House Democrats unanimously rebelled against legislation Thursday directing the construction of a new women’s history museum on the National Mall.

Democrats sought to defeat the bill after Republicans limited the institution to biological women and excluded transgender individuals. 

The measure came up short in a vote of 204-216 after a handful of conservative GOP lawmakers joined Democrats in tanking the legislation that would secure a site for the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum on the grounds of the Mall. 

The defecting Republicans objected to the measure over concerns about whether a women’s history museum was necessary and because the bill did not include protections against left-wing content from appearing in the institution,» a source familiar told Fox News Digital.

WATCH: DEMS GO SILENT, PULL WOMEN’S MONTH RESOLUTION AFTER GOP ASKS FOR SIMPLE DEFINITION

«American women are already proudly honored across the Smithsonian—from pioneers and patriots to scientists and leaders,» the source said. «We don’t need another taxpayer-funded museum that risks becoming a shrine to abortion activists like Margaret Sanger or the latest progressive cause.»

It was not immediately clear whether Republican leadership would attempt to bring the legislation up for a vote at a later date. Eight Republicans did not vote.

Democrats’ widespread opposition to the legislation came after the Democratic Women’s Caucus issued a statement last month accusing Republicans of targeting «transgender women and girls» with an amendment defining the museum around biological women.

The female lawmakers argued the anticipated museum is long overdue, but said they could not support the legislation with the biological women language added, which many characterized as a «poison pill.»

«The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements and lived experiences of biological women in the United States,» the amended measure, authored by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., states in part.

The museum may not depict «any biological male as female,» it continues, which codifies language in a Trump executive order issued in 2025 barring the inclusion of transgender individuals in the forthcoming museum. 

«The addition of the word biological made them all run for the hills,» House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a news conference Wednesday. «If that’s controversial in the Democratic Party, we’re in serious trouble. The party that purports to support women, demanding that the museum include biological men.»

Democrats’ decision to withdraw support for the museum measure comes as the party has continued to advocate for transgender rights despite questions over whether those views contributed to its poor performance in the 2024 election. Many Democrats also continue to face GOP scrutiny about providing a definition for «woman.»

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the insertion of language restricting the museum to biological women made Democrats «run for the hills.» (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO DEFINE ‘WOMAN’ WHEN PRESSED ON CAPITOL HILL: ‘COMPLICATED QUESTION’

Democratic lawmakers also slammed amended language in the bill granting the president the authority to choose an «alternative site» within 180 days of the measure’s enactment.

«They amended the bill to give Trump and his allies unregulated power over what content and which women can be included in the museum, and the museum’s location,» Democratic Women’s Caucus Chairwoman Teresa Leger Fernandez, D-N.M., said in a joint statement earlier this week with other female Democratic lawmakers. «A museum about women, fought for and supported by women, should not be controlled by one man.»

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., the sponsor of the museum measure, accused Democrats of «hiding behind» that rationale to avoid addressing the transgender provision.

«A women’s history museum is supposed to be dedicated to women, period,» Malliotakis told Fox News. «And the fact that they’re going to pull their support after overwhelmingly co-sponsoring this bill because the word biological was inserted, to me, is ludicrous.»

«They’re going to have to explain to their voters why they believe this museum should not be built and why they believe that there should be transgender exhibits in it,» she added.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said Democrats should have to explain why they want transgender exhibits in the forthcoming Smithsonian women’s history museum. (Allison Bailey/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Congress previously authorized the women’s history museum in 2020, along with a museum for American Latinos. Some Democrats justified their opposition to the measure over objections that the women’s history museum is advancing without the planned Latino institution. 

La empresa aeroespacial SpaceX se prepara para lanzar este jueves la última versión de su gigantesco cohete Starship, en un vuelo de prueba considerado clave tanto para el futuro comercial de la compañía como para los planes espaciales de Estados Unidos.

El despegue está programado para las 18:30, hora local (20:30 de Argentina) desde la base de lanzamiento de la empresa en el sur de Texas, en un contexto de enorme expectativa por el avance del proyecto y por la inminente salida a bolsa de la firma fundada por Elon Musk.

