The House voted Wednesday to pass its yearly defense bill that would give junior enlisted troops a significant pay bump and work to eliminate DEI programs at the Pentagon.

It passed 281-140, with 16 Republicans voting no. Only 81 Democrats voted yes – 124 voting no – a much larger margin than in years passed when the legislation typically enjoyed bipartisan support. 

Many Democrats opposed a provision of the bill that restricts coverage of transgender treatments for minors. 

The legislation now heads to the Senate for passage before heading to President Joe Biden’s desk for signature. 

The 1,800-page bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), details how $895.2 billion allocated toward defense and national security will be spent. It will be voted on more than two months after the start of the fiscal year. 

The $895.2 billion represents a 1% increase over last year’s budget, a smaller number than some defense hawks would have liked. 

A significant portion of the legislation focused on quality-of-life improvements for service members amid record recruitment issues, a focus of much bipartisan discussion over the last year. That includes a 14.5% pay increase for junior enlisted troops and increasing access to child care for service members while also providing job support to military spouses.

The measure authorizes a 4.5% across-the-board pay raise for all service members starting Jan. 1. 

The NDAA typically enjoys wide bipartisan support, but this year’s focus on eliminating ‘woke’ policies could be hard for Democrats to stomach.

The policy proposal to prohibit Tricare, the military’s health care provider, from covering transgender services for the minor dependents of service members has raised concerns, prompting the leading Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, to reconsider his support for the bill.

‘Blanketly denying health care to people who clearly need it, just because of a biased notion against transgender people, is wrong,’ he said in a statement. ‘This provision injected a level of partisanship not traditionally seen in defense bills.’

The goal of that provision is to prevent any ‘medical interventions that could result in sterilization’ of minors.

Other provisions, like a blanket ban on funding for gender transition surgeries for adults, did not make their way into the bill, neither did a ban on requiring masks to prevent the spread of diseases. 

The bill also supports deploying the National Guard to the southern border to help with illegal immigrant apprehensions and drug flow. 

Another provision opens the door to allowing airmen and Space Force personnel to grow facial hair; it directs the secretary of the Air Force to brief lawmakers on ‘the feasibility and advisability’ of establishing a pilot program to test out allowing beards. 

Democrats are also upset the bill did not include a provision expanding access to IVF for service members. Currently, military health care only covers IVF for troops whose infertility is linked to service-related illness or injury.

But the bill did not include an amendment to walk back a provision allowing the Pentagon to reimburse service members who have to travel out of state to get an abortion.

The bill extends a hiring freeze on DEI-related roles and stops all such recruitment until ‘an investigation of the Pentagon’s DEI programs’ can be completed.

It also bans the Defense Department from contracting with advertising companies ‘that blacklist conservative news sources,’ according to an internal GOP memo.

The memo said the NDAA also guts funding for the Biden administration’s ‘Countering Extremist Activity Working Group’ dedicated to rooting out extremism in the military’s ranks. The annual defense policy bill also does not authorize ‘any climate change programs’ and prohibits the Pentagon from issuing climate impact-based guidance on weapons systems.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., touted $31 billion in savings in the legislation that would come from cutting ‘inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and bloated Pentagon bureaucracy.’

The compromise NDAA bill, negotiated between Republican and Democrat leadership, sets policy for the nation’s largest government agency, but a separate defense spending bill must be passed to allocate funds for such programs.

Longtime Biden confidante and former senior adviser Anita Dunn criticized the president’s handling of his son Hunter’s pardon on Wednesday, saying that she disagreed with the ‘timing’ and the ‘rationale’ while describing it as an ‘attack on our judicial system.’

‘Had this pardon been done at the end of the term in the context of compassion the way many pardons will be done, I’m sure, and many commutations will be done, I think it would have been a different story,’ Dunn told a New York Times panel at the DealBook Summit 2024.

‘So I will say, I absolutely agree with the president’s decision here, I do not agree with the way it was done, I don’t agree with the timing, and I don’t agree frankly with the attack on our judicial system.’

When asked by the moderator to elaborate on her ‘attack on our judicial system comment,’ Dunn said, ‘I think the president’s statement has to be taken at its face value and clearly, like everyone else in the world, he has the prerogative of changing his mind, and that is indeed what he kind of said and he did there.’ 

