Two major phone carriers took sharply different paths when former special counsel Jack Smith’s team subpoenaed phone records tied to Republican lawmakers in 2023, according to the redacted subpoenas and letters first shared with Fox News Digital.

The documents, provided by the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, reveal Verizon’s compliance and AT&T’s resistance when faced with Smith’s requests, which were part of Arctic Frost, the FBI probe that led to Smith bringing election charges against President Donald Trump.

The 12 phone numbers on the subpoena to Verizon are redacted and replaced by Grassley’s office with the names of the lawmakers associated with them. They include one House member and 10 senators, including Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fl., whose name was not previously reported.

AT&T received a similar request, according to a second subpoena. The company told Grassley the subpoenaed phone records were associated with two lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, according to a source directly familiar with the matter. The source said AT&T declined to disclose the second person.

Accompanying the two subpoenas were gag orders, signed by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C., that directed the two phone companies not to disclose the subpoenas to the lawmakers for one year. Prosecutors can seek such gag orders to temporarily keep investigative matters confidential.

The phone companies also wrote letters to Grassley, first shared with Fox News Digital, explaining how they handled the subpoenas they received, revealing two different approaches.

Verizon justified complying with the subpoenas, saying they were ‘facially valid’ and contained only phone numbers, not names. Verizon said that with the ‘benefit of hindsight’ and recent discussions with the Senate Sergeant at Arms, which handles congressional phone services, it has modified its policies so that it puts up more of a challenge to law enforcement requests pertaining to Congress members.

AT&T, meanwhile, did not comply with the subpoenas.

‘When AT&T raised questions with Special Counsel Smith’s office concerning the legal basis for seeking records of members of Congress, the Special Counsel did not pursue the subpoena further, and no records were produced,’ David Chorzempa, general counsel for AT&T, wrote.

The release of copies of the subpoenas and new details from phone companies comes after Grassley published earlier this month a one-page FBI document that said eight senators and one House lawmaker had their phone data subpoenaed. They included Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn, Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson and Cynthia Lummis.

Cruz later revealed that he was in the mix, and Scott announced on Thursday that he too was a target.

Grassley said in a press conference Wednesday that Smith’s subpoena to Verizon included Cruz’s office’s landline. In Verizon’s letter to Grassley, it noted that there were no records to give Smith pertaining to that landline.

The two subpoenas to Verizon and AT&T sought toll records for a four-day period surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. They did not include the contents of phone calls or messages, which would require a warrant, but they did include ‘[call] detail records for inbound and outbound calls, text messages, direct connect, and voicemail messages’ and phone number subscriber and payment information.

News of the subpoenas sparked outcry from the senators, who claimed Smith improperly spied on them and that Arctic Frost was ‘worse’ than the Watergate scandal. They have raised numerous constitutional concerns, including claims that the subpoenas violated the speech and debate clause, which gives lawmakers an added layer of immunity from investigations.

Smith, in response, said in a letter through his lawyers that he mentioned subpoenaing senators’ phone records in his public, final special counsel report and that the subpoenas were narrowly tailored to a four-day period surrounding the Jan. 6 riot and ‘entirely proper.’

Smith has asked House and Senate lawmakers to allow him to testify before them in a public hearing to speak about his special counsel work. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, however, wants to question Smith behind closed doors and Grassley has said he needs more information before he hosts Smith in a public setting.

The DOJ has issued subpoenas for lawmakers’ information in the past, but former inspector general Michael Horowitz cautioned against it in most circumstances in a report published last year, saying that doing so ‘risks chilling Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch.’

Horowitz’s warning came in response to the first Trump administration subpoenaing phone records of Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and dozens of congressional staffers from both parties as part of an investigation into classified information being leaked to the media.

Despite enjoying additional constitutional protections, members of Congress are not immune from investigation and prosecution. Former Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez’s phone records were seized while he was serving in office. Menendez is now serving in prison after being found guilty by a jury last year of corruption charges.

Read copies of the letters from Verizon and AT&T and the subpoenas below. 

App users: 

Click to read the Verizon letter

Click to read the Verizon subpoena

Click to read the AT&T letter

Click to read the AT&T subpoena

A former spokesperson for then-President Joe Biden admitted to Congress in August testimony, which surfaced on social media Wednesday, that he had only met with the aging president between one and five times in over two years despite previously claiming he was ‘sharp’ ‘every single day.’

