On The Hill: July 19, 2026

We welcome you in to Fox 5's On the Hill for this Sunday, July 19th, 2026. Good to have you along with us. I'm Tom Pichterell. We're going to begin on the headlines this morning. The Pentagon has still not identified those two U.S. servicemembers who were killed in Jordan from Iranian airstrikes. Another missing soldier is still not been located. The U.S. launched another wave of strikes against Iran, hitting military coastal surveillance as well as drone and missile sites. There were storage sites hit in that attack as well. Remember, beginning in February, 16 U.S. servicemembers have so far been killed and more than 430 wounded. Back here at home, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen now ordering governors to sign on to new election monitoring programs or risk losing federal funding. This comes after President Trump addressed the nation this past week, alleging that China interfered with the 2020 election, although several audits of elections have found no evidence of wrongdoing that the president is alleging. When President Trump addressed the nation this past week, he made another big push for Congress to pass the SAVE Act, a voter ID law. We want to bring in our political panel this morning. Catherine Lucey is the White House correspondent for Bloomberg and Susan Davis is a veteran political journalist, currently an analyst and host for 535 News. Thank you both for being here with us. I want to start with the SAVE Act and why it means so much to the president. Walk us through this. What is SAVE Act and is it really going to save anything? Look, one of the most known issues about Donald Trump is he is obsessed with election security and the false idea that there is rampant fraud in our elections or that he won an election that he did not win, which was the 2020 election. It's not a new issue. The law itself would largely voter ID laws, which actually are quite popular in the country. But the more onerous part about this law is it would make people prove citizenship before they could register to vote, which often would require something like a birth certificate or a passport, something that a lot of Americans do not have. This bill is not going to pass on Capitol Hill, but the president is expending a tremendous amount of political capital to try to get it done. Which begs the question, President Trump is a two term president. All right. That's an exclusive club amongst presidents. Why does he continue to bang on the 2020 drum when he was reelected to office and time and time again, experts have come in and said this did not happen? The president remains fixated on this loss. He does not like to lose part of his identity. I think sort of professionally and politically for a long time has been that he is a winner, that he is dominant, that he is dominant over his political party. And so he has not been able to let go of this 2020 loss, continues to insist that this must have been a rigged election. And you've seen him, you know, in other occasions also suggest that he, you know, that losses weren't real, that things were stacked against him. But it means that he is you know, they have the new there's been numerous legal efforts, investigations, various efforts to try and prop up this, including this speech on Thursday night. And, you know, Catherine, one of the things about this is that there's a political cost to continuing down this road. The president earlier said he wasn't going to sign a big housing bill, which was a big bipartisan bill that was popular on both Democratic and Republican circles. Republicans had hoped to grab that run through the fall election, being able to point to some achievement with that. The Hill has made it pretty clear that the SAVE Act is likely going to be DOA. So are they expending political capital that they might not have at this point? Yes. And I also think there's a lot of risk here in trying to push this issue because we've seen this time and time again in state and local issues and races, where if it looks like you're trying to change the rules of the game before the election, voters don't like that Republican, Democratic, independent. So I do think continuing to expend this political capital to say that they want to do this does actually risk angering voters this close to a midterm election. And we have seen it actually has had a boomerang effect on Republican voters. When Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin was in office, he very much was trying to get Republicans to say, listen, you can vote early. You can vote in mail. Republicans were not voting because they had begun to believe that the voting system was tainted somehow. And as a result, Youngkin had said that it was hurting Republican efforts to get people elected in GOP races. So is there a slingshot effect here if you keep telling your own voters that the elections are rigged, that they're just going to put up their hands and not participate? I mean, potentially. And there have been huge efforts, as you know, over the last many years from both parties to get voters to vote early. Banking voting votes ahead of time. You know, it's just a smart strategy for both of them. But I think the big picture that is important to think about here is that Trump is really worried about the midterm elections. You're Republicans. It's evident in polling, in talking to voters, in the mood in the country that this is potentially going to be a very tough election for Republicans. And a lot of what you're seeing from him right now is him acting on that. We have more to come. We're going to take a quick break right now. We'll be right back. Fox on the Hill continues right after this. We'll see in just a moment. Welcome back. Fox 5 is on the Hill this Sunday. You know, the midterm elections are just over three months away. So what are both parties doing to secure their side's control of Congress? Want to welcome back in our political panel. Catherine Lucey is the White House correspondent for Bloomberg. And Susan Davis is a veteran political reporter, currently an analyst and host for 535 News. Appreciate you sticking around with us. So this midterm, you know, we always say in Washington, oh, this might be the most important. This one might really be because the president and the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, have said repeatedly that if Democrats get control of the House, that there are going to be investigations, that there are going to be more hearings. How radically different could the political environment change in this town if the Democrats were able to flip the House and take control? Well, I think it would be a tremendous impact, in part because I think the legislative agenda of this White House would essentially stop, right? There's no more tax bills. There's no