A House Republican representing part of Southern California will oppose President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ if it returns to her chamber without the House’s original language on Medicaid, a source familiar with her thinking told Fox News Digital.

Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., is one of several moderates who are uneasy on Saturday after the Senate released updated text of the massive bill advancing Trump’s agenda on tax, immigration, defense, energy, and the national debt.

Two other sources told Fox News Digital that as many as 20 to 30 moderate Republicans are reaching out to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., with serious concerns about the Senate’s bill.

The source familiar with Kim’s thinking said, ‘As she’s said throughout this process, ‘I will continue to make clear that a budget resolution that does not protect vital Medicaid services for the most vulnerable, provide tax relief for small businesses, and address the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions will not receive my vote.”

The Senate released the nearly 1,000-page bill minutes before midnight on Friday night.

It makes some notable modifications to the House’s version of the bill – which passed that chamber by just one vote in May – particularly on Medicaid and green energy credits.

Among their issues is the difference in provider tax rates and state-directed payments, both of which states use to help fund their share of Medicaid costs.

Whereas the House bill called for freezing provider taxes at their current rates and blocking new ones from being implemented, the Senate’s bill went a step further – forcing states to gradually phase down their provider tax rates to 3.5%, if they adopted the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion.

That would include 40 states and Washington, D.C. The Senate’s most recent bill text shows that phase-down happening between 2028 and 2032.

Sixteen House GOP moderates wrote a letter to congressional leaders sounding the alarm on those Medicaid provisions earlier this week.

They said it ‘undermines the balanced approach taken to craft the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1—particularly regarding provider taxes and state-directed payments.’

‘The Senate version treats expansion and non-expansion states unfairly, fails to preserve existing state programs, and imposes stricter limits that do not give hospitals sufficient time to adjust to new budgetary constraints or to identify alternative funding sources,’ the letter read.

To offset Senate Republicans’ concerns about their chamber’s proposed limits on state-directed payments and provider tax rates, the Senate Finance Committee included a $25 billion rural hospital fund in their legislation.

It was enough to sway Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who told reporters on Saturday that he would support the bill after expressing earlier concern about the Medicaid provisions’ impact on rural hospitals.

But in the House, sources are signaling to Fox News Digital that moderate Republicans could still need convincing if the bill passes the Senate this weekend.

It could pose problems for House GOP leaders given their thin three-vote majority, though it’s worth noting that the legislation could still change before it reaches the lower chamber.

But one senior House GOP aide told Fox News Digital they believe the moderates will ultimately fall in line, even if the text doesn’t change.

‘Moderate Republicans can plead and beg with House leadership all they want – the reforms to Medicaid made in the Senate are here to stay,’ the senior aide said. ‘And ultimately, these lawmakers will roll over and vote for the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ because the wrath of President Trump is far worse than a lower provider tax.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Speaker Mike Johnson’s office for comment.

For his part, Johnson, R-La., has publicly urged the Senate on multiple occasions to change the bill as little as possible – given the fragile unity that must be struck in the House to pass it.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held his first official meeting in Washington, D.C., with the families of the hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza amid the terror group’s ongoing war with Israel.

Rubio reaffirmed the Trump administration’s commitment to securing the release of all 50 remaining hostages, according to a press release from The Hostages and Missing Families Forum.

The meeting featured Moshe Lavi, brother-in-law of hostage Omri Miran; Ilay David, brother of hostage Evyatar David; Tzur Goldin, brother of Lt. Hadar Goldin; and recently released hostage Iair Horn, whose brother Eitan Horn remains in captivity.

Rubio’s wife, Jeanette, and son, Anthony, were also at the meeting.

During the meeting, the secretary told the families that true victory in Gaza would only be realized when all the hostages returned home, according to the press release.

He also noted that the U.S. government has already demonstrated its ability to lead significant initiatives in the Middle East. He further argued that Israel has achieved victories in Iran and Lebanon and is capable of defeating Hamas.

The families stressed that this is a critical window of opportunity to bring the remaining hostages home in one comprehensive deal rather than phases or partial agreements as has been the case in Israel’s previous hostage deals with Hamas, the press release said.

They expressed trust in the Trump administration to act with urgency and determination to free the remaining people in Hamas’ captivity.