‘I think that from a Democratic Party perspective, from a Democratic perspective, as we were in the midst of the president-elect rolling out his nominees and in particular in the middle of a Kash Patel weekend, kind of throwing this into the middle of it was exceptionally poor timing, and that the argument is one that I think many observers are concerned about a president who ran to restore the rule of law, who has upheld the rule of law, who has really defended the rule of law, kind of saying, ‘well, maybe not right now,” she said.

Dunn, who served as a political strategist and adviser to Biden on his 2020 campaign and a senior adviser in the Biden White House until leaving for the Harris campaign this summer, went on to reiterate that she agrees with the pardon, but disagreed with the ‘timing,’ the ‘argument’ and the ‘rationale.’

Fox News Digital reached out to White House but did not immediately receive a response. 

Dunn added that she was never part of any conversation at the White House about pardoning Hunter besides what to tell the press, which she says was a one-word answer: ‘No.’

Dunn’s comments come as recent polling shows that Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter after previously vowing on several occasions he would not give his son a pass has the approval of only 20% of Americans.

Dunn’s comments drew immediate reaction on social media, including from former Jill Biden press secretary Michael LaRose, who posted on X, ‘Yikes.’

President Biden attempted to make the case when he pardoned his son earlier this month that Hunter had been unfairly prosecuted. 

‘Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter,’ Biden wrote in a statement at the time. ‘From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted.’

‘Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form,’ Biden added. ‘Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.’

The president also referenced his son’s battle with addiction and blamed ‘raw politics’ for the unraveling of Hunter’s plea deal.

‘There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution,’ the 82-year-old father wrote. ‘In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.’

A Marine lieutenant colonel from Ohio who publicly spoke out against the Afghanistan withdrawal will lead rank-and-file service members door-to-door in the Senate next week in support of defense nominee Pete Hegseth.

Stuart Scheller, who was imprisoned in a Jacksonville, N.C., brig for his public criticisms of military brass, told Fox News Digital Wednesday he is organizing enlisted men and women to engage with senators next Wednesday.

Scheller stressed that service members who are participating are not prominent fellows at think tanks or in any governmental or related seats of power. 

‘Pete has made public comments that he wants to move to a meritocracy, and he believes that we need more courage in the ranks. So, I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have been reprimanded [if he was secretary],’ Scheller said.

‘I still think there probably was some reprimand that needed to happen, but it would go across the board.

‘The difference is, if Pete was the secretary of defense, the general officers would have also been held accountable [for the botched withdrawal], and I would not have had to go to the lengths that I had to go to bring attention to the situation.’

Scheller said that, in the last decade or two, the U.S. military is ‘not winning anything, and we need to turn it into a winning organization.’

Scheller said Hegseth has planned to hold accountable Pentagon leaders who have ‘become stagnant’ in the lieutenant colonel’s words.

He also stressed that Hegseth is the first Pentagon nominee in decades who is not from the officer corps or defense contracting firms.

Outgoing Secretary Lloyd Austin III is a retired CENTCOM general but also came from the board of Raytheon.

‘Forty years to become a four-star general really removes you from the forces,’ Scheller said of the past several officer-corps secretary choices overall.

‘Pete’s middle management — a major. I mean, he’s like the perfect guy … and he’s been sitting here talking to veterans when he was developing his book, trying to understand their pulse and the heartbeat. So, that book that he wrote probably prepared him in terms of the current culture and sentiment and frustrations more than any other secretary of defense.’

As for his plans for the Hill next week, Scheller said he and fellow service members are focused on those who may appear to be on the fence about Hegseth.

‘I’m looking for more [of] the right people than the total quantity,’ he said.

Scheller will also release a video announcing his Wednesday mission.

‘[Hegseth] is a combat veteran from our generation and … he’s not a puppet for the military industrial complex. He’s not going to end up on one of their boards like every general officer of our generation,’ Scheller says in the video.

‘I’m going to be in Washington, D.C., walking through the halls of the U.S. Senate, talking to all the U.S. senators, advocating for peace.’

