The Trump administration is being urged to go on offense and make sure the next United Nations chief is aligned with U.S. and Western values and doesn’t kowtow to what critics say is an ever increasingly anti-American institution.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ tenure is set to end on Dec. 31, 2026. The former socialist prime minister of Portugal’s tenure has been beset with major wars and crises that have led to accusations of bias against him, especially when it comes to Israel. 

Experts agree the Trump administration needs to keep a close handle on who is best to serve the interests of the U.S.

Anne Bayefsky, director, Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust & president, Human Rights Voices, told Fox News Digital, ‘As long as the United States continues to make the mistake of being the largest bankroller of the United Nations, and in keeping U.N. headquarters (some call a fifth column) a stone’s throw from our financial capital, it ought to care deeply about who leads the organization.’

Jonathan Wachtel, a former director of communications and a senior policy advisor at the United States Mission to the United Nations to U.S. ambassadors Nikki Haley and Kelly Craft, said that, ‘Since its inception, the United Nations has been a frontline of the Cold War, and today it is increasingly a frontline of hostility toward the United States.’ 

‘As the Security Council prepares for its mid‑2026 straw polls, we face the stark reality that Russia and China can veto any candidate who reflects our values, even as they work to undermine U.S. foreign policy and erode Western principles. The next secretary‑general must… be a leader with backbone and conviction to champion the ideals on which the U.N. was founded and the United States has long stood — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for as many people as possible,’ he said.

With just over a year to go for the selection process, member states have begun to nominate candidates that best fit their national interests. 

Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital that of the candidates named thus far, few would be considered acceptable to the U.S. ‘The announced and rumored candidates… are for the most part either U.N. insiders or on the left side of the political spectrum,’ Schaefer said. ‘It’s hard to say that the U.S. would be willing to support any of them at the current stage.’

As the electioneering gets underway, Hugh Dugan, former National Security Council Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for International Organization Affairs, told Fox News Digital that, ‘After campaigns and a series of straw pulls and eliminations of candidates, members of the Security Council will present the U.N. General Assembly with a preferred candidate for their formal acceptance late next year.’

Dugan said that custom would indicate that the next secretary-general should come from Latin America. He also emphasized that there is an appetite to appoint a woman candidate after 15 years of calls for a female Secretary-General.

‘If they really are to take the helm of a suffering, more or less irrelevant, and unmanageable organization like this, they’re going to have to show up as managers,’ Dugan said.

In the midst of the election’s ‘three-ring circus,’ he said there are six candidates who have officially been named and an additional eight who are considered possible contenders for the role.

Declared Candidates:

Seemingly the most palatable candidate for the U.S. of those declared is the current head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi of Argentina. An Argentine diplomat, Grossi has been dealing with Iran’s ambition to develop nuclear weapons while also working to prevent a nuclear disaster in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Schaefer says that Grossi is ‘probably the most acceptable among the candidates that have been listed so far’ given the ‘great deal of courage’ he has shown in his role at the IAEA.

Others include: Former Bolivian Vice President David Choquehuanca. A member of the Movement for Socialism. Choquehuanca once expressed his disdain for Western thinking after his election as Bolivia’s foreign minister. 

Former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet was the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights between 2018 and 2022. U.N. Watch said that in this role, Bachelet often condemned Israel and the U.S. but ‘turned a blind eye to widespread violations by China, Turkey, North Korea, Cuba, Eritrea,’ and others.

According to Schaefer, it is ‘extraordinarily unlikely that [Bachelet] would receive support from the U.S.’ given her political leanings and her ‘remarkable lack of bravery in the conduct of her position as the high commissioner for human rights.’

Former Vice President of Costa Rica Rebeca Grynspan, who headed the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD.) Grynspan had recommended regulation as a means ‘to address the deepening asymmetries’ of international finance.

Schaefer said Grynspan would not ‘be an ideal candidate from a U.S. perspective,’ as her 30-year U.N. career makes her a ‘consummate insider’ who would likely be unwilling ‘to shake up the system.’

The field is rounded up by two outside candidates, Colombe Cahen-Salvador, a left-wing political activist and co-founder of the Atlas Movement, and Bruno Donat, a joint Mauritius-U.S. citizen and official at U.N. Mine Action Service.