‘We’ve waited long enough,’ the families said. ‘It’s time to make brave decisions and bring all our loved ones back—all at once.’

President Donald Trump delivered a resounding endorsement of NATO this week, marking a sharp turnaround in his years-long, often contentious relationship with the alliance.

Once known for blasting allies over defense spending and even threatening to pull out of NATO altogether, Trump now appears to have had a change of heart. 

‘I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries,’ Trump said after the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague.

The pivot comes as NATO nations more than doubled their collective defense spending target – raising the bar from 2% to 5% of GDP.

From Hostile Rhetoric to Royal Receptions

The president’s renewed embrace of the alliance follows years of friction, high-profile clashes with world leaders and controversial comments. Yet at this year’s summit, the tone was strikingly different.

Trump was welcomed by Dutch royals, praised by the NATO secretary-general – who even referred to him as ‘daddy’ – and returned home lauding European allies for their patriotism. ‘It’s not a rip-off, and we’re here to help them,’ Trump told reporters.

The transformation is as dramatic as it is unexpected.

The Iran Factor: Military Action with Global Impact

Trump arrived at the NATO summit on a high note, following U.S. strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to American and allied intelligence sources, the operation set back Tehran’s nuclear ambitions by several years.

The strike was widely seen as both a show of strength and a strategic warning – not just to Iran but to NATO adversaries like Russia and China.

‘He really came in from this power move,’ said Giedrimas Jeglinskas, a former NATO official and current chairman of Lithuania’s national security committee.

‘Among some, definitely Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Nordic Europe, this attack, the use of those really sophisticated weapons and bombers, was the rebuilding of the deterrence narrative of the West, not just of America.’

Timeline: Trump’s Rocky Road with NATO

2016 Campaign Trail

Trump repeatedly called NATO ‘obsolete,’ questioning its relevance and slamming allies for failing to pay their ‘fair share.’

‘It’s costing us too much money… We’re paying disproportionately. It’s too much,’ he said in March 2016.

He criticized NATO for lacking focus on terrorism, later taking credit when it created a chief intelligence post.

February 2017 – Early Presidency

Trump softened his tone after becoming president. 

‘We strongly support NATO,’ he said after visiting Central Command. ‘We only ask that all members make their full and proper financial contribution.’

He continued to push for members to meet the 2% target by 2024.

2018 Brussels Summit

Trump privately threatened to pull the U.S. from NATO unless allies increased spending.

‘Now we are in World War III protecting a country that wasn’t paying its bills,’ he warned.

Despite the posturing, he called NATO a ‘fine-tuned machine’ after extracting new spending commitments. He also accused Germany of being a ‘captive of Russia’ over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

2019 London Summit

The drama continued, this time with French President Emmanuel Macron calling NATO ‘brain-dead.’ 

‘NATO serves a great purpose. I think that’s very insulting,’ Trump responded.

He also clashed with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – calling him ‘two-faced’ after Trudeau was caught mocking Trump on camera.

2020 – Troop Withdrawal from Germany

Trump ordered 12,000 U.S. troops out of Germany, citing Berlin’s defense shortfalls.

February 2024 – Russia Controversy

Trump ignited backlash after suggesting he’d let Russia ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to NATO countries that failed to meet spending obligations.

The remark sparked urgent contingency talks among European leaders about the future of the alliance if the U.S. did not step up to its defense. 

June 2025: A Different Trump, a Different NATO

The 2025 summit in The Hague unfolded with surprising calm. Trump’s hosts rolled out the red carpet. ‘He’s the man of the hour and the most important man in the world,’ Jeglinskas said.

Jeglinskas credited Trump’s blunt diplomacy – however unorthodox – for helping drive real reform ‘He’s brought in tectonic change to the alliance’s capabilities by… being himself,’ he added. ‘It’s a gift for the alliance.’

Two Forces Behind NATO’s Revival: Russia and Trump

Experts agree NATO’s recent revitalization stems from two major catalysts: Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s relentless pressure on allies to boost defense.

President Trump is riding high this week with two major foreign policy victories,’ said Matthew Kroenig, vice president at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center, referencing NATO and the recent U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear program. ‘It’s terrific. I hope he can keep it up.’

He added, ‘Every president since Eisenhower has complained that NATO allies aren’t doing their fair share.’

