The United States and Russia have drawn up a plan to end the bitter fighting in Ukraine, which would require major concessions from Kyiv.

Exactly what all the concessions that would be made of Ukraine were not clear, but some include demands Moscow has repeatedly made since the start of the 2022 invasion of its neighbor, according to The Associated Press, citing a person familiar with the matter.

Included in the framework would be the halting of attacks from Russia. 

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff has been quietly working on the plan for a month, receiving input from both Ukrainians and Russians on terms that are acceptable to each side, a senior U.S. official who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity told Fox News Digital.

President Donald Trump has been briefed on the plan and supports it, the person said. The official said both sides, not just Ukraine, would have to make concessions. 

‘President Trump has been clear since day one that he wants the war between Russia Ukraine to end, and he has grown frustrated with both sides for their refusal to commit to a peace agreement. Nevertheless, the President and his team never gives up, and the United States has been working on a detailed and acceptable plan for both sides to stop the killing and create a durable, lasting peace.’ said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Under the terms of the proposal, which could still be changed, Ukraine would cede territory to Russia and abandon certain weaponry, according to the person who had been briefed on the contours of the plan.

It would also include the rolling back of some U.S. military assistance.

Russia would take control of the entire eastern Donbas region. Russian President Vladimir Putin has listed the capture of the Donbas as the key goal of the invasion.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly ruled out ceding territory to Russia. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said officials will ‘continue to develop a list of potential ideas’ for ending the war based on input from both sides. 

‘Ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas,’ he wrote on X late Wednesday. ‘And achieving a durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions.’

On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that ‘there are no consultations per se currently underway’ with the U.S. on ending the war in Ukraine. 

‘There are certainly contacts, but processes that could be called consultations are not underway,’ he told reporters.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Congressional Democratic leaders warned Thursday that President Donald Trump’s posts accusing several Democrat senators of sedition, ‘Punishable by DEATH,’ would encourage political violence against lawmakers.

Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social that six congressional Democrats featured in a viral video calling on members of the military and intelligence community to refuse to carry out ‘illegal’ orders from higher-ups was ‘really bad, and Dangerous to our Country.’

‘Their words cannot be allowed to stand,’ Trump said. ‘SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT.’

He later posted, ‘SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!’ and reposted a user who wrote ‘HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD.’ 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor that Trump was explicitly calling ‘for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it’s deadly serious.’

‘Every time Donald Trump posts things like this, he makes political violence more likely,’ Schumer said.

‘When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen,’ he continued. ‘He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline.’

And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., in a joint statement with his House Democratic leadership team, condemned Trump’s ‘disgusting and dangerous death threats against Members of Congress’ and urged House Republicans to follow suit.

‘We have been in contact with the House Sergeant-at-Arms and the United States Capitol Police to ensure the safety of these Members and their families,’ Jeffries said. ‘Donald Trump must immediately delete these unhinged social media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed.’

Trump’s posts, and the response from Congress’ top Democrats, come after a video featuring Sens. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Reps. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Jason Crow, D-Colo., and Chris Deluzio, D-Pa., went viral for calling on military service members to refuse to follow unlawful orders.

Republicans and members of the Trump administration pounced on the video, with some demanding that the lawmakers provide specifics.

The video came on the heels of rising questions among lawmakers about the legality of President Donald Trump’s authorization of strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, and in the wake of the administration’s deployment of the National Guard to blue cities across the country.

It also follows an uptick in political violence in the country over the last few years, notably two attempted assassinations against Trump, the assassination of Charlie Kirk and a dramatic increase in threats against members of Congress.

Fox News Digital reached out to each of the six congressional Democrats and the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin — who clapped back after House Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett said that he and others had taken money from someone by the name of Jeffrey Epstein — took to social media again after Crockett defended her comments and claimed that she was not seeking to ‘mislead’ anyone.

Zeldin began his Wednesday post on X with an exploding head emoji and then declared, ‘When you find yourself in a hole, it’s best to stop digging.’