In a July 2, 2024, interview on MSNBC, then-Biden spokesperson Ian Sams said of the former president that ‘When I deal with him, he is sharp, he is asking tough questions, that’s the President Biden that so many of us experience every single day.’

Pressed by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on how many times he had met with Biden, Sams admitted that he had ‘interacted with him pretty infrequently’ and ‘met with the president a handful of times during my tenure in the White House.’

He further admitted that some of these interactions were online or over the phone. During his testimony he recalled two in-person meetings with Biden.

Sams worked in the White House from 2022 to 2024, serving in the roles of special assistant to the president, spokesperson and senior advisor in the White House Counsel’s Office.

Sams was pressed on whether the basis of his statements on Biden’s mental fitness was from his ‘handful’ of interactions with the former president.

‘You said that you met him personally maybe a handful of times. Are those the interactions that you were discussing when you say, ‘I deal with him’?’ a committee staff member asked, to which Sams responded, ‘Yes.’

‘Do you think that’s a bit misleading?’ Sams was asked.

He answered, ‘I think it was pretty direct and honest and said that when I do deal with him, he’s, you know, sharp and he was asking incisive questions during my meetings with him.’

‘But you dealt with him five times in 24 months. That’s not exactly a large scope of knowledge on how he interacts with staff,’ the committee staffer pressed, adding, ‘Do you think that statement suggests that you deal with him more than you did?’

Sams shot back, ‘I don’t think so. I mean, I spoke about my own interactions with him.’

Despite this, Sams maintained that though he ‘definitely noticed some aging’ in Biden, ‘I had no reason to think that he was anything other than capable of being the president and executing his duties.’

The House Oversight Committee GOP posted on its official X account, ‘Ian Sams, one of Joe Biden’s spokespersons, met with him only TWICE in over TWO YEARS. Then he would go on live television and say he interacted with him EVERY SINGLE DAY.’

‘He was LYING to the American people to cover up for Biden’s decline,’ the GOP account wrote.

Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., also posted on X, writing, ‘Biden’s top spokesman, Ian Sams, admitted to Congress he met Joe Biden only twice in two years. But that didn’t stop him from loudly insisting Joe was ‘fit.’’

‘Ian was just reading from a script written by Biden’s handlers,’ added Comer.

In a statement released by the Oversight Committee, Comer went on to say, ‘The Biden Autopen Presidency will go down as one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history. As Americans saw President Biden’s decline with their own eyes, Biden’s inner circle sought to deceive the public, cover-up his decline, and took unauthorized executive actions with the autopen that are now invalid.’

‘Our report reveals how key aides colluded to mislead the public and the extraordinary measures they took to sustain the appearance of presidential authority as Biden’s capacity to function independently diminished,’ he went on, adding, ‘Executive actions performed by Biden White House staff and signed by autopen are null and void. We are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct a thorough review of these executive actions and scrutinize key Biden aides who took the Fifth to hide their participation in the cover-up.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Sams for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will resume nuclear weapons testing for the first time in more than three decades has sent shockwaves through both Washington and world capitals. He argues the move is necessary to ‘keep pace’ with Russia and China, whose programs he claims are active, and to ensure that America’s deterrent remains credible. We will not be outmatched, Trump declared, ordering the Pentagon to ‘immediately’ begin preparations.

That declaration reverberated across the globe. To some, it signals renewed American strength — proof that Washington will no longer rely on self-imposed restraints while adversaries modernize unencumbered.

The rationale: deterrence and parity

Trump’s rationale rests on deterrence. If Russia or China are conducting secret or low-yield tests in violation of international norms, then the U.S., he argues, cannot appear constrained.

That logic has merit in theory. Yet in practice, there is no publicly verified evidence that Moscow or Beijing have conducted full-scale nuclear explosions in recent years. Both remain bound, at least politically, to the global testing moratorium.

America, for its part, has maintained a robust and credible deterrent through its Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program — using advanced supercomputing, materials science and subcritical testing to ensure our arsenal’s reliability without detonating a single weapon since 1992. However, Russia’s 2023 de-ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) signals potential erosion of that restraint.

