President Donald Trump on Thursday wouldn’t say an attack by Israel on Iran was imminent, but warned it ‘could happen’ as the U.S. continues to pressure Tehran on a nuclear deal, but simultaneously prepares evacuations from the Middle East. 

‘I don’t want to say imminent, but it looks like it’s something that could very well happen,’ Trump said. ‘Look, it’s very simple, not complicated. Iran can not have a nuclear weapon. 

‘Other than that, I want them to be successful,’ he continued. ‘We’ll help them be successful, will trade with them. We’ll do whatever is necessary.’

Trump said ultimatelyhe’d ‘love to avoid the conflict,’ but said that Iran is going to have to negotiate a ‘little bit tougher.’

‘Meaning they’re going to have to give us some things that they’re not willing to give us right now,’ he said in apparent reference to Iran’s so far refusal to give up nuclear enrichment capabilities. 

The president said the U.S. and Iran are ‘fairly close to a pretty good agreement’ but then added, ‘It’s got to be better than pretty good though.’

Trump on Wednesday told reporters that the U.S. has advised some evacuation efforts in the Middle East as the security situation with Tehran could become ‘dangerous’ amid uncertain nuclear negotiations. 

‘They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place,’ Trump said.  ‘We’ve given notice to move out, and we’ll see what happens.’

The president’s comments came after the U.S. embassy in Iraq ordered a partial evacuation of non-emergency government personnel and military dependents have been authorized to leave locations around the Middle East.

Reports originally claimed similar orders had been issued in Bahrain and Kuwait, though no notices have been posted to the U.S. embassy in Kuwait, and the embassy in Bahrain said that reports that it ‘has changed its posture in any way are false’ and staffing operations remain ‘unchanged and activities continue as normal.’

Embassies near Iran have been ordered to hold emergency action committees and report back to DC on their risk-mitigation plans.

No U.S. troops have been pulled from the Middle East at this time. 

The State Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s questions on why Iraq was deemed particularly dangerous when similar notices have not been issued in other nations surrounding Iran. 

Bahrain holds the highest number of military families according to reports, and though no embassy or military changes have been made, Trump on Thursday said, ‘We have a lot of American people in this area. And I said, we got to tell them to get out because something could happen soon, and I don’t want to be the one that didn’t give any warning and missiles are flying into their buildings.

‘It’s possible. So I had to do it,’ he added. 

When asked this week how the U.S. can calm the escalating security situation in the region, Trump did not provide a direct answer, but said, ‘They can’t have a nuclear weapon. Very simply, they can’t have a nuclear weapon. We’re not going to allow that.’

The status of negotiation progress remains unclear as Special Envoy Steve Witkoff prepares to head to Oman on Sunday for the sixth round of direct and indirect nuclear negotiations with Iran, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi confirmed on Thursday. 

The negotiations have become increasingly strained in recent weeks and appear to have reached an impasse over the levels of enriched uranium.

The U.S. has repeatedly said Iran must not be allowed to have any enrichment programs, including for civil energy use – of which Iran contributes less than 1% of its overall energy needs to nuclear energy.

Iran has thus far flatly refused to abandon all nuclear enrichment, and it remains unclear what it would be required to do with the stockpiles of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium that it currently possesses – which it drastically increased over a three-month period earlier this year.

The IAEA began sounding the alarm last month that Iran had increased its stockpiles by nearly 35% between February and May, when the nuclear watchdog said its stores had jumped from roughly 605.8 pounds worth of uranium enriched to 60% to 900.8 pounds by mid-May.

The Institute for Science and International Security assessed earlier this week that Iran could further the enrichment process to create at least one nuclear warhead’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in as little as two to three days at its Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP).

Nine nuclear weapons could be made within three weeks, and in coordination with Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP), Iran could turn around 22 nuclear warheads within a five-month period, the Institute for Science and International Security claimed.

The IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors on Thursday declared Iran is in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in nearly 20 years.