Possible Candidates

Though they have not been officially named by a member state, Dugan listed several other officials that are likely to be nominated in the coming months. Many come from the left of the political aisle, and are unlikely to get the backing of the Trump administration. 

Jacinda Ardern, a former prime minister of New Zealand, who resigned from the role but is considered ‘a global icon of the left.’ Schaefer noted that Ardern’s prior resignation is not ‘a ringing endorsement’ of her capability to take on the demanding role of secretary-general.

Mexico’s former top diplomat, Alicia Bárcena, has 14 years of experience as the head of the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. She is presently the secretary of environment and natural resources. 

Other names include: María Fernanda Espinosa formerly defense and foreign minister of Ecuador, Nigeria’s Amina Mohammed, U.N. deputy secretary‑general, Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund since 2019 of Bulgaria, and former head of the U.N. Development Programme Achim Steiner of Germany.

Bayefsky said that, ‘A long list of anti-American secretaries-general, topped off by the profoundly hostile Antonio Guterres, have done enormous damage to America’s international relations, fueled antisemitism on a global scale, and gravely diminished global peace and security. We take a back seat in this election at our peril.’

The leader of the House GOP’s largest caucus is rolling out a plan to scale back Obamacare while giving Americans the option to open new health savings accounts (HSAs) named after President Donald Trump.

Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, is filing legislation on Monday called ‘The More Affordable Care Act,’ he told Fox News Digital.

States would be allowed to opt out of major facets of Obamacare, formally called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provided they had other systems in place for ensuring premiums were not hiked for high-risk patient pools. 

Those ‘waiver states’ would then be allowed to either run their own healthcare exchange platforms or oversee private company-run platforms, which Republicans argue will allow more choice in the healthcare marketplace in addition to the federal government’s options.

Federal dollars that currently go toward lowering the cost of insurance premiums in those states would be rerouted into personal HSAs for eligible enrollees called ‘Trump Health Freedom Accounts.’

The bill would also allow Americans to shop across state lines for healthcare plans, with any healthcare program run under a ‘waiver state’ needing to be easily available to people in other ‘waiver states.’

Rather than doing away with Obamacare altogether — something many GOP lawmakers have acknowledged may be an impossible task — the bill would seek to increase competition for people where the federal option is the only choice.

The legislation’s introduction comes as Republican lawmakers are scrambling for a solution to address rising healthcare premium prices, which could see millions of Americans pay significantly more for healthcare starting next year.

One of the most high-profile factors in that price cliff is Obamacare subsidies that were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic, but which are set to expire at the end of this year.

The majority of Republicans are opposed to extending those enhancements, arguing the COVID-era program only helped fuel skyrocketing health costs without addressing the core problem.

But Democrats and some moderate Republicans have viewed an extension as a key way to prevent healthcare from becoming unaffordable for millions of people.

House GOP leaders are working on a healthcare package that Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said could get a vote by the end of this month.

It’s not clear if Pfluger’s bill will be included in that package. But as the head of the House GOP’s de facto conservative think tank, he’s played a key role in advising Republican leadership in crafting their reforms.

A source familiar told Fox News Digital that they anticipated ‘significant interest’ from other House Republicans once the bill is introduced on Monday.

Meanwhile, Pfluger told Fox News Digital, ‘By establishing Health Freedom Accounts, we’re putting healthcare decisions back where they belong: in the hands of American families, not Washington bureaucrats. The American people deserve better than throwing more money at a failed system, and we’re delivering the commonsense solutions they expect.’

His bill is the House counterpart to legislation previously introduced by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., in Congress’ upper chamber.

Scott told Fox News Digital, ‘We don’t have to replace Obamacare, we keep exchanges, we keep protections for preexisting conditions – but we can add options for families, allowing them to shop across state lines, increasing transparency in health care, and giving any financial support to them directly through HSA-style Trump Health Freedom Accounts, so families can choose the care that fits their needs.’

