FIRST ON FOX: Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., believed that Senate Democrats were "in a bad place" after they tanked Republicans’ push to consider the annual defense spending bill on Friday.

Thune argued during an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital that Democrats’ decision to vote against the procedural exercise seemed like "an extreme measure, and I think it's coming from a very dysfunctional place right now."

"I think there's a ton of dysfunction in the Democrat caucus, and I think this [‘No Kings’] rally this weekend is triggering a lot of this," he said.

SENATE DEMS TANK GOP PLAN TO PAY TROOPS, FUND PENTAGON AS SHUTDOWN HITS DAY 16

Thune’s move to put the bill on the floor was a multipronged effort. One of the elements was to apply pressure on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus to join Republicans to jump start the government funding process as the shutdown continues to drag on.

Another was to test Democrats’ desire to fund the government on a bipartisan basis — a demand they had made in the weeks leading up to the shutdown.

"I think the leadership is applying pressure," Thune said. "They were all being called into Schumer's office this morning to be browbeaten into voting ‘no’ on the defense appropriations bill, something that most of them, you know, like I said, that should be an 80-plus vote in the Senate."

To his point, the bill easily glided through committee earlier this year on a 26 to 3 vote, and like a trio of spending bills passed in August, typically would have advanced in the upper chamber on a bipartisan basis.

The bill, which Senate Republicans hoped to use as a vehicle to add more spending bills, would have funded the Pentagon and paid military service members.

SENATE DEMOCRATS BLOCK GOP PLAN FOR 10TH TIME, ENSURING SHUTDOWN LASTS INTO NEXT WEEK

But Senate Democrats used a similar argument to block the bill that they’ve used over the last 16 days of the government shutdown in their pursuit of an extension to expiring Obamacare subsidies: they wanted a guarantee on which bills would have been added to the minibus package.

"What are you — are you gonna go around and talk to people about a hypothetical situation," Thune countered. "I think, you know, once we're on the bill, then it makes sense to go do that, have those conversations, which is what we did last time."

The Senate could get another chance to vote on legislation next week that would pay both the troops and certain federal employees that have to work through the shutdown, but it won’t be the defense funding bill. Instead, it's legislation from Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and several other Senate Republicans.

REPUBLICANS PUSH TO PAY TROOPS, REOPEN GOVERNMENT AS DEMOCRATS BALK

As for the torpedoed defense bill, which was the last vote for the week in the Senate, Thune argued that it was emblematic of Senate Democrats being "in a place where the far-left is the tail wagging the dog."

"And you would think that federal workers, who you know, federal employee unions, public employee unions, who Democrats [count] as generally part of their constituency, right now, they're way more concerned about what Moveon.org and Indivisible, and some of those groups are saying about them, evidently, than what some of their constituents here are saying," he said.

"Because there’s going to be people who are going to start missing paychecks, and this thing gets real pretty fast," he continued. 
 

Three labor unions filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Thursday, arguing that the federal government violated the First Amendment rights of visa holders legally in the U.S. by using a program to search their social media for specific viewpoints, including criticism of the U.S. government and Israel.

United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America and the American Federation of Teachers sued the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This comes after the State Department said it had revoked the visas of at least six people over social media comments made about late conservative activist Charlie Kirk following his murder last month.

"Plaintiffs represent thousands of people whose speech is chilled by the threat of adverse immigration action if the government disapproves of anything they have expressed or will express," the lawsuit reads.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO VET LEGAL IMMIGRANT APPLICANTS FOR 'ANTI-AMERICANISM' AND ANTISEMITISM

Administration officials have purported that foreigners do not have the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens and do not have a right to hold a visa, as the federal government seeks to target them for speech.

"The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk," State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement.

The lawsuit points to high-profile cases and the comments of federal officials to argue that a government program uses artificial intelligence and other automated tools for surveillance of visa holders' posts and targets people critical of the Trump administration and what the government considers to be "hateful ideology."

The federal government has broadly defined support for terrorism to include criticism of U.S. support for Israel and the Jewish State's military action, as well as support for Palestinians. The government has used this as a justification to cancel visas.

FEDERAL JUDGE LAUNCHES SCATHING BROADSIDE OF TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO DEPORT PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTERS

The unions' complaint cited the case of green card holder Mahmoud Khalil, who was released in June following months in detention after the government attempted to deport him for participating in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

The lawsuit said the immigration threats over views disapproved by the government have prompted some union members to withdraw from publicly affiliating with their unions at organizing events, step down from leadership roles and "deleted, refrained from, or otherwise altered their social media and online engagement with the unions."

"This loss of engagement has harmed the plaintiffs’ ability to further their organizational missions and impeded their ability to carry out their responsibilities, which include recruitment, retention, and organization of union members; advocacy on behalf of union members; and the promotion of civic and political engagement among union members," the lawsuit said.

Many union members have stopped expressing their views because "the government has promised and proven that saying the wrong thing can trigger life-altering immigration consequences, particularly for visa holders and Lawful Permanent Residents," the complaint reads.

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, the administration has searched for online posts to target foreigners for the potential rescinding of their visa.

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order to ensure visa holders "do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security."

Over the summer, the State Department said it would start requesting that applicants make their social media accounts public for government monitoring and that interviews with applicants would determine who may pose a threat to national security.

Reuters contributed to this report.