‘The public FEC report Crockett referenced on the House floor very clearly states that the Jeffrey Epstein who donated to my past campaign was a physician, and the donation date was well AFTER the [drum emoji] other [drum emoji] Jeffrey [drum emoji] Epstein [drum emoji] WAS [drum emoji] ALREADY [drum emoji] DEAD!!!’ he exclaimed.

The dust-up originated because Crockett, during remarks on Tuesday, listed figures and entities she said had taken money from ‘somebody’ with the name Jeffrey Epstein. Noting that she had her ‘team dig in very quickly,’ she ran through the following list: ‘Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush, WinRed, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio.’

Zeldin fired back on X, pointing out that the donation was not from the notorious Jeffrey Epstein, but from a completely different individual.

‘Yes Crockett, a physician named Dr. Jeffrey Epstein (who is a totally different person than the other Jeffrey Epstein) donated to a prior campaign of mine,’ Zeldin wrote. ‘NO [clap emoji] FREAKIN [clap emoji] RELATION [clap emoji] YOU [clap emoji] GENIUS!!!’

Meghan McCain, who is the daughter of the late Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, also fired back at Crockett.

‘My Dad has been dead 7 years @RepJasmine. He never met Jeffrey Epstein, let alone took money from him. The Jeffrey Epstein you are referencing is an entirely different human being. Do you have mashed potatoes for brains, you absolute joke?!’ she wrote in a Wednesday post on X.

When CNN’s Kaitlan Collins confronted Crockett on Wednesday about Zeldin’s Tuesday post that pushed back against the notion that he had accepted a donation from the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the Texas Democrat said that she ‘never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein.’ 

‘Unlike Republicans, I at least don’t go out and just tell lies,’ she later said.

‘So, number one, I made sure that I was clear that it was a Jeffrey Epstein, but I never said that it was specifically that Jeffrey Epstein,’ Crockett said later during the interview.

President Donald Trump loves a deal and few partners have proven more willing or more powerful than Saudi Arabia.

This week, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pledged to channel $1 trillion in investments from the oil-rich kingdom into the U.S. 

Trump embraced the announcement as validation of his close ties with Riyadh and proof that international money is eager to flow back into the U.S. economy. Yet beneath the impressive headline figure lies a familiar reality: much of the promised investment exists only on paper, and experts caution that the actual cash flow could take years to materialize.

‘The term investment implies long-term capital, but in this case it really means purchases like aircraft, tanks, even computer chips,’ said Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ‘And those figures, $600 billion, a trillion, who really knows how accurate they are, or over what time frame?’

‘Perhaps the real story is that Saudi finances are in bad shape,’ added Henderson, who specializes in the Gulf region and energy policy. ‘Oil prices are too low, they need about $100 a barrel, and extravagant spending on prestige projects like The Line and NEOM are being scaled back.’

The Line is a proposed 105-mile car-free city and NEOM is a $500 billion futuristic mega-development on the Red Sea. Both are part of the crown prince’s ‘Vision 2030’ plan to diversify the kingdom’s economy beyond oil.

Others note that Saudi Arabia’s short-term fiscal strains don’t necessarily preclude large-scale investments over time.

‘It’s perfectly within the realm of possibilities that Saudi Arabia could make a $1 trillion investment into the United States over many years,’ explained E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, citing the kingdom’s vast oil wealth and long-term economic ambitions.

Antoni noted that much depends on how such an investment ultimately takes shape. For now, the White House has offered few details about what exactly the Saudi funds would be directed toward or when they might arrive.

‘What does it look like in practice? It could take a whole host of different forms,’ he said. ‘We don’t know yet if this is going to look like an investment in infrastructure and even if it is, in what industry?’

He pointed to petrochemicals as one possible fit but said other sectors could also attract Saudi money.

‘In terms of beneficiaries, clearly you have the American taxpayer, who’s going to benefit from a larger economy,’ Antoni continued. ‘That broadens the tax base and reduces the overall tax burden on each individual. So that’s very, very positive.’

He added that while such deals can stimulate confidence and markets in the short term, their most meaningful returns often unfold over years, well beyond a single presidential term.