As a Democrat who’s been on winning and losing presidential campaigns against Donald Trump, it’s clear to me that the Republican Party’s top competitive edge in recent elections was its anti-establishment populist message. I say ‘message’ because actions always matter more than words — especially when the actions contradict the words. That’s happening now. Trump and Vance are breaking their promises to stand up for everyday Americans against corrupt elites.

The prices Trump and Vance ran on vowing to ‘immediately’ lower — groceries, healthcare, electricity bills – have gone up, while economic growth is down. We’re seeing ‘recession-level’ job loss and unprecedented welfare for the rich. 

As a result, Trump and Vance are crippling Republicans’ flagship political advantage, creating new divides in their party and the country. Those shifts are big openings for Democrats on voters’ #1 issue, their finances. By the same token, if I were one of the Republicans already navigating the 2028 shadow primary, I’d see growing opportunities to outcompete JD Vance.

The Constitution blocks Trump from running again. Even if it didn’t, Trump’s diminishing energy levels and judgment make him a lame duck regardless. Case in point, the President of the United States is building himself an assisted-living theme park on the White House grounds while dismissing Americans’ concerns about affordability. This kind of antipopulist record is becoming significant baggage for Vance, making him a target for Republicans as well as Democrats.

For example, it’s hard to imagine anything less populist — or more un-Christian — than partying with billionaires while taking food away from working families. Or forcing middle class Americans to pick up the tab for AI datacenters backed by some of the richest companies in history. 

In the Biden White House, we saw firsthand how damaging it is for the party in power if a majority of Americans rate the economy negatively. Voters’ economic sentiment sets the political tone. 

In November, the party that controls Washington lost elections all over the country. From New Jersey Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger to New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, Democrats ran disciplined, cost-of-living campaigns. That issue has staying power and can unite Democrats with newly persuadable independents and Republicans. It happened again this week, with Republicans barely hanging onto a deep-red Tennessee congressional district.

Sadly, for those of us who can’t afford to ingratiate ourselves the Trump-Vance administration by purchasing Trump’s meme coin or joining Donald Trump Jr.’s ‘Executive Branch’ club, their agenda is sowing seeds for an even weaker economy. 

First, there’s healthcare. Having already made the biggest Medicaid cuts in history, Washington Republicans want to terminate Democratic health care tax credits for working people, making premiums skyrocket for millions and taking coverage from more. 

Second, tens of thousands are losing their jobs to AI – a rapidly accelerating trend. While it’s in America’s interest to lead the world when it comes to AI, the Trump-Vance administration — whose AI czar is himself a corrupt billionaire — is treating millions of Americans’ livelihoods as expendable, failing to equip workers for a successful economic future. By contrast, Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jake Auchincloss  are working to ensure we win the AI race while fighting to protect blue and white collar workers.

Then there’s energy. After raising electricity bills with the most severe clean energy cuts on record, Republican majorities are helping extremely rich people charge working families for their datacenters’ energy consumption. The Trump-Vance record on monopolistic megamergers will also come back to haunt them.

These realities all trap Vance between a rock and a hard place. Trump demands unquestioning loyalty from subordinates like Vance, but other likely candidates have more autonomy. For example, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, has attacked the White House for high prices.

Greene isn’t alone among Republicans in distancing herself from the administration. When Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi, said ‘organized Jewry’ was the biggest threat to America, Trump and Vance’s response to Fuentes was pathetically weak. But Texas Senator Ted Cruz, another possible candidate, blasted Fuentes. 

There’s also growing bipartisan opposition to the administration’s warmongering toward Venezuela. Americans don’t want servicemembers risking their lives to distract from a billionaire president’s falling approval ratings.

What has been Vance’s biggest asset with fellow Republicans –his closeness with Trump –could become his rivals’ key to undermining him. Democrats are doing it now. Last month, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a popular swing state Democrat, blasted Vance for taking food away from the hungry while cutting taxes for billionaires. Then he signed a new tax credit for working families into law, delivering $193 million in tax relief for 940,000 Pennsylvanians.

Republicans’ ‘Golden Age’ is turning into a second Gilded Age, where tax breaks for the wealthy are funded by higher costs for everyone else.

Across all political boundaries, Americans want leaders who will actually listen to them.

