BOOM! MORE THAN 140 HOUSE DEMOCRATS JUST HANDED TRUMP A MASSIVE WIN!
352 House Members Just Voted to Make Trump's Anti-Fraud Division Permanent. Including 140 Democrats.
The vote was 352-72.
Every Republican in the House voted yes. More than 140 Democrats joined them. The 72 votes against came entirely from the Democratic side — meaning the majority of House Democrats crossed the aisle to back legislation making the Trump administration's National Fraud Enforcement Division a permanent fixture of the Justice Department.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was among them.
That is not the outcome Republican leadership typically gets when it brings a Trump administration initiative to the House floor six weeks before the midterms.
What the Bill Does
The Trump administration created the National Fraud Enforcement Division earlier this year to investigate and prosecute fraud involving the federal government, federally funded programs, and private citizens. The legislation passed Wednesday would codify that division into federal law — moving it from an executive creation that a future administration could dissolve to a permanent statutory entity that would require Congress to undo.
The bill would also create a new assistant attorney general position, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, to oversee federal fraud enforcement efforts.
The practical argument for codification is straightforward: executive divisions created by one administration can be eliminated by the next. Making the division permanent through legislation gives it institutional continuity regardless of who occupies the White House.
How the Democrats Who Voted Yes Explained It
The most notable Democratic voice in Wednesday's debate belonged to Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland — who voted for the bill while making clear he was doing so reluctantly and on narrow grounds.
Raskin described his support as "tepid," argued that the Justice Department has maintained anti-fraud operations for decades without this specific division, and offered a characterization of the legislation that was not exactly a ringing endorsement.
"This is hardly some kind of great breakthrough in law enforcement or criminal justice," Raskin said, "but it is perhaps the least offensive piece of legislative flotsam and jetsam that has washed ashore in the last 48 hours."
He also used his floor time to challenge Republicans directly, asking why they would back a division targeting fraud while the administration had pardoned white-collar offenders and reduced financial penalties owed to victims.
But he voted yes anyway — and said so plainly.
"It would be very easy for me to say I reject everything you do because you're on the side of this pro-fraud president, but I'm not doing that."
What Republicans Said
Republicans used the debate to point repeatedly to fraud cases in Minnesota — a state where Vice President JD Vance recently referred Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison for possible investigation over fraud in state-administered programs.
Walz and Ellison have acknowledged that significant fraud occurred in those programs. They have disputed Republican characterizations of their role in it.
Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming said on the floor: "What has come out of Minnesota over the last year, what has been exposed, is absolutely criminal in nature."
Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, who pushed back on Raskin's framing, made the core Republican argument for the legislation: turning an executive initiative into permanent law is not a partisan act — it is a commitment to anti-fraud enforcement that outlasts any single administration.
"We're trying to make something that is right now just an executive order and make it law to help the people," Van Drew said.
The Political Calculation Behind the 352
A 352-72 vote six weeks before the midterms is not an accident.
Anti-fraud legislation is one of the safest political positions in American politics. Voting against a bill called the National Fraud Enforcement Division requires an explanation that most members in competitive districts would rather not give. The 72 Democrats who voted no will now face that question in their campaigns.
The 140-plus Democrats who voted yes avoided that question — while some, like Raskin, used their floor time to draw distinctions between supporting the bill and endorsing the administration's broader approach to the division.
That is a familiar congressional move: vote with the majority on the easy part, use the debate to register disagreement on the harder parts, and leave the floor with a cleaner vote record than a no would have produced.
Whether voters in competitive districts read it that way is a separate question.
What Comes Next
The House vote gives the legislation broad bipartisan backing — the kind of margin that typically creates momentum in the Senate.
The bill still requires Senate approval before it can reach the president's desk. No Senate vote has been scheduled. The compressed legislative calendar heading into the midterms limits what can realistically move through the upper chamber before members leave Washington to campaign.
If the legislation stalls in the Senate, the National Fraud Enforcement Division remains an executive creation — operational, but subject to reversal by a future administration. If it passes, it becomes statute.