Now, Trump was the one who finally got them to listen, he said. 

Senate Republicans unveiled their long-awaited version of President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ but its survival is not guaranteed.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., revealed the stitched-together text of the colossal bill late Firday night.

The final product from the upper chamber is the culmination of a roughly month-long sprint to take the House GOP’s version of the bill and mold and change it. The colossal package includes separate pieces and parts from 10 Senate committees. With the introduction of the bill, a simple procedural hurdle must be passed in order to begin the countdown to final passage.

When that comes remains an open question. Senate Republicans left their daily lunch on Friday under the assumption that a vote could be teed up as early as noon on Saturday.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital that he had ‘strongly encouraged’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to put the bill on the floor for a vote Saturday afternoon. 

‘If you’re unhappy with that, you’re welcome to fill out a hurt feelings report, and we will review it carefully later,’ Kennedy said. ‘But in the meantime, it’s time to start voting.’

But Senate Republicans’ desire to impose their will on the package and make changes to already divisive policy tweaks in the House GOP’s offering could doom the bill and derail Thune’s ambitious timeline to get it on Trump’s desk by the July 4 deadline.

However, Thune has remained firm that lawmakers would stay on course and deliver the bill to Trump by Independence Day. 

When asked if he had the vote to move the package forward, Thune said ‘we’ll find out tomorrow.’

But it wasn’t just lawmakers who nearly derailed the bill. The Senate parliamentarian, the true final arbiter of the bill, ruled that numerous GOP-authored provisions did not pass muster with Senate rules.

Any item in the ‘big, beautiful bill’ must comport with the Byrd Rule, which governs the budget reconciliation process and allows for a party in power to ram legislation through the Senate while skirting the 60-vote filibuster threshold. 

That sent lawmakers back to the drawing board on a slew of policy tweaks, including the Senate’s changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate, cost-sharing for food benefits and others. 

Republican leaders, the White House and disparate factions within the Senate and House GOP have been meeting to find middle ground on other pain points, like tweaking the caps on state and local tax (SALT) deductions.

While the controversial Medicaid provider tax rate change remained largely the same, a $25 billion rural hospital stabilization fund was included in the bill to help attract possible holdouts that have raised concerns that the rate change would shutter rural hospitals throughout the country. 

On the SALT front, there appeared to be a breakthrough on Friday. A source told Fox News that the White House and House were on board with a new plan that would keep the $40,000 cap from the House’s bill and have it reduced back down to $10,000 after five years. 

But Senate Republicans are the ones that must accept it at this stage. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., has acted as the mediator in those negotiations, and said that he was unsure if any of his colleagues ‘love it.’ 

‘But I think, as I’ve said before, I want to make sure we have enough that people can vote for than to vote against,’ he said. 

Still, a laundry list of other pocket issues and concerns over just how deep spending cuts in the bill go have conservatives and moderates in the House GOP and Senate pounding their chests and vowing to vote against the bill.

Republican leaders remain adamant that they will finish the mammoth package and are gambling that some lawmakers standing against the bill will buckle under the pressure from the White House and the desire to leave Washington for a short break.

Once a motion to proceed is passed, which only requires a simple majority, then begins 20 hours of debate evenly divided between both sides of the aisle.

Democratic lawmakers are expected to spend the entirety of their 10 allotted hours, while Republicans will likely clock in well below their limit. From there starts the ‘vote-a-rama’ process, when lawmakers can submit a near-endless number of amendments to the bill. Democrats will likely try to extract as much pain as possible with messaging amendments that won’t actually pass but will add more and more time to the process.

Once that is complete, lawmakers will move to a final vote. If successful, the ‘big, beautiful bill’ will again make its way back to the House, where House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will again have to corral dissidents to support the legislation. It barely advanced last month, squeaking by on a one-vote margin. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hammered on the importance of passing Trump’s bill on time. He met with Senate Republicans during their closed-door lunch and spread the message that advancing the colossal tax package would go a long way to giving businesses more certainty in the wake of the president’s tariffs. 

‘We need certainty,’ he said. ‘With so much uncertainty, and having the bill on the president’s desk by July 4 will give us great tax certainty, and I believe, accelerate the economy in the third quarter of the year.’ 