President Donald Trump on Thursday hired a new architect to lead the next phase of the White House ballroom project.

Trump tapped Shalom Baranes Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based architectural firm to oversee the ballroom design effort.

‘As we begin to transition into the next stage of development on the White House Ballroom, the Administration is excited to share that the highly talented Shalom Baranes has joined the team of experts to carry out President Trump’s vision on building what will be the greatest addition to the White House since the Oval Office — the White House Ballroom,’ White House Spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement.

Ingle added, ‘Shalom is an accomplished architect whose work has shaped the architectural identity of our nation’s capital for decades and his experience will be a great asset to the completion of this project.’

Trump initially chose McCrery Architects to design the ballroom. McCrery will remain a valuable consultant on the project, a White House official told Fox News.

Construction started on the ballroom in October, leading to the demolition of the White House’s historic East Wing.

The project is being privately funded at an estimated cost of $300 million, up from a $200 million estimate in July when the project was unveiled.

Trump provided an update on construction during a cabinet meeting Tuesday, saying, ‘I wouldn’t say my wife is thrilled.’

‘She hears pile drivers in the background all day, all night,’ he said.

The president said the overhaul has been needed for 150 years, adding, ‘I think it’s going to be the finest ballroom ever built.’

The White House previously said the long-envisioned addition will be designed to host large gatherings and state visits, and will be completed before the end of Trump’s term.

More than 160 House Democrats voted against a pair of bills Thursday aimed at keeping foreign influence out of U.S. schools.

Both pieces of legislation passed with bipartisan support, though Democrats’ top ranks opposed each one.

‘We just want to educate our children, focus on reading, writing and arithmetic, developing a holistic child, giving the ability to them to think critically,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told Fox News Digital when asked about the pushback.

‘We’re not going to be lectured by a group of Republicans who are dismantling the Department of Education in real-time. Literally 90% of the Department of Education as it existed last year is now gone.’

He accused Republicans of ‘attacking public education just like they’re attacking public health and attacking public safety.’

One of the two bills was led by House GOP Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern, R-Okla., and would block federal funds from elementary and secondary schools that have programs, cultural exchanges or other class-related activities that get dollars from the Chinese government.

It would also block federal funds from schools that either directly or indirectly get any kind of support from entities or people related to the Chinese government.

That bill passed 247–166, with 33 Democrats in favor and 166 against.

The second piece of legislation, led by Rep. Aaron Bean, R-Fla., would require every public elementary and secondary school to notify parents that they have a right to request information about any ‘foreign influence’ in their child’s school.

The notification would have to come via the school’s local education agency (LEA), bodies such as school boards that have administrative control over that and other schools in the area.

The second bill passed 247–164, with 33 Democrats in favor and 164 against.

Republicans argued these were commonsense bills aimed at keeping malign foreign influence out of U.S. schools.

But Democrats criticized both during debate on the House floor.

‘The bill gives no guidance on what acting directly or indirectly on behalf of means, or how you are supposed to know and how a parent’s contribution to a school program should be evaluated,’ Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said. ‘And really, are you supposed to scrutinize all parents’ contributions or just those from parents of Chinese American students?’

A Pentagon inspector general report concluded that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth sent sensitive, nonpublic strike information over the encrypted app Signal using his personal phone, a violation of department policy, even as the watchdog affirms he has broad authority to classify or declassify military information.

According to the report, Hegseth violated War Department protocol that bars officials from conducting government business on personal devices and from using commercial messaging applications to transmit nonpublic Pentagon information.

Investigators found that Hegseth’s March 15 messages to a Signal chat — which included an uncleared journalist — closely tracked timelines contained in a SECRET//NOFORN operational email from Central Command. As the Pentagon’s top classification authority, he has the discretion to declassify information, but policy still prohibits using nonsecure, nonofficial channels to send it.

‘This Inspector General review is a TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth and proves what we knew all along — no classified information was shared. This matter is resolved, and the case is closed,’ the department’s chief spokesperson said in response to the report.

The secretary sent operational details roughly two to four hours before U.S. forces carried out a coordinated strike campaign on Houthi targets in Yemen. The IG found that doing so ‘risks potential compromise’ and ‘could cause harm to DoD personnel and mission objectives.’