The incoming chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is pledging a thorough accounting of how taxpayer dollars have been used by the State Department when he takes the reins of the influential panel next year.

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., is expected to take the helm from current Chair Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who is term-limited.

‘When you’re dealing with the State Department, it is dollars going to foreign companies, foreign countries, foreign NGOs and, like Afghanistan, foreign adversaries – the Taliban. And that needs – to have to use a word out there – a colonoscopy, to say the least,’ Mast told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.

‘That will be the focus of the committee. That will be the focus of each and every subcommittee – is getting into each of the branches of the bureaus across the State Department, working with [Trump Secretary of State nominee Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.], of course, and … really having a way to put sunlight on this in a way that this [Biden] administration did not allow.’

Mast said he wants the State Department to be required to notify Congress of each grant it issues, ‘So we have eyes on where you’re sending these dollars, to third-party and fourth-party and fifth-party places abroad, and be able to [say], ‘No, that’s not one that we’re going to authorize.’’

The decorated Afghanistan war veteran won a crowded four-way race to succeed McCaul as the top Republican on the House committee overseeing the State Department and U.S. foreign relations.

He’s been in Congress for less time than the Republicans he ran against, but Mast has stood out as one of Trump’s most crucial allies in the 2024 presidential campaign.

Mast led the Veterans For Trump coalition and was a surrogate at several events related to service members.

The Florida Republican is also notably less hawkish on Ukraine than two of the Republicans he ran against: Reps. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., and Joe Wilson, R-S.C., as well as McCaul.

Like Trump, he’s critical of continued U.S. aid to Ukraine and has voted against supplemental funding in the past.

‘President Trump wants Ukraine to have victory. He wants this to absolutely be a reprimand [of] the actions of Russia and [President] Vladimir Putin, and he wants to bring this to an end promptly. He has a plan for doing that. He will execute that, and he will have every bit of my support in doing that as the authorizing side of foreign affairs for the House,’ Mast said.

He also pointed out his deep relationships with the Trump administration, including ties to Rubio and Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., the incoming national security adviser.

Asked if his ties to Trump were part of his argument to win the gavel, Mast said that it ‘certainly was.’

But his overall aim for the committee, Mast said, would be based on the principle of ‘Every diplomat and every dollar puts America first.’

‘If you’re a diplomat that’s out there apologizing for America and not putting America first, you’re going to be under our microscope. That’s for sure. And I hope that has a chilling effect on them,’ Mast said while pointing out that Rubio would likely be a partner in that goal.

‘But as we all know, when our colleagues get these opportunities to take over these agencies … you go in there with years and years and years of decades-long employees there that maybe are not ideologically aligned. Well, guess what? If you were one of the 15 people that were signing on to spending half a million American taxpayer dollars on atheism, then you should know that we’re looking for you.’

President-elect Trump’s pick for FBI director, Kash Patel, said Wednesday that he is seeking a ‘smooth transition’ to replace Christopher Wray, who had announced just moments earlier that he plans to step down from his post leading the bureau at the end of the Biden administration.

‘I look forward to a smooth transition,’ Patel told Fox News Digital on Wednesday in response to the announcement from Wray. ‘I will be ready to serve the American people on day one.’

Trump, during his first term as president, had tapped Wray to replace James Comey. Trump fired Comey in 2017, fewer than four years into his tenure.

Trump said earlier this month that he planned to replace Wray with Patel, a close ally of the president-elect. Patel served in the first Trump administration, both as a deputy assistant and as the senior director for counterterrorism. 

In a statement shared on Truth Social, Trump praised the news of Wray’s resignation, describing it as a ‘great day for America’ and a departure that would end what Trump has repeatedly criticized as the ‘Weaponization’ of the Justice Department. 

‘Kash Patel is the most qualified Nominee to lead the FBI in the Agency’s History, and is committed to helping ensure that Law, Order, and Justice will be brought back to our Country again, and soon,’ Trump added. 

The remarks from Patel and Trump came shortly after Wray told FBI employees on Wednesday he planned to step down from his position as FBI director at the end of President Biden’s tenure in January.

