfluger reiterated that the group is ‘fighting to make President Trump’s historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, so families can keep more of their hard-earned money instead of sending it to the IRS.’

Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, chair of the RSC budget task force, said extending the TCJA and enacting Trump’s other tax policy initiatives would help the U.S. become ‘the most advantageous country in which to invest, relocate, or expand a business’ as well as helping families and businesses domestically.

‘These vital, pro-growth tax reforms will work alongside our efforts to slash federal regulations and bureaucracy to empower economic expansion and financial security for the American people and our job creators,’ she said.

Tax reform is a cornerstone of Republicans’ efforts on reconciliation, a mechanism that allows the party controlling the major levers of government to enact sweeping fiscal and budgetary changes. It does so by lowering the Senate’s threshold for advancing legislation from 60 votes to 51, provided the matters in the bill deal with taxes, spending and the national debt.

In addition to extending the TCJA tax cuts, Trump also wants Republicans to eliminate taxes on tipped and overtime wages, as well as on Social Security benefits for retirees.

House Republicans passed a framework last week to sync up with the Senate on its budget reconciliation bill, which now allows the relevant congressional committees to begin work filling out that framework with policy.

But congressional Republicans have a long road ahead to get a bill passed in both the House and Senate, where their majorities are currently three seats each. The House version calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, while the Senate’s baseline is $4 billion – though Republicans there vowed to strive for more.

Extending TCJA alone would decrease federal revenues by $4.5 trillion, according to the Tax Foundation, and House conservatives are leading the charge in demanding steep government funding cuts to offset that.

The RSC steering group, the group’s leadership arm, released an official position earlier this year calling for reconciliation legislation to be deficit-neutral. 

At the same time, however, failing to extend Trump’s tax cuts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections could have politically devastating consequences, while stoking fears of an economic downturn when compounded with the added cost of Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

‘If the tax cuts expire, the median family would lose about $1,000,’ Kimberly Clausing, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Fox News Digital earlier this month, citing a model from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. 

And if the recently unveiled tariffs continued unabated at the time, ‘that would generate an average per household consumer loss of $3,800,’ she added, pointing to the Yale Budget Lab’s estimate. Trump has since walked back much of his reciprocal tariff policy. 

The House Ways and Means Committee, the House’s tax-writing panel, released a memo late last year with a similar warning to Pfluger’s on a potential tax hike if TCJA is not extended.

‘Congress needs to act swiftly to take this threat of a tax hike off the table and give the American people assurances that the relief they have been demanding has arrived,’ the December memo said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine advisory committee will meet on Tuesday for a two-day session to lay out new recommendations, including a proposal to scale back current COVID-19 vaccine guidelines.

Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos of the CDC is expected to present guidance on COVID-19 vaccine use for 2025–2026 and suggest the department adopt a ‘narrow’ recommendation for it, ‘and only maintain this series for certain populations within these groups who we determine should be vaccinated.’

When polled on April 3, a majority of advisors – 76% – expressed support for a risk-based, rather than universal, COVID-19 vaccination recommendation for the 2025–2026 schedule, up 10% higher from February polling.

The 70-page presentation outlines three possible policy options for COVID-19 vaccines, including a shift away from recommending annual shots for everyone over 6 months old.

Currently, annual COVID-19 shots are recommended for ages 6 months and older. One proposed policy option would continue the current universal policy, while another would recommend vaccines only for people at higher risk of severe illness, such as older adults, those with underlying health conditions, pregnant women and healthcare workers. 

A third option would blend the two, keeping universal recommendations for people 65 and older but limiting shots for younger groups to those at higher risk.

‘When initially presented with 2025–2026 COVID-19 vaccine policy options in November 2024, the Work Group appreciated pros and cons of both risk-based and universal vaccine recommendations,’ Panagiotakopoulos wrote. ‘At that time, there was not yet a consensus on what the recommendation for the 2025–2026 COVID-19 vaccine should be. The Work Group requested additional information to help inform the decision-making process on risk-factors for severe COVID-19, transmission and immunity, vaccine implementation and access, and cost-effectiveness.’

The presentation will also propose how to define ‘increased risk,’ looking at both health factors and increased exposure, like living in long-term care facilities or working in high-contact jobs.

The two-day meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will examine information for members to vote on as official recommendations, which will then be passed on to the CDC for consideration in June.