‘The Secretary sent information identifying the quantity and strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory over an unapproved, unsecure network approximately 2 to 4 hours before the execution of those strikes. Although the Secretary wrote in his July 25 statement to the DoD OIG that ‘there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission,’’ the report states.

‘If this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes. Even though these events did not ultimately occur, the Secretary’s actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots.’

The report says Hegseth monitored the Yemen strikes from a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at his home with two aides and communicated with U.S. CENTCOM via classified channels before posting what he later described as an unclassified ‘summary’ to the Signal group.

Several Pentagon officials told investigators that Hegseth participated in additional Signal group chats — including one labeled ‘Defense Team Huddle’ — to assign tasks, discuss internal matters and, in at least one case, share similar operational information.

Officials also installed a special tethering system that allowed Hegseth to view and operate his personal phone from inside his secure Pentagon suite while the device remained physically outside the classified space. The IG said it could not determine whether this setup met security requirements.

Read the report below. App users: Click here

The controversy began after then–National Security Advisor Mike Waltz inadvertently added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Cabinet-level Signal chat in which Hegseth shared the strike details. The IG determined that including a journalist in the chat ‘risked U.S. personnel and security.’

Because many of the messages in the chat were auto-deleted before the Pentagon preserved them, the report also found that Hegseth violated federal record-keeping law, which requires officials to forward records from nonofficial messaging accounts to their government accounts within 20 days.

Adm. Mitch Bradley confirmed to lawmakers that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth did not order all survivors of counter-narcotics strikes to be killed — even as they had mixed opinions on whether the so-called ‘double tap’ strike was justified. 

An initial Washington Post report had claimed that Hegseth ordered those in charge of the counter-narcotics strikes to ‘kill them all,’ leading Bradley to interpret this as orders to kill remaining survivors. 

‘The admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order and that there was not an order to grant no quarter,’ Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told reporters after a briefing with the admiral. 

‘Adm. Bradley was very clear that he was given no such order, not to give no quarter or to kill them all,’ Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said.

Still, Himes said the full video footage of the Sept. 2 strikes showed that the two survivors were ‘shipwrecked sailors.’

‘What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel, who were killed by the United States,’ Himes went on. ‘Now there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way.’

Democrats and Republicans seemed to have strikingly different impressions of the video they’d been shown of the strikes.

Cotton said video of the strikes showed the survivors ‘trying to flip their boat back over and continue their mission.’

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said, ‘I think it’d be hard to watch the series of videos and not be troubled by it.’ 

‘I am deeply disturbed by what I saw this morning. The Department of Defense has no choice but to release the complete, unedited footage of the Sept. 2 strike,’ said Sen. Jack Reed, R.I., top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared to take aim at Democrats for claiming they were ‘troubled’ by the video. 

‘Those who appear ‘troubled’ by videos of military strikes on designated terrorists have clearly never seen the Obama-ordered strikes, or, for that matter, those of any other administration over recent decades. I am deeply concerned by the public statements made by others that seek to ignore the realities of targeting terrorists to score political points. I call upon them to remember their own silence as our forces conducted identical strikes for years — killing terrorists and destroying military objectives the same as in this strike — and ask themselves why they would seek to attack our forces today.’

‘There is [another] example where survivors actually were shipwrecked and distressed and not trying to continue on their mission, and they were treated as they should be, as noncombatants. They were picked up by U.S. forces,’ Cotton said.

‘It’s just an example of how, of course, our military always obeys the laws of war. Our military also acts with an appropriate, lawful authority to target these narco-terrorists.’

In another Oct. 16 strike that killed two, two survivors were captured and sent back to Colombia and Mexico. In a series of four strikes on Oct 27 that killed 14, one survivor was left for retrieval by the Mexican coast guard.

Cotton said the protocol for handling survivors remains the same since the strikes began in early September. 