A Senate Democrat’s push to put a check on President Donald Trump’s powers and reaffirm the Senate’s war authority was shut down by lawmakers in the upper chamber Thursday.

Sen. Tim Kaine’s war powers resolution, which would have required Congress to debate and vote on whether the president could declare war, or strike Iran, was struck down in the Senate on a largely party-line vote, save for Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a staunch advocate of Israel who supported Trump’s strike on the Islamic Republic, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has been vocal in his thoughts about congressional war powers in recent days.

Earlier in the week, the Virginia Democrat vowed to move ahead with the resolution despite a fragile ceasefire brokered between Israel and Iran following weekend strikes on the Islamic Republic’s key nuclear facilities that were not given the green-light by Congress.

Kaine argued that the ceasefire gave his resolution more credence and breathing room to properly debate the role that Congress plays when it comes to authorizing both war and attacks abroad.

He said ahead of the vote on the Senate floor that he came to Washington to ensure that the country does not again get into another ‘unnecessary’ war, and invoked the rush to approve war powers for President George W. Bush over two decades ago to engage with Iraq.

‘I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to consign to the decisions of any one person,’ Kaine said. 

Indeed, his resolution became a focal point for a debate that has raged on Capitol Hill since Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran: whether the strikes like those carried out during Operation Midnight Hammer constituted an act of war that required congressional approval, or if Trump’s decision was under his constitutional authority as commander in chief.  

Senate Republicans have widely argued that Trump was well within his purview, while most Senate Democrats raised constitutional concerns about the president’s ability to carry out a strike without lawmakers weighing in. 

Experts have argued, too, that Trump was within his executive authority to strike Iran. 

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military. 

And nearly two centuries later, at the height of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was born, which sought to further define those roles.

But the most impact lawmakers could have is through the power of the purse, and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, who plays a large role in controlling the purse strings as the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, had a sharp message against Kaine’s resolution. 

McConnell used instances where Democratic presidents over the last three decades have used their authority for limited engagements in Kosovo, Libya, Syria and Yemen, and questioned why ‘isolationists’ would consider the strike on Iran to kneecap its nuclear program a mistake. 

‘I have not heard the frequent flyers on War Powers resolutions reckon seriously with these questions,’ he said. ‘Until they do, efforts like this will remain divorced from both strategic and constitutional reality.’

President Trump has secured commitments for a record-shattering $1.4 billion since Election Day 2024, Fox News Digital has learned, with advisors saying he will be ‘an even more dominant force’ for Republicans in the 2026 midterms. 

The president’s political operation, including the cash-on-hand at the Republican National Committee, has raised a historic $900 million since November, and commitments that will bring the total to more than $1.4 billion.

Fox News Digital has learned that the funds will be used to help Republicans to keep the House and Senate majorities.

Republicans currently control the House with a 220-215 majority, and control the Senate with a 53-47. 

Sources say the funds will also be used for whatever the president deems ‘necessary and appropriate.’

‘After securing a historic victory in his re-election campaign in 2024, President Trump has continued to break records, including fundraising numbers that have positioned him to be an even more dominant force going into the midterms and beyond,’ President Trump’s senior advisor and National Finance Director Meredith O’Rourke told Fox News Digital. 

The president headlined a major donor event in Washington D.C. in April for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which is the House GOP’s campaign arm. That fundraiser hauled in at least $10 million for the NRCC, a source familiar with the event told Fox News.

In March, Vice President JD Vance was tapped to serve as the RNC Finance Chair—the first time in the history of the GOP that a sitting vice president served in the role.

Vance pledged to work to ‘fully enact the MAGA mandate’ and grow the Republican majority in Congress in 2026.

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

House Republicans are growing increasingly wary of the self-imposed July 4 deadline to get President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ to the White House, as the president warns that the bill ‘must’ be ready for his signature by then.

‘I think it’s more important to get the bill correct than it is to get it fast,’ Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a former House Freedom Caucus chairman, told Fox News Digital. ‘I’m interested in a great deliverable product, and spending the time and the resources necessary to get that, whatever they may be.’

It’s a thought shared by members outside of the conservative rebel group as well – Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., who represents part of New York City, said Fourth of July is a ‘realistic’ goal, but not one she was married to.

