Over the last several years, criminals have exploited the culture of ‘Minnesota nice’ to steal billions of dollars in taxpayer funds in one of the most egregious frauds in our nation’s history. Under Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, these fraudsters—many of whom are not even American citizens—lined their pockets with money that was initially intended to feed hungry children, house disabled seniors, and provide services for young students with special needs.

Last week, I traveled with my team to Minneapolis to meet in person with the investigators, prosecutors, legislators, and community members on the front lines of combating this crime. Their frustration was palpable. There, we learned more about a transnational money laundering scheme that festered under President Joe Biden and the state’s political leadership. The scandal was unprecedented in its scope and scale. But so is President Trump’s plan to fix it by attacking fraud at the source—both in Minnesota and across the country.

At the president’s direction, the Treasury Department is examining the transfer of funds allegedly sent from the affected parts of Minnesota to other countries, including Somalia. These funds are often sent through money services businesses, which provide financial services outside the banking system. This money could have potentially been diverted to terrorist organizations, such as Al-Shabaab. Treasury has a long history of following the money to financially suffocate bad actors, like the mafia and Mexican drug cartels. Now we are doing the same to shut down Somali fraud rings.

As part of this effort, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the IRS are investigating financial institutions that may have played a role in abetting rampant fraud. Specifically, we are evaluating whether these institutions have complied with their legal obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act and Treasury’s regulations, which are designed to detect money laundering and safeguard the U.S. financial system from abuse.

Treasury is also taking steps to disrupt criminal networks from within. The fraud rings in Minnesota have many tentacles. But we will expose them all by offering incentives for whistleblowers who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement and identify perpetrators.

Beyond pinpointing the source of the fraud, it is critical that we prevent more taxpayer dollars from leaving the country for improper purposes. That’s why FinCEN has issued a Geographic Targeting Order for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties in Minnesota, which will require banks and money transmitters to report additional information about funds transferred outside of the United States valued at $3,000 or more. 

Treasury has also trained Minnesota law enforcement to utilize the data they gather from these reports to prevent this scandal from happening again. This will put a microscope on fraudulent businesses, advance prosecutions and assist in the recovery of funds laundered internationally.

If individuals are on welfare, they should not be in a financial position to send money overseas. And yet thousands still do. This means that American taxpayers are effectively supplementing the incomes of overseas individuals. 

This must stop. 

To assess the prevalence of this practice, Treasury’s Geographic Targeting Order requires financial institutions wiring money abroad from Hennepin and Ramsey Counties to check a box to indicate if the funds are from any federal, state, or local government benefit program.

Sadly, Minnesota does not have a monopoly on this sort of fraud. Similar misconduct is almost certainly happening in many other states, especially states like California, New York, and Illinois, which impose lax controls on the use of government benefit funds. In fact, our own Government Accountability Office estimates that the government may lose more than $500 billion each year to fraud. This is a staggering figure larger than the GDP of most countries. It represents up to 10% of federal tax revenues each year and approximately 1% to 2% of GDP.

Eliminating this fraud entirely would do more than any other federal measure to alleviate the burden on taxpayers and reduce the deficit. That is why President Donald Trump has created a new division within the Department of Justice with the sole purpose of prosecuting fraud nationally. 

The president wants to scale the model we have established in Minnesota to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in every corner of the country. Extraordinary crime requires an extraordinary response—and President Trump has provided that by launching the largest anti-fraud campaign of the 21st century.

Under previous administrations, criminals managed to turn government benefits into a multibillion-dollar business enterprise, systematically bilking taxpayers of their hard-earned money. But that ends now. President Trump has launched an all-of-government effort to recover stolen funds and prosecute tax thieves. He will give no quarter to fraudulent criminals—in Minnesota or anywhere else in the country.

The White House stood by its decision to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War on Thursday — even as watchdogs warn the change could cost taxpayers as much as $125 million.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a congressional research agency, the costs come primarily from the manpower the change would require.

‘Broadly, the costs would include staff time spent updating document templates, revising websites or modifying letterhead,’ the CBO’s report said.

‘The scale of those costs would depend on how aggressively DOD implemented the title and how it prioritized renaming activities over other ongoing missions.’

On the low end, the change could cost as little as $10 million, the CBO said.

Asked if the switch is worth the price tag, the White House told Fox News Digital the name is more in line with what the nation’s armed services are equipped to do. 