After reporting that a Sept. 2 strike on alleged narco-terrorists had left two survivors who were killed in a follow-up strike, lawmakers and legal analysts expressed concern that top military brass had violated the Pentagon’s Law of War manual, which deems attacking persons rendered ‘helpless’ due to ‘wounds, sickness or shipwreck’ is explicitly prohibited and described as ‘dishonorable and inhumane.’ Shipwrecked individuals are protected unless they resume hostile action or otherwise regain the capacity to pose an immediate threat.

But Pentagon officials have suggested the survivors may have been in a position to call for backup and that Bradley viewed that as a threat.

Hegseth has said he viewed the initial strike in real time, but was not present to view the second strike. He’s said he had no involvement in the decision to call for a second strike but stands by Bradley’s decision.

Bradley is now locked in a whirlwind day of meetings on Capitol Hill to explain his decision — he’s given separate briefings to the top lawmakers on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, House and Senate Armed Services Committees and top members on the defense appropriations subcommittees. 

House Republicans are scrambling to find a solution to sky-high health costs as the clock ticks on Obamacare tax credits that were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

House GOP leaders have been busy working with different factions within their conference this week to shape the contours of a package aimed at lowering healthcare costs for Americans, but it’s not clear if there is yet consensus on legislation that could get support from all 220 Republican lawmakers — and those in the Senate.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Bloomberg News on Thursday that the House would vote on a healthcare plan by the end of this month.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., was less certain of a specific timeline, however, telling reporters, ‘We are meeting with all of our caucuses and building a coalition. And so when we’re ready to go, we will.’

‘But the focus has always been, you know, bills that will lower costs and give families options to help them, so they’re not trapped in the unaffordable care act,’ Scalise said.

He was referring to the Obama administration-era Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. Republicans have long criticized it as a broken system that’s served to fuel inflationary health insurance premium costs, but finding a solution that’s palatable to both Americans and officials in Washington has long eluded the GOP.

Democrats in Congress voted twice to expand Obamacare during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to get more Americans healthcare coverage. That expansion is set to run out by the end of 2025, and Democrats claim that it will push Americans’ healthcare costs sky-high if the enhanced subsidies are allowed to expire.

It’s also been a concern for a handful of Republicans, many of whom represent battleground districts that were critical to the GOP winning and keeping the House majority.

Multiple bipartisan initiatives have been unveiled in recent weeks aimed at stopping that healthcare cliff from coming. Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., are planning to release legislation expanding the enhanced Obamacare subsidies for two years, albeit with reforms aimed at streamlining the system for those who need it most.

Fitzpatrick told Fox News Digital that legislation could come out as soon as Thursday.

Meanwhile, a group of 20 Democrats and 15 Republicans led by Reps. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., released a framework on Thursday morning that would expand a version of the enhanced Obamacare subsidies for a year, followed by a modified health plan the following year that would include ‘continued health insurance premium savings’ with ‘more significant reforms.’

The extension would reform the system with new ‘guardrails’ aimed at rooting out fraudulent actors and inactive enrollees, along with new income requirements to qualify.

‘It proposes a short-term and longer-term fix. But the bottom line is in just a few days, for millions and millions of Americans, their health insurance premiums are going to spike significantly,’ Gottheimer told reporters.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., a part of that group, said, ‘The extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidy with reforms is something we all agree is necessary, and then have a much longer-term discussion about how we actually fix healthcare costs in America.’

Kiggans told Fox News Digital in a brief interview that allowing the enhanced subsidies to just expire would hike costs for millions of Americans who Republicans tried to help make life more affordable for with President Donald Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.

She said she understood and agreed with the notion of needing to phase out COVID-19-era tax programs but added, ‘We are facing a deadline with this one where, unfortunately, if we just cold turkey let those premium tax credits expire, we’re going to see spikes worth thousands of dollars.’

But conservatives within the House GOP have signaled heavy opposition to extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, arguing it would do little to lower healthcare costs.

‘I don’t know why Republicans, or people who consider themselves to be conservative, would give tacit approval and support of Obamacare by expanding subsidies of Obamacare,’ House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. ‘I don’t know why they would give tacit agreement that somehow, by extending those subsidies, COVID-era subsidies, that they would be making healthcare more affordable.’

Arrington said he could see bipartisan avenues to make aspects of Obamacare itself work better, but suggested he was against extending the enhanced subsidies even with reforms.