‘After weeks of careful thought, I’ve decided the right thing for the Bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current Administration in January and then step down,’ Wray told FBI employees, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. ‘My goal is to keep the focus on our mission — the indispensable work you’re doing on behalf of the American people every day. In my view, this is the best way to avoid dragging the Bureau deeper into the fray, while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.’

This is a breaking news story. Check back shortly for updates.

After a number of key legislative priorities related to cracking down on China failed to make it into the yearly defense bill, Republicans are working on ways to get them signed into law before the end of the year. 

On Wednesday, the House will vote on the sprawling 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets policy plans for the Pentagon’s $895 billion budget. That legislation was negotiated between Republican and Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate and typically enjoys wide bipartisan support. 

And while the package will not advance legislation aimed at cracking down on U.S. dollars flowing toward Chinese Communist Party-affiliated companies, Republicans will push to include those provisions, which are a key priority for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in other must-pass legislation.

With a government funding deadline in 10 days, those measures could be included in a continuing resolution (CR), which would punt the funding deadline down the road and keep budgets at FY 2024 levels, multiple sources familiar with negotiations confirmed to Fox News Digital. 

‘During the course of negotiations on the annual defense bill, significant progress was made towards achieving consensus on provisions to counter China and strengthen our economic security. That momentum remains and more time is needed to get that important work done with the goal of passage before the end of the year,’ Johnson said in a statement. 

One provision that was left out would prevent the U.S. from investing in the development of military technologies, a way to codify a rule put forward by President Biden’s Treasury Department.

The rule prohibits U.S. financing of some China-based ventures and requires Americans to notify the government of their involvement in others. 

It restricts and monitors U.S. investments in artificial intelligence, computer chips and quantum computing, all of which have a dual use in the defense and commercial sectors. 

The rule seeks to limit the access ‘countries of concern,’ like China, including Hong Kong and Macao, have to U.S. dollars to fund the development of high-level technologies like next-generation missile systems and fighter jets they could then utilize for their own military. It’s set to take effect Jan. 2.  

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., demanded that outbound investments piece not be included in the negotiated NDAA, three sources familiar with the negotiations confirmed. 

Some mused that Democrats put up a fight over China provisions because they were frustrated with another provision Republicans insisted on including: a ban on military health care providers from paying for transgender operations like sex changes for dependent minors if it would leave them sterile.

Politico was first to report about the back-and-forth. 

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would not vote for the legislation – which includes big pay raises for junior troops – over the transgender provision. 

And in a relief for Chinese biotechnology companies, the Biosecure Act, which prohibits the U.S. government from contracting with companies that do business with a ‘biotechnology company of concern,’ has been left out of the NDAA. 

Three sources familiar with the negotiations told Fox News Digital that Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., stood in the way of the legislation’s inclusion in the negotiated defense bill.

Raskin could not be reached for comment on his opposition. 

McGovern opposed the bill when it came up for a stand-alone vote in the House. 

‘The Biosecure Act, is a weak bill, and as written, it could actually make the problem even worse,’ he said in a statement. 

‘First, naming specific companies will create a ‘whack-a-mole’ situation where entities can change their name and reincorporate to evade sanctions,’ he went on. ‘Second, it’s totally wrong to call out specific companies without any formal investigation or interagency process – that might be how they do things in the [People’s Republic of China], but this is the United States of America where we ought to have a thorough, independent investigation.’

In September, Fox News Digital reported that lawmakers were aware of a machine operated by a Chinese military company in use at the nation’s most secretive government laboratories. 

The machine operated by Chinese biotech company BGI is in use at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico. 

BGI, among other companies, is included in a ban in the Biosecure Act. 

Also among them is WuXi Biologics, a company that planned to build a $300 million biomedical plant in McGovern’s district. 

Attaching the China outbound investment provision and the Biosecure Act to must-pass legislation would ensure it doesn’t die in the Democratic-led Senate the way House GOP-led bills often do. 

President-elect Trump said Christopher Wray’s resignation is a ‘great day for America,’ telling Fox News Digital it ‘will end the weaponization’ of the FBI, while touting his nominee Kash Patel as the ‘most qualified’ to lead the bureau. 

Wray announced Wednesday afternoon his plans to resign in January 2025. 

