Charlie Kirk’s final book is a ‘manifesto against the machine of modern life,’ encouraging his followers to ‘stop in the name of God’ and honor the Sabbath.

Kirk, the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, was assassinated Sept. 10 after years of promoting civil discourse on college campuses and mentoring young adults across the country.

Weeks before his murder, Kirk finished what would be his final book — ‘Stop, In the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life.’ Kirk was ‘fiercely proud of it,’ according to Winning Team Publishing — the publishing house that published his final book. 

Kirk’s beloved wife, Erika, was ‘determined to bring it into the world as a tribute to his legacy,’ and added a foreword to the book after his death, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital.

‘I knew Charlie so deeply, in a way no one else could,’ Erika Kirk writes in the book’s forward. ‘That is why I can say with certainty: these pages are not theory for him, they are testimony. The words you hold in your hands were the convictions he lived that were written on his heart.’

‘Looking back now, I see the book as one of Charlie’s most enduring gifts to the world,’ she continues. ‘He did not know how brief his time (on) earth would be—none of us did—but the truths written in this book are not bound by time. They will outlive us all, as will the legacy of his faith.’ 

‘There is no doubt in my heart that Charlie left this world doing what he loved most: standing firm for truth, for faith, for family, and for America,’ she continued. ‘The mark he made will not fade; it is etched in countless lives and stories. Though he is no longer beside us, I find deep comfort in knowing his voice still carries on.’ 

‘As Charlie’s widow, I write these words through tears, yet also with a steady hope,’ she writes. ‘My prayer is that you (and one day my two precious children) will not only read these pages but weave them into the fabric of your life. That you will let one of Charlie’s final messages quiet your hurried steps and lead you nearer to God.’

Erika Kirk, the now-CEO and board chair for Turning Point USA, goes on to thank readers for ‘opening these pages, for allowing Charlie’s words and convictions to take root in your own life, and for helping to carry forward the legacy of a man who poured himself out for his Savior, his family, and his country.’

Charlie Kirk was killed in September as he spoke to a crowd at Utah Valley University. Authorities believe a single shot was fired from the roof of a building some 200 yards away. 

Charlie Kirk was 31, and the married father of two young children. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, one of the most prominent conservative voices in the country, sent a shockwave across the nation and mobilized thousands of young supporters on college campuses across the United States. 

Fox News Digital also exclusively obtained the prologue and introduction of the book, written by Charlie Kirk.

‘In this book, I intend to persuade you of something that may, at first, seem quaint, old-fashioned, or even unnecessary: that the Sabbath is not merely a helpful tradition or a cultural relic—it is essential to the flourishing of the human soul,’ Charlie Kirk wrote.

‘I will define the Sabbath not just in doctrinal terms but in existential ones. We will explore its origin—not in history, but in eternity; not in law, but in creation,’ he wrote. ‘I will show you how to incorporate it not as a weekly burger but as a life-giving rhythm that reorders your time, renews your mind, and restores your humanity.’

Charlie Kirk wrote that the book ‘is not written for the religiously initiated alone.’

‘It is written for the exhausted parent, the anxious student, the burned-out executive, the soul-numbed scroller,’ he wrote.

‘This is not a suggestion manual or a spiritual upgrade for those with spare time,’ he continued. ‘This is a manifesto against the machine of modern life. It is a call to war against the endless noise and ceaseless hurry that have slowly robbed you of your joy, your wonder, and your rest.’

Charlie Kirk wrote that he did not write the book to ‘affirm your lifestyle,’ but instead ‘to interrupt it.’ 

‘I am writing to cut at the root of some of the deepest wounds in our society—disconnection, anxiety, spiritual fatigue, moral confusion—and to offer you a concrete, ancient, and divine practice that can begin to heal them,’ he wrote.

‘As America has abandoned the Sabbath, we have watched nearly every major marker of health—emotional, spiritual, communal—begin to fail,’ he wrote. ‘We are more productive and less peaceful, more connected digitally and more isolated relationally. We are over-stimulated, undernourished, distracted, discontent, and desperately lonely.’

‘My mission in writing this is very simple: I desire to bring all humanity back to God’s design to rest for an entire day,’ Charlie Kirk writes. ‘To cease working, to STOP, in the name of GOD.’ 

The introduction of the book, in Charlie Kirk’s own words, brings the reader on his own journey to rediscovering the Sabbath.