In short, our nuclear arsenal works. Our delivery systems are being modernized.

A brief history: lessons written in fire

To understand what is at stake, it helps to recall how we got here. The U.S. conducted its first nuclear test — the ‘Trinity’ explosion — on July 16, 1945, in New Mexico. Over the next half-century, America performed more than 1,000 nuclear detonations, first in the atmosphere, later underground and underwater. Each test expanded our understanding of the bomb’s formidable power and devastating potential — but the environmental and human toll, from the Pacific islands to Nevada, was staggering.

By the early 1960s, public outrage and the Cuban Missile Crisis convinced world leaders that unrestrained testing endangered humanity itself. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 banned explosions in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater. The final U.S. test occurred on Sept. 23, 1992, after which Washington joined a global moratorium pending ratification of the CTBT — still unsigned by a few key states, including ours. Nevertheless, the norm held. For 33 years, no nation except North Korea has crossed that line and, perhaps, South Africa, in 1979.

That moratorium has been one of the quiet triumphs of post-Cold War diplomacy: a restraint observed not out of naiveté, but wisdom born of horror. It allowed nations to modernize defensively while preserving the taboo against nuclear explosions, the ultimate boundary between deterrence and apocalypse.

The risks: moral, strategic and existential

To resume testing now risks unraveling that fragile consensus. Once the U.S. breaks the silence, others will follow. Russia could justify its own tests as reciprocal. China, already expanding its arsenal to 600 warheads, is expected to reach about 1,000 nuclear warheads by around 2030 and might accelerate that program. India and Pakistan could feel emboldened. North Korea would seize the moment to demonstrate ‘parity.’ Within years, the world could witness a cascade of underground detonations from East Asia to the Middle East. The psychological barrier separating possession from use would erode.

From a moral perspective, this is not a step to take lightly. Theologians and strategists alike have long argued that nuclear weapons pose unique ethical dilemmas.

From a policy standpoint, the cost-benefit calculus is equally stark. Resuming tests would erode U.S. moral authority in arms-control negotiations, undermine the CTBT and alarm allies who rely on America’s extended deterrence. It would also hand propaganda victories to adversaries eager to paint Washington as reckless. The environmental, safety and political costs of reopening test sites would be significant, and the scientific benefit — according to our own laboratories — minimal.

As the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) warns, renewed testing would undermine decades of global norm-building around restraint and open the door to new proliferation.

A better path: lead, don’t imitate

Rather than igniting a new nuclear competition, the U.S. should seize this moment to lead the world toward restraint. Trump’s instinct to project strength is understandable; deterrence remains vital in a world of aggressors. But true strength includes moral leadership.

If the president genuinely wishes to reassert American primacy, he could do so not by detonating weapons, but by convening a global summit of nuclear-armed states — the U.S., Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — to renew or formalize a universal moratorium on nuclear testing. Such a proposal could leverage the CTBTO’s Article XIV Conference mechanism for enhanced verification and transparency.

Such a summit would accomplish three things:

1. Reestablish dialogue among powers that rarely sit at the same table, easing nuclear tensions.
2. Reaffirm deterrence without destruction, updating verification mechanisms and transparency measures using modern technology.
3. Restore moral leadership, demonstrating that America’s power is disciplined by conscience, not driven by fear.

By proposing such a gathering — perhaps under United Nations auspices or as a U.S.-hosted initiative at the Nevada National Security Site — President Trump could transform a provocative decision into a statesmanlike opportunity. He could remind the world that American strength serves peace, not annihilation.

Conclusion: the test before us

For decades, humanity has lived under the shadow of weapons too powerful to use. Their silence has been our safety. Breaking that silence risks inviting a new arms race and edging civilization closer to the brink. History’s lesson is clear: once the nuclear threshold is crossed, even in testing, it becomes easier to cross again.

President Trump has proven that boldness can reset stagnant debates. But boldness without wisdom can also destabilize the world we seek to defend. The real test before us is not of plutonium or warheads, but of leadership — whether we will master our power, or once again let our power master us. True leadership demands the courage to combine military readiness with moral restraint, ensuring that power serves peace rather than pride.