The board may next take the breach to the UN Security Council, which could then be prompted to enforce severe snapback sanctions on Tehran, which Western security experts have long been urging the UNSC to pursue.

Only three nations on the board objected to the breach declaration, including Russia, China and Burkina Faso, despite years of mounting evidence of man-made highly enriched uranium, and Tehran’s refusal to grant the IAEA full access to all its nuclear facilities, which is a violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPAO). 

Tehran is still bound to the international deal, though the agreement drastically unraveled after the U.S. withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under the first Trump administration after it claimed Iran was already in breach of the terms. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who returned to the Hill today to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee, told Senators on Wednesday that ‘There are plenty of indications that [Iran has] been moving their way towards something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon.’

The secretary’s comments contradict assertions made by the Director of National Intelligence, who said in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

Senate Republicans rammed through another of President Donald Trump’s nominees on Thursday, this time giving a green-light to the president’s pick to lead the IRS.

The GOP-controlled Senate approved former House Rep. Billy Long to be the next IRS commissioner in 53 to 44 vote along party lines. Long’s ascension to the role marks him as the fifth commissioner atop the tax agency since the beginning of this year.

He will replace Michael Faulkender, who is serving as acting commissioner alongside his duty as deputy Treasury secretary. Long will also be taking over an agency that, like many others, saw drastic cuts to its workforce under the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. 

The former lawmaker and auctioneer will now lead an agency he once sought to dismantle.

Long, who served in the House from 2011 to 2013 representing Missouri’s 7th District, was grilled by Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearing last month.

Lawmakers questioned his backing of legislation that would have abolished the IRS and replaced income taxes with a national sales tax, and his promotion of a pair of tax credits – the Employee Retention Tax Credit and ‘tribal tax credits’ – that raised questions of a possible conflict of interest with his new position.

During the hearing, Long argued that as commissioner, he would have a chance to ‘make real, transformational change to an agency that needs it more than any other.’

But Trump has similarly sought to abolish the IRS and replace income taxes with tariffs, among other proposals. That means Long’s elevation to IRS commissioner likely gives the president a key ally in moving forward with his vision of seeing the tax agency scrapped.

Former Vice President Mike Pence’s conservative organization wants Republican senators to gut provisions from the ‘big, beautiful bill’ that could jeopardize the legislation’s survival in both chambers.

Advancing American Freedom, Pence’s organization that he founded in 2021, supports the House’s offering in the budget reconciliation process, and views it as the best move to prevent President Donald Trump’s first-term tax cuts from expiring. 

However, Chair Marc Short and President Tim Chapman called on the Senate GOP to make further refinements to the bill to ensure a better end product, in a letter to Senate Republicans first obtained by Fox News Digital. 

And some of those changes would see key provisions that helped move the president’s bill through the House stripped out.

The duo praised House Republicans for ‘hard-fought’ reforms to Medicaid, rolling back of certain provisions from the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, cuts to Planned Parenthood funding and the end of taxpayer dollars flowing to ‘dangerous sex change operations.’

But they believed the Senate GOP could further polish the House’s offering.

‘Even still, the Senate should build on the House’s hard work to perfect the One, Big, Beautiful Bill to deliver for the American people,’ they wrote.

Pence’s organization also called for further lowering the corporate tax rate, which was set at 21% by Trump’s first-term tax cut package, eliminating the state and local tax (SALT) deduction entirely, ending all Green New Deal subsidies, and gutting a proposed increase to the debt limit.

Some of the changes advocated for by Advancing American Freedom, like nixing the debt-limit language, could go a long way toward earning support from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has vowed to vote against the bill if the debt-limit hike is left in.

But completely ending green subsidies could pose a problem for a cohort of Senate Republicans who have wanted to see the phase-out authored by House Republicans reworked. Doing away with the SALT deduction could hinder the bill, too.

Senate Republicans largely do not care about the increase to the SALT cap to $40,000 pushed for by blue-state Republicans in the House, given that no Republican senator represents a blue state. But House Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California have vowed to vote against the legislation if the cap is touched.

