Six House Republicans — who have all previously voiced opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — are now revolting after a prominent DEI program was gutted by the Trump administration.

In September, the Trump White House officially ended funding to “racially discriminatory discretionary grant programs at minority-serving institutions,” among which was a grant program for colleges and universities where at least 25% of the student body is Hispanic.

For some House Republicans, however, the elimination of the prominent grant program serving education institutions with a sizable Hispanic student body was a bridge too far.

“They’re not trying to reach a quota like DEI is doing,” said Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX), who himself co-sponsored legislation to eliminate federal DEI programs, speaking in defense of the aforementioned grant program, The Washington Post reported Thursday. “They’re just serving the communities in which they happen to live, which is what we want.”

Gonzalez is not alone in his rare break with Trump on this issue; he is joined by Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), who has denounced “wasteful DEI spending”; Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), who praised cuts to DEI programs; Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), who openly condemned DEI practices; and three other House Republicans, all of whom had voiced opposition to DEI practices in the past.

The Republican lawmakers’ plea to have the diversity grant program restored was met with deaf ears, however. When asked to comment on the matter, the White House referred questions from the Post to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to the outlet’s request for comment.

Mike Madrid, a Republican political strategist, told the Post that the rebelling lawmakers’ pleas to have the program restored were largely an effort to signal to their community, and with full knowledge that the pleas would go on unanswered in what he described as the group’s “rare break with Trump on any issue.”

“They want to be able to say that they’re advocating for the community… knowing that it’s going to go absolutely nowhere,” Madrid told the Post.

President Donald Trump's losses both in Washington and in court are stacking up, and a former federal prosecutor says one of those setbacks is particularly devastating for the president.

In a video, Glenn Kirschner — a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — pointed out that Trump has gotten a wave of bad news just in 24 hours at the beginning of this week. He took note of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granting a full review of his attempt to send the National Guard to Portland, Oregon; five Republican senators joining all Democrats to revoke Trump's tariffs on Brazil, and acting U.S. attorney Bill Essayli being disqualified from holding his post by judges in the Southern District of California.

Kirschner argued that the 9th Circuit's decision is likely to overrule a previous 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit panel allowing Trump to send the military to Portland. That ruling — in which two Trump-appointed judges were in the majority — overturned a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut (also a Trump appointee) blocking Trump from sending the National Guard.

Should the full 9th Circuit uphold Immergut's initial ruling, Trump would have no choice but to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is already weighing Trump's attempt to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, Illinois.

The former prosecutor also said the "bipartisan rebuke of Trump" following the Senate's vote to reject tariffs on Brazil was a significant blow to the administration, given how central tariffs are to the president's economic agenda. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) joined all 47 Democrats to prevent Trump from using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in regard to Brazilian imports.

The vote came as the Supreme Court is considering an appeal from the administration to reverse a prior decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Trump had no legal authority to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs.

"I don't care how Trump's flunkies try to spin this one," Kirschner said. "This makes Trump weaker."

Kirschner concluded the video by outlining the implications of Trump's hand-picked U.S. attorney in the Southern District of California being removed from his position on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Bill Essayli was "unlawfully serving" as U.S. attorney after his 120-day period as interim U.S. attorney expired. Kirschner argued that Essayli's dismissal will likely help make the case that interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan should be disqualified from serving as interim U.S, attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (which conservative attorney George Conway has also argued).

"[Essayli's disqualification] has the potential to blow up the vindictive prosecutions of New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey," Kirschner said.

Kash Patel's FBI undercut an attempt by one of President Donald Trump's allies to lead the nation's counterintelligence apparatus, according to a new report.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Patel's FBI sent a letter "strongly" opposing an effort to make Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her agency the leader of the nation's counterintelligence operations. The report was published at a time when the House of Representatives is debating a bill that would give Gabbard a more prominent role in counterintelligence.

"The FBI letter was the latest example of tensions between Ms. Gabbard and her counterparts at other intelligence agencies, including the director of the FBI, Kash Patel," according to the report "A bid by Joe Kent, a top Gabbard ally who leads the National Counterterrorism Center, to investigate the circumstances of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing had already raised alarms at the FBI, after Mr. Kent went so far as to examine the bureau’s files."

"The FBI letter is unsigned, but administration officials said it would not have been sent without the approval of Mr. Patel," the report adds. "It pushes back against a handful of counterintelligence functions that Ms. Gabbard would effectively take over, using language like 'vigorously disagrees with' and 'strong objection.' One of the changes, the letter said, would 'cause serious and long-lasting damage to the U.S. national security.'”

Read the entire report by clicking here.