La prueba se realizará apenas un día después de que SpaceX presentara ante los reguladores financieros estadounidenses la documentación necesaria para cotizar en bolsa, en una operación que podría concretarse en junio y convertirse en una de las ofertas públicas iniciales (IPO) más grandes de la historia reciente del sector tecnológico.

El nuevo Starship, de unos 124 metros de altura, será el protagonista del duodécimo vuelo de prueba del programa, aunque el primero en siete meses.

La compañía transmitirá en directo la misión y aprovechará el lanzamiento para mostrar los avances tecnológicos del sistema, considerado fundamental para los objetivos de exploración lunar de la NASA.

A diferencia de ensayos anteriores, SpaceX no intentará recuperar el propulsor de la primera etapa, una maniobra que ya había ejecutado con éxito en pruebas previas. En esta ocasión, el booster caerá deliberadamente en aguas del golfo de México, mientras que la etapa superior continuará en una trayectoria suborbital.

Durante la misión, prevista para durar unos 65 minutos, la nave desplegará 20 satélites ficticios y dos satélites Starlink modificados especialmente con cámaras para estudiar el comportamiento del escudo térmico del vehículo durante el reingreso atmosférico. Si todo sale según lo previsto, la etapa superior terminará amerizando en el océano Índico.

Aunque las últimas misiones de Starship concluyeron satisfactoriamente, el programa sufrió varios reveses en el pasado. Algunas pruebas terminaron en explosiones, incluso después de alcanzar el espacio, y en junio de 2025 una etapa superior explotó durante un ensayo en tierra.

El nuevo vuelo también se desarrolla bajo la sombra de un reciente accidente laboral en las instalaciones de Texas, donde un trabajador murió tras caer de un andamio, según reportes locales.

Leé también: Las claves para entender por qué Elon Musk fue el gran perdedor en el juicio contra los creadores de ChatGPT

La misión llega además en un momento decisivo para la carrera espacial. La NASA contrató a SpaceX para desarrollar una versión adaptada de Starship que funcione como módulo de alunizaje dentro del programa Programa Artemis, cuyo objetivo es llevar nuevamente astronautas a la Luna antes de finales de 2028.

El proyecto cobra aún más relevancia frente al avance de China, que apunta a concretar su primera misión lunar tripulada hacia 2030. Dentro del gobierno del presidente Donald Trump crece la preocupación por la posibilidad de que Estados Unidos pierda liderazgo en la nueva carrera espacial.

“Hay mucho en juego”, afirmó el físico G. Scott Hubbard, exdirector del Centro de Investigación Ames de la NASA y actual académico de la Universidad de Stanford. Según el especialista, el desafío técnico más complejo sigue siendo demostrar capacidades de reabastecimiento orbital con combustible superenfriado, una tecnología todavía no probada y considerada indispensable para futuras misiones de espacio profundo.

En paralelo, la competencia con Blue Origin, la firma aeroespacial creada por Jeff Bezos, también presiona los tiempos del sector privado. Ambas compañías buscan posicionarse como actores centrales en la futura economía lunar y en los contratos multimillonarios vinculados a la exploración espacial.

(Con información de AFP)

The Trump administration says the $1.778 billion Justice Department «Anti-Weaponization Fund» will compensate Americans unfairly targeted by politicized federal investigations on a «case-by-case» basis, pushing back on critics who have portrayed the program as a taxpayer-funded payout for Jan. 6 rioters and Trump allies.

Heated dispute over the fund centers on who will ultimately benefit from it, with Trump administration officials saying it is intended to compensate individuals harmed by «weaponized» federal investigations, such as pro-lifers targeted by the Biden administration, while Democratic critics fear it could allow politically connected figures or some Jan. 6 defendants to seek taxpayer-funded payments.

«Republicans can apply for it. Democrats can apply for it,» Vice President J.D. Vance said during a Tuesday White House briefing in answer to the critics. «If Hunter Biden wants to apply for this particular fund, he is welcome to.»

The Anti-Weaponization Fund is unusual because it emerged from a lawsuit settlement between Trump and the IRS, an agency he oversees as president, raising concerns among lawmakers and commentators about potential conflicts of interest.