Congressional Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to pass a sweeping bill advancing Trump’s agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. The main thrust of the colossal package is to extend or make permanent the president’s 2017 tax cuts, but lawmakers are also working to use it to bring down the national debt – nearing $37 trillion – with the aim of cutting $1.5 trillion in federal spending.

While leaders have warned to make as few changes as possible to the House’s offering, the Senate GOP intends to leave its mark on the package, particularly in trying to find steeper savings. Any seismic changes could jeopardize the bill’s survival in the House, where it narrowly passed on a 215 to 214 vote last month.

Short and Chapman noted that the ultimate goal of the package is to prevent Trump’s tax cuts from lapsing.

‘If Congress gets cold feet — or fails to send the package to the president’s desk — 
American households will suffer a $2,100 tax increase on average,’ they wrote.

‘[The One Big Beautiful Bill] not only defuses the looming tax bomb, it takes a first step toward entitlement reform, rebuilds the military, and ensures that our Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have the tools they need to secure the border and deport illegal aliens,’ they said. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision to limit the U.S. Tax Court’s authority in certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) cases, asserting that the federal tax collecting service could avoid accountability in the future.

Gorsuch wrote the dissent to the high court’s opinion in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch, a case that centers on Jennifer Zuch’s dispute with the IRS that began in 2012 over the agency’s moves regarding her late 2010 federal tax return filing. 

‘Along the way, the Court’s decision hands the IRS a powerful new tool to avoid accountability for its mistakes in future cases like this one,’ Gorsuch wrote in his dissent.

In this case, Zuch claimed that the IRS made a mistake, crediting a $50,000 payment to her then-husband’s account instead of her own. The IRS disagreed and sought to collect her unpaid taxes with a levy to seize and sell her property.

Over the years after the dispute began, Zuch filed several annual tax returns showing overpayments. Instead of being issued refunds, the IRS applied these to her outstanding 2010 tax liability.

Once the IRS settled Zuch’s outstanding sum, her liability reached zero, and the IRS no longer had a reason to levy her property.

The IRS then moved to dismiss Zuch’s case in Tax Court, arguing that Tax Court lacked jurisdiction since there was no longer a levy on her property. The Tax Court agreed.

The Supreme Court upheld that Tax Court no longer had jurisdiction without a levy.

‘Because there was no longer a proposed levy, the Tax Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve questions about Zuch’s disputed tax liability,’ read the high court’s opinion.

The decision will not only prevent Zuch from recouping her overpayments that she believes the IRS has wrongly retained, but give the IRS a way to avoid accountability, Gorsuch wrote in his dissent.

‘The IRS seeks, and the Court endorses, a view of the law that gives that agency a roadmap for evading Tax Court review and never having to answer a taxpayer’s complaint that it has made a mistake,’ the justice wrote.

The Pentagon is considering backing out of the nuclear submarine agreement former President Joe Biden struck with Australia and the United Kingdom, amid shipbuilding problems back at home. 

‘The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the president’s ‘America First’ agenda,’ a U.S. defense official said. 

‘As Secretary Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defense, and that the defense industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, ‘America First’ criteria.’

Under the deal, which was seen as a response to China’s growing military threat in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. and the UK would help Australia acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. Canberra would initially purchase several Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s. The three nations would jointly design a new class of submarines, with Australian production beginning in the 2040s.

The three nations also agreed to share technology in cyber and quantum capabilities, AI, hypersonics and deep sea radar. 

In a confirmation hearing in March, Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby seemed leery of offering Australia nuclear-powered submarines while the U.S. struggles to produce enough for itself. 

‘If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can’t, that becomes a very difficult problem because we don’t want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position,’ Colby said.

Australia plans to increase its defense spending to 2.4% by the mid-2030s, but the U.S. is pushing it to boost that figure much faster. 