‘Under President Trump’s leadership, the now aptly named Department of War is refocused on readiness and lethality — and its title now reflects its status as the most powerful fighting force in the world. The White House is working hand-in-glove with the Department of War on implementation of the Executive Order,’ White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement.

The estimates of the name change hinge on whether the DOD intends to immediately replace items like stationery, signage, nameplates, uniforms, shirts and more — or whether those items can be phased out over time as they naturally make their way out of circulation. It also depends on whether the change is limited to the Department of Defense itself or all the defense-wide agencies under its purview.

Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office at the Department of War did not respond to a request for comment on its plans.

The report explains that the cost analysis is based on analogous changes to military bases from 2020 to 2023, removing the names of Confederate officers. In that change, the agency estimated implementing name revisions to nine bases would cost up to $5 million per station. Final estimates came out slightly under that projection at $39 million.

The name-change efforts began last year when President Donald Trump issued an executive order in September. The administration framed the move as a restoration of the department’s original design.

‘The Founders chose this name to signal our strength and resolve to the world. The name ‘Department of War,’ more than the current ‘Department of Defense,’ ensures peace through strength, as it demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our nation at a moment’s notice, not just to defend,’ the White House said in a statement at the time.

‘It was under this name that the Department of War, along with the later-formed Department of the Navy, won the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.’

The CBO noted the department’s name can be officially changed only by an act of Congress.

As President Donald Trump turns up the volume on his efforts to acquire Greenland from Denmark, two new national polls put a spotlight on the fact that most Americans oppose taking over the massive and crucially strategic island that lies between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.

Eighty-six percent of voters nationwide questioned in a Quinnipiac University poll said they would oppose military action to take over Greenland.

That includes 95% of Democrats, 94% of Independents, and even more than two-thirds (68%) of Republicans surveyed by Quinnipiac late last week through Monday.

Three-quarters of Americans questioned in a CNN poll conducted at the same time said they opposed a U.S. takeover of Greenland. Ninety-four percent of Democrats and eight in 10 Independents said they would oppose such a move, with Republicans split 50%-50%.

Meanwhile, by a 55%-37% margin, voters questioned in the Quinnipiac survey said they opposed any U.S. effort to try and buy Greenland.

But there’s a stark political divide on this question, with the vast majority of Democrats and nearly six in 10 Independents opposed to buying Greenland, and more than two-thirds of Republicans supporting such efforts.

‘The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security,’ the president argued in a social media post Wednesday.

And the president emphasized that ‘anything less’ than U.S. control of Greenland is ‘unacceptable.’

Trump’s push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland is causing tension with Denmark and other NATO allies who insist that the semiautonomous Danish territory should determine its own future. 

Trump officials are openly considering all options, including military force, to take Greenland, spurring bipartisan opposition from some in Congress.

Troops from several European countries deployed to Greenland this week for a brief two-day mission to bolster the territory’s defenses. 

France, Germany, Sweden and Norway are participating in the exercise, Fox News has learned. Leaders say the mission is meant to demonstrate they can deploy military assets ‘quickly.’ 

Fox News’ Gillian Turner and Greg Norman-Diamond contributed to this report.

The Senate advanced a three-bill spending package through its final procedural hurdle on Thursday, teeing up a final vote later in the day.

Lawmakers are in a mad dash to avert a partial government shutdown after just exiting the longest closure in history a few short months ago, and they have a deadline on Jan. 30 to beat.

Thursday’s first vote was a key test of whether the warring parties could come together or again fall victim to political divisions as they did in September. The overwhelmingly bipartisan vote proved, for now, that Senate Republicans and Democrats have a truce in the government funding battle.

The roughly $174 billion package, which cruised through the House last week, includes funding bills for commerce, justice, science and related agencies; energy and water development and related agencies; and interior, environment and related agencies.

If passed later on Thursday, it’ll mark six total spending bills that lawmakers have put on President Donald Trump’s desk.

But it’s only halfway to the magic dozen that are needed to fund the government. Many lawmakers acknowledge that given the short amount of time left before the deadline, and lingering issues with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill, a short-term funding extension, known as a continuing resolution (CR), will be needed to prevent a shutdown.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was hopeful that another round of funding bills brewing in the House could solve the DHS issue. But he didn’t shut down the possibility that lawmakers may need to use a CR just for that agency as political divisions bubble up.

