A federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from cutting funding to public schools that maintain diversity programs, a setback to its broader crackdown on DEI.

U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty said the effort by Trump’s Education Department to block federal funding to public schools that continue to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs likely violates the First Amendment, presenting what she described as ‘textbook viewpoint discrimination.’

At issue is a memo sent by the Education Department this month to public schools nationwide, threatening to withhold Title I federal funds from public schools that continue to ‘unfairly’ promote DEI views or programs.

The effort sparked an immediate wave of concern, and lawsuits, across the country from education groups that cited the importance of Title I funds as a critical source of funding for many low-income public schools.

The DEI-slashing effort was met with a wave of court challenges, including a lawsuit filed by the National Education Association, the group’s New Hampshire affiliate chapter, and the Center for Black Educator Development, who challenged the case in New Hampshire’s federal court.

Two other U.S. courts are slated to hear similar challenges to the Education Department’s effort, with one case in Washington, D.C., expected to be heard as early as this week.

McCafferty’s ruling stopped short of issuing a nationwide injunction to block the policy in all 50 states. 

Rather, it blocks the Trump administration from halting the disbursement of Title I funds to any schools that employ or contract with plaintiffs in the lawsuit. 

‘The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is … one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes,’ McCafferty said in her 82-page opinion, adding that the actions taken by the Education Department ‘threate[n] to erode these foundational principles.’

She also said the Trump administration failed to provide the court with a sufficient definition of the DEI programs that were at risk as a result of the anti-DEI push.

The order comes after the Trump administration and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit reached a short-term agreement to delay the policy from taking force.

That agreement was slated to expire Thursday, prompting the court to rule on the matter.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Thursday blocked a portion of President Donald Trump’s executive order on election integrity, specifically provisions related to providing documentary proof of citizenship before being allowed to register to vote.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia handed down the order in response to lawsuits filed by three separate groups of plaintiffs over five different provisions in a March 25 Trump executive order relating to election integrity. While Kollar-Kotelly dismissed requests to block three of the provisions, requests to block two other provisions pertaining to a proof of citizenship requirement for voters were granted. 

The first blocked provision sought to compel the Election Assistance Commission to amend standardized national voter registration forms to require documentary proof of citizenship. The second sought to require federal agencies offering voter registration to people on public assistance to ‘assess’ the individual’s citizenship status before doing so.

‘Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States – not the President – with the authority to regulate federal elections. Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order,’ Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton-appointee, wrote in her order. ‘No statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.’

Kollar-Kotelly said she would not block the other provisions that the groups sought to challenge, which cover mail-in ballots and data collection on citizenship status, calling the challenges ‘premature’ and indicating they would be best challenged at the state level.

Earlier this month, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a bill requiring proof-of-citizenship to vote in federal elections. The measure still must pass the Senate, however, before the president can sign it into law. 

Meanwhile, 25 states are considering some form of proof-of-citizenship legislation, according to the Voting Rights Lab, which is tracking such legislation. In total, 15 state constitutions have explicit prohibitions against non-citizen voting.

In addition to Trump’s proof-of-citizenship orders getting shot down, two other federal judges from Maryland and New Hampshire also shot down additional orders from the president related to ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in K-12 public schools on Thursday.

The rulings followed lawsuits filed by the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Maryland chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. The groups argued that making federal funding contingent on whether educators squash their DEI programs violates First Amendment rights granted by the Constitution.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on this article but did not receive a response in time for publication. 

President Donald Trump said he is sticking to his own timeline when it comes to hashing out a peace deal to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. 

Trump’s remarks coincide with a Thursday visit from Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store at the White House, and following Wednesday comments saying there was a high likelihood that a peace agreement would emerge within the next several days. 

‘I have my own deadline,’ Trump told reporters Thursday. ‘And we wanted to be fast. And the Prime Minister’s helping us.’ 

‘He wants it to be fast, too,’ he said. ‘And I think everybody in this, at this time in NATO, they want to see this thing happen.’