‘Most of what President Donald Trump has done is to accrue benefits that will not appear until after he has already left office,’ Antoni told Fox News Digital. 

‘That’s not to say there are no initial gains, there clearly are. Every time another company announces more investment in the United States, it helps buoy the stock market, because equity prices are ultimately based on future earnings and those earnings rise when there’s additional investment coming.’

For now, the pledge bolsters Trump’s economic narrative but also sets up a long-term test of U.S.–Saudi relations, one whose true impact may not be clear for years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is demanding specifics from a group of congressional Democrats who urged military service members to ‘refuse illegal orders.’

Graham sent letters to a cohort of congressional Democrats, all with backgrounds in the military or intelligence community, featured in a now-viral video where they urge service members to refuse illegal orders.

The six lawmakers featured in the video were Sens. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., along with Reps. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Jason Crow, D-Colo.; Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.

They reiterated the lines, ‘You can refuse illegal orders,’ or ‘You must refuse illegal orders,’ as they went on to charge that service members do not have to carry out orders from higher-ups that they believe violate the Constitution.

Notably, none of the lawmakers dove into which orders they believed were illegal in the video.

Graham, who served three decades in the Air Force and worked as an Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG), wrote in six letters to each of the lawmakers that he took ‘the issue of unlawful orders very seriously.’

‘I cannot find a single example of an illegal order during this administration, but as a Member of Congress, I believe you owe it to the country to be specific as to which orders you believe are unlawful,’ Graham said.

‘However, to say that I am disturbed by your video encouraging service members and Intelligence Community professionals to refuse ‘unlawful orders’ is an understatement,’ he continued. ‘In that regard, could you please provide clarity on what orders, issued by President Trump or those in his chain of command, you consider illegal?’

The video, and Graham’s letters, come on the heels of rising questions among lawmakers about the legality of President Donald Trump’s authorization of strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, and in the wake of the administration’s deployment of the National Guard to blue cities across the country.

Members of the military have an obligation to follow lawful orders from their superiors, but they can ignore orders deemed illegal, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice — the standardized military justice system enacted in 1951.

When asked to get into specifics, Slotkin’s office pointed Fox News Digital to an interview the senator had with TMZ, where she explained that the video was made in response to service members ‘reaching out to us saying, ‘I don’t know what to do if the commander in chief orders me to do something that is illegal.’’

Slotkin, who was a CIA officer, said service members aren’t ‘trained in police techniques. They’re not trained in arresting, detaining American citizens, crowd control, raids on homes, and they were worried that they could be asked to do those things, that protests could get bad in a place like Chicago, and they could be asked to do these things.’

Fox News Digital reached out for comment from Kelly, Crow, Houlahan, Goodlander and Deluzio but did not immediately hear back.

President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were not invited to the funeral for former Vice President Dick Cheney, Fox News has confirmed.

Cheney’s funeral is scheduled for mid-morning on Thursday at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. It is traditional for sitting U.S. presidents to attend funerals for past presidents and vice presidents, but Trump has had a uniquely poor relationship with Cheney’s family in recent years. News of the president’s exclusion was first reported by Axios.

Cheney’s daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., helped lead the House investigation into Trump’s role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Both Liz and her father endorsed former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign.

The elder Cheney, who went from the plains of Casper, Wyoming, to a decades-long public career as a Republican congressman, Defense secretary, White House chief of staff and one of the most powerful American vice presidents ever, died at age 84 earlier this month.

‘Richard B. Cheney, the 46th Vice President of the United States, died last night, November 3, 2025. He was 84 years old. His beloved wife of 61 years, Lynne, his daughters, Liz and Mary, and other family members were with him as he passed,’ his family said in a statement obtained by Fox News. ‘The former Vice President died due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease.’

‘For decades, Dick Cheney served our nation, including as White House Chief of Staff, Wyoming’s Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President of the United States,’ the statement continued.

‘Dick Cheney was a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing,’ his family said. ‘We are grateful beyond measure for all Dick Cheney did for our country. And we are blessed beyond measure to have loved and been loved by this noble giant of a man.’