‘That will be the hardest one for sure,’ Thune said. ‘And I can’t predict what happens, but I think you have to, you know, reserve some optionality.’

Congressional Democrats have put their foot down on the DHS funding bill, demanding restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the wake of the shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent.

But it’s unlikely Republicans will play ball with that request, meaning the bill will stay in limbo for the time being. That divide won’t be an easy mountain to climb, and the Senate is gearing up to leave for a week, returning to Washington, D.C., the week of the funding deadline.

Senate Democrats also don’t want to turn to a year-long CR, a good sign that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus are serious about finishing the work of funding the government.

Earlier this week, Schumer lauded Democratic negotiators who worked on the package, and noted that it was full of their own spending priorities meant to push back against Trump.

‘Their leadership stopped the worst of Donald Trump’s devastating cuts, protected investments that millions of Americans depend on, from education to housing to jobs,’ Schumer said. ‘Though this isn’t the finish line, it’s a good step in the right direction.’

House Democrats are demanding a congressional inquiry into the Trump administration’s criminal investigation of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is joining forces with Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., and other members of their party to ask Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to open the probe.

‘As Jerome Powell, the Trump-appointed Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, explained to the nation on Sunday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a sham criminal investigation into statements Chair Powell made about renovations to the Board’s historic building,’ the letter read.

‘That investigation is a flagrant attempt by the President to bully and intimidate the Board into setting interest rates not based on evidence, economic conditions, or the public interest but instead based on the President’s own whims.’

The Democrats called the DOJ’s probe a ‘systematic assault on the independence of our central bank.’

They asked Jordan to hold a public hearing on the issue and even potentially subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi and relevant Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to testify.

The investigation into Powell is being led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who accused Powell of not cooperating with her office’s search for information.

Pirro also suggested there was no immediate threat of a criminal indictment, something Powell mentioned in his statement responding to the probe.

‘The United States Attorney’s Office contacted the Federal Reserve on multiple occasions to discuss cost overruns and the chairman’s congressional testimony, but were ignored, necessitating the use of legal process—which is not a threat. The word ‘indictment’ has come out of Mr. Powell’s mouth, no one else’s,’ Pirro wrote on X.

‘None of this would have happened if they had just responded to our outreach. This office makes decisions based on the merits, nothing more and nothing less. We agree with the chairman of the Federal Reserve that no one is above the law, and that is why we expect his full cooperation.’

Powell said in a statement Sunday that DOJ was ‘threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June.’

He alleged, however, that the investigation was really motivated by the Fed’s independence in setting interest rates despite President Donald Trump publicly pressuring the body to lower them at a faster pace.

Trump has criticized Powell publicly on multiple occasions, including for the Fed’s pace of lowering interest rates.

Trump denied any involvement in starting the probe in an interview with NBC News earlier this week, though adding, ‘he’s certainly not very good at the Fed, and he’s not very good at building buildings.’

The president also told Reuters on Wednesday that he had no current plans to fire Powell.

The probe nevertheless has caused some heartburn on both sides of Capitol Hill, with virtually all Democrats and even some Republicans pushing back against it.

‘Pursuing criminal charges relating to his testimony on building renovations at a time when the nation’s economy requires focus and creates an unnecessary distraction,’ House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill, R-Ark., said in a statement. ‘The Federal Reserve is led by strong, capable individuals appointed by President Trump, and this action could undermine this and future Administrations’ ability to make sound monetary policy decisions.’

The White House referred Fox News Digital to the DOJ for comment on Democrats’ letter. Pirro’s office declined to comment.

Fox News Digital also reached out to Jordan’s office for comment but did not immediately hear back.

President Donald Trump seemed to remain ambivalent about the possibility of exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi taking over the country if the Islamic regime were to fall.

‘He seems very nice, but I don’t know how he’d play within his own country,’ Trump told Reuters during an interview on Wednesday. ‘And we really aren’t up to that point yet.

‘I don’t know whether or not his country would accept his leadership, and certainly if they would, that would be fine with me,’ he added.

Trump has yet to take a clear stance on Pahlavi since protests erupted in Iran late last month. On Jan. 8, during an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Trump said that he was unsure about meeting with Pahlavi amid the unrest in Iran, saying it might not be ‘appropriate.’