For now, the House has spoken clearly on the question of whether federal anti-fraud enforcement should be permanent.
Three hundred and fifty-two members said yes.
Seventy-two said no.
The Senate will decide what that means.
352 to 72 — and 140 Democrats voted with Republicans to make Trump's fraud division permanent. Do you think this is good policy or just smart politics before the midterms? Drop your take in the comments, and follow our page for updates when the Senate takes this up.
💥 PRESS DEBUT DISASTER!
Katie Zacharia’s Awkward First White House Press Briefing Draws National Attention
Katie Zacharia’s first appearance behind the White House podium quickly became a major talking point after several uncomfortable moments overshadowed her debut as President Donald Trump’s new press secretary.
The October 13 briefing lasted approximately 14 minutes, with Zacharia answering questions from only three news outlets before ending the session. Her short appearance immediately attracted widespread media attention.
Zacharia had recently been selected to replace former press secretary Karoline Leavitt, stepping into a highly visible role responsible for communicating the administration’s positions to journalists and the American public.
From the opening minutes, observers noticed her reliance on prepared notes. She delivered a lengthy account of Trump’s accomplishments, frequently looking down at the script instead of maintaining eye contact with reporters.
Her delivery also attracted criticism, with commentators describing her voice as hesitant and her presentation as unusually stiff. Others questioned whether the administration had given its newest spokesperson enough preparation time.
Much of the briefing focused on praising Trump’s economic agenda, energy policies, rally attendance, and political achievements. The extended list of talking points left relatively little time for substantive exchanges with journalists.
One particularly awkward moment occurred when Zacharia discussed the challenge of balancing her demanding position with family life. She explained that spending evenings away from her four children was unacceptable to her.
She then accidentally referred to her husband as “my president” before immediately correcting herself with “my husband.” Recognizing the slip, she added a brief joke, creating the briefing’s most widely discussed moment.
The verbal mix-up spread rapidly through news coverage and social media, becoming a defining image of her first appearance. Critics treated it as evidence of nervousness, while others viewed it as an ordinary human mistake.
Her response to a question about U.S. intelligence sharing with Ukraine also drew attention. When asked whether Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Kyiv, Zacharia replied that she would have to get back to the reporter.
The exchange was brief, but it highlighted the difficulty of responding to sensitive foreign policy questions without immediately having the necessary information. Reporters continued seeking answers as the briefing moved forward.
Another significant announcement concerned Kimberly Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador to Greece. Zacharia told reporters that the administration had asked Guilfoyle to resign, unexpectedly introducing a personnel development into the short briefing.
The announcement generated additional headlines and demonstrated that, despite the awkward delivery, Zacharia’s first appearance included consequential political news. Her handling of the announcement, however, also attracted scrutiny from commentators.
Questions about her readiness soon emerged among political observers and some administration allies. The Wall Street Journal described the debut as rocky, reporting that her nervous presentation prompted questions about the decision to put her before cameras so quickly.
The brief question-and-answer session was another unusual feature. After taking questions from Breitbart News, Fox News, and the Daily Mail, Zacharia announced that reporters could ask Trump questions directly as he prepared to leave.
Her decision to end the briefing after such limited questioning became another focus of criticism. Regular White House briefings often involve extended exchanges, making the short session particularly noticeable to journalists and political commentators.
Despite the criticism, Trump publicly defended his new press secretary. Asked about her performance, the president said he thought she had done very well, offering a clear show of support following the difficult debut.
The White House also presented the briefing positively, describing Zacharia’s performance as commanding. That assessment contrasted with critical media coverage, illustrating how differently supporters and detractors interpreted the same appearance.
Zacharia’s debut has therefore become an early test of her ability to manage a demanding communications role. Future briefings will offer a clearer indication of whether she can develop greater confidence and handle sustained questioning.
For now, the accidental “my president” remark remains the most memorable moment from her first appearance. Whether the incident becomes a brief viral embarrassment or a lasting political talking point will depend on what follows.