Cheney had a long history of cardiac problems, including five heart attacks. He received a heart transplant on March 24, 2012, at a Virginia hospital after nearly 21 months on a waiting list.

Cheney, who served as vice president for two terms under President George W. Bush, was one of the most powerful and controversial men ever to hold that position. He was a driving force behind America’s ‘war on terror,’ including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Fox News’ Michael Dorgan contributed to this report.

U.S. taxpayers are footing nearly $250 million a year in SNAP benefits spent on fast-food meals across just nine states, most of which are blue states, according to Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst.

Nine states, including Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia — all of which are Democrat-run states except for Virginia — are opted into a SNAP program called the Restaurant Meals Program (RMP), which has spent nearly $250 million a year on hot meals, including fast-food, Ernst’s office found. 

The modern day Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was established in 1964 under the Food Stamps Act to provide basic food needs such as meats and fruits and vegetables to financially vulnerable Americans. Hot foods or foods ready for immediate consumption were not eligible for purchase under the program as its main mission was to provide staple foods to be prepared at home. 

A 1977 loophole, however, allowed states to opt into a program called the Restaurant Meals Program, which was established to allow homeless individuals who do not have a kitchen to purchase prepared meals using SNAP benefits, according to Ernst’s office. The eligibility for the program expanded in the following years to include disabled individuals, the elderly and their spouses, according to the office. 

Nine states are opted into the program, which requires participating restaurants to sign an agreement with the state that is then authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the SNAP program writ large. Restaurants that participate in the program were historically a small group but have since expanded, most notably in California in the Biden era, Ernst’s office said. 

California expanded its program statewide, for example, in 2021 that allowed restaurants to accept CalFresh benefits via SNAP at a swath of top fast-food chains stretching from McDonald’s to Domino’s Pizza to Jack in the Box. 

Ernst’s office found that from June 2023 to May 2025, more than $475 million in taxpayer dollars funded Restaurant Meals Program meals at fast-food establishments. During that same time period, $524 million in taxpayer funds were spent through the Restaurant Meals Program overall, meaning California accounted for more than 90% of the nation’s total Restaurant Meals Program funds from June 2023 to May 2025, according to the office. 

‘The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition not nuggets with a side of fries,’ Ernst told Fox News Digital. ‘I wish I was McRibbing you but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.’

The data found that between June 2023 and May 2025 $41.4 million funds went through Restaurant Meals Program in Arizona, $3.6 million in New York, $1.3 million in Michigan, $995,900 in Rhode Island, $649,000 in Massachusetts, $479,000 in Illinois, $308,500 in Virginia and $8,600 in Maryland. 

Ernst’s introduced legislation Thursday, dubbed the McSCUSE ME Act, to rein in the scope of the Restaurant Meals Program. Specifically, the bill would continue allowing homeless, elderly and disabled individuals to continue using the program, but ending spousal eligibility. 

The legislation also would reel in which vendors are able to participate in the program, specifically restricting fast-food vendors in favor of grocery stores that have hot bars to better ensure availability of healthy prepared food options. The legislation would also require states to produce public annual reports showing how many vendors participate in the Restaurant Meals Program, the number of participating beneficiaries and total costs for the program, Fox News Digital learned. 

The report and legislation comes after the U.S. government just emerged from the longest government shutdown in history, at 43 days, that included putting the food assistance program under heightened scrutiny over fraud and concern as recipients saw disruptions to their access. 

Upon the reopening of the government, the Trump administration is requiring all SNAP beneficiaries to reapply for the program in an effort to prevent fraud. 

Federal spending on SNAP overall climbed to record highs under the Biden administration, Fox News Digital previously reported, at $128 billion in 2021 and $127 billion in 2022 during the pandemic. By the Biden administration’s final year, SNAP cost $99.8 billion.

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias contributed to this report.

A U.S. citizen jailed in Saudi Arabia for criticizing the royal family online was freed Wednesday by Saudi authorities, ending a four-year ordeal in the country, according to media reports.