more legislation, no more reconciliation bills where they're getting this done. And you're absolutely right. I think the biggest change would be in a Democratic-controlled House would be oversight. The subpoena power, the interest in investigating not just the president and his financial dealings, but members of his cabinet. And I think that Democrats would see that as a two-year plan to investigate this administration to weaken the president's party going into the 2028 presidential election. Obviously, there have been some unexpected developments just in the last couple of weeks. The death of longtime Senator Lindsey Graham, which was expected to be a slam-dunk hold for Republicans in South Carolina, now is a bit of a question mark. Since his death, his sister has been appointed to temporarily serve out her member's term. There's going to be a special election next month for that. How much in play is the Senate really right now when a lot of people have kind of focused more attention on the House? Well, certainly for Democrats, the House is a much stronger bet. Both historical trends favor them, also the mood in the country. There are seats in play. That does seem to be a strong likelihood. But there are enough Senate seats that are competitive that some Democrats do feel like this is a possibility. Obviously, Maine is going through some mess right now that we can talk about. But you have Maine, Michigan. You also have Iowa has a very strong Democratic contender there. That's a state that's really frustrated with the president's tariffs. Texas has a very strong Democratic candidate. So there are some seats that are in play. Let's talk about Maine because Susan Collins has become somewhat of a political Rasputin. Every time she comes up for reelection, people say, oh, she might be in trouble. And then she got reelected. Graham Plattner was the Democratic nominee until he exited the race on allegations of sexual misconduct. There is a bit of a free-for-all going on in Maine right now. So how likely is it that Maine Democrats are going to be able to land on a candidate who would be a real threat to Susan Collins? That's a great question. And Maine is a mess. That's a fair way to characterize it right now. Put that on the license plate. Yes, exactly. I think as we sit here today, you'd have to give Susan Collins the advantage in this race. She's just too good at this and the Democratic Party is too much of a mess right now. But I do think a couple of things here. If they can somehow put forward a candidate that I would say is at minimum palatable. Because one of the big questions here in this midterm, and it's cliche, but it's true. This is a referendum on the president and his agenda and his party. And in a state like Maine, Donald Trump is very unpopular. There was just a very controversial shooting in the town of Biddeford, Maine, that has spotlighted ICE and immigration policy in that state. Susan Collins is an incumbent senator who has very low approval ratings. So the alchemy there still exists for Democrats to put it in play. Have they done everything possible to lose a very winnable race? Yes, but I don't think it is still very early. A tremendous amount of voters in this country don't even start thinking about this stuff until it's back to school season. Kamala Harris did easily win that state. So it is a state that the electorate, in theory, should be primed to elect a Democrat. But it's currently a mess. But while all that's going on, there was a fascinating pair of confirmation hearings on the Hill this past week. Both for United States Attorney General Todd Blanchett and for Director of National Intelligence. Time and time again, these nominees have been brought before the Congress. They've been asked a simple question. Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? And time and time again, the answer has come back, well, Joe Biden was certified. Joe Biden became the president. Nobody will actually say, yes, Joe Biden won the 2020 election. What's behind that? And is that by accident or design? It certainly seems to be a way to signal support for the president. You know, to just, the default response is to say Joe Biden was certified. And try and avoid getting into a discussion to our previous conversation about who won the 2020 election. Does the White House instruct nominees that they have to say that? That I don't know for sure. But it certainly seems like these nominees understand that you cannot contradict the president on one of his most core incorrect beliefs about the election. And stand a chance for nomination. But I also think it does also highlight that both of these nominees have kind of a difficult path forward in the Senate. Especially as several Republican senators have found newfound independence after they've lost their primaries. Thinking of people like Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas. Yeah, and they will have some votes on some of these nominees as well too, which could be interesting. Catherine Lucey, Susan Davis, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We hope to talk to you again real soon. Thank you. As we continue this summer, we're going to take a deeper dive into that massive redevelopment plan for Washington, D.C.'s RFK Stadium redevelopment site. Fox 5's On The Hill continues right after this. Welcome back to Fox 5's On The Hill. The new plan for the RFK Stadium and surrounding area includes new housing and development on a riverfront district around the new Commander Stadium. Now the $3.7 billion stadium plan is set to open in 2030. And to talk more about it, find out more about it, we want to welcome in Anita Cozart. She is D.C.'s Director of Planning. Thank you so much for being with us. Good to be here, Tom. There's probably, I think it's safe to say, not been a bigger plan in the nation's capital history. The size and scope of this. But a lot of people are wondering who live here, is it for them? Will there be places for them to live there where they can afford, where they can shop? So how big of a component in planning for the NFL stadium was keeping D.C. neighborhoods intact? Certainly a big part of that. And one of the things, even as Mayor Bowser was announcing this really wonderful win for the city, the focus on having housing and affordable housing, having parks and open space, particularly because this is a place right on the waterfront. And for many years, people have not had the access that they've desired to have. And so an opportunity to improve that is a big part of this. In addition, recreational spaces of various kinds, passive, very active indoor recreational spaces through a sportsplex, a series of trails and parks and open space that will be available to everyone throughout the year, not just at event times. One thing that we know is although