‘I’m not set on getting this done by July 4th. I know that’s a goal, it’s a nice soundbite, doing this on Independence Day and celebrating America,’ Malliotakis said. ‘But at the end of the day, we’ve got to do it right. And I’d rather take a few more days, a few more weeks, to make sure we can deliver a good product for the American people.’

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters on Friday that it was ‘possible’ the deadline could slip, ‘but I don’t want to even accept that as an option right now. We want to try to push this.’

The vast tax and immigration bill is currently in the Senate, where lawmakers are still working through several key issues on Medicaid and state and local tax (SALT) deductions among other details.

An earlier version passed the House by just one vote in late May.

Now, several House Republicans are balking at proposed changes in the Senate – though there’s still no final product – and warning that the bill could lose their support when it returns to the House.

Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., who leads the Doctors Caucus, told Fox News Digital he had issues with the Senate version’s comparably harsher cuts to federal Medicaid funding.

‘There is uniform agreement amongst many, many members in the House – if there’s a change in the [federal Medicaid assistance percentage], we’re not voting for it. It would remove the Medicaid expansion of North Carolina. I won’t stand for that,’ he said.

Asked about the feasibility of a July 4 deadline, Murphy said, ‘I’ve been a surgeon all my life … if I plan things, I’m used to having them given up in case a patient needs me for emergencies and things like that.’

Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., a moderate, said ‘there might be some prudence’ in letting go of the July 4 deadline.

Conservative Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, was more optimistic. ‘I think it’s more worth it to get the bill right, but that’s not to say we won’t get it done by then,’ he said.

Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., suggested the timeline will rely heavily on Trump.

The Senate is expected to work through the weekend to pass the bill.

Johnson told House Republicans, meanwhile, to be flexible next week when they’re expected to be home in their districts. Sources have told Fox News Digital that House GOP leaders have offered varying estimations of when lawmakers will have to be back in Washington, from Tuesday through Thursday.

And the House is up against at least one real-world deadline: The U.S. is expected to run out of cash to pay its debts by the summer, according to multiple projections. Republicans have made raising the debt limit a priority in the bill.

Trump, for his part, wrote on Truth Social Friday, ‘The House of Representatives must be ready to send it to my desk before July 4th – We can get it done.’

He said during a press conference earlier in the day, ‘We can go longer, but we’d like to get it done by that time, if possible.’

Justice Amy Coney Barrett had pointed words for her colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, accusing Jackson of taking an ‘extreme’ position on the role of the judiciary branch.

Writing in her Supreme Court opinion on nationwide injunctions on Friday, Barrett said Jackson’s dissent contained ‘rhetoric,’ and she signaled that the liberal justice’s arguments were not worth much attention.

‘We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,’ Barrett wrote. ‘We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.’

The Supreme Court’s decision came as part of an emergency request from the Trump administration asking the high court to put an end to judges issuing universal injunctions, including those that judges have placed on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

Barrett, who was appointed by Trump, wrote that when judges issue injunctions to block policies, like those the Trump administration is trying to implement, they cannot apply the injunction to more than the parties involved in the case. Barrett said that type of order, often called a ‘nationwide injunction,’ is judicial overreach.

But Barrett’s opinion left open numerous other ways that plaintiffs can seek broad forms of relief from the courts, including by bringing class action lawsuits or statewide lawsuits.

Jackson wrote that nationwide injunctions should be permissible because the courts should not allow the president to ‘violate the Constitution.’ Barrett said that was not based on any existing legal doctrine.

‘She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,’ Barrett wrote.

Sotomayor, meanwhile, wrote in her own dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court was being ‘complicit’ by allowing the Trump administration to extract a perceived win out of the high court over birthright citizenship.

Sotomayor said that every court that has reviewed Trump’s birthright citizenship plan thus far has blocked Trump from carrying it out. Trump played a ‘different game,’ Sotomayor said, by bringing the case before the Supreme Court without actually asking the justices to analyze the merits of his plan. Trump instead asked the justices to weigh in on the legality of nationwide injunctions in general.

Trump’s birthright citizenship order would eliminate the 150-year-old right under the 14th Amendment that allows babies born in the United States to receive automatic citizenship regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.

The Supreme Court’s decision still allows for the high possibility that judges will continue to widely block Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but with different legal maneuvering on the part of the plaintiffs and the courts.