In a recent meeting in Singapore with Australian defense minister Richard Marles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Marles the U.S. wants to see Australia spend 3.5% on defense. 

Admiral Sam Paparo, head of Indo-Pacific Command, voiced support for the AUKUS initiative in April. 

‘AUKUS delivers something to INDOPACOM that is critical and could be a key advantage, and that is a Indian Ocean submarine base. This gives us faster response time to the South China Sea than in Hawaii, in Washington, in San Diego,’ Paparo said.

Congress has appropriated billions of dollars to boost submarine- and ship-building capabilities, but some lawmakers claim the Pentagon’s plans to do so remain opaque. Meanwhile, experts estimate that China’s shipbuilding capabilities are around 230 times higher than those of the U.S. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the House’s top Democrat appropriator, pressed Hegseth on his shipbuilding plan in a hearing this week. 

‘There is a gap,’ Hegseth admitted, ‘but we believe we are closing it.’

However, DeLauro was not satisfied, demanding detailed data to back up that claim.

‘We do not have any information or data that can substantiate what you’re saying,’ she shot back. ‘Give us the details.’

‘We’ve had difficulty with the prior administration, and I don’t mind calling them out. What is your plan for the future?’

A California Democrat told Pete Hegseth on Thursday that he is an ’embarrassment’ to the United States and should ‘get the hell out’ of the Department of Defense after the Secretary chided the lawmaker for a ‘silly question’ he asked during a house hearing.

The outburst from Rep. Salud Carbajal was immediately followed by a call for decorum as lawmakers from the House Armed Services Committee were questioning Hegseth about the Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request.

Tensions started escalating on Capitol Hill as Carbajal asked Hegseth a series of yes or no questions, beginning with the deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles to quell the unrest generated by anti-ICE protests. 

‘Let’s call it for what it is. It’s political theater. Hegseth, are the Marines in Los Angeles ordered to protect property by any means necessary?’ Carbajal asked him.

‘Sir, I would say the ICE officers and police officers being attacked is not political theater,’ he responded, before Carbajal cut him off and said ‘just yes or no?’

‘The National Guard and Marines have the full authority to protect federal ICE agents,’ Hegseth continued.

‘Yes or no? Can you just say yes or no? This isn’t Fox anymore. Just yes or no,’ Carbajal said.

At one point, Carbajal told Hegseth that ‘Kindergartners can give me a yes or no’ and asked him ‘Do you think political allegiance to Trump is a requirement for serving our nation, either in uniform or a civilian in the department?’

‘Congressman, you know what a silly question that is,’ Hegseth responded.

‘You know what? I’m not going to waste my time anymore. You’re not worthy of my attention or my questions. You’re an embarrassment to this country. You’re unfit to lead. And there’s been bipartisan members of Congress that have called for your resignation. You should just get the hell out and let somebody competently lead this department,’ Carbajal concluded.

In his opening statement, Hegseth said ‘Under President Trump’s leadership, this budget puts America first and gives our warriors what they need. The $961 billion budget request — more than 1 trillion in total for national security — ends four years of chronic underinvestment in our military.’

‘We are restoring the warrior ethos. President Trump charged me to focus relentlessly on war fighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards and readiness. And that is exactly what we’ve done since day one. We are refocusing on what is truly important, which is war fighting and our warriors, sweeping away distractions and bureaucracy. We are setting standards that are high, equal and unwavering,’ Hegseth continued.

‘DEI is dead. We replaced it with a colorblind, gender-neutral, merit-based approach. Our forces are responding incredibly to these changes. Because of President Trump and his America First priorities, recruitment and retention under this administration are higher than they’ve been in decades. Historic numbers of young Americans are putting on the uniform and raising their right hand because they believe in the leadership they see,’ he added.

Hegseth also told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that ‘we applaud allies who are stepping up, but others need to do more, and they need to do it quickly and at the NATO heads of state meeting later this month, we expect our NATO allies to commit to 5% of GDP on defense and defense related investments, something that was almost inconceivable before President Trump led the charge in his first administration and continues in this one.’

