More than a decade ago, China launched its Belt and Road Initiative, pouring billions into ports, railways and power plants across the developing world to extend Beijing’s economic and political reach far beyond its borders.

Today, experts say China is applying that same playbook to a far more strategic domain: space.

Across Africa, Latin America and other parts of the Global South, Chinese firms have quietly built or expanded satellite ground stations, tracking facilities and space infrastructure that position Beijing as a gateway to orbit for countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Argentina and Namibia, which lack the resources to get there on their own. Analysts warn the effort carries implications not just for economic influence, but for future warfare and global dominance.

A new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) finds that China is embedding itself deeply into the space programs of dozens of countries, offering end-to-end services that include satellite design, manufacturing, launches, training and ground infrastructure — a strategy that could give Beijing long-term leverage over a domain increasingly critical to modern military power.

High above Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, a newly expanded satellite facility built by Chinese firms now tracks objects in orbit. Similar Chinese-built or Chinese-operated sites have appeared in Egypt and Namibia, where large satellite dishes, tracking antennas and testing complexes support space missions that can serve both civilian and military purposes.

Together, the facilities form part of a growing global network strengthening China’s ability to track, communicate with and potentially influence activity in space — now widely viewed by defense planners as a new frontier of conflict.

‘This is really about who’s winning the space diplomacy race in the Global South,’ said Matthew Funaiole, a senior fellow at CSIS and one of the report’s authors. ‘Space is becoming central to economic power, national security, and military capability, and China is positioning itself accordingly.’

Once dominated by science and commerce, space is now treated as a warfighting domain alongside land, sea, air and cyberspace. Satellites underpin modern military operations, enabling communications, intelligence collection, missile warning, navigation and targeting.

Experts say China cannot operate a truly global space power from within its own borders alone. Satellites require constant tracking and communication, which is only possible through a worldwide network of ground stations spread across multiple continents. 

By building facilities overseas, China is closing gaps in its own network and adding redundancy that would be critical in a crisis.

‘Chinese-built ground stations can absolutely support civil and scientific missions — and they do,’ Funaiole said. ‘But they also provide China with the ability to level up its own national security capabilities.’

The report raises particular concern about the dual-use nature of the infrastructure China is exporting. Facilities marketed as scientific or commercial assets also can be used to monitor military satellites, communicate with defense systems, and collect sensitive data — capabilities closely tied to China’s People’s Liberation Army.

Compounding those concerns is a lack of transparency over who ultimately controls the data flowing through these systems.

‘When you’re dealing with space technology in China, there’s always a question of who has access and what the data is being used for,’ Funaiole said. ‘That lack of transparency is a real issue.’

Instead of ports and highways, experts say Beijing is now exporting satellites, launch services and ground stations — offering countries a turnkey path to space while embedding Chinese technology, standards and companies deep inside critical national systems. It is, in effect, Belt and Road applied to orbit.

‘There’s a lot of interest across Africa and Latin America in gaining access to space,’ Funaiole said. ‘Many countries just don’t have the capabilities to do it on their own, and China has stepped into that gap in a way the United States largely hasn’t.’

The report introduces a new China Space Cooperation Index, ranking 64 countries based on the depth of their engagement with Beijing. More than three-quarters of those countries are in the Global South, with Africa accounting for the largest share.

While China’s commercial space sector remains less advanced than that of the United States, it has leveraged state-backed financing, diplomatic outreach and bundled technology offerings to gain footholds that can be difficult to unwind.

‘Once countries are in China’s ecosystem, it becomes very costly for them to switch away,’ Funaiole said. ‘We’ve seen that play out in other critical technologies.’

The United States, by contrast, built its global space network decades ago primarily for warfighting and allied defense, relying on facilities in close partner nations rather than developing countries. Washington never packaged space access as a diplomatic tool, leaving a gap China is now exploiting.

While Africa has emerged as a hub for China’s newest physical infrastructure, the report finds some of Beijing’s deepest space partnerships are in Latin America, including Venezuela and Argentina — developments with direct implications for U.S. security interests closer to home.

That expansion has not gone unnoticed in Washington. 

On display during the most recent operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump explicitly revived what he dubbed the ‘Donroe Doctrine,’ a modernized and more confrontational take on the Monroe Doctrine that asserted the United States’ right to push hostile foreign powers out of the Western Hemisphere.

The posture was sharpened by the crisis in Venezuela, where China had built a significant economic and technological footprint, reinforcing concerns that Beijing was using infrastructure and technology partnerships to gain long-term strategic leverage in Latin America.

Experts say China’s growing role in satellite launches, space infrastructure and data-sharing agreements shows how strategic competition is moving beyond ports, power plants and telecom networks — and into space.

Beyond security concerns, the report warns of economic consequences if China becomes the space partner of choice for the developing world. The global space economy is projected to reach trillions of dollars in the coming decades, and long-term partnerships forged today could determine who dominates that market tomorrow.

Despite China’s momentum, Funaiole stressed that the United States still holds decisive advantages, if it chooses to use them.

‘The U.S. still has tremendous strengths,’ he said, pointing to companies like SpaceX, which he described as ‘leaps and bounds ahead’ of Chinese competitors. ‘China is trying to emulate that success.’

The question, he said, is whether Washington is willing to treat space not just as a scientific or commercial arena, but as a strategic tool of diplomacy, deterrence and competition.

‘This isn’t an area where it’s too late,’ Funaiole said. ‘The U.S. still has the ability to provide a real alternative — but it requires sustained attention and commitment.’

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.

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.

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.’

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.