An estimated 200,000 Ultra-Orthodox protesters converged on Jerusalem Thursday, opposing the country’s military draft, resulting in dozens of injuries during confrontations with the police. 

Israel’s emergency service Magen David Adom reported 56 people were injured. A police officer was also wounded after being hit by stones thrown by demonstrators. 

The rally shut down major roads leading into the capital, as protesters from across the country gathered to oppose efforts to conscript ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, men into the Israel Defense Forces. At times, the demonstration turned violent as officers moved to clear blocked highways and restore order.

At the heart of the unrest is a long-standing exemption that allows ultra-Orthodox men who study full-time in religious seminaries to avoid military service — a policy that many Israelis view as deeply unfair.

Military service is mandatory for most Jewish men and women, but Haredi Jews have historically been exempt, a privilege dating back to Israel’s founding. They argue that their way of life — centered around Torah study and religious community — is incompatible with full military service. They fear that conscription will undermine their religious identity, expose them to secular values and erode the distinct community structures they’ve built.

With Israel fighting wars on multiple fronts over the past two years, the military has faced growing manpower shortages, prompting renewed efforts to end the exemption. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the arrangement was unconstitutional, ordering the government to pass a new conscription law.

That ruling has shaken Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition. His ultra-Orthodox allies — the Shas and United Torah Judaism parties — quit the government in July, accusing him of betraying their religious base. Parliament has yet to agree on a compromise acceptable to both the Haredi leadership and the military.

Opposition leaders condemned the violence. Yair Lapid wrote on X, ‘If you can march in the streets, you can march in basic training and defend the State of Israel.’ Benny Gantz added, referring to a video of a female reporter being attacked, ‘There is nothing Jewish about this behavior.’

Embattled Virginia Democratic attorney general candidate Jay Jones’ post-debate boast that his campaign took in $500,000 in 24 hours appears not to hold water, and Republicans pointed to new public fundraising disclosures poking holes in the claim.

The RNC and the Republican Attorney Generals Association (RAGA) both issued separate condemnations of the claim. The latter called it a ‘desperate’ attempt to distract from scandals related to violent rhetoric and a reckless driving charge.

In the latest tranche of fundraising figures posted by the nonpartisan Virginia Political Access Project (VPAP), Jones recorded donations on the day of and day following his debate with his opponent, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares — Oct. 16 and 17 — totaling just over $339,000.

That figure included $250,000 from DAGA PAC, which is the campaign arm of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, leaving about $90,000 to be accounted for incoming from other donors.

Small-dollar donations of $50 or less — often the bellwether for a candidate’s populist draw — totaled about $2,400 in that timeframe.

Adam Piper, a top official at RAGA, said in a statement that Jones is ‘the Pinocchio of Virginia politics,’ referring to the Walt Disney character whose nose grew when he lied.

‘We all know IOUs and Monopoly money cannot pay the bills, but Jay seems to think so, probably because he got away with his Get Out of Jail Free card,’ Piper added.

In 2022, Jones was stopped for driving 116 mph in a 70 mph zone in New Kent County and was convicted of reckless driving, which in Virginia is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail, a $2,500 fine and license suspension. Instead of jail time, Jones paid a fine and completed community service. 

The episode sparked renewed criticism after reports revealed Jones had logged hundreds of those service hours with his own PAC.

RAGA recently released faux Community Chest and Chance cards depicting Jones ‘get[ting] out of jail free.’

‘He lied about his completed community service hours. Now, he’s lying about his campaign finance reports,’ Piper added.

An ongoing investigation into Jones’ reckless driving conviction was recently punted to a third jurisdiction after the New Kent County and James City County commonwealth’s attorneys both subsequently recused themselves.

However, Roanoke City Commonwealth’s Attorney Don Caldwell, an Independent, told Fox News Digital Wednesday he has yet to receive any official notice that his office has been tasked with the case.

In a statement, RAGA officials said that when Jones’ campaign was pressed about the $500,000 figure, they cited a then-‘outstanding’ pledge of an additional $250,000 from DAGA PAC, which did arrive days later.

‘No matter how you do the math, it doesn’t add up,’ said RAGA Political Director Klarke Kilgore.