Saad Almadi’s release came just a day after President Donald Trump met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Washington, D.C., per the New York Post.

Almadi, 75, a retired engineer and U.S. resident since 1976, was detained in 2021 during a family visit to Riyadh and later sentenced to more than 19 years in prison on terrorism charges tied to a series of posts online.

The charges were reduced to cyber crimes, and although he was released from prison in 2023, Almadi was held in the country under an exit ban which prevented him from going back home to the U.S.

The Almadi family issued a statement Wednesday celebrating the good news and thanking Trump.

‘Our family is overjoyed that, after four long years, our father, Saad Almadi, is finally on his way home to the United States!’ they said.

‘This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Sebastian Gorka and the team at the National Security Council, as well as everyone at the State Department.’

A third portion of the statement expressed appreciation to others who had supported the case over the years.

‘We extend our thanks to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh for keeping our father safe, and to the nonprofit organizations and members of Congress who fought for his freedom,’ the statement read.

Almadi’s case also drew attention from human rights groups and U.S. lawmakers after he was accused of terrorism over 14 social media posts.

One suggested that a street in Washington be renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

U.S. pressure to lift Almadi’s exit ban had also intensified since Trump’s May visit to Saudi Arabia.

The president’s national security advisor, Sebastian Gorka, also met with Almadi’s son at the White House.

The Foley Foundation, which advocates for Americans detained overseas, praised the news Wednesday, saying it was ‘so excited’ the family’s fight had finally succeeded.

Per reports, Almadi was flying to the U.S. from Riyadh on Wednesday, according to his family, after Trump and the crown prince set foot on stage at a forum in Washington.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Sebastian Gorka, the Department of State and The White House for comment.

A bid by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., to force a censure of her fellow House Republican and remove his committee assignments failed on Wednesday night.

Mace introduced a censure resolution against Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., earlier in the day, accusing him of stolen valor among other alleged improprieties.

Mills rose in his own defense on Wednesday night to call for a vote to refer the measure to the House Ethics Committee and deny her accusations.

His counter-effort succeeded, with the House voting 310-103 to send the matter to the ethics panel — effectively squashing Mace’s effort for an immediate punishment.

Seven House Republicans voted alongside Mace to move the censure vote forward. They are Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Kat Cammack, R-Fla., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., and Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

The 310 lawmakers who voted against Mace’s move included both Democrats and Republicans.

Twelve lawmakers, including members of the House Ethics Committee, voted ‘present.’

Mace introduced the censure as a privileged resolution, a mechanism aimed at forcing House GOP leaders to reckon with a piece of legislation in the immediate future.

The resolution accused Mills of a wide variety of improprieties, including misrepresenting his military service and working as a private military contractor while serving as a member of Congress. 

She also cited several media reports alleging Mills assaulted past romantic partners while being accused of threatening another woman he was also reportedly involved with. Mills previously denied those allegations.

In addition to censuring him, Mace’s resolution would have also removed Mills from his roles on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Armed Services Committee if successful.

Hours before the vote, however, the House Ethics Committee announced it would open an investigation into Mills via a new subcommittee — a move Mace criticized as an effort to neuter her push.

‘This is a naked attempt to kill my resolution to censure Rep. Cory Mills. Common sense tells us we don’t need an investigative subcommittee to decide if Cory Mills, who a Court found to be an immediate and present danger of committing dating violence against a woman, should serve on committees related to national security. Or the testimony of soldiers and the stolen valor,’ Mace said.

Notably, however, the House Ethics Committee is the traditional first step when lawmakers are accused of impropriety.

It comes after House Democrats threatened to pursue a retaliatory censure against Mills Tuesday evening in response to Republicans trying to censure Del. Stacey Plaskett, D-V.I., the Virgin Islands’ nonvoting representative in the House, over her ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Plaskett censure failed after three House Republicans voted ‘no’ and three more voted ‘present,’ however, along with every Democrat rejecting the measure. Democrats did not appear to pursue the censure against Mills after that.

Mace had accused Mills of participating in a ‘backroom deal’ at the time to avoid a censure, adding, ‘I have the General who ‘recommended’ him for the Bronze Star on record saying he never wrote it, never read it and never personally signed it.’