‘I’ve watched him, and he seems like a nice person, but I’m not sure that it would be appropriate at this point to do that as president,’ Trump said. ‘I think that we should let everybody go out there, and we see who emerges.’

Pahlavi has made repeated appeals to Trump amid the raging protests in Iran. On Jan. 9, after the Islamic regime instituted a sweeping internet blackout, Pahlavi posted ‘an urgent and immediate call’ to the president on X, urging him to ‘be prepared to intervene to help the people of Iran.’

The exiled crown prince made a similar plea during an appearance on ‘Sunday Morning Futures.’ He issued a message directly to Trump while speaking with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo.

‘You have already established your legacy as a man committed to peace and fighting evil forces,’ Pahlavi said on ‘Sunday Morning Futures.’ ‘There is a reason why people in Iran are renaming streets after your name. They know that you are totally opposite to Barack Obama or Joe Biden. They know you’re not going to throw them under the bus as they have had before.’

While Trump has publicly expressed his hesitation toward Pahlavi, there was reportedly a meeting between the exiled crown prince and high-level U.S. officials. The meeting was first reported by Axios and allegedly included White House special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The outlet noted that Pahlavi is trying to position himself as a ‘transitional’ leader in the event that the regime falls.

Pahlavi is the son of Iran’s last shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled the country for decades before being overthrown during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, during which time his family was forced to flee the country. The crown prince lives in exile to this day, unable to return to Iran.

President Donald Trump is slated to meet with Venezuela’s opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize recipient María Corina Machado at the White House Thursday. 

Trump announced Jan. 3 that the U.S. had captured dictator Nicolás Maduro and that the U.S. would be running Venezuela until a safe transition could occur. But instead of endorsing Machado, Trump cast doubt on her abilities to lead the country. 

‘I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,’ Trump told reporters on Jan. 3. ‘She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.’ 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the administration chose not to support Machado because the U.S. didn’t want to make similar mistakes to the ones it’s previously made in the Middle East in Latin America, although he said he had ‘tremendous admiration’ for Machado.

‘But there’s the mission that we are on right now. … A lot of people analyze everything that happens in foreign policy through the lens of Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan,’ Rubio said Jan. 4 in an interview with CBS. ‘This is not the Middle East. This is the Western Hemisphere, and our mission here is very different.’

A classified CIA assessment, which senior policymakers requested and presented to Trump, evaluated who would be the best fit to oversee an interim government in Venezuela following the overthrow of Maduro, a source familiar with the intelligence told Fox News Digital. Ultimately, it determined that Marduro’s vice president, Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, would be best situated to lead the country. 

Although the Washington Post reported that Trump was annoyed Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025 — an award he had hoped to receive and that Machado dedicated to him — the White House claimed that Trump’s choices were based on ‘realistic decisions.’ 

As a result, Trump has put his support behind Rodríguez who is now serving as interim president. On Wednesday, Trump shared he had a call with Rodríguez, and later described her as a ‘terrific’ person.’  

‘We are making tremendous progress, as we help Venezuela stabilize and recover,’ Trump said in a social media post Wednesday.

‘This partnership between the United States of America and Venezuela will be a spectacular one FOR ALL,’ Trump said. ‘Venezuela will soon be great and prosperous again, perhaps more so than ever before!’

Specifically, Trump said that he and Rodríguez discussed oil, minerals and national security matters. On Jan. 7, Trump announced that Venezuela would provide the U.S. with 50 million barrels of oil that would be sold ‘immediately.’

Rodríguez voiced similar sentiments following the call, and said that the two’s ‘courteous’ call ‘addressed a bilateral work agenda for the benefit of our peoples, as well as pending matters between our governments.’ 

Meanwhile, Machado has praised Trump for his role overthrowing Maduro, and told CBS News that the president and the U.S. have ‘done much more than anybody thought was possible.’

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital on what Trump and Machado planned to discuss. 

Fox News’ Morgan Phillips contributed to this report. 

Israel will reportedly honor slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk with an award for his efforts battling antisemitism.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office indicated that this recognition will take place at the International Conference on Combating Antisemitism, The Associated Press reported.

Kirk, who founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA, was assassinated while holding an event at Utah Valley University in September.