‘Whether it’s a fake apology about his violent text messages, falsified community service hours or, now, bogus fundraising numbers, deception is Jay Jones’ default.’

In a press release following the debate, Jones’ campaign reported the $500,000 claim, with campaign manager Rachel Rothman saying it was proof of Virginians ‘stepping up to join our campaign because the stakes of this election are clear.’

‘Either ‘MAGA Miyares’ lets Trump control Virginia, or we finally elect an attorney general who puts Virginians first,’ Rothman said.

The statement went on to say there is elevated enthusiasm for Jones’ bid.

Fox News Digital recently asked DNC Chairman Ken Martin about Jones’ candidacy and the fact the party has ‘stuck with him.’

‘[L]et me be very clear: I immediately condemned those vile and indefensible comments and text messages that he made and called on him to apologize,’ Martin said of Jones.

‘Unlike the Republicans, who never actually condemn their own elected officials or hold them to account or to any sort of moral standards, the Democrats always do. We hold our elected officials and our candidates to high standards as we should. And as I made very clear, his comments were indefensible, inexcusable, and he needed to apologize to Virginians, which he did.

‘And now the question for Virginians is whether or not they’ve accepted his apology, and we’ll see soon enough, in a few days.’

When asked if the DNC ever considered calling on Jones to drop out, Martin said it was not up to him but to voters to decide whether the murder texts were disqualifying.

‘[W]e called him out. He apologized, and now Virginians will have to make their decision on who they think will be the best attorney general for Virginia,’ Martin said.

House Republicans are in preliminary discussions on a healthcare package, as Obamacare continues to be the central sticking point in the ongoing government shutdown.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said on Thursday that lawmakers have begun discussions in ‘informal working groups’ on what healthcare reform, aimed at lowering ballooning medical costs, would look like.

But the fight over Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), continues to drive a wedge within the House GOP. At the heart of the issue are Obamacare subsidies enhanced significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic — enhancements that are set to expire at the end of this year without congressional action.

Democrats have been demanding that any deal to end the shutdown be paired with an extension of those credits. And Republicans, while united in wanting to keep the shutdown and Obamacare two separate issues, are divided over how to handle that issue once the shutdown ends.

On one side of the divide are members of the House Freedom Caucus, who have signaled vehement opposition to any straightforward extension of the Obamacare credits.

‘What we really need to do is stop talking about the COVID subsidies, because it’s not working, and the entire system that they’re based on is a complete and total Titanic that’s going down,’ said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., a member of the conservative group. ‘Why would we throw any more bad money after this sinking ship?’

But some Republican lawmakers are floating a one-year extension as a way to buy Congress more time to find an off-ramp to eventually ending the Obamacare subsidies — something all GOP lawmakers who spoke with Fox News Digital agreed on.

‘I am not at all in love with the ACA or Obamacare. I get the concern that many of the members have with it. But as I’ve said before, if you don’t have something good to replace it with, it is political insanity, and it’s just the wrong thing to do — to let it lapse, get rid of it and have nothing else because the rates are going to go up a lot,’ said Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., who styled himself a ‘populist conservative.’

He called on Republicans to ‘hold our nose, have a one-year extension, make some minor to moderate modifications.’

‘And during that year, instead of waiting till the last week or the last few days during that year, to really hammer out something that’s real, that isn’t B.S., where we are offering people health care, where it’s relatively affordable, and then we can make the big change that people want to make,’ Van Drew said.

He’s one of 14 House Republicans backing a bipartisan bill, led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., to extend the Obamacare subsidies for one year.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., another backer, pointed out that Democrats created the enhancements and their 2025 expiry.

‘I think we need it, because there is a cliff that was created by the Democrats,’ he said of the extension. ‘A lot of American families are going to be hurt by it. So I am in favor of extending it for a year and then looking at ways that we can, number one, fix Obamacare, and two, a way to end the subsidies, but not in a cliff-like fashion.’

Burlison suggested heavy opposition from the House Freedom Caucus, however.

‘It’s not only a non-starter, but because of the conversations that we’ve had, we would consider it a betrayal,’ he said.

Freedom Caucus member Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., similarly anticipated the ‘vast majority of Republicans’ would be against the bipartisan bill. However, he left the door open to some extension, provided a plan was in place to end Obamacare already.