work is already underway and clearing the RFK Stadium, in fact, it's gone. Yeah. It's been demolished. A lot of this housing will not be in place on 2030 at the beginning of the stadium's life. So how soon could people see this? So what I would say is it's important to recognize that this does take a bit of time. This is kind of a generational opportunity. And so one of the things that's great about the master plan that is out for public review right now is it sets that vision for what are the kinds of housing that we want to see. We know that there's a great diversity of people in Washington, and so we need a great diversity of types of housing. And so our desire is to, as close to opening day, have work underway as it relates to that. So those of us who are around to see the before and after of Nationals Park will remember that you pretty much had a blank slate down there in Navy Yard. Yes, there were some industrial sites and warehouses. But for the most part, everything you see pretty much around Nationals Park right now was built up and developed around that stadium. And there wasn't a lot that had to be taken away. That's not quite the case in the RFK neighborhood. There are established generational neighborhoods there. How important is it to preserve those, not only in conjunction with this new housing? So one of the things to recognize is that in many ways, the 180 acres itself, it does present a lot of opportunity. And the nearby neighborhoods, we take inspiration from the design and the development of them. We also take inspiration from places like Navy Yard that in the last 25 years have become these bustling places that nearby neighborhoods like Capitol Hill benefit from the grocery stores, the shopping, the restaurants, the waterfront access. That's what we want to bring to RFK campus. And if he was here now, Marion Barrow, to remind everybody, the same goes for the arena. That's right. Chinatown Gallery District as well, too. A bit of a wrinkle the last couple of days. There were some reporting that the D.C. National Guard might be looking to relocate from the armory building that they are in right now, which is directly adjacent to the stadium site. Was that an expected development? And how closely are you tracking this? Because that could be another huge parcel of land in this area. So we're tracking it very closely. And the benefit is that we've been talking to thousands of people over dozens of meetings about what are the kinds of things that they want to see for this site. So even if they weren't speaking directly to the armory itself, the kinds of activities that they're talking about are the ones that we could potentially contemplate. And I want to ask you about that feedback because a lot of times we'll have projects and we'll be told that there is public feedback. And people will show up at these things. You know, of good nature and good intention and really kind of tell people what they think about things. And then they might walk away and say, well, I wasn't really heard. How big of a part is the public input on this and what can people do to really make their voices heard? So the public input piece is very important. First, I want to let folks know that they should go to rrfk.dc.gov. That's a place where you can see for yourself all of the images that have been shown during this segment. And you can weigh in with your point of view around the future of this site. Obviously, we've got four years ahead of us. We'll continue to talk to you about this. Anita Garzaert joining us, D.C.'s director of office of planning. We'll continue right back. Fox 5's On the Hill will be right back after this. Game. Welcome back to Fox 5's On the Hill this Sunday. We are joined live now by Virginia Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramaniam. He is the ranking member of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Military Affairs. Congressman, well, I think we've lost the congressman. Do we have him back? Okay. We are told we have him. He's back. We're going to go back over the big screen. We lost you there for a second, Congressman. Good to see you. Thanks for being with us. Obviously, the events of the last 48 hours in the region of the war with Iran right now have had devastating effects. We've lost two U.S. military service members. We've got another one right now that is missing in action. Congressman, I asked you this morning, do we know enough about where the United States stands on this war and whether or not we are going to be able to bring this to an end before the deaths of more U.S. service members? It's tough because we've already spent over $100 billion on this war, and that's been well documented. What's been less talked about is the human cost of the war, all the lives lost, including our service members. This is now 16. We have one other missing. We have hundreds who have been wounded, as well. That's not talked about. And the off-ramp doesn't seem clear to me at this point. Iran seems to have given up on any sort of diplomacy. The Trump administration seems to continue to say that they have found a diplomatic solution and then contradict themselves by more attacks. And so the off-ramp now is unclear to me, and we're stuck in a forever war, it seems. It's clear that if the United States service members are killed, the United States military has every right to retaliate for those deaths. However, are you confident at all that we're talking to the right people as they try to negotiate a settlement to this? Well, it's complicated because before, Iran had the Ayatollah leading everything, and so they had negotiators go to the Ayatollah who would say yes or no. And it was a very clear structure. Now, yes, the Ayatollah's son is in charge on the face of it, but they can't control all the regional leaders at this point. And so it's unclear exactly who is going to make the decisions that everyone else will follow, because there are some regions that you want to continue to be at war. And Iran generally, too, I mean, they look at what's going on and how unpopular this war is, and they look at the progress that they've made as far as being able to control the state of Hormuz. They have no incentive now to end this, especially given the diplomatic situation that we're in. All right. Virginia Congressman Suhas Subramaniam, member of the House Oversight and Subcommittee of Military Affairs, joined us live this morning talking about the ongoing situation with the war in Iran. Congressman, we thank you. Thank you. All right. We want to remind you, coming up at 9 a.m. this morning, it's Fox News Sunday with Shannon Bream. Your guest includes Senator Katie Brink and Jeanne Shaheen. We will join you over on Fox Local in just a moment. We thank you for joining us. We'll see you next year. Back on the Hill.