‘A lion-hearted friend of Israel, he fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization,’ Netanyahu said in a post on X on the day Kirk was fatally shot.

In the post, the Israeli leader called Kirk ‘an incredible human being’ whose ‘boundless pride in America and his valiant belief in free speech will leave a lasting impact.’

Kirk asserted in a post on X less than a month before he was killed, ‘Jew hate has no place in civil society. It rots the brain, reject it.’ 

Kirk, who was a supporter of Israel, indicated last year on ‘The Megyn Kelly Show’ that some in the pro-Israel camp had unfairly criticized him.

‘The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away. Not like we’re gonna be pro-Hamas,’ he said. ‘But we’re like, honestly, the way you are treating me is so repulsive.’

‘I have text messages, Megyn, calling me an antisemite. I am learning biblical Hebrew and writing a book on the Shabbat. I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish sabbath. I visit Israel and fight for it,’ he noted at the time.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A Senate Republican wants to codify President Donald Trump’s desire to cap credit card interest rates, but it’s an idea that’s already been met with resistance among top Republicans.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., plans to introduce legislation that would make good on Trump’s push to cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year. However, Republican leadership in both chambers has already pushed back against the idea, arguing that it could lead to credit scarcity.

Marshall’s bill, the Consumer Affordability Protection Act, would limit the amount that credit card companies could charge for one year, capping the ceiling at Trump’s desired rate of 10%.

That cap would only apply to banks and financial institutions with over $100 billion in assets, with the idea being that smaller community banks and most credit unions would not be affected.

Marshall said in a statement to Fox News Digital that the legislation was about ‘giving families breathing room, restoring fairness in the marketplace, and making sure the American Dream is still within reach for everyone who works hard and plays by the rules.’

‘Credit cards were meant to be a tool — not a trap,’ Marshall said. ‘Right now, millions of hard-working Americans are getting crushed by outrageous interest rates that make it nearly impossible to pay down debt and get ahead.’

The bill follows Trump’s demand that Americans no longer be ‘‘ripped off’ by credit card companies that are charging interest rates of 20 to 30%, and even more, which festered unimpeded during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration.’

He set a target date for the cap of Jan. 20, the one-year anniversary of his inauguration to his second term in office.

‘AFFORDABILITY! Effective January 20, 2026, I, as President of the United States, am calling for a one year cap on Credit Card Interest Rates of 10%,’ Trump said on Truth Social.

Marshall’s push isn’t his first foray into the world of credit — he and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., have a long-simmering bill that would boost competition among credit card payment networks. Trump endorsed that legislation earlier this week, and the bipartisan duo reintroduced it in the Senate shortly after.

Durbin and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., are co-sponsors of Marshall’s latest bill. Trump and Marshall also have an unlikely ally in Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. The progressive lawmaker spoke with the president earlier this week about affordability, and both found middle ground on their desire to cap credit card interest rates. But she was wary that any real action, either from the White House or the GOP-controlled Congress, would come to fruition. 

‘I supported it for years,’ Warren said. ‘And when he first floated the idea over a year ago, I said, ‘I’m all in,’ and so far, Trump hasn’t done anything.’

But despite Trump’s edict and the patchwork of bipartisan support, the top Republicans in Congress aren’t completely sold on the idea.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., warned that capping credit card interest rates could ‘probably deprive an awful lot of people of access to credit around the country.’

‘Credit cards will probably become debit cards,’ Thune said. ‘So, yeah, I mean, that’s not something I’m out there advocating for.’

And House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., warned of ‘unintended consequences’ of such a change.

‘One of the things that the president probably had not thought through is the negative secondary effect: they would just stop lending money, and maybe they cap what people are able to borrow at a very low amount,’ Johnson said.

Tense scenes played out in the House of Representatives on Tuesday night as a group of moderate Republicans took a stand against a trio of GOP-led labor rule bills.

One of those bills failed to pass, while the other two were quickly scuttled to avoid the same fate — an embarrassing blow to House Republican leadership and the majority of GOP lawmakers who supported them.

It’s an example of a situation that has been growing increasingly common in Congress’ lower chamber as Republicans wrestle with a party-line majority of anywhere between three and one vote, depending on attendance that day.

‘We’ve got simple bills like this that should be a no-brainer, and we’ve got several moderate Rs that are going to kill the bill,’ Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital on the sidelines just before the first bill failed. ‘What I foresee, and you’re seeing it in appropriations bills, they don’t care about guys like me … they’re just working with the Democrats to pass them.’