‘At the end of the day, the subsidies are going away. It’s just a matter of how quickly. They are going to be phased out. Now, do you want it to be a hard stop, or do you want to phase out? I think the hospitals and the healthcare infrastructure in Nashville would prefer a phase-out, and I totally understand that,’ Ogles said. ‘Quite frankly, fiscal conservatives are not going to stand for more subsidies that were designed for a period of time during COVID. COVID is over.’

Van Drew told Fox News Digital that Republicans’ chances of keeping the House majority in 2026 hinged on a healthcare deal.

‘If you lose the majority, you’ve got nothing. You’re a spectator in the sport. You’re not even involved. So to me, keeping the majority is extremely important, and we’ve got to work to compromise on that,’ he said.

He and Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa., another sponsor of the one-year extension, both floated income caps and reforms to the pricing middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs.

A House Republican familiar with leadership dynamics suggested that income caps for Obamacare are part of the discussion on a potential healthcare package.

That House Republican also suggested that tighter ‘guardrails’ like income verification standards for government healthcare could also be on the table.

‘If you have a right to a benefit, you have a responsibility to prove you are eligible for that benefit,’ they said. ‘That would save a ton of dollars.’

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., floated several ideas up for discussion but signaled that any moves to extend Obamacare would require significant changes to the system first.

‘You’ve seen additional ideas on health savings accounts and pooling together amongst small businesses, other ideas like PBM reform,’ he told reporters earlier this week. ‘So all the things we’ve been working on are focused on lowering costs for families as opposed to just shoveling more money into a failed, broken system.’

Some lawmakers are getting anxious to fund key programs and pay federal workers as the shutdown drags on, but even so, most Senate Republicans argue that the best way to ensure paydays and benefits is to reopen the government.

While Senate Republicans and Democrats are entrenched in a stalemate that has seen the shutdown drag into its 29th day, a handful of lawmakers has pushed bills that would pay the military, working federal workers and air traffic controllers, and fund federal food benefits.

One of those bills, from Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., got a chance on the floor but was blocked by Senate Democrats last week.

Since then others, including Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have pushed piecemeal funding bills, dubbed ‘rifle shots’ by Republicans, as a way to fund portions of the federal workforce.

Both Hawley and Cruz, whose bill would pay air traffic controllers, were hopeful that their legislation would get a shot on the floor.

‘Listen, my goal is just to make sure that 42 million Americans don’t go without food starting this weekend,’ Hawley told Fox News Digital. ‘So, the only way I can see to do that is to vote on the floor. It will get blocked any other way.’

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., pumped the brakes on the likelihood of those bills seeing floor time, doubling down throughout the week against funding the government one chunk at a time.

‘You start going down that road with one-off bills or take care of this group or that group, and it’s just like, it begs the larger question, how long… is this going to drag on? I think that the quickest way to end it is to just open everything up and then everybody gets paid,’ Thune said.

While there is a demand among Republicans to see federal workers get paid and to ensure the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, does not run out of funding on Saturday, most of the conference is unwilling to break ranks with Thune’s position.

‘I think we should close the door on it. Why are we picking winners and losers inside the government? The fact is, we’re shut down. We need to open it back up,’ Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla, told Fox News Digital. ‘Say you decided to fund the SNAP program. What about the employees that got to produce the paperwork and get it done? Are you not going to pay them?’

‘We had an opportunity to pay all essential employees. [Democrats] chose not to,’ he continued.

‘I mean, it’s ridiculous to think that we’re going to pick pieces of it when we should just open it all up. And there’s no reason why we shouldn’t.’

Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have blocked the GOP’s plan to reopen the government 13 times since the shutdown began.

And they’ve shown little signs of cracking under pressure as pain points like food stamps funding and federal worker paydays mount.

But, Schumer and Senate Democrats are largely in favor of supporting a rifle-shot food stamps bill, even going so far as to draft their own — the top Senate Democrat said his caucus would support either their bill from Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., or Hawley’s measure.

‘If John Thune would put it on the floor, it would pass overwhelmingly,’ Schumer said. ‘But he’s afraid of Trump. He’s going along in this heartless, cruel thing.’

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is also a co-sponsor of both bills, and said Thune ‘should call these bills up.’