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Wednesday that he has selected eight new people to join the national vaccine panel after firing all 17 of its members. 

In an X post, Kennedy revealed that he ‘took a major step towards restoring public trust in vaccines’ on Monday by reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

‘I retired the 17 current members of the committee. I’m now repopulating ACIP with the eight new members who will attend ACIP’s scheduled June 25 meeting,’ Kennedy wrote on Wednesday. ‘The slate includes highly credentialed scientists, leading public-health experts, and some of America’s most accomplished physicians. All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense.’ 

The new members are: Joseph R. Hibbeln, MD; Martin Kulldorff, MD, PhD; Retsef Levi, PhD; Robert W. Malone, MD; Cody Meissner, MD; James Pagano, MD; Vicky Pebsworth, OP, PhD, RN; and Michael A. Ross, MD. 

The secretary said all eight people ‘have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.’ He said the committee will review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule.’

Notably, Kulldorff was one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which was written alongside Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University. 

The declaration, published in October 2020, promoted lifting lockdown orders sooner and allowing COVID-19 to spread among young, healthy people to more quickly reach herd immunity. The strategy also included precautions to shield those most vulnerable to severe illness, and the authors said the approach would help mitigate the long-term societal and economic harms of prolonged lockdown orders. 

It was condemned harshly at the time by the World Health Organization and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

On Tuesday, before he announced his picks, Kennedy said, ‘We’re going to bring great people onto the ACIP panel – not anti-vaxxers – bringing people on who are credentialed scientists.’

Kennedy on Monday ousted all 17 members of the ACIP, saying he would appoint a new group before the next scheduled meeting in late June. The agenda for that meeting has not yet been posted, but a recent federal notice said votes are expected on vaccinations against flu, COVID-19, HPV, RSV and meningococcal bacteria. 

ACIP members typically serve staggered four-year terms, although several appointments were delayed during the Biden administration before positions were filled last year. The voting members all have scientific or clinical expertise in immunization, except for one ‘consumer representative’ who can bring perspective on community and social facets of vaccine programs. The committee, created in 1964, makes recommendations to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Kennedy provided a brief biography of each of his new picks. 

Hibbeln is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist with a career in clinical research, public health policy and federal service. 

‘As former Acting Chief of the Section on Nutritional Neurosciences at the National Institutes of Health, he led research on immune regulation, neurodevelopment, and mental health,’ Kennedy wrote. ‘His work has informed U.S. public health guidelines, particularly in maternal and child health. With more than 120 peer-reviewed publications and extensive experience in federal advisory roles, Dr. Hibbeln brings expertise in immune-related outcomes, psychiatric conditions, and evidence-based public health strategies.’ 

Kulldorff is a biostatistician and epidemiologist formerly at Harvard Medical School and a leading expert in vaccine safety and infectious disease surveillance. 

‘He has served on the Food and Drug Administration’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Subgroup of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where he contributed to national vaccine safety monitoring systems,’ Kennedy wrote, adding that he developed tools used ‘for detecting disease outbreaks and vaccine adverse events.,’ and has expertise that ‘includes statistical methods for public health surveillance, immunization safety, and infectious disease epidemiology.’

Levi is the Professor of Operations Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a leading expert in healthcare analytics, risk management, and vaccine safety. 

‘Dr. Levi has collaborated with public health agencies to evaluate vaccine safety, including co-authoring studies on mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and their association with cardiovascular risks. His research has contributed to discussions on vaccine manufacturing processes, safety surveillance, and public health policy,’ Kennedy wrote, adding that Levi ‘has also served on advisory committees and engaged in policy discussions concerning vaccine safety and efficacy,’ and that his ‘work continues to inform national and international debates on immunization safety and health system resilience.’ 