‘I think it has a very good chance of getting done,’ Trump said. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital requesting details on Trump’s self-imposed deadline. 

Following criticism of both Russia and Ukraine in recent days, Trump said his only priority is to save lives by securing a peace deal. 

‘I have no allegiance to anybody,’ Trump told reporters Thursday. ‘I have allegiance to saving lives.’

Trump voiced his displeasure with Russia for continuing Thursday strikes on Kyiv, which killed at least 10 and injured at least 90, including children, according to Ukraine. 

‘I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing,’ Trump said in a social media post Thursday. ‘Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!’

Additionally, Trump signaled at the Oval Office that he would consider additional sanctions on Russia if Moscow continues to launch strikes against Ukraine. 

‘I’d rather answer that question in a week. I want to see if we can have a deal. No reason to answer it now, but I won’t be happy. Let me put it that way. Things, things will happen.’

Despite these attacks from Russia, Trump also told reporters that ‘we are thinking very strongly that they both want peace, but they have to get to the table.’

Even so, Trump said in a Wednesday post on Truth Social that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s opposition to certain concessions related to territorial control of Crimea would only stall peace negotiations. 

Vice President JD Vance disclosed Wednesday that a proposal is on the table — but if neither party agrees, the U.S. will disengage from advancing the peace talks. Vance said the deal would require both Russia and Ukraine to give up some of their territory, but that the lines would remain ‘close to where they are today.’ 

‘We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the U.S. to walk away from this process,’ Vance told reporters Wednesday. ‘We’ve engaged in an extraordinary amount of diplomacy, of on-the-ground work.’ 

The Trump administration has recently signaled that a deal may be on the horizon, and Trump expressed optimism Sunday that Ukraine and Russia could nail down an agreement that would pave the way for them to start conducting ‘big business’ with the U.S. 

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and Trump has promised since the campaign trail that he would move to end the conflict between the two countries. 

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report. 

The so-called ‘Biden effect’ appears to be a factor in congressional longevity after Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin announced he would not seek re-election after nearly four decades in Congress.

In 2024, President Joe Biden was politically pushed out after a disastrous debate performance against President Donald Trump in favor of his decades-younger deputy, Kamala Harris.

Since then, several senators – mostly Democrats – and many above private-sector retirement age, have announced their retirement.

‘This is fallout from the ‘Biden Effect,” said Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker. ‘It contaminated old Democrats.’

Durbin, 80, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., 78, Tina Smith, D-Wis., 67, Gary Peters, D-Mich., 66, as well as Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., 83, all announced their exit in 2025.

Prior to Biden’s infamous debate, several 2024-cycle Democrats – now-former Sens. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, 81, Tom Carper of Delaware, 78, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, 74, and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Manchin of West Virginia, 77 – all declared their exits.

Durbin’s seat has already been targeted by up-and-coming Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, 20 years his junior – who announced a bid shortly after he announced his retirement.

Of the members still seated in Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., 74, is potentially facing a heated primary in 2028 from the likes of progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 35.

After Schumer faced intense backlash from his own party for ultimately supporting the GOP’s government funding bill earlier this month, Ocasio-Cortez’s name returned to the discussion as a young upstart potentially taking out the old guard.

Schumer saw his worst polling within the Empire State in 20 years, according to a Siena College survey, with the Brooklynite 10 points underwater following the funding bill debacle.

Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez’s favorables are 47-33 in New York, up about 10 points from 2021.

A renewed push for older Democrats to pass the torch came when DNC vice chair David Hogg launched a project to recruit and bankroll primary opponents for older Democratic incumbents.

‘Today’s party politics has an unwritten rule – if you win a seat, it’s yours for life. No one serious in your party will challenge you. That is a culture that we have to break,’ Hogg, 25, wrote on his political website, Leaders We Deserve.

The oldest member of Congress – Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, at 91 – is the rare example of a lawmaker who has not been in the retirement discussion due to the ‘Biden effect’ or any other phenomenon.