‘He should call both of them up immediately, and as Sen. Schumer said, they would pass,’ she said. ‘So that’s why this is such a false crisis.’

As of Thursday, Hawley’s bill had 29 co-sponsors, including Schumer and 14 other Senate Democrats.

But given Democrats’ recent history of blocking bill after bill as the shutdown drags on, not every Republican trusted Schumer’s vow. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital that ‘with all due respect to Chuck, I don’t believe him.’

‘They’re not going to get on the floor,’ he said. ‘They’re not going to get on the floor for two reasons. Number one, we’ve seen this vampire move. The Democrats get right up to it, and then they pull back. They’re not serious. And number two, we’re not going to — it’s not going to get on the floor because Thune says he’s tired of playing the games.’

President Donald Trump’s tone on Ukraine has softened dramatically in recent weeks, from tough talk aimed to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin last month to a more hands-off approach.

After signaling strong support for Ukraine and pledging to bring an end to Russia’s invasion, Trump now appears far less committed to aiding Kyiv or forcing a resolution to the war.

The reversal began quietly two weeks ago when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Washington. Many had expected Trump to approve Tomahawk long-range missiles for Ukraine — but he didn’t.

The president said it would take too long to train on the missile system and that the U.S. needed them for its own stockpile. He vociferously denied a Wall Street Journal report suggesting the U.S. had lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to fire into Russia.

Then came Thursday’s announcement from the Department of War that a rotational U.S. Army brigade stationed in Romania, with forces also in Hungary and Bulgaria, would be coming home. Trump dismissed the pullback as ‘not very significant, not a big deal,’ though European allies saw it differently.

‘This will be an invitation for Russia to increase their attacks on Ukraine, increase its influence in the region,’ one European official told Fox News Digital.

The softer posture extended to Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday. Despite previously pressing India to curb its purchases of Russian oil, Trump made no such demand of Xi.

‘We really didn’t discuss the oil,’ he told reporters afterward.

Ending the war did come up, but in a noticeably less urgent tone.

‘We’re both going to work together to see if we can get something done,’ Trump said. ‘We agree that the sides are locked in, fighting, and sometimes you have to let them fight, I guess. Crazy. But he’s going to help us and we’re going to work together on Ukraine.’

For a president who vowed to ‘end the war on Day One,’ those comments suggest a shift from urgency to resignation — and a foreign policy that appears increasingly reactive rather than strategic.

Not everyone is alarmed by the change. Last week, Trump sanctioned two major Russian oil companies — Lukoil and Rosneft — in what supporters of Ukraine hope will deal a significant blow to Moscow’s war coffers. Both companies have since announced plans to sell international assets in response.

‘The sanctions are a step of actual consequence. European troop withdrawals are expected, but the changes seem marginal,’ another European official said. ‘The rest is your typical Trump pendulum — swinging away, this way one day, that way the next.’

At the same time, Trump announced the U.S. would resume nuclear weapons testing for the first time since 1992, blaming ‘other countries’ testing programs.’

Russia claims it recently tested a nuclear-powered drone along with a nuclear-capable missile and submarine, but the tests did not involve a detonation. Russia has not confirmed a nuclear weapon test since 1990. 

Weeks ago, Trump suggested European nations dealing with Russian drone and jet incursions into their airspace should ‘shoot them down,’ and administration officials vowed to defend ‘every inch’ of NATO.

He’d planned to meet with Putin in Hungary this month, but canceled the meeting after deciding he didn’t want to ‘waste time.’

‘Every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don’t go anywhere,’ Trump complained last week. ‘They just don’t go anywhere.’

Meanwhile, Russia bombarded Ukrainian cities with 705 missiles and drones overnight on Thursday, according to the Ukrainian Air Force. Ukraine repelled many of the projectiles, but four people were killed.

Even as Trump insists his administration is pursuing peace ‘through strength,’ his latest actions and rhetoric paint a more complicated picture — one that has left allies guessing which version of Trump’s Ukraine policy will prevail next.

A prominent Empire State Republican is backing former Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral race next week in a bid to derail Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.

Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., a House lawmaker who previously chaired the New York State Republican Party, told Fox News Digital it was a ‘no-brainer’ backing Cuomo, despite their disagreements, over Mamdani.