Charlie Kirk brings the reader back to the summer of 2021, saying his life was ‘in perfect order,’ and after marrying Erika Kirk, his life ‘was as good as it gets.’

‘But on the inside, there was a battle brewing,’ he wrote. ‘I was fatigued, tired, and spiritually confused.’

Charlie Kirk discussed how he began to unplug, recharge and reconnect with God, family, and himself through observing the Sabbath.

The book is packed with Charlie Kirk’s practical insights and spiritual wisdom to help readers understand how honoring the Sabbath ‘restores balance, reduces anxiety, and nourishes your soul.’

The book was published by Winning Team Publishing, and will be available nationwide Tuesday, including at WinningPublishing.com, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Amazon, Walmart, 45books.com and more. The book is available for pre-order. 

Erika Kirk will appear on Fox News Channel’s ‘Hannity,’ ‘Fox & Friends,’ and will co-host ‘Outnumbered’ and ‘The Five’ the week of its release to promote the book. 

House Republicans are scrambling to find a solution to sky-high health costs as the clock ticks on Obamacare tax credits that were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

House GOP leaders have been busy working with different factions within their conference this week to shape the contours of a package aimed at lowering healthcare costs for Americans, but it’s not clear if there is yet consensus on legislation that could get support from all 220 Republican lawmakers — and those in the Senate.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Bloomberg News on Thursday that the House would vote on a healthcare plan by the end of this month.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., was less certain of a specific timeline, however, telling reporters, ‘We are meeting with all of our caucuses and building a coalition. And so when we’re ready to go, we will.’

‘But the focus has always been, you know, bills that will lower costs and give families options to help them, so they’re not trapped in the unaffordable care act,’ Scalise said.

He was referring to the Obama administration-era Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. Republicans have long criticized it as a broken system that’s served to fuel inflationary health insurance premium costs, but finding a solution that’s palatable to both Americans and officials in Washington has long eluded the GOP.

Democrats in Congress voted twice to expand Obamacare during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to get more Americans healthcare coverage. That expansion is set to run out by the end of 2025, and Democrats claim that it will push Americans’ healthcare costs sky-high if the enhanced subsidies are allowed to expire.

It’s also been a concern for a handful of Republicans, many of whom represent battleground districts that were critical to the GOP winning and keeping the House majority.

Multiple bipartisan initiatives have been unveiled in recent weeks aimed at stopping that healthcare cliff from coming. Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., are planning to release legislation expanding the enhanced Obamacare subsidies for two years, albeit with reforms aimed at streamlining the system for those who need it most.

Fitzpatrick told Fox News Digital that legislation could come out as soon as Thursday.

Meanwhile, a group of 20 Democrats and 15 Republicans led by Reps. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., released a framework on Thursday morning that would expand a version of the enhanced Obamacare subsidies for a year, followed by a modified health plan the following year that would include ‘continued health insurance premium savings’ with ‘more significant reforms.’

The extension would reform the system with new ‘guardrails’ aimed at rooting out fraudulent actors and inactive enrollees, along with new income requirements to qualify.

‘It proposes a short-term and longer-term fix. But the bottom line is in just a few days, for millions and millions of Americans, their health insurance premiums are going to spike significantly,’ Gottheimer told reporters.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., a part of that group, said, ‘The extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidy with reforms is something we all agree is necessary, and then have a much longer-term discussion about how we actually fix healthcare costs in America.’

Kiggans told Fox News Digital in a brief interview that allowing the enhanced subsidies to just expire would hike costs for millions of Americans who Republicans tried to help make life more affordable for with President Donald Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.

She said she understood and agreed with the notion of needing to phase out COVID-19-era tax programs but added, ‘We are facing a deadline with this one where, unfortunately, if we just cold turkey let those premium tax credits expire, we’re going to see spikes worth thousands of dollars.’

But conservatives within the House GOP have signaled heavy opposition to extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, arguing it would do little to lower healthcare costs.

‘I don’t know why Republicans, or people who consider themselves to be conservative, would give tacit approval and support of Obamacare by expanding subsidies of Obamacare,’ House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. ‘I don’t know why they would give tacit agreement that somehow, by extending those subsidies, COVID-era subsidies, that they would be making healthcare more affordable.’

Arrington said he could see bipartisan avenues to make aspects of Obamacare itself work better, but suggested he was against extending the enhanced subsidies even with reforms.