‘The resignation of Christopher Wray is a great day for America as it will end the weaponization of what has become known as the United States Department of Injustice,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘I just don’t know what happened to him.’ 

Trump said his administration ‘will now restore the rule of law for all Americans.’ 

‘Under the leadership of Christopher Wray, the FBI illegally raided my home, without cause, worked diligently on illegally impeaching and indicting me, and has done everything else to interfere with the success and future of America,’ Trump told Fox News Digital. ‘They have used their vast powers to threaten and destroy many innocent Americans, some of which will never be able to recover from what has been done to them.’ 

The president-elect looked ahead to his nominee to lead the bureau, Kash Patel. 

‘Kash Patel is the most qualified nominee to lead the FBI in the Agency’s History, and is committed to helping ensure that Law, Order, and Justice will be brought back to our Country again, and soon,’ Trump said. ‘As everyone knows, I have great respect for the rank-and-file of the FBI, and they have great respect for me. They want to see these changes every bit as much as I do but, more importantly, the American People are demanding a strong, but fair, system of justice.’ 

‘We want our FBI back, and that will now happen,’ he continued. ‘I look forward to Kash Patel’s confirmation, so that the process of Making the FBI Great Again can begin.’ 

During a town hall Wednesday, Wray announced his plans to resign next month. 

‘After weeks of careful thought, I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,’ Wray said during the town hall. ‘My goal is to keep the focus on  our mission – the indispensable work you’re doing on behalf of the American people every day. In my view, this is the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.’

The FBI director said the decision was not easy for him, adding he loves the FBI, its mission and people.

Wray is seven years into his 10-year term. 

Trump appointed Wray in 2017 after he fired former Director James Comey from the post. 

Trump nominated Kash Patel to serve as FBI director earlier this month, giving Wray the option to leave on his own or be fired.

While Wray’s last day is still undecided, it is expected to be in January before Trump’s inauguration.

The moment Wray leaves, Deputy Director Paul Abbate will become acting director until the new director is in place. Abbate is a career official who is eligible to retire from the bureau soon. He planned months ago to retire in the new year. 

Meanwhile, Patel has been meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week and has received a warm reception. 

Patel’s experience ranges from personally carrying out dangerous missions in the Middle East in an effort to bring home U.S. hostages to implementing counterterrorism strategies against America’s most-wanted terrorists. 

Current and former U.S. national security officials and lawmakers say that when looking at his résumé ‘objectively,’ he is ‘one of the most experienced people ever to be nominated’ to lead the bureau. 

During the first Trump administration, Patel served as a deputy assistant to Trump and as senior director for counterterrorism. In that role, Patel was involved in presidential missions aimed at decimating al Qaeda senior leadership and ISIS command and control. Patel was involved in the planning of the mission to take out Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, among others. 

Patel also was involved in efforts to bring some of the most-wanted terrorists to the U.S. for prosecution, and worked on Trump administration efforts to return dozens of U.S. hostages back home.

Beyond his counterterrorism work, Patel was heavily involved in U.S. strategy to counter Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean efforts against U.S. interests. He also worked on the implementation of multimillion-dollar sanctions against foreign adversaries. 

Prior to working as a deputy to Trump and in the NSC, Patel worked in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) as the principal deputy to the acting DNI Ric Grenell and helped former Director John Ratcliffe transition into the role. Trump nominated Ratcliffe last month to serve as the director of the CIA.  

At ODNI, Patel also worked to focus intelligence collection against counter narcotic and transnational threats. 

It has been nearly 14 months since my brother-in-law, Omri Miran, was taken hostage by Hamas during the devastating attacks of Oct. 7, 2023. These have been months of anguish and uncertainty for my family and for the families of the 100 individuals still held captive after Hamas kidnapped 251 people from Israel to the Gaza Strip. We have advocated tirelessly with the Israeli government, the U.S. administration, and the international community, but our loved ones remain in captivity.

The recent U.S. elections, which delivered a Republican trifecta and Donald Trump’s return to the White House, have sparked intense debates about what this shift means for America and the world. While other issues are as important for us, the families of hostages, there is only one thing on our minds: How can this new political reality provide the best opportunity yet to break the deadlock and bring the hostages home?