Malone is a physician-scientist and biochemist known for his early contributions to mRNA vaccine technology, specifically ‘foundational research in the late 1980s on lipid-mediated mRNA delivery, which laid the groundwork for later developments in mRNA-based therapeutics,’ Kennedy wrote, adding that Malone’s ‘expertise spans molecular biology, immunology, and vaccine development.’

Meissner is a Professor of Pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and a nationally recognized expert in pediatric infectious diseases and vaccine policy. 

‘He has served as Section Chief of Pediatric Infectious Disease at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and has held advisory roles with both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),’ Kennedy wrote, adding that Meissner was a voting member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, through which ‘he has contributed to national immunization guidelines and regulatory decisions.’

‘His expertise spans vaccine development, immunization safety, and pediatric infectious disease epidemiology. Dr. Meissner has also been a contributing author to American Academy of Pediatrics policy statements and immunization schedules, helping shape national standards for pediatric care.’ 

Pagano is a board-certified Emergency Medicine physician with over 40 years of clinical experience following his residency at UCLA. 

‘He has worked in diverse emergency settings, from Level 1 trauma centers to small community hospitals, caring for patients across all age groups, including infants, pregnant women, and the elderly,’ Kennedy wrote, adding that he has also served on various committees and medical executive boards. ‘He is [a] strong advocate for evidence-based medicine.’

Pebsworth earned a doctorate in public health and nursing from the University of Michigan. 

‘She has worked in the healthcare field for more than 45 years, serving in various capacities, including critical care nurse, healthcare administrator, health policy analyst, and research scientist with a focus on public health policy, bioethics, and vaccine safety,’ Kennedy wrote, pointing to her current leadership role with the National Association of Catholic Nurses, and previous positions with the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s 2009 H1N1 Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group and Vaccine Safety Working Group.

Ross is a Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University, with a career spanning clinical medicine, research, and public health policy. 

‘He has served on the CDC’s Advisory Committee for the Prevention of Breast and Cervical Cancer, where he contributed to national strategies for cancer prevention and early detection, including those involving HPV immunization,’ Kennedy wrote, pointing to his experience with ‘clinical investigations with immunologic relevance,’ advising organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and advocacy efforts related to women’s health. 

‘His continued service on biotech and healthcare boards reflects his commitment to advancing innovation in immunology, reproductive medicine, and public health,’ Kennedy added.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The war of words between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, appears to be over, and there are signs of some reconciliation.

However, a new poll suggests that the verbal attacks by Musk, who spent the first four months of Trump’s second administration as a special White House advisor steering the recently created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have hurt his standing among Republicans.

Sixty-two percent of Republicans hold a favorable opinion of Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released on Wednesday.

That is down 16 points from a Quinnipiac survey in March, when 78% of Republicans viewed Musk in a favorable way.

Among all voters, 30% held a favorable opinion of Musk, with 57% viewing him unfavorably. Favorable opinions of Musk dropped six points from Quinnipiac’s March survey, with the unfavorable rating holding steady.

Musk went all in for Trump last summer and autumn. He endorsed the then-GOP presidential nominee in July right after the assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Musk became the top donor of the 2024 election cycle, dishing out nearly $300 million in support of Trump’s bid through America PAC, a mostly Musk-funded super PAC aligned with Trump.

Trump named Musk to steer DOGE soon after the November election, and the president repeatedly praised Musk during his headline-making and controversial tenure at DOGE.

The feud broke out days after Musk left the White House late last month, as he dubbed the administration’s massive landmark spending bill – which Trump calls his ‘big, beautiful bill’ – a ‘disgusting abomination,’ which he said would sink the nation into unsustainable debt.

Musk also argued that Trump would not have won last year’s presidential election without all his support. 

Trump and Musk traded fire with blistering social media posts, with Musk even claiming without evidence that the government was concealing information about Trump’s association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Musk later deleted the post.

Musk on Wednesday wrote on his well-watched X account, ‘I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.’

Trump said in a podcast interview with the New York Post that was published on Wednesday that ‘things like that happen. I don’t blame him for anything.’