‘I see no utility at all in expanding in any form. No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it’s still a pig. And you need a whole different animal if you’re going to bring the cost down,’ he said.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who spoke with Fox News Digital the night before the bipartisan unveiling, said, ‘If they really wanted to build a coalition with Republicans, they’d be coming over and pitching us first on what their ideas are. I haven’t seen that.’

‘Let’s remember that these were COVID-era Biden subsidies and that no Republican voted for them. And no Republicans voted for any other subsidy. So any Republican trying to do a deal starting with that is starting at the wrong end. Start with healthcare freedom,’ Roy said.

Still, there are ways for Republicans in favor of extending the Obamacare enhanced subsidies to force a vote on doing so without support from their leaders.

One method is called a discharge petition, which would force consideration of a given piece of legislation if it got support from a majority of the House chamber.

But both Kiggans and Fitzpatrick appeared hesitant when asked about the possibility.

Fitzpatrick would not answer directly when asked about such a move. Kiggans, meanwhile, said, ‘This isn’t a direction that we’re trying to go with it.’

‘I think just today, Mike Johnson said we were going to do something with … so, hopefully, you know, we’ve been able to impress upon the leadership the urgency and that these things will be addressed next week,’ she said.

Charlie Kirk’s final book is a ‘manifesto against the machine of modern life,’ encouraging his followers to ‘stop in the name of God’ and honor the Sabbath.

Kirk, the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, was assassinated Sept. 10 after years of promoting civil discourse on college campuses and mentoring young adults across the country.

Weeks before his murder, Kirk finished what would be his final book — ‘Stop, In the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life.’ Kirk was ‘fiercely proud of it,’ according to Winning Team Publishing — the publishing house that published his final book. 

Kirk’s beloved wife, Erika, was ‘determined to bring it into the world as a tribute to his legacy,’ and added a foreword to the book after his death, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital.

‘I knew Charlie so deeply, in a way no one else could,’ Erika Kirk writes in the book’s forward. ‘That is why I can say with certainty: these pages are not theory for him, they are testimony. The words you hold in your hands were the convictions he lived that were written on his heart.’

‘Looking back now, I see the book as one of Charlie’s most enduring gifts to the world,’ she continues. ‘He did not know how brief his time (on) earth would be—none of us did—but the truths written in this book are not bound by time. They will outlive us all, as will the legacy of his faith.’ 

‘There is no doubt in my heart that Charlie left this world doing what he loved most: standing firm for truth, for faith, for family, and for America,’ she continued. ‘The mark he made will not fade; it is etched in countless lives and stories. Though he is no longer beside us, I find deep comfort in knowing his voice still carries on.’ 

‘As Charlie’s widow, I write these words through tears, yet also with a steady hope,’ she writes. ‘My prayer is that you (and one day my two precious children) will not only read these pages but weave them into the fabric of your life. That you will let one of Charlie’s final messages quiet your hurried steps and lead you nearer to God.’

Erika Kirk, the now-CEO and board chair for Turning Point USA, goes on to thank readers for ‘opening these pages, for allowing Charlie’s words and convictions to take root in your own life, and for helping to carry forward the legacy of a man who poured himself out for his Savior, his family, and his country.’

Charlie Kirk was killed in September as he spoke to a crowd at Utah Valley University. Authorities believe a single shot was fired from the roof of a building some 200 yards away. 

Charlie Kirk was 31, and the married father of two young children. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, one of the most prominent conservative voices in the country, sent a shockwave across the nation and mobilized thousands of young supporters on college campuses across the United States. 

Fox News Digital also exclusively obtained the prologue and introduction of the book, written by Charlie Kirk.

‘In this book, I intend to persuade you of something that may, at first, seem quaint, old-fashioned, or even unnecessary: that the Sabbath is not merely a helpful tradition or a cultural relic—it is essential to the flourishing of the human soul,’ Charlie Kirk wrote.

‘I will define the Sabbath not just in doctrinal terms but in existential ones. We will explore its origin—not in history, but in eternity; not in law, but in creation,’ he wrote. ‘I will show you how to incorporate it not as a weekly burger but as a life-giving rhythm that reorders your time, renews your mind, and restores your humanity.’