REPUBLICANS RECOIL AS TRUMP’S BILLION-DOLLAR DOJ ‘SLUSH FUND’ FOR ALLIES THREATENS ICE, BORDER PATROL PLAN

MS NOW contributor Joe Scarborough alleged that the Anti-Weaponization Fund would be funneled to those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots. On his first day in office, Trump issued pardons and commutations to more than 1,500 people involved in the Capitol riots.

«We got this billion-dollar ‘Marie Antoinette’ ballroom, now that they’re talking about funding and $1 billion plus slush fund for people who beat the hell out of cops,» Scarborough said. «It is a slush fund, a weaponization slush fund for supporters of Donald Trump, JD Vance and the Republican Party.»

But the Trump administration’s grievances with the «weaponization» of the Justice Department extend far beyond Biden-era prosecutions of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot.

Biden’s Justice Department prosecuted more than 50 pro-life activists who were accused of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) between 2021 and 2024. Since returning to office, Trump pardoned dozens of pro-life activists, some of whom were serving jail time.

The Trump Justice Department has also accused Biden-era officials of «zealously pursuing» prosecutions against Christians in its «2026 Report by the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,» potentially opening the door for another category of people who could seek compensation through the fund.

Still, Trump faces criticism over the fund even from his own party. Sen. John Thune, R-SD, the top Republican leader in the Senate, said he wasn’t a «big fan» of the fund’s creation and that he «was not sure exactly how they intend to use it.»

BIDEN DOJ WEAPONIZED FACE ACT AGAINST PRO-LIFE AMERICANS, 882-REPORT ALLEGES

«I think that there are, and will continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer,» Thune said.

Justice Department officials and some legal experts say the fund, while unusual and politically controversial, falls within the government’s legal authority and that payments aren’t guaranteed.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was born out of a settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service. Trump filed the lawsuit against in January over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax records.

A sign for the Internal Revenue Service is seen outside its headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 13, 2025. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Claims will be determined by a five-person board appointed by the Attorney General, with at least one member selected with consultation with congressional leadership, according to a Justice Department press release. At any point in time, the president has the power to remove a member without cause.

Under the settlement agreement, the Anti-Weaponization Fund will evaluate claims by looking at the «totality of the circumstances.» Those factors considered include how strong a person’s claim is and what evidence supports it, the financial harm they allegedly suffered — including legal fees — whether they spent time in prison and whether they have already received compensation or other relief elsewhere.

The agreement also gives the board discretion to weigh «other factors» it considers fair and appropriate when deciding whether someone qualifies for compensation.

«This is about seeking accountability for all Americans who were victims of law fare and weaponization: millions of Americans whose online speech was censored at the behest of the government, parents silenced at school boards, Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed, churchgoers targeted by the FBI, and so on,» a Justice Department document stated.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund will last until December 1, 2028.

APOLOGIES AND CASH HEADED TO ALLEGED ‘WEAPONIZATION’ VICTIMS IN BILLION-DOLLAR TRUMP SETTLEMENT

«It would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen. Remember what I said 20 to 25% of the people coming into our country will come in through birthright citizenship,» said Trump. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Funding for the Anti-Weaponization Fund is coming from the Judgment Fund, which is a permanent Treasury account used to pay for settlements and claims against the government.

While the Justice Department pointed to the Obama administration’s creation of «Keepseagle,» a $760 million fund for victims of racism by the federal government as precedent for the creation of the fund, legal experts say there are key distinctions between the two. For instance, payouts in Keepseagle were made out to people a part of a class action lawsuit against the government; whereas anyone can apply for a claim with the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

«The Judgment Fund is for lawsuits,» Adam Zimmerman, a professor at USC Gould School of Law told PBS News. «It’s not for an amorphous group of people who feel like they’ve been wronged generally by a prior administration.»

But unlike the Keepseagle, which distributed leftover funds to nonprofits, the Anti-Weaponization Fund will return remaining funds back to the Department of Commerce. Although, the practice of disbursing leftover funds to related third party organizations, which occurred in Keepseagle, is not uncommon in class action lawsuits.