‘I see no utility at all in expanding in any form. No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it’s still a pig. And you need a whole different animal if you’re going to bring the cost down,’ he said.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who spoke with Fox News Digital the night before the bipartisan unveiling, said, ‘If they really wanted to build a coalition with Republicans, they’d be coming over and pitching us first on what their ideas are. I haven’t seen that.’

‘Let’s remember that these were COVID-era Biden subsidies and that no Republican voted for them. And no Republicans voted for any other subsidy. So any Republican trying to do a deal starting with that is starting at the wrong end. Start with healthcare freedom,’ Roy said.

Still, there are ways for Republicans in favor of extending the Obamacare enhanced subsidies to force a vote on doing so without support from their leaders.

One method is called a discharge petition, which would force consideration of a given piece of legislation if it got support from a majority of the House chamber.

But both Kiggans and Fitzpatrick appeared hesitant when asked about the possibility.

Fitzpatrick would not answer directly when asked about such a move. Kiggans, meanwhile, said, ‘This isn’t a direction that we’re trying to go with it.’

‘I think just today, Mike Johnson said we were going to do something with … so, hopefully, you know, we’ve been able to impress upon the leadership the urgency and that these things will be addressed next week,’ she said.

Adm. Mitch Bradley confirmed to lawmakers that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth did not order all survivors of counter-narcotics strikes to be killed — even as they had mixed opinions on whether the so-called ‘double tap’ strike was justified. 

An initial Washington Post report had claimed that Hegseth ordered those in charge of the counter-narcotics strikes to ‘kill them all,’ leading Bradley to interpret this as orders to kill remaining survivors. 

‘The admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order and that there was not an order to grant no quarter,’ Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told reporters after a briefing with the admiral. 

‘Adm. Bradley was very clear that he was given no such order, not to give no quarter or to kill them all,’ Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said.

Still, Himes said the full video footage of the Sept. 2 strikes showed that the two survivors were ‘shipwrecked sailors.’

‘What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel, who were killed by the United States,’ Himes went on. ‘Now there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way.’

Democrats and Republicans seemed to have strikingly different impressions of the video they’d been shown of the strikes.

Cotton said video of the strikes showed the survivors ‘trying to flip their boat back over and continue their mission.’

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said, ‘I think it’d be hard to watch the series of videos and not be troubled by it.’ 

‘I am deeply disturbed by what I saw this morning. The Department of Defense has no choice but to release the complete, unedited footage of the Sept. 2 strike,’ said Sen. Jack Reed, R.I., top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared to take aim at Democrats for claiming they were ‘troubled’ by the video. 

‘Those who appear ‘troubled’ by videos of military strikes on designated terrorists have clearly never seen the Obama-ordered strikes, or, for that matter, those of any other administration over recent decades. I am deeply concerned by the public statements made by others that seek to ignore the realities of targeting terrorists to score political points. I call upon them to remember their own silence as our forces conducted identical strikes for years — killing terrorists and destroying military objectives the same as in this strike — and ask themselves why they would seek to attack our forces today.’

‘There is [another] example where survivors actually were shipwrecked and distressed and not trying to continue on their mission, and they were treated as they should be, as noncombatants. They were picked up by U.S. forces,’ Cotton said.

‘It’s just an example of how, of course, our military always obeys the laws of war. Our military also acts with an appropriate, lawful authority to target these narco-terrorists.’

In another Oct. 16 strike that killed two, two survivors were captured and sent back to Colombia and Mexico. In a series of four strikes on Oct 27 that killed 14, one survivor was left for retrieval by the Mexican coast guard.

Cotton said the protocol for handling survivors remains the same since the strikes began in early September. 

After reporting that a Sept. 2 strike on alleged narco-terrorists had left two survivors who were killed in a follow-up strike, lawmakers and legal analysts expressed concern that top military brass had violated the Pentagon’s Law of War manual, which deems attacking persons rendered ‘helpless’ due to ‘wounds, sickness or shipwreck’ is explicitly prohibited and described as ‘dishonorable and inhumane.’ Shipwrecked individuals are protected unless they resume hostile action or otherwise regain the capacity to pose an immediate threat.

But Pentagon officials have suggested the survivors may have been in a position to call for backup and that Bradley viewed that as a threat.

Hegseth has said he viewed the initial strike in real time, but was not present to view the second strike. He’s said he had no involvement in the decision to call for a second strike but stands by Bradley’s decision.