The situation is complex, but at its heart, the release of the hostages hinges on one thing: leverage. For a deal to happen, Israel must feel secure enough to make compromises, Hamas and its backers must feel compelled to negotiate, and the United States must be the guarantor of a credible path forward. Republican-controlled executive and legislative branches may have the tools, relationships, and political capital to make this happen, and there are already signs of a (cautious) change emerging from the talks in Cairo between Egypt and Hamas.

For Israel, the issue of security guarantees is paramount. The Israeli government has consistently emphasized that any ceasefire or hostage release deal must be tied to a broader framework ensuring that Hamas will no longer control Gaza. A post-war Gaza without Hamas is a non-negotiable Israeli demand, yet it requires a robust international framework to ensure implementation. Trump, with his historically close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has the credibility to push Israel toward the compromises necessary to secure the hostages’ release while reassuring its leadership that America will stand firm on ensuring Hamas’ disarmament and exclusion from Gaza’s future governance, and Israel’s right to re-engage if Hamas and their accomplices violate the ceasefire at any point. Such guarantees should not be limited to the next four years; they should be incorporated into a long-term defense agreement between the U.S. and Israel.

On the other side, Hamas operates under the patronage of powerful sponsors—namely Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. These countries provide Hamas with financial, logistical, and diplomatic support, thus holding considerable sway over its decisions. Under the Biden administration, these relationships were diplomatically acknowledged but never effectively leveraged. While the Biden team showed incredible empathy and determination in advocating for the hostages, internal divisions within the Democratic Party and the fact it had to manage such conflict during an election year undermined its ability to exert consistent and unified pressure on all the players involved.

… the Trump administration’s track record of a transactional approach to diplomacy, paired with a hardline stance on Iran and an unapologetic alliance with Israel, creates a different dynamic. 

In contrast, the Trump administration’s track record of a transactional approach to diplomacy, paired with a hardline stance on Iran and an unapologetic alliance with Israel, creates a different dynamic. Iran, Qatar, and Turkey would likely interpret Trump’s demands as less flexible and more consequential than Biden’s. These nations—especially Qatar, which has acted as a mediator—must be compelled to press Hamas into concessions. With Trump in office and a Republican Congress backing him, the U.S. can create a cohesive and credible threat that changes the calculus for Hamas and its sponsors.

Critics will argue that Trump’s return to power brings risks, including escalating regional tensions. However, in this case, Trump’s willingness to take bold, even controversial, actions could lead to a breakthrough. His administration’s Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, showcased a capacity to upend long-standing diplomatic impasses through unconventional methods. That same approach could be applied here.

The Biden administration’s efforts should not be overlooked. President Biden personally supported the families of hostages, showing compassion and a deep understanding of our pain. His administration worked diligently, especially for the American hostages, and his leadership has left an indelible mark on the international response to the crisis. However, deep divisions within his party hamstrung his ability to pressure all sides effectively. Progressive voices critical of Israeli policy complicated U.S.-Israeli coordination, while a lack of unified strategy and urgency limited the administration’s engagement with Hamas’ backers.

Now, with Trump’s return, the game has changed. His alignment with Netanyahu and his hawkish stance on Iran makes it possible to align U.S. and Israeli priorities in a way that was more challenging under the previous administration. Moreover, a Republican Congress can provide the unified legislative support needed to back bold executive actions, from increased military aid for Israel to sanctions or diplomatic maneuvers targeting Hamas’ sponsors.

This is not to suggest that the path forward will be simple or painless. The scars left by October 7 will not heal quickly, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza demands urgent attention. However, ending this cycle of violence requires a solution that addresses all sides’ core concerns. A ceasefire tied to the release of the hostages and a post-war reality in Gaza that excludes Hamas offers a framework that, while challenging, is achievable.

For families like mine, this is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of life and death. We need leadership that can break through the impasse and deliver results. If the Republican trifecta can provide Israel with the guarantees it needs and compel Hamas’ sponsors to act, then this moment must not be wasted.

Omri and 99 more hostages, at least half are believed to be alive by Israel’s intelligence community, are waiting. Their freedom depends on the courage and determination to seize this opportunity.