Mills’ office told Fox News Digital there was never a deal, however, and had expected his censure to move forward on Tuesday night. He also voted in favor of censuring Plaskett.

Mace introduced her resolution after sending a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday accusing Mills of ‘credible accusations he misrepresented his military service’ and ‘credible accusations of having committed crimes against women.’

Mills has previously denied wrongdoing in reports of both sets of allegations.

He also criticized the move in a statement to Fox News Digital.

‘Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s latest stunt is a politically motivated attempt to grab headlines and settle personal scores. The American people deserve better than fabricated accusations and theatrics at a time when Republicans should be focused on governing,’ Mills said.

‘The claims on my valor that she’s pushing are baseless, recycled, and already publicly disproven. I fully deny them, just as I always have. This is not oversight, it’s attention-seeking dressed up as accountability.’

The House of Representatives unanimously voted against a provision that allows Republican senators whose phone records were seized by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to sue the federal government.

The provision was included in the recently passed bill to end the 43-day government shutdown, which President Donald Trump signed into law last week.

Despite supporters saying the provision is necessary to give senators recourse when the executive branch oversteps its constitutional bounds and reaches into congressional communications, the last-minute inclusion of the measure outraged both Republicans and Democrats, underscoring the ever-present tensions between the House and Senate.

The repeal passed 426 to 0, with 210 Democrats and 216 Republicans in the tally.

Dubbed ‘Requiring Senate Notification for Senate Data,’ the provision would allow senators directly targeted in former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., who was involved in crafting part of the successful funding deal, told Fox News Digital he had even been afraid it could derail the final vote to end the shutdown.

‘It had been added in the Senate without our knowledge,’ Cole said. ‘It was a real trust factor … I mean, all of a sudden, this pops up in the bill, and we’re confronted with either: leave this in here, or we pull it out, we have to go to conference, and the government doesn’t get reopened.’

It was placed into the bill by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sources confirmed to Fox News Digital last week.

Thune put the provision into the bill at the request of members of the Senate GOP, a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News Digital, which included Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. 

It was a big point of contention when the House Rules Committee met to prepare the legislation for a final vote last Tuesday night. Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, Austin Scott, R-Ga., and Morgan Griffith, R-Va., all shared House Democrats’ frustration with the measure, but they made clear it would not stand in the way of ending what had become the longest shutdown in history.

Even Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared blindsided by the move.

‘I had no prior notice of it at all,’ Johnson told reporters last week. ‘I was frustrated, as my colleagues are over here, and I thought it was untimely and inappropriate. So we’ll be requesting, strongly urging, our Senate colleagues to repeal that.’

Those Republicans agreed with the motivations behind their Senate counterparts wanting to sue but bristled over the notion that it would come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital the senators ‘have been wronged, no doubt in my mind’ but added its scope was too narrow.

‘This provision does not allow other Americans to pursue a remedy. It does not even allow the President of the United States, who was equally wrongfully surveilled and pursued by the Justice Department — they didn’t even include President Trump in this,’ Rose said.

And while several senators who would be eligible for the taxpayer-funded lawsuits have distanced themselves from the issue amid uproar, others have stuck to their guns.

‘My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue,’ Graham said on ‘Hannity’ Tuesday night. He said he would be seeking ‘tens of millions of dollars.’

Cruz also told Fox News Digital that he did not support repealing the provision.

And Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., defended the provision in comments to Politico. 

‘I’d like for us to be able to defend our branch when DOJ gets out of control,’ he said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., similarly suggested to reporters on Wednesday that he was in favor of the measure.

‘I would just say, I mean, you have an independent, co-equal branch of government whose members were, through illegal means, having their phone records acquired — spied on, if you will, through a weaponized Biden Justice Department,’ Thune said. ‘That, to me, demands some accountability.’

He added, ‘I think that in the end, this is something that all members of Congress, both House and Senate, are probably going to want as a protection, and we were thinking about the institution of the Senate and individual senators going into the future.’