President Donald Trump said he’s open to conducting additional strikes against Iran, should Tehran pick up its nuclear program again to a level that is concerning to the U.S. 

‘Sure. Without question, absolutely,’ Trump told reporters Friday when asked about the possibility of subsequent strikes. 

Trump has previously issued similar warnings to Iran, and said Wednesday at the NATO Summit in the Netherlands that if Tehran were to seek to repair its nuclear program once more the U.S. wouldn’t hesitate to move forward with additional strikes.

Trump also slammed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared victory over Israel on Thursday. Trump countered Khamenei’s claims and said that he had spared Khamenei from death. 

‘I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,’ Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Friday. ‘I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, ‘THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!’’ 

‘I wish the leadership of Iran would realize that you often get more with HONEY than you do with VINEGAR. PEACE!!!’ Trump said. 

The U.S. launched strikes late Saturday targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities, which involved more than 125 U.S. aircraft, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine told reporters Sunday.

Following the strikes, Trump said in an address to the nation that the mission left the nuclear sites ‘completely and totally obliterated.’ But days later, a leaked report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, published by CNN and the New York Times, cast doubt on those claims, saying that the strikes had only set back Iran’s nuclear program by several months.

Meanwhile, the U.S., Israel and Iran’s Foreign Ministry have all said that the three nuclear sites that U.S. forces struck have encountered massive damage.

According to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the FBI is conducting an investigation to get to the bottom of the matter and who shared the document with the media.

A Florida man was indicted Friday for allegedly threatening to kill Alina Habba in a series of online ’86’ posts against the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Fox News Digital has learned.

The ’86” has been interpreted by law enforcement officials to mean ‘get rid of.’ 

Gregory W. Kehoe, the interim U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida, announced the charges Friday. 

According to the indictment reviewed by Fox News Digital, Salvatore Russotto made a threat in May to ‘injure and kill the victim in a series of online posts.’

Fox News Digital has learned that the victim referred to in the indictment is Habba, the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey who previously served as counselor to President Donald Trump. 

‘[VICTIM] is a c—,’ Russotto posted. ’86 that b—-.’

He also allegedly posted: ‘A slow painful death for [VICTIM]. 86 that c—.’

Russotto also allegedly posted: ‘Eliminate [VICTIM]. 86 Traitor. Death penalty for all traitors.’

Russotto was charged with transmission of an interstate threat to injure and retaliating against a federal law enforcement officer by threat.

‘This is yet another disturbing example of a dangerous copycat inspired by the reckless behavior of former officials, targeting those who serve our country and threatening the very people working to keep America safe,’ FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News Digital. ‘Our FBI will not tolerate political violence in any form.

‘I’m grateful to our law enforcement partners in Florida for their swift action and steadfast commitment to justice.’ 

The indictment comes after Patel said he has been forced to divert agents to investigate ‘copycats’ of potential threats to Trump as a result of former FBI Director James Comey’s ’86 47′ social media post last month.

‘Do you know how many agents I’ve had to take offline from chasing down child sex predators, fentanyl traffickers, terrorists, because, everywhere across this country, people are popping up on social media and think that a threat to the life of the president of the United States is a joke and they can do it because he did it?’ Patel said last month. 

‘That’s what I’m having to deal with every single day, and that’s what I’m having to pull my agents and analysts off because he thought it was funny to go out there and make a political statement.’ 

An FBI official told Fox News Digital the agency cannot disclose the number of ‘copycat’ incidents due to ongoing investigations but described the number to Fox News Digital as ‘significant.’ 

Comey met with Secret Service officials in Washington this month for an interview about his ’86 47′ Instagram post, two sources briefed on the meeting told Fox News.

Comey is under investigation for the now-deleted Instagram post that showed seashells arranged on a beach to say ’86 47.’

‘Cool shell formation on my beach walk,’ he wrote along with the post. 

Comey offered an explanation for the post after he received backlash on social media. 

‘I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message,’ the subsequent post from Comey said. ‘I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.’

The president, in a May interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, didn’t accept Comey’s explanation. 

‘He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant,’ Trump told Baier. ‘If you’re the FBI director, and you don’t know what that meant, that meant ‘assassination,’ and it says it loud and clear.’