‘This is a simple choice. I mean, one candidate has a shot to win. I mean, there’s polling that has him 10 points down in a very fluid situation,’ Langworthy said.

‘This is about saving the city from communism. I’ve had plenty of disagreements — very publicly over the years — and fought tooth and nail with Gov. Cuomo. But there’s no doubt in my mind he would be a far superior mayor than a communist.’

He is one of several prominent Republicans in New York coming out to publicly back Cuomo in the waning days before the election.

Early voting began in the New York City mayor’s race last weekend. Mamdani is the presumptive frontrunner in the deep blue Democrat stronghold, with Cuomo running as an independent candidate and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa running as the Republican.

Cuomo and Sliwa have both made overt movements to court independent and Republican voters, however, with concerns from Mamdani’s critics that the two could cancel each other out.

Langworthy would not say whether it was a mistake for Sliwa not to drop out of the race earlier but said, ‘Everyone’s really got to check, is this a vanity project? Or is this something you’re trying to do to seriously be the mayor?

‘There’s only one candidate running against Mamdani that has a credible path to win. And there’s Andrew Cuomo. And, you know, he knows how to run a government,’ he said. ‘I may have policy disagreements with him, but he’s certainly a better option than the alternative of Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America running the city with no checks and balances.’

It comes as other New York Republicans are making last-ditch overtures to Big Apple voters as well.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., the only House Republican representing part of New York City and who ran for mayor in 2017, said she believed Sliwa was ‘the best choice’ but said polling showed ‘Cuomo’s got the best chance of beating Mamdani.’

‘I’ll take either of the two, quite frankly. I’ll take anybody but the communist,’ she said. 

‘He lacks the experience. You know, 34 years old. His only job was a hip-hop artist — a bad one, to boot. And if we have another hurricane, another pandemic, another terrorist attack, this guy is not capable of managing this city through it.’

But House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., who represents part of the New York City suburbs on Long Island, said he believed a Mamdani victory was likely a ‘forgone conclusion.’

‘The Democrats, the way they just set the system for themselves — somehow the primary is ranked choice, but the general is not. I mean, it’s ridiculous,’ Garbarino said. ‘We’ll see, though. I mean, the polls have been wrong before.’

Election Day in New York City is Tuesday, Nov. 4.

The Senate once again rejected President Donald Trump’s tariffs, this time on a global scale.

Lawmakers in the upper chamber went three for three with resolutions meant to terminate Trump’s use of emergency powers to enact steep tariffs on foreign countries. While the previous two were geared toward specific tariffs on Brazil and Canada, the latest would end tariffs on countries around the world.

Earlier this year, Trump declared through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that he would enact a base 10% tariff on countries across the world. He argued in his executive order at the time that ‘national emergency arising from conditions reflected in large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits’ as a reason to pull the trigger on the tariffs.

Since then, senators have grumbled about the tariffs and made moves to terminate his usage of emergency powers throughout the year.

And it’s the second time that this particular resolution from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has been considered in the Senate.

The first go-round saw the resolution narrowly defeated 49-49, not because of partisan will but because of absences on the day of the vote. At the time, Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., were expected to vote for the resolution but missed their chance.

Fast-forward to October, and McConnell joined a foursome of Republicans, including himself and Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., to strike down Trump’s global tariffs. Those same lawmakers all voted against the previous two resolutions, too.

The other tariff-minded legislation would end Trump’s emergency powers to enact 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods and 35% tariffs on Canadian goods.

But they likely won’t go anywhere in the House, which previously voted to reject undermining Trump’s tariff policy until next year.

Meanwhile, Trump announced that after a ‘truly great’ meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping that he would lower his fentanyl tariffs on China by 10%. That brings the total level of duties on the country down to 47% from 57%.

The reduction comes after China agreed to help stymie the flow of chemicals into the U.S. that are used to create the dangerous narcotic and to ease export controls on rare earth minerals, which manufacturers in the U.S. rely on to create a variety of goods and electronics.

‘There is enormous respect between our two countries, and that will only be enhanced with what just took place,’ Trump said on Truth Social. ‘We agreed on many things, with others, even of high importance, being very close to resolved.’