On the left, the same appeared to be true for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who – though older than Biden – was contrasted with him on an energy and cognitive level throughout the campaign season.

Sanders has signaled he may seek to serve a fourth term in 2030, when he will be 89, according to the Burlington Free Press. ‘Friends of Bernie Sanders’ has already been listed on a Federal Election Commission filing for the 2030 sweeps.

McConnell, the former Republican leader, has stepped aside from leadership and was replaced by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., nearly 20 years younger.

During a 2024 press availability, McConnell appeared to freeze up while speaking, though staffers later suggested he was fine. He has also announced his retirement after 40 years in the Senate.

Rep. Andy Barr, 51, and former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, 39, jumped into the fray to succeed the octogenarian Republican.

Of the oldest sitting senators not yet mentioned, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, will be 82 by his 2026 potential re-election bid. Fox News Digital reached out for comment from the Gem State senator.

On the flip side, even some of the youngest Senate Democrats are seeing their re-election prospects heavily challenged.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., is facing potential Republican challengers in what is now a swing state. 

While none have declared their candidacy, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene – who would have the stated backing of President Donald Trump – as well as Rep. Earl ‘Buddy’ Carter and Gov. Brian Kemp are all said to be formidable potential rivals, according to several reports.

Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Biden for comment on the moniker ‘the Biden effect.’

Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser and Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth may have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan — but now he’s facing another battle: this time on his home turf at the Pentagon.

Controversy has plagued Hegseth since Trump first nominated him to serve as the secretary of defense, from sexual assault and drinking allegations, to two Signal chat debacles, and an op-ed suggesting that Hegseth may be on the way out. 

The new Signal controversy, along with the op-ed, are only the latest blows in what the Trump administration claims are sustained effort against Hegseth as defense secretary, dating back to his nomination. 

Scrutiny has heightened after a Sunday New York Times report said that Hegseth shared information about a March military airstrike against the Houthis in a Signal messaging app group chat that also included his wife, brother and personal lawyer.  

That incident follows a similar episode in March, when the Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a Signal group chat alongside Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and others, to discuss the same attack on the Houthis. 

While the White House continues to back Hegseth, a series of Democratic coalitions and multiple lawmakers are calling for Hegseth’s resignation. 

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., is urging for the Pentagon’s inspector general to launch an investigation into therecentSignal chat allegations

‘Since he was nominated, I have warned that Mr. Hegseth lacks the experience, competence, and character to run the Department of Defense. In light of the ongoing chaos, dysfunction, and mass firings under Mr. Hegseth’s leadership, it seems that those objections were well-founded,’ Reed said in a Sunday statement. ‘Accountability starts at the top, and I have grave concerns about Secretary Hegseth’s ability to maintain the trust and confidence of U.S. service members.’

Meanwhile, Vance told reporters Wednesday that he believed Hegseth is doing a ‘great job.’ 

In response to a video post on X of Vance issuing the remarks, the Pentaton’s Rapid Response Team replied: ‘We will not be stopped. We will not be deterred.’

While the secretaries of defense historically have received bipartisan support in the Senate, the upper chamber did not issue broad backing for Hegseth’s nomination. 

The Senate confirmed Hegseth along party lines in January, with all 47 Democrats opposing his nomination. 

Every senator except for Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., voted to confirm Trump’s first secretary of defense in 2017, retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis. Likewise, the Senate voted in 2019 by a 90–8 margin to confirm Trump’s second secretary of defense, Mark Esper. 

Hegseth first came under fire as sexual assault allegations emerged leading up to his confirmation. For example, he told lawmakers in written responses during his confirmation process that he had paid $50,000 as part of a settlement payment to a woman who had accused him of sexual assault in 2017. The police report on the incident says a woman had alleged that Hegseth sexually assaulted her in a hotel room, confiscated her phone and blocked the door. 

Hegseth told lawmakers that he had been ‘falsely accused’ by the woman. 

Hegseth also faced allegations of alcohol misuse during the confirmation process. In response, Hegseth told lawmakers that he is not a ‘perfect person,’ but said he was the subject of a ‘coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media.’

Controversy has not left Hegseth since the Senate confirmed him in January, however. 

Hegseth’s role in the original Signal chat that included the Atlantic editor-in-chief, Goldberg, emerged in the spotlight in March following an initial report. Even so, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz’s team was responsible for creating the chat. 

Hegseth has said that no ‘war plans’ were discussed in both the initial Signal chat with Goldberg, and the one with his wife. Additionally, he said that all discussions conducted over Signal were unclassified.

‘I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,’ Hegseth told Fox News Tuesday. ‘I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations, for media coordinations and other things. That’s what I’ve said from the beginning.’

Staff firings at the Pentagon have also shined a light on Hegseth’s leadership. 

John Ullyot, a former senior communications official for the Pentagon who stepped down from his post in April under Hegseth, wrote that the abrupt Friday firings of three of Hegseth’s ‘most loyal’ advisors were alarming and ‘baffling.’ Hegseth’s aide Dan Caldwell, his deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick and chief of staff to the deputy defense secretary, Colin Carroll, were all ousted. 

‘The dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership,’ Ullyot wrote in a Sunday op-ed for Politico. 

‘Trump has a strong record of holding his top officials to account. Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer.’

Support for Hegseth is also cracking within Trump’s own party. For example, Rep. Don Bacon, a former Air Force general who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, told Politico on Monday that Hegseth is an ‘amateur person’ and that he doesn’t believe that Hegseth has the experience to lead the Pentagon. These concerns started from the ‘get-go,’ said Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska. 

NPR reported on Monday that the White House was eying a new secretary of defense. The story was based on one anonymous U.S. official who was not authorized to speak to the media. 

Meanwhile, the White House has pushed back on allegations that it is eyeing a replacement for Hegseth. 

‘He is bringing monumental change to the Pentagon, and there’s a lot of people in the city who reject monumental change, and I think, frankly, that’s why we’ve seen a smear campaign against the Secretary of Defense since the moment that President Trump announced his nomination before the United States Senate,’ White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. 

‘Let me reiterate: The president stands strongly behind Secretary Hegseth and the change that he is bringing to the Pentagon, and the results that he’s achieved thus far speak for themselves,’ Leavitt said. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is continuing to advocate for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program.

‘Waste that s—,’ the lawmaker declared to the Washington Free Beacon. ‘You’re never going to be able to negotiate with that kind of regime that has been destabilizing the region for decades already, and now we have an incredible window, I believe, to do that, to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.’

‘Years ago, I completely understood why Trump withdrew from the Obama deal. Today, I can’t understand why Trump would negotiate with this diseased regime. The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF,’ Fetterman noted, according to the outlet. The IDF is the Israel Defense Forces.

Fox News Digital reached out to Fetterman’s office to request a comment from the senator on Thursday morning but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

The lawmaker, who is a staunch supporter of Israel, had already been calling for the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program.

Fetterman declared last week in a post on X, ‘The only purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to create weapons. We can’t allow that or negotiate with this regime. Provide our comprehensive military support and whatever else Israel requires to destroy Iran’s capabilities.’

President Donald Trump noted earlier this week that he had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

‘I’ve just spoken to Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, relative to numerous subjects including Trade, Iran, etc. The call went very well – We are on the same side of every issue,’ Trump said in a Tuesday post on Truth Social.

Fetterman declared in part of an X post in January, ‘Whatever remains of Iran’s nuclear program needs to be destroyed and I fully support efforts to do so.’

Since Israel’s near annihilation of Hezbollah’s terror leadership, and the backing of the Trump administration, whose special envoy to Lebanon has made clear the U.S. goal of limiting the power and influence of the Iran-terror proxy, the winds of change are slowly blowing over Beirut.

‘Thanks to Hezbollah being weakened and defeated after the war with Israel, we are finally in a position to have this conversation about peace with Israel,’ Rami Naim, Lebanon affairs journalist and analyst for Jusoor News, told Fox News Digital. ‘In the past the intelligence investigated me and took me to jail because I said we want peace with Israel, but now I say it openly, yes, we want normalization, and yes, we want peace with Israel without fear.’ Naim was personally attacked by Hezbollah last year for his outspoken views.

The weakening of Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, and the election of Joseph Aoun as Lebanon’s president in January 2025, represents a turning point in the country’s political trajectory. After more than two years of political deadlock, Aoun’s election was seen as a victory for the anti-Hezbollah camp, and has seemingly made the shift in public opinion regarding peace with Israel more palatable.

Touting the U.S. president, Naim said, ‘We believe Trump will put things back on track and work toward peace, aiming for a major peace deal between Lebanon and Israel, which will require increased pressure on Iran.’ 

Interviews conducted by Jussor, a pan-Arab media outlet, have highlighted that many Lebanese citizens are now willing to consider normalization with Israel. One Lebanese man, interviewed on camera with his face showing, shared his hope: ‘I believe a day will come when there will be normalization with Israel. It will take time, but it will happen eventually.’ 

Another interviewee echoed similar sentiments: ‘Israel wants peace. They don’t want war. They are cleaning things up so war doesn’t happen, and we want peace too. We’re exhausted.’

Morgan Ortagus, U.S. deputy special envoy for Middle East Peace, has emphasized the necessity of disarming Hezbollah to stabilize Lebanon and pave the way for peace in the region. 

In an interview with Al Arabiya earlier this month, she described Hezbollah as a ‘cancer’ within Lebanon that must be removed for the country to have any hope of recovery. She said, ‘When you have cancer, you don’t treat part of the cancer in your body and let the rest of it grow and fester; you cut the cancer out.’ Ortagus also criticized Iran for fueling regional instability and dragging Lebanon into conflicts it did not seek. She noted, ‘The government of Lebanon didn’t want to go to war with Israel. It was on Oct. 8, 2023, that Hezbollah and Iran decided to get into the war… people were forced into a war that nobody wanted to be in.’

‘We are grateful to our ally Israel for defeating Hezbollah,’ Ortagus said at a news conference in Beirut’s southeastern suburb of Baabda after a meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, the Associated Press reported.

Naim said that while the public may be ready for peace, it is the Lebanese political elite that must take action. ‘We need America to keep pressure on Lebanon’s corrupt politicians, who have enabled Hezbollah to rebuild its military capabilities… These politicians must publicly endorse peace. It’s not just activists and journalists who should be saying it. The decision-makers must step forward.’

Naim’s call for international intervention underscores the continued importance of U.S. influence in Lebanon’s political direction. ‘We have suffered under the Biden and Obama administrations, as well as those who have made compromises and deals with Iran behind our backs, disregarding our interests,’ Naim said. 

‘During Trump’s first term, there was significant pressure on Iran, which had posed aggression in the region. However, when Trump left the White House, Iran rebuilt its capabilities and grew stronger. Now, we have big hopes for Trump’s second term. His return to the White House would change the equation. What makes us optimistic about Trump is that he fulfills his promises and conducts negotiations from a position of strength, not weakness.’

While there is growing support for peace with Israel, the issue of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon remains a significant hurdle. One man interviewed by Jussor News pointed out, ‘I believe the whole region is heading toward peace. But we have our demands – you can’t have 500,000 Palestinians living here, then the Israelis come make peace and normalization, and leave them all here with us.’ 

Another woman told Jussor: ‘We are for peace in Lebanon. Not fighting other people’s wars which are not in Lebanon’s interests. Neutrality, as our patriarch said: enough already. We shouldn’t be looking for excuses or saying, ‘We want to liberate Palestine’ while we keep destroying Lebanon. The Palestinians told us, ‘Relax, we don’t need anything from you.’’

‘The Lebanese people are divided, but not into two equal parts,’ said Naim. ‘The majority of the Lebanese people today are supportive of normalization and peace with Israel. This is no longer a taboo in Lebanon. Lebanese citizens can say today, ‘I am supportive of peace and normalization because I have suffered from these failed wars. The Israelis want peace, and we want peace. We want to live in peace. So it’s a win-win situation.’’

An aversion to tax increases has long been one of the Republican Party’s core pillars, but tradition was upended in recent weeks as discussions of a potential new millionaires’ tax hike hit Capitol Hill.

It’s baffled some members of the GOP’s old guard, though Republican operatives who spoke with Fox News Digital were less surprised. They said those conversations were largely ushered in by the party’s growing populist wing.

‘I’m not sure if I’m surprised anymore, because the party has changed so much in just a short period of time. But it is noteworthy,’ longtime GOP strategist Doug Heye told Fox News Digital. 

Heye recalled his time as a senior House leadership aide in 2012, when a Republican proposal for a uniform tax rate for people making under $1 million per year was blown up ‘by a rebellion within our own ranks’ over raising taxes.

‘It all exploded in our faces,’ he said. ‘And now this is what more and more of those Republicans who rejected the idea in 2012 want to do.’

Sources told Fox News Digital this month that the White House was socializing a plan among Republicans to create a new 40% tax bracket for people making more than $1 million.

Various reported plans floated among House Republicans included raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy to rates between 38% and 40%. 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been seeking to quash that this week, even posting a purported message from President Donald Trump himself on X that said, ‘If you can do without it, you’re probably better off trying to do so.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House on Wednesday morning for comment on Gingrich’s note, including the context of the message and why Trump described that he would ‘love’ increasing taxes, but did not receive a reply.

The top income tax rate is currently about 37% on $609,351 in earnings for a single person or $731,201 for married couples. It was lowered from just over 39% by Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

‘The politics are good for raising taxes on wealthy Americans,’ said John Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy and veteran of House GOP leadership staff. ‘The downside is it does have an impact on economic growth. So if you want the cheap political score, that’s the way to go. On the other hand, if you want a solid economy where people are working, you want to be careful on how you do that.’

Asked if the discussions caught him off guard, Feehery said, ‘I’m not surprised by it because Trump is such a populist, and he has a lot of folks who are populist.’

He signaled the appeal of higher taxes for the wealthy was born from that shift.

‘If you look at the constituencies, the biggest constituency, it’s really interesting because the parties have kind of changed,’ he continued. ‘It used to be the country-club Republicans and working-class Democrats; now it’s working-class Republicans and country-club Democrats.’

Heye said when asked about the increase in tax hike talks, ‘I think it’s a mixture of Trump and populism.’

‘Raising taxes used to be an anathema to Republicans, and you know, when George Bush did it after saying ‘Read my lips,’ that was the beginning of the end of his presidency,’ Heye said. ‘That world just doesn’t exist anymore.’

House GOP leaders have publicly made clear that they’re opposed to raising taxes on anyone. But Republicans must find a way to pass Trump’s budget, including new tax policies eliminating duties on tipped and overtime wages, while meeting conservatives’ demand to cut at least $1.5 trillion in government spending to make up for it.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, R-Md., previously signaled that he is open to the idea if spending cuts can’t be reached by other means.

‘What I’d like to do is, I’d actually like to find spending reductions elsewhere in the budget, but if we can’t get enough spending reductions, we’re going to have to pay for our tax cuts,’ Harris told ‘Mornings with Maria’ on FOX Business last week.

‘Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the highest tax bracket was 39.6%; it was less than $1 million. Ideally, what we could do – again, if we can’t find spending reductions – we say, ‘OK, let’s restore that higher bracket, let’s set it at maybe $2 million income and above’ to help pay for the rest of the president’s agenda.’

Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., similarly floated raising the top tax bracket to 38.6%.

He later told Fox News Digital in a statement, ‘I believe we must help the president deliver on his promise of a tax and regulatory plan that supports pro-American economic and manufacturing growth, and delivers for the vast majority of Americans – while creating savings and promoting fiscal responsibility. Any adjustments in taxes to accomplish these goals should be considered.’

Both Meuser and Harris declined to provide more comment for this story.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who refers to the 2017 tax cuts as the ‘Trump-Pence tax cuts,’ last week urged House Republicans to stand firm against raising taxes on the country’s top earners and to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. 

One House GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital last week that reaction among their colleagues to possible tax hikes was ‘mixed.’

But a former Republican member was skeptical on Wednesday.

‘Raising taxes is a short-term high, which ultimately does more harm than good,’ the former House Republican said. ‘This strategy is contrary to conservative values.’

Meanwhile, Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said it was ‘healthy’ that lawmakers are entertaining fiscal ideas outside their party norms.

He was wary about the push for a tax hike, however.

‘I’m not a fan of doing things that look fiscally good at the same time that you’re doing things that actually are fiscally bad … on top of that, I don’t think raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue,’ Goldwein said. ‘But with those two things said, I think it is very healthy move that the GOP kind of is talking about that rates actually can go in both directions.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Gingrich for an interview for this story but did not receive a response.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is continuing to advocate for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program.

‘Waste that s—,’ the lawmaker declared to the Washington Free Beacon. ‘You’re never going to be able to negotiate with that kind of regime that has been destabilizing the region for decades already, and now we have an incredible window, I believe, to do that, to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.’

‘Years ago, I completely understood why Trump withdrew from the Obama deal. Today, I can’t understand why Trump would negotiate with this diseased regime. The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF,’ Fetterman noted, according to the outlet. The IDF is the Israel Defense Forces.

Fox News Digital reached out to Fetterman’s office to request a comment from the senator on Thursday morning but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

The lawmaker, who is a staunch supporter of Israel, had already been calling for the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program.

Fetterman declared last week in a post on X, ‘The only purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to create weapons. We can’t allow that or negotiate with this regime. Provide our comprehensive military support and whatever else Israel requires to destroy Iran’s capabilities.’

President Donald Trump noted earlier this week that he had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

‘I’ve just spoken to Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, relative to numerous subjects including Trade, Iran, etc. The call went very well – We are on the same side of every issue,’ Trump said in a Tuesday post on Truth Social.

Fetterman declared in part of an X post in January, ‘Whatever remains of Iran’s nuclear program needs to be destroyed and I fully support efforts to do so.’

The Trump administration is warning of ‘serious consequences’ over Russia’s plans to open a naval base in war-torn Sudan. News of the development of the base has triggered an unusual warning from the State Department, Fox News Digital was told.

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘We encourage all countries, including Sudan, to avoid any transactions with Russia’s defense sector.’

The Kremlin appears to be desperate to join the Horn of Africa global powers ‘naval club,’ with its approved plans for a base for warships and nuclear-powered submarines at Port Sudan. This is not far down the Indian Ocean coast from Djibouti, where there are U.S. and Chinese bases. With the new Syrian government likely to kick the Russians out of their base in Tartus, Port Sudan would be Russia’s only foreign naval base.

‘Moscow views Sudan, because of its strategic location, as a logical place to expand Russia’s footprint into Africa, which Putin views as a key place of geopolitical confrontation with the United States and China,’ Rebekah Koffler, a strategic military intelligence analyst, told Fox News Digital. 

‘Russia views the U.S. and China as its top adversaries, with whom Moscow may in the long-term have a kinetic conflict. Hence, Putin wants intelligence and military capabilities stationed close to the U.S. Djibouti base and Chinese facilities,’ she said.

‘Given that the U.S. and China already have [a] naval presence off of the Horn of Africa,’ Koffler added, ‘Russia is looking at Port Sudan as a logistics hub for weapons transfers, storage of military hardware ammunition, all sorts of war-fighting capabilities.’

‘The potential Russian naval logistics facility in Sudan would support Russian power projection in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean,’ John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Fox News Digital. He added that ‘this issue has gained greater importance for Moscow, given the uncertainty over the future of its Tartus naval logistics facility.’

A Russian naval base in the Indian Ocean has strategic military implications — it’s a relatively short sailing distance to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, a choke point through which an estimated 12% of the world’s shipping passes, while 61% of global oil tanker traffic is also said to use the canal. Koffler said this poses a significant security threat. 

‘If Russia perceives an impending escalation against Russia, let’s say in Ukraine — such as an impending deployment of NATO forces or draconian economic measures designed to tank [the] Russian economy — I would not rule out the possibility that Putin could authorize something disruptive to exploit the choke point and destabilize or disrupt global shipping, as a way of deterring Western actions threatening Russia.’

The deal permitting Moscow to build a military base has been given the green light, although there are serious logistical challenges involved. ‘The agreement between Sudan and Russia was finalized in February, following a meeting between Sudan’s Foreign Minister Ali Yusef Sharif and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow,’ Koffler explained. 

Hence the strongly worded comments to Fox News Digital from the State Department that ‘the United States is aware of the reported deal between Russia and the SAF [Sudanese Armed Forces] on establishing a Russian naval facility on Sudan’s coast. We encourage all countries, including Sudan, to avoid any transactions with Russia’s defense sector, which could trigger serious consequences, potentially including sanctions on entities or individuals associated with those transactions.

‘Moving forward with such a facility or any other form of security cooperation with Russia would further isolate Sudan, deepen the current conflict, and risk further regional destabilization. ‘

On the (very) dry land that is Sudan, the situation Monday around the city of Al Fasher and the neighboring massive Zamzam refugee camp in the Darfur region is ‘horrifying,’ U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Tom Fletcher posted.

The civil war in Sudan, between the government’s SAF and the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has just passed its grisly second anniversary. Tens of thousands have been killed, and an estimated 13 million people have been uprooted from their homes. The U.N. describes it as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and UNICEF calls it ‘hell on earth.’

‘There can be no overstating the brutality and destructiveness of the RSF assault on Zamzam (refugee camp),’ Sudan researcher Eric Reeves told Fox News Digital this week. ‘The camp that has existed since 2004 is no longer, even as it had grown to more than 500,000 people.’

Ominously, Reeves added that ‘the real dying has only just begun. Nearly the entire population of Zamzam has fled, and in all directions the threat of RSF violence remains. This creates insecurity of a sort that prevents humanitarians from reaching these scattered people. Tremendous numbers will die either from RSF violence or the lack of food, water and shelter.’

Another 30 were reported killed on Tuesday in a fresh RSF attack on Al Fasher. And just this past week, the RSF rebels announced they are setting up their own government. The State Department told Fox News Digital, ‘The United States is deeply concerned about the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and aligned actors’ declaration of a parallel government in Sudan. This attempt to establish a parallel government is unhelpful for the cause of peace and security and risks a de facto partition of the country.’

‘It will only further destabilize the country, threaten Sudan’s territorial integrity, and spread wider instability throughout the region. The United States has made clear that our interest is in the restoration of peace and an end to the threats the conflict in Sudan pose to regional stability. The best path to peace and stability is an immediate and durable cessation of hostilities so that the processes of establishing a civilian government and rebuilding the country can begin,’ the spokesperson said.

Caleb Weiss, editor of the FDD’s Long War Journal and also a Defections Program Manager at the Bridgeway Foundation, put some of the blame for not ending the Sudanese war on the Biden administration. He told Fox News Digital that it ‘stopped short of seriously facilitating any sort of meaningful peace talks/mediation/or being tough on outside backers of various groups to really get them to be serious in previous negotiation attempts. This is where the Biden administration failed.’