However, when asked about Musk’s apology as he spoke with reporters later in the day, the president said ‘I really haven’t thought too much about it.’

During his months at DOGE, Musk aimed, but fell far short, of trimming $2 trillion from the federal government’s budget.

According to the Quinnipiac poll, 38% of voters said that Musk did an excellent or good job at DOGE, with 57% describing his tenure as not so good or poor.

However, 80% of Republicans questioned said Musk’s work was excellent or good, with just 13% viewing his tenure at DOGE as not so good or poor.

‘Though Musk isn’t as popular with Republicans as he once was, he and DOGE get a hearty high five from a healthy majority of Republicans,’ Quinnpiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement.

The Quinnipiac poll was conducted June 5-9, with 1,265 registered voters across the country questioned. The survey’s overall sampling error is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

The fate of President Donald Trump’s $9.4 billion spending cuts request could rest on the shoulders of a handful of moderate House Republicans.

The House of Representatives is set to consider the measure on Thursday afternoon, which cuts $8.3 billion in funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and just over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which routes federal funds to NPR and PBS.

But at least four GOP lawmakers are known to have expressed some concerns about various aspects of the package. 

House Republican leaders have a razor-thin, three-seat majority in the chamber, which means any dissent beyond that could sink the bill.

None of the four Republicans – Reps. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., David Valadao, R-Calif., Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., and Don Bacon, R-Neb. – have said how they will vote on the bill, however. They also all approved a procedural vote to allow for debate on the measure.

But Amodei, co-chair of the Public Broadcasting Caucus, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday afternoon that he was not worried about NPR and PBS’ national brands, with which he acknowledged the GOP’s bias concerns, and that his fear was gutting funding to smaller local outlets that rely on federal funding to keep people informed in areas with less access.

‘These aren’t the people that are doing editorial boards that are flipping you the bird,’ Amodei argued to his fellow Republicans. ‘They’re kind of important pieces of infrastructure in their communities.’

Amodei, who is intimately familiar with the government funding process as a House appropriator, said ‘a whole bunch of red counties’ depend on public broadcast funding.

‘It’s easier for the nationals to raise money if they’ve got to make up for some funding they lost than it is these guys,’ he said.

Valadao, who represents a California swing district, told Politico he was not sure if the measure would pass.

He declined to elaborate on his concerns to Fox News Digital, however, and his office did not respond to a request for clarification.

Meanwhile, Malliotakis told reporters on Wednesday that she met with Republican voters in her district who wanted PBS funding preserved – but that her real concern was the process.

‘I think that there’s a lot of questions that members have regarding what programs specifically are going to be cut. This is a broad look at general accounts. We are, at the end of the day, the Congress that holds the power of the purse. We’re the ones who we’re supposed to be identifying where funding is going. And this gives a lot of discretion to the White House to be doing that unilaterally without Congress,’ Malliotakis said.

‘I think there’s a large number of members that do have concerns about that. And whether members are going to vote yes or no is a different story in this place. But I have, certainly, reservations… and we’ll see how things go.’

Bacon, one of three House Republicans representing a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, told reporters Tuesday morning that he was feeling better about the legislation after getting assurances that the foreign aid cuts would not gut money for critical medical research.

He did not say whether his earlier concerns about PBS and NPR were alleviated, however, nor did he say how he would vote on the bill.

Bacon told reporters last week, ‘It does bother me, because I have a great rapport with Nebraska Public Radio and TV.’

When reached for comment, his office pointed Fox News Digital to Bacon’s Wednesday morning appearance on C-SPAN.

‘I think the president has to work with us and make this better. So I’m in opposition. That said, I’m in current negotiations with the leadership on this as well,’ Bacon said.

The $9.4 billion proposal is called a rescissions package, a mechanism for the White House to block congressionally approved funding it disagrees with.

Once transmitted to Capitol Hill, lawmakers have 45 days to approve the rescissions proposal, otherwise it is considered rejected. 