Several Republicans who spoke with Fox News Digital this week said there’s growing concern about Democrats growing their number of legislative victories despite Republicans holding the gavel — or potentially using their numbers to take over the agenda.

As Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., put to reporters last week, ‘We are one flu season away from losing the majority.’

Steube said he did not believe Democrats could actually take the speaker’s gavel but conceded the situation was tenuous. He pointed to the recent sudden death of Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., as an example.

‘You’re a heart attack and a car accident away from the majority. There’s people in our conference that are not young people. I mean, you saw what just happened with LaMalfa. In my opinion, he was young, 65. We have people who are much older in the conference,’ he said Tuesday night.

‘Now, Democrats couldn’t take over the gavel, but like, what you’re seeing here, you’ve got attendance issues, you’ve got seven Republicans voting with the Democrats. You lose more than two, you’re toast.’

Despite that, however, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., denied there was a fight for the agenda on Tuesday night.

‘We’re totally in control of the House,’ he told reporters. 

He added, however, that leaders were watching attendance closely.

‘They’d better be here,’ Johnson said of his members. ‘I told everybody, and not in jest, I said, no adventure sports, no risk-taking, take your vitamins. Stay healthy and be here.’

It comes after several recent incidents that have put their tenuous grasp on the House in perspective for Republicans.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., abruptly resigned earlier this year after publicly falling out with President Donald Trump. Rep. Jim Baird, R-Ind., returned on Tuesday badly bruised from a car accident that he spent the week prior recovering from.

And just this week, Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., said he is home recovering from major brain surgery. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., is in his district caring for his ill wife.

Beyond conversations about their own mortality, it’s also spurred discussion among some Republicans about what unexpected life events could do to their majority.

‘The margins are really, really close. A few of us were in a car the other day, driving … if that became an accident, that would have tipped the scale. So I think it’s a concern to be vigilant, prudent, and just understand that the consequences of an accident may have, you know, consequences outside of the norm,’ Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., told Fox News Digital.

He also warned his fellow Republicans, as a former Navy SEAL, to be mindful of unsafe situations.

‘Say some evil mind wants to change the majority in the House — we don’t have the same protection that the president does. And that’s why I say just remain vigilant,’ Zinke said. ‘I have faith that we’ll continue, but I think it should be a concern, because it’s a big deal to change power outside of a normal election cycle.’

One House Republican speaking to Fox News Digital anonymously pointed out that there appeared to be more Democrats than Republicans voting on a slate of bills — albeit, relatively uncontroversial ones — on Monday night.

‘I’d guess they’re terrified,’ the lawmaker said of GOP leaders on Tuesday. ‘Sometimes life happens — look at Derrick Van Orden … car accidents, COVID, or flu. I mean, I don’t think we had the majority last night.’

‘They’re going to have to get smart about the calendar, probably break some arms,’ that GOP lawmaker said. ‘It’s kind of unprecedented. I don’t know how it would work. Say, unfortunately, someone else passed. You can’t fix that. You may have to wait a few months. You might have to strip committees. There’s a whole lot of uncharted waters to deal with.’

There are also more than a dozen GOP lawmakers running for higher office — something that could also spur absences, as South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., pointed out.

She dismissed fears of Democrats taking over the agenda, however.

‘Certainly there’s concern with the slim majority. There are many of us that are running for higher office as well, and as the debate season gets underway, there’s going to be members that miss votes to make debates and to be campaigning,’ Mace said.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital he was not worried about Democrats taking over the floor but conceded there was tension over the slim margins for Republicans.

‘I know they’re carefully watching attendance,’ Ogles said. ‘I think the joke is that no two members should travel together at this point.’

But not all House Republicans are agonizing over how the politics of the situation are playing out.

One moderate GOP lawmaker who spoke with Fox News Digital anonymously said the thin majority could save Republicans in the middle from taking politically perilous votes.

‘It gives folks in the center a little more juice on preventing bills from coming to the floor,’ they said.

An example they used is Thursday morning’s expected vote on a bill dealing with the joint-employer labor rule, telling Fox News Digital, ‘There’s an active effort among pro-labor Republicans to block that from coming to the floor, and we can only really get that done in our majority.’