Bradley is now locked in a whirlwind day of meetings on Capitol Hill to explain his decision — he’s given separate briefings to the top lawmakers on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, House and Senate Armed Services Committees and top members on the defense appropriations subcommittees. 

A Pentagon inspector general report concluded that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth sent sensitive, nonpublic strike information over the encrypted app Signal using his personal phone, a violation of department policy, even as the watchdog affirms he has broad authority to classify or declassify military information.

According to the report, Hegseth violated War Department protocol that bars officials from conducting government business on personal devices and from using commercial messaging applications to transmit nonpublic Pentagon information.

Investigators found that Hegseth’s March 15 messages to a Signal chat — which included an uncleared journalist — closely tracked timelines contained in a SECRET//NOFORN operational email from Central Command. As the Pentagon’s top classification authority, he has the discretion to declassify information, but policy still prohibits using nonsecure, nonofficial channels to send it.

‘This Inspector General review is a TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth and proves what we knew all along — no classified information was shared. This matter is resolved, and the case is closed,’ the department’s chief spokesperson said in response to the report.

The secretary sent operational details roughly two to four hours before U.S. forces carried out a coordinated strike campaign on Houthi targets in Yemen. The IG found that doing so ‘risks potential compromise’ and ‘could cause harm to DoD personnel and mission objectives.’

‘The Secretary sent information identifying the quantity and strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory over an unapproved, unsecure network approximately 2 to 4 hours before the execution of those strikes. Although the Secretary wrote in his July 25 statement to the DoD OIG that ‘there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission,’’ the report states.

‘If this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes. Even though these events did not ultimately occur, the Secretary’s actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots.’

The report says Hegseth monitored the Yemen strikes from a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at his home with two aides and communicated with U.S. CENTCOM via classified channels before posting what he later described as an unclassified ‘summary’ to the Signal group.

Several Pentagon officials told investigators that Hegseth participated in additional Signal group chats — including one labeled ‘Defense Team Huddle’ — to assign tasks, discuss internal matters and, in at least one case, share similar operational information.

Officials also installed a special tethering system that allowed Hegseth to view and operate his personal phone from inside his secure Pentagon suite while the device remained physically outside the classified space. The IG said it could not determine whether this setup met security requirements.

Read the report below. App users: Click here

The controversy began after then–National Security Advisor Mike Waltz inadvertently added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Cabinet-level Signal chat in which Hegseth shared the strike details. The IG determined that including a journalist in the chat ‘risked U.S. personnel and security.’

Because many of the messages in the chat were auto-deleted before the Pentagon preserved them, the report also found that Hegseth violated federal record-keeping law, which requires officials to forward records from nonofficial messaging accounts to their government accounts within 20 days.

More than 160 House Democrats voted against a pair of bills Thursday aimed at keeping foreign influence out of U.S. schools.

Both pieces of legislation passed with bipartisan support, though Democrats’ top ranks opposed each one.

‘We just want to educate our children, focus on reading, writing and arithmetic, developing a holistic child, giving the ability to them to think critically,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told Fox News Digital when asked about the pushback.

‘We’re not going to be lectured by a group of Republicans who are dismantling the Department of Education in real-time. Literally 90% of the Department of Education as it existed last year is now gone.’

He accused Republicans of ‘attacking public education just like they’re attacking public health and attacking public safety.’

One of the two bills was led by House GOP Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern, R-Okla., and would block federal funds from elementary and secondary schools that have programs, cultural exchanges or other class-related activities that get dollars from the Chinese government.

It would also block federal funds from schools that either directly or indirectly get any kind of support from entities or people related to the Chinese government.

That bill passed 247–166, with 33 Democrats in favor and 166 against.

The second piece of legislation, led by Rep. Aaron Bean, R-Fla., would require every public elementary and secondary school to notify parents that they have a right to request information about any ‘foreign influence’ in their child’s school.

The notification would have to come via the school’s local education agency (LEA), bodies such as school boards that have administrative control over that and other schools in the area.

The second bill passed 247–164, with 33 Democrats in favor and 164 against.

Republicans argued these were commonsense bills aimed at keeping malign foreign influence out of U.S. schools.

But Democrats criticized both during debate on the House floor.

‘The bill gives no guidance on what acting directly or indirectly on behalf of means, or how you are supposed to know and how a parent’s contribution to a school program should be evaluated,’ Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said. ‘And really, are you supposed to scrutinize all parents’ contributions or just those from parents of Chinese American students?’