Charlie Kirk wrote that the book ‘is not written for the religiously initiated alone.’

‘It is written for the exhausted parent, the anxious student, the burned-out executive, the soul-numbed scroller,’ he wrote.

‘This is not a suggestion manual or a spiritual upgrade for those with spare time,’ he continued. ‘This is a manifesto against the machine of modern life. It is a call to war against the endless noise and ceaseless hurry that have slowly robbed you of your joy, your wonder, and your rest.’

Charlie Kirk wrote that he did not write the book to ‘affirm your lifestyle,’ but instead ‘to interrupt it.’ 

‘I am writing to cut at the root of some of the deepest wounds in our society—disconnection, anxiety, spiritual fatigue, moral confusion—and to offer you a concrete, ancient, and divine practice that can begin to heal them,’ he wrote.

‘As America has abandoned the Sabbath, we have watched nearly every major marker of health—emotional, spiritual, communal—begin to fail,’ he wrote. ‘We are more productive and less peaceful, more connected digitally and more isolated relationally. We are over-stimulated, undernourished, distracted, discontent, and desperately lonely.’

‘My mission in writing this is very simple: I desire to bring all humanity back to God’s design to rest for an entire day,’ Charlie Kirk writes. ‘To cease working, to STOP, in the name of GOD.’ 

The introduction of the book, in Charlie Kirk’s own words, brings the reader on his own journey to rediscovering the Sabbath.

Charlie Kirk brings the reader back to the summer of 2021, saying his life was ‘in perfect order,’ and after marrying Erika Kirk, his life ‘was as good as it gets.’

‘But on the inside, there was a battle brewing,’ he wrote. ‘I was fatigued, tired, and spiritually confused.’

Charlie Kirk discussed how he began to unplug, recharge and reconnect with God, family, and himself through observing the Sabbath.

The book is packed with Charlie Kirk’s practical insights and spiritual wisdom to help readers understand how honoring the Sabbath ‘restores balance, reduces anxiety, and nourishes your soul.’

The book was published by Winning Team Publishing, and will be available nationwide Tuesday, including at WinningPublishing.com, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Amazon, Walmart, 45books.com and more. The book is available for pre-order. 

Erika Kirk will appear on Fox News Channel’s ‘Hannity,’ ‘Fox & Friends,’ and will co-host ‘Outnumbered’ and ‘The Five’ the week of its release to promote the book. 

First lady Melania Trump announced Thursday that an additional seven Ukrainian children have returned to their families in the war-torn country as part of a Russia-Ukraine youth reunification initiative.

‘My dedication to guaranteeing the safe return of children to their families in this region is unwavering,’ Melania Trump said in a statement shared by the White House, which noted that six boys and one girl were involved.

‘I commend the leadership and persistent diplomacy of Russia and Ukraine in the pursuit of the reunification of children and families. Their bridge-building has created a tangible collaborative environment — an anchor for optimism. This cooperation will continue to drive the process forward through the next phase,’ she added.

‘In close partnership, my representative and I have provided humanitarian support from the United States to enhance the reunification initiative’s outcome. My hope is that, ultimately, our collective efforts will lead to broader regional stability,’ Melania Trump also said.

The first lady previously wrote a ‘peace letter’ to Russian President Vladimir Putin telling him ‘it is time’ to protect children and future generations around the globe, Fox News Digital reported in August.

President Donald Trump then hand-delivered the message to the Russian leader before their summit in Alaska that month.

In October, Melania Trump said eight Ukrainian children displaced during the ongoing war with Russia had been reunited with their families.

‘Each child has lived in turmoil because of the war in Ukraine. Three were separated from their parents and displaced to the Russian Federation because of frontline fighting. The other five were separated from family members across borders because of the conflict, including one young girl who has now been reunited from Ukraine to Russia,’ Melania Trump said at the time.

‘My ongoing mission is twofold: to prioritize and optimize a transparent, free flow of health-related information surrounding all children who have [fallen] victim to this war, and to facilitate the reunification of children with their families until each individual returns home,’ Melania Trump said. 

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman and Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.