The end of the presentation will include discussion questions about the pros and cons of a universal vs. risk-based COVID-19 vaccine recommendation for 2025 to 2026. Key discussion points include whether any groups should be excluded from vaccination, what data is still needed to guide decisions, and whether a risk-based approach makes sense if most people are already considered ‘at risk.’

According to the CDC, the vaccine committee’s agenda will also include a session about the measles outbreak and an update ‘on literature related to reduced number of doses for HPV vaccine.’

Members of the committee will vote on Wednesday on recommendations for the Meningococcal Vaccines, Meningococcal Vaccines VFC, RSV Adult and the Chikungunya Vaccines.

The meeting comes as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is overseeing a major reorganization of the CDC. Plans include transferring non-infectious disease-related divisions to the Administration for a Healthy America to focus on chronic disease management. This move follows significant downsizing under President Donald Trump’s directive, which has already reduced the CDC workforce by roughly 4,000 people.

The first Mexico-born female member of Congress is launching her comeback bid on Tuesday, setting her sights on a Democrat who Republicans view as one of the most vulnerable House incumbents of 2026.

‘Unfortunately, we don’t have that many voices in the Spanish-speaking community — in Telemundo, in television — talking to the Spanish-speaking community about the amazing work President Trump is doing, and his administration,’ former Rep. Mayra Flores, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital in an interview prior to her announcement.

‘And that’s something that I feel I’m obligated to do, because there’s a lot of misinformation being spread from the left, and they’re trying to instill fear and hate in the Hispanic community.’

Flores served in Congress for roughly six months, from late June 2022 until early January 2023, having flipped Texas’ 34th Congressional District from blue to red after winning a special election to replace ex-Rep. Filemon Vela Jr., D-Texas.

She lost re-election to Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, twice, though their rematch saw Flores come within less than 3% of Gonzalez’s victory.

Flores’ 2026 bid is aimed at challenging a different Democrat, however. The former GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital that she intends to run in Texas’ Laredo-anchored 28th Congressional District, which is currently represented by Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

Cuellar is a moderate known to break from his own party on issues like border security, crime and abortion. 

He’s served in Congress since 2005, with victories spanning from a few thousand votes to margins as high as 30%.

Cuellar most recently won last November by less than 6% – or roughly 13,000 votes – amid a federal indictment accusing him of an array of corruption charges.

‘It’s not about what Mayra Flores wants. It’s what this country needs me to do. And this country needs me to run in Texas 28 and win this seat,’ Flores said. ‘This is a seat that can be flipped in 2026. Right now we need a much bigger majority. It makes it very difficult for President Trump to get anything across with such a small majority.’

Flores said she was deeply familiar with the district and has familial ties to it.

In addition to the seat being a viable opportunity for the GOP, she pointed to the criminal indictment as an argument for taking on Cuellar, and she noted he had been in office since she was a 1-year-old, having first served in the Texas State House in 1986.

‘At the end of the day, I don’t care what party he is, whether you’re a Republican or you’re a Democrat,’ Flores said. ‘Being a member, it’s … a position where you can help so many people, and you are able to represent an entire district. And yet he threw it all away. And no amount of money is worth you doing that to your country.’ 

Cuellar denied any wrongdoing on his or his wife’s part in a statement when the indictment was announced.

‘I want to be clear that both my wife and I are innocent of these allegations. Everything I have done in Congress has been to serve the people of South Texas,’ Cuellar said in May 2024.

‘Before I took any action, I proactively sought legal advice from the House Ethics Committee, who gave me more than one written opinion, along with an additional opinion from a national law firm,’ he said. ‘The actions I took in Congress were consistent with the actions of many of my colleagues and in the interest of the American people. Furthermore, we requested a meeting with the Washington D.C. prosecutors to explain the facts, and they refused to discuss the case with us or to hear our side.’

Flores signaled she intended to focus heavily on the issues of agriculture and the economy when asked what she wanted to make another stint in Congress look like.

‘At the end of the day, you know, money’s important. Without money, you can’t have a shelter, you can’t have a car, you can’t provide for your children. So the economy is a top priority for me,’ Flores said. ‘And of course, agriculture is a passion of mine. I was a farmworker. My parents were migrant workers. We traveled a lot. I believe our farmworkers need to be prioritized.’

She compared her push on agriculture to the Republican stance on U.S. energy independence.

‘We talk about being independent, right, on oil and gas, which I agree, 100%. But we need to be food-independent as well,’ Flores said.