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., excoriated Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the estimated ‘tens of billions’ of U.S. taxpayer dollars he says have been sent to the Taliban since U.S. troops withdrew from Afghanistan. 

Mast, who was selected a day earlier to become the new chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee next month, grilled Blinken over the Biden administration’s handling of the chaotic August 2021 withdrawal. 

The current committee chair, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, issued multiple subpoenas in September for Blinken to testify. Under threat of a contempt of Congress vote, he finally agreed. 

Mast asked the U.S.’ top diplomat if he had been in Afghanistan since the killing of 13 U.S. service members and roughly 170 Afghan civilians by a suicide bombing attack at Hamid Karzai International Airport’s Abbey Gate, and Blinken responded that he had not. Noting that the United States no longer has control of the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan, Mast said, ‘yet we are still giving the Taliban tens of billions of dollars.’ 

‘There’s an American citizen out there, literally woke up this morning losing 30% of their paycheck. And a good percentage of that is going to the Taliban or other programs abroad,’ Mast said. ‘And this is something that we all need to think about, and we will be thinking about deeply for the next two years. There’s a joke that’s made often out there about kids going to college to learn basket weaving, and what a joke that would be. But the United States right now is literally sending tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban. 14.9 million, to be exact, to teach Afghans how to do carpet weaving.’ 

‘We are giving $280 million to the United Nations to do cash transfers for food in Afghanistan,’ Mast continued. ‘Yet we’re not sending an ear of corn from Iowa, a sack of potatoes from Idaho, or a cucumber or an orange from Florida. And that discounts the fact that there’s no American tonnage going through our ports to send those things out of here, either. It’s just cash transfers.’ 

Citing reports by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), which tracks the status of U.S. funds appropriated for reconstruction efforts, Mast said another $75 million has been sent to teach women to become farmers. 

‘I don’t believe that we spend $30 million in the United States of America to teach women to be farmers,’ Mast said. 

Earlier, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., stressed how since Afghanistan fell to the Taliban ‘women have effectively been banished from public life, unable to speak in public or holding a job, including nursing.’ 

‘My colleague Mr. Wilson brought up that they can’t even dance in the streets or speak to one another or go to school. I’m not sure that we can trust that that $75 million is being used to teach them agriculture,’ Mast said. ‘And as you pointed out, we don’t have any diplomats on the ground to confirm the validity of these programs.’ 

Mast also asked Blinken to explain the $3.5 billion transferred to the Afghan fund ‘that is tended to protect the macro financial stability on behalf of the Afghan people.’ 

‘What the hell does that mean? Can you tell me? I don’t know, that’s a bunch of gibberish to me,’ Mast pressed. ‘Even worse, by the numbers, we spent $9 billion to resettle 90,000 roughly Afghan refugees here since the fall of Afghanistan. My simple Army math tells me that’s about $100,000 a person. That’s absurd. So my question for you. We do not even have an embassy in Afghanistan. We have no diplomats there. What are we doing giving them $1?’ 

Blinken’s response centered on how the money the United States and other countries provide is implemented through partners, such as United Nations agencies and NGOs. 

‘Yes, we could say that about all the State Department dollars, foreign NGOs, foreign countries, foreign companies, and in this case, foreign adversaries,’ Mast interjected. 

‘Mr. Secretary, you know for a fact that people literally, especially outside of this country, they directly lied to us,’ Mast said. ‘Your people had to come back and correct. Hey, it turns out we were, in fact, spending half a million dollars to expand atheism in Nepal. through the third party implementer of Humanist International. They were lying to us. They didn’t show us the exact slide show that they put together for half a million dollars. And all this, they lied to us. We have no eyes on the ground. And I would simply close with this. We again, we do not even have an embassy there. We have no business putting one dollar into that place.’ 

Mast was referencing how a two-year investigation by House Republicans forced the State Department to admit that a $500,000 grant intended to promote ‘humanism and secularism’ in Nepal may have been misused. 

In response, Blinken said he respectfully disagreed with Mast’s opposition to the Afghan funds, saying, ‘The work we have done through these partners, and many other countries have done, has saved many, many lives in an incredibly difficult situation.’