Such measures only need a simple majority in the House and Senate to pass. But that’s no easy feat with Republicans’ thin majorities in both chambers.

If passed, Republican leaders hope the bill will be the first of several rescissions packages codifying spending cuts identified by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Musk set out with a goal of finding $2 trillion in federal waste, but wound up identifying about $180 billion.

House GOP leaders lauded the proposal during their weekly press conference on Tuesday.

‘These are commonsense cuts. And I think every member of this body should support it. It’s a critical step in restoring fiscal sanity and beginning to turn the tides and removing fraud, waste, and abuse from our government,’ Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said.

KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan – Taiwan’s coast guard and affiliated military units put on a show of strength during an ‘Ocean Day’ drill last week amid growing threats from China.

Held in southern Taiwan’s largest city, Kaohsiung, the exercise was overseen by Taiwan President William Lai, and while framed as demonstrations of search and rescue and anti-terrorism abilities, there was no escaping the larger reason why Taiwan is strengthening frontline defenses and operational readiness. 

Alongside the navy, Taiwan’s coast guard is undergoing modernization. On display during the Ocean Day exercise was one of Taiwan’s new Anping-class corvettes, stealth-capable vessels with surface-to-land missile systems, and, naturally, advanced rescue capabilities.

This all comes as Taiwan’s top weapons developer recently announced they had developed various new sea drones – including so-called ‘kamikaze’ or suicide drones. An anonymous official claimed Taiwan’s military will test the sea drones in waters off Southern Taiwan this August. 

Defense Minister Wellington Koo confirmed late last month that the navy of independently-ruled Taiwan will soon add unmanned surface vehicles, while the army is set to inaugurate its first drone units this year. Reports say Taiwan produced around 10,000 drones last year, and this year plans to buy 3,000+ more made by local companies for military use. 

In remarks following the Ocean Day exercise, Lai urged Taiwan’s lawmakers to back his administration’s latest defense spending proposals and told the group of select guests that included the highest-ranking American official based in Southern Taiwan, Neil Gibson, that the matter was about more than just ships and hardware.

‘It’s about national resilience.’ 

Taiwanese government officials frequently denounce what they term as escalating ‘gray zone’ warfare from Beijing, actions such as harassing fishing vessels, illegal incursions, and, on at least one occasion, boarding a Taiwan-flagged civilian ferry. Taiwan sees these actions as Chinese attempts to create a ‘new normal’ of uncontested control of the roughly 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait that separates the two sides.

Taiwan’s coast guard is dwarfed by the growing Chinese coast guard, which is already the largest in the world in terms of the number and size of vessels. Last year, according to statistics provided to Fox News Digital by Taiwan’s Ocean Affairs Council, Taiwan’s coast guard drove away 1,196 vessels from Taiwanese waters – 1,135 of which were from China. 

Lai said there is an urgent need for upgraded infrared surveillance to enable round-the-clock maritime monitoring, as well as other tech that could combat Chinese tactics that include illegal sand dredging, cyber disruptions and even sabotage of undersea cables, actions deliberately chosen to stay below the threshold of ‘acts of war.’

Ross Darrell Feingold, a lawyer and political risk analyst based in Taipei, told Fox News Digital that Lai’s calls for bipartisanship arise from the president’s party not currently holding a majority in Taiwan’s Parliament, which will make the passage of his proposed $13.6 billion USD ‘special budget’ much more difficult.

‘This proposed spending would go to the coast guard, the military, and be used to assist domestic industries affected by higher U.S. tariffs,’ said Feingold, who noted that the Trump administration should have no issues with selling weapons to Taiwan.

Since he took office on May 20, 2024, Lai has increased defense spending within the limits of what he can do while not holding a majority in Parliament. 

Beijing’s communist government stubbornly claims Taiwan as its territory despite never having governed it for a single day, and in recent years, removed language calling for a ‘peaceful settlement’ in official statements. One widely quoted assertion claims Chinese President Xi Jinping has ordered the